Talk:Creationism/Archive 25

Social Darwinism

Should be mentioned, as the controversy around Spencer gave much more drive to antidarwinist controversy and early creationism than the natural history aspects. Draft in preparation. Polentarion Talk 22:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

What is the source linking social darwinism to creationism? Without that this would just be WP:SYN. Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Google scholar gives some 2730 entries for "social darwinism" and creationism.
• In English e.g. Allene Phy-Olsen's Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design.
• Matthew J. Tontonoz: The Scopes Trial Revisited: Social Darwinism versus Social Gospel, in Science as Culture

Volume 17, 2008 - Issue 2, Page 121-143 | Published online: 28 Aug 2009 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09505430802062885

• I quoted de:Friedrich Wilhelm Graf's speech at the Bavarian Academy of Science 2011, published e.g. as a chapter on the developement of Creationism in the 2015 volume of de:Matthias Lutz-Bachmann on post secularism. Detailed timeline and overview. Page 116. Graf is the first theologian with a Leibnizpreis. Polentarion Talk 00:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Note, this article on Creationism is very general. I suggest that if we are going to mention "social darwinism", it will need to be justified as directly and obviously relevant. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I also note that the article Social Darwinism mentions "creationism" once, and then it is a very confusing and ambiguous discussion. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

* Agreed. I quoted Graf's overview on the history of creationism. he is quite outspoken in the connection respectively the role of social darwinism as main enemy of creationism. Grafs lecture is as well valuable with regard to the chronology and milestones of creatonism, will say the 1920ies and 1960ies as past peaks and giving reasons for that.

* Do we have to care about wikipedia as a source? ;) My impression is that WP is far from being finished, especially not in the realm of anything where science and humanities interact.

* Graf writes, as said, predominantly about creationism. But I don't see a problem to use the sources mentioned above as well elsewhere. Polentarion Talk 00:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that WP is a source. I'm simply pointing out the situation in a related page, Social Darwinism. BTW, I can't open the page you cite for Graf. Please explain things clearly and succinctly in your own words. Thanks. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

According Graf, Darwin's publication were not at all controversial in 1859 and evolution had been accepted much earlier in liberal anglican circles. The setting changed with the upcoming of social darwinism (and e.g. Haeckel, very much similar to Dawkins trying to establish a religion- free Weltanschauung based on evolution). Graf is of opinion that early weak creationism focused on economic issues (and social darwinism) and gained traction with the aftermath of WWI. In so far the millenial aspect comes back. The second coming of creationism, according Graf, is being connected to the aftermath of Sputnik. He points out as well that modern creationist often are surprinsingly good in debating their point, getting funds and public support and in using postmodern/deconstructivist epistemic arguments, all of that often underestimated by evolution scientists. His conclusio is based on Schleiermacher and asks theologians to discuss creation less from a cosmological standpoint, but with reference to the dichotomy of freedom and dependence. The article has been published in about 6 or 7 books, doesnt make it easier, sorry. I hope that one works better. https://books.google.de/books?id=nWznBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA115&dq=species+keine+tiefe+z%C3%A4sur+broad&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiA3vj4xPnOAhUHbxQKHQRQB_kQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=species%20keine%20tiefe%20z%C3%A4sur%20broad&f=false (search 'species keine tiefe zäsur broad church' on books and you get the page). Polentarion Talk 01:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It's "according to Graf", not "according Graf".

Why do we need that hate preacher guy? (I know Graf primarily for having called Dawkins a "biologistic hate preacher". He does not seem to be very good at understanding what people he disagrees with are trying to say.) Why is his opinion relevant? Is there any reception of what he wrote? A while ago he was not used as a source at all, and now he is used six times.

If he thinks creationists are "good in debating their point", he is also not very good at judging the quality of reasoning. Anybody who either knows a few fallacies or knows how to look up quotes can easily recognize creationist reasoning as nothing but bluff and bluster. They may be good at fooling simple people such as many Republicans and some theologians, though. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

See abocve. Tenure, Leibnizpreis, the creationism lecture being about the topic, Bavarian Academy of Science, published in various volumes with scientific publishers. So far for recognition.

That point about Dawkins is part of Grafs review of Hitchens and Dawkins in Süddeutsche Zeitung - good place as well recognition wise. Will say WP:JDLI (You don't like him) is of no interest at all.

With regard to the debating style, Graf is just reflecting the striking (evolutionary) stability of creationist movement and warns to underestimate it. Quite appropriate to do so. He neither takes creationists not the likes of Dawkins very serious, they both take on a literal interpretation of scripture, Graf doesn't. Graf is much more positive about Hitchens btw. Polentarion Talk 11:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

When I asked "Is there any reception of what he wrote?" I meant "Is there any reception of what he wrote about creationism?" Getting prizes for unrelated things does not make him relevant for this subject.

And it's not "I don't like him" but "he does not seem to be a very deep thinker but rather someone who uses rhetorical sledge-hammers". Such people can easily become popular among special populations but the question is: is there really no more respectable source for historical facts in Wikipedia? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, your personal dislike of Graf is evident. Do you have anything to say about his points? Just start to read them. :::::::::: Reception: Try google and check the various publications of that article, starting from Götter global, with newspaper and TV reviews.

Graf is a gifted orator before the Lord, yes. ;) Polentarion Talk 12:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Dislike of a source by WP users is not reason for exclusion, but it's not a reason for inclusion either. You are using it as such. I gave reasons why we should prefer other sources, and you ignored those reasons and replaced them by another reason you invented for me. Such Talk page shenanigans were one of the causes for your ban an the German wikipedia, and they are as unpopular here. I can give more reasons: he is not a historian but a theologian, and he wrote in a foreign language. Ronald Numbers is a historian who has written the standard text on the subject, and he is a good source for such things (BTW, I don't like Numbers either, which shows that your strawman reason for my opposition to Hate Preacher Guy is a strawman). --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh right, your "Try google" thing: [1] I get 7 hits. This is not much of a reception. "Götter global" is something else, and googling something else will not give me the reception for "Kreationismus. Sechs Kapitel aus der Religionsgeschichte der Moderne", which is given as a source in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Götter global contains main parts of the speech. The chapter is being called "Creationist International". You haven't checked the facts. [2]. So far you have provided nothing beyound personal attacks. I would prefer you refrained from that in the future. Polentarion Talk 13:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

So, to find reception for the source given, one has to search for part of the title plus the author (a search which will include not only stuff that may or may not be reception of the source, but everything which is somehow connected to creationism and Graf), and doing that is called "checking the facts". I see. Also, you ignored most of my reasoning again, including the "not a historian" part. I will let the other users judge that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Can we close that? Nothing about the article so far. Polentarion Talk 13:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

History beyound the US

expansion of the lede (feel free to edit the proposal, but give a reason to your changes in the disk part)

• Beyound its historical prominence in the US, creationism recently has been resurging in other countries and as well in further religeous communities. (third version)

proposed expansion of the history part

• Most recently, creationism gains adherents beyound the Christian evangelikal movement in the USA. Creationism is a growing phenomen in general as well e.g. in Hindu, Jewish and especially Muslim communities. According an 2008 article in the Science policy forum, the next major battle over evolution is likely to take place in the Muslim world.
• While 1986 Stephen Gould claimed creationism as a local, indigenous, American bizarrity, creationist ideas have been spread quicker and more globally ever since, especially in the 1990ies. They crossed as well traditional borders of confessions and religions. Religeous globalization and the internet contributed to the intensity and speed of that effect.
• According Graf, creationism can be seen as a backlash on the Verweltanschaulichung of (natural) science, the attempt to establish science as a kind of alternative to religion.

proposed expansion of the Creationism by country part

In Turkey, already in the 1980s–90s Turkish science education faced a sort of creationist takeover. English-speaking audiences generally took little notice till some Adnan Oktar (alias Harun Yahya) and his so-called Science Research Foundation received enhanced media coverage in the between 2007 and 2009. In the wake of Kitzmiller major news outlets covered the unsolicited distribution of Oktar’s Atlas of Creation to Western scientists. The school curricula is being presented in a religeous environement.

References

Reasoning

The article already covers the spread of creationism beyound the US. The point with the backlash might be controversial and is insofar attributed to Graf. I insofar ask to revert the recent changes at least partially. Polentarion Talk 14:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC) PS.: We already have suitable sourcing and lenghty text justifying a hint in the lede about the international growth. No need to reinvent the wheel.

Discussion

Rather misleading, for example many of the tenets of creationism were prominently promoted by various groups in the UK in the 19th century, and it continued into the 20th century in a small way at the Victoria Institute into the 1920s, and the Creation Science Movement from 1932 to today. In the U.S. evolution was widely accepted before the anti-evolution movement of the 1920s disrupted education, followed somewhat later by the 1960s expansion of YEC beliefs which had by then been pretty much confined to Seventh-day Adventists. Better sourcing needed. . dave souza, talk 16:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just started looking at Graf's essay, right away he's got into a muddle with "conflict between Creationists and Darwinists" – who does he think of as Darwinists? Looks like rubbish when he says "Originally, most university theologians and church dignitaries reacted to Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” with interest and approval" – see reactions to On the Origin of Species for some of the interest at the time. Perhaps by "originally" he means a few decades later? . . dave souza, talk 16:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I was told in a revert comment, that the history section is just about the US. So if its about the UK as well, we have to internationalize anyway.
  • Do you want to deny that creationism is growing and a) getting more international and b) moves forward beyound evangelist christianism? Point is, I introduced the notion here that creationism started to be important in the 1920ies and I reintroduced the Scopes trial. The elder versions started with 1650.
  • I wonder however how a up to then non-existant movement was able to change legislation as quickly, the consensus with regard to law-makers was rather weak I presume.
  • Graf is surely not the sole source for the international claim, it is already stated in the article text and belongs as well in the lede. Graf states that most Broad church anglicans had assigned to evolution before 1859, so its not about later. If you actually read your own link (Please provide sources for your claim, as WP is not a source per se), Essays and Reviews was much of higher importance than Darwins Origin of species. The strong controversy came with social darwinism. Besides, he is fully in line with the chronology you provide, including some mockery about the cult status of 7 day adventists. If you don't want to agree with Graf, OK, one can quote him accordingly, but refrain from PA against a leibnizfellow. I adapted the draft based on your comments. Polentarion Talk 21:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Polentarion I am not interested in "deny(ing) that creationism is growing" but you need much better sources than that blog posting. I don't think anyone working on this article will accept that posting by Graf as a source for the strong claims you want to make. You'll need strong secondary sources (plural) summarizing work of people who have actually done surveys and other studies finding that creationism is growing. Our mission here is to communicate accepted knowledge, not emerging theories.... (see WP:NOT) I am open to what you want to do, you just need much better sources. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Polentarion, from your comment above, you say that you were "told in a revert comment, that the history section is just about the US", possibly referring to this revert by me: [3]. I think you are misinterpreting my comment (and I perceive that there are occasional language barriers, here). I was noting that your content is not well placed. You introduce your paragraph by reference to the US, but it followed a paragraph about US creationist history. Furthermore, the content you were introducing gave the impression that the creationist-science tension is new, when, in fact it is not new. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

And, in the spirit of cooperation, I've reverted my revert. If you can supply better sources, please do. Also please be conscious of the need for these early sections to be consistent with the later parts where creationism in other countries is discussed. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

And in the spirit of pursuing WP's mission, I have again removed it.  :) This needs stronger sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

−

• • • Isambard, thnx for the clarification. I adapted the draft accordingly. Point is, Graf is currently a sort of red herring. Sciencemag probably sounds better. Same for the first page of the intro of RL Numbers expanded edition: All say - creationism is growing, it is growing beyound its former the US reservation and it is a recent, modern phenomenom to do so. What Jytdog refers to as a blog is a lead article for the Humboldt foundation periodical. Boys, as said, this article is under discretionary sanctions. Polentarion Talk 22:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
      • • I described the kinds of sources you will need to generate the kind of content you want. A blog or magazine article with no footnotes is not what we are looking for. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It may be a lead article for the Humboldt foundation periodical, but it's very questionable: needs other sources to review any of the points you want to draw from it. Creationism shrank then was redefined in the first half of the 20th century, YEC Flood Geology grew considerably in the period 1959 to around 2005, but post Kitzmiller, it seems to have stalled. If Graf states that most Broad church anglicans had assigned to evolution before 1859, he looks very wrong: can you back that up with other sources? Vestiges was arguably more controversial than Origin, and Essays and Reviews was a greater controversy but about higher criticism rather than creationism. So, lots of points, best analysed one at a time with multiple sources. . . dave souza, talk 22:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read the sources in question. Just the Verweltanschaulichung is solely based on the Humboldt foundation article. The rest is already in the article main text and being confirmed by further sorucing. I have updated the draft accordingly. Sciencemag has footnotes, right? PLease rethink as well possible double standards with regard to sourcing. If you want to discuss the Broad church point, that is another thread. And based on a much stronger source, will say Graf's widely acknowledged lecture for the Bavarian academy of Science. Polentarion Talk 22:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Commenting on the redraft proposal. Please don't propose to use German words in en-wiki. Also a bunch of sources clamoring about a potential wave of islamic creationism is just weird; it is 2016. Did it happen or not? Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Weltanschauung is as american as Rucksack and Iceberg. @Dave - are you sure you want to disagree with Stephen Jay Gould? The lede is to cover the article, as said. The transgressive growth in the 1990ies should not be a big thing now. Again, WP:I just don't like it is not helpful. Polentarion Talk 00:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Verweltanschaulichung is not; and in any case WP is aimed at general readership; even weltanschaulichung is not common and can be said more simply. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to improve the wording of the draft at the beginning of this section. Point is that Graf's use of the word is as well rather peculiar in German, but is easily explained by the Link. It is just what Hypertext is for. Polentarion Talk 02:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

