Talk:Creationism/Archive 24

Origins of antievolution

Darwin Correspondence Project » Darwin and religion in America gives an interesting overview. Minor quibble, state schools in Scotland preceded those in England, but a similar situation applied. . . dave souza, talk 18:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Incomprehensible statement

Can you please clarify what the following statement is supposed to mean: "Italy, Finland and Hungary had 3% to 6% of creationist biology teachers but 15% to 18% of other teachers, with significant differences between biology and other teachers. France and Estonia had less than 5% of creationist teachers, with no difference between biology and other teachers" It is incomprehensible to me. --rtc (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. Incomprehensible. It's sourced to a paper from a conference in Turkey, which has clearly been (poorly) translated from some other language into English. At this stage, it adds very little of a positive nature to the article, and certainly adds confusion. I'm going to be bold and remove it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

United Kingdom

"Whereas in 1859 almost all Britons were creationists". This at least needs a citation, and 'almost all' seem like weasel words to me. There was a growing atheist/secular movement in Britain at the time, such as the London Secular Society founded in 1858. There were theories of evolution before The Origin of Species, most famously Lamarckian evolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.53.219 (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Good call. Removed. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Theos survey

I've removed the poll numbers referenced to this Theos propaganda survey via this newspaper article.

An example question from the "survey":

Atheistic Evolution is the idea that evolution makes belief in God unnecessary and absurd. In your opinion is Atheistic Evolution: 1. definitely true 2. probably true 3. probably untrue 4. definitely untrue

Of course my opinion doesn't count for much so here's a source...

The Theos/ComRes survey was attempting an important task, that of ascertaining the views of the population of the UK with respect to creation and evolution. Their conclusion, that the British population is confused on the matter, does not bear scrutiny. While that certainly may be the case, this survey does not establish it. The questionnaire used was itself confused. It failed adequately to define the position of young earth creationism by not taking into account where that position overlaps with commonly understood definitions of evolution. It treated intelligent design as though it were a position on a par with that of creationism and evolutionism, whereas by definition it is something much more narrowly restricted. In addition, the survey presented to the respondent several confusing questions which failed to define their terms.

—Baker, Sylvia (2012). "The Theos/ComRes survey into public perception of Darwinism in the UK: A recipe for confusion". Public Understanding of Science. 21 (3): 286–293. Retrieved 2012-06-02. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Theos is an advocacy group fond of pseudo-scientific creations and like the Discovery Institute it does not satisfy WP:RS for anything more than its own opinions. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Creationism textbooks teach Loch Ness monster is real;dinosaurs were fire-breathing dragons; praise the Ku Klux Klan

Not sure if this would be the best article or something like creation science but I think integrating some of this would be important to the subject of creationism in schools. SÆdon^talk 09:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Creation and evolution in public education perhaps? Or is it public? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that, it was private. Maybe we should have an article for that too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

'Empirical'

New editor edit-warring to keep 'empirical' out, with what I think is a feeling that since we don't have a 'law of evolution', it's 'only a theory'. Dougweller (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Empirical evidence is observable

There is a misconception about empiricism with some of the editors. The Creationism article states that creationists deny empirical evidence for evolution. This needs to be corrected. Creationists do deny evidence for evolution, but the evidence is not empirical.

It is innapropriate to state that the evidence is empirical for either evolution theory or creation thoery. The majority in the scientific community testify to the fact that evolution does not have emirical evidence because empirical evidence is observed, and it is not observable that any new type or organism arises from a prior type. We can only observe minute changes, but not the arival of any new type of life. Evolution requires a great measure of time for a new type of organism to arise from a prior type. For example, one can be certain that man's ancestor has produced man over time, but we cannot observe the accumilation of the countless minute changes producing man from the ancestor because this process requires far too much time. We can only see man today and examine evidence of many incrimental changes over this span of time. Therefore, stating that observable (empirical) evidence exists for evolution is as much an error as stating we can observe God create organisms. Refering to minute changes in life as it slowly transitions to a new type of life, such as speciation (see Species Problem), is not an observation that a new type of life has arisen.

This is why scientists avoid claiming that empirical evidence exists for many things we are confident are true, including the physical existance of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, the arise of new genetic processes, the evolution of language from the vocal noises of man's ancestors, and countless other things, including evolution. Any article on Wiki which made the statement that the evidence for the formation of our sun, or the formation of the first living cell, or many other things would likewise be in error if it stated that it's evidence were empirical. We must not allow articles to include statements which are scientifically unsupported.

I would suggest to the dissenting editors that they investigate the matter of empiricy and the opinion of the scientific community. If they will do so, they will realize that stating that creationists deny empirical evidence is error, since the scientific community does not claim that the evidence for evolution is observable and therefore imperical.

Sir Karl Popper stated it succinctly -

"Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it."

Please investigate the opinion of the scientific community about the observability of evolution so that we can make the forementioned correction. Let us not have scientifically false statements in our articles. . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2012‎ Coldhardfactsonly (talk • contribs) 17:08, 19 July

You should read Evidence of evolution#Evidence from observed natural selection and Evidence of evolution#Evidence from observed speciation. Plenty of empirical evidence there. Mildly Mad^T_C 17:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

See also Karl Popper#Darwinism for his clarification of his comments on evolution. Contrary to "Coldhardfactsonly", he said "The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism." He went on to discuss how natural selection could be tested. Of course he was only one of the philosophers of science, and not all scientists agree with his views. . dave souza, talk 17:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The scientific community in general does not use the word "empirical" to define evidence for evolution because the changes which are observed, such as those you cite, are incrimental. It is not observable that a new type of life arises from a prior type. Emprirical evidence of evolutin would be observing the rise of a new type of life from a prior type, which no scientist poisits is observable, for this would constitute magic or special creatiuon. Incrimental change in the process of evolving into a new type of life does not constitute empirical evidence. The word "empirical" is used in reference to the evidence for evolution by the lay public, but not the concensus of the scientific community. Please investigate the opinion of the scientific community with regards to the unobservability of the rise of new types of life from prior types and why the word "empirical" is not used to refer to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldhardfactsonly (talk • contribs) 18:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This is all nonsense and not worth debunking. But if you provide some sources, we can discuss it. TippyGoomba (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The Empirical method is using collection of existing data (i.e. natural data) to develop conclusions--contrasted to Experimentation, where carefully controlled scenarios are run in a lab. The E. coli long-term evolution experiment is experimental evidence of evolution, whereas London Underground mosquito is an example of empirical evidence. You (yes, you! A member of the "lay public"!) can literally go and observe that that species of mosquito is different than the ones found elsewhere in London. If that's not "empirical", I don't know what is. Mildly Mad^T_C 18:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no "empirical method" in the physical sciences. There is only the Scientific Method. The "empirical method" is the employment of mathematic verifications of statistical analysis relating to social sciences, such as psychiatry and sociology.

I am not interested in debating evolution as you seem to be. The issue is not whether evolution is true or not, it is what kind of evidence supports it. Again you cite evidences for evolution which are not the observed rise of a new type of life from prior types. They are instead observations of incrimental changes in the evolution of new types of life rising from prior types. This is not empirical (observed) evidence of evolution (the biological development of new types of life from prior types over time) and it is why the concensus of the scientific community is that it is improper to employ the word "empirical" regarding the evidence of evolution. We must be accurate when discussing science. It would seem that either you are allowing your emotional attachment to evolution to stand in the way of your ability to be clear on science matters, or perhaps you for some reason feal that the correction of the article by removing the word "empirical" with regards to the evidence supporting evolution is some kind of threat to evolution theory or the article. It is neither. You are over-reacting. Calm down and consider what I am telling you and investigate empiricism in relation to the scientific community relating to the rise of new types of life over time. There should be no conflict in this matter, and the correction is necessary if we are to be scientific and is in no way any threat to the article. It makes the article stronger and supports the justification of evolution as scientific theory. Reconsider. ````— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2012‎ Coldhardfactsonly (talk • contribs)

(ec) I think this section should answer your concerns about "empirical evidence". I also think you are misunderstanding the term "theory". Mildly Mad^T_C 19:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhpas you need to read this: http://davies-linguistics.byu.edu/elang273/notes/empirical.htm

````— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2012‎ Coldhardfactsonly (talk • contribs)

Coldhardfactsonly, you've started this section with a falsehood, and clearly misunderstand the issue. You say "The Creationism article states that creationists deny empirical evidence for evolution", what it actually says is that "When scientific research produces empirical evidence and theoretical conclusions which contradict a literalist creationist interpretation of scripture, young earth creationists often reject the conclusions of the research or its underlying scientific theories or its methodology." The first citation is an example of YEC's claiming empirical support for their own conclusions, rejecting scientific research. As stated by Wilkins, John S. (1997). "Evolution and Philosophy: Naturalism". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 19 July 2012., empirical evidence is central to science: perhaps our empiricism article is better. Your linguistics class definition doesn't contradict that. Oh, and please start signing your posts. . dave souza, talk 20:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The isssue is with the use of the word empirical. It's a simple issue. There is no empirical evidence for the change of organisms into new types. This would require observation , which the scientific community agrees cannot be observed. It is bewildering that you call this falsehood. The solution is simple too. Remove the word "empirical" from the sentance. What do you not understand here? How can this be explained any more simply than this? Who mentioned YECs? You're trying to take this places it need not go for who knows why. It seems you are stuck thinking that this correction is some kind of threat to the evolution perspective of the article. It does not. I am not trying to debate evolution with you. I am for scientific accuracy, and it is improper to say observed evidence of new types of life arising exists. If you need to understand why empirical evidence does not exist for either evolution or creation, go to the scientific community. Please correct the article. THe word "empirical" is misuesed in it. As for signing my postes, do I not do it by typing four tildes at the end of my post? Wiki is vauge about this. --Coldhardfactsonly (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please use four tildes. Also, review Wikipedia:SOURCES and respond with sources for you absurd claims. Without sources, you are just wasting our time, since wikipedia is not a forum. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Coldhardfactsonly is misusing either the adjective "empirical" or the noun "observation". Evolution between species has been observed (see Evolution of the horse for one example). It just hasn't been observed while it's happening. The fossil record is observable evidence which corroborates the general theory of evolution. Does empirical mean something apart from that to you? 68.149.110.63 (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Coldhardfactsonly, that's not how empiricism works. Do we have a case of evolution being empirically observed by a single individual? No, the concept is ridiculous. That's nowhere near the same thing as not having empirical evidence for evolution. Even empirical evidence can be indirect. We had empirical evidence of atoms before we could see them, for example.

In response to 68.149.110.63, #1 Creationists don't reject observed cases of Speciation. #2 Fossils are empirical but interpretations applied to them are not. I'm sure an evolutionist is aware of how many of those interpretations can end up being in total error. But, to the point, there really is *no* empirical evidence for Common Descent trough Darwinian Evolution. The entiret of the theory boils down to speculation and extrapolation. Though I won't waste time trying to get anything in the article changed as WP is controlled by Evolutionists. 184.153.187.119 (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

There really is no sound basis for your comments and claims, which lack reliable sources and fail to meet WP:TALK requirements. . dave souza, talk 22:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Image

There is not a single image in the first for sections, nor in any of their subsections. I think an image would be appropriate in that case. Pass a Method talk 22:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That is true, but how is a scene from Greek Mythology relevant to what has traditionally/stereotypically seen as a Christian (or Muslim-Christian) topic?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a scene depicting the creation of a human being by the oldest religions which are still practised today through neopaganism. How is that not relevant? Should we start an RFC or will you self-revert? Pass a Method talk 23:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is of little relevance to the topic of this article, which, as Apokryltaros has pointed out, is overwhelmingly associated with Christianity, and owes little debt to Ancient Greek mythology. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Pagan religions preceded Christianity, hence i placed it in the history section. It wouldn't be out of place there since creationism has its roots in paganism. Pass a Method talk 00:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Modern Creationism does not have its roots in paganism. It has its roots in Christian science denialism in the 19th and 20th Centuries.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The history of creationism article quotes Cicero and Galen who argued about creationism. This article is not about modern creationism, it is about creationism in general. I would have added the image to the "history of creationism" article, but that article has enough pictures already. Plus there are several religions on earth. We hould not solely have to focus on Christianity, as that would be biased on POV since other religions have creationism as well. If you want only christianity related pictures maybe you should propose renaming this article "christian creationism". Otherwise you argument makes no sense. Pass a Method talk 00:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

And yet, neither I nor Dominus are proposing to rename the article "Christian Creationism," and the article makes no mention of paganism, neo or otherwise, or Greek Mythology. What Dominus and I are saying is that a picture depicting Greek Mythology is not relevant in this article, especially since this article makes no mention of Greek Mythology-based Creationism.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Links, may be used in the section about creationism per country

I post a couple of links about evolution education in different countries here for future use and to give other editors a chance to object if they consider them unreliable or undue, before I add any text to the article: http://harvard.academia.edu/EBurton/Papers/902459/Evolution_Education_in_Muslim_States_Iran_and_Saudi_Arabia_Compared http://www.labtimes.org/labtimes/issues/lt2009/lt01/lt_2009_01_28_29.pdf Sjö (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, they both look to be good sources and are very interesting. One or two minor misconceptions which are themselves of interest, the last I noticed being "The 'mystery of mysteries', as Darwin called the origin of species, is no mystery at all in this corner of Europe." Well, he was actually quoting Sir John Herschel, who had discussed the mystery in correspondence with Charles Lyell which was widely disseminated and published by Charles Babbage: see John Herschel#Visit to South Africa. In On the Origin of Species published 23 year later, Darwin wrote of his aim ""to throw some light on the origin of species — that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers." Anyway, additions on the basis of these sources will be welcome. . dave souza, talk 22:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Creationism in the UK section

In this section, it is noted that belief in Creationism has had "a massive decrease since Darwin published his argument". While techinically true, this sounds like a rather strange observation, since the level of belief in all sorts of things has changed drastically over that length of time, particularly beliefs related to science, beacuse the scientific evidence on which those beliefs are based changes. People's belief in the possibility of space travel has probably increased over the same period. And by the way, similar effects have occurred worldwide. The next date it mentions is 2006, so the changes in Britons' beliefs in the intervening 150-odd years seems to have been ignored. Maybe just say "public attitudes have changed in recent years", although there is not much evidence that they have. At the moment the way the paragraph is written seems to be dressing up Britons' beliefs as an exemplar of so-called rationality, by emphasisng the "massive decrease" in acceptance of Creationism, even though figures demonstrate that Creationism is very much alive and kicking in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.13.2 (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

One poll cited in the article puts UK YEC support around 16%, so I guess you could say they're still kicking about. . dave souza, talk 23:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to make the same point. It is also somewhat unsurprising that few people in the UK believed in Darwin's writings before he published them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.246.121 (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Read the article: evolutionary ideas in Britain dated back to the late 18th century, and though few people accepted the concepts in Erasmus Darwin's writings at that time, there was a significant increase in evolutionary views by the time Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species. After that, it only took a decade or so for most scientists and much of the public to accept various evolutionary ideas, so if you're talking about creationism as anti-evolution the shift in opinion goes back to the 1870s. Of course there was some support among scientists until later in the 19th century for various forms of theistic evolution. By the way, what does this "believed in Darwin's writings" mean? Science isn't about belief. . . dave souza, talk 23:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Latest Gallup Poll

It would seem judicious to update the Gallup polling numbers with the most recent polls, release in June of 2012 - http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx - "Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years... About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process." Other data from that poll could be used to update the "Prevalence: United States" section (5.4) as well. 69.85.120.35 (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I might take issue with using this data. It says specifically that 46% believe that HUMANS are less than 10,000 years old and created directly by God. That means that one who believes the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that all animals, except humans, evolved naturally over time, could logically be part of this 46%. But the thing is that Creationism is more than simply the believe that humans were directly created less than 10,000 years ago, so this 46% are not necessarily creationists.Farsight001 (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how many voted 4) there is no god. What a pathetic poll. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to think that the views of the 95% of the human race that isn't American should count for something. HiLo48 (talk) 10:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Anglocentricism aside, there's the underlying issue that creationism as we know it today is a predominantly American phenomenon in both origin and concentration. Documenting the status of the "debate" inside the borders of the U.S. should therefor be one of the goals of the article. Obviously for completeness any relevant data about opinions outside the U.S. should also be incorporated, but I'd say they're relevant. i kan reed (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Remove non-creationist sections!

Please remove the "Growing Evidence for Evolution" section or I will! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asldfjk (talk • contribs) 20:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

No. Why? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not quite the way to get people on your side. I do think that it should be reworded to remove irrelevant (off-topic) content. But, there has to be consensus. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The section is fine but I changed the name to "Modern Science". It's silly to refer to the confirmation of established facts as "growing evidence". TippyGoomba (talk) 05:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi User:Asldfjk, you've got interesting views on your user page, but as a newbie you apparently don't yet appreciate that WP:WEIGHT policy requires minority and WP:FRINGE views to be shown in the majority view context. For science, there are clear majority views which your views contradict: your views may be common though by no means universal amongst creationists, but policy requires that we must not present them in isolation from the findings of science. Hope that helps, . dave souza, talk 10:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Please remove The Theory of Evolution!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asldfjk (talk • contribs) 19:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a chance.--Charles (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, why should it be removed? If you do have a good reason to have it removed, please say it, and the consensus may change in favor it. But, if all you're going to do is make childish demands, no one is going to bother with you, other than to dismiss you as yet another Creationist troll-vandal.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Definition problem

IMHO, we just can't have in the intro a first sentence that states, flatly, "creationism is the belief that God created the universe". A few authors, and some hardcore "materialists", may use it that way, but the general definition is, overwhelmingly, "literal interpretation of the Bible (or Coran, or other religious texts)" and, most of all, "opposition to the theory of evolution". But believing that a God is responsible for creation is not called "creationism", it's called "religious faith" : while Darwin may have coined the word "creationists" to refer to people who believe in divine creation, the fact is that, overwhelmingly, it is just not used that way. Calling all religious people "creationists" and considering that the history of creationism is, basically, the history of religious faith is at best POV and misleading, at worst insulting (to religious people, and IMHO to the reader). And I say this as someone who is not particularly religious (not at all, actually) and who thoroughly dislikes what is generally known as the "creationist" school of thought. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this when I removed your citation tag. I can see your point, but the answer isn't a citation tag but a better lead if this is not helpful. Can you suggest a rewording that would cover both Young Earth and Old Earth Creationism as well as say Vedic? Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

See Eugenie Scott's creation-evolution continuum, there's not really a narrow definition of creationism as groups labelled as creationists hold different views along that line. From Ron Numbers, the term was contested until fairly recently, and may still be in come contexts: evolutionary creationists are hardly literal. Yes, common usage is for the more anti-evolution varieties, but even that's misused by intelligent design creationists claiming that they're not creationists. So, what sources are proposed? Also note that religious faith is a lot wider than any form of creationism: Deism doesn't need a creator, and of course there are Buddhist atheists. By the way, Darwin is cited as an early example of use to mean "anti-transmutation of species", but I've not seen any evidence that he was first to use the term in that sort of way. . . dave souza, talk 19:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Still, we just can't write something that says, basically, "Creationism is the belief that God created the Universe" : also it may the case in some marginal contexts, it is just not used that way in general. Very few people would actually say "people who believe that God created the world are creationists" : that would be very far-fetched, not to mention insulting, as "creationists" is often equated with "extremists". Anyway, there is definitely no consensus in using the word that way. I'm going to put back the citation tag as this is really problematic.

IMHO, the lead should, first of all, stress the fact that the meaning of the word has changed over the years and that now it refers mainly to a certain category of religious people who oppose some scientific theories, and mainly the theory of evolution. The word has come in general use with that specific meaning. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you're painting with a broad brush in an effort to argue against painting with a broad brush. Religious beliefs and fundamental philosophies of other sorts are hard things to pin down with words in a way to removes ambiguity. My specific complaint about your assertion is that you seem to think there are no people who call themselves religious who do not believe that "god created the universe". There are still religions that propose non-creator deities, like certain sects of Buddhism or some kinds of Shintoism. Many Christians treat Jesus as not a literal deity but a wise and transcendent religious leader. Suffice it to say I don't think that creationist has any sort of 1:1 overlap with religious. i kan reed (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, we should dispense with that sentence entirely. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction with theistic evolution vs. OEC

The final sentence of the first paragraph appears to contradict a phrase later on under the subheading "United States": "...the beliefs of evolutionary creationism (theistic evolution), a form of old earth creationism, embrace the findings of modern science and uphold classical religious teachings about God and creation." "...Old Earth creationism accepts geological findings and other methods of dating the earth and believes that these findings do not contradict Genesis, but reject evolution. "

Basically, the contradiction is this: If one is a theist evolutionist, one cannot reject evolution. But, OECism rejects evolution (a statement that doesn't really appear consistent with the page Old Earth Creationism), so you can't really be both a theistic evolutionist and an OEC.

Potential courses of action: (A) Remove the reference to OECism rejecting evolution (consistent with OEC wiki page, but not entirely correct-- many/most OECers reject evolution) (B) Remove reference to theistic evolution as a form of OECism (inconsistent with OEC wiki page, but more correct) --98.22.88.235 (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

These are labels of convenience, but cover a broad spectrum of views as our article states. The problem has arisen partly because evolutionary creationism has been made into a redirect to theistic evolution, due to a degree of overlap between the articles. While OECs tend to reject evolution, the OEC source we cite claims that theistic evolution is a form of OEC and it's certainly arguable as long as OEC can accept the findings of science on evolution. I've reworked the wording to cover this, and have split it into a separate paragraph which make more sense to me. Thanks for raising this. . . dave souza, talk 19:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight in lede?

Is the emphasis on Christian accounts of creation in the lede section based on an assumption that they will be most familiar to English speakers? Only about half the world follows Abrahamic religions, so it seems odd that the lede (and to a lesser extent, the rest of the article), puts so much focus on one particular set of beliefs.173.166.110.9 (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The term "creationism" has been co-opted by Christian sects with literalist anti-evolution beliefs, however if reliable sources use the term to describe other religions then these can be added. As always, verification is needed and we don't give undue weight to minority expert views. . . dave souza, talk 22:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave--- since English-speaking religious groups are most active in using the English term "creationism," despite holding essentially identical beliefs as others, perhaps it's an artifact of Wikipedia's verification policies that they should receive heightened consideration for being accentuated in English-speaking publications. That would explain it. 209.6.31.68 (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I think it's more that creation account is a broader field than creationism which has become closely tied to anti-evolution: other religions would have to hold to a creator while opposing the science of evolution to be relevant to this article. Of course if the term creationism or equivalent is used about these beliefs in reliable sources, then that could be considered. . . dave souza, talk 20:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, we should just remove the sentence "Creationism is the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being." in the lede, as it gives indeed undue weight to a radical interpretation of the word. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not removed the sentence, but I have developed it, in order to make the lede a little less broad, and potentially less offensive (we cannot say bluntly in the lede that "all people who believe that God created the Universe are creationists" : given the way the word is used today, it would be just insulting).Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted your expansion of the lead due to the following issues: 1) The article is about Creationism, not the word. This is not an etymology-only article. Please look at other articles; Flood is not about the word "flood" it is about floods. 2) the section added on ID was inaccurate: ID is not "another school of thought"; ID is creationism. Also, adding ID to the lead may violate UNDUE; it's a minor phenomenon invented to try to get Creationism into (primarily American, and to a lesser extent Australian and British) schools. 3) Have you any source to support the claim that when the word is used, it is more likely to be YEC which is referred to? KillerChihuahua 16:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

ID is included in creationism : what I meant is that it is another school of thought than "Young Earth Creationism".

My point is that we cannot have a lede that says, basically, "creationism is the belief that God created the universe". That is misleading, as it is not the most common use of the word. It also tend to equate most religious people with creationists.

Please read this definition, which clearly states that the most common use of the word (ie "the sense that one usually finds in popular writings (especially in America today)") is not theism in general, but the narrower sense of the word. Read also this one : "Strictly speaker, in its accurate use, the term creationism is compatible with mainstream science. All Christians basically believe that God created the universe but most accept that this could, for example, have been at the time of the Big Bang. Others believe that God created the first living organism or organisms from which all life subsequently evolved along the lines explained by evolutionary theory and mainstream science. This is not, though, what is normally meant when by modern-day Creationists are referred to in the media and by scholars". Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

and yet we're not an encyclopedia merely "for America today"; we even have a template for articles which have a western bias. I note you're also simply edit warring to include the incredibly poor verbiage "The word "creationism..." without addressing the issue with that. You have made sweeping changes with no support and are edit warring to keep them. I would certainly consider supporting a minor change to the verbiage which states that "God created..." oh wait, the verbiage you changed did 'not say "God created..." so you're just plain tilting at windmills now. I won't revert you again, but I protest your changes en toto and support none of them; they are not improvements and in two cases are plain inaccurate and wrong. KillerChihuahua 16:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to be rude or aggressive : I have mentioned the need to change the lede several times, several weeks ago. You may yourself use whatever "verbiage" you want on this talk page (no offense meant, but I can do without your personal support, really), but the problem remains the same : we can not afford to have a lede that says "Creationism is the belief that God (or "a supernatural being", if you like) created the Universe", quite simply because it equates "creationists" with the majority of religious people (Christians, muslims, jews...) but also because it is not the way the word is used today. The lede must explain what the subject is, and therefore it must explain right away that the word is now used in a much narrower sense than its original meaning. I don't see how mentioning that simple fact gives the article "western bias", or makes it an article "for America today". What I have done is slightly modifying a lede so it would not look like some sort of atheist tract (not that I dislike atheists as a whole, but that's a POV among other) : Wikipedia is not a projet "for America today" only, but it is not a project for radical "materialists". Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"In America today" is a direct quote from your cite above, which you used to support stating in the lead that YEC is the primary meaning of Creationism. I note you still are not addressing the issue with beginning the article "Creationism is a word" contrary to all encyclopedic convention. This article is not about the "word" it is about "Creationism" and should begin "Creationism is..." You have no support for this change. KillerChihuahua 16:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I could do without your support (not that I want to have a conflict either). But please tell me, what objections do you have about the fact that creationism is, nowadays, not meant as being, simply, the belief that God created the universe ? America is one thing, but could you tell me where creationism is generally accepted as meaning precisely that ? I have brought sources (American and British) which say explicitely that the word is used in a narrower sense today. The counterbalance source previously used to support the lede does NOT say "Creationism is the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being" : what it says here is that creationism is "the view that the Biblical account of creation in Genesis 1 is in some respect a literal and historical description", hence "A literal interpretation of the six-day special creation". It actually defines creationism as Young Earth creationism, not as the belief that God created the Universe (which was an original meaning of the word, but not the current, narrower sense, as the sources I brought explicitly say). Just give me one valid reason, as we are dealing with the very definition of the subject. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

@ Jean-Jacques Georges: Two problems: the sources we have say the term has multiple meanings, with use contested, and secondly your wording looks awkward and inappropriate. The way forward is for you to propose wording in a new section of this talk page, showing the sources so that others can assess how they support your proposal. Work with others to get consensus, simply edit warring won't get anywhere. Also, focus on proposing improvements, not arguing about "materialists" or "atheist tracts" which only makes you look divisive: please try to be collegiate and avoid personal attacks. . . dave souza, talk 17:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

(editconflict) No, you have it backwards. The onus is on you, as the one wishing to make a change, to convince other editors your change is an improvement. Nothing needs to be done to keep the status quo, as that is the current consensus version and it violates no policies. KillerChihuahua 17:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually it was KillerChihuahua who started edit warring and being agressive. My may have been wording, as English is not my first language and I haven't practiced it for some months. However, my point is that we can not afford to have a lede that says : "Creationism is the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being". This is one original meaning of the word, but it is not the narrower, most common sense in which it is used. Nowadays, "creationism" is not - or very seldom - used to mean "belief that God created the universe", wether it be in America or anywhere else. Please note that the original sentend was supported by this source which actually does not say that : it defines creationism as being what is known as Young Earth creationism. Please read the sources I have brought here, here and here. We can not afford to have a lede which equates, bluntly, most religious people with "creationists", as this is not the generally accepted, contemporary sense of the word. If someone - preferrably a native english speaker - is able to convey this in a more elegant prose than mine, that would be fine, but I really want to stress that the previous lede was dangerously misleading. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

We have an article on Young Earth Creationism; this is not it. This article should indeed have the broader sense, not the narrower sense which only applies to YEC. As a side note, when you make major changes to the article and then revert not one but three editors to try to keep your rewrite, it is generally your version which does not have consensus. KillerChihuahua 17:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to say that KillerChihuahua has been the one being agressive - or at least I have perceived his attitude like that. Hence, it is not useful to lecture me about the rules of wikipedia - I know them, thanks, and I have no intention of violating them - by sending me this kind of message. What I'd like to have is some concrete argument against the changes I have made. I have changed the wording so the lede does not refer to the word anymore, but rather to the concept of creationism itself. Now we have three sources which support what I have done, and a source used to support the previous lede which, it turns out, did not support it at all. Creationism is just not used nowadays to say "belief that a God created the universe", and we cannot afford to have a lede saying this. The current lede mentions the broader (seldom used) sense and the narrower sense, which is not limitated to YEC (although this is one of the most common uses, as the Counterbalance source indicates). Could we just stop this controversy and move on to better things ? That would be nice. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Per KC, many religious people aren't theists, we have to be clear that the term refers to a continnum of views. J-J G, the BCSE refers to that continuum as the more accurate definition, merriam-webster.com/dictionary is a tertiary source and not so good as the more informed sources, counterbalance is an oldish essay focussed on just two types of creationism and neglecting others. Once again, make your proposals on this talk page in a new section for dicussion instead of trying to force in changes without consensus. . . dave souza, talk 17:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, counterbalance may be an "oldish essay", but that's not my problem : I mention it, not to support my views, but because it was used improperly to support the lede, although it does not say this at all. The old lede was just wrong, or at least very incomplete, and made a misleading use of the source. The point is that we just cannot have such a misleading first sentence. BSCE says, quite clearly that the oldest, broadest sense, of believing that God created the universe, is not "what is normally meant when by modern-day Creationists are referred to in the media and by scholars". That's plain and simple and I really don't see how we can afford to defend the old lede. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

What part of "at least three quasi-scientific versions of creation circulated in the mid-nineteenth century" didn't you read? You deleted Numbers on counterbalance, not the source you posted above. Once again, please slow down and put your proposals in a new section below. . dave souza, talk 17:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The section I mentioned was how the website defined creationism. Anyways, Numbers does not write that creationism is "is the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being". I have no problem with the article itself, but it is not a good source to support that lede. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

What we need, anyway, is a lede conveying, not only the broadest, oldest, and seldom-used meaning of the word, but also the narrower meaning of the word, which is what is meant today by "creationism". If you have any ideas for a better wording, I'd be glad to see them. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, neither KillerChihuahua nor myself are implacably opposed to improvement, but you've been barging in and making poor quality edits. Please read what you're citing: from BCSE – "This is not, though, what is normally meant when by modern-day Creationists are referred to in the media and by scholars. A detailed explanation of the different forms of creationism can be found on the Talk Origins web site at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html and at http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9213_the_creationevolution_continu_12_7_2000.asp . Some believe that the earth is indeed very old as explained by science but life itself was not formed until 6,000 years ago. Others believe that each of the “six days” when God created everything were, in fact, periods of time each millions of years long." So not just YEC and ID, there are still prominent strands of creationism such as OEC that this article includes to cover the continuum. So, how about starting a new section below for proposed changes? . . dave souza, talk 18:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Fine, no problem, I'll let you start if you like. As for the quality of my edits, sorry about that : I guess my written English must be a bit rusty, since I have not been writing much on the this wikipedia for a year or so. But IMHO, KC has been agressive, which was uncalled for and did not help to have a relaxed discussion. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Jean-Jacques Georges has been blocked 12 hours for his behavior here; may I suggest that a new section be begun if and when he returns to this article. KillerChihuahua 18:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I won't comment too much on KillerChihuahua's own behavior, suffices to say that I regret that he choose to have a conflict rather than a discussion, for I have seen no real arguments so far in favor of the current lede. I repeat Numbers' article is not a good source to support it : not that this short article is bad per se, but it just does not say what the lede says.

Then again, I have no problem recognizing my own mistakes, I guess I took WP:BOLD too literally. Then again, we just can't keep the current lede, at least not in its current state : it is misleading, for it gives right away the broadest definition of creationism, which is seldom used nowadays in common language. The word is just not used in common language to mean "belief that God created the Universe", also that is its broadest and oldest sense. We have to find a way of conveying that. If I find the time and/or still feel like it (I can't say that I found the previous exchange encouraging), I guess I'll start a section for proposing new versions of the current lede. Help for rephrasing it will be welcome, but when I try my hand at it, I'd like to have substantial arguments about the general meaning of the lede. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

About categories...

This page doesn't goes in the categories Magic (paranormal). "Magic is the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation, ceremony, ritual, the casting of spells or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature."

--190.221.111.145 (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

A belief in a supernatural phenomenon does not justify putting it in the category of Magic, especially if said belief requires no incantation, ceremony or ritual, and that those who hold this particular belief believe that casting spells is considered a grave spiritual crime.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Praying is the same thing as magic. Attempting to evoke a response by ceremony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.8.174 (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Error in Content

Just a quick correction, Portugal is said to be an Islamic country when this is far away from truth. It is listed in the Islamic countries paragraph just bellow the European ones! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.92.73.229 (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The sentence refers to a survey (XIII IOSTE Symposium) taken in Izmir (Turkey).Theroadislong (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Turkey

Turkey is muslim-mayority country but it is not islamic country. It should be in Europe section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.223.85 (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I changed the title to muslim world. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Scholarly view on Teaching Creationism

Found great information on teaching Creationism in public schools. Moore and Cotner give an overview of the status of teaching creationism in public schools today.Matipop (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

See Also section

Someone added a very minor book to the list called Intelligent Design: Message from the Designers. There are many thousands of books on Intelligent Design we do not need to list any of them in the "See Also" section, unless they are extremely notable...this one certainly isn't I suggest it has no place here. Theroadislong (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Especially since the book, itself, concerns Raelianism, and the article, itself, is a bare-bones stub with virtually no specific information on the book's actual contents.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of the word Pseudoscience.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I believe that the word "pseudoscience" is offensive and inaccurate. Sometimes, people can look at one situation and come to different conclusions. (A humorous example of this is Bill Engvall's "Here's your sign" stories.) Creationists use science to come to a different viewpoint of the beginning of the world. I ask that we consider the removal of the word "pseudoscience" from this page as it is unnecessary, somewhat biased towards evolution, and could be deemed offensive to those who read.

Thank you for your consideration. 98.224.39.88 (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but the reliable sources clearly state that Creationism is pseudoscience. We go by what the reliable sourecs say. Your concept of how science works is fundamentally wrong. And it doesn't matter that certain people are offended according to our policies. That's their problem, not ours. The article complies with our neutrality policies. Read WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:NOTCENSORED. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

If Wikipedia has to censor articles to make them more friendly to some fringe group, why not censor all of the Holocaust articles to be less offensive to NeoNazis and Holocaust-deniers?--Mr Fink (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done. Creationists neither use nor do any science at all. All creationists oppose science, science education and scientific findings for presenting conclusions contrary to cherished religious concepts. At the very best, creationists misuse scientific terminology with the intent to deceive others. Simply claiming that "(c)reationists use science to come to a different viewpoint of the beginning of the world" is a lie, especially since you have not actually explained how describing Creationist is a pseudoscience is "inaccurate and offensive".--Mr Fink (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

http://creation.com/created-or-evolved This is a source to show how creationism is supported by science. 98.224.39.88 (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That source does not conform to our policies and guidelines. See WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Repeatedly claiming that Creationism allegedly uses science to "come to different conclusions" does not change the facts that

• Creationists do not use or do science because they already have a predetermined conclusion of "Evolution is wrong because (the English translation of) Genesis is word for word literally true, and happened 6 to 10,000 years."
• What precious few scientific experiments done by Creationists easily demonstrate that they neither understand nor want to understand science, given as how they routinely ignore all data that conflicts with their predetermined conclusions for Jesus, to the point where they make their employees sign oaths to such affects..--Mr Fink (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Evolutionists have already come to a predetermined point of view and are unwilling to even consider the evidence given to them. This is clearly seen by your dismissal of the article without a word about the points within. No defense other than its creationism therefore it's false. Well, true scientists actually consider all options and don't just dismiss them. There are two reasons possible for our past history. Stop being closed minded and try actually debating the points in the article. 166.147.123.39 (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want to debate, find someplace else. Per WP:NOTAFORUM. Also, there is no point in discussing sources that do not even come remotely close to meeting WP:RS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This whole Wikipedia entry is about a minority viewpoint. Yet, it has no information written directly from a creationist's viewpoint. The article I gave is one, but heaven forbid that this entry should contain information that actually deals with the viewpoint of creationism rather than the biased viewpoints of evolutionists. It's funny how we are censoring data that describes creationism because it is not neutral even though it accurately describes what this very article is about! 166.147.120.167 (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The only person advocating censorship in this thread is you by demanding that the term "pseudoscience" be stricken from the article solely on the grounds that it offends you, AND by suggesting that the article be rewritten to unfairly promote Creation as a science, even though such a rewrite would violate WP:UNDUE in addition to introduce blatantly false information.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Just a note, I've modified the closing of this thread, since the previous close was not exactly neutral (hattting and accusing one side of only using the thread to promote POV) and was more likely to ignite contention than settle the discussion. I've revised the statement to simply say that the issue is moot, since this edit (Thanks Dave Souza) seems to have resolved the problem without the need to debate whether it's pseudoscience or not. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gallup Poll

"The poll also found that church attendance dramatically increased adherence to a strict creationist view"

Did the poll really assert a causal relation? It seems more likely to have asserted a correlation; in which case this sentence would be bettered by saying that the view dramatically increased with the attendance. Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

wp:verifiability

Wikipedias criteria for inclusion is verifiability Pass a Method talk 20:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Now that is disappointing. I thought you knew better than that. If that was our criteria than just anything you can verify would be in this article. And anything that vaguely related to some aspect of Raëlism could mention Raëlism. However, it isn't. And Raëlism isn't significant enough to be in this article, although its own articles should probably include these views. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Raelism suggests that aliens created life on earth. As the very beginning of this article clearly states, creationism is related to SUPERNATURAL origins of the earth. Aliens are not supernatural and relevance is as important as verifiability here. Also, I do not appreciate the edit warring warning you placed on my personal page based on nothing more than the fact that you did not like being reverted. If you are as prolific an editor as your edit history states, you should already know about WP:BRD and your first action after being reverted should have been to discuss on the talk page, not ignore my revert and re-add it, which you did more than once, by the way.Farsight001 (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Scientific dissent from darwinism

I added some material on professional scientific skepticism about the ability of solely natural selection and mutation to explain biological diversity, but it keeps getting removed ("However, hundreds of professional scientists share the same sort of skepticism that intelligent design theorists espouse regarding the explanatory power of current proposed mechanisms posited to explain biological diversity, specifically the mediums of natural selection and genetic mutation."). Anything that needs to be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breenhill (talk • contribs) 20:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You should read WP:WEIGHT. Part of our neutral point of view policy is that we give what's called "due weight" to ideas represented strongly in reliable secondary sources, and less weight to minority or fringe ideas. As you can see from A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, the list of "scientists" advanced by the Discovery institute is not well received in the reliable secondary sources we have. It is a fringe view in the scientific community. We cannot, therefore, say "hundreds of professional scientists" are opposed to evolution, because that presents this fringe view as though it is broad and significant. Does that make sense?   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, see Talk:Intelligent_design#Recent_reverts. --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 21:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Well the list has a couple hundred biologists and chemists, so maybe saying "a few hundred" would be better? And also, the list is quite reliable as it is not a secondary source, but a primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breenhill (talk • contribs) 04:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we keep discussion in one place? Talk:Intelligent_design#Recent_reverts has thoughts as to why using a number is misleading. --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 04:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Situation in Germany

The text says "Approximately 20% of people disbelieve evolutionary theory in Germany." This is taken from an article in Der Spiegel where it says: "This type of reasoning hasn't stopped people from doubting the theory of evolution. In Germany, 20 percent of the population doesn't believe in the theory; in the US, it's closer to one-third." But theres a problem with that. The article in Der Spiegel itself doesnt name any source. In fact its completely unclear where that number comes from. No study is named, no source, nothing at all. Not even if thats the authors opinion or someone elses. So, while that number is sourced techicaly correct in terms of Wikipedia rules, it is still avery weak. It seems to me as if that number is there just because theres no better one available. Deleting that number from the text and thereby saying 'we dont know' seems the honest and truthfull way to go. But I understand that this is an explosive topic, and I am a 'wikipedia noob', so I wont edit it myself. Please concider to delete or change that line. Thanks! 83.216.242.196 (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Good evening, 83. I found a 2011 Ipsos poll that puts the figure at 12%. I added that and a citation to the text. The Der Spiegel isn't nearly as good, but it is considered a reliable, secondary source so I'm not willing to get rid of it quite yet. Thanks for the comment! Garamond Lethet
c 05:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Good job with those little changes and the addition.83.216.255.208 (talk) 11:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

New Pew poll released

Public's Views on Human Evolution, Dec. 30 2013. If someone wants to take a shot at update the US section, have at it. Garamond Lethet
c 18:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Ken Ham, "Scientist"

A scientist is, according to [wikitionary], scientist (plural scientists)

One whose activities make use of the scientific method to answer questions regarding the measurable universe. A scientist may be involved in original research, or make use of the results of the research of others.

Clearly Ken Ham is not one. As for Creation Scientist, I don't think it captures the essence of why Ken Ham is important. A word along the lines of public speaker, or advocate would be better. I've reverted to the original; Ken Ham is a Young-Earth creationist who helped start Creation Science Foundation in Queensland, Australia

Any thoughts? SPACKlick (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You may be right, but that's not a convincing argument: a believer in Christian Science is properly referred to as a "Christian Scientist", so if reliable sources refer to practitioners of Creation Science as "Creation Scientists" I expect we'll follow WP:RS and use that term. However, a quick check at google scholar leads me to believe "creationist" is the preferred term, and that's how Ken Ham self-identifies: "When someone says to me, ‘Oh, so you’re one of those fundamentalist, young-Earth creationists,’ I reply, ‘Actually, I’m a revelationist, no-death-before-Adam redemptionist!’ (which means I’m a young-Earth creationist!)." AiG Newsletter Reprint Garamond Lethet
c 16:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree. I think I just had a different definition of "scientist" in my head than you - so no blood, no foul. Ckruschke (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Definition of 'Creationist'

Do others share my concern that the term 'Creationist' is defined far too broadly in the lead. According to the definition given on Wikipedia, all theists and even deists are creationists. For example, Martin Gardner and Thomas Jefferson would both come under this definition.

This is not how the term 'creationist' is used in practice in the outside world, (nor is it how the word is used in the body of the article itself the article itself, nor in this Talk page). (Peter Ells (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC))

Completely agree, this is a very vague first sentence, and the article looks like its casting the net too large, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, the opening sentence I was complaining of was "Creationism is the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being." This has since been improved. (Peter Ells (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC))

Types of Creationism

In the opening sentence to the section Types of Creationism, I've changed "Creationism" to "Creationism (broadly construed)". This is because Theistic evolution no longer counts as Creationism, at least as this is now strictly (and I think correctly) defined in the lead.

I tried to make a minimal change without belaboring the point. (Peter Ells (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC))

First sentence

I also have some issues with the first sentence defining creationism, similar to IRWolfie above. Particularly the last words "... in a single creation event." Are there any references for that definition with the "single event" distinction that includes all life? I understand that that definition probably covers many self-declared creationist viewpoints. But I wonder about what it excludes. For example, consider someone who believes that some god created the universe, when then unfolded through physical processes, including biogenesis and evolution. According to the "single event" and wording of the first sentence, that person would not be a "creationist", even though she believes that a supernatural being created the universe! (I know this is a contentious topic, and I don't mean to soapbox.) Perhaps my understanding of the term is incorrect, and my example should not be considered a creationist. Regardless, can we not find a WP:RS to cite for our definition? If I can find a candidate reference, does anyone reading have rights to edit the article? SemanticMantis (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

1) Generally speaking, for an example, the narrative described in the beginning of the Book of Genesis is thought to be "one single event," or at least, the part where God created the earth and Universe in the first day.

2) The idea that some god(s) created the universe, then unfolded everything through physical processes is "Theistic Evolutionism," and is considered very distinct from Creationism, especially since creationists often consider theistic evolutionists as being traitorous devilspawn as bad as, if not a thousand times worse than atheists.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, User:Apokryltaros/Mr Fink. As I understand your point 1) though, even the Genesis story doesn't fit out exact definition, because (according to Genesis), the universe and living organisms were created in separate events (i.e. different "days")!

A related inquiry: I know that some (but not all) dictionaries put an emphasis on Genesis in the definition of creationism, too the point of making it a sine qua non. Does that not seem too limiting? E.g. If I believe in the Hindu (Norse, Shinto, etc) telling of creation, then I am not espousing creationism? I don't think I'm suffering from the etymological fallacy here, but I suppose that is a valid counterargument. Also, I guess that any -ism will have plenty of different opinions on how they should be defined. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right, perhaps we should tweak the lede to "a single event or series of related events"?

As for your other inquiry, the article focuses primarily on the Genesis-based Creationism because it is the most prominent. Creationism as it is known today is the anti-science movement formulated and propagated by Christians, and Muslim Creationists crib/steal all of their arguments from Christian Creationists, and not the actual belief that the world/universe was created in a supernatural event or series of events: Mostly because most other recognized, organized religions either do not go out of their way to denounce the teaching of evolutionary biology, and other sciences that (potentially) conflict with their religious precepts, or they simply borrow/modify/steal the various anti-science arguments already put forth by Christian Creationists.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Uhhhh - what...? Creationism by definition IS the belief that God created the Universe the way it is now. I'm not sure where you are coming up with your POV that "as it is known today" has somehow changed the definition. Beyond that, claiming its an anti-science movement is clearly a biased non-NPOV on your part and clouds anything else you'd have to say on the subject.

Also the narrative in Genesis is NOT "one single event" - since we are clearly not narrowing our scope to the creation of the Universe on this page, everything else is created on different days/by different events. Besides, if we want to narrow our scope to "life was created by a single event by process that are extra-normal", this would by definition include all evolutionists since "no one" can tell us what sparked life from non-life... Ckruschke (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

So, if Creationism is not an anti-science movement even though its proponents are united in their hatred of Evolutionary Biology, and are well-documented in their unceasing efforts to sabotage science education in the US in order to teach religious propaganda in classrooms, can you explain how Creationism is not an anti-science movement, or do you just enjoy trying to attack me through character-assassination, false accusations and really crude attempts at poisoning the well fallacies?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Mr Fink - I was simply pointing out the incredible bias and opinion in your argument of which you are claiming as truth. This is not an attack - this is an observation that your truth is really opinion. One should assume good faith - as I continue to do so - and I apologize if my reply to you came off as harsh. I realize that this is a hot issue and everyone has firey opinions on the matter, but we can have an intellectual discussion w/o getting our backs up. Creationists are not "united in their hatred of Evolutionary Biology" any more than Evolutionists are "united in their hatred of Creation". Creationists do not AGREE with Evolutionary science - plain and simple. Its a fallacy that some anti-Creationists spread that Creationism is anti-science (or attempt to frame the argument as "Christians don't believe in Biology/Geology/insert your science here) all in an attempt to corner adherents of this theory in the box of being "knuckle-dragging troglodytes".

So what is science? The further exploration of science theory follows through prediction, observation, and repetition. If something happens that isn't predicted by your experiment, either you did it wrong or you have further investigation to perform in order to produce science that confirms (or ultimately refutes) your predictions. If something happens during your experiment that isn't observable, did it really happen? Early claims of cold fusion are a good example of this - falsifying observations - which is one of the reasons why the Large Hadron Collider devotes so much electronics and hardware to detectors - they want to make sure they observe and document their science. Finally if you cannot repeat your experiment with the same findings, again either you did something wrong or the one time you got observation A you did something different then when you got observation B. Again, this requires further research to figure out what happened. So lets break Creation/Evolution down to the lowest common denominator - how did life come from non-life? So if I make the prediction that life came from "a rock" and then despite 150 yrs of testing I was unable to observe through experiment life coming from "a rock", is this science or anti-science? How about if I predict that life was planted here from a comet - that's an actual, credible prediction - right? However, I have neither observed actual life on comets or even the building blocks of life (more than just an amalgamation of elements) - let alone repeat this event - again is this science or anti-science? What the evolutionary model is based on is an EXTRA-normal event - life from non-life - or in other words, a miracle. In the same vein, Creationism hinges on life from non-life through an extra-normal event - the miracle of God's creation. So which theory is more hinged on faith and science or anti-science? Ckruschke (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Among other things, you are assuming that Creationism and Evolution(ary Biology) are equal, equivalent alternatives, which they are not, and you are also conflating Evolution(ary Biology) with Abiogenesis, which are, in fact, two different sciences. And having said that, if we are to assume that Creationism and Evolution are two equal, equivalent alternatives, where is all the research and peer-reviewed studies done in Creationism, and why are Creationists so reluctant to use Creationism as a science?--Mr Fink (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Life from a "rock" and anti-science are both straw man arguments. Regardless, this talk page is not the place for this type of discussion. Has the issue of the "single creation event" been addressed, or what references are available and how should we proceed if a change is in order? Rmosler | ● 01:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Before this thread was derailed, I was going to suggest changing the lede from "single event" to "events" or "series of events"--Mr Fink (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess since you want to split hairs rather than respond to my point on the "creation of life" event, since Evolution clearly hinges on Abiogenisis and is germain to this Creation page, we'll have to agree to disagree and an actual dialogue can be saved for a future time. Ckruschke (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Except that the reason why I'm not addressing your alleged point on Evolution allegedly hinging on Abiogenesis is that you don't actually need to go through explaining how life first began 4.75 billion years ago in order to study lineages of trilobites, fishes, or orchids, nor do you even need to go through explaining how life first began 4.75 billion years to study the mechanics of how "descent with modification" occurs. I would ask "how is the topic of the Primordial Soup directly germane to studying the lineage of the "Dusty Miller" Phalaenopsis orchids, but, it's my personal experience with you that you automatically dismiss literally everything I say, using false accusations, character assassinations and poisoning the well fallacies as justification.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

That being said, I agree that we are way off point so please feel free to "re-rail", Mr Fink. Your suggestion sounds good to me. Ckruschke (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Sure.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is the first sentence as it currently stands: "Creationism is the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."

I have a few suggestions: (1) Replace ", as in the biblical account," with ", such as in a literal reading of Genesis,". My reason for this is that the lead sentence should be merely mention a certain 'brand' of Christianity as a notable example. (2) Keeping 'specific acts' as plural is good because Creationism then includes Intelligent Design. (3) My preference would be to leave 'the universe' out of the initial sentence because the coming into being of the universe is a metaphysical rather than scientific question. Having said all this, my intention is to leave making changes to other people. (Peter Ells (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC))

Peter Ells - I agree completely with your comments up to the "universe" word. Creationary/Biblical belief is that God also created the Universe early in the creation week while there are two theories that Cosmologists propose about this event - either the universe had a specific start point (all matter was created in one event) or the universe continues to expand and contract for enternity and thus the single event that created it is somewhat "unimportant". These two theories are divided by our understanding of the total mass of the universe and whether it will continue to expand w/o end or whether it will reach a critical diameter before re-contracting. So this "can be" a metaphysical discussion, but is not for 100's of Astronomers/Cosmologists who are attempting to "push back" and understand the early phase of the Universe. Probably splitting hairs (again), but I think the word should say. Ckruschke (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Dear Ckruschke - I tried to justify omitting the word 'universe', which I still mildly prefer, but could not do so without writing a long, technical screed. Since we are discussing a brief opening sentence, I am happy to let the word stay. (Peter Ells (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC))

Sounds good. Wasn't trying to be obtuse. Ckruschke (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I've made the small change to the opening sentence, as discussed between Ckruschke and myself. I went ahead as no-one commented on our discussion. (Peter Ells (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC))

issue about "pseudoscience"

thread is in violation of Talkpage Guidelines
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
why does at the top of the article that Creation science is pseudoscience? why isn't evolution called pseudoscience?The K (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC) Please read the articles on science and also on pseudoscience. If you then have any questions, I am more then willing to answer them on my talkpage. As this talk page is here to improve the article not to discuss the if creationism is pseudoscience yes or no. NathanWubs (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC) "Creation science" is a pseudoscience because no one has ever demonstrated how to use it as a science, nor how to use it to do science. Evolution is not a pseudoscience because it is a biological phenomenon, and people use the science of Evolutionary Biology to describe how and why evolution occurs. So, unless until you can provide reputable sources that support your claim that "evolution (is) called pseudoscience," or provide reputable sources that explain and demonstrate how Creation science is "science," as Nathan pointed out, please use the talkpage to discuss how to improve the article, and not to whine about how the article is not a pro-Creationism propaganda fluff piece.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)|}

History

The last sentence in the lead paragraph:

• "In September 2012, Bill Nye ("The Science Guy") expressed his scientific concern that creationist views threaten science education and innovations in the US."

How is this concern scientific? Dan Watts (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Should we remove "scientific" then?--Mr Fink (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

That would be an improvement.Dan Watts (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

S'okay? *lifts up box* S'alright.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Darwinism v Evolution

It's important to always distinguish between 'the theory of evolution' and 'Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection'. The two are not the same thing. The theory of evolution pre-dates Darwin and is essentially regarded as 'proven fact' in scientific circles. Darwin's theory is about the mechanism of evolution not about evolution itself: there remains some debate within the scientific community about the role of natural selection . Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.100.34 (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok. So what is your suggested edit to the page? Ckruschke (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

quick note on edit made to intelligent design section

It was pointed out on the Talk page of Intelligent design by folks protesting the description of ID as "pseudoscience" that the section on ID in this article doesn't describe ID as pseudoscience. However, the lead of ID does describe it that way and rightly so, as the ID article has extensive discussion of that. Per WP:SUMMARY, the section in this article should accurately reflect the Main article. So this morning, in this dif, I copied the content about pseudoscience with its refs from the lead of the ID article to the section on ID here. Quick additional note, per policy WP:PSCI, (quoting here) "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." The guideline for interpreting WP:PSCI is WP:FRINGE, and it explicitly mentions ID as pseudoscience. Anybody contesting that, needs to fight that battle at the level of the Talk page of WP:FRINGE, not here and not on the Talk page of the ID. Please note that pseudoscience topics are under Arbcom discretionary sanctions. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Just did the same on the "Creation science" section. Same thing applies as above.Jytdog (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscience

Creationism in this article is described as pseudoscience. I propose to add category:pseudoscience. Jim1138 (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This is going the wrong way, the same regarding Creation science, the same regarding Intelligent design. You can tag one "discipline" as pseudoscience, this, is loosing credibility where it concern philosophies and systems. "Pseudoscientific" could be accurate, not "pseudoscience". Further, that bias is all over the articles. Pseudosciences are systems that have their niche. Here it is absolutely not the case. --Askedonty (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

One thing I don't believe in is unfair criticism, even for an idea that I don't believe in. We've already stated When scientific research produces empirical evidence and theoretical conclusions which contradict a literalist creationist interpretation of scripture, young Earth creationists often reject the conclusions of the research i.e. there is empirical evidence against Creationism, which suggests that it is falsifiable or at least makes testable predictions. A false theory is not pseudoscience, it's just not the case. Modern reformulations on the other hand and the political movements associated with them could be described as pseudoscience.Chemical Ace (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Doctrine of Creation

I came here looking for guidance on what the standard Christian doctrine of creation is, noting that "Doctrine of Creation" redirects here; but what this seems to be is a skeptical article on the debate between evolutionists and young earth creationists, which is a fringe debate as far as the majority of Christians appear to be concerned. Can someone please direct me to the right place? --Bermicourt (talk) 11:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

can you explain more about what you were looking for, and from what theological perspective? Jytdog (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, Acceptance of evolution by religious groups maybe have some of what you want? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is a critical analysis of the relevant ideology behind Creation. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as standard Christian doctrine, because there is no earthly, central regulating authority. The best approximation for what you are seeking is probably Genesis creation narrative. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm interested in understanding what the orthodox/standard, biblically-based "doctrine of creation" is held by mainstream Christian scholars and churches. I'm not interested in the creation-evolution debate, which looms large in this and other articles. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

thanks for replying. i'm sorry but there is no such thing as a single "Christian" view on much of anything :) and what is "mainstream" in some strands of the tradition is non-mainstream in others. Your reference to "biblically-based" gives some hint about where you are coming from - some strands of the Christian tradition are more "biblically based" than others. Can you be more specific about the strand of the Christian tradition you are interested in? Thanks Jytdog (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm aware of the differences, but there is a broad consensus in many areas. For example, in the case of creation, the Roman Catholic Church has a single doctrine. And, although they structure it in different ways, the (non-RC) scholars I've looked at so far have a similar take on the scriptural view e.g. common themes that keep coming up that that creation is: ex nihilo, Trinitarian, described as "very good" and ongoing or continuous; that mankind was created in the "image of God" (but is not God) and is given "dominion" over the earth, etc, etc. Of course there are second-order implications, some being relevant to modern discussions such as the ecological crisis and respective roles of science and religion, but they are covered already. I was looking for the first-order framework. And by mainstream, I guess I mean churches that use the Nicene creed, which I think are e.g. Roman Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Orthodox, etc... The Genesis creation narrative isn't what I'm looking for because its focus is too narrow. Scholars assess the scriptural view of creation based on texts from all over the Bible, not just Genesis. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

thanks for replying! no criticism intended, just trying to figure out where you (in particular) were coming from. That stuff is covered ~somewhat~ in this article in Creationism#Theistic_evolution and Creationism#Christianity. My sense is that it would be very hard to write and importantly, very very hard to maintain, a Doctrine of Creation article reflecting only the mainline churches' theologies.... I wonder if such an article ever existed.Jytdog (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No criticism assumed. The subject should be covered in your second link, Creationism#Christianity, but every paragraph mentions "evolution"; it's all about the creation-evolution debate, so much so that I wonder if this article is a fork of Creation–evolution controversy. The RC doctrine of creation definitely leaves room for evolution and so do the other sources I have seen. In fact, as far as I can tell from the sources, the timescale of creation (which seems to be at the heart of the current debate) was never part of the DOC in the church and is certainly not in the RC catechism. I don't think a new article on Doctrine of Creation would be too difficult provided it sticks strictly to a) what the church(es)' official doctrine says and b) what leading scholars understand the bible's doctrine of creation to say, and avoids getting into whether others believe it or not, which is a separate issue. Certainly a basic summary of the doctrine of creation as understood by the Church and scholars would at least help students and other interested parties. I can give it a go, but maybe not right now! Bermicourt (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica win at NPOV

See https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/142233/creationism compare and contrast with our article. Their article state the facts about Creationism the idea, our article goes on and on about pseudoscience. Is our approach better? Chemical Ace (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Our coverage here is much more in-depth, thus simply covers more of the topic. The Britannica article does talk about it being a pseudoscience just avoids the word. On a side note did you read the comment there "plants cant evolve trees flowers grass cant evolve" why do people not read up on topics before they comment? -- Moxy (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia wins at content. A four paragraph article vs. what we have here. Yes, our approach is better. --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 14:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

and more importantly, we are not equivalent to Britannica. I don't think Britannica has policy about WP:PSCI like we do. If you would like to change Wikipedia's policy on that matter, the place to address that is at the Talk page for WP:NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeh. Our content is way better. I agree. Thanks for the comments Chemical Ace (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Utter self-aggrandizing nonsense. That it is "way better" for wikipedia and its editors, I can offer no counter. That is is more reliable in its content, of better overall quality, and therefore more useful in the longterm to an uninformed individual seeking introductory knowledge… no. One needs faith, to be a wikipedian, and an avid user. Those best informed in subject areas most often lack that faith. The silly, and deeply technically flawed Nature "study" aside, the only significant group of individuals believing in the "way better"-ness of wikipedia, are wikipedians — though I will acknowledge peaks in quality in some specialty areas, amidst the broad swaths of lowlands. (A retired Prof) 71.239.87.100 (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree about this being nonsense, especially since Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica are not in official or unofficial competition in the first place, and that all this babble about competing/winning against Encyclopedia Britannica distracts editors from improving the articles.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

creation myths

this edit called my attention to the use of "creation myth' in the article. it was not evenly used, so in this series of edits, i made it consistent. happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been honest enough to draw attention to your edits. However, these change all instances of "creation narrative" and "creation verses" to "creation myth" which I submit is a WP:POV. Yes, myth doesn't necessarily mean fiction, but most people now take it that way. It is fair enough for the article to make some statement that there is a large number of folk who don't believe any of the creation narratives literally and see them as myths, but it seems unreasonable to refer to them as myths at every opportunity. After all, both "narrative" and "verses" are neutral - they don't imply belief or unbelief. My recommendation is that we use the neutral terms where possible. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

that's the term used in scholarly discourse, and it is used throughout WP, when discussing Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindi, indigenous, whatever, stories about how the world came to be. It is NPOV, and to have only Christian's creation myth be treated differently is POV. Why should the Christian version be treated differently? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced Content Should be Tagged, if not Removed

The section on "Old Earth Creationism" appears to be nearly all OR, lacking any sources for defining this label much less the "three branches" described. My gentle attempt to note the lack of a source was reverted without explanation or just cause.[1]

Overall, I think this section should be eventually removed since it lacks any reliable source to support these classifications and definitions. There appears to be a tendency in this article to conflate theistic evolution with "creationism" which is not a term that theistic evolutionists or other stripes used to describe themselves. While clearly many bible literalists gladly describe themselves as "creationists," I have never heard or read of a theistic evolutionist describing his or herself as an "old earth creationist" or a "gap creationist" or any other form of "creationist." I may be wrong, but that is why I am asking for sources.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Would it not be possible to solve this problem by copying and pasting sources from the Old Earth Creationism article, itself?--Mr Fink (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. Just because GodBlessYou2 is unaware that OEC long predates TE, and is still going strong, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. . . dave souza, talk 19:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Out of interest, at the The Scopes ‘Monkey Trial’ Bryan, "like virtually all Fundamentalist spokesmen, accepted the great antiquity of life on earth, happily volunteered that the "days" of creation could have spanned as many as 600,000,000 years each." . . . dave souza, talk 20:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Need to clarify education levels

We need to be more clear in the fact that many psychological studies have shown a strong correlation between a lack of education and the belief in creationism. -- Moxy (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

are there actually reliable sources for that? Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes many mnay sources...
• Edward Caudill (2013). Intelligently Designed: How Creationists Built the Campaign against Evolution. University of Illinois Press. p. 122. ISBN 978-0-252-09530-6.
• Christopher P. Toumey (1994). God's Own Scientists: Creationists in a Secular World. Rutgers University Press. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-8135-2043-8.
• -- Moxy (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

that was speedy. :) first source is pretty lame. 2nd source is citing a gallup poll (not anything fancypants like a "psychological study"). anyway, i reckon if you are generating content on this you will source it more bullet-proofy. (btw I appreciate it that you said "correlation" and didn't imply causation.) Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I happen to be teaching a class on this subject....at work tommorw will post better sources that I am using for the class. Came here because the article was metioned in the class....good article ...most POV are here. -- Moxy (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

great, thank you!! Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess I should post what I am teaching to other teachers....so people here can see where I am coming from (POV if you will) Being 'Tolerant' About Creationism (not a source that is relible). We talk about education a bit here. -- Moxy (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

you are doing great work, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ok I am back ....so lets look at what I was using (quotes provided, because linked pages are not seen by all). I am not editing the page as I am no expert on this...just happen to be teaching a class on tolerances....and this point comes up alot...thus was wondering if this POV/info should be stated in the article. I will leave it to others to make that call...just bringing it up and providing sources. -- Moxy (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• A definition - Susanna Hornig Priest (Professor of Communication at the University of Washington) (2010). Encyclopedia of Science and Technology Communication. SAGE Publications. p. 189. ISBN 978-1-4522-6578-0. These individuals tend to be religious and with low levels of formal education....however....
• A text book - Erich Goode (2000). Paranormal Beliefs: A Sociological Introduction. Waveland Press - Indiana University. p. 112. ISBN 978-1-57766-076-7. Creationism is negatively correlated with education. That is, the higher the level of education, the less likely it is that someone believes in biblical creation; the lower the education, the greater that likelihood is
• A study - Paz-y-Miño C., G., & Espinosa, A. (2009). A Comparison Between a Secular and a Religious College. Evolution, Acceptance of Evolution Increases with Student Academic Level: 2(4), 655–675. doi:10.1007/s12052-009-0175-7
• Older source to point-out this view in not brand new - Bronislaw Misztal; Anson D. Shupe (1992). Religion and Politics in Comparative Perspective: Revival of Religious Fundamentalism in East and West. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 98. ISBN 978-0-275-94218-2. The higher the educational level of respondents, the less likely they were to reject human evolution...
• Not a good source ...but was widely talked about in class... A reprint of a blog post by Dr. William M. Briggs a Professor of Statistics at Cornell University Do Atheists Really Have Higher IQs than Believers?

I guess i will move forward on these points my self. Will make a small statement for inclusion today. --Moxy (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Belief or theory

Can't be a theory because that has a scientific meaning. If we don't use "belief," what can we use? It's been debated before; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=belief&prefix=Talk%3ACreationism%2F&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with "belief", exactly?   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Soft tissue in dinosaur fossils

Since there is now an extensive section under dinosaurs in wiki, and that this is a common creationist argument (per ref, no 3 for AiG),have added this to claimed evidence in support. Cpsoper (talk) 11:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello? Soft tissue in fossils does not equal young Earth. Your insertion of a a link making this claim has been removed. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, the claim of dinosaur soft tissue have been refuted as well. [2] [3]--Mr Fink (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The basis for the insertion of the AiG reference is to prove that it is a creationist belief, for which purpose (as a source of opinion) it is indisputably RS. Though the claim here that this brief review just refers to a mummy as evidence is somewhat facile given the interaction with Schweitzer's paper and her critics[4]. The claim of soft tissue in dinosaurs is well established and quite beyond dispute from several independent mainstream sources, these could be cited profitably here too, the question of DNA is as the wiki section on the subject indicates, prone to differing mainstream opinion, though four lines of evidence have been cited in its favour. The edit should be restored, unless better reasons are given.

References

Cpsoper (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe the part of this line between *** and *** should be altered or deleted.

"Theistic evolution, also known as Evolutionary Creationism, is an attempt to reconcile religion with scientific findings on the age of the Earth and evolution. ***The term covers a range of views including Old Earth creationism***."

That line seems to contradict another Wikipedia page on Theistic Evolution. I believe the Theistic Evolution wiki page states correctly that Old Age creationism is in conflict with the basic concept of Theistic Evolution (Creationism denies evolution, Theistic Evolution accepts evolution)

Evidence: From the wikipedia page on Theistic evolution: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution) "Supporters of theistic evolution generally harmonize evolutionary thought with belief in God, rejecting the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science – they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict each other." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamoshiranai23 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Creationism schools uk

I think in the creationism by country section in the united kingdom part the information should be added that in June 2012 three creationist schools where approved — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.41.48 (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Some figures from last month.[5] [6] Doug Weller (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Creating a category for all religions who believe in creationism

I've been trying to get the ball rolling on creating a category for all religions that believe in creationism. This would, of course, include Jehovah Witneses. Please contribute to this discussion here Would_there_be_a_way_of_categorising_religions_which_believe_in_creationism and if you are able, help bring this about. Thank you. In Citer (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Terms...

The term "Pseudoscience" is used many times throughout the article, incorrectly. Pseudoscience is about a movement that doesn't correctly use the scientific method to prove or attempt to prove a theory or idea. NotIansIdea (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

What alternative would you suggest? --‖ Ebyabe <sup>talk</sup> - Inspector General ‖ 14:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is a label, not a movement, and our sources indicate it is a label that applies to various aspects of creationism. Is there any case in the article where the label is used where you think it is not supported by reliable sources?   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

To address the original comment, I think there's some room for nuance in recognizing the difference between pseudoscience aspects (creation science, ID) of creationism, and the philosohpical/religious whole. "Creationism" is not pseudoscience; aspects of creationism most certainly are. This does not lend credence to creationism, it just clarifies. Other aspects have nothing to do with science, and are therefore not "pseudoscience" as they don't touch on science. Please be clear I am in no way saying that the tendrils of creationism that try to burrow into science (ID, etc) aren't pseudoscience. They certainly are.Jbower47 (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"The vastness of pace"

I've Googled this (quoted in Islamic views of Creationism section), and I find some sites using this wording - but others using 'space'. To me, 'pace' makes no sense whatever. How can 'pace' be vast? This looks like a case of a typo being spread by copying without thought. I may be missing something here, and invite comments. My feeling is that 'space' makes sense, but 'pace' is an error. Peridon (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

You are right, this is "space" and the translator of the verse Abdullah Yusuf Ali has made an obvious error by missing the letter s of space. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, for example has translated this phrase as Verily, We are Able to extend the vastness of space thereof while Marmaduke Pickthall has translated this phrase as ... We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof). All these translations can be found on this link by ticking on the boxes relevant to the translations on the left column. Khestwol (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Wording of the use 'myth'

The following sentence appears in the article: "As of 2006 most Christians around the world accepted evolution as the most likely explanation for the origins of species, and did not take a literal view of the Genesis creation myth". It struck me as rather biased to say that creation as defined in the Bible was being referred to as a myth. I think it would be more neutral to simply say 'Genesis creation story'. Let me know what you think. In Citer (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Myth is being used in the established (over many many many wiki discussions) sense of the term. This is the product of long term consensus. It is not intended as a pejorative. Please refer to previous discussions. The creation stories are properly called myths in this context. Jbower47 (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, and the term is used by Jewish and Christian theologians (obviously not all). Doug Weller (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but "myth" still sounds very biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.218.159.33 (talk)

Have you read Q2 in the FAQ? --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 22:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have. I also disagree with Q1. Some people regard creationism as a viable scientific theory. 10:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.218.159.33 (talk)

There are two problems with Creationism being a viable scientific theory in that 1) no one has ever been able to demonstrate what sort of science Creationism can be used to science with, and 2) none of Creationism's proponents have ever demonstrated any desire or ability to explain, let alone demonstrate, how Creationism is science, or what science can be done with it beyond making repeated fallacious assertions.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Bad cite to 'scientists say'

... I noted that the Lead's third paragragh line saying labelled "pseudoscience" by scientists .. apparent inappropriate cite to a piece from non-scientist, the administrator (President of NCSE) with education PhD degree Brian Alters. Where content does not make statements about scientist opinions on this either. (The short piece talks about Canada situation and used the word once as an adjective to ID.)

Since Doug Weller and Isambard Kingdom apparently do not want to delete a cite to that, please weigh in on whether best to reword the line it's at, delete the cite, or explain here how this is relevant to the phrase. Thanks and cheers. Markbassett (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Read Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. NCSE were the consultants for the plaintiffs. NCSE has done their homework. Their credentials are quite good. Jim1138 08:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. What is a problem though is when this editor removes 'some', which has several sources, and replaces with with just one of the named sources. Several organisations/people is some. Or name them all, not just one. Doug Weller (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, check the homework - (a) 'some have even begun' is WP:WEASEL, so (b) yes the phrase and acronym IDC seems to be the NCSE term, begun and a SOP at NCSE; (c) all the cites seem NCSE and NCSE members, including the just-added book compilation from NCSE members and employees (a book is better thing to cite than a blog). So who the 'some' is for 'begun' is NCSE, though saying 'begun' sounds odd since it's now years later. Alternatively I also considered chopping it to 'also known as'. Since usage of the phrase and acronym seems still basically just NCSE -- discounting external review of NCSE book by that title or external print of article/quote from NCSE -- putting in NCSE seemed more suitable and could at least retire this 'some' usage. Markbassett (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

And...Kingdom just reverted again based on the book cite added after the change was done. In saying 'why ID fails is not ... ' I refer him to the list of contributors, and the NCSE promoting it at here, plus that they say 'Many of the contributors are NCSE members, and two -- Gishlick and Elsberry -- are NCSE staff'. The editors if you look at their amazon history seem to be close associates to NCSE in other collaborations -- writing help it seems. The phrase is not in significant usage outside of NCSE that I can see -- and is HIGHLY associated by googling. Others say ID is creationism or refer to NCSE materials, but the preference seems to be for shorter form here, and to say 'Intelligent Design' or ID rather than 'Intelligent Design Creationism' or 'IDC' ... just a more awkward lengthy typing. Markbassett (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Your conclusion these people are "close associates" of the NCSE is original research. Just because they have contributed with the NCSE in the past on an unrelated project does not mean we can reduce our sentence to just "the NCSE says..." Does any source explicitly indicate this idea is only linked to the NCSE?   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. And I've reworded it to eliminate mention of the NCSE. Hopefully the edit warring will stop. Doug Weller (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Jess - ? Do not see why you'd object to the originator of the phrase 'Intelligent Design Creationsism' being identified as NCSE. But meh - it's gone now anyway. Back to the topic of this thread. Markbassett (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps because the NCSE didn't originate the phrase? It's in quite common usage. . . dave souza, talk 18:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Back to topic : I noted that the Lead's third paragragh line saying labelled "pseudoscience" by scientists .. apparent inappropriate cite to a piece from non-scientist, the administrator (President of NCSE) with education PhD degree Brian Alters. Where content does not make statements about scientist opinions on this either. (The short piece talks about Canada situation and used the word once as an adjective to ID.)

So - lead section, not a cite which supports 'labelled by scientists' line ... Over to y'all. Markbassett (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The objections that Alters is not a scientist, or that his paper is "about Canada" are not all too relevant. The NCSE is certainly qualified to comment about the scientific consensus. However, I don't like that cite for the "scientists -> pseudoscience" content. The word pseudoscience is only used once, and is applied only by Alters. We should probably find better sourcing for it, and repurpose this source somewhere else, if appropriate. As to your question above, about the IDC phrase, I just asked for a source that was explicit. That should be a basic requirement per WP:V.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Jess - Well, I was more focused on attribution to scientists was not supported by Alters so that is an unsuitable cite or a bad attribution. (Padian is a highly qualified scientist so citing him fits OK.) Suppose one could rewrite the line to remove 'scientists' or even drop the whole line as a diversion into the label without further link, but dropping the cite to a nothing paper seemed the lesser and noncontroversial thing. (Foolish me). Mostly I was/am more looking at clean out junk cite. (Sometimes seems people just stick in things.) Markbassett (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Y'all please just TALK it out

It's apparent there is some revertion-ising going on over the lead (again) and a new wording about 'some' versus the prior of 'two'. I'm going to revert back to October and request both sides plus others try to discuss since it's obvious that the wording is in flux. I will offer my usual 'just show me the cites' -- just show me what you've got supporting the words, nothing else matters. Markbassett (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Among other things, editors are trying to note that the new changes are effectively sugarcoating the facts that creationist movements are pseudoscientific and that creationists reject science and scientific consensus for religious reasons.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Mark, did you not notice that most editors are rejecting the change from " These movements have been rejected by the scientific community" to "have been labelled "pseudoscience" by scientist" and "Most commonly, creationists reject the scientific consensus on evolution and common descent" to " The most notable disputes concern the evolution of living organisms, the idea of..."? Yes, you reverted to an earlier wording, but IMHO this is better. I hope you noticed that the editor who hit 3RR, when asked to take it to the talk page in my edit summary, reverted me and virtually copied my edit summary. Not very collegial (nor is his/her calling another editor a troll and then wondering on my talk page why I warned them about NPA). I'm not sure why your intervened rather than let the new editor justify their reversions. Doug Weller (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller The onus seems to me on the proposing party when their changes are disputed to resolve things more peaceably than pushing it to 3RR. Since the prior lead line of "Two disciplines somewhat allied with creationism" (a) has been acceptable since 2013 by many; (b) the change provided no cite ; and (c) the change gave no TALK -- I have reverted and suggest it provide a WP-appropriate basis for the changes being better. I am particularly interested in the phrasing "There are several psudoscientific branches of creationism, including creation science and intelligent design" as to which additional branches it is referring to. Markbassett (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The removal of "Most commonly, creationists reject the scientific consensus on evolution" camouflages the disparity between creationism and the scientific consensus on evolution. That chasm between creationism and science needs to be noted in the lede. Jim1138 (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Jim1138 Are you saying the words "The most notable" could stay and it is only at the subsequent "evolution of living organisms, the idea of common descent" that you want emphasis to ? Markbassett (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Markbassett No. "The most notable..." again masks the incongruity between science and creationism. "Most commonly,..." should be used. The contrast between zero-evidence creationism and overwhelming-evidence evolution should be highlighted. Jim1138 (talk) 06:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The original wording seems to better reflect a NPOV and there was no discussion on the talk page before the change was submitted. I'm not sure what you mean by "copied my edit summary," nor do I appreciate your various baseless accusations against me. As you imply, let's be collegial and stick to this issue at hand. Zacksfenton (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

When you reference NPOV, you are saying that the content better reflects the sources. What sources are you talking about? Keep in mind that WP:WEIGHT is a part of that policy, so if our sources say that these branches of creationism are pseudoscience and there is scientific consensus on evolution that creationists reject, we need to reflect that, and not water it down to a "dispute" and a "label by scientists".   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I refer others to the edit summaries if they want to check what I said. Zacksfenton wrote on [User:Dbrodbeck]] talk page "Wow are you a troll OUCH".[7] I wasn't going to bring this up again but as |acksfenton says it was a baseless accusatioh.... Anyway, what our NPOV policy says is "While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly." The lead needs to make it very clear that this isn't just some dispute nor is 'pseudoscience' just some label. Doug Weller (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I see the link, but I have absolutely no recollection of that exchange and agree completely that that is unacceptable. I do remember that Dbrodbeck was spamming my wall with threats, but I do not remember responding. Is there a way to check the IP address associated with that change? I don't see that on my user contributions list.

In any case, the distinction made here between pseudoscience and questionable science would have intelligent design fall more on the side of questionable science. Interestingly, on the page on Panspermia, neither term is employed. Any particular theory of origins is going to involve presuppositions. Zacksfenton (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we can go back, now, to the version of the article (19:19, 4 November 2015) before Markbassett reverted it. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Zack, Intelligent design is absolutely not "questionable science". It is not a science of any kind whatsoever. Can you source that, please?   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

How exactly are you defining a scientific theory here? Considering that there has been no demonstration to account for the origin of life, any kind of scientific theory on the topic will be speculation based on the processes we can observe. Whereas Darwinian theory would hold that natural selection and random mutation can account for the biological diversity we observe on Earth, ID proponents argue that it is statistically unlikely that these mechanisms alone are sufficient. Please refer to this bibliography of peer reviewed articles on the topic. Zacksfenton (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

We aren't defining scientific theory, scientists do that. Evolution doesn't even deal with the origin of life. Doug Weller (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It does seem that neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory attempts to deal with the question of origins and this is where it comes into conflict with ID. Further, ID proponents don't contend that evolution through natural selection and random mutations doesn't exist, they merely question the sufficiency of these mechanisms. It seems that the revision in question does not appropriately reflect what is being argued from the ID side and is outrageously biased. I hoped for the sake of Wikipedia that a less biased wording could be agreed upon, but I have little time and interest to quarrel over such a trifle.Zacksfenton (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

As below, abiogenesis deals with the origins of life. Wikipedia is outrageously biased in favour of reliable third party sources giving due weight to science, which determines what we show about pseudoscience such as ID. . dave souza, talk 18:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ Zacksfenton , ID proponents, better described as cdesign proponentsists, are thoroughly debunked as religious creationists promoting their religious views while claiming their views are science: in other words, pseudoscience. The WP:PSCI policy applies to intelligent design, and to other forms of creationism which present claims to be science. You link to the Disco Tute which is a completely unreliable source. Oh, and Darwinian evolution deals with developments after the origin of life, you're looking for abiogenesis if you want the scientific topic. . dave souza, talk 18:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Guys - I mean TALK about the article wording of the two lines involved here, explaining the current and proposed, with reasons for the words. I have put out in detail below the two lines -- about 20 word total -- involved and at least what puzzles me. Will you all please chat for a few days and maybe y'all can come to some jointly acceptable wording that might be even better yet, or at least will show good faith of trying. Closing this thread, resetting and trying again Markbassett (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

TALK - line 2

(cont) There is revert war over 2 separate lines, with a whole lot of words not really discussing the changes so ... I will try stepping thru a discussion: Point one Stop and take a breath It was like that for two years, it can wait a few days of talk. Point two Let us take this one line at a time to better understand things ... Proposed change two from the line start "The most notable disputes concern the evolution of living organisms, the idea of common descent..." into the line start "Most commonly, creationists reject the scientific consensus on evolution and common descent..."

It would help to have explained why the word change is wanted, and particularly I will start by thinking "most notable" is saying these are the most important items, while "most commonly" is saying these are the ones most frequently said by creationists. And observing that all of the 2006 cites are still the only things there so -- what's going on with this proposed change ? Markbassett (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

"Most commonly" and "Most notably" are desired because they place necessary emphasis on the fact that creationists reject scientific consensus.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr Fink Are you proposing then "Most commonly and most notably" and neither alone ? Markbassett (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Upon rereading, it would probably be better to use "most commonly" as the vast majority of creationists, notable and not, unanimously reject scientific consensus of evolution and common descent.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't care if it's "notable" or "common", but using both is redundant. Keep in mind that "notably" implies ubiquity among creationists, where "commonly" only sums up a list of common objections in creationism. "Notably" requires a weight assessment of different creationist factions (is theistic evolution or old earthers fringe in creationism?) "Commonly" doesn't, because we're not implying ubiquity. Anyway, that wasn't really the point of the change, which was to avoid implying this is a "dispute". It's not, in any sort of scientific sense.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Jess Is this more cleanly said as "Creationists commonly reject" ? The "most" addition just seems to tie into asking whether to interpret it as 'creationists more often' or as 'most creationsits reject'. Markbassett (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

They read the same to me. I prefer "most commonly", but frankly have no strong preference.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• CLOSING - Discussion here seems to not be getting much discussion or insights into why "most notable" or "most common" wordings would be prefered, so I'm just going to close this TALK thread as no particular preference and take no further action. I'm personally thinking that wording tied to the list before of 'notable' fits the list a bit better since 'common' seems evolution and geology but not solar system, and would avoid shifts unless it has some basis. But I respect that Jess feels "common" is better and general TALK is saying do not care much. Markbassett (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk - Line 1

There is revert war over 2 separate lines, with a whole lot of words not really discussing the changes so ... I will try stepping thru a discussion:

• Point one Stop and take a breath It was like that for two years, it can wait a few days of talk.
• Point two Let us take this one line at a time to better understand things ...
• Proposed change one

• from "Two disciplines somewhat allied with creationism - creation science and intelligent design -- have been labelled pseudoscience by scientists."
• into "There are several pseudoscientific branches of creationism, including creation science and intelligent design."

It would help to have explained why the word change is being tried, and particularly I will start by asking to eliminate the WP:WEASEL concern over 'several' -- exactly what are the several branches referred to here ? RSVP, thanks. Markbassett (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It's because the first sentence directly implies that creation science and intelligent design are only tenuously related to creationism, and that only scientists call either/both pseudosciences, both implications being blatantly false.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr Fink - wording then "There are two branches of creationism - creation science and intelligent design --" served that interest a bit more clearly. The wording "several" seems out of tune with this aspect. Markbassett (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

There are many "versions" of creationism that are pseudoscience. Kent Hovind's brand (the Hovind theory) is another example. I don't know how many there are, but I would venture a guess the list would be cumbersome. Hovind's ideas do not merit mention in the lead, but we should not say "there are two versions" when there are demonstrably more than two.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

What Jess wrote.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Jess and Mr Fink - so let's see you name them. Preferably with cites, but since there are only 5 branches according to the article, I think you're simply spouting vague nonsense. Be happy enough to see cites otherwise, would like to be shown wrong, but my doubt that you have any actual content vice soapbox is running high. So whatcha got ? Markbassett (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Mark, your reply is fairly rude. Please read WP:AGF. There's nothing in my response to you that's soapboxing, and it's certainly not "vague nonsense". I gave you three examples, which is demonstrably more than "two". I can't imagine what you'd like cites for. That Hovind's ideas are creationism? That they're pseudoscience? You can find cites for that at Kent Hovind.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Jess - Hovind lies within the Young Earth Creationism branch, Creation Science, so "There are two branches of creationism - creation science and intelligent design --" still seems the most accurate one of this thread's discussion. The wording "several" is just out of tune with the branches if you mean Young Earth Creationiam (Creation Science), Intelligent Design, and ... Young Earth Creationism again? May be confusing 'branches' with something else. The article here lists exactly 5 branches of creationism -- and 'several' is a WP:WEASEL concern of vague and not sensical. Only two of the article named 5 branches are trying to talk science so there seem two and only two candidates. Still happy to see new stuff, especially new cites or some new creationism book or something citeable, but the part about *I* can look for cites at Hovind sounds again like vagueness not usable for article content, not a specific item to cite on the line that is this thread topic. Simply as you can just say -- where did 'several' start from ? what was meant by or wanted from saying 'several' branches ? If the prior wording is not appropriate, show why and the need can be put it into the article -- and if it's not able to be anything other than vague, then simply say why and we'll look at it. Right now 'two' looks nameable, and 'several' looks vague and nonsensical. Markbassett (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Please don't put words into our mouths, Mr Bassett.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr Fink -- OK. So go ahead and speak what you'd like (if you want to) re phrasing the line involving 'several'. Last heard, the points you put forward for the WP:WEASEL concern over 'several' was "It's because the first sentence directly implies that creation science and intelligent design are only tenuously related to creationism, and that only scientists call either/both pseudosciences". So I said "wording then 'There are two branches of creationism - creation science and intelligent design --' served that interest a bit more clearly. The wording 'several' seems out of tune with this aspect." The call for 'name the several' is including you as you hadn't said and looked like you want 'several' -- but if you wish to say that's not so or to propose a different line with 'two' (or 'three' or some further wording) then go for it. TALK forum is for discussing article content and the thread is for the line if 'several' is not the right word, so go for it. Markbassett (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The weasel wording I'm most concerned about is "Two disciplines somewhat allied with creationism," which, as I mentioned, implies that the two mentioned disciplines are only tenuously concerned with creationism. It would be more prudent to use Two disciplines within creationism."--Mr Fink (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr Fink Does "Two branches of creationism - creation science and intelligent design -- have been labelled pseudoscience." look like the best put forward so far ? Markbassett (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Much, much better, yes.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The two branches of creationism described as pseudoscience are creation science, intelligent design and flood geology, no the three.... (nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition) .... why put a number on it? . . dave souza, talk 22:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

dave souza - Flood is within YEC, not a separate branch. As to why a number, well I'd take a specific names as well to avoid WP:WEASEL, but here: (a) the change went from a specific two named types to a vague "several" with no additional items in the 2006 cites which leaves one hanging on 'what others', and (b) so "several" is not WP-verifiably supported and also makes no sense when you look at the article. The article doesn't HAVE a lot of branches to pick 'several' from, there are only five branches of Types: Young Earth Creationism (incl Creation Science), Old Earth Creationism (Gap creationism, Day-age Creationism, Progressive creationism), Neo-creationism (Intelligent Design), Obscure (defunct) beliefs, and Omphalos Hypothesis. And other than Creation science and ID they just do not talk science so ... it's either confusion of counting alternate namings or subbranches or adherents or something else. Markbassett (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Baraminology is another, should it be added to the list? Jim1138 (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) YEC and flood geology have both been pseudoscience since long before creation science, but have also predated science and in earlier incarnations weren't necessarily pseudoscience. The same applies to other branches, and it's a continuum rather than distinct categories. So being over-specific is likely to misrepresent the actual situation. . dave souza, talk 18:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

dave souza - if the "other branches" cannot be named or numbered or in any way pass WP:VERIFY or WP:WEASEL or WP:CITE, it's failed the basic Missouri test and "several" fails WP guides. This TALK thread is not a call to speculate on retro-actively somehow someway the wording might not be too wrong, nor to widen it to a large article edit of "continuum ratherr than distinct categories", but rather to point a revert spat towards a TALK thread discussion of what is the most correct wording according to WP principles for this particular line. In any 'show me' or 'why was this put in' it is just asking for the factual history of edit, what was already in hand and readily available to be shonw and unpacked in open forum rather than an unexplained edit. I see exactly two identified and can name them and see cites and it is consistent to two branches in the heirarchy within, so a line with "two branches" and those names seems reasonable and accepted for a prolonged while so ... what happened or how is another wording better. Without names or cites it would seem left witn NONE of them are demonstrated and the article is vague and lost credibility. With two of them named among 'several' we're left with 'what else' or 'did that word mean something else' and that requires a cite or name to understand what it's 'several' of. It seems unlikely, but if there is a brand-new branch of creationism, or a brand-new way some other branch(es) have begun doing the psuedoscience "a claim, belief or practice presented as scientific" then that's major news and goes into body as well as here. Markbassett (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Mark, you're getting confused on the word "branches". We're saying: "if we look at topics within creationism, which are pseudoscience?" You're saying: "if we look at creationism, how can we break it into subgroups? ...is this topic a subgroup, or a subgroup of the subgroup?" From the perspective of this sentence, it doesn't matter how we organize and name components of creationism. What we're trying to communicate is that some parts of creationism are pseudoscience. We've given several examples (whether they're branches, or subgroups, or sub-subgroups). In the end, we don't have a source that says "X parts of creationism are pseudoscience, so we can't say "X parts are pseudoscience". Following the sources shows us that we have many examples, but no finite number, so "several" must be the right word to use. Counting all the examples we have in a collection of sources would be synthesis.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Jess - Hanh ??? What are you talking about ??? Read again; the line wording *for* "several" and "two" is this thread focus, though that is in line at "several branches" and "two branches" and I do note that 'several branches' is a lede inconsistency issue when the article body is structured to exactly and only five types. If you are saying that heirarchy should not be the phrasing, then please submit a line without "branches" and hence not using branches "creation science and intelligent design" as the stated examplars as if it's these and others. Unless your propose an alternative line or naming at least SOME example aspects and/or cites, it's hard for readers to get any idea of what kinds of things being talked about, and it still fails at multiple WP guidelines. If you wish proposing that instead of saying "two branches - creation science and intelligent design" or "several branches including creation science and intelligent design" it say something like "multiple aspects of creationism are" then is that a 'none of the above' discussion ? Markbassett (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me it's more of a smorgasbord. Groups, churches, and people pick and choose what to fill their plate with. Jim1138 (talk) 03:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Jim1138 Not sure what wording you propose for the thread topic, the line with proposed last wording "Two branches of creationism - creation science and intelligent design -- have been labelled pseudoscience." Markbassett (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Mark, it's easiest if you place your responses at the bottom of the thread, otherwise everything ends up a jumbled chronological mess. Regarding your post to me above, you suggested "multiple aspects of creationism are pseudoscience", but that means creationism as a whole is pseudoscience, which is not true. "Parts of an apple are red" is not true for green apples. "Some types of apples are red" is true, even considering green ones. Look, let's step back a moment. You want to say "two branches...are pseudoscience". What source are you referencing that says exactly that, using the number two?   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Jess Will repost at bottom if you prefer for last comms, and indent it so it matches up to your prior several posts above this -- still unclear what that one meant, if anything. I have not suggested the phrase you show enquoted. Please focus on wording line 1Markbassett (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Mark, thanks. The positioning is alright for now. It just gets a little messy if we keep it going that way (and discourages new editors from participating because they can't follow the order of replies). One or two out of order doesn't hurt too much. Anyway... Sorry I misunderstood you. I thought you were proposing the "multiple aspects" wording. You did suggest the "two branches are..." wording earlier, so let's focus on that. I think it would help the discussion if you could source the number 2. The problem, of course, is that I think we can't source it, but if we can, that changes the whole discussion. Let me know how you make out with that and we can go from there.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Jess OK then aborting repost ... I am just trying to move a revert war over recent 'several' to a discussion -- there look to be no new cites accompanying the edit and no new examplars or discussion for that wording. The previously accepted wording saying two and naming two at least seems obvious enough to not need a cite, but would you feel it better phrased "Branches of creationism - creation science and intelligent design -- have been labelled pseudoscience." ? Markbassett (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• CLOSING - I'm going to post the result of discussion. It's been two weeks, 4 days since any comment, and no edits since 8 days ago with Mr. Fink that "Two branches of creationism - creation science and intelligent design -- have been labelled pseudoscience." looks like the best wording worked out. Unfortunately, discussion was sparse and 5 people (Dave Souza, Jess, Jim1138, Markbassett, Mr. Fink) of the usual discussers are not the 8 in the article reverters (Apokryltoros. Doug Weller, Isambard Kingdom, Markbasset, NeilN, Willodon, and Zacksfenton). Just going to try this following the WP recommended practices and see what happens ... Markbassett (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Mark, thanks for being bold and trying out a different version, but I don't think the version tried was all that consistent with our discussion here. Again, the number two is not sourced, as far as I can tell. We do have sources which give many examples of pseudoscientific subdivisions of creationism. "Have been labeled as" is also problematic, for reasons we discussed a while ago. I know you're trying to change our use of the word "several" as weasely, but it's really the best representation of our sources we have right now. I'd be open to other suggestions... but a version of "some creationist groups engage in pseudoscience" is what we really need to get to, not "this one group in particular engages in pseudoscience according to some people". Does that distinction kind of make sense? I'd be happy to see other sources than what we're using to refine the wording, too.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

;]]♥ - the 'several' was the last chande (ca. 4 Nov), caused kerflufel, and gave neither rationale, nor cite. As "several" means at least three it is misleadingly implying a vague number more than the two named. Markbassett (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why this even needs to be quantified? Why not just remove the number and the weasel words altogether? "There are pseudoscientific branches of creationism" reads fine. Zarcusian (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, will try that one. Markbassett (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

'Branches' in lead

The lead para three now has a wording issue of added to a list things that were not branches at 'branches of creationism" : "There are pseudoscientific branches of creationism, including creation science, flood geology, and intelligent design, as well as some subsets of pseudoarchaeology, pseudohistory, and, even, pseudolinguistics" Sooooo.

• Would it be better to keep the list and find a valid label

('aspects' or 'attempts' or 'expressions' or 'outgrowths'...?)

• Would folks want to reduce the list to branches of creationism ?

Markbassett (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I think we can leave it, now, and move onto other Wikipedia challenges. And there are many. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

pseudoscience?

Would it not be wise to place pseudoscience in the opening heading? As it stands with the top notation also referencing pseudoscience it is structured as if there is some credence to creationism where there is absolutely none. I'd suggest:
Creationism is the pseudoscientific belief that the Universe and Life originate "from specific acts of divine creation." Lostinlodos (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That's blatant bias at its worst. Let the reader research this issue for themselves, rather than presuming to enforce your own opinion on the reader as to what qualifies as "science". Pathetic! Hopefully anyone with a lick of common sense will know better than to look in Wikipedia for good answers when dealing with controversial topics like this. Mob rule is not the same thing as "quality control"!

--Kanbei85 (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Kanbei85

Creationism isn't necessarily a scientific belief, so I think the opening is good as it is. Many put it forth as a scientific idea, of course, but that's covered plenty later on in the article, and in the direction at the top to "Creation Science". Describing it as pseudoscience in the lead would capture only a restricted version of what creationism is. Willondon (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Great point. Thankyou. Lostinlodos (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think concerning this subject it would be more honest to say, for example: Creationism is regarded as "pseudoscientific" to many Modern (Mainstream) scientists today. It would at least give the illusion of objectivity." Turnagealfonsojermaine (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Alfonso Jermaine Turnage

Creationism as a belief has a life quite apart from scientific inquiry. It's just the pseudo-scientists that make it seem that Creationism = Scientific "explanation". The pseudo-science aspect is covered plenty later on in the article, and in the direction at the top to "Creation Science". Describing it as pseudoscience in the lead would capture only a restricted version of what creationism is. Willondon (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

But too many creationists especially in the US seek to push their views as science. I think this really needs to be made clear in the intro. The alternative view of "religion" can be incorporated as well, but the former is incredibly important, if not more so. Smk65536 (talk) 10:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

This article is full of blatant bias and represents anything but a neutral perspective. Citing various atheist and anti-creationist sources abundantly, as well as actually referring to Creation Science with the perjorative "pseudoscience". It needs to be cleaned up of course, but naturally any edits I make to that end will be almost immediately reverted. At the minimum, this article deserves a PERMANENT flag for neutrality. Apparently for most Wikipedia editors, the concept of allowing the reader to research both sides of an issue and make up their OWN mind is unheard of!

Where the article claims that early Christians interpreted the creation account allegorically, it simply and flatly spreads misinformation. That is false. I've read them, so I would know. See: Early Church Fathers on Creation

--Kanbei85 (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Kanbei85

When you say early Christians, do you actually mean Jewish? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I mean exactly what I said: early Christians. Whether they were Jews or Gentiles is irrelevant. Christianity is a faith, not an ethnicity. --Kanbei85 (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Kanbei85

So is Judaism. Furthermore, please be aware that actively promoting a pro-Creationist in the article about Creationism is not a "neutral point of view," especially when one denounces all non-pro-Creationist sources as being "atheist" and "anti-creationist."--Mr Fink (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kanbei85, thanks for coming to talk. It is not clear to me if you are familiar with what NPOV actually says, especially with regard to WP:RNPOV. It would also be most helpful if you commented on specific content rather than making global judgements, which no one can really respond to. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, my comments are sufficiently concrete that anyone can read the article and see exactly what I'm talking about. Using the term pseudoscience, for one thing, is an automatic violation of NPOV, because it makes the decision for the reader as to whether creation science is legitimate. The references section contains 21 instances of TalkOrigins being cited as a resource. That directs the reader to a virulently hostile anti-creationist website. If anyone can possibly think for a moment that this article is even remotely neutral, they are deceiving themselves quite impressively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanbei85 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 10 January 2016‎

Kanbei85, please sign your posts. You're obviously wrong: WP:PSCI applies to creation science which is clearly shown by reliable sources as fringe pseudoscience, a religious belief presented with the claim that it is science. Your efforts to give it "equal validity" are against policy. . . dave souza, talk 18:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Creation science is not legitimate. It claims to be science, but it produces no research or studies or experiments or hypotheses, and does not by any stretch of the imagination use the scientific method. Therefore, it is not science. As a result, it fits the definition of pseudoscience perfectly. Refusing to place this obvious fact in the article would be the real NPOV violation here. I would recommend you read the NPOV page. NPOV does NOT mean NO point of view. It means that we reflect the point of view of the preponderance of experts on the subject. Since they nearly all consider creation science pseudoscience, we must reflect that in the article.Farsight001 (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Also note that creation science (a pseudoscience) is a subset of creationism. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Kanbei, most of your original post is general. You seem to be saying now that you want to focus on the term "pseudoscience" and that is fine. We can do that. Any other objections you have are not being addressed and will not be addressed until you bring up specific bits of article content for discussion. Back to the term "pseudoscience," please see the comments above for the policy-based discussion about the use of that term. Please keep in mind that this discussion needs to be based Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and not on any editor's opinions. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Evolutionary interpretation of Hinduism

I don't think that new section belongs, this article is about creationism, not not creationism. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 05:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: I would tend to agree. Remove them if you wish. Jim1138 (talk) 07:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Theological viewpoint

If the issue is explained from Theological viewpoint, some criteria such as Teleological explanation and Origin will become necessary. Creationists look for these evidences which do not exist in scientists explanations. Apparently, there is Incommensurability between the scientific discourse and theological one. I think this issue should be added to the article and this book provides information about it. --Seyyed(t-c) 11:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscience

I boldly removed this article from Category:Pseudoscience, but my edit was reverted by User:Apokryltaros with the edit summary "It's considered pseudoscience because there is a large movement who want and use Creationism taught in science classes, in addition to insisting it be inserted into science." That is, however, begging the question. They article does not say that Creatinoism as a whole is pseudoscience. What it does say is that three forms/branches of creationism - creation science, flood geology and intelligent design - are pseudoscience, and all three articles are in the category. But the description on the category page says, "Generally speaking, if an article belongs in this category, the article's lead will contain a well-sourced statement that the subject is considered pseudoscience." Such a well-sourced statement, applied to creationism as a whole, is not present in this article - not in the lead, not anywhere else. Hence, it does not belong in the category. StAnselm (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I would have thought that the third paragraph in the lede and its corresponding references established how Creationism is pseudoscience.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No, the paragraph is very clearly not talking about creationism in general. It starts off by talking about young earth creationism, and then says "Pseudoscientific branches of creationism include..." StAnselm (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The relevant guideline here is Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles. So the question is, is pseudoscience a defining aspect of creationism? Some say that a category is warranted if some significant chunk of an article fits that category; some say categories should only be applied if it covers the article as a whole. While there are Christian creationist beliefs that take Aquinas seriously and don't contradict what science teaches us and the label doesn't fit those, the most prominent types of creationism - and ones covered by a significant chunk of this article - are the pseudoscientific ones, so I think the category is warranted. Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, "most prominent" in this context probably has a geographic and chronological bias, but that's fair enough. I'm interested in this dispute about what categories are for - I would clearly be in the second group, and didn't think the first position was according to policy. In any case, per WP:CATDEF, it needs to be "commonly and consistently defined" as pseudoscience. At the moment we don't have any sources defining it in that way, let alone a common and consistent definition. StAnselm (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I also note Creationism is not listed at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. And note that this article is not about the word "creationism" - which may be used to mean "Creation science" - but about a more general concept. StAnselm (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I just reviewed how we distribute WEIGHT in this article and by far most of it is given over to Creationist beliefs that challenge science... If we were to reshape this article to pry all that out and put it into the Creation science article I would agree not to use the psci category, but I don't think we can do that.Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Gordin (Professor of history at Princeton University), Michael D. (2012). The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe. University of Chicago Press. p. 257. ISBN 978-0-226-30443-4. The literature explicitly attacking creationism as "pseudoscience" is vast. See, for example.....--Moxy (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

But that doesn't seem to use "creationism" in the same sense as this article does - as a number of the examples he gives indicate, this refers to what we are here calling "creation science", also known as "scientific creationism". As our article on the subject indicates, it is a pseudoscientific branch of creationism. But creationism (as it's described in this article) isn't in and of itself pseudoscience. StAnselm (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• OK, I concede defeat on this one - there is a clear consensus for inclusion in this category. We probably should have the Gordin reference in the article, perhaps with a short discussion about terminology. StAnselm (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Views of Dovid Gottlieb

User Isambard Kingdom removed this material about the views of Dovid Gottlieb on creationism https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=730711941&oldid=730620693 on the grounds that it comes from a personal website. However the website is Gottlieb's own, and I think that it can be used on these grounds.

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves Shortcut: WP:SELFSOURCE Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:

The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

The source is only being used to present Gottlieb's views, it is not being used to claim that his views are correct.

Can I restore this material?Guns of brixham (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Life timeline

This edit claims to be "adding context", but I wonder if it isn't just adding provocation.  —jmcgnh<sup>(talk) (contribs)</sup> 22:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

From what I've seen of the editor in question's other edits, "provocation" for provocation's sake is not his style. On the other hand, perhaps we should ask @Drbogdan: and make sure?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh and Apokryltaros: Thank you for your comments - my addition seemed relevant to the "Creationism" article - as a possible improvement re context - and perhaps - as a "WP:BALANCE" of views - and not at all for any other reason - however - it's *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edit of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Movement / Lede

I suggest to have the lede cover the fact that creationism is formost a movement, originated in the US. One should as well confine Creationism sensu stricto (compare to the elder Uniformitarianism/catastrophism debate in natural history) on those that require an "act of god" / separate divine interference, trying to move religion undercover in US science classes, for the lack of relgious school education in god's own country. It should not try to cover all of theology or, even worse, important scientists with a Christian drive like Georges Lemaître or Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Polentarion Talk 13:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

PS.: I found and corrected a major blunder on Luther and inserted an official statement of the German EKD (the head council of the federation of german protestant Churches) rejecting both ID and creationsm from a theological standpoint. Polentarion Talk 14:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

PPPS.:

• I made some changes as well with regard to the role of the Ushher chronic. It had its most important role as annotation to the Scofield Bible, will say 1907 and 1917, not 1650. Scofield is highly interesting, as it provided (printed) hyperlinks ante festum and brought a scholar level study bible to lay people. Its been essential in propagating 20 century (gap) creationism.
• The article lacks still the compatitive aspects between different sorts of creationism. E.g. gap creationism was used instead ancient flood creationism but being replaced by "creation science" neo-flood-geology.

Kelvin paradox and the role of the sun

Please have look on the sources in question

• Stacey (abstract 2000): It was the age limit imposed by the available solar power that inhibited serious rethinking of the terrestrial problem.
• Burchfield (various pages, see p 24 or 32 on google books: The first solar estimate reduced the possible time frame to 32.000 years. that's much shorter than the earth estimate and the challenge versus Darwin was based on the sunestimate.

Insofar I ask User:Isambard Kingdom to adapt his changes. Polentarion Talk 13:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me look into it. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I have had a quick look at Stacey's paper, cited in this section of the Creationism article. Very interesting, and I see that I had not fully appreciated some of the intertwined arguments about the Earth and Sun. I will rework the text, here, and also reexamine the Age of the Earth article. Thank you for pointing this out. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. William_Thomson,_1st_Baron_Kelvin#Age_of_the_Earth:_geology_and_theology could be more consistent as well. But let's be good lutherans and take our time ;) Polentarion Talk 14:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Remark on the acceptance of Darwinism

I have the impression, that the (nicely sourced) claims of evolution being accepted by all of science mid of the 1850ies are a sort of ex post claim. The claim currently in the article, that Darwin's origin of species had been as early 1859 "authoritative and respected" sounds like wishful thinking. But the actual scientific debate about basic assumptions - like the age of the earth, natural selection and mechanism - took much longer. The eclipse of Darwinism gives some first hints. My impression is that evolution (including social darwinism) first gained traction in the popular realm, as a fashionable theory and not at least, take the X Club, Haeckel or Blavatsky, as a part of cultural and religious movements and creeds. Need some further reading. Polentarion Talk 14:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Categories

• Denialism, Done and OK
• Theism - applicable? Useful?
• Christian terminology: No specific Christian terminology
• Creation myths: Not applicable, no specific myth as in the other cases

I think all of them can be deleted without damage. I don't think anyone outside WP looks for the article based on categories, but feel free to convince me otherwise. Polentarion Talk 13:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Is your statement about people outside WP and categories a suggestion we should get rid of categories? Because we aren't going to do that. As for specific ones, I admit to being not sure about theism. I have no idea what "not a single myth" means since the category is plural, not singular. It's certainly Christian terminology even if non-Christians use it. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

You told me first that people need categories to find the article. I doubt that, as said.

• Theism - can be deleted then.
• Christian terminology contains specific Christian terms. This article is as well about hindus. Insofar not suitable.
• Creation myths: A creation myth is a symbolic narrative, creationists assume they found the truth. Not applicable.

I took the effort to read the main articles for each category. Polentarion Talk 14:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you doubt it. People, eg me, use categories to find articles. That's what they are for. Your opinion here really isn't relevant. If a term is a Christian term, it can be in the category. It can also be in a category for Hindu terms if there is one. What Creationists think doesn't matter either, categories are for use by non-Creationists as well. Doug Weller talk 15:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

You seem to doubt your own wording then. I see categories as a WP internal tools. I use them to group or separate theme groups. Creationism doesnt fit in Christian terminology, as it is not specific, the rest of the list fits much better. Polentarion Talk 17:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Doubt how? Of course Creationism fits in Christian terminaology, as I said. And please don't alter your posts after other people have responded, that is very much deprecated as it means that either a respondent's post might no longer make sense or as in this case your original post has been changed so it no longer makes sense. Doug Weller talk 18:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it doesnt fit, as it is not specific Christian. WP:CDD for the dos and don'ts. Polentarion Talk 18:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

denialism en detail

User:Doug Weller, the article denialism mentions evolution, but has no third party source claiming that Creationism in all its forms is denialism. Its preferably done in the the blogging sphere, slate and the huffpost. Eeven worse, the category as such is a catch all collection. Polentarion Talk 13:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if not all Creationism is denialism. I don't think you understand the purpose of categories. They are there to allow readers to browse related sets of pages. I don't understand "Its (sic) preferably done in the blogging sphere". Nor do I understand 'catch all', it doesn't include Cave art does it? Doug Weller talk 14:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:V applies as well to categorization. I just ask to provide explicit sourcing for that claim. An no, neither the Huffpost nor Bill Nye are sufficient. For the Catch-all, try Wikipedia. Catch-all - for instance, a catch-all taxon aka "wastebasket taxon" is a grouping of organisms not fitting anywhere else. Polentarion Talk 14:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

If you really think a category is a catch all category then shouldn't it be deleted? I can point you how to go about that if you wish. But until you get it deleted it's usable. Doug Weller talk 15:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Not a blog, not the HuffPo, nor Bill Nye (although there is nothing wrong with Nye, per se). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. a) I would prefer a category to be specific and useful, and not being misused as a wastebasket, yes. And lack of useability for one certain fringe topic is no reason for an AfD. b) Stephan found one source, OK then. Its not much of importance for the extra WP world, but if the friends of the climate opera need it, so be it. Polentarion Talk 17:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Postmodern creation myth

draft (feeel free to edit it for the sake of consent but comment your changes in the disc section)

• • Version 1) The so called Anthropic principle (compare as well fine-tuned universe) refers to the parameters of the universe being in a close range allowing conditions for life as we know it. The term was coined in the 1970ies and gave rise to various metaphysical speculations. It has been used e.g. to back Teilhard de Chardins earlier view (compare Omega Point) of the universe as being christ centered and experiencing a creatio evolutiva. The anthropic principle allows as well - without religeous notion - to put human beings closer to the center of cosmology again. Karl W. Giberson has been sort of laconic in stating that:

What emerges is the suggestion that cosmology may at last be in possession of some raw material for a postmodern creation myth

— Karl W. Giberson, 1997

• • Version 2
• Under the Anthropic principle, by which the properties of the universe is seemingly fine-tuned for our own existence, some Christians see evidence that a divine creator has purposefully designed the universe.

background

I just had a editing conflict with isambard. I think that section would cover an interesting and quite recent aspect, Kantschnieder (a cosmologist and leading member member of the Gioardano-Bruno-Fondation), Giberson and Teilhard cover a wider spectrum. As well creatio evolutiva is clear something we may cover here. But I ask for consent here. Polentarion Talk 23:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

discussion

• I think the basic idea is worth covering (by "basic idea" I mean the idea that physical laws of the universe seem to be fine-tuned to allow the existence of matter and life), but this seems long-winded and a bit unclear. Also, I can't see how this can be called a myth - it's a genuine problem in modern cosmology, perhaps best expressed as the fact that if the universe were just slightly different, we wouldn't be here.PiCo (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• I suggest one sentence, wikilink to anthropic principle, citation to reliable source. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• I restored the links and reduced the text. But I failed to boil it down to one sentence. @PiCo: Anthropic principle is not a myth itself, but according Giberson a possible base for it. Take Halley's Hollow Earth or Haeckel's Lemuria (continent) as examples of nowadays myths with a (former) serious scientific core. Polentarion Talk 00:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Isambards sentence is short but makes the impression, that the Anthropic principle creation is strictly part of intelligent design. That is not the case. I think the Giberford quote helps to solve that. Can we go on with that in the article? Polentarion Talk 08:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

sources

Scofield's Bible, dispensational, and premillennialism

The following text appears in the section on the Impact of the Reformation

... Scofield's Reference Bible. The latter influenced evangelicalism and, especially after the 1917 edition, was crucial in propagating dispensational theology and premillennialism.

I'm wondering how relevant these mentions of "dispensational" and "premillennialism" are to this (very broad) article on creationism. I suppose I have a tendency to prefer succinct presentations, so I'd like to remove these topics, but I was wondering what other editors think.

References

--Isambard Kingdom (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I made some changes to address your concern. Dispensational is important, as it made the biblical time frames and their projection on the present a crucial part of 20 century (angloamerican) evangelicalism. Modern Creationism was created in some respect with the Scofield edition 1917, and if one wants to explain what drives the majority of creationists, the links to dispensational should be kept. Premillennialism is helpful as well, but not as crucial. Polentarion Talk 16:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done with Isambards edit. Polentarion Talk 17:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Legal Cases / chronology

I wonder why the Scopes Trial is not being included. I assume it would be much better to have a stringent chronology of the legal cases against Creationism. Polentarion Talk 17:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• ::  Done based on Graf Polentarion Talk 08:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)