Talk:Creationism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Rename this article Scientific creationism

A quick look at creationism (theology) will show that creationism is properly a theological topic, whereas the present article is more aptly named "creation science" and/or "scientific creationism." Needless to say, Eloquence will disagree with my position, asserting that the titles "creation science" and "scientific creationism" are not NPOV. While I certainly understand the hostility Eloquence has towards creation scientists, I am baffled by his assertion that the titles I prefer are somehow not NPOV, particularly in light of the aptly-titled Wikipedia articles junk science and pathological science. Agreed, creation science is *NOT* actually scientific, but this position is argued forcefully in the body of this article. -- NetEsq 18:19, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree with this. Creationism itself is a theological issue...there are many scientists who don't agree with scientific creationism who would consider themselves "creationists", in the sense that they hold religious beliefs in some type of creator. "Scientific creationism" makes it clear that the creationist claims are intended to be held as scientific, regardless of whether they are scientifically correct or not. Lots of awful proofs may purport to prove FLT, but that doesn't mean their authors didn't intend them to be proofs, and they should be attacked and discredited as proofs. Similarly, lots of stuff is bad science, and it should be attacked and discredited as bad science. Indeed, the confusion and conflation of science with morals and religions is one of the signs of a democracy slipping into totalitarianism. Also, I find this article extremely POV (towards the direction against scientific creationism), and I say this as someone who thoroughly disagrees with it. Despite my own conclusions, I think I have a slightly more sensitive pulse on looking at things from the other side's point of view -- see all my contributions at AIDS reappraisal and Talk:AIDS reappraisal. Revolver

Part of the reason why the article may not appear neutral is that 2/3 of it are about the creation/evolution debate. I am pretty happy about the preceding 1/3 of the article, and I should hope you would be, too. If not, please be a bit more explicit about the POV issues you have with the article. -- Miguel

I disagree. Adjectives are more important than nouns with NPOV, because they are more likely to indicate a point of view. For instance, "a true religion" is a phrase that has a definite point of view in a way that "a religion" doesn't. When you say "scientific creationism", you're not just talking about creationism, you're saying that it is, in fact, truly scientific. "Creation science" is acceptable and shows that the adherents to it attempt to use science, whether or not they are successful. — Olathe 18:35, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Creationism is theology. Sounds as though the content of Creationism (theology) may need to be merged into theis article or vice-versa. Scientific creationism is a title which doesn't make a lot of sense to me and creation science is a completely different field of study, that of the non-theological origin of the creation of the world. Jamesday 05:44, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with your disagreement. :-) Creationism is both a theological doctrine, which has developed over centuries long before Darwin ever came along, and a shorthand term for "religious fundamentalist opposition to evolutionary theory". Perhaps the best solution would be to leave the Creationism (theology) article where it is and rename this article "Creationism and Science", as that would better reflect the subject matter? Note that creationism didn't become generally problematic until science began to contradict it 150 years ago, so an article focused on the conflict between the two - in other words, this article - needs to be distinct from the article on creation theology. -- ChrisO 08:26, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This is substantially similar to the position that I have been advocating for quite some time. The content currently found in Creationism (theology) should remain where it is, at least for the time being, and the current Creationism article should be renamed to reflect the true nature of the content found there. To that end, renaming the current Creationism article Creationism and Science would be a big step in the right direction as that title does not conflate pseudoscientific creationism with mainstream science. -- NetEsq 17:04, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How about Creation and Science? I absolutely abhor the word creationism. Ezra Wax

It's what the stuff is normatively called. You might as well assign a random string of letters and numbers as the article title. - David Gerard 17:42, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

It is a commonplace rhetorical trick nowadays to declare that the normal usage of the concept under discussion is now "derogatory." It is tempting to see this technique as a last-ditch attempt to stifle mention of the Idea Itself and to substitute— what? There is nothing "scientific' about creationism. What if one were forced to use the term "Heavenly Satanism"? (Anyone who has this page on their watchlist is wasting their time anyway. But there you are.) Wetman 16:38, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Nothing scientific about creationism"? What? - SamE 13:09, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes. There is nothing scientific about creationism. see philosophy of science. See this article for how creationists are either ignorant or dishonest. Anyway, yes, this should be moved to creation science, as that's self-identification. Howevre, it should make it absolutely clear in the first paragraph that the scientific community considers it to be pseudoscience, and dishonest. Duncharris 16:52, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

I think it is fair enough to use whichever term Scientic Creationists are happy to apply to themselves, and to point out in the introduction that non-creationsists dispute the "scientific" part - just as in "Christian Science".

It should not be called Scientific Creationism. Then every group of wackos will start putting "Scientific" in front of their ideas to pretend they have intellectual bases. Scientific Astrology, Scientific Nazism, Scientific Witchcraft, etc. "Science" has a precise meaning--tested by the Scientific Method. Creationist argument is based a) on an inculcated conviction that the Bible is correct, b) on dubious theoretical/philosophical arguments for why evolution cannot be correct, and c) misunderstanding and ignorance about voluminous, incontrovertible evidence in favor of biological evolution.

There simply is no NPOV issue here. Biological evolution is proven. The fact that many people don't believe in it is not an issue of science--it's an issue of sociology and psychology. All throughout history masses of people have believed silly things. The Egyptians, Sumerians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, etc. all had creation myths. Should the article on Greek creation myths be called Scientific Greek Creationism? Wikipedia should present facts regardless of how many people are aware of the facts. Creationism is best and most accurately discussed by treating it as a sociological phenomenon. If we are to pretend that idiots are intellectuals for the sake of maintaining NPOV, then there is no reason for Wikipedia.

Rmalloy 00:09, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the vitriol in what you write. For in my opinion, the human hunger for "religion" is a curse upon people--something like the curse of the nagging inherited human hungers for more sugar, more salt, and more burned fat than a healthy body can stand and stay healthy--given today's technology and profit incentives for producing and marketing sugar, salt, and burned fat. However, the current Creationism page is not about "creationism." Perhaps, the current Creationism page is about the "turf battle" between two barbarian armies that care neither for truth nor facts. But the current Creationism page is certainly not about "creationism." In contrast, the current creationism (theology) page appears to be about "creationism." So, what should be the title of the current Creationism page? --Rednblu 01:31, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, for money they should be one in the same page. I have never encountered a "creationist" who didn't have a theological motivation. Does anyone claim to be an irreligious creationist? I would get rid of "Creationism (theology)" and put everything under Creationism.

Is it possible to speculate about there needing to be a "God" or "Intelligent Designer" for the world to work so splendidly without involving religion? Sure. But that's not science, that's philosophy. No experiment can be done to determine whether our universe was necessarily Created. So perhaps this article could be "Creationist philosophy" or "Intelligent design," but certainly not "Scientific creationism."

But like I said, I think it should all be under "Creationism." I think Wikipedia makes a mistake by splitting articles that shouldn't be split. What is now "Creationism" should be discussed under a subheading like "Attempts to find philosophical and scientific support for creationist beliefs" Rmalloy 17:42, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Creationism is theology. But the Creationism page is not about theology, so it is not about "creationism"; it is about the flaws in "Creationism" when viewed from a "scientific" viewpoint. On the other hand it appears to me that the Creationism (theology) page is about theology. --Rednblu 04:51, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Fundamentalist" is not NPOV?

The frequent use of the pejorative term "fundamentalist" and the serious-toned grouping of creationists with fringe "flat earthers" and "geocentrists" (taken from an anti-creation source) makes the article clearly NOT NPOV and shows a subtle effort to create a straw man. -- Pollinator 18:59, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The term fundamentalism is used in the sense of the Wikipedia article christian fundamentalism. -- Miguel

If a racial or ethnic group objects to a pejorative term, and you continue to use that term, you are a racist. Why is this any different? Keep the term "fundamentalist" in the historic sense, and for those few who proudly wear it. But the persistant use of the term to group all creationists with the most narrow minority is a transparent straw man attack. Pollinator 12:21, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Note that fundamentalism was the name that a certain group of christians gave themselves, and it is used to refer to them and their intellectual descendents.

If you wish to contest the idea that the modern creationist movement has its origins in the fundamentalist movement of the early 20th century, please argue your case. You may also point out specific places where it is stated or implied that all modern creationists are fundamentalists, and we can discuss what should be said instead. -- Miguel 23:04, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Miguel, the cause and effect here may well be transposed. Atheism and agnosticism are statements of religious belief. NetEsq says one thing that is very true: "However, a conflict arises when people try to sell their religious beliefs in scientific packaging." So you could say that the modern creationist movement has its origins in reaction to the overstepping of the bounds of science by many of the Darwinists. Pollinator 05:51, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

...or in the realization that the teaching of evolution in colleges was causing young people to question their faith. Also, there is the sociological issue of why the movement seems confined to the US and spreads to other countries in parallel with the spread of evangelical christian groups. -- Miguel

The term fundamentalist is not a pejorative term, and the grouping of creation scientists with flat earthers and geocentrists is an apt one, as the term creationism refers to a wide spectrum of theories and beliefs, ranging from the wholly plausible to the totally outlandish. To wit, there are many creationists who do *NOT* take issue with the scientific validity of the theory of evolution, just as there is a very negligible minority of scientists who think that the theory of evolution is an inadequate explanation for the origin of life on the planet Earth. However, a conflict arises when people try to sell their religious beliefs in scientific packaging. Creation science is pseudo science, plain and simple, and there is no reason to equivocate when stating this plain simple truth. -- NetEsq 22:21, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This is a diatribe, not a response. I rest my case. Pollinator 12:21, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A dismissive retort does not prove your "case." Rather, it demonstrates your unwillingness to engage in dialogue with people who can easily rebuke your unfounded claims. Such tactics are used quite frequently by creation scientists, which is not at all surprising, as the pseudo-scientific claims of creation science cannot withstand the scrutiny of mainstream science. -- NetEsq

<< If a racial or ethnic group objects to a pejorative term, and you continue to use that term, you are a racist. Why is this any different? >>

Apples and oranges. Fundamentalists are not a racial or ethnic group, and your objection to the term fundamentalist is the first objection that I have ever seen. Exactly what do you find so objectionable about the term fundamentalist? And what term do you think would be more accurate and/or less objectionable? -- NetEsq 15:44, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps traditional Christianity...this page is so bitterly polarized against Creationism that the writers can't even see it, and it makes a mockery of Wikipedia NPOV.

Does traditional Christianity include Catholicism or any of the European protestant denominations? Because then you would be grossly exaggerating the appeal of creationism. -- Miguel

The bitterness is so apparent to any Creationist that only the most brassy would make any attempt, and that is quickly struck down (with snide comments on the talk page - to prove my point).

How about a poll? Has any Creationist ever made any contribution to this page that stood?

The Anti-Creationists club wrote the Evolution page, and they wrote the Creationist page. Heck, even the definitions are only the ones allowed by Anti-Creationsists club. It's a bit like a page written on Afro-American civil rights - not about a bunch of white liberals who think they understand the whole concern, because they once marched in a civil rights march. No, this is beyond that - more like a bunch of white supremacists, who think they can understand the entirety of the issue.

We went through an entire round of rewriting the introduction last August. Since you missed that, why don't you propose an alternative introductory paragraph here? -- Miguel

On the labeling, it could easily said that this is a group of primarily fundamentalist Darwinists. How does that make you feel? For further development, see my contribution on Fundamentalism and the "religious right" Talk:Fundamentalist Christianity

That is simply not true. Have you gone through the list of contributors to ths page and checked their Wikipedia home pages? -- Miguel

I ask: where is the NPOV? Pollinator 05:51, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ok, ok, point taken. But just saying how the article is wrong does not make it right. Can you just make the edits you think you need to make? -- Miguel

The first thing is that the "Spectrum Chart" has gotta go! It is a straw man polemic against creationists to place tiny minority fringe groups together with them. Removal of this spurious comparison will be a step in the direction of NPOV. Anyway, there is a link to this "Spectrum Chart", in the anti-creation web sites listed. Pollinator 16:55, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) (Sheesh! I must be getting addicted - putting links on the talk page....)

Okay, here's an edit of one section, at least makes a begining to express some of the Creationists' points of view, which IS the topic of this page (heretofore basically just an attack). Lest someone bring up Godwin's law, it should be noted that the connection between Darwinism and Hitler is a lot firmer than the connection between most Creationists and Flat Earthers. Pollinator 18:40, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's not true, though - Hitler was a Young Earth Creationist, not a Darwinist, so the connection is actually rather closer to Creationism. See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html for details. -- ChrisO 08:26, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hitler followed Malthusian scientific racism, as did Darwin, which is why Hitler felt free to try to eliminate people that didn't fit his qualifications. I believe, since this page has long been "101 reasons why Creationism is a Neanderthal view," it's time to put some of Darwin's racist passages (which are usually swept under the rug) on the Evolution page (NPOV, you know...)Pollinator 13:37, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, Nazism perverted both scientific and religious doctrines - I rather agree with Churchill's characterisation of it being "a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science." And of course, Darwin was writing in an age when commonly held ideas of race were very different to those in evidence now - he was hardly alone in perceiving South American aboriginals as primitive. I wonder, though, if it might be a good idea to introduce a section on "moral arguments against evolution" - racism, moral relativism etc - as this does seem to be a major topic of concern to creationists. Do you want to have a go at drafting something on this? -- ChrisO 15:15, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am wondering why the criticism of Darwinism would necessarily be on a separate page, while the bulk of the Creationist page is still primarily attempted refutations of it. Is there a Wikipedia policy? Is it applied neutrally? Should not the criticisms of Creationism be primarily on a separate page as well? I would be willing to "have a go" at the suggested page, if there is a likewise effort to bring the Creationism page into the same format. Pollinator 10:17, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Splitting the page

Can someone split this page to a manageable size and archive the older section?

Is there any interest or any point to my adding a response to the claims of irreducible complexity? Skeetch 04:45, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

Creationism vs creation science?

Is it possible to separate creationism from creation science? -- Miguel 21:36, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

If you have to split, do it by section:

• History of creationism
• Creation beliefs (merge with "Spectrum and types of beliefs" section)
• Creationism vs. evolution debate
• Creationism in public education

Leave a summary in place in the main article of each of these sections. See the country pages as an example. —Eloquence 22:47, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

In talk:creationism and evolutionism you say that the debate belongs in the creationism article. It seems to me that the debate part is dominating this article and clouding the discussion of creationism on its own merits. -- Miguel 23:09 Nov 17 2003 (UTC)

Creationism has merits? ;-) Seriously, though, my point is that if we split the article up, we should do it in a neutral fashion, i.e. the creationism article should be an overview of the issues related to creationism, from its definition (a complex matter), history and followers to its struggle against evolution in the political and scientific sphere. To move away only such a central issue as the (pseudo-)scientific debate and to let this article focus on other aspects, whatever these may be, would be POV. There's a simple rule for cases like this (when an article gets too long), and that is the one I have outlined above: to split the article up according to its sections and to leave summaries in place. This avoids a situation where, e.g. the key "creationism" article is dominated by non-scientists whose primary intent is to portray their ideology in a positive light.—Eloquence 23:43, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

The problem (in my view) is not that the page is too long, but that the "debate" part is distracting us from writing a discussion of creationism in and of itself. What I'm getting at is: does creationism have any content other than a critique of evolution? Can creationism be described in its own terms, or mostly only as a list of "flaws" of evolution? Arguments against evolution are about evolution, not about creationism, and so belong in articles related to evolution. There's nothing wrong with the article portraying creationism in a positive light: after all, there must be reasons why people are creationists. If anyone wanted to include a critique of creationism, that would also be appropriate. -- Miguel 00:26 Nov 18 2003 (UTC)

That's exactly what the article creation beliefs is about, with no precedence given to Christianity. Creationism defines itself largely by challenging scientific points of view, and therefore needs to be discussed on these terms.—Eloquence 00:36, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

As I have stated previously, creationism is not synonymous with creation science, and this article is seriously flawed in that it pretends to conflate the two. Creationism is properly a philosophical and theological topic, dealing with such issues as the nature of the primordial "first cause." The primary reason that creationism and science come into conflict is that creation scientists attempt to validate their religious creeds by impeaching legitimate scientific inquiry. -- NetEsq 01:39, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That view has already been soundly refuted.—Eloquence 01:44, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly disagree. That view has not been soundly refuted; it has been stubbornly rejected, by you. However, even the most stubborn rejection can be overcome by the involvement of additional Wikipedians. -- NetEsq 02:02, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Actually, not only by me, and not stubbornly, but by virtually everyone else in the debate who can read a dictionary.—Eloquence 02:09, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

New article on Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar

Wikipedians may be interested in the article that I've just submitted on the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar, beloved of Young Earth Creationists. - ChrisO 00:44, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Assumptions of creationists and Darwinists

A recent edit added "Creationists and Darwinists have a different ontology, each making a fundamental assumption which is outside the realm of science." This statement is not backed up later in the edit, though. Creationists must necessarily make the assumption that a god exists. This can be seen as an assumption that is "outside the realm of science". I don't see what non-scientific assumption the darwinists are making, though? A further point to note on this edit is that it reverts my change to the sentence "Materialistic Evolutionism [...] accepts the theory of evolution, but denies the existence of any divine agency." I changed the "but" to "and". The "but" implies the POV that accepting the theory of evolution is usually done while believing in the existence of a god. The "and" on the otherhand just states that they hold both positions without implying anything. --snoyes 19:57, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The edit may have been referring to the belief that life spontaneously ordered itself to begin with, which sounds like "outside the realm of science" to me until somebody can observe it or duplicate it. In any case though I would have deleted something like that in the article. silsor 20:43, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

I (snoyes) moved the following here, as there is no evidence given that this statement is factually correct.

"Creationists and Darwinists have a different ontology, each making a fundamental assumption which is outside the realm of science."

"Adolf Hitler was a believer in the doctrines of Thomas Malthus which also heavily influenced early evolutionists."

Linking Hitler to Malthus to Darwin in this manner seems kind of silly. First of all, this is the first time I ever heard that Hitler was directly affected by Malthus. Wagner? Yes. Nietzsche? Yes. Malthus, an English economist and so forth? Hitler usually attributed his influences to Germans. Secondly, Malthus's ideas applied to humans whereas Darwin took those ideas and fixed them on animals. And Malthus merely fleshed out economic ideas which were prevalent in his day and shared by most economists of the day - and are still more or less shared by modern economists as far as I can see. I've removed this sentence, please cite where Hitler said this if you want to put it in. -- JohnWoolsey 11:25, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

A few days ago I rewrote ONE section of the article to try and give a little expression of the Creationist viewpoint (which is supposedly what the page is about). I pretty much left alone the BULK of the page which is primarily an expression of anti-creationist viewpoints. Since then the anti-creationists have been progressively removing this tiny bit of creationist viewpoint, and replacing it with still more anti-creationist viewpoints. POV is running rampant here. The article would better be retitled 101 reasons why creationists are all extremist Neanderthals. I've removed some un-fair and un-balanced proselytizing and pejorative edits by an anti-creationist and restored some of the key points of creationist belief. This page is about Creationism, folks. Apparently many think the only expression allowed on the Creationism page is that of anti-Creationists, and key points of Creationist viewpoints are not to be allowed. I've kept the edit by JohnWoolsey, as an explanation was given on the talk page, and we can revisit this later. Pollinator 17:16, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Listed on Cleanup

I'm listing this page on Cleanup. It's some of the worst POV I've ever seen. silsor 00:26, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

It's not that bad, but in recent weeks apparently both creationists and anti-creationists have battled about getting derogatory phrases about each other into the article. Highly immature.—Eloquence

Would you kindly explain how this is immature? For much of this page's history it's been: (1.) establishing a caricature of creationism, and (2.) making derogatory comments about it. Any part that expresses a serious creationist viewpoint is soon whittled away.

Personally, I think I've bent over backwards to be courteous. I have tried to introduce some genuine Creationist viewpoints, but have mostly left alone the anti-Creationist writings (except for the blatant straw man "flat earth" stuff). The page still has a long way to go to be NPOV. One step forward, two steps back sometimes...BTW, if you would like to see "derogatory phrases" take a look at the comments left on my talk page.Pollinator 18:11, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd also like to either remove the Christian-centrism, or move this article to Christian creationism. silsor

Both is unwarranted. Creationism in common use primarily refers to Christian religious fundamentalist beliefs. [1] There are some other beliefs which are occasionally labeled "creationist", but the bulk of them can be discussed in creation beliefs.—Eloquence

There you go again. POV. Most creationists are not fundamentalists.Pollinator 18:11, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, that is not the common definition of the term "creationism". Please do some research.—Eloquence

I have. I found that fundamentalists are usually "young earth" creationists. That leaves three other categories.Pollinator 07:03, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just because YECs are fundamentalists does not mean that OECs are not. Both YECs and OECs use the Bible as the basis for discussing biological origins. That is a fundamentalist concept. We would call someone who claims that God plays a substantial role in magnetism, and that this role is documented in sacred scripture, a religious fundamentalist or at least highly religious. So we should use the same terms when talking about biological origins.—Eloquence 16:32, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

(Sigh!) Is this deliberate or are you unable to grasp the differences? Fundamentalists are a specific group with a specific history. They are not equivalent to "religious." Broad brush statements like the above are first a slap at those who are proud of their fundamentalist heritage and do not wish to be confused with others. Then in the same sentence you backhand other groups who are not fundamentalists, and also do not wish to be confused with them. Talk about making derogatory comments! I don't wish to be rude, but I've gotta be frank, because you just don't GET it! And I despair over any NPOV on the Creationism page, when even the very definitions are only allowed to be what the anti-creationists want them to be. Pollinator 20:26, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Capitalisation

What do you think about capitalizing? Personally I think capitalizing Creationism and related terms every time they show up is silly, not to mention clashes with the intro in which they are decapitalized. silsor

I agree. I don't know who added the capitalization, it is unnecessary and annoying.—Eloquence

I have fixed the capitalisation and created temporary redirects to articles with incorrectly capitalised titles (there are lots of inconsistencies—e.g. young Earth creationism, but old Earth Creationism) so the links still work, but someone should just delete my redirects and rename the articles themselves. I didn’t want to do it myself without consulting others. Rafał Pocztarski 13:33, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have seven pages of archives to read. Moan. silsor After having read the article and all of this commentary, it increasingly seems to me like it's trying to do too many things at once. I would actually suggest a total rewrite, replacing it with a much shorter article that simply describes how the term refers to an American political controversy without going into too much detail about the arguments of each side. I don't think Wikipedia is the place for political debates.

As suggested by other above, the religious aspects of the controversy can be addressed at creationsim (theology) and controversial aspects of evolutionary biology can be addressed at evolution (controversy). I'll be happy to write a draft of the revised article if others think it's a good idea. Jeeves 23:36, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm working on a rewrite of this page, to simplify it, express more accurately what creationism is, examine the driving forces of creationism, and bring it to a more NPOV. I do think the page is needed here. And it needs to have some input from wikipedians who have some understanding of creationism, not just from those who simply want to attack it. Pollinator 02:14, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Science is not about "controversy", or motive, it's about evidence. Those who want to attack creationism understand it perfectly well. "Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing 'does not!'" - Ialdaboath 02:30, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Simplistic? Yes. Straw man? Ayup. POV? Obviously. In line with the history of this page? Most definitely. "Religious" ferver? Maybe. Unwilling to take a breather in the attack on Creationism to see if more neutral ground can be found? Seems so. Pollinator 04:15, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I suggest that any rewrite of this page narrow the defintion of creationism to Young and Old Earth Creationism. Theistic evolution and Deism are not forms of creationism, as per any the definition of creationism that I have ever come accross or even the definition of creationism in the first sentence of this article. The most common definition of creationism is a belief in a literal interpretion of Genesis. This would of course include YEC. OEC and Day Age would also apply as the literal interpretation still stands except for the length of the biblical day. Creation science is the effort to prove that creationism is factually accurate through science. So I believe that the article should define creationism and its subsets as it does today, then move on to the history as it does today, but focus more on the history of creationist though, notable creationists of history and the evolution :-) of creationism over time. Comparison of Genesis 1 and 2 and treatment of the documentary hypothesis should be ommited. This is an entry about creationism, not textual criticism or criticism of creationism. For NPOV the article should not delve into arguments either for or against the factuality of creationism, except for summaries of tje arguments of noted creationists. In that same vein, the article should not explicity or implicity try to refute creationism or try to diminish it as a worldview.Perhaps a singular link to a page that can refute said arugments. The interpretation of Genesis section should be changed to reflect the different positions of the main variants of creationism, YEC and OEC and its variants. There should be a history of creation science pre Darwin, then contemporary to Darwin, finally in the years since Darwin culminating with Edwards v. Aguillard, the rise of the ID movement and recent theschool board debates in Kansas, Ohio, Alabama etc. Common Descent and the age of the Earth should be briefly treated, as well as the distribution of creation. However, I would simply create timelines of each worldview for comparison and not offer any judgements on the validty of any of them. That way the reader can simply learn what each world view is and compare them. That would elminate needing sections on common descent, age of the earth, origin of the earth and humans, etc. Creationism in public schools can be covered in the history as described above.The philosophy section should probably just be removed. Then I would have a list of notable creationist and a brief summary of their position. The sections including and after Arguments against evolution should probably be edited down to the bare essentials. There need not be refuations of each creationist argument in tabular form. Most of the sections after this point are clearly POV and should be either removed altogether or redacted down to NPOV.--JPotter 06:56, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well-put. I agree. - SamE 13:29, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

NOT two Genesis creation accounts

Stating unequivocally that Genesis contains two creation accounts is POV. Most Christians I know believe that these "two accounts" are both the exact same story, with no contradictions. Things people see as "contradictions" we see as different details that were either focused on or left out. IMO, Genesis is a continuous narrative; the creation is described in general, then a summary statement is made and the author goes into more detail about the creation of man.

The list of events this article gives from the "two accounts" aren't contradictions. For example, the fact that the "first account" mentions the Sabbath and the second doesn't is not a contradiction; it just means that the author already mentioned it and saw no reason to repeat it at that point. The fact that the "second account" begins with the creation of man is not a contradiction; it means the author already described the creation of the universe and the earth and is now focusing in detail on the formation of man. (In fact, if you'll bother to read it, the supposed "second account," that uses YHWH Elohim begins in verse 4 by summarizing the creation of everything, describing the state of the world, and then digging in in more detail into the creation of man.)

Statements like "This is important because many people are not aware that the Book of Genesis contains two distinct versions of the story of creation," come off as saying, "Some people are so stupid that even though they read Genesis over and over again in their religious studies they've never noticed that there are contradictions." You just can't state as fact that there are two accounts here. You need to contextualize it by saying many people SEE it as two accounts.

Now that I've looked a little lower in the article, I see that it does talk about how these can be harmonized. But it still isn't right to begin with a "statement of fact" that there definitively ARE two accounts here; that is only somebody's opinion. And it's even worse to have the statement about "some people aren't aware of it." I'm fully aware that some people see this different from me; the fact is that I disagree with them, not that I am unaware.

Jdavidb 14:33, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Quite so, the statements in this regard should be NPOV. There is more general information on the proposition that there are two creation accounts in Genesis (specifically Gen. 1:1-2:3, "P," and then from 2:4-25, "J") at documentary hypothesis.

Fire Star 15:33, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think the words creationism and creationist are loaded words. When used by scientists they are almost always meant derogatorily. As such, while an article called creationism might be appropriate, discussing the viewpoints of people who might fit into the category using words that are derogatory is certainly not.

Something easier to fix is to change the term creator God to divine creator. I find the second term less jarring. Ezra Wax 16:29, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The opening definition

Can someone provide the basis for the opening definition? I personally do not consider myself a creationist, nor do I think of God as a "first cause." But this definition seems anachronistic to me. In the United States, at least, I would bet that 99.99999% of the time a person refers to "creationism" or "creationists" they are referring to the belief that God created the different species; a view that is articulated expressly in opposition , or as an alternative, to Darwin's theory of the evolution of species through natural selection. When Aristotle (and later, St. Thomas, and even later, Mortimer Adler) articulated the argument of God as first cause, they were not engaging Darwin. Moreover, I know many people who accept Darwin's theory and believe that God created the universe. I am not saying they are right, and I am not inviting any argument on whether their position makes sense or not. I am just questioning whether this is an accurate definition. I don't think it is, and I have read a good deal about creationism, creation science, Darwin, and theology. If I am missing some major literature or debates, please let me know what and where they are! Slrubenstein

I continue to think that this is a valid point. It has been discussed vigorously in the Talk archives that, because the term is used in a polemical way, it has become difficult to define. Thus, many who believe that God created all things nevertheless deny that they are creationists. And although some identify themselves as creationists, others deny this label to them because they believe in evolution. It is very confusing. Mkmcconn

<< Can someone provide the basis for the opening definition? >>'

I think the opening definition sucks. Let me clarify that: I think the opening definition *really*, *really* sucks. (Compare with the opening paragraph of Creationism (theology).) -- NetEsq 20:52, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

<< In the United States, at least, I would bet that 99.99999% of the time a person refers to "creationism" or "creationists" they are referring to the belief that God created the different species >>

Ethnocentrism and cultural bias is clearly part of the problem. -- NetEsq 20:52, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

<< I know many people who accept Darwin's theory and believe that God created the universe. >>

As do I. However, in the context of the present article, at least one eloquent contributor considers these viewpoints hopelessly irreconcilable. Indeed, hostility towards the pseudo-science of creationism (i.e., creation science/scientific creationism) has become hostility towards the particular brand of Fundamentalist Christianity that espouses creation science and has become conflated with a hostility towards religion in any form. -- NetEsq 20:52, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

<< I don't think [the opening definition is an accurate one], and I have read a good deal about creationism, creation science, Darwin, and theology. If I am missing some major literature or debates, please let me know what and where they are! >>

I can't speak to the opening definition of the current creationism article, but the opening paragraph of creationism (theology) is derived from the article on creationism from the Catholic Encyclopedia. (< http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04475a.htm >) You might also want to take a look at the article on creationism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (< http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/ >.) -- NetEsq 20:52, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the citations! Slrubenstein

The Western World outside of the US

Is there any country except for the US where there is a sizeable creationist lobby, or where creationism has political support? I think we may safely say that US creationism is considered "weird" by the vast majority of Western Europeans. David.Monniaux 20:14, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how widely it is believed in the Muslim world, but there are at least Creationists there. Ashibaka ✎ 00:20, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is raising eyebrows, but it exists to a limited extend: Economist Article

 The organization "Answers in Genesis" is based in Australia.

Blue boxes

I think it's appropriate to have a blue box to link these articles together. Hopefully, that'll help with the naming disputes. I'll put it at {{msg:creationism}}. Feel free to edit it appropriately.Duncharris 18:05, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, you have posed an interesting intellectual puzzle for everyone to examine. Did you not also insert the blue box at the top of this page? So let us examine the implications of inserting the two blue boxes.

<<Blue box at the top of the page>> The insertion at the top of this page poses the question: What is the relation of creationism to evolutionary biology? And in my opinion, creationism has nothing to do with evolutionary biology. Historically, creationism derives from totally different forces than does evolutionary biology. Creationism derives from the human hunger to find the "great alpha male" to whom we can bow. In contrast, evolutionary biology derives from the human hunger to make people "self-sufficient" without having to depend on what our parents taught us. Apparently, we humans inherited both of those contrasting hungers from the ancestors of the chimpanzees. But the two hungers are competing.

Here is an analogy. The human hunger for sugar, salt, and burned fat is unrelated to the human hunger to find out what good nutrition is. Apparently, we humans inherited at least the rudiments of both of those contrasting hungers from the ancestors of the chimpanzees. But the two hungers are unrelated. That is, often the inherited hunger for sugar, salt, and burned fat overpowers the human hunger to find out and to follow what good nutrition is. Similarly, the human hunger for the "great alpha male" of a God to whom we can bow often overpowers the competing human hunger to find out how to make people "self-sufficient."

Accordingly, creationism has nothing to do with evolutionary biology--just as, the inherited human hungers for sugar, salt, and burned fat have nothing to do with nutrition. They derive from totally different forces.

<Bottom of the page>> Your proposed insertion at the bottom of this page poses the question: What is the relation of creationism to the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar and similar lines of inquiry? Here it seems to me, you would have to itemize an objectively fair overview of the theoretical aspects of creationism throughout history, including Plato's Creator following the "eternal archetype of the Good" and Aristotle's "prime mover."

From all of the above, I would suggest that you remove the blue box at the top of this page and that you expand the blue box at the bottom of this page to include the theoretical aspects of creationism throughout history. --Rednblu 20:04, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This article is absolutely riddled with bias. Clearly the main contributors are people who loathe Creationism and probably Christianity in general; and that's unfortunate. Too bad the hate mongers win again. *shrugs* --User:66.81.134.138

Well, discuss what you want to do, or what changes you want. Your point of view will be given full respect. Just don't throw major stuff in without saying anything. I'd be happy to discuss with you. Perhaps some of the things you are putting in would go better in a new article? There are options and discussion is always possible. --DanielCD 13:27, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Creationism reading list

For evolution, we have started a list of popular science books on evolution. I think it would be good to have a similar list for creationism (or "non-evolutionary explanations for the diversity of life"), and we can link to it from the evolution list. I didn't notice any such list in this page. Is there one, and would anyone want to start a list similar to List of popular science books on evolution? Thanks. AdamRetchless 17:48, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

evolutionism

I have rewritten that article from a redirect to evolution into an expanded dicdef of the word as I believe it is used by creationists as a general for us "evil atheists". Can someone check that that is what they think of it? Dunc_Harris|☺ 00:00, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

australia

Nitpick here, but since when is Australia a Western nation?

as explained in western world, the term is not so much geographical as it is cultural and economic

Rejection of Creationism

What's with this?

"While many scientists believe in God, probably the reason for rejection of creationism or Intelligent Design is the need to have a God or an Intelligence to do the design, and to date no scientific experiments or observations support the hypothesis that such a being exists. However, perhaps as a result of resurgent Christian fundamentalism gaining converts among well-educated right-wing Americans, a small but vociferous number of academics have come out in favour of creationist ideas."

Here I thought most scientists reject Creationism because of the overwhelming PHYSICAL evidence for an ancient universe and evolution over a long period of time, contrary to the creationist account. Obviously we can't say that "this is true" in a NPOV creationism article, but why assume this kind of insulting reasoning on behalf of "many scientists"? Is there any evidence to back up the claim that scientists "reject Creationism" only because gods can't be observed? -- User:130.91.65.76

You are right. That paragraph is just another evolutionist fantasy without empirical justification. ---Rednblu 19:28, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Evolutionists refuse to face reality

The Creationism page continues to manifest the evolutionist syndrome of ignoring fact, inventing history, and censoring the attempts of the creationists to state what is true about Creationism.

A religion-neutral Wikipedia community would allow the Creationism page to develop the format of the Evolution page in stating the Theory of Creationism, with perhaps a few paragraphs at the end summarizing the opposition's rebuttals.

The opening section is nothing but an evolutionist tract and does not belong on Creationism. A religion-neutral definition might begin as follows by recognizing historical fact. [2]

• Creationism is an explanation for the origin of the universe and everything in it as resulting from deliberate creation by an Intelligent Designer such as God.

Furthermore, why is it the evolutionists keep refusing to face the facts about Origin of Species? For example, the following sentence and similar prevarications continue to come back, recur, and revert all over Creationism.

• "Charles Darwin's famous work, The Origin of Species (1859) introduced the theory of evolution by natural selection."

That sentence is simply not true. Charles Darwin very carefully excluded the word evolution from the first five editions of Origin of Species. You can make a word search through the entire text of the First Edition of Origin of Species [3] and find that the word evolution does not appear even once. The creationists keep correcting this evolutionist distortion, but in Wikipedia as in most of the civilized world, the evolutionist censors win over fact. There is no use in even correcting the evolutionist distortions of fact; it is a waste of time. ---Rednblu 19:28, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "Theory of Creationism". It's something else, but not a theory. To state that is POV because it implies it has something to do with science. --DanielCD 19:35, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course it's a theory. A theory can relate to any field - history, sociology, literature, whatever. DJ Clayworth 20:40, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

True, but the word "theory" has a specific meaning in science that it doesn't carry in sociology. Googling for definitions, I thought this expressed it best: "a well tested (as opposed to a hypothesis which is less well tested) explanation for observed events. A theory must allow one to make predictions which can be tested by experiment. When the results of those experiments are as predicted, it lends support to the theory as a good explanation. If the results are not as predicted, they may lead to the eventual modification of the theory, or even its replacement." [4] Scientists contend that creationism doesn't qualify as a scientific theory because it makes no predictions and can't be verified by experiment. -- ChrisO 13:18, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Probably stating that it is not a theory in the sense of scientific method, that being not falsifiable it is also not a hypothesis in the stricte scientific sense, and writing how does it relate to Occam's razor, should be enough to say in which sense it is called a theory. Being a theory or not using different definitions of the word can be quite subjective, but fortunately falsifiability and scientific method are precisely defined, so the issue whether any assertion follows them is a simple fact, no matter if one believes following them is important or not. Rafał Pocztarski 14:43, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Let's see if we could agree to a religion-neutral means of determining if there is such a thing as a "Theory of Creationism"? So let's look back in time to an explanation that was not in the modern sense "scientific" but was an explanation commonly adopted by mainstream scientists at that time.

Suppose that the explanation of phlogiston was commonly accepted by mainstream scientists in 1674 just about the time of J. J. Becher; no doubt J.J. wished that were so in 1674. :)) And let's suppose that for a hundred years nobody really made a test of the phlogiston idea--at least nobody made a test that would satisfy the scientific method. And let's suppose that in 1774 the Right Reverend Joseph Priestley, who definitely believed in God and preached God and preached Phlogiston, discovered oxygen and mistakenly called it "dephlogisticated air." And let's suppose that it was not until 1778 that Antoine Lavoisier devised an experiment that could make the phlogiston idea a verifiable assertion. And let's suppose that up until 1778, the mainstream scientists accepted the phlogiston idea as correct. Would you still assert that there was no Phlogiston Theory? Would you still contend that "there's no such thing as a Phlogiston Theory" merely because the fundamentalist preachers of today still believe it and preach it contrary to all empirical evidence and contrary to the efficiency principle of Occam's Razor? --- Rednblu 20:30, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what relevance this has; it's of historical interest, sure. An article with a title of "Theory of Creation" has a scientific connotation, that's what I mean. There's not a scientific Creation (*sigh*) theory that stands up to all known facts. If someone called something a theory in the past because it was a theory based on the level of knowledge at the time, then yes, as a historical footnote you could call it that. But there the word has a different meaning, being that it's understood it's a historical usage. Not sure how you're relating the two, but there it is.

I agree with DJ below, just tell it how it is. --DanielCD 21:41, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article has got way out of hand. When people come to an article about a subject, they want to learn about that subject. The bulk of this article should be therefore about what Creationism is, and what Creationists believe. I suggest we try to do this without interrupting the flow every few lines with an intejection about why they are wrong. DJ Clayworth 20:45, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree; others disagree, as we will discover in this process. In my opinion, the Evolution page would be an appropriate template. The Evolution page is not interrupted every few lines with an interjection about why they are wrong. What do other people think about using the Evolution page as a template for Creationism? --- Rednblu 22:43, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A few changes: deleted the line "it's just a matter of calling different things by different names" as this statement is nonsensical. Here I added some clarifying comments. Deleted "so the relevance is unclear to evolution advocates" as this is wrong. Clarified. --- User:12.64.234.26 22:36, 18 Aug 2004

Also the example of Streptococcus pneumoniae is not a "destructive mutation" as it has aided the bacteria's survival. It may be destructive for us, but obviously not for the little bacterium.

Wow how does that happen? I make some additions, check back later and it's gone. History shows the change by my IP, 12.64.234.26, to be the current version yet it's the old version that comes up and there is no record of the deletion of my additions. Are there two, mirror wikis, is there a shadow editor or is it just a delayed wiki thing?

The old page is still in your browser's cache. Reload it. This happens to me all the time. 141.211.62.118 04:23, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Structure for representing alternative points of view in Wikis

This is a great topic to work out a method and style for dealing with controversial topics. Any encyclopedia must include controversial topics. The alternative points of view are essential attributes of a controversial topic.

Controversies may contain more that two points of view. The development of the alternative points of view could be quite extensive (beyond the ability of one author or beyond the ability to be comprehended in one scrolling page).

The controversy would, presumably, be settled were it not for the continued introduction of new facts, findings and conclusions.

How does one maintain a NPOV while conveying accurately the best of the alternative points of view (APOV?)? Can the hypertext capability of a Wiki help organize the ever expanding set of facts and findings?

Here is a suggestion: A page might define a particular thesis, for example: evolution – specific differences between individuals in a species are more likely to survive and be reproduced due to preferential success in an environment (or whatever the best worded definition might be).

This would be elaborated with the underlying elements, e.g., There is a method of creating differences between individuals (e.g., mutation) Differences that help survival are sustained and differences that hurt survival fall away (e.g., natural selection) Banana slugs and humans are equally evolved since both exist in the current environment  (actually, Banana slugs might be better suited to the environment around Northern Calif than humans since the slugs do not need electricity for energy, cars for mobility, etc.) <= it’s a joke

The individual elements of the thesis would be supported by evidence. Evidence would be the specific, verifiable facts that anyone on either side would agree (e.g., Java Man consists of four bone fragments). The interpretation (e.g., the artist’s depiction of Java Man based on the fragments) would be linked to – but not same as – the evidence. This allows multiple interpretations of the evidence along with arguments supporting the interpretation (perhaps citing additional evidence).

Each piece of evidence would likely be worth its own Wikipedia page.

There might also be a page (or more) dealing with the validity of the evidence. Whether the method used to produce the evidence is consistent with the claims (e.g., whether the Earth’s environment actually matched the simulation).

Authors may connect various papers or other resources that support the claims/evidence.

The NPOV enforcement would be to eliminate labels, e.g., “fundamentalist”, “creationist”, “materialist” etc. Labels add nothing to the evidence itself or to the logical interpretations. Labels serve as shorthand to evoke responses. That is not useful.

There could be point-counterpoint. The NPOV (or APOV) enforcement would require that the adherents to a point of view be the ones to characterize their view – not the adherents to other points of view (e.g., creationism should be defined and defended by “creationists” not by others; the others could quote the “creationist’s” material; over simplification or pejorative synopsis would be disputed).

Whadayathink?

---

Why am I reverting the article back? That which came after mine is generally unfocused and imprecise

Examples:

"macroevolution is the accumulation of enough microevolutionary changes to create a distinct species" Imprecise. It is not quantity of changes which determines a new species but whether the original and offshoot interbreed.

"With more time and evolutionary pressures the differences will compound, producing the wide variety of species we see today" This statement makes too big a leap from a single species example to everything we see today.

"However, creationists treat macroevolution with considerably more skepticism and suggest that if it occurs at all—which some deny" I would say most of those who call themselves creationists deny macro-evolution.

"This makes it impossible for the organism to change beyond certain limits" does not state what makes it impossible.

You mention the panda bear, however while it is a good example of evolution it misses the specific point relayed in the use of the example of the red (or lesser) panda. Here is a species that is classified, for various reasons as a member of the bear family yet which has acquired so much change that that classification is doubted by creationists.

The statement: "To a creationist, these three bears are all examples of different but similar kinds" is demonstrably false since the polar and brown bears can still breed (though only in captivity). Creationism usually limits a "kind" to a breeding group thus they would have to acknowledge that they were originally one "kind" yet a radical divergence has taken place. One which allowed the polar bear to adapt to a completely different environment. I will mention that they can interbreed.

"The similarities between the polar and the brown bears are taken to mean that the environments they were created for and the tasks they were intended to do were relatively similar". Actually there's a lot of difference between the polar and brown bears and their respective environments. Here's a creationist site that breaks from the usual and calls the differences dramatic [5].

Deleted by your edit are good specific examples of micro -> macro evolution, i.e. turtle/tortoise, and hyena/aardwolf. Also this explanatory sentence "Live examples such as these probably constitute the upper limit of obvious to anyone change since any variation more than this would likely result in a species that would appear sufficiently unlike the original that there would be automatic dispute as to whether the two ever were related. In other words, the claim might then be made by evolution deniers that they were "probably two separate creations that just happen to look somewhat similar" should remain.

Is there a link to the Streptococcus pneumoniae mutation expending more resources? I think though that your paragraph is an improvment upon mine in general and I will leave it. Also I am keeping your links.

I do not think that I am out of line on the npov.

See the species article. Interbreeding is not the only method of determining whether two organisms are the same species.

As for differences compounding, I'm flexible on that.

When I originally wrote "which some deny" (way back some months ago), I had no references available which told me how many creationists believed in macroevolution and how many did not. For me to say "most", I felt I would have needed a statistic. Do you have a statistic? If not, I think it should stay as "some".

What makes macroevolution impossible to the creationist is that you can't change so much that you're a different kind. This is not something that comes out of biology—it comes out of the classification of animals as different kinds. Different kinds must remain different. As the article says, kind is an immutable attribute which is passed on to one's progeny.

As far as the bears go, I admit that I'm not too familiar with what's involved. But you did seem to be POV to me—saying things like "clear-cut examples" and "significant positive change has plainly occurred" is very supportive of evolution. If I had thought that those paragraphs were acceptable as they stood I would not have touched them. Not that I think you were being malicious or anything, but in my experience it's easiest to avoid POV yourself when you present both sides' arguments as their respective and equally valid POVs. Could you rewrite

The best I can give you on Strep is previous versions of this article. 141.211.62.118 15:21, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Apologies for the length.

First, if two species cannot interbreed they are definitely not the same species. In that way you can positively exclude as related or not many "kind" scenarios. In the determination of a species first and foremost considered is the ability to reproduce. But since it is difficult or impossible to determine which of every closely related species can interbreed other factors are considered such as amount of change etc because after so much change it is assumed that the reproductive compatibility of the two animals will have changed as well. Also just because two species look alike doen't mean they are related, it could simply be a case of convergent evolution. I don't think any serious scientist would limit his definitions of relatedness based on looks alone if sexual compatibility can be determined. Mate-recognition is tied to ability to breed. As for those which reproduce without meiosis or mitosis comparison of their DNAs is enough to establish relation as you can't get much closer than clones. Phylogenetic means use apparent differences to determine which how closely or far apart related species are. As Mayr says it "simply uses the degree of morphological difference as an indication of the underlying degree of reproductive isolation" [6]. Reproductive isolation, he says is "primary". He also says "To repeat, certain individuals are part of a certain species not because they have certain characteristics in common but they share these characteristics because they belong to a single reproductive community, a biological species". Reproductive ability doesn't mean that two different "kinds" of animals interbreed, but just have the ability to. In the article I stated "macroevolution is nothing more than the accumulation of enough microevolutionary changes over time that the offshoot no longer can or will breed with the original". I will change my statement that "this is the usual defintion of a new species" to "basic definition of a new species".

About how many creationists reject macroevolution I didn't find a specific poll, but no doubt someone has done one. I did find this: 85% of Americans consider themselves Christian http://www.gallup.com/poll/indicators/indreligion2.asp 81% want creation to be taught in public schools http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr990830.asp. The ICR brand of creation prominently fighting for inclusion in the schools rejects macroevolution. I did not look at the Gallup site as you need a subscription but accept them as stated.

Your paragraph that begins "What makes macroevolution impossible to the creationist", I agree with. But just because they hold these ideas doesn't make them right. I am merely showing, in a general discussion of macro/micro evo that this immutability of species notion has another side.

"But you did seem to be POV to me saying things like 'clear-cut examples' and 'significant positive change has plainly occurred' is very supportive of evolution." Yes I made these statements because they are true. The polar bear I've already touched on, the tortoise left the water to become land going, even in deserts, an environment that would kill a turtle in no time. The aardwolf has become an insectivore comlete with long sticky tongue and decreased dentition [7]. These are significant changes. Of course faced with this creationists are saying that, for example, the "original bear kind" must have been created with all the attributes that went into making up all the different species of bear that have ever existed incorporated in their genes, and then later on these delineated into specific species. So the genes that make up a polar bear was present in the first bear (even though God supposedly created the earth as a uni-seasonal tropical planet). Says Answers in Genesis "virtually all the necessary information was already there in the genetic makeup of the first bears, a population created by God with vast genetic potential for variation" [8]. This desperate, last ditch stance really doesn't deserve a response. In a moment of honesty a writer at ICR said "The Polar Bear, however, provides evidence for more dramatic change", "These morphological changes seem to me to go beyond the small, microevolutionary changes which are widely cited in creationist literature", "At the very least, a study of these members of the Ursus group suggests that creationists need to be more positive about larger-scale adaptations (with the appearance of design) than generally appears to outside observers" [9].

Perhaps where you're, IMO, slipping up is, as you state "it's easiest to avoid POV yourself when you present both sides' arguments as their respective and equally valid POVs." The problem is, according to all of mainstream science outside fundamentalism, creationism is not equally valid. However I have qualified my comments with "For the majority of biological scientists", "Given enough time and micro-changes at the genetic level , say evolutionists"

Look. You and I both know that the creationists are wrong. They don't know that they're wrong. As such, we have three choices:

1. We can attempt to convince them.
2. We can politely disagree, but treat their viewpoint respectfully.
3. We can be assholes.

The first won't work (at least, not in the short term). The third is rude. This leaves the second. As part of treating them respectfully, I feel that we must represent the facts not as we see them, but as they see them.

>I agree that we should represent their side as they see it, or let them do it themselves, however we are doing a disservice to others if we let the matter rest there. I certainly hope that I was not being an asshole.

Otherwise we're denying them their voice, which is unneighborly to say the least.

>Absolutely. On the other hand, creationists have no lack of a voice to air their opinions and the deep pockets to back that up. I do not own the article and anyone is free to change it as they see fit. For a moment though, lets change to topic from evolution to flat earthism, or from astronomy to astrology. Would we be bending over as much to attempt to accomodate these points of view? Remember creationists are trying to force their dogma into public school science classes, yet they don't even have a theory.

As far as the species thing goes, the fact that there is no easy, clear-cut test for speciation is why I think we should leave the definition of species to the species article. It is more than just interbreeding, since polar bears and brown bears can interbreed and yet they are clearly not the same species.

>At some point in their past polar bears and brown bears for some reason ceased to breed. At this point they became a separate species. As you probably know it's called reproductive isolation. Subsequently the polar bear acquired lots of interesting adaptations to its environment. But they were a new species before the acquisition of these features. The fact that they can still breed is amazing and very unusual and bound to end relatively soon.

"Reproductive isolation", as Mayr puts it, is a good start, but it only applies to organisms which sexually reproduce.

>Which is by far the great majority.

Though the bulk of the debate is about such organisms, I think it would be foolish on our part to act as if those were the only possibility.

I'd prefer we stick with "some creationists deny" rather than "most" if we can't find some sort of number to back that up. The Gallup site is, as you say, subscription only.

>Or we can include the word "Fundamentalist" creationists, which would make it true, and since they are the ones making all the stink. Feel free though to make your change.

When you call the creationist stance "desperate" and "last-ditch", you're showing your bias.

>No doubt. It's true nonetheless.

It's fine to be biased on Talk pages, but it's not fine to be biased in articles themselves;

>I hope that I haven't been. I have confined these comments to the talk page.

I have attempted to clarify the species question.

see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

(BTW, please sign your contributions to talk pages (use four tildes (~).)) 141.211.62.118 03:34, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, it's very hard to read your reply when you write it that way. Use a colon (:) to indent a paragraph. Use two colons for two levels of indentation, etc. And remember, sign your messages.

I have changed "most" back to "some" again, since you seem to be okay with it. That leaves my more serious issue, which is POV.

I still think that calling such examples "clear-cut" and "plain" is out-of-place in Wikipedia. It doesn't matter how clear-cut and plain those examples are to us, because the creationists disagree. We can only present our opinions as opinions. By presenting our opinions as such, we convert them into facts (because it is a fact that we believe such-and-such), and even into facts that everyone—creationist or not—can agree on. As I said before, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

If you think your edits are fine as is, we could go ask for help—I'd rather ask for a third-party opinion than have us complain to each other all day.

(Oh, and no, I don't think you were being an asshole, but I really wanted to link to something. :-) 141.211.62.118 05:49, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I do think my edits are fine and right as is, however I am finished with my contribution and will leave it in the hands of the editors. Have at it. Nice chatting with you. User:12.64.229.68 -How's that?

Whoops! hold on, my last edit has disappeared. Will attempt to recreate.

Okay, restored the lost passage. As I stated at the time I have attempted to clarify the species question. So long.

I missed a point. Your statement "However, creationists (all? most? some?) treat macroevolution with considerably more skepticism and suggest that if it occurs at all—which most deny" is inconsistant.

As to your latest edit, I still find it imprecise and wandering. Also statements such as "Evolutionary scientists explicitly reject the notion that a creature is limited by its kind" is in error since the designation of types of animals as "kinds" is not recognized by mainstream scientists. Also I strongly suspect that it is not "possible for the red panda to interbreed with the brown bear or the polar bear".

Page archived. It was 76Kb. --141.211.62.118 05:49, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Should all of the See also links be capitalised? I have already changed them before but someone keeps changing e.g. gap creationism to Gap Creationism, young Earth creationism to Young Earth Creationism, day-age creationism to Day-Age Creationism etc. I was trying to follow /Archive 8#Capitalisation but now I see that there is no consensus at all and that issue needs to be discussed again. Rafał Pocztarski 00:19, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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. Rafał Pocztarski 16:45, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Which words should always be capitalised

• God, Earth, Bible (just a few for a good start—please add more)
• names of religions but not names of theories (Is that correct?)

When other words should be capitalised

• beginning of a sentence but not in a list when there is no real sentence (Is that correct?)

"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.

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. --FOo 03:23, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is "creationism" a belief, an explanation, or a theory?

Begin text copy from logical subpage to fix broken link and to restore continuity of dialog

<<User:Rfl subtlely inserted the following reader-invisible comment into the Creationism page, I am resisting the temptation of inserting a response similarly into the hidden code of the Creationism page, and I am taking the liberty of cutting that comment below, celebrated in green here for the historical record.>>

Creationism is the explanation <!-- was the word "belief" really an "evolutionist bias"? --> that the universe and all life were created by the deliberate act of God.

In looking through the historical record at the competition between creation and evolution in Darwin's day, I was impressed by Thomas Huxley's 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.

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. [10]

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. . . . [A] thorough-going evolutionist, was Mr. Herbert Spencer, 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. [11]

Furthermore, any self-respecting religion-neutral anthropologist, such as Robert L. Carneiro, 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. [12]

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. [13] ---Rednblu 16:08, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Considering that "Belief in the psychological sense is a representational mental state that takes the form of a propositional attitude and in the religious sense, belief 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. --FM 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. [14]

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? ---Rednblu 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. --FM 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. -- ChrisO 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 "Phlogiston theory" for burning? ---Rednblu 19:01, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Is "creationism" a discredited hypothesis?

If we would pattern the beginning of the Creationism page after the Phlogiston theory page, we would have the following.

Creationism is a now discredited pre-5th century BC hypothesis regarding the formation of the universe and the origin of species.

That beginning sentence would at least be accurate--and defensible. In contrast, the current first sentence is indefensible. It would similarly be indefensible to define Evolution as

Evolution is the belief that natural selection over millions of years has provided the origin of species from ancient lifeforms.

That is not what evolution is! Evolution is a whole complex of observations, conjectures, and progressively better explanations for the observations. Now, someone might believe that some version of evolution is more accurate than some other explanation. But the belief is forever separate from what is believed--even for the "creationists."

And the evolutionists will not let the creationists make a clear statement of what the "discredited hypothesis" is. ---Rednblu 21:09, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Creationism is not a discredited hypothesis. Which is the whole point of this discussion. There is enough forthcoming evidence of the validity of Creationism to create a daily raido broadcast. To see some of the recent evidence the raido spot has a web page at [15]. To see some of this recent evidence, click on "View Transcripts" and look at the latest volume. KeyStroke

Though I personally think that creationism as at [16] is a discredited hypothesis, I concede that you make a very important point--whether creationism is a discredited hypothesis is the "whole point of this discussion." And we should not hope to prove one way or the other here on this Talk:Creationism page. Here, we should be figuring out how to turn the Creationism page into a coherent presentation of what "creationism" is. Would you agree? ---Rednblu 05:30, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree that the Creationism entry, itself, and perhaps this talk page are not the place to "prove", one way or the other, the validity of Creationism. The purpose of Wikipedia is to make encyclopedia entries. It needs to take the approach that the old Dragnet TV show investigators took - "Just the facts, ma'am". We need to present the ideas of Creationism in a way that cohesively and accurately represents what Creationsim is. The article is not the place to try to convince people that Creationism is right, and it is not the place to try to convince people that Creationism is wrong. Those people who are led by God to accept those ideas would do so, without the article needing to "convince" them that Creationism is right. Those people who have determined to reject ideas based on faith would do so, without the article needing to "convince" them that Creationsim is wrong. Let the ideas stand on their own merit with the reader. KeyStroke

What you say makes sense to me. But let's wait to get discussion on this Talk:Creationism page from other points-of-view before we do anything. Okay? Meanwhile, what do you think of the proposed split of the Creationism page that many of us have been discussing in various forms for the last couple of years? ---Rednblu 14:46, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As an interested reader, the split seems eminently sensible. The subject is, IMHO, large enough and contentious enough to make the work worthwhile. Katherine Shaw 10:40, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

I have put back a summary of the creation accounts in Genesis. To discuss rationally what creationists believe it is imperative to consider what the Bible actually says. I realise that what I have written may be contentious but it needs to be done. Michael Glass 03:23, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

End text copy from logical subpage to fix broken link and to restore continuity of dialog

Text copied from logical subpage to fix broken link and to restore continuity of the dialog. --- Rednblu 17:16, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Creation accounts in Genesis

The creation accounts in Genesis are already described in the Creation beliefs page. Why are the creation accounts in Genesis repeated in the proposed Creation accounts in Genesis page? ---Rednblu 05:34, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This section is not totally accurate and not NPOV (for example, it assumes that there is something to be reconciled) and I reworded it (offline), but having now read your question, I think I agree. It is in the Creation beliefs page, and it does not need to be here also. Philip J. Rayment 12:35, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not all Christians are creationists

This was added back as I have evidence of the existence of believers who are not creationist. If the intent was to say "if you do not accept creationism, you are not a true christian" then this is a No true Scotsman logical falacy, and contrary to Matt 7:1-5 and Rom 14:4. Lets leave the statement in. KeyStroke

according to the article, creationism grew out of fundamentalism in the United States. Therefore, Christians who are neither fundamentalists nor Americans probably aren't creationists. Furthermore, I personally know people who go to church, love Jesus, but believe that the creation story is a parable or fable or whatever. I assure you, I do know such people. Family members, even. Most definitely there are christians who are not creationists. why would one think otherwise? -Lethe | Talk

You haven't read the definition, have you? There is a range of belief among Christians on how literally to interpret the creation passages. Creationism is not a fundamentalist thing. Some Christians believe God used evolution.

Please folks, before jumping in to make a sweeping assertion, READ the work of others. Serious changes need discussion first. Don't create up your own definitions. Pollinator 14:54, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see others have been tinkering with and altering the definition, as well. There is a spread among creationists; someone has tried to limit it only to those who are anti-evolution. Not true. I'll get back to this later, no time right now....Pollinator 14:58, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Which definition are you talking about? the definition of Christian? I haven't read the definition, but really, what does it say? That you have to interpret the Bible literally to be considered a Christian? that's nonsense. You yourself admit above that there is a range of beliefs among Christians. So what's the problem? I really don't feel that saying "not all Christians are creationists" is a "sweeping assertion". I thought that was obviously true.... -Lethe | Talk

The definition of creationism. Recently there seems to be an effort to redefine it to apply only to literalists. And THAT's nonsense. So we are quibbling about a definition that seems to have gotten changed by someone while we weren't looking. Look up the history of this page to see the various viewpoints of creationists; this section seems to have been eliminated, and should not have. Sorry, gotta go, try to get back tomorrow.... Pollinator 15:23, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

It seems like it might be easier for you to find this hypothetical definition than for me (when you have some free time), and anyway, I don't care so much about this article (I should probably take it off my watchlist). But still, I think that whether or not "creationist" means "literalist" or "fundamentalist" or some other much more elusive idea that you are alluding to, whatever you want to claim it means, then I will find you a christian who isn't that. there are as many belief systems as there are people on this Earth. -Lethe | Talk

I, really, don't like the way the sentence reads, now. It was clearer when it read: "not all creatinists are Christians, and not all Christians are creationists". To me, this is simply a true and relevant observation. Lets put it back. KeyStroke

Not all creationists are Christian

<<Creationism is the usually Christian belief that the universe and all life were created by the deliberate act of God as described in the Bible.>>

That current first sentence does not even resemble reality. That statement is like saying: "Mammal is the usually Terrestrial lifeform covered with hair." Just as the "Terrestrial" trait and the "hair" trait are non-defining descriptors in a bad definition of "mammal," so the "Christian" and the "Bible" descriptors are non-defining descriptors in a bad definition of "creationist."

Accordingly, I suggest that a more accurate and more neutral approach would be to emphasize common ancestry--which is the logical taxonomic approach to defining mammal. That is, most of the mainstream political furor over creationism derives not from the Bible but from the writings and explanations of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Just as one point of common ancestry, both Roman Catholics and Protestants derive from Saint Augustine their sense of "sinning" if not acknowledging God as creator, and Saint Augustine derived that nonsense from Plato. For example, when Saint Augustine wrote "And yet, I sinned herein, O Lord God, the Creator and Disposer of all things in nature, of sin the Disposer only, O Lord my God, I sinned in transgressing the commands of my parents and those of my masters." he was not under the influence of the Bible but rather under the influence of what Saint Augustine called the Platonists and so he writes the following confession to God.

"Thou procuredst for me, by means of one puffed up with most unnatural pride, certain books of the Platonists, translated from Greek into Latin. And therein I read, not indeed in the very words, but to the very same purpose, enforced by many and divers reasons, that In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God: the Same was in the beginning with God: all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made: that which was made by Him is life, and the life was the light of men, and the light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not." Book VII, Confessions of Saint Augustine

From the empirical evidence, the Bible was merely a tool of argument for making the creationist point which derived from Plato, not from the Bible. ---Rednblu 18:05, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You stated: "both Roman Catholics and Protestants derive from Saint Augustine" and I cannot agree with your assumption. The way Protestants started was with Martin Luther who is quite well known for "scripture only". My point being that the Protestants I know are lothe to follow the writings of any Roman Catholic Saint, and prefer to limit their basis for belief only on the KJV Bible. I have never heard of Plato espousing any creation story. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but I think it is safe to say that most Creationists get their understanding of the creation story from the Bible and not by reading Plato. The point being that, even if you are right (which I do not conceede), it is not Plato nor is it Augustine from which most creationists get their understanding of the story of creation. Therefore the statement in the "definition" is true... most people who are creationists get their belief from the Bible.

nuff said, lets move on KeyStroke

You stated: <<The way Protestants started was with Martin Luther who is quite well known for "scripture only". My point being that the Protestants I know are lothe to follow the writings of any Roman Catholic Saint, and prefer to limit their basis for belief only on the KJV Bible.>>

In my opinion you represent accurately with that statement one important view on the origin and definition of creationism. But also in my opinion, with the above statement, you and the "Protestants you know" are ignoring reality. For example, according to the empirical evidence, Saint Augustine, according to his Confessions, based on his readings of the Platonists invented on his own the term and the concept of "original sin" which Luther and Calvin inherited from Saint Augustine and took for granted.

Of course, Luther preached and maybe believed that he was "scripture only." That is, Luther justified his own inventions and regurgitations of Saint Augustine by quoting the text of the Bible. But statistically, most secular analysts who can read Hebrew, Greek, or English do not believe that "original sin" is anywhere even implied in the text of the Bible--except by extreme distortion of the printed page. Saint Augustine simply invented the term and concept of "original sin" and appended his own invention on the nonsense he inherited from the Platonists. And Luther followed in Saint Augustine's thought without taking seriously the ambiguous nature of the Biblical text.

So. Yes, you are right; you and I disagree. But it is not our job to resolve the disagreement. Rather our job is to summarize the various views on the disagreement between us as expressed in what Plato, Saint Augustine, Martin Luther, and other scholars for examplehave written to document the various views on the stages in the evolution of the present day doctrine of "creationism." Accordingly, the Creationism page should be written to include both your view and my view--not our personal views--but rather the expressions in the words and thoughts of the renowned scholars--both believers and non-believers. ---Rednblu 21:46, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lets take the sentence that seems to bother you so much (I am guessing, here, as to which one really bothers you) and break it down into its constituant parts to find out where you disagree:

• Creationism is the belief ...

Isn't Creationism a belief (just like trust in the scientific method) ?? Do you agree, or disagree that this statement accurately reflects what Creationism is?

• (a) belief that that the universe ... was created ...

Isn't this the core of creationism, that the universe was created? Do you agree, or disagree that this statement accurately reflects what Creationism is?

• (a) belief that all life were created ...

Isn't this the important part of Creationism, that we, and the animals and plants, were created? Do you agree, or disagree that this statement accurately reflects what Creationism is?

• created by the deliberate act of God ...

Isn't this what we all think about when we think about creationism? That it was God who did the creating? Do you agree, or disagree that this statement accurately reflects what Creationism is?

• .. as described in the Bible.

Isn't this a true statement? Doesn't the Bible describe the act of creation in a way that accurately reflects the basis for what Creationism is?

If none of your answers are a categorical "No, absolutely not." then I have to conclude that the sentence (put back together) is not false. If the sentence is not false, then it is accurate and should stay. Lets not turn this into a battleground for our different denominations. I think it would benefit all who take the name of 'christian' to at least agree together what creationism is, whether or not we agree to the ideas. This shouldn't be an effort to claim ownership of the idea by one denomination or another. KeyStroke

I have no interest in showing which creationism is right; I am interested only in putting together a reasonably accurate Creationism page that faces historical fact. Let's start from the last section of your analysis.

<<* .. as described in the Bible.

Isn't this a true statement? Doesn't the Bible describe the act of creation in a way that accurately reflects the basis for what Creationism is?>>

First of all, I have no objection to that part of the opening definition being true--if the historical record would show that "creationism" was limited to the creation beliefs described in the Bible. However, for example, Plato in his Timaeus sometime around 350 BC wrote a creationism hypothesis that historically was even more influential than any of the Bible versions; Plato wrote the following.

Is the world created or uncreated? -- that is the first question.

Created, I reply, being visible and tangible and having a body, and therefore sensible; and if sensible, then created; and if created, made by a cause, and the cause is the ineffable father of all things, who had before him an eternal archetype.

(Here is the on-line text of Plato's Timaeus if you want more details.) [17]

If you read the Catholic Church's expositions of creationism, you will find that the detailed, logically developed opinions of Plato, Thomas Aquinas, and Augustine on creationism were more important than the sketchy and logically inconsistent material in the Bible. Here is a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on "creationism", for example; you can see on that Catholic "creationism" page that Plato, Thomas Aquinas, and Augustine are quoted more often than is the Bible. I am not saying that Catholic "creationism" is the right creationism. I think all the variations I have seen of the creationism hypothesis have been proven as wrong as the phlogiston theory. However, I am interested in getting a Wikipedia Creationism page that accurately reflects the various stages in the evolution of the various creationism hypotheses. Wikipedia should not be proselytizing for any particular hypothesis; Wikipedia should just report accurately what happened. ---Rednblu 05:06, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And that is where we disagree. Wikipedia shouldn't be irrelevant history (assuming your version of that history is true, which I do not grant). It should be a description of what creationism is, now. I know several creationists and none of them initialy got their belief from (as you put it) "'the Catholic Church's expositions of creationism'", not even the Catholics I know. Granted, the Catholics I know didn't get it by reading the Bible for themselves either, but instead got it from their parents, or the other parishioners, or from the pulpit. The important thing I am trying to say is that none of them read "'the Catholic Church's expositions of creationism'" either. If I were to choose between giving a history lesson, and telling people where holders of creationism initially get their belief, I think it is more informative to do the later. For most creationists the source of their belief comes from the Bible. Go into the history of the idea in a later part if you want to (I still don't think you are right in your version, but I won't contest it in a later section). Just do not hijack the initial definition for your agenda. KeyStroke

Do you seriously think that the creationists of today derive their ideas from the text of the Bible? Where in the Bible text can you find Young Earth creationism, or Gap creationism, or Intelligent design, or Evolutionary creationism? Where? For any politically active form of "creationism" today, the first sentence is wrong--at least in misidentifying the source of most creationist beliefs. ---Rednblu 05:57, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Enough bantering. We have fully expressed our views. I call the question. Lets put it to a vote. All those in favor of keeping the reference to the Bible in the initial definition signify by voting keep, all those in favor of rewriting the initial definition to the viewpoint of Rednblu signify by voting rewrite. Lets have the voting time be one week. KeyStroke]

In the following section, I suggest you not allow yourself to vote for a sentence that you feel is like: "When did you stop beating your little poodle?" -- if you feel that you have never beaten your little poodle. Take this chance to fill in one of the "Version N" stubs below to say exactly what you think is right and accurate. If you see a version below that you think is right, then vote for it, and please give us a quick reason for your vote. For myself, I will feel free to change my vote when I see a "Version N" that I think is better than the one for which I have currently placed my vote. :)) ---Rednblu 19:21, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Votes for Retention or Modification of initial definition

Version 1: Creationism limited to text from the Bible

<<Creationism is the belief that the universe and all life were created by the deliberate act of God as described in the Bible.>>

• keep for reason previously stated. KeyStroke

• keep I haven't met a creationist who wasn't a Christian; I haven't seen a creationist on the internet who wasn't either Jewish, Christian, or Islamic. Samboy 06:58, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Version 2: Creationism includes hypotheses, explanations, and beliefs contradicting the Bible

<<Creationism is the belief that the universe and all life were created by the deliberate act of God.>>

• keep. This was the initial definition. ---Rednblu 07:25, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• keep.. Seems at least as accurate and less Christian-centred that the other version. I would even tend to a definition more like "...by the deliberate act of some supernatural power". Virtually all civilisations and religions offer a creation myth. The fact that some people hold the one presented in the Genesis for true (or the numerous ones which have elvolved with time to be the Genesis as we know it, but that's another story...) does not negate of the other creation myths. (Sorry I had forgotten to sign, I do it now ^^;;) Rama 16:32, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• keep. I don't see why any creationist has to adhere to Judeo-Christianity. Lots of mythologies have creation myths, and anyone who believes in any creation myth, to the exclusion of the Big Bang theory and the Theory of Evolution is a creationist, regardless of what beliefs he holds in their place. -Lethe | Talk

Hmmm, I suppose it is possible to integrate the Big Bang theory and darwinist evolution in creationism, for instance by saying something like "God said : let there be the laws of electrodynamics, quantum Mecanics and general relativity". But that's a rather special case. Rama 16:32, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I guess this is the sort of god that a lot of physicists "believe" in. For example, it's the sort of God that Einstein had in mind when he said "Raffiniert is der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist Er nicht" ("Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not"). Or Newtons clockmaker god. One who perhaps started the Universe, decided its rules, but otherwise is not involved in its processes or evolution. I wouldn't call belief in such a deity a religion really, nor would I call belief in this form of creation creationism. I feel like this sort of belief is just a personification of science. A placeholder for the unknowable. But maybe I'm being too picky. I dunno. what do you think? -Lethe | Talk

it is an interesting question indeed. As to wether this is an actual religion ot not brings us back to what a religion is. The "Physicist's God" is not abstract than the "usual" God whom one can pray, or who would send a Messiah ; in this perspective, the Universe has probably not the purpose of creating humankind (especially if there are other intelligent species out there... would they need a messiah ?). On the other hand, this abstract religion does have its rules and customs, derived from the laws of nature ; "Thou shallst not kill" logically derives from the complexity of Life which is to be respected ; other commands which are not usually in traditional religions will also arise, like "Thou shallst not drive and SUV for it is naugthy in My face to waste complex hydro-carbonate molecules which could be used to synthetise interesting plastic materials".

the scientist's god I am envisioning doesn't care so much about SUVs or killing, he says things like "thou shalt not violate the laws of thermodynamics" or "let there never be a naked singularity". -Lethe | Talk

Agreed, I was more commenting about the "believers" then about the god himself. And the SUV thing itself is highly dependant on the individual and the time (for instance, Jules Verne's books are often oozing so much confidence about "taming Nature" that it is funny). Besides, this would essentially be a "tolerant" religion : if we take Einstein for cannonical example of a "deist" scientist, we see he was deeply anti-militarist and pacifist, yet he did write to Roosevelt to persuade him to launch a nuclear weapon project.

Besides, it would be funny to try and think about the actual Commands of the scientist's god : for instance, Laws of Termodynamics are derived from principles and depend upon the four fundamental forces, which can probably be unified into one Fundamental Force (As far as I know, Strong -- Electro-weak unification is done, so we still need to put Gravitation into the thing -- unless we get some new surprises ?? ). Fundamentals axioms of Math seem to be necessary but not to derive from anything else ; axioms of fundamental Logics as well...

Electroweak and strong forces have not been unified. That is, many of the proposals that unify them have been ruled out by experiment, and none has been experimentally verified. -Lethe | Talk

The remark about the placeholder for the unknowable is interesting also, I would say that there would be an abstract God which "comes into the way", like when Einstein said that God would not role dice (fat chance, seems he does :p ), against a God which would be somewhere "before the Big Bang", which you can "safely" believe in, since the Big Bang results in a complete destruction of information about what was before. I do agree that is this form of creationism, if it is, is very close to a "way to speak". Would be interesting to see the point of view of someoe who would be highly educated both is Science and in religion, like Teilhard de Chardin Rama 08:48, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I feel mostly unqualified to enter into any form of theological debate, and am usually even uninterested in them, but I don't think i would mind hearing what some serious scientist who was also trained in theology and philosophy had to say. -Lethe | Talk

Version 3: Creationism includes supernatural powers bigger than just the Judeo-Muslim-Christian God

<<Creationism is the belief that the universe and all life were created by the deliberate act of some supernatural power (usually one or several gods).>>

Just an idea... Rama 16:29, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Version 4: <<stub>>

<<Creationism is . . . >>

Version 5: <<stub>>

<<Creationism is . . . >>

Did you kill your wife or did you stab her to death?

This is about as logical as the poll now being taken, because it does not speak to assumptions of the newcomers who are currently writing. For a broader and more logical definition, see the list of creationist variants.

<<Creationism is the belief that the universe and all life were created by the deliberate act of God as described in the Bible.>> Yes, but not with the assumptions that seem to be following...

Why are both sides assuming the most narrow definition possible? It is an assumption that is propagated only by the poles. This is an acceptable assumption to the Christian fundamentalist and to the enemies of fundamentalists, who prefer to label all Creationists as fundamentalist for the propaganda purpose of marginalization and ridicule. It is not acceptable to the large majority in between. To be a Christian is to be a Creationist. But some Christians believe the Genesis account to be a scientific treatise; some believe it to be a literary or theological treatise.

The most vocal Creationists are those who both accept the Genesis account as literal and believe that it contradicts modern science. But a larger number of Christian Creationists are either comfortable that no real dispute exists, or are willing to wait for the resolution of the paradoxical parts. Pollinator 13:16, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Would you please state a "Version 3" above for which you could vote wholeheartedly? Personally, I have very fundamental criticisms of "Version 2" above; I think it is wrong. Nevertheless, I inserted the original first sentence as "Version 2," because in my opinion it represented the conclusions of the majority of editors working the Creationism page over the past year--in this instance, I am protecting the progress I have seen this whole group make over the last year. I wanted to give you and others a chance to make a complete statement of what you think should be the first sentence--from your point of view--as "Version 3," "Version 4," etc. above. ---Rednblu 19:07, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rednblu, what are your criticisms of version 2? -Lethe | Talk

Thanks for asking. I have no personal objections to Version 2. But I see a lot of objections from the creationists who say that "creationism is NOT a belief--it is a hypothesis." And in my opinion, most religious-neutral scholars would agree that creationism is a "hypothesis." By my own standards, creationism would be a "discredited hypothesis"--something like Phlogiston theory--a hypothesis that either contradicts modern empirical evidence or posits unnecessary variables, such as "creator" or "phlogiston."

Hence, I would argue that the current definition "Creationism is a belief . . ." is no more accurate than would be a definition "Evolution is a belief . . ." that a bunch of unthinking Wikipedia bigots could enforce on the Evolution page if there were enough of them. For now, my criticism of version 2 is much less significant than the question up for vote: Whether creationism includes some theories, hypotheses, explanations, and ideas that contradict the Bible. So I voted for Version 2 to avoid introducing a much less important point that would be a distraction in the current setting. Thanks for asking. ---Rednblu 23:14, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah, so it's the word belief that you object to. Creationism is just an idea that can be believed or not believed, it is not a belief in itself per se. is that your point? would a better wording be "creationism is the idea that..." or "creationism is the proposal that..."? personally, I think that the wording "creationism is the belief that..." is the best choice, but you are correct, that i would object to the same wording on the evolution page. -Lethe | Talk

Sounds right to me. I only bring up that point when, in my opinion, a creationist is objecting to that "same wording on the" creationism page. ---Rednblu 17:45, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have come to the conclusion that Rednblu, and cohorts, simply want to sabotage this page. I am going to give up trying to reach a reasonable agreement, since all that they seem to really want to do is to argue. I, myself, wanted to build an encyclopedia entry that reflected the ideas of all the creationists I know. However, it is obvious to me that the beliefs (yes, beliefs) of the vast majority of people who hold that God created what exists seem not to matter, here. People that I know who believe God created us initially get it from three sources: A. The pulpit. B. Their family or friends. C. The Bible. Almost always the other two reinforce whichever of those three was the first source to which someone is exposed. None of the dozens of people I know who accept the idea that God created us got it from reading obscure Catholic texts or Augustine or even Plato. It is a shame that the viewpoints of the vast majority of people who accept creationism have to be swallowed up by the vocal minority. Creationism is important because the public school system in the USA preaches (yes, they preach it) that man did not come from God, but rather from a lower form of life. The alternative view, that man came from God, and therefore we have an obligation to our creator is what makes creationism important. The "foundation stone" for the belief of the dozens of creationists I know is the Bible. That fact cannot be contested. People get, or at least verify, their belief in creationism by reading the Bible. They don't go checking obscure Catholic texts, nor do they read the dusty archives of Augustine or Plato. Instead, they accept the veracity of the Bible. I don't know why Rednblu and crowd want to obscure that fact. However, the contention is obvious. And it does neither side benefit to continue the argument. So, I sacrafice the idea that Wikipedia, in this page, can reflect the viewpoint and opinion of hundreds of thousands of people who hold the ideas of creationism as true. It means more to Rednblu to sabotage it than it does to me to preserve the truth, here. I am no longer watching this page. KeyStroke

You know, just because we all learn about Physics from our physics teacher does not mean that the ideas don't have a long history going back to Newton and Aristotle. Just because people get creationism from their preachers or parents doesn't mean that the idea doesn't stem from Augustine or Plato. I don't know why you're upset. This article doesn't have to only reflect the beliefs of people you know, it can also reflect the results of literary and anthropological analysis of the topic. afterall, why not? -Lethe | Talk

science doesn't distinguish macro- from microevolution?

according to the article text, i assume that the distinction is the presence or absence of speciation. insofar as biology has a working definition of species, then it recognizes a distinction between micro- and macroevolution. should this sentence simply be removed?

"Current mainstream scientific opinion does not really recognize the difference between the two forms of evolution, so people following the theory of evolution implicitly accept both versions as valid." -Lethe | Talk

I wrote the original sentence, including the embarrassing typo. In my experience micro- and macroevolution are not really concepts used in biology except at the most perfunctory level. The whole idea of having an arbitrary cut-off point of a continuous process is alien. The same applies for the term species. There is a working definition, but everybody involved is aware of the fact that there are many slightly different definitions and that even for any given definition, there are borderline cases. As Samboy wrote below, the difference has been introduced by creationists as the evidence for (micro-)evolution became overwhelming. Stephan Schulz

OK, like i said below, I thought macroevolution was a real scientific term. If it is not, then my original objection to the sentence is removed, although I still slightly prefer Rednblu's version (which makes it more explicit that there is no such thing as macroevolution, rather than that there isn't much distinction) -Lethe | Talk 13:43, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

I suggest we replace that sentence with a sentence that is accurate. How about the following replacement?

"Current mainstream scientific opinion concludes that all evolution proceeds by microevolution. For example, the evolution of man from the ancestors of the chimpanzees consisted of many, many microevolutions spread through 5 million years." ---Rednblu 00:25, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps add the clause at the end something to the effect of "The cumulative effect of these microevolutions over geological timescales results in speciation which is referred to as macroevolution"? -Lethe | Talk

Maybe. But within my observations, mainstream scientific journals do not use the term "macroevolution"--even as a cumulative result. So it would be inaccurate, in my opinion, to say "referred to as macroevolution." So I would suggest not adding that sentence. In my opinion, the creationists use the concept of "macroevolution" as a resistance against considering the possibility that just the simple "microevolution" that can be proven in the lab could cumulate such that a herd of ancestors of the chimpanzees doing only "microevolution" could result in two herds of animals as widely different as chimpanzees and humans. Just my opinion of what makes a clearer, accurate statement. What do others think? ---Rednblu 00:53, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Correct. "Macroevolution" is not a term used by reputable scientists; it is only used by creationists trying to attack the theory of evolution. Samboy 02:41, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, I defer to Rednblu and Samboy, let's replace the sentence in question with the one Rednblu suggested, right? -Lethe | Talk

But that still incorrectly uses the term. If we want to change it (I think the original sentence is fine, but then I'm biased), we should write something like "Current mainstream scientific opinion concludes that all evolution proceeds by so-called microevolution. For example, the evolution of man from the common ancestor of man and chimpanzees consisted of many, many small steps spread through approximately 5 million years." Stephan Schulz

Can you explain how that differs from Rednblu's sentence? But for a few words like 'approximately', I can't see the difference. -Lethe | Talk 13:43, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

The two major changes are a) the qualification of "microevolution" as "so-called", making it clear (I hope) that it is not a standard term, and b) changing the ugly (and incorrect) plural "many, many microevolutions". Microevolution is a concept, not an evolutionary step.Stephan Schulz

Yes of course. How about the following alternative?

"Current mainstream scientific opinion concludes that all evolution proceeds by shifts in the gene pool from generation to generation. For example, the evolution of man from the ancestors of the chimpanzees consisted of many, many shifts in the gene pool of successive generations spread through 5 million years. (Current mainstream scientific discussion uses neither the term 'microevolution' nor the term 'macroevolution.')" ---Rednblu 00:25, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like it, including the parenthesized part.Stephan Schulz

but is it not true that archeobiologists studying the fossil record cannot view what we would call microevolution? I'm really not sure what biologists think about macroevolution at all; I am sort of talking out my ass. Anyway, we can agree that the sentence as it stands needs to be revised. So yes, what do others think? -Lethe | Talk

Also, does anyone think that it might be a good idea to mention in the article this thing that we've descussed here, namely that macroevolution was brought about as a concept by creationists, not by evolutionary biologists, as a workaround to the overwhelming laboratory evidence for evolution? -Lethe | Talk 13:43, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

According to Macroevolution FAQ, the terms were not invented by creationists. However, creationists (well, AiG at least) prefer not to use the terms, instead talking about the difference between loss of genetic information and gain of genetic information. See Variation, information and the created kind. Philip J. Rayment 16:05, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fixity of species

Just a minor point, but User:Michael Glass has just made some edits that include modifying the following sentence with the words I have shown in italics: "The term usually refers to Christian creationism and especially to the belief that living organisms were created by God in their present form. This sounds very much like an old idea that creationists perhaps once had that there has been no speciation and that creatures have not changed at all. However, this view is not held by (most?) creationists today. Rather, they believe that the original created kinds had sufficient genetic variability that allowed for speciation and adaption within genetic limits. On that basis, I believe that the additional words should be removed, or if I have misunderstood the intention, the wording should be clarified. Philip J. Rayment 05:14, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Philip. It is my understanding that this is what creationists believe. If this is not the case, then it would appear that creationism and a belief in evolution are compatible with evolution within species. Perhaps a better wording would be to revert to the Biblical definition of "after their kind". This would then accommodate this limited form of evolution and I will make this clarification, as you suggested.Michael Glass 05:50, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just as there are a variety of evolutionary beliefs, and just as may lay believers in evolution are not up with the lastest evolutionary ideas, there are no doubt creationists that do believe in fixity of the species. However, the leading creationary scientists have long drawn a distinction between genetic variation and specialisation within the gene pool including a loss of genetic information on the one hand and the increase of genetic information required by "goo to you via the zoo" evolution on the other hand (this has also been labelled as micro- vs. macro-evolution, but that terminology blurs the actual distinction). Philip J. Rayment 06:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes. I saw those edits. He, like other editors, has keyed in the kind of "creationism" he believes in, and he has made sure that most of the real variations of "creationism" are not represented. The current first two sentences are atrociously wrong.

Creationism is the belief that the universe and all life were created by the deliberate act of God as described in the Bible. The term usually refers to Christian creationism and especially to the belief that living organisms were created by God "after their kind".

Just out of curiosity how would you edit the above two sentences to make them right? ---Rednblu 05:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was going to say that I was happy with it the way it was before, but on further reflection the second sentence could be changed to something like "The term usually refers to Christian creationism and especially to the belief that God created various distinct kinds of living creatures." I can't really see that the sentences are "atrociously" wrong, though. Philip J. Rayment 06:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have now made the changes as outlined above. I hope that this wording is acceptable.

Actually, I wasn't describing my beliefs, I was trying to describe creationist beliefs. This is hard to do because different beliefs come under the heading "creationist". At one extreme we could have a definition of creationism that would demand a rather literal interpretation of one of the creation stories in Genesis. At the other extreme, we could have a definition of creationism that could encompass a belief in evolution, provided that God was in final control.

Perhaps Philip's wording (immediately above)is clearer than "after their kind". I would certainly have no objection to the wording that he suggested. Michael Glass 06:50, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What is wrong with the lead section of Creationism?

Summary of the issue: What is the best single word or phrase to describe "Creationism"? Should the word "theory", which has multiple meanings be used?

Please post discussion on this topic at /What is wrong with the lead section

--- Begin copy of contents from /What is wrong with the lead section

What is wrong with the lead section of Creationism?

<<Actually, I wasn't describing my beliefs, I was trying to describe creationist beliefs.>>

In my opinion, the fundamental logical flaw in this approach is basing your investigation on "belief." Hypothesis: To start an encyclopedia article with "Xism is the belief that . . . " will always fail to produce a good encyclopedia page. You might start paging through your virtual Encyclopaedia Britannica for a counter-example to the above hypothesis--looking for a "good" encyclopedia page that begins with what I am asserting is an irredeemably flawed first sentence "Xism is the belief that . . . ." You may find what you think is a counter-example encyclopedia page, and of course I will contend that that encyclopedia page is not "good." :) It is like beginning an encyclopedia page with the first sentence: "Ten is the odd number that . . . ."

The first sentence of a "good" encyclopedia page on "creationism" should describe what "creationism" is--not what "creationism" believes. For example, you might begin a "good" encyclopedia page with "Communism is a system of political and economic organization in which . . ." or you might begin a "good" encyclopedia page with "Creationism is the theory that . . . ."

I leave it for the reader to derive the general logical constraint that produces a "bad" encyclopedia page from the first sentence of the form "Xism is the belief that . . . ." ---Rednblu 15:29, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But is there really anything wrong with saying that creationism is a belief if that's what it is? "Communism is a system..." is appropriate because it is a system, not a belief. You can be a believer in communism, or a believer in creation, but not a believer in creationism, because creationism is the belief in creation.

I want to have a good look at this article, but have not done so yet because I wanted to wade through the nine pages of talk before I change too much. But as well as this article on creationism, there is also an article on Creation and another on Young Earth creationism, as well as other origins views. What should go where, and whether we need all these, are also issues that should be addressed, but presumably this article is about the belief rather than the origins model of creation, or what is often known as Creation Science. Perhaps this article should say little more than "Creationism is the belief in Biblical Creation" and put the rest under the latter (or similar) article?

Philip J. Rayment 16:37, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

<<But is there really anything wrong with saying that creationism is a belief if that's what it is?>>

Let me illustrate the problem with the current first sentence to the Creationism page.

Creationism is the belief that the universe and all life were created by the deliberate act of God as described in the Bible.

If everyone agreed to that sentence, then there would be no problem with that first sentence. The difficulty is that, to make that sentence correct, over half of the people on this earth would have to change the words that follow "Creationism is the belief that . . . ." We could take a poll to pin down the statistics that I imply in "over half of the people."

As it is now, most people who explain their existence as divine creation have beliefs that violate the phrase "as described in the Bible"--because most people who explain their existence as divine creation believe that some form of speciation fomed H. sapiens and that is not "as described in the Bible," but rather "as described in" Darwin's, Origin of Species. Again, we could take lots of polls to pin down the statistics I imply by phrases like "most people who. . . ."

I don't really think you mean that Creationism is just a belief. It is also a political movement, it is a controversy, it is the basis of a way of life, it is a basis for moral systems, etc.

And the professional encyclopedias recognize the entirety of what "creationism" is in the lead sentence. Consult any professional encyclopedia. Creationism is not just a belief, it is a . . . . ---Rednblu 18:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree that "as described in the bible" is much too narrow, and could be changed to, perhaps, "as described in some creation myth" or some such (I would like to hear your suggestion).

But I am unclear as to your point here, is the the word "belief" that you're objecting to, or the phrase "as described in the bible"? As for whether creationism is only belief or a belief and other stuff too, what difference does that make? The sentence doesn't say "just a belief" it just says "belief", and all that other stuff (morality, etc) can't really be mentioned in a single sentence, and doesn't really need to be, since those things are often associated with beliefs, and therefore can probably be assumed by the reader. So what exactly is it that you are proposing about that word "belief"?-Lethe | Talk

What difference does that make? you ask. I would say it is only a matter of accuracy--as long the words model somewhat closely what is going on in reality. At first, "belief" seemed to me to be the right word. To me, "creationism" is a belief that some people have. But then I saw that so many people disagreed with what followed the phrase "Creationism is the belief that . . . ." So then it seemed to me that it would be nearly impossible to make an accurate statement that would model reality, beginning with "Creationism is the belief that . . . ."; it doesn't matter whether you put the Bible into that definition or not, it still will not model reality. I assume that an encyclopedia would like to model the "reality" of what people have thought, said, and done.

So then I explored how the hardcopy encyclopedias have introduced the whole host of "beliefs"--the -isms. I found in the hardcopy encyclopedias the following:

• Theism is "the view that . . . "
• Atheism is "the critique and denial of . . . "
• Agnosticism is "the doctrine that . . . "
• Fundamentalism is "the conservative movement arising out of the . . ."
• Fatalism is "the view that . . . "

The textual structure here is that view, critique, doctrine, and movement are all abstractions that you can define outside of the believer's head. They are defined before "belief"; belief is what someone might have in the view, critique, doctrine, or movement. I found it interesting that Britannica starts the "creationism" entry with

• Creationism is "the theory that . . . "

With that kind of beginning, the article can lay out the variations in the "theory." The "theory" can have a political influence. The "theory" can be criticized as having more causes than it needs, or the "theory" can be proven wrong. And of course, some people have a belief in the theory and some people don't. It is merely a question of accuracy of the encyclopedia article in modeling reality. ---Rednblu 23:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please don't expect too much support from the word "theory" here. The topic of creationism touches upon the topic of biological science; within science, the term "theory" has a rather specific meaning. It does not mean "view" or "proposal". In a scientific context, the word means that a system of knowledge has substantial evidential basis; thus, to call creationism a theory is, here, to favor it as science. This is, of course, the POV of creation scientists, and so would lean the article toward that viewpoint. —FOo 02:46, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I understand your political turf explanation quite well. It is nothing more sophisticated than our inherited chimpanzee politics. Reality be damned; what counts is holding the political turf. I'm not even objecting. I'm just pointing out that in fact, "Creationism is a theory . . . ." I understand that currently in Wikipedia, the evolutionist censors will not allow the truth be told. But if you look outside Wikipedia at reality, there are many kinds of theory other than scientific theory; there is wage theory and auteur theory and location theory and tricellular theory and creationist theory none of which even claim to be a science. At least all of those non-scientific theories are "explanations" that serve quite adequately for what science cannot even begin to handle. Just because some lame-brain religious zealot devised the brilliant chimpanzee politics trick of faking up creationism to be a science does not justify ignoring the reality of what "creationism" is. ---Rednblu 05:18, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, sure, if you are trying to start a fight (as your use of expressions like "evolutionist censors" and "lame-brain religious zealots" suggests) then it's a great choice of words. The Usenet newsgroup talk.origins is a much more entertaining place to have a fight about creationism than Wikipedia is, though. —FOo 06:40, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let me rephrase if you will.

I understand your political turf explanation quite well. It is nothing more sophisticated than our inherited chimpanzee politics. Reality be damned; what counts is holding the political turf. I'm not even objecting. I'm just pointing out that in fact, "Creationism is a theory . . . ." I understand that currently in Wikipedia, many will not support the use of the word theory that differs from the way that the word theory is used in biological science. But if you look outside Wikipedia at reality, there are many kinds of theory other than scientific theory; there is wage theory and auteur theory and location theory and tricellular theory and creationist theory none of which even claim to be a science. At least all of those non-scientific theories are "explanations" that serve quite adequately for what science cannot even begin to handle. Just because some creationist strategist devised the brilliant chimpanzee politics trick of faking up creationism to be a science does not justify ignoring the reality of what "creationism" is. ---Rednblu 06:58, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

People are right to object. While creationism is a theory, in practice it's paired up with evolution that to call it that is confusing. Besides, other similar things aren't usually described as theories anyways (e.g. most are described as stories rather than historical events even though people believe in them). As such, some other synonym is preferrable. I don't know why you object to the term belief, which does a good job summing up other positions like theism, atheism, etc, but there are plenty of other words that could be used. Idea, view, and position come to mind.

<<I don't know why you object to the term 'belief'>>

I object to "Creationism is a belief that ..." in the same sense that I would object to "A mammal is four legs that ...." Even allowing for some whales having the vestigial hind legs, "four legs" does not capture the functional essence of "mammal" very well. The flaw in "Creationism is a belief that ..." is that it does not model reality very well in representing what "creationism" is. Let me state the following Hypothesis: The political drawing power of "creationism" is that creationism looks to uneducated people like a theory that explains how people got here on this earth. This is the standard anthropological interpretation of why people gravitate to creationism. [18] ---Rednblu 07:56, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. Any objections to Creationism is the position that...?

No. In common parlance, position would be a little vague--as if settling the issue would be a matter settled by vote. But position would settle the algebraic inconsistency of using belief to stand for two totally different thinge 1) the "story" believed and 2) the act of belief. The belief page has it right: "Belief is assent to a proposition." ---Rednblu 17:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On the "belief" issue, I was assuming that an "ism" is, essentially, a belief (or a set of beliefs, perhaps). However, Mirriam-Webster Onlinedoesn't actually give that definition, instead defining "ism" as a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory. I still don't really have a problem with the word "belief", but I am happy for something else to be substituted. I would probably go for "view", which incidentally was used twice in Rednblu' list of examples, but I'm open to "doctrine" or other possibilities.

On the issue of "as described in the Bible", I think I see where you are coming from, Rednblu, having now read most of the nine pages of talk (whew!). If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting/claiming that the term creationism is applicable to anybody who believes in a divine creator (or something like that), regardless of whether or not they follow/accept the biblical narrative. On this I would disagree. Sure, the term could be used to describe non-biblical views of creation, but is that the way that it is normally used? As mentioned by others in the earlier discussion, most dictionaries do refer to the Bible or Genesis in defining the word.

As for the comparison with "A mammal is four legs that...", again I think I see your point, that "belief" (or any of the other terms that have been suggested?) don't explain creationism well enough. I'm a bit ambivalent on this at the moment, but I'm not convinced that the analogy is correct. Perhaps you could propose some alternative wording so that we can better see where you want this to go.

Actually, I don't really like the third sentence of the introduction ("However, not all..."), as it appears awkward and rather pointless.
Philip J. Rayment 12:31, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

<<If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting/claiming that the term creationism is applicable to anybody who believes in a divine creator (or something like that), regardless of whether or not they follow/accept the biblical narrative. On this I would disagree.>>

I do believe that the empirical evidence supports the following Hypothesis: Out of all the people of this earth who believe that divine creation put them here, only a very small fraction believe that the divine creation followed the biblical narrative. I have no personal preference that all of those people would 1) follow or 2) not follow the biblical narrative. Isn't this just a question of fact--comparing statistically what 1) people say about the divine creation that put them here versus the 2) biblical narrative?

Let's not worry for now about whether "belief" is appropriate. The resolution of that issue, in my opinion, is a huge political problem within the whole camp of evolutionists, of which I am one. That is, in my opinion, fixing the "belief" problem in the Creationism page is a long-term process of getting the evolutionists to deal with reality. If you