No one talking here is willing to accept that Graf piece as a source, so please don't base things on it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

For sure? The Humboldt piece or the Academy of Science Speech? I mean, you just can use Science Magazine instead, if you don't like a Leibnizprize fellow. Polentarion Talk 02:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see the 2nd part of my comment above: The three sources are from 2007ish and are predicting some big wave of islamic creationism. It is now 2016. This is not good. Did the big wave happen or not? Jytdog (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your point about prediction. Goulds 1980ies statement about creationism as an US bizarrity has been proven wrong already by those mid 2000 sources. These sources are about a current surge, they state it. Example in the New scientist. Same point in the source about Turkey. Same in the first edition of Numbers The Creationists in 1992. Numbers already then referred to global spread of creationism. The 2006 update of Numbers book states Antievolutionism as a global phenomenon. Graf's 2011 lecture is quite outspoken as well. "The turkish curricula are being spread to the Gulf states, Maroocoo and tunesia". Or "Any larger faith currently faces creationists fighting for opinion leadership". Graf mentions e.g. South Korea, Turkey, Canada and Australia as sites where creationism expands currently. As well Latin Anmerika, especially Brazil undergoes a radical shift from catholizism to pentecostal evangelism currently, creationist lore involved. doi: 10.1093/jaarel/lft034 Creationism in Europe: Facts, Gaps, and Prospects states an increase in Europe, its from 2012. So for sure, there has been internationalization since the 1990ies. Polentarion Talk 04:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Resurgence or presence

I had pointed out that the article text already shows an increase in creationism beyond the classical US evangelists. Point is, that a "correction" like [4] is not in line with the sources quoted. E.g. "A New Wave of Turkish Creationism" is clearly no "presence" but more of a surge. And wether you like it or not, it has to be covered in the lede. Polentarion Talk 03:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You have argued that it is simply growing. The word "resurgence" means that it was big before, had diminished, and is now getting big again. You have not pointed that out already, anywhere that I have seen. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I have used a rather differentiated picture, way beyond simple growth. Resurgence should be corrected, but neither a) replacing it by "presence" nor trying to ignore the effect in the lede is helpful. Polentarion Talk 03:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what a "differentiated picture" means. Unless you have some justification for "resurgence", then "presence" is appropriate. PepperBeast (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Just read the sources. They are about a sort of surge and wave, not just a presence. "Resurgence" is not my wording. I prefered increase. As said and stated then by Jay Gould, the mid of the 80ies, there was nearly nothing besides the USA. Polentarion Talk 04:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

not one of the 3 sources where it was (not this nor this nor [5]) discuss "resurgence" in a global context (the last one does talk about it but only in the US context and with a broad, going back to the 1800s historical perspective). "presence" is fine as far as I can see - that is the point; it is not just a US phenomenon. Jytdog (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

As said, I haven't coined resurgence;) Please don't blame me for the previous editing here. Lets examine those sources systematically

• Discovermag Science and Islam in Conflict: Rise of Counterevolution is a sideshow and not being described historically
• Usatoday Creationists seek foothold in Europe, quote "The creation movement is certainly growing" (in Europe).
• NSCE Cloning Creationism in Turkey: It states a A New Wave of Turkish Creationism and In Turkey, there is a real possibility that we will find out what happens to science when creationists actually succeed.

That said, resurgence was nonsense, presence is not being justified and recent growth (compared to the 1980ies) is appropriate. With regard to quality, non of those sources are schorlaly or contain footnotes (just for the record). The NSCE article is of a similar quality as Grafs small Article for the Humboldt foundation. I was happy to find a NSCE report about a scholarly work (a review of Marwa Elshakry’s Reading Darwin in Arabic, 1860–1950) dealing with the topic. Thing is, the creationist takeover of science education in Turkey took place already in the 80 and 90ies and the 2007 discussions were more about western media covering the phenomen after it had happened. I ask to finally adapt the article and accept quality sources like Graf instead of erratic media picks like USA today and the like. Polentarion Talk 09:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I am struggling with "growing" - that is a dynamic notion and we would need to put that in a time. When was it growing? ("presence" is more simple/static that way, which is why I chose it) Jytdog (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Can we agree on global spread? I think that fits it better. That would apply to a start in the 1980ies - as for the turkish example and as well as being described by Numbers (and Graf) globally. I agree that we may be careful to assume it is currently growing in the same speed. The general phenomenom is Postsecularism, which has been discussed since mid of the last decade and started as well, hmm, in the early 1990ies at least. Polentarion Talk 10:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Editorializing

In this set of diffs:

• "The italics here: In Turkey, following the 1980 Turkish coup d'état, Turkish science education faced a sort of creationist takeover in the two decades afterwards"
• the "so-called" here: "English-speaking audiences generally took little notice till some Adnan Oktar (alias Harun Yahya) and his so-called Science Research Foundation received enhanced media coverage"
• Linking to the Internationale! OY: "Graf coined the term of a creationist internationale, that uses globalisation and the internet to propose antievolutionary ideas beyond the previous borders of faith and confession."

The last sentence feels a lot like copyvio ... Overall the style is ... slanted, kind of mocking jocular. Not neutral. Jytdog (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Goodness, the copyvio for Graf is clutching for straw. The wording you dislike is close to the one being used the NSCE report, which is, alas, actual science. Nothing like USA today and other so-to-say-sourcing currently in use in this very article. I would ask you to refrain from personal attacks, especially against real and aprreciated scholars. Annoyed Polentarion Talk 12:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"Appreciated scholar" or not, we should not just take his word when he blows creationism out of proportion. Graf has an agenda: he's trying to blame atheists for creationism. For this, he is using "backlash" rhetorics quoted here recently, as well as, absurdly, lumping together both groups as allies (de:Friedrich Wilhelm Graf#Dawkins und Hitchens). That is part of some sort of "three gods good, zero gods bad!" campaign of his. This ploy only works if creationism is increasing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, as said, fell free to edit the draft. @ Hob Gadling: Any proof for that or is that your idea of a cabal? We won't decrease creationism by not allowing Graf to be quoted in this article. Burton's review on the Elshakri doctorate for the NCSE report gives a similar picture. Polentarion Talk 14:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Proof is not needed for not taking some guy's word and doublechecking the claims he makes. He aggressively made his position clear earlier, and we would be fools not to take that into account and instead to say "wow, Holy Leibniz Prize Receiver Graf said it, it must be true. Let's quote it". But nobody except you does that anyway. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:Civil applies. Please refrain from personal speculations and that sort of agressive remarks. The Leibnizpreis is donated with up to 2.5 million Euros, that said the donation is higher than in case of a Nobel. I registered that you do not like Graf - but his chapter on creationism is clearly not to be ignored. In the meanwhile, you should have been able to read the reviews ;) Polentarion Talk 09:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Wow, so many millions. Graf must be infallible then. Let's base the article on what he says and throw everything out other people wrote.</sarcasm>

Why are you trying to argue against checking Graf's claims? Aren't you confident he will turn out to be right? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I do check factual accuracy, you keep on with personal attacks. E.g. the Gould claim was already 1986 in ANZAC and probably just repeated 2000 in New England. Polentarion Talk 09:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Caution is not a personal attack. Neither is pointing out your leaps of logic. And the timing of Gould's quote has no bearing on the lack of relevance for an encyclopedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The 2000/1986 point refers to a small but significant difference between Numbers and Graf. Seems that you dislike both without having read them. Polentarion Talk 14:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Whether I have read your sources also has no bearing on the lack of relevance for an encyclopedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Gould quote in the lead

P has added this (with tweak), and re-added it, after I removed it. Moving it here for discussion...

Stephen Gould in 2000 still adressed creationism as a "local, indigenous, American bizarrity".

References

In my view, a) this is only in the lead and not in the body, so fails the function of WP:LEAD. b) Is unwelcome, nonNPOV "color" that serves no purpose other than to inflame. Should not be in the article in my view. Interested in others' perspectives. Jytdog (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Alternatives

• Already in 1986 Stephen Gould adressed creationism as a "local, indigenous, American bizarrity".
• However, creationism had gained a significant presence in further countries and faith traditions already then. The spread gained increased media coverage 2005 till 2007. (third version)

Reasoning

I have the impression that Gould's assumption is of importance, both with regard to the alleged local focus as with the recent timely spread of creationism. The second alternative is implying as well that most of the spread happened before the 1980ies, which is not in line with neither Numbers nor Graf.

References

Polentarion Talk 08:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

The second bullet is not in dispute. Jytdog (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• I am tending to combine them. How to? With regard to content and lede, a lede statement is needed, as sections 4 and 5 had not been covered yet. And I have neither a problem with color nor with calling a spade a spade respectively describing a controversy as a controversy. Polentarion Talk 08:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I am objecting to the use of the Gould quote on the grounds above. Others will weigh in eventually. Jytdog (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for including the Gould quote. Its only purpose seems to be to say "neener neener, Gould got it wrong". Rubbing it in is not what encyclopedias are for.

Even so, Gould has a point: American creationists are surely the loudest and most numerous. There are some in other countries, but they have a more difficult stand, at least in the Western world. (Muslim countries are another thing.) They are weird outsiders there, not a huge group politicians have to take care not to alienate, as in the US. Gould could have meant that. I could well be that Numbers misinterpreted Gould as saying there were zero non-US creationists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Let us check the circumstances, less do personal speculations. It seems that the quote is already from 1986, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11624666 and Gould assured New Zealanders then that they did not have to expect anything from creationists. That has been deemed a plain error and rightly so. Polentarion Talk 09:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I repeat: "I don't see any reason for including the Gould quote." I still don't because you did not give any. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• This quote is not important enough to be in the lead. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• • Point is, sections 4 and 5 (Religious views and Creationism by country) do not have a suitable separate entry yet. I think it would help to have that and the discussion about Gould's misconception could be helpful there. Polentarion Talk 10:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

    You seem to be the only one who thinks so. You gave no reason why anybody else should. "I think it would help" is not a reason. Neither is "I have the impression that Gould's assumption is of importance". --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• • • Hob, your behavior starts to sound like WP:Stonewalling. Point is that large chapters with a lot of subsections should have a separate entry - a matter of article quality. And of cause is the timing of a falsified impression of a major figure in the controversy of importance. Polentarion Talk 14:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Splitting up large chapters has nothing to do with introducing new material. And saying "of [course]" is, unsurprisingly, again not a reason for including that new material. Several people explained to you why the quote is not appropriate (some of the crucial words are "snark" and "unencyclopedic"). The reasons you gave for including it are "In my view", "I have the impression", "I think", and "of course". Pointing at the duds you threw is not called "stonewalling", it's called "calling a bluff". --Hob Gadling (talk)

• Oversimplified: creationism (in CD's terminology) was widespread, particularly in Europe, in the 18th and 19th century, though by then this was mostly old Earth creationism. By 1870 it had been largely supplanted in science by various concepts of evolution, though natural selection had little support, but it continued as religious opposition to some extent. Much the same happened in the U.S. but the 1920s saw successes for anti-evolution OEC creationism in effectively banning the teaching of evolution in several (most?) States of the U.S. with laws which lasted until 1957. In the 1960s minority YEC creationism was boosted and gained significant traction in the U.S. and Australia, then was evangelised into other countries. Gould is talking about this creationist revival spreading to various countries, at least one of which still had its homegrown creationist movement on a small scale, though he may not have realised it. . . . dave souza, talk 06:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• • The recent changes deleted the references to a creatio continua and the relevance of religeous thinking and support, including the role of the Scofield edition. That's ahistoric and not helpful. I reverted them once. David's oversimplified view is, yes oversimplified and it doesnt't explain the historical milestones. Actually evolutionist thought, had important support in religeous circles (see the discussion around vestiges) and in society overall long before Darwin. Creatio contiunua is far from being Creastionist. (One should differentiate between overblown -isms and the root meaning). Already before Darwin provided Origin of Species and long before science was settled, there was a strong need for a evolutionist world view and it was supplied less by science but by popular publications and philosophy - the likes of the then anonymous author of Vestiges and of cause later Spencer and Haeckel. Polentarion Talk 12:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Creationism#Criticism

I tend to have Criticism sections deleted respectively being moved in the overall article. Polentarion Talk 07:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say here; please explain. Jytdog (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I refer to Wikipedia:Criticism. The whole current section Creationism#Criticism should be deleted and or the content being moved in the real article. I haven't tagged it yet with a a {{POV-section}} or {{criticism-section}} template, but tend to. Polentarion Talk 08:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The section currently is of no use for the article. It contains some deliberation about deus otiusos of a certain Mr. Murphy, some Bishop's quotations and a reference to Gould's two magisteria. Instead of repeating content about the Non-overlapping magisteria can be done by linking to the article about it, overall the (humanities related) discussion has been started en detail by Dilthey long before. Polentarion Talk 08:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

That content has been there a very long time. 2010 at least. Not everything old is good but it will take a more careful argument to persuade. Jytdog (talk) 09:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. That sort of age is more of a negative point. WP is not about conservatiionism, but to organize content. You need to provide better reasoning to keep that stuff. If not, I opt to delete it or to move it in the article body. Polentarion Talk 09:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

WP runs by WP:CONSENSUS and that includes past consensus - so something having been here a long time is meaningful. Consensus can change of course. In any case opening the discussion was good but if you want to change the structure please make a concrete suggestion as to where that content would go. Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I will do it, wehn the dust is settled ;) If - evolutionary stability -'something having been here' is a criterium in WP, we should be more careful about deleting the religeous parts as well ;) Polentarion Talk 13:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

American Scientific Affiliation

Sorry Jytdog, I just saw that you want this retained. I have no objection to the material in itself, I just feel it's a bit too detailed and not generally relevant enough for the lead. I won't mind if you put it back. PiCo (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your most recent changes, PiCo. The claim that everybody was a creationist before Darwin is just, sorry to say, hilarious. And to explain modern creationism, we need a) to explain its role in protestantism and b) e.g. the impact of the Scofield Bible. Polentarion Talk 12:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Pico I thought your trimming was great, and sorely needed. I have restored it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, you already have been informed formally about the Arbcom restrictions on this article. I ask you to selfrevert that. Polentarion Talk 16:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

See below, I do wonder about trimming the historical content. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

PLease wonder first and revert (or refrain from reverting) later ;) Drawing quicker as your own shadow is more the like of Lucky Luke. Polentarion Talk 18:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Trimming of ancient/medieval/restoration history of creationism

So in these two diffs Pico also trimmed out the following with edit notes: "everyone was a creationist in medieval times, there was no alternative" and "likewise, without a scientific alternative, creationism was all there was":

Extended content

Early and medieval times The first-century Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria admired the literal narrative of passages concerning the Patriarchs, but in other passages viewed the literal interpretation as being for those unable to see an underlying deeper meaning. For example, he noted that Moses said the world was created in six days, but did not consider this as a length of time as "we must think of God as doing all things simultaneously" and the six days were mentioned because of a need for order and according with a perfect number. Genesis was about real events, but God through Moses described them in figurative or allegorical language. The early Christian Church Fathers largely read creation history as an allegory, and followed Philo's ideas of time beginning with an instantaneous creation without the convention that a day was the conventional time period. Christian orthodoxy rejected the second-century Gnostic belief that the Book of Genesis was purely allegorical, but without taking a purely literal view of the texts. Thus, Origen believed that the physical world is ‘literally’ a creation of God, but did not take the chronology or the days as ‘literal’. Similarly, the 4th century Saint Basil the Great described creation as instantaneous and timeless, immeasurable and indivisible. Augustine of Hippo in On the Literal Meaning of Genesis was insistent that the Book of Genesis describes the creation of physical objects, but also shows creation occurring simultaneously, with the days of creation being categories for didactic reasons, a logical framework which has nothing to do with time. Genesis described the creation of spiritual light, which was just as literal as physical light. Augustine emphasized that the text was difficult to understand and should be reinterpreted as new knowledge became available. In particular, Christians should not make absurd dogmatic interpretations of scripture which contradict what people know from physical evidence. In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas, like Augustine, asserted the need to hold the truth of scripture without wavering while cautioning "that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should not adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." Influence of the Reformation Martin Luther focused on the creatio continua, painting from 1521 From 1517 the Protestant Reformation brought a new emphasis on lay literacy. It reduced the threshold between laymen and clergy towards universal priesthood and broader individual access to scripture. Martin Luther's first article of the small catechism, a mainstay of religious teaching, holds that God continues to create, even today. His 1523 homilies about genesis rejected the (deistic) concept of a creatio ex nihilo of a Deus otiosus. In so far Luther rejected the notion of a God that made the world in on step and left it afterwards. Der almechtig Got nit hat dy Welt auff ein haw geschaffen, fonder die zeyt darzu genommen und ist damit umbgangen, eben wie er jetzund ein Kind macht. ... Unser Herr macht nicht volkommne wercke. (Almighty God did not create the world in one beat, rather he took his time and he went along with it, just as he makes a child in the present ... Our Lord does not provide perfect(ed) works) — Luther WA 12, 445, 10-12 John Calvin also rejected instantaneous creation, but criticised those who asserted that there are "waters above the heavens." Calvin spoke against a contradiction of the contemporary understanding of nature and probably referred as well to the Spirit of God hovering over the waters in Tohu wa-bohu (תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ), the biblical condition of the earth before God said, "Let there be light". Philip Melanchthon, similar to his colleague Luther, focused on the role of the scripture, but saw the evidence of the beautiful order of nature as a rational point for an ongoing divine creation. The 1650 Ussher chronology was among the attempts (starting from the hebrew calendar) to date the biblical date for Creation based on the Chronology of the Bible. It was used as an annotation in various Bible editions, including the popular King James and, in the early 20th century, in Cyrus Scofield's Reference Bible. Especially the 1917 Scofield study edition has been influencial for current evangelicalism in the US. It popularized dispensational theology, and drew attention the biblical chronology, which helped motivate gap creationism. The latter was then seen as a reasonable reconciliation of scripture and the fossile record. References

Some of this content seems to me very useful to explain the various ways people were already struggling to make sense of the biblical narrative about the creation of the world, and provides background to the reaction to Darwin. Those reactions didn't come ex niholo but rather were informed by the world of thought that existed already at that time.....

How do other folks feel about retaining all or some of this? Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• I note that Polentarion objected above, in these diffs. Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have worked on those deleted sections, trying to keep them succinct. I think the material is interesting, but can be made more succinct. Focus needs to be kept on material directly relevant to creationism. I'm concerned about the length of the article and I think the long section on the status of creationism in other countries can be reduced in length. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• • I agree with Isambard's approach. We need to be in line with the basic tenets of the history of cosmology and religeous thought and not provide a "Creationism for dummies" version. The status of creationism in XYZ needs an entry or abstract, covering that from an overall perspective, e.g. Graf and Numbers provide figures and basic facts. If PiCo wants to shorten the article, just cur down the criticism section. Polentarion Talk 18:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• User:PiCo are you open to some restoration here? Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• I've been looking this over more. We have a History of creationism article, that is cited here as the "main" discussion of the history. That article is very long, and very detailed on the history of thought as well as events. We have a bit of a scope problem going on here. What exactly should this article cover, that the History article doesn't, and vice versa? Whatever we decide, we have to WP:SYNC the two articles so that they sing one song and don't contradict each other, or have detail in one that really belongs in the other. That is the deeper issue here. I will open a new section here on that point, and leave a marker on the Talk page of the other to direct folks who pay more mind to that article, here. (I reckon that the overlap in editors is 100% but one never knows... ) Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• • With regard to the History of creaton entry, that's a mulitagged conglomerate of quotations which should be deleted or completely reworked. It ignores basic tenets of the humanities (and as well basic rules how to write an article) and insinuates creationism started with the Thorah. It fails in explaining the cultural and religeous background of creationist thought and as well to show the developement of creationism as a modern phenomenom. The term is 19th century and according actual research, the movement started 20th and went global till the 21th century. I started editing here since the article looked sort of better, needing only comparably minor corrections. I would prefer to treat this article separate and improve that history disaster afterwards. Polentarion Talk 22:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• User:PiCo Suggestion of a compromise: Can we move the section discussed here as well to the History of creationism ? Sounds like a start to improve that article. It has not much solid points about the actual role of protestantism currently. Polentarion Talk 10:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Types of creationism

Just trying to get the contents of the first section right. It's called Types of Creationism, and it lists: 1. Young Earth; 2. Old Earth (with several sub-types); 3. Neo-creationism (with ID as a sub-type); 4. Obscure and discredited beliefs. It seems to me that the "obscure and discredited beliefs" aren't a type of creationism - they should be moved to a new section on Creationist cosmology, since that's what they deal with. Another question: is theistic evolution a type of creationism? It seems to me that if you're a Christian you have to keep the idea that God created the universe in some manner, but that's not what people normally mean when talk about Creationism.PiCo (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I like the approach. Young Earth is rather evangelical, Old Earth (with several sub-types) plays a role for the recent islamist version. I would prefer to have short section linking to the separate entry theistic evolution and a (redlink still) creatio continua. That would help to solve the conflict here. Graf's chronology (which is based on Friedrich Schleiermacher, the founder of historical criticism) very much fits with such an approach btw. Polentarion Talk 10:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• The Creation/Evolution Continuum – "Many — if not most — Americans think of the creation and evolution controversy as a dichotomy with "creationists" on one side, and "evolutionists" on the other. This assumption all too often leads to the unfortunate conclusion that because creationists are believers in God, that evolutionists must be atheists. The true situation is much more complicated: creationism comes in many forms, and not all of them reject evolution. It is highly desirable to move people away from this inaccurate dichotomy. A simple classroom exercise, the Creationism/Evolution Continuum, has been used successfully by middle and high school teachers as well as university professors to illustrate the many intermediate positions between the extremes." Other topic specialists use this spectrum, including Pigliucci, Massimo (2002). Denying evolution : creationism, scientism, and the nature of science. Sunderland, Mass: Sinauer Associates. pp. 36–37. ISBN 978-0-87893-659-5.. . . dave souza, talk 15:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Scope of this article vs History of creationism

What is the scope of this article, compared to History of creationism? We need to separate them out. Whatever we decide, the two articles need to be WP:SYNCed. Generally that is done by copying the lead of one (with citations added) to the relevant section in the other. (per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the article, and we want in the "parent" article is a summary of the child, per WP:SUMMARY. So when detail is added, it is added to the body of the "main"/child article, and if it rises to the importance of appearing in the LEAD of that article, the lead of that article is updated, and and updated again in the parent article... - that is how you keep related articles SYNCed.)

But what are the two scopes? Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

If there's another article that's about the history of creationism, this one should avoid it. A See Also note would suffice.PiCo (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I would forget about History of creationism, just tag it. Polentarion Talk 15:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring it is not an option, Polentarion. If you want to seek have it deleted or merged here, those are valid options. Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

User:PiCo Please actually respond to the question. Large sections of this article and that one cover the same material; if it were as simple as "avoiding it" I would not have opened the topic. Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I meant that if one article is called Creationism and the other is called History of Creationism, then the History article should deal with history and the Creationism article should deal with types and ideas. (Ideally there should be only one article, but it's very hard to get articles deleted or even merged).PiCo (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes that is again the simple, high level answer. When I look at both articles it is not clear to me how to separate them. In this article the "by country" section narrates events (is history). And I don't know if it is meaningful to discuss the evolution of creationist thinking in any given religion without discussing the history.

We could:

a) merge that article into this one.

b) make the history article into a Timeline (bring all the narrative here, and make that one all bullet points)

c) split them by time - this article from darwin to today; that article preDarwin..

others may have other suggestions of course. Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer to confine the history of creationism to the very basics - will say the phenomenom is rather modern, late 19th century, actually it started in full power around the 1920ies. If we try to explain any theology and any faith before as creationism, the article has to repeat any philosophy and faith before, will say its the history of anything and anytime. That is bound to fail. A side aspect is the role of Darwin: He was not as crucial with regard to the raise of evolutionary thought as you seem to assume: The publication of Vestiges e.g. was much earlier. Will say "evolution was in the air" then and we should avoid to write a "history of great men". Polentarion Talk 06:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Why the emphasis on Vestiges of 1844? Darwin's Zoonomia of 1794 raised evolutionary thought firmly into public discourse – but generally his grandson Charles gets more prominence for providing the solid scientific evidence in 1859 tipping the scientific consensus towards evolution, in exactly the way the amateurish (and rather creationist) Vestiges failed to do. . . dave souza, talk 08:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• See WP:SUMMARY – this article should have a brief outline summarising the main points from the history of creationism. That includes the non-literal readings of early church fathers, increased literalism after the Reformation having to be reconciled with emerging science, and natural theology developing the design argument. It means noting early geology being reconciled with Genesis at the start of the 19th century, the emergence of belief in species fixity being contested from Erasmus Darwin to Charles Robert Darwin, and the broad consensus from the 1870s that evolution occurred, but was purposeful and was not adequately explained by natural selection. That covers the early creationists CD mentions from 1856, and sets the background for the anti-evolution crusades of the 1920s, followed in the 1960s by spread of the YEC ideas of the prophetess Ellen White reconfigured as creation science, then stripped down to ID as the culmination of a series of U.S. court cases. These 20th century versions of creationism repeat theology and arguments from earlier centuries, and the context needs to be set out. WP:SUMMARY also applies to the coverage of the various flavours of creationism, each of which is covered in its own main article. . dave souza, talk 07:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Dave, you mentioned the Adventism/Millerism/milleniarist streams: For all of them, creation is a side show. They focus on a second coming. The crucial moments for them have been related with the Great War and the 1918_flu pandemic. That explains the chronology - retelling the conflict thesis doesn't. That said, creationism is based on actual experience about the failures of modernity. It is far from being "scientific" (and I am far from being creationist, I worked on zircons with some billion years age during my studies), but it has an actual epistemic background, that needs to be acknowledged. As in the 'Dialectic of Enlightenment' “Myth is already enlightenment, and enlightenment reverts to mythology.”

The background of the anti-evolution crusades is less the creation narrative as such - there was either acceptance of evolution AND interest in it as a theological concept from Christian scholars and philosophers and as well scientists with christian background. Take the acceptance of vestiges and as well the early history of darwinism in the US. That is still ongoing, e.g. Teilhard de Chardin was crucial to repopularize evolutionary thinking way beyond the catholic church. As pointed out by Graf and others, the creationist movement started as a backlash on the likes of Haeckel and others, that tried to set up a religion free "scientific world view", e.g. in the positivism and the monist movement AND as well in the social darwinist (mis)use of evolution. Funny thing is that the esoteric use of evolution by Blavatsky and Steiner was much more successful and sustainable than Haeckel's movement.

What you count as "early non-literal readings" is a main difference between the biblical cosmology and other creation myths. Creatio ex nihilo (respectively "from the Logos (Christianity)) in that interpretation is not only an important aspect of monotheism, it was a preset to develope abstract and rationalist thinking per se. Polentarion Talk 10:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Why are you dismissing the basis of The Genesis Flood"? . . dave souza, talk 15:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Did I (dis)miss anything? ;) Polentarion Talk 15:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I moved the History of Creationism section to the History of Creationism article. What remains is largely about types of creatioism, beliefs, and so on. PiCo (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that's a way of starting, and should keep the sources available. The WP:SUMMARY needs to be organised as above, when time permits. . dave souza, talk 08:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The topic sentence reads: "Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated..." Fine so far as it goes, it covers cosmology and biology (evolution), but I think it needs to mention geology in order to get Flood geology in. Can we add "the world" in there somewhere?PiCo (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That was bold Pico. It solves part of it; we'll see if it has consensus or is resisted, I guess. It is OK with me. That leaves the the Creationism by country which is a history of what has transpired in each country listed, in varying degrees of detail and time coverage. I think we should move this part to the History article too; that will leave this one focused purely on the ideas, and that one focused on how things have unfolded in time. Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

From what I understand, Creationism is the religious philosophy upon which creationists base their science and through which they interpret scientific evidence concerning biology, geology, anthropology, cosmology, etc.. --OtisDixon (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Whatever it is it is definitely not science.Charles (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

User:OtisDixon thanks for your note; that doesn't help us figure out what should go here and what should go in the History article... Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

smithsonian EL

See basically done discussion here Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Significant presence in further countries/faith positions by the 1980s

The final sentence of the first paragraph states that "By the 1980s creationism had gained a significant presence in further countries and faith traditions". I marked this as 'citation needed', but Jytdog reverted my change - apologies, I should perhaps have raised it here rather than jumping in and making an edit. However, I have read the whole article, and can't find anything to support the statement.

It seems to me that the statement implies that the level of prevalence (in both places and religions) was increasing in the decades leading up to the 1980s, and also that by this decade the level in each had reached a point which could be considered 'significant'. There is discussion of the prevalence of creationism in various countries, and there is discussion of different forms of creationism in different faiths, but I can't see anything that points towards any evidence for an increasing trend in prevalence, or for why you might accept that the level is significant by the 1980s. If I've missed something please let me know. Girth Summit (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

my apologies, your question was dead on. if you look above at Talk:Creationism#Trimming_of_ancient.2Fmedieval.2Frestoration_history_of_creationism and Talk:Creationism#Scope_of_this_article_vs_History_of_creationism this article underwent some major trimming in the body, and the sentence you tagged in the lead was not removed when that trimming happened. I have removed it, since those matters are no longer discussed in this article. Nice catch, and my apologies again. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

No worries Jytdog, glad to have been useful! Girth Summit (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Creationism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120419021937/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140307163155/http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta07/ERES1580.htm to http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?link=/documents/adoptedtext/ta07/eres1580.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Philosophical as well as religious.

It can both, it depends on the creationist. Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we are supposed to follow the view of the cited sources, right? These clearly depict creationism as a religious belief. I'm not clear, myself, as to whether or not religious beliefs are also philosophical, but, again, I would defer to the sources. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Well the first source isn't click able but the ::second one says "The Concise Oxford Dictionary says that creationism is 'the belief that the universe and living organisms originated from specific acts of divine creation.'" It doesn't actually state it is a religious belief. There might be a bit of synthesis at play. I am sure I could find a source that says creationism can be philosophical Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, searching for a source that specifically supports your own belief is not especially objective, is it? Why not just rely on the sources we have? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source then it's not just my belief, it's a fact. See below Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

No, objectively, one chooses a reliable source and then works from there, accepting what it says. Otherwise, one is cherry picking. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

As soon as we find reliable sources discussing Creationism as a philosophy, or as a philosophical belief in addition to being a religious belief, we can put it in.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

There's an entry on creationism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is run and written by academics. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/ Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and you are making your own synthesis now. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I am not. It has an entry in an academic encyclopedia of philosophy. Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Does the cited source say, specifically, that creationism is a "philosophy"? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Please explain why an academic encyclopedia would have an entry on a belief not related to their field. Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

How does asking this question answer Isambard's question of whether or not the source says/discusses Creationism is a "philosophy"?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't say "this is a philosophical view" Why would it? It's not necessary, it's unbelievably obvious that the writer considers it a philosophical view otherwise he/she wouldnt be writing about it. Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Apollo The Logician. I don't have a dog in this fight, but just wanted to let you know I only reverted due to the spelling of your edit. Carry on. :) Justin15w (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If the source doesn't say (some iteration of) "Creationism is a philosophy/philosophical view," then you are engaging in WP:SYNTHESIS by using this source and putting your claim into the author's mouth.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

None of this address what I saidApollo The Logician (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

From an historical perspective philosophy and religion are closely related. So to are philosophy and science. But these methods of gaining knowledge have diverged over time and although related in some way are not the same. Creationism is not a philosophy because it is a religious idea based on dogma. Religious ideas can be discussed in philosophical journals (because they are related) but discussing them in the present context of the meaning of philosophy doesn't make them a philosophy. Unless multiple sources can be found that specifically state or provide overwhelming context to conclude that Creationism is a philosophy then saying that it is so in this article is a confusing and incorrect addition for any lay reader.Robynthehode (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• nope, creationism is 100% religious. Sure you can do theology around it but theology is faith seeking understanding. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Creationism by country

Following the discussion above, I've moved the "creationism by country" material to a new article, Creationism by countries. PiCo (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Why then does the section n prevalence remain, ignoring most of humanity (not a word about South America, Africa, Arabia, Asia including India and China)? Shouldn't the whole section be replaced by a link to that article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.66.225.32 (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

cat:Denialism

I don't see anything to support the current use of category:Denialism. Per wp:V, it would seem that content and references should be added or cat:denialism removed. Jim1138 (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

There have been discussions on this before: Talk:Creationism/Archive 24#Denialism category, Talk:Creationism/Archive 23#Categories I wp:V is mentioned in the latter. Jim1138 (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Notifying recent editors: @McSly, PaleoNeonate, Doug Weller, Karlpoppery, DVdm, Apokryltaros, and Just plain Bill: Too many. Worth a RfC? Jim1138 (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Among other things, modern-day Creationism makes the DENIALISM of, more or less, the totality of science and everything else that does not agree with its proponents an irrevocably sacrosanct foundation, i.e., the incessant nattering of Christians saying "you can't believe in Jesus and Darwinism (sic) at the same time."--Mr Fink (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Creationism is often linked to denialism by credible sources, and thus the creationism article belong in the denialism category. Here's a few sources if anyone doubt this :

http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse/article/view/71/64

https://ncse.com/node/12321

https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/19/1/2/463780/Denialism-what-is-it-and-how-should-scientists

https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=905739916030048;res=IELHSS

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4469816/ KarlPoppery (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I think all of these are talking about Young Earth Creationism in particular (the third reference explicitly so) not Creationism per se. StAnselm (talk) 04:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You'll have to explain why you think the sources are only talking about Young Earth Creationism, I don't see that at all. KarlPoppery (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The third article says "The rejection of scientific evidence is also apparent in the popularity of creationism, with an estimated 45% of Americans in 2004 believing that God created man in his present form within the past 10 000 years." That's specifically Young Earth Creationism. StAnselm (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

They gave a statistic about YEC, it doesn't mean that the article is only talking about YEC. Many forms of OEC also deny the mechanisms of evolution. KarlPoppery (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the false belief that humans have existed for less than 10,000 years also applies to Day-age creationism. It is not at all exclusive to Young Earth creationism. Further, the quoted sentence on its does not directly state that 'creationism' only applies to the "45% of Americans" who hold that specific errant position.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• um, this article does say in the lead, " rejection of the scientific theory of evolution." This seems pretty obviously denialism. Just like climate change denialists reject what science says about that. Hard to understand what the counter argument is. Jytdog (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The whole sentence says "For young Earth creationists, these beliefs are based on a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative and rejection of the scientific theory of evolution." Old earth creationists will usually accept evolution, and so it's the YEC article that should be in the category (which it is). StAnselm (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation to comment. It's indeed much less likely for those who believe in theistic evolution to deny much of science (although some other forms of creationism like Day Age also deny evolution). Some accept that "adaptation within a Kind" may have occurred but still mix abiogenesis with evolution and deny wider common lineage. Some movements also deny other aspects of science like anthropogenic climate change (like is done at Ark Encounter, that is indeed from a YEC movement)... Although Catholicism appears to now accept evolution, depending on whom and where superstitions can still be rampant (it is also so widely spread that many syncretic variants exist). For the category, it seems trickier to unambiguously support categories with a reference or quote, versus with a sentence... — PaleoNeonate — 05:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Creationism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519124655/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf to http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140823063247/http://www.talkreason.org/articles/HistoryID.cfm to http://www.talkreason.org/articles/HistoryID.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141021101910/http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwin-and-design-article to http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwin-and-design-article
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130309011447/http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=11678&Language=EN to http://www.assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=11678&Language=EN
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?link=%2Fdocuments%2Fadoptedtext%2Fta07%2Feres1580.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081122022815/http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm to http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809011055/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Fact vs conclusion, etc

There seems to be a recent slow-paced edit war between using both terms. I invite editors who replace/revert this word to discuss it here. Possibly of interest would be evolution as fact and theory and fact. It appears to me that both terms could be valid: colloquial fact can be used to describe conclusions of a scientific theory. But we also ideally should describe what reliable source say, and in this case the immediate inline one is only about the definition of creationism as a belief, so it doesn't use fact or conclusion. If this problem persists, we may need to find and use a reliable source as well as a quote. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 04:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was an edit war going on– I saw what looked like NPOV and reverted it. Sorry. Anyways, I did some searching to see if I could find anything. Most of the sources on the Abiogenesis page are all books so I can't really look at them. My main thought is that a scientific fact is an observation and theories/hypotheses/conclusions are things we determine through interpretation. Reliable source about that here. And since abiogenesis is not something humans actually observed, given that we weren't around for the origin of life, it is not a fact. That doesn't mean it's not true, as may be implied by the colloquial understanding of factual/nonfactual, just as gravity is a theory not a fact. Blue Edits (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Until you called my attention to it here, I had not noticed the EW. I had changed it back to conclusion as I had assumed abiogenesis would not be considered a fact. I would think that the fact/conclusion should be based upon RS and not my OR. Is such a source cited on abiogenesis? Jim1138 (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

May I suggest changing scientific conclusion to current scientific view. The science seems to be very shaky and driven more by the desire to prove a theory rather than to look objectively at all possibilities. There are also so many instances of scientific fraud in this field, that it has become very questionable indeed. How is it good science to be conclusive about an issue which is so large and complex that we cannot possibly know for sure? We all know that observation is revealing new evidences all the time; and in many instances this requires us to completely rewrite our text-books. Conclusion is just not the right word; it is arrogant and assumes that we know all there is to know, which is just not the case, and does not demonstrate a proper scientific attitude.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.26.102.153 (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2017‎

• Not really - this has been debated before and that is the current scientific conclusion on the subject. To call it a "view" would suggest that there are alternative "views" which are of equal validity, which clearly there are not. Black Kite (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Fine; then as you write in your comment, let's use the current scientific conclusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.26.102.153 (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2017‎

I suggest "the fact", considering that we can express the scientific consensus in Wikipedia's voice. —PaleoNeonate – 13:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

"Fact" is fine, but probably better just to remove "current", as it gives the impression that consensus is changing regularly, which clearly it is not. Black Kite (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. And the IP needs to learn a bit about the scientific method. I agree that there have been a number of frauds but those have been done by Creationists (or the odd nationalist in one case). Doug Weller talk 15:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Definition

I'm not a creationist or a religious person myself, but in articles like this one, I always see some sort of bias towards the "scientific" viewpoint.

Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation,"[2][3] as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes

This is a clear provocation. I, alone, cannot fix Wikipedia, but I'll make my small contribution to remove this sort of bias. The article is about creationism. Last but not least, this sentence implies that creationism was invented as a way to oppose science, when in reality, creationism existed for much, much longer. People who adds this sort of content are the cancer of Wikipedia. Holy Goo (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The phrase "as opposed to the scientific conclusion that..." does not imply that it was "invented as a way to oppose science". It just expresses a contrast—see http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/as-opposed-to . Also, this article is about the modern version, not about what existed long ago. Finally, the content is backed by the cited source and by the entire remainder of the article, so I agree with Bennv377's revert. - DVdm (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

While I don't particularly like the quoted sentence above (it's a little clunky for my taste), you should bear in mind that creationism, the historically-recent movement that this article describes (the lead mentions 1856), is — in part — an invention to oppose science. Embellished creationist fan-fiction, like Flood geology, has been invented to retrofit religious myths with a veneer of scientific plausibility for our modern knowledge of Earth's situation. Yes, creationism is built upon an older acceptance of established mythology, but it's not as simple as saying that "creationism existed for much, much longer" — modern creationist ideas owe their origin to the development of "rival" scientific ideas. And don't lose sight of the demonstrable fact that creationist proponents are disingenuous to a fault when it comes to misinterpreting and misrepresenting scientific facts. They are simply not honest brokers, and that is the root of much of the rancour "against" them. Of which, IMHO the article here bends over backwards to give as much time to them as their ideas merit. In any case, please identify clearly where you think this article is biased. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

--Anonymous: I consider biased the phrase "the term is commonly used for literal creationists who reject various aspects of science, and instead promote belief in pseudoscience". You don't need to be a creationist or unscientific to object to evolution, there is a scientific basis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution. Might as well be supporting string theory and be calling loop quantum theory a pseudoscience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:122D:EE00:A855:7C26:E78A:7169 (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you read the article? It doesn't claim a scientific basis for objections, the introduction says evolution has received:

"overwhelming acceptance in the scientific community. The observation of evolutionary processes occurring (as well as the modern evolutionary synthesis explaining that evidence) has been uncontroversial among mainstream biologists since the 1940s. Since then, most criticisms and denials of evolution have come from religious groups, rather than from the scientific community. Although many religious groups have found reconciliation of their beliefs with evolution, such as through theistic evolution, other religious groups continue to reject evolutionary explanations in favor of creationism, the belief that the universe and life were created by supernatural forces. The U.S.-centered creation–evolution controversy has become a focal point of perceived conflict between religion and science. Several branches of creationism, including creation science, neo-creationism, and intelligent design, argue that the idea of life being directly designed by a god or intelligence is at least as scientific as evolutionary theory, and should therefore be taught in public education. Such arguments against evolution have become widespread and include objections to evolution's evidence, methodology, plausibility, morality, and scientific acceptance. The scientific community does not recognize such objections as valid, pointing to detractors' misinterpretations of such things as the scientific method, evidence, and basic physical laws." Doug Weller talk 09:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

--Anonymous: I read the evidence below that equally biased introduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Impossibility and verified some of these objections with biologists who actually support evolution. I also investigated relative research papers from universities. I also noticed that the introduction you quoted has zero sources. How do we know that the scientific community considers invalid these objections? And even if they did, this would not disprove the evidence that led to these doubts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:1205:9800:A855:7C26:E78A:7169 (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This would not disprove the evidence that led to these doubts. Which actual evidence, which lead to doubts among most biologists and geologists? The lead is also sourced (with quote: ... rather than by natural processes such as evolution). On the other hand, I agree that creationism is not necessarily designed to contradict science, although the pseudoscientific arguments of some creationist movements are (there is a preset conclusion interpreted from a tradition, which must be supported by "mining" evidence which could support it and ignoring evidence which contradicts it). Those arguments are not only erroneous but are little against the weight of the overwhelming evidence for the age of the earth and evolution (evidence of common descent points to some). As for abiogenesis, it necessarily occurred because we are here, even if the means are still not understood as well as the mechanisms of evolution.
In any case, we go by what reliable sources say and I would support rewording the sentence to something like: Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution".(source) in which case we may need a second sentence to remind of the scientific consensus. A disadvantage is that apparently some mobile platforms often rely on the first sentence which is more visible; we now have a sentence which says both. —PaleoNeonate – 20:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I would not include "as in the biblical account". Many major religions have creation myths, not just Christianity. Black Kite (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That is likely also why this part of the quote was not included, although we can also understand that it is only an example chosen by the source writers. I agree that omitting it is reasonable. —PaleoNeonate – 01:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Creationism & pseudoscience

(Note: conversation belongs here, so I copy/pasted from my talk page. Jim1138 (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC))

I have so many questions about your edit. First of all, the page says "promoting belief in pseudoscience". Pseudoscience applies to many topics, such as phrenology, psychic powers, spiritual healing, etc. Does that mean creationists believe in all of the listed topics? If not, either a clarification should be made, or the wording should be altered. Secondly, why do you so insist in this particular wording? My rewording didn't change the factual content of the sentence and didn't alter the meaning in any way - in addition to being less ambiguous and grammatically correct (removal of the superfluous the comma). I would really like to know the reasons.OlJa 22:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Oldstone James: This sort of conversation is best made on the article's talk page talk:Creationism. When one states they are "using science to solve x" That doesn't mean they are using all science. Saying it's pseudoscience doesn't mean it covers the gamut. Jim1138 (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: You seem to agree with me, yourself explaining why your edit is wrong. Saying it's pseudoscience does NOT mean it covers the gamut - which is why I wanted to change the wording to "and is widely regarded as pseudoscience in the scientific community" rather than "promoting belief in pseudoscience", because the latter does indeed imply they believe in all of pseudoscience.^Ol^Ja 22:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: I've come up with another wording which literally has no effect on the article: "and instead promote pseudoscientific beliefs". ^Ol^Ja 23:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Flat earthism

Oldstone James has insisted on adding a paragraph about "flat earth creationism" sourced to howstuffworks.com. While some varieties of flat earthism can be described as a form of biblical literalism, this view is not particularly associated with creationism as discussed in this article. I'm not sure how well accepted howstuffworks.com as a reliable source, but it sources its statements about flat earth to a website that itself does not make any particular connection to creationism, so it seems likely that the writer of the howstuffworks.com article is conflating creationism with biblical literalism. The second part of the paragraph is sourced to a one-event twitter stream and does not appear to even mention Kyrie Irving. On Kyrie Irving the flat earth claim appears to have been withdrawn as "joking". In sum, I agree with Black Kite's removal. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe relevant could be [6] but it's mostly about the geocentric dome view. —PaleoNeonate – 00:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I’ve reverted the bit sourced to howstuffworks.com, based on this discussion at the reliable source notice board. As I was poking away at this tablet, the bit about “pseudoscientific beliefs” vs. “believe in pseudoscience” also got reverted. If someone wants to put that part back, I won’t object. Just plain Bill (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

1. One of the oldest associations of creationists is the Flat Earth Society ... Their view is that the earth is covered by a solid dome ... attempts to "prove" the earth is round are biased, politically driven propaganda.

(as #1 in a list of 10 Christian Creationism types). —PaleoNeonate – 21:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

References

"Obscure + largely discounted"? Who says? Prove it.

Calling something "Largely discounted" that's part of a subject that itself is largely discounted is like saying the kettle is blacker than the pot -- when the pot is already about as black as you can get. It's like the pot trying to appear less black by finding a scapegoat in the kettle. "Those fools who take geocentrism with their creationism are crazy, therefore I (who taketh my creationism without geocentrism) am not!"  :-)

But anyway, "Obscure + largely discounted" is not subject of the section. It's not even mentioned in the section, and not cited too. Rather, the fact of Geocentrism being sometimes included in Creationism is the subject. I renamed it "Geocentrism" for the time being. If someone want's to name it something else suitable, go ahead. But "Obscure + Largely Discounted" is out because it's an original analysis totally out of someone's back side. 66.31.54.242 (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

This section also includes the Omphalos hypothesis however. —PaleoNeonate – 17:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding: while we can easily find sources about that they're discredited, it's very obvious, so this was not original research. —PaleoNeonate – 17:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I think "Obscure and largely discounted beliefs" was presuming too much as a section title. I thought it better to simply break out the two beliefs being treated; each has its own article so all that was needed here was a very brief summary of what those other articles say. I think it's true that they are largely discounted, but geocentrism is not really obscure while omphalos is pretty obscure, at least by that name. I've done the split and hope that this is a satisfactory resolution. If not, more discussion will be needed. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm pleased with it too. 66.31.54.242 (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Removing OR, replacing with phrase supported by sources.

The phrase 'scientific conclusion' is not found in the original source (the dictionary). I don't know where it came from and must concluded it to be OR. It might be a logical addition, but its still OR.

The source I added indicates that natural processes are expected because Naturalism is the basis for understanding nature. So my change to the sentence is supported, logical, and quite clear. The reversions seem to have no logical basis. OtisDixon (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing instead of reinstated your change. The lead summarizes the article. A section of the article supports this sentence and adds more details: Creationism#Scientific_criticism. In some cases for very contentious sentences it may be appropriate to still support the sentence with an additional citation, this is otherwise unnecessary; in this case it's supported by a dictionary entry (which as you say does not exactly use the same formulation, but that is not always a problem). I'll also let others comment. —PaleoNeonate – 16:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

As PaleoNeonate notes above, we currently have the OED online US version defining Creationism as 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.(source) but go from that to describing natural processes as a scientific conclusion.
OtisDixon has tried changing our wording from "scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes" to "naturalistic position that they came about through natural processes", while adding a dead link to a source which better supports the original wording. Steven Schafersman, "Naturalism Is Today An Essential Part of Science" as archived in October 2002 supports the point that methodological naturalism is inherent in science, and has been since the 19th century when science was defined by Herschel and Whewell.
We could use that source, or another, but worth modifying the wording. Suggest "as opposed to scientific explanations that they came about through natural processes." . . . dave souza, talk 17:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The Creationism#Scientific_criticism section does not state that natural processes is a conclusion of science either. So the sentence in the lead is not supported by a source nor by the article.

The phrase 'scientific explanations' has the same unsupported problem. You need to find a source that says that, else it is just OR. OtisDixon (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, Methodological Naturalism is the foundation for scientific methodology. But Schafersman says that Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophy that maintains that nature operates by the laws of physics, i.e. natural processes, and Naturalism is a metaphysical philosophy opposed primarily by Biblical creationism. Thus it is Naturalism's point of view that nature operates by natural process and so science follows suit. And, Naturalism opposes Creationism therefore so does science based on Methodological Naturalism. So I believe that "naturalistic position that they came about through natural processes," is more accurate than the original statement. OtisDixon (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a "sky is blue" thing. The scientific method looks at measurable things which, yes, occur in "nature" and the scientific method limits hypotheses to those that are testable via things you can measure. There are no big metaphysics here; it is practical thing. This article is not going to define "science". Creationists need to figure out what stances to take with regard to what science tells us - rejecting it or accommodating it, to various degrees. Most of the article is about that. Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

re OtisDixon , from Schafersman; "Science, as I hoped everyone understood by now, requires at least methodological naturalism; supernatural explanations, therefore, are illegitimate .... there is at least one criterion of legitimate science that correctly identifies scientific creationism and all forms of supernatural explanation in science as pseudoscience. This is the criterion of testability. It dates from the beginning of the nineteenth century when scientists began to explicitly eschew supernatural explanations, and it was quickly recognized and identified in the work of the first philosopher of science, John Herschel, who is responsible for first explicating the hypothetico-deductive method of science." Also, "Because evolutionary scientists supposedly are caught up in a metaphysical viewpoint that rejects the possibility of a creator, creationists contend that evolutionists are unable to countenance evidence for supernatural intervention in the history of life. Actually, modern science has omitted the supernatural for methodological, not philosophical, reasons". That's directly contrary to your proposed "naturalistic position that they came about through natural processes" – as Schafersman says, "All theistic scientists adopt such methodological naturalism, as well as the 40-50% of the U.S. population who believe in science, evolution, and also in God, the view known as "theistic evolution". So, your wording doesn't work. . . dave souza, talk 18:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly I tend to see this argument a lot lately, that science could simply be reduced to philosophy. As Dave pointed out, in other words, it simply has to deal with what it can, which is the observable, the mesurable, etc. The success of this method is obvious through technology advancements and how sciences converge into multidisciplinary ones rather than sectarizing like traditions. This reminds me of those who accuse of pseudoskepticism those who investigate alleged spiritual phenomena scientifically and discover other means through which these illusions derive. They claim that they are refusing to "look at the spiritual evidence" or wait until it shows, which is simply not manifest to study... And we have such example at Wikipedia-famous WP:ARBPS: Pseudoskepticism is the willfully blind deprecation of viable, and often truthful, scientific beliefs. Pseudoskepticism derives from a generally authoritarian ideology, and the scientific beliefs that pseudoskeptics blindly dismiss are consequentially usually the ones that are not supported by the current majority of academic authorities. Are physics "authoritarian"? The world doesn't bend to our wishful thinking, sure... Are those who understand that pseudoskeptics? How can scientific understanding be reduced to philosophy, ideology or politics alone? —PaleoNeonate – 18:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it is a funky kind of relativism jujutsu. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I've struck the edits of a sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy/Archive. Doug Weller talk 10:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

I strongly object to this edit by Jeffro77. The edit had the summary, "clarify JW position", but the change in fact distorted the official position of the Jehovah's Witnesses, by prefacing it with the statement that the Jehovah's Witnesses "adhere to a form of day-age creationism". I find that edit and the reason given for it extremely disingenuous. In no sense does it "clarify" the position of the Jehovah's Witnesses to counter their clear official statement about what they believe with an editor's opinion based on two Jehovah's Witnesses' publications (Insight on the Scriptures and Was Life Created?). Doing so egregiously violates WP:NOR. I happen to have a copy of the publication Was Life Created? and it does not state that the Jehovah's Witnesses accept day-age creationism or any form of creationism. Jeffo77 thus unfortunately appears to have engaged in reprehensible misrepresentation and misuse of a source, by using Jehovah's Witnesses publications to try to suggest that their position is something other than what they say it is. I also deplore this edit by Jytdog, which removed outright the official position of the Jehovah's Witnesses about what they believe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on secondary sources; we are not a proxy for anybody's website and using primary sources this way is very suboptimal.

As an example, most catholics reject the church's teaching on birth control, and many reject the church's teaching on abortion. Trying to say "catholics reject birth control and abortion" sourced to the vatican website would be very bad editing. Secondary sources are essential for what we do here.

As this issue seems to be very important to you, can you please some independent secondary source that describes what most JW believe and what the official teaching is, and puts those together so you can avoid the SYN of doing the juxtaposition yourself? Accurately summarizing what high quality, independent secondary sources say, is the best way to get edits to stick. Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no requirement that Wikipedia use only secondary sources. It is perfectly reasonable to use the official website of the Jehovah's Witnesses as a source for what they say they believe. The material you removed makes it clear that we are concerned here with the official teaching of the Jehovah's Witnesses as a religious body, so the comparison you try to make with Catholic views of abortion is incorrect. The language could be clarified further to prevent any possible misunderstanding, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

If this is an official long-standing position.....it should be no problem finding secondary sources.--Moxy (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary. There is no reason whatever why the official JW website cannot be used as a source for describing the official position of the Jehovah's Witnesses on any given topic, and that's what we are concerned with here, not with what individual Jehovah's Witnesses happen to believe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The Chryssides secondary source actually reflects their beliefs. The primary source magazine article denies the creationist label, claiming that it can only be used to describe young earth creationism (which is itself a false premise). I would not object to using this primary source to add that they deny the label claiming that it only pertains to YEC personally, but I agree that a secondary source should ideally be used instead. In any case, it should not replace the Chryssides source. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 17:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I would just like to add: List of Watch Tower Society publications#Evolution vs creation. —PaleoNeonate – 15:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

"by using Jehovah's Witnesses publications"

Wait a minute. We are using sources affiliated to the organization as reliable sources? Per Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources (an essay), sources which are too closely affiliated with their subject may fail Wikipedia's requirements for independent or third-party sources. Dimadick (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks for the input, —PaleoNeonate – 15:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2018

the correct way of writing pseudolinguistics is pseudo linguistics TheSbGamerWiki (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. As far as I can tell, it can be hyphenated or not, but it is not two separate words. If you find a reliable source and reopen this request, please phrase it in a "change x to y" form, as directed. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

"Humans" vs. "Mankind"

Can we get a discussion going? For me, I plain like "humans" better, without considering if "mankind" is gender-neutral or not. For me, mankind is a) old-fashioned and b) has connotations beyond humans as biological animals. Is there a positive reason for "mankind"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I prefer 'humans' for similar reasons - it's a better word to use here. Since making the revert I've seen that there is a conversation going on over at WP:MOS about this - apparently KindOfHuman has been changing 'mankind' to 'humankind' all over Wikipedia, and Madruss has been going round reverting them all. On this page, in this context, I feel that 'humans' is a better word to use.Girth Summit (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

No objection to a local change provided it isn't based on the baseless MOS:GNL rationale (or the essay WP:GENDER). The larger-scope discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Updating "Mankind", where I have requested a community consensus before any further widespread changes of the word "mankind". I'm not the only strong opponent, by the way. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for being unusually (not for you, for the average Wikipedia editor) rational about this article! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Humans seems obviously preferable here for the rationale given by Stephan Schulz. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I prefer "humanity" over "humans" and certainly over "mankind", depending on the context. I think "mankind" can be a misogynist term. Thinker78 (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster definition of "mankind"

Merriam-Webster also has a definition of "mankind" that actually refers only to men. Thinker78 (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint Thinker78, but this isn't the place for that conversation - there's no impetus to return to 'mankind' here, we're good to stick with humans (or humanity, although personally I prefer humans for this page). This page is just for improving this article - the discussion of whether mankind is an appropriate word to use is happening over at the WP:MOS talk page.Girth Summit (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with you, I think you didn't see the context. An editor posted in an edit summary in this article's page about Merriam-Webster, so this is relevant to this page specifically, that's why I posted it here. Thinker78 (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies - I'd forgotten about that. That was Mandruss - he's already accepted that 'humans' is a better word to use here; hopefully it's settled now, but I can see why you mentioned it.Girth Summit (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

References

King James Version?

Why does this article use the King James version of the Bible? KJV is not an authentic translation from the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts. It was directed by King James to make Christianity compatible with his non-Christian lifestyle (for example in the deliberate misinterpretation of baptism to make it compatible with the fact that King James was never properly baptized by immersion). The English Standard Version is a more authentic and recent translation based on newer information and is designed to remain true to the original languages of the Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.235.85 (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

That post is full of claims that demand reliable, independent sources. HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I assume you mean Genesis 1:1–2 and the like. Probably because the editors who inserted them thought it was a good idea/good as any. If you want to exchange them for New Revised Standard Version or whatever (see Template:Bibleverse), you can WP:BOLDLY do so. If someone reverts you, discuss per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.

If anyone knows a policy/guideline/etc for bibleverses, that could be helpful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Where does this article use the Jim VI & I version? Looks like a false premise – there are references to other versions or glosses on the Bible; YEC refers to the Ussher chronology which postdates Jim by 25 years, OEC refers to the Scofield Reference Bible which expands on Jim's version. Both are specifically relevant to the topic. The #Religious views section implies reference to earlier versions, as used by the Church Fathers. . . dave souza, talk 16:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

"This version of creationism relies on a particular interpretation of Genesis 1:1–2." may be the only place, but at least once. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, a missing link! That explains it – if you click on the link it get you, not James VI and I's s:Bible (King James Version, 1611)/Genesis, but s:Bible (King James)/Genesis of 1769, much modified by Benjamin Blayney, so in terms of monarchs it's actually the George III of the United Kingdom version (think that chap had some influence on colonials across the pond). Spot the difference: the KGIII version has a wee addition top right starting with "Year before the common Year of CHRIST 4004" – the classic YEC chronology as introduced by the Ussher chronology 25 years after Jim VI & ! had pegged it. . . . dave souza, talk 18:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

For what its worth, our article on the King James Version does give information on some royal biases and interference in this translation. "Instructions were given to the translators that were intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. The Bishop of London added a qualification that the translators would add no marginal notes (which had been an issue in the Geneva Bible). King James cited two passages in the Geneva translation where he found the marginal notes offensive to the principles of divinely ordained royal supremacy : Exodus 1:19, where the Geneva Bible notes had commended the example of civil disobedience to the Egyptian Pharaoh showed by the Hebrew midwives, and also II Chronicles 15:16, where the Geneva Bible had criticized King Asa for not having executed his idolatrous 'mother', Queen Maachah (Maachah had actually been Asa's grandmother, but James considered the Geneva Bible reference as sanctioning the execution of his own mother Mary, Queen of Scots). Further, the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England. Certain Greek and Hebrew words were to be translated in a manner that reflected the traditional usage of the church. For example, old ecclesiastical words such as the word "church" were to be retained and not to be translated as "congregation".The new translation would reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and traditional beliefs about ordained clergy."

As for the source texts used, the translators of the Old Testament mostly used the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible of Daniel Bomberg as a guide, with some modifications to conform to the Septuagint and the Vulgate. They consulted both the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint. Dimadick (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

As discussed above, the crucial reason for referring to the greatly modified s:Bible (King James)/Genesis of 1769 was that it added "Year before the common Year of CHRIST 4004" and each chapter showed the Ussher chronology which wasn't in the original s:Bible (King James Version, 1611)/Genesis, and doesn't appear in newer translations. See s:Talk:Bible (King James) for discussion of how the [[Benjamin Blayney[[ edition became, by the 19th century, the standard Bible text for English-speaking Protestants whether inside or outside the Anglican tradition. . . . . dave souza, talk 19:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Extent of note

According to WikiPedia, Creation Science has branched "worldwide", and therefore the note that "Creation science refers to the pseudoscientific movement in the United States" should be truncated (i.e. remove "in the United States") in order to be more accurate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.73.98.161 (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2018‎ (UTC)

No. Learn to sign your posts. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 14:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The first sentence is an incorrect citation and seems to be plainly false

Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation",[1][2] as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes.[3]

[3]"creationism: definition of creationism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)". Oxford Dictionaries (Definition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. OCLC 656668849. Retrieved 2014-03-05. 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.

The Oxford Dictionaries only cites evolution as an example. Evolution by itself doesn't not explain the origin of life and even less the origin of the universe. While evolution is a consensus or a fact in the scientific community, I don't think there exists any "scientific conclusion" about the origin of the universe or life. In addition, using "as opposed" instead of "rather than" might not be a correct since it implicates that there is an "opposition" between religion and science, and from what I understand these 2 notions in general aren't "opposed" but refer to different subjects.

My suggestion would be to use the Oxford definition for the end of the sentence, if it is possible: Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation",[1][2] rather than by natural processes such as evolution.[3] Garyfr (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• I disagree, seems fine to me. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 08:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with Roxy the dog - our opening sentence is fine. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Garyfr. I think your argument is a bit of a straw man. The current text just says natural processes, it does not elaborate on them and certainly does not delve into any "scientific conclusion" about the origin of the universe or life. This is the lead and the issue of non-overlapping megesteria is dealt with in the section on scientific criticism, where it belongs. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The current text is "the scientific conclusion that they [the universe and life] came about through natural processes". That's an incorrect sentence IMO and that's why no professional or scientific publication will state this. Garyfr (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• I think that Garyfr makes an interesting argument. There really is an invalid citation here, I think. Is there really a 'scientific conclusion' that the universe and life originated through natural processes? Citation? There's definitely a lot of speculation in that area, but as far as I remember, there is no information about what happened at the 'moment' of the Big Bang or the 'moment' of abiogensis; therefore there is no scientific conclusion that there was definitely a natural process involved at those 'moments'- only speculation (however valid). Creationism directly and specifically addresses those 'moments'. I would say "Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation",[1][2] rather than by natural processes.[3]" (I would omit mention of evolution in the first sentence because, in context, the Oxford American dictionary is just trying to give readers a one sentence summary with a pertinent example, whereas Wikipedia is giving readers a general introduction to the topic that is then immediately followed by detailed description of the multifaceted conflicts between Creationism and various academic disciplines in the following sentences and paragraphs.) I will not participate in any further discussion or editing on this topic so as to avoid being drawn into any editing wars. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

My only response to this is that this is a classic god if the gaps argument and just because science cannot at this moment explain everything about the big bang and abiogenesis it does not rule out natural processes. In light of the lack of evidence for any unnatural processes I am comfortable with the status quo on the first paragraph. The Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design, which is used as a reference in the scientific criticism section, seems entirely apropos. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I think I know where you are coming from. I'm not saying that the process was either supernatural or natural or anything: I'm saying that there is definitely no scientific conclusion about the origin of the universe and the origin of living organisms: we technically don't even know whether or not these origins were the result of a "natural process". I'm not trying to put any gods in the gaps, I'm just saying that there is a kind of a gap there as in: no information. No information; no scientific conclusion. We can't put "scientific conclusion of natural processes" in the gap there. It's just a gap- call it a 'gap of the unknown'. (I am currently not able to access the page you cited) Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Geographyinitiative, the question is not what we believe about origin of universe or life. Stating that scientifics have concluded anything about those, especially origin of universe, is a disservice to this page. Also evolution is not about the origin of life, evolution starts when life already exists. Garyfr (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I got the flame war going, but I am not going to write any more on this page. I am not going to look at this page again for a while. Good luck! Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether two or even two hundred creationists agree with each other that this article is wrong. What matters is that the RSes are in agreement, and that our article reflects the RSes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Which creationists are you talking about? I understand why Geographyinitiative wants to stay out of this talk and I will be happy to do the same. Garyfr (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You and Geographyinitiative. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Defamation is nothing to be proud of.Garyfr (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

LOL That's adorable. If you honestly thought that being called a creationist was "defamation", you never would have started this thread. And you'd also be completely ignorant of what "defamation" is. Of course, that last situation applies even if you don't honestly believe this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Two points: the range of beliefs in the creation–evolution continuum which come under "creationism" all feature opposition to scientific explanations; views in agreement with science (from theistic evolution to agnosticism and materialist explanations) don't come under the modern label of creationism, though TE at one time may have claimed that label.
  Point 2: the wording of "the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes" is wrong in implying a scientific "conclusion" about abiogenesis or origins of the universe; inherently science seeks natural explanations, without concluding whether or not there is a TE "creator". Suggest "Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation",[1][2] as opposed to scientific explanations of features as the result of natural processes." Agree that a better source is needed for this point, should be covered by some of the sources in the article. . . dave souza, talk 17:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Point 2: the wording of "the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes" is wrong in implying a scientific "conclusion" about abiogenesis or origins of the universe; Science has, in fact, long since concluded that abiogenesis and the origin of the universe came about through natural processes. The reason people keep mentioning the "god of the gaps" argument in this thread is because that is exactly what claims like this are doing: Science presupposes that "natural processes" can explain literally everything. To say that science doesn't insist that the universe came about through natural processes is to display ignorance about science. Just because science hasn't documented the specific natural process that gave rise to the universe or life doesn't mean that science in any way countenances any non-natural explanations for them. That is not how science works. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

See methodological naturalism – science has no use for supernatural explanations. Lack of conclusions about how abiogenesis works don't imply any position on the supernatural, other than the ground rule that it isn't science. . . dave souza, talk 20:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The universe and life are natural phenomenon. Hence, they must have natural origins, according to the scientific method. This is epistemology 101 stuff. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• A Primer on Science, Religion, Evolution and Creationism --Moxy (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• This sounds like the "god of the gaps" argument. It is not really valid here, the lede summarises the subject at a high level and this is indeed an accurate and neutral summary. Science does not invoke supernatural explanations, pretty much by definition. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Why is the Oxford Dictionary definition cut? The allusion to evolution is deleted

Hi! I just wanted to ask something. Why is the Oxford Dictionary definition cut? This is complete the Oxford Dictionary definition:

"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 believe the evolution part is essential, since creationism by definition implies the negation of evolution. In the United States, creationism is (shamefully) taught as an alternative explanation to evolution. Personally, I don't understand why the evolution part is deleted from the lead sentence. Can't we have the following lead sentence?:

Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation",[1][2] as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes such as evolution.[3]. James343e (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@James343e: You don't think that the thread above covers this? Jim1138 (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Jim1138: I believe it is very different, since the former user was asking to delete "as opposed to the scientific consenssus". For me, it is fine if "as opposed to the scientific consensus" is included. What I personally don't understand is the deliberate deletion of the word evolution, which is included in the Oxford Dictionary definition. This is the complete Oxford Dictionary Definition:

"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".

As I said, I believe the evolution part is essential, since creationism by definition explicitly implies the negation of evolution. In the United States, creationism is (shamefully) taught as an alternative explanation to evolution. So this is my question. Can't we have the following lead sentence?:

Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation",[1][2] as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes such as evolution.[3]. James343e (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

No, creationism is not just the denial of evolution, it is the denial of evolution, geology, cosmology and physics and basically the entire scientific method. The main point is that it the denial of natural causes, the OED entry is just using evolution as an example. This article covers the subject in some depth so we do not need to include everything in the lead. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Tower of Babel

In the paragraph "Biblical Basis" shouldn't the Tower of Babel be included ? Also: there's no mention of the stance creationism takes in the field of linguistics except for the vague term "pseudolinguistics ".

It seems that from a creationist point of view world's creation, man's formation and languages' confusion follow the same divine phenomena. Creationism confronts comparative linguistics and natural science in quite the same manner eg. adherence to the holy scriptures. Here is a citation from a creationist site:

"Because God does all things well, nothing half-heartedly or without complete effectiveness, the languages created at Babel will almost certainly turn out to be radically distinct from each other. That is what the current evidence already suggests". Hexagone59 (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Needs a secondary source, may be worth looking in Robert T. Pennock's Tower of Babel, or ToA, though nothing obvious on first search. . . dave souza, talk 15:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you dave souza.

In google's presentation of Tower of Babel by Robert T. Pennock it reads:

"One of Pennock's major innovations is to turn from biological evolution to the less charged subject of linguistic evolution, which has strong theoretical parallels with biological evolution, both in content and in the sort of evidence scientists use to draw conclusions about origins. Of course, an evolutionary view of language does conflict with the Bible, which says that God created the variety of languages at one time as punishment for the Tower of Babel".

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aC1OccYnX0sC&dq=Tower+of+Babel:+The+Evidence+Against+the+New+Creationism&redir_esc=y&hl=en

In Page: https://creation.com/the-tower-of-babel-account-affirmed-by-linguistics There's a drawing comparing the creationist and evolutionist belief in linguistics. Pic:https://creation.com/images/journal_of_creation/vol16/5822view_lge.jpg

In the other source -talkorigins.org Claim CG110 (The first known human languages were already very complex. Languages do not show the evolutionary progression we would expect if humans evolved gradually).

Source: Skjaerlund, David, n.d. Creationism explains human diversity. http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0722_Creationism_explains.html

We read: "Evolutionists, in particular, have no explanation for the origin of languages. They’ve tried to explain it on the basis of gradual development of communication forms, starting with the early grunts of cavemen and, over time, resulting in our complex form of communication. However, man’s unique ability for communication has always posed a problem"

It continues: "There is no explanation for the origins of different languages except in terms of the special purpose of the Creator. .., men tried to unite themselves into a very centrally located political system around the Tower of Babel (see Genesis 11). We are told that God confused their language, and that mankind was then scattered over the face of the earth"

Should I search for other sources or check more thorougly in Pennock's book ( If I find it... ) Hexagone59 (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Since this article is an overview of creationism, Isaak, Mark. "CG110: Complex early language". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 29 December 2018. is a good simple source for a mention, for this article we're less interested in the detail of the creationist claim (you link to a primary source for it), but the TalkOrigins Archive page gives both a brief overview of the claim, and a secondary source showing the mainstream response (see WP:PSTS for policy on that).

Pennock's book may go into excessive detail and isn't concise, but if you're interested in the topic it's well worth reading. Robert T. Pennock (28 February 2000). Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism. MIT Press. pp. 117–179. ISBN 978-0-262-26405-1. covers the topic, that link should show you some of the pages.

Pennock gives good mainstream context for the Creation Ministries International young Earth creationist web page which comes down to "if you believe in our literal reading of the Bible, languages are explained by the tower of Babel." The CMI author mentions William Jones (philologist)#Scholarly contributions – the wikipedia page is, I think, more informative. See Proto-language for a nice diagram.

Another book worth looking for as an authority on creationism is Numbers, Ronald L. (2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. Harvard University Press. pp. 102–103. ISBN 978-0-674-02339-0. which briefly covers the influential George McCready Price's YEC ideas of human races being formed by Babel followed by environmental influence so that "The poor little fellow who went to the south Got lost in the forests dank; His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat...", while pages 246 has Lammerts of the Creation Research Society explaining Babel as designed change in DNA. . . . dave souza, talk 20:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello dave souza, thank you for your guidance. I managed to read the third chapter of Tower of Babel, where Pennock uses the term creationist linguistics all along. The text is interesting and clear.

I would like to add a paragraph in Robert T. Pennock's entry in Education and Carrear as a last paragraph. Here is a possibilty:

===The book: Tower of Babel===

In his book Pennock addresses the issue of creationist linguistics. In chapter 3 he quotes Henry M. Morris, the young Earth creationist saying " There really seems no way to explain the different languages except in terms of the special creative purpose of the Creator " (p. 123), Pennock goes to describe the evolution of linguistics in the last 200 years. He also quotes Darwin saying "the formation of different languages and of distinct species, and the proofs that both have been developed through a gradual process, are curiously the same."(p. 125). Once he shows that biology and linguistics share the evolutionary rational as they share the same opponents, Pennock uses the later to support the former: " The evidence that supports the evolution of species is of the same kind and is as incontrovertible as that which supports the evolution of languages, so accepting creationist biology is as absurd as accepting creationist linguistics" (p. 147).

I will appreciate any comment on this. Hexagone59 (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• This looks like an unnecessary rabbit trail. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh I like the quote and think we should use it. I meant to look at my own copy of Pennock but didn't have time. Doug Weller talk 09:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2019

Please delete any mention of myth because creationism is a theory. Please delete or change the first sentence under section "Christianity" because it is not true. Any believer in the Bible who does not adhere to Biblical teachings is obviously not a believer in the Bible. Jmjpeper (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Not done, please provide specific suggestions backed by academic sources. Biblical literalism is not a prerequisite for Christian belief. Acroterion (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Lede

Over at Talk:Young_Earth_creationism#Is_YEC_a_religious_belief_or_more?, we began a successful conversation about making a more coherent and well-sourced lede. One of the issues raised was that the lede over here is not very good or well-sourced either. So, now I would like to take on this.

As we discussed over there, there are basically two big definitions of "creationism" -- one is an older more theological definition and the other is a modern form of anti-scientific arguments meant to bolster particular religious beliefs (not just Abrahamic, mind you, as the term is increasingly used in reference to Hinduism and even Indigenous religions). I think we can achieve a better summary of this, but it also might require reworking some of this article as well.

I hope this gets the conversation started and we can workshop, successfully, a change to our lede.

jps (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of starting a conversation with myself, I reread the excellent introduction to the subject of creationism over at the SEM: [7]. I think that I would like to start with a broad and a narrow definition and focus on the narrow. This might require a completely new "introductory" section. I leave it here for others to opine on this. jps (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Broad versus narrow creationism resources

Aside from Numbers (already in the article), here are some possibly useful references:

• Ruse, Michael (2018). "Creationism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 26 April 2019. First published Sat Aug 30, 2003; substantive revision Fri Sep 21, 2018 {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• "Creationism". www.pbs.org. Retrieved 2019-04-17.
• "Dealing With "Scientific" Creationism". American Humanist Association. Retrieved 2019-04-17.
• "The Creation/Evolution Continuum". NCSE. Retrieved 2019-04-17.
• Greener, Mark (2007-12). "Taking on creationism. Which arguments and evidence counter pseudoscience?". EMBO Reports. 8 (12): 1107–1109. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7401131. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC PMCPMC2267227. PMID 18059309. {{cite journal}}: Check |pmc= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Pew Research Center; Inquiries, DC 20036 USA202-419-4300 | Main202-419-4349 | Fax202-419-4372 | Media (2009-02-04). "Overview: The Conflict Between Religion and Evolution |". Retrieved 2019-04-19. {{cite web}}: Missing |author2= (help); Unknown parameter |city= ignored (|location= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

jps (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Scott, Eugenie C. (3 August 2009). Evolution Vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Univ of California Press. pp. 57–75. ISBN 978-0-520-26187-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

This broader overall definition, like Ruse and the NCSE continuum, includes mainstream religious acceptance of evolution – "special creation" draws the distinction between that and the anti-evolution which became commonly known as creationism in the 1960s, though the mainstream still has a claim to be creationist in a broad sense. . dave souza, talk 19:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Scott (2009) broad and narrow definitions

creationism has a broad and a narrow definition. Broadly, creationism refers to the idea of creation by a supernatural force. To Christians, Jews, and Muslims, this supernatural force is God; to people of other religions, it is other deities. The creative power may be unlimited, like that of the Christian God, or it may be restricted to the ability to affect certain parts of nature, such as heavenly bodies or certain kinds of living things.
The term creationism to many people connotes the theological doctrine of special creationism: that God created the universe essentially as we see it today, and that this universe has not changed appreciably since that creation event. Special creationism includes the idea that God created living things in their present forms, and it reflects a literalist view of the Bible. It is most closely associated with the endeavour of "creation science," which includes the view that the universe is only 10,000 years old. But the most important aspect of special creation is the idea that things are created in their present forms. In intelligent design creationism, for example, God is specially required to create complex structures such as the bacterial flagellum or the body plans of animals of the Cambrian period, even though many if not most intelligent design proponents accept an ancient Earth.(Scott 2009, p. 57)

added by . .. dave souza, talk 19:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Current wording and workshop

I am not a particularly big fan of this construction. I think we should stick with paragraph one being a definition, but then we should spend some time differentiating between narrow and broad definitions and break out to a little more global look (with nods towards things such as Islamic creationism, Hindu creationism, and American Indian creationism, perhaps). This would probably be a good thing to have an entire section on in the article. I think that paragraph two could do nicely to round-out a lede, but a bit more summative and less "listy". Finally, I think that paragraph three should likely be in the body rather than in the lede. jps (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, fully agree – getting the broad and narrow definitions in at the start will be a great improvement, para 3. is wrong about "first use" as CD used the terms "creationist" and "creationists" in his 1842 essay. Ron Numbers has an interesting analysis of how the meaning of the term (and of "the ordinary view of creation") changed with time, so this needs coverage in the body text and a brief summary in the lede. . dave souza, talk 19:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Etymology online has some interesting history of the term as well: [8]. jps (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Paragraph One: Definition

Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation", as opposed to through natural processes, such as evolution.

Reworking according to discussion below.

Creationism is the religious belief that the material world (particularly the universe, Earth, life, and humanity) was divinely created. Creationism is often contrasted with and opposed to the scientific explanations for the origins and development of the material world through natural processes, most famously evolution.

Reworking including broader sense

Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humanity, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation. In a broad sense, this belief is held by all practitioners of theistic faiths including the Abrahamic religions, whose deity is transcendent, beyond nature, and immanent, ready to intervene in the world. More specifically, creationism commonly refers to the doctrine of special creation which holds that God created things in their present forms, and opposes scientific explanations for the origins and development of the material world through natural processes such as evolution.

Discussion

• Is the belief always religious? In fact, the connection to religion be it organized or otherwise is usually secondary in our sources perhaps because of the equivocation between the two different definitions. Indeed, the broader definition is somewhat doctrinal, but the narrower definition relies on any acceptance of creation myth interpretations that act as foundational and fundamental descriptions of the origins of various aspects of the material world. This could be part of one's religion, but it could simply be an acceptance of a literal mythology independent of a religion as well, in principle. jps (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Scott's broad definition of "the idea of creation by a supernatural force" leaves that aside, the crucial point is supernatural creation. That's not uncommon in religions, theoretically the idea might be held without religion but we'd need a source discussing it. Either way, I think the religion issue is a bit of a distraction to the broad definition. . dave souza, talk 18:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Turns out that Jerry Coyne has written an analysis of this point. Coyne takes the side of those who argue that religion is the thing while he points to a lot of others who oppose his perspective as saying otherwise: [9]. I think it may be important that we do not take explicit sides in this debate, though I think the people who identify religion as the proximate cause are likely correct. jps (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Widespread use of the term creationism in its modern meaning only goes back to the 1970s, so think we could say that [since then] it's become associated with the theological doctrine of special creation. . . dave souza, talk 18:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • That seems reasonable. jps (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• The wording that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation" (quote marks in the original) looks rather too specific, for example Creationism (soul) specifically discusses the origin of the soul, ID can accommodate confining creation to specific complex features while accepting evolution of others. dave souza, talk 18:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, this seems problematic. I think we need to be more general. "Aspects of the material world" or something like that with specific reference to the most common ones: universe, Earth, life, and humans, for example? jps (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• Reworking including broader sense covers the wide and narrow senses in the first paragraph, and the second paragraph can then focus on the continuum: that ranges from the most literal forms of YEC, through OEC to theistic evolution. Theistic evolution itself covers a range of beliefs is both creationism in the broad sense, and overlaps with creationism in the narrower sense. More later! . . dave souza, talk 15:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I think we need to say that special creation includes more than just the creation of living things. It also includes, for example, starlight problem creation of distance astronomical objects. jps (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Fair point, think it works to just say "holds that God created things in their present forms" as the ending relating to evolution implies life anyway. Was a bit unsure about including Ruse's point "whose deity is transcendent, beyond nature, and immanent, ready to intervene in the world" but it gives extra context. . dave souza, talk 17:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Paragraph Two: Provision for the creationist movement from anti-evolution (narrow definition)

Creationism covers a spectrum of views including evolutionary creationism, but the term is commonly used for literal creationists who reject various aspects of science, and instead promote pseudoscientific beliefs. Literal creationists base their beliefs on a fundamentalist reading of religious texts, including the creation myths found in Genesis and the Quran. For young Earth creationists, these beliefs are based on a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative and rejection of the scientific theory of evolution. Literalist creationists believe that evolution cannot adequately account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on Earth.

Reworking

Creationism, it its broadest sense, includes a spectrum of views including forms that accept the reality of biological evolution, but the term is commonly applied to believers in special creation which demands that key aspects of material reality were created as they exist today by divine action. The most famous of these creationists are fundamentalist Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the creation myths found in the Bible's Book of Genesis. These people distinguish themselves by rejecting certain aspects of science, and instead promote various pseudoscientific beliefs. The most visible creationists adhere either to young Earth creationism or to intelligent design; both beliefs reject parts of the scientific theory of evolution and have been the subject of ongoing political controversy. Less prominently, there are also members of the Islamic, Hindu,, and American Indian faiths who are creationists.

Reworking outlining types

Though the creation–evolution controversy is not commonly misunderstood to be two opposing sides, creationism includes a wide variety of beliefs, some of which accept the reality of biological evolution, with multiple intermediate positions significantly contradicting each other. Christian creationism can be visualised as ranging along a spectrum of types grouped in relation to extent of Biblical literalism, the age of the Earth, and explanations ranging from special creation to material evolution.
At the most literal extreme, creationist beliefs include flat Earth and geocentrism. In the 1970s, young Earth creationism (YEC) became the commonest form, and was repackaged as creation science with the aim of getting "equal time" for creation in public school science classes. Previously, since the late 18th century most educated people had accepted that geology showed an ancient Earth, and this was harmonized with the Bible's Genesis creation narrative by gap and day-age readings, as held by most of the Christian fundamentalists whose anti-evolution movement succeeded in removing evolution from school textbooks. Most modern old Earth creationism can be classed as progressive creationism, accepting the sequence of life over geological time, but explaining it by multiple creation events. Going further, evolutionary creationism takes the theological position that God has active involvement in evolution and its proponents choose to be called creationist, while accepting evolutionary science.
In 1987, creation science was ruled to be religion and not science, and hence unconstitutional to teach in U.S. science classes, its arguments were repackaged as intelligent design with Biblical references removed or played down. Other forms of neo-creationism have continued attempts to oppose science education about evolution.
Religion is reconciled with science by theistic evolution, though this covers a wide range of positions about the extent to which God intervenes. Agnostic evolution takes no position on the existence of God, materialist evolution holds that the supernatural does not exist.
Creationism goes beyond Christianity, there are also members of the Hebrew, Islamic,[9][10] Hindu,[14], and American Indian[15] faiths who are creationists.

Discussion

Regarding the broad definition of creationism, what the "Scott 2009" source says is "Broadly, creationism refers to the idea of creation by a supernatural force.", not "includes a spectrum of views including forms that accept the reality of biological evolution". --Matt Smith (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I mistook Dave's explanation above for the actual quote. I will go looking now for a source. jps (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi folks, #Scott (2009) broad and narrow definitions above is a transcription to the best of my ability from p. 57 of Scott's book. The broad definition is the first paragraph, as Matt points out, and the second paragraph gives narrower meanings. The "spectrum of views" bit is on pp. 61–75 which should be viewable from the same link. Citation [5] on this talk page, "Scott, Eugenie C. (July–August 1999)", links to an updated version based on the 2009 book, and looks pretty much the same. Hope that clarifies things! . . dave souza, talk 18:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. Do you think that the wording is okay? It seems to me that there is some tension as to whether evolutionary creationism is strictly creationism or not, perhaps owing to a question as to whether there is any action being done that is "supernatural". jps (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks jps, the wording covers points but needs tightened, will try to come back on this. The "broad" issue is that even theistic evolution overlaps considerably with creationism and variants tend to require some supernatural intervention, there's a tendency to equate creationism with anti-evolution which can be misleading. The evolutionary creationism tag has been used (and I think still is used) by those who feel their beliefs are creationist, but accept evolution to a greater extent than hardline anti-evolutionists. Hence a continuum with the only clear divide being between YEC and OEC, and even that is spanned by various ID proponentsists. So Scott's continuum stands, can try to find again sources on evolutionary creationism. . . dave souza, talk 19:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

As above, I think the broad and narrow issue works better in the first paragraph. The reference to Scott's continuum is outdated, worth changing it to Eugenie Scott (13 February 2018). "The Creation/Evolution Continuum". NCSE. Retrieved 26 April 2019. . . . dave souza, talk 15:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• To tie in with moving the broad and narrow issue to paragraph 1, I've drafted reworking outlining types above on the basis of continuum sources – this is ground the article should cover, looks rather long so expect will have to trim it. . . dave souza, talk 14:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it important that we have a section on non-Christian cretaionists. Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation comes to mind as deserving a mention. jps (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that should be a separate paragraph in the lead. It's covered in the article in Creationism#Religious views and Creationism#Prevalence, but Numbers (2006) gives a lot more detail and Prevalence doesn't seem to cover Asia, so update needed. To some extent it's exported from the US, but each religion has distinctive theology and creation accounts so rather complex. Didn't know Oktar/Yahya initially studied ID (Interior Design). . . dave souza, talk 09:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Paragraph Three: First use of the term

The first use of the term "creationist" to describe a proponent of creationism is found in an 1856 letter of Charles Darwin describing those who objected on religious grounds to the then-emerging science of evolution.

First use: history in progress

Just for information, using Ron Numbers' Darwinism Comes to America and online sources I've put together some information. Here's the basic framework, I can add sources shortly, or cut it back further: think this big picture is needed somewhere, an outline in this article would be good but it can get into a lot of detail! 20th century developments to follow. . dave souza, talk 19:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

In the 19th century, the term Creationism commonly referred to the doctrine that God directly created the soul for each baby, as opposed to other doctrines such as Traducianism which held that souls were inherited through natural generation.

By then, species of organisms were conventionally held to be individually created as fixed and unchangeable, geology found that the Earth was very ancient, and prehistoric species had gone extinct. The gap theory of 1814 allowed prehistoric time in a literal reading of Genesis, but the appearance of new species posed a mystery "which natural science cannot reach".

In his 1842 "pencil sketch" outlining on the Origin of Species, Darwin set his theory against "the view ordinarily received" or held by "creationists", that all the species in the world had been "created by so many distinct acts of creation".

This view was unlikely to have been the long-superseded idea of Linnaeus that the offspring of created pairs of each species had spread out from one place. It was most likely to have been Charles Lyell's uniformitarian suggestion of "successive creation of species" in "centres or foci of creation" within migrating distance of each habitat (with "creation" being used by Lyell to imply an incomprehensible natural process). Another common doctrine was the catastrophist view that the Earth was repeatedly depopulated, then complete new populations created to occupy each habitat.

Darwin used the term "creationist" in letters to his colleagues, and in a scientific paper published in 1862. His American friend Asa Gray wrote articles published by The Nation in 1873–1874 discussing the "special creationist" or "the specific creationist". In 1887 some of the letters were published in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin.

In 1889 the Century Dictionary defined Creationism as "The doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by the fiat of an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed : opposed to evolutionism." The entry is attributed to Charles Sanders Peirce, an opponent of creationism.

References

Scientific methods and Mythology

With the following sentence; "Creationism, in its broadest sense, includes a spectrum or continuum of religious views, some of which accept the reality of biological evolution; evolutionary creationism and varieties of theistic evolution reconcile their faith with modern science and hold that God purposefully created through the laws of nature."

The word reconcile does not fit here, because reconcile means "make (one account) consistent with another, especially by allowing for transactions begun but not yet completed."

The "purposeful creations of laws of nature" cannot be reconciled with the scientific method of experimentation and observation.

I would suggest changing it to this Creationism, in its broadest sense, includes a spectrum or continuum of religious views, disillusioned some of which accept the reality of biological evolution; evolutionary creationism and varieties of theistic evolution attempt to unsuccessfully reconcile their faith with modern science and hold that God purposefully created through the laws of nature.--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 07:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Putting the word disillusioned in there doesn't even make grammatical sense, and there's no particular reason to believe that everyone who tries to reconcile their faith with science is unsuccessful. The idea that they "cannot" be reconciled is your opinion. PepperBeast (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

pepperbeast It's not my opinion the Scientific method is well established and defined, stating that laws of nature come about by supernatural processes is not consistent with the scientific processes. And supported by multiple WP:RS such as --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 08:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that "disillusioned" makes no sense and isn't sourced, but the sentence as it stands is clearly wrong/ungrammatical. "Views" cannot "reconcile their faith", only people have faith. @Dave souza: could you help fix this please? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, good call that "views" can't reconcile faith. Have reworded it:

Creationism, in its broadest sense, includes a spectrum or continuum of religious views. Some types accept the reality of biological evolution; evolutionary creationism and varieties of theistic evolution reconcile religious faith with modern science, and hold that God purposefully created through the laws of nature.

Feel that's clearer. As for the reconciliation, the question of where laws of nature come from is beyond science. These types of creationism combine their religious belief in divine creation with acceptance of all the findings of science – to quote Scott,

"Theistic evolution is a theological view in which God creates through the laws of nature. Theistic evolutionists (TEs) accept all the results of modern science, in anthropology and biology as well as in astronomy, physics, and geology. . . . .However, TEs vary in whether and how much God is allowed to intervene — some believe that God created the laws of nature and allows events to occur with no further intervention. Other TEs believe that God intervenes at critical intervals during the history of life (especially in the origin of humans)."

These theological views exist, whether they're successful or not isn't an issue for this concise lead statement. . . dave souza, talk 16:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Dave souzaThe issue with it is that it makes it appear as if even if you adopt least intervening TE's to say that "God created the laws of nature" it gives the illusion that there is a possibility that this position can be successfully reconciled with modern science and accepted. When reality is this in itself does not at all reconcile with modern science. For a reader that's unfamiliar with the topic, it should be made clear, that although there has been an attempt at reconciling their beliefs with modern science, it is impossible to be reconciled without the even passing the first step of the scientific method that is a testable hypothesis.--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 21:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Source? . . . . . dave souza, talk 04:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Even while I agree that accommodationist theism does not present falsifiable hypotheses for a scientist to consider, people who believe that theism and scientific results can be reconciled do not generally claim that this reconciliation is supposed to happen using the scientific method. jps (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

For examples, Clergy Letter Project. . . dave souza, talk 19:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Nomination of Portal:Creationism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Creationism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Creationism (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Biased Statement

In the following line in the article: "are compatible with a Christian fundamentalist literal interpretation of the creation myths found in the Bible's Genesis" the phrase "creation myth", by definition implies that creationism is a false idea. This is a biased statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidDarden (talk • contribs) 19:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello David. I recommend reading Talk:Genesis creation narrative/FAQ. WP:FIXBIAS may also be useful on how to approach perceived bias in relation to improving the encyclopedia. —PaleoNeonate – 19:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2019

Under “Types” correct spelling to “between the” 41.13.4.180 (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the heads up. HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)