Talk:Creationism: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:44, 25 August 2004 editFeloniousMonk (talk \| contribs)18,409 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 13:03, 6 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,299,762 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Creationism/Archive 17) (bot
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~todo2~~}}		{{Talk header}}
			{{controversial}}
			{{FAQ\|collapsed=no}}
			{{ArbComPseudoscience}}
			{{Banner holder \|collapsed=yes\|1=
			{{Article history\| action1 = GAN
			\| action1date = 16:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
			\| action1result = listed
			\| action1oldid = 36189680

			\| action2 = GAR
	See archives for past discussions:
			\| action2date = 00:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
	* ]
			\| action2link = Talk:Creationism/Archive 16#GA Re-Review and In-line citations
	* ]
			\| action2result = delisted
	* ]
			\| action2oldid = 78375908
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] -- October 2003 to August 2004

			\| currentstatus = DGA
	-----
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|collapsed=yes\|class=B\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Religion\|importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject Philosophy\|importance=high\|religion=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Sociology\|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Skepticism\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Theology\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Christianity\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Islam\|importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject Zoroastrianism\|importance=}}
			{{WikiProject Creationism\|importance=Top\|}}
			{{WikiProject Alternative Views\|importance=high}}
			}}
			{{To do\|2}}
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{Talk archive}}
			\|algo = old(365d)
			\|maxarchivesize = 200K
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\|counter = 17
			\|archive = Talk:Creationism/Archive %(counter)d
			}}

			== Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2021 ==
	Page archived. It was 76Kb. --] 05:49, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
			{{cot\|fringe advocacy wall o’ text}}
			{{edit semi-protected\|Creationism\|answered=yes}}
			Change the following:
			"Since the 1970s, the commonest form of this has been Young Earth Creationism which posits special creation of the universe and lifeforms within the last 10,000 years on the basis of Flood geology, and promotes pseudoscientific creation science. From the 18th century onward, Old Earth Creationism accepted geological time harmonized with Genesis through gap or day-age theory, while supporting anti-evolution. Modern old-Earth creationists support progressive creationism and continue to reject evolutionary explanations. Following political controversy, creation science was reformulated as intelligent design and neo-creationism."

			To:
	==Capitalisation==
			"Since the 1970s, the commonest form of this has been Young Earth Creationism which posits special creation of the universe and lifeforms within the last 10,000 years on the basis of Flood geology, and promotes pseudoscientific creation science. From the 19th century onward, Young Biosphere Creation accepted the age of the universe and the age of the Earth, while accepting creation week as six sequential ordinary days and continues to reject evolutionary explanations as well as progressive creationism. From the 18th century onward, Old Earth Creationism accepted geological time harmonized with Genesis through gap or day-age theory, while supporting anti-evolution. Modern old-Earth creationists support progressive creationism and continue to reject evolutionary explanations. Following political controversy, creation science was reformulated as intelligent design and neo-creationism."

			References to be found:
	Should all of the ''See also'' links be capitalised? I have already changed them before but someone keeps changing e.g. ] to ], ] to ], ] to ] etc. I was trying to follow ] but now I see that there is no consensus at all and that issue needs to be discussed again. ] 00:19, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
			"Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown authored their Commentary on the Whole
			Bible in 1871. It is a comprehensive, verse-by-verse exposition that is still recognized as one of
			the great whole-Bible commentaries. Preacher Charles Spurgeon wrote “I consult it continually.” In their
			commentary on Genesis chapter 1 they concurred with key points 2 and 3 (above).

			http://newgeology.us/YBC.pdf
			Also:
			http://creationwiki.org/Young_Biosphere_Creation_(YBC)
			wessteinbr
			] (]) 02:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC) ] (]) 02:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
			:Looks like ] to a tiny minority view, lacks ], in particular we need to see ]. Also, any wiki is unacceptable as a source, particularly creationwiki. . . ], ] 16:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
			{{cob}}

			== Biblical basis ==
	The capitalisation across this article is very inconsistent and keeps changing quite chaoticly (not without my own fault of course) so I suggest making a short list of words to capitalise. If anyone thinks “creationism” should always be capitalised, please add it to the list below before changing the article, so everyone could discuss it and agree upon a common, consistent spelling. Thanks. ] 16:45, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

			I feel the biblical basis section needs more sources and more scholars analyzing the matter.
	===Which words should always be capitalised===

			Because I feel like there is more information regarding that section.] (]) 16:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
	* God, Earth, Bible (just a few for a good start—please add more)
	* names of religions but not names of theories (Is that correct?)

			== Neutrality==
	===When other words should be capitalised===

			I challenge the "neutrality" (Article Policy) of the word MYTH when referring to the Genesis account of creation. There are several definitions, and the one chosen by your source, a skeptic of creationism, is derogatory of the Genesis account. A common understanding of the word MYTH is that it's an invented story, idea, or concept; an imaginary or fictitious thing or person; an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.{Dictionary.com} Article is tainted. The word "myth" as used by skeptics of the Genesis account of creation does not come from a "Neutral point of view" as required by Article Policy. It would be sufficient to simply call it "the Genesis account." <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	* beginning of a sentence but not in a list when there is no real sentence (Is that correct?)
			:{{u\|Roglenoff}} - I've refactored your comment slightly, since that section header you created was exceedingly long - I hope you don't mind.
			:The use of the word 'myth' in this context is actually discussed explicitly by the cited source which appears directly after the word is first used in the article (Scott 2009, p58). Here is a brief extract: {{tq\|...the word ''myth'' is a term of art in the anthroplogical study of cultures. The common connotation of ''myth'' is something that is untrue, primitive or superstitious – something that should be discounted. Yet when anthropologists talk of myths, it is to describe stories within a culture that symbolise what members of that culture hold to be most important. A culture's myths are unquestionably important, and ''myth'' is not a term of denigration.}} In that context, I believe that it is the appropriate term to use in our article. Best ]] 08:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

			::{{re\|Roglenoff}} it's hard to believe you've even read the article, as the first sentence says "Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation". No where do we refer to Genesis as a myth. We say "Genesis creation narratives". And see ]. It's not our fault that so many people misunderstand the use of myth in this sort of context. ] ] 08:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
	:"Creationism" is not the name of a group or affiliation, as with Catholicism, Buddhism, and Republicanism (big "R"). It is the name of a specific belief or opinion, as with theism, holism, or republicanism (small "r"). It should not be capitalized except where any other common noun would be. Terms like "day-age creationism" get the same treatment. The capitalization of "Earth" is variable -- when the planet as a whole is meant, it usually ''is'' capitalized. Thus, ''young-Earth creationism''.

			== Christian Criticism ==
	:The word "god" is capitalized when one is writing in a solely monotheist context. Thus, "Catholics believe that God sent the Archangel Gabriel to Mary," but "The Greek god Zeus wields a thunderbolt." It can be argued that when comparing monotheist and non-monotheist religions, the lowercase form should be used for both so as to not appear to be favoring the former: "The Greek god Zeus did thus-and-so, while the Christian god Jehovah did this-and-that." This isn't meant to imply that Christians have multiple gods (though a Muslim would say so!) but rather that the Christian view is not being favored over the Greek. --] 03:23, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

			The very first line in the '''''Christian Criticism''''' section states that: "<u>'''Most'''</u> Christians disagree with the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution in schools." I am challenging this claim.
	== Is "creationism" a ''belief,'' an ''explanation,'' or a ''theory''? ==

			As the (2) citations for this statement cite two books to support its stance (''none'' of which have undertaken the required scientific polls or other methods to verify its legitimacy), I am challenging unsubstantiated assertion. It is simply an opinion held by these two authors, which are not real proofs to support such a broad assertion. It is much more accurate to say that ''Some'' rather than ''Most'' disagree, since these two books on their own cannot justify a broad claim as so, and should be shown as so. ] (]) 20:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	<<] subtlely inserted the following reader-invisible comment into the ] page, I am resisting the temptation of inserting a response similarly into the hidden code of the ] page, and I am taking the liberty of cutting that comment below, celebrated in <font color=green>green</font> here for the historical record.>>
			:Only a small minority of fundamentalist Christians - mostly in the United States agree with the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution in schools there are many sources for this. ] (]) 20:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
			::“Most Christians worldwide, as represented by statements from their governing bodies, are in fact accepting of biological evolution as being fully compatible with their faith.” . ] (]) 20:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

			== Adnan Oktar ==
	:'''Creationism''' is the explanation <font color=green><nowiki><!-- was the word "belief" really an "evolutionist bias"? --></nowiki></font> that the universe and all ] were ] by the deliberate act of ].

			The article about Adnan Oktar, which was written under the title of Islam, should be removed. Adnan Oktar is the leader of the organization and is currently in prison in Turkey. Because he is dishonest, his statements are also not valid. ] (]) 19:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
	In looking through the historical record at the competition between ] and ] in ] day, I was impressed by ] 1887 account of how ''Origin of Species'' provided the first explanation that in Huxley's view was a better explanation than ''creation.'' Huxley describes the sense in which he rejected ''creation'' as an explanation.

			:I made this edit , I don't think we lose much by not mentioning him here. Even if '']'' is an interesting book. ] (]) 20:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
	:If Agassiz told me that the forms of life which had successively tenanted the globe were the incarnations of successive thoughts of the Deity; and that he had wiped out one set of these embodiments by an appalling geological catastrophe as soon as His ideas took a more advanced shape, I found myself not only unable to admit the accuracy of the deductions from the facts of paleontology, upon which this astounding hypothesis was founded, but I had to confess my want of any means of testing the correctness of his explanation of them. And besides that, I could by no means see what the explanation explained.

	Huxley describes his similar rejection of the explanations of the evolutionists prior to Darwin.

	:And, by way of being perfectly fair, I had exactly the same answer to give to the evolutionists of 1851-8. . . . thorough-going evolutionist, was Mr. ], whose acquaintance I made, I think, in 1852. . . . Many and prolonged were the battles we fought on this topic. But even my friend's rare dialectic skill and copiousness of illustration could not drive me from my agnostic position. I took my stand upon two grounds: firstly, that up to that time, the evidence in favor of transmutation was wholly insufficient; and, secondly, that no suggestion respecting the causes of the transmutation assumed, which had been made, was in any way adequate to explain the phenomena. Looking back at the state of knowledge at that time, I really do not see that any other conclusion was justifiable.

	Furthermore, any self-respecting religion-neutral anthropologist, such as , Curator of the American Museum of Natural History, would classify ''creation'' and ''evolution'' as mere successive stages of incomplete but improving explanations in a universe where there is no God to assist the women and men who attempt to discover the truth of their origins.

	From all of the above, I suggest that it is more accurate to define ''creationism'' as an explanation rather than a belief. After all, the survival of the belief derives from the usefulness of the belief, and a primary use of creationism is explaining how we all got here. According to Thomas Huxley, until ''Origin of Species,'' creationism was as good an explanation as evolutionism. And for the majority of American voters who cannot understand the evolutionists' explanations, creationism is a better explanation than evolutionism even yet today. ---] 16:08, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

	: Considering that "] in the psychological sense is a representational mental state that takes the form of a propositional attitude and in the religious sense, ] refers to a part of a wider spiritual or moral foundation, generally called faith, and that creationism is part and parcel of the christian faith, I think the use of the term "belief" was completely justified. Creationism is indeed an explanation, but it is an explanation founded on belief, hence it is a belief. It is not founded on knowledge or evidence; to imply otherwise, which is what you're doing, is to create a false impression that Creationism shares some sort of parity with other explanations which do not require belief in the supernatural. It does not. You seem to be substituting your own personal bias for this imputed "evolutionist bias" you claim is on the Creationism page. --] 16:48, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

	---

	"Personal bias"? Nope. I have bet on Darwin's explanation, myself.

	In fact, I have a personal interest in getting more "creationists" to understand the extent to which their various hungers, including hungers for sugar, salt, burned fat, raiding Iraq, and gender bias are inherited hungers from the ancestors of the chimpanzees.

	You propose a hypothesis: That the source of the political power of "creationism" is "belief."

	I quote to you an opposing standard hypothesis from religion-neutral anthropology:

	:Although origin myths are usually assigned to the province of religion, they contain one element of science: explanation. While moral lessons may be scattered here and there throughout them, origin myths are basically ways of accounting for things as they are. Explanation, then, is not unique to nor did it begin with science. Science shares explanation with mythology. What distinguishes science from mythology is verification. Not only does science propose answers, it proceeds to test these answers, and if the answers prove incorrect, they must be rejected or modified.

	So I pose to you this question: How could we determine empirically whether the political power of "creationism" derives from

	* its simplistic explanatory power that appeals to hungers inherited from the ancestors of the chimpanzees (my hypothesis) or

	* its "foundation on belief" (your hypothesis--which wording of course you may edit to accurately reflect what you are saying)?

	Would you agree that before 1850, creationism was an explanation founded on available knowledge and evidence? ---] 19:01, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

	:: Yes, that's the thing about our knowledge, it keeps changing and growing (with any luck). Knowledge of the natural world and evidence of the same surpassed and rendered obsolete the majority relevant beliefs as to our 'creation' some time ago. This puts creationism squarely in the realm of belief, IMHO.

	:: My apologies if I was incorrect in implying a personal bias you may have towards creationism. --] 19:44, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

	---

	:: I think what the ''Bloomsbury Guide to Human Thought'' has to say on the nature of belief is distinctly relevant here:

	:: ''Belief is the direct mirror image of knowledge. To know something is to have experienced proof of it; to believe something is to sidestep the need for proof. To know that black is white would be a very different thing from believing that black is white. And yet believers consistently behave as if what they have is knowledge, and claim their belief as such. This is the case in matters both great and small, but is particularly so in our attitude to the supernatural. If one believes in the existence of supernatural beings, the next stage is to make that belief into a faith (belief with imperatives for action), and the step after that is to claim that proofs exist (miracles, personal revelations and so on). A scientist can prove the existence of, say, black-body radiation or ripples in space - the process of proof may be laborious, but the end result is sure knowledge which the outsider is bound to accept. In the same way, religious believers down the ages have offered laborious and meticulous proofs - but here, in the final analysis, the outsider must share the revelation, accept the irrational, in order to share the belief. I do not need to believe in the existence of black-body radiation to know that it exists; I do need to believe in God to know that He exists. In the same way, unless I am a fool or a charlatan, disproof will change what I know; someone else's disbelief, by contrast, will have no effect at all on what I believe.''

	:: I agree with FM that creationism, on this standard, clearly is a belief rather than a theory. Or if you want to be generous, perhaps call it a conjecture. -- ] 16:56, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

	::: Would you agree with the following? "'''Creationism''' is an explanation"--with the understanding that, given today's total empirical evidence, "creationism" is as poor and inadequate an explanation for origins as is the "]" for burning? ---] 19:01, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

	:::: I'm not sure using something like "Creationism is an <em>unfounded explanation</em>" is much of an improvement. --] 19:44, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:03, 6 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Creationism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 12 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

view · edit Frequently asked questions

Many of these questions arise on frequently on the talk page concerning Creationism.

To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.

Q1: Should the article characterize creationism as a religious belief? (Yes.) A1: Yes. Creationism is a religious belief; it is not a theory. Q2: Should the article use the term myth? (Yes.) A2: Yes. Myth as used in the context of the article means "a sacred narrative explaining how the world and mankind came to be in their present form." This terminology is extensively used in religion and comparative religion fields of study at the academic and scholarly levels, as well as in many of the reliable sources cited in the article. With this in mind, usage of the term is explicitly supported by WP:RNPOV and WP:WTA.

FAQ notes and references:

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Other talk page banners

Creationism was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 22, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
September 29, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

This

level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Religion High‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Religion High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of religion

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Theology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam High‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Zoroastrianism

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoroastrianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Zoroastrianism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ZoroastrianismWikipedia:WikiProject ZoroastrianismTemplate:WikiProject ZoroastrianismZoroastrianism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Creationism Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Creationism: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2015-01-29

Add section on the differences/similarities/conflict between Intelligent Design and Creationism.
Add section on the beliefs creationists have on what the mainstream fields of science have to say on the origins of life and the universe.

Priority 2

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2021

fringe advocacy wall o’ text

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the following: "Since the 1970s, the commonest form of this has been Young Earth Creationism which posits special creation of the universe and lifeforms within the last 10,000 years on the basis of Flood geology, and promotes pseudoscientific creation science. From the 18th century onward, Old Earth Creationism accepted geological time harmonized with Genesis through gap or day-age theory, while supporting anti-evolution. Modern old-Earth creationists support progressive creationism and continue to reject evolutionary explanations. Following political controversy, creation science was reformulated as intelligent design and neo-creationism."

To: "Since the 1970s, the commonest form of this has been Young Earth Creationism which posits special creation of the universe and lifeforms within the last 10,000 years on the basis of Flood geology, and promotes pseudoscientific creation science. From the 19th century onward, Young Biosphere Creation accepted the age of the universe and the age of the Earth, while accepting creation week as six sequential ordinary days and continues to reject evolutionary explanations as well as progressive creationism. From the 18th century onward, Old Earth Creationism accepted geological time harmonized with Genesis through gap or day-age theory, while supporting anti-evolution. Modern old-Earth creationists support progressive creationism and continue to reject evolutionary explanations. Following political controversy, creation science was reformulated as intelligent design and neo-creationism."

References to be found: "Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown authored their Commentary on the Whole Bible in 1871. It is a comprehensive, verse-by-verse exposition that is still recognized as one of the great whole-Bible commentaries. Preacher Charles Spurgeon wrote “I consult it continually.” In their commentary on Genesis chapter 1 they concurred with key points 2 and 3 (above). http://newgeology.us/YBC.pdf Also: http://creationwiki.org/Young_Biosphere_Creation_(YBC) wessteinbr Wessteinbr (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC) Wessteinbr (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like undue weight to a tiny minority view, lacks reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, in particular we need to see independent sources. Also, any wiki is unacceptable as a source, particularly creationwiki. . . dave souza, talk 16:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Biblical basis

I feel the biblical basis section needs more sources and more scholars analyzing the matter.

Because I feel like there is more information regarding that section.CycoMa (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality

I challenge the "neutrality" (Article Policy) of the word MYTH when referring to the Genesis account of creation. There are several definitions, and the one chosen by your source, a skeptic of creationism, is derogatory of the Genesis account. A common understanding of the word MYTH is that it's an invented story, idea, or concept; an imaginary or fictitious thing or person; an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.{Dictionary.com} Article is tainted. The word "myth" as used by skeptics of the Genesis account of creation does not come from a "Neutral point of view" as required by Article Policy. It would be sufficient to simply call it "the Genesis account." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roglenoff (talk • contribs) 06:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Roglenoff - I've refactored your comment slightly, since that section header you created was exceedingly long - I hope you don't mind.

The use of the word 'myth' in this context is actually discussed explicitly by the cited source which appears directly after the word is first used in the article (Scott 2009, p58). Here is a brief extract: ...the word myth is a term of art in the anthroplogical study of cultures. The common connotation of myth is something that is untrue, primitive or superstitious – something that should be discounted. Yet when anthropologists talk of myths, it is to describe stories within a culture that symbolise what members of that culture hold to be most important. A culture's myths are unquestionably important, and myth is not a term of denigration. In that context, I believe that it is the appropriate term to use in our article. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 08:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Roglenoff: it's hard to believe you've even read the article, as the first sentence says "Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation". No where do we refer to Genesis as a myth. We say "Genesis creation narratives". And see Creation myth. It's not our fault that so many people misunderstand the use of myth in this sort of context. Doug Weller talk 08:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Christian Criticism

The very first line in the Christian Criticism section states that: "Most Christians disagree with the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution in schools." I am challenging this claim.

As the (2) citations for this statement cite two books to support its stance (none of which have undertaken the required scientific polls or other methods to verify its legitimacy), I am challenging unsubstantiated assertion. It is simply an opinion held by these two authors, which are not real proofs to support such a broad assertion. It is much more accurate to say that Some rather than Most disagree, since these two books on their own cannot justify a broad claim as so, and should be shown as so. DSXG Plays (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Only a small minority of fundamentalist Christians - mostly in the United States agree with the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution in schools there are many sources for this. Theroadislong (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

“Most Christians worldwide, as represented by statements from their governing bodies, are in fact accepting of biological evolution as being fully compatible with their faith.” . Theroadislong (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Adnan Oktar

The article about Adnan Oktar, which was written under the title of Islam, should be removed. Adnan Oktar is the leader of the organization and is currently in prison in Turkey. Because he is dishonest, his statements are also not valid. 78.190.128.59 (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I made this edit , I don't think we lose much by not mentioning him here. Even if The Atlas of Creation is an interesting book. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Categories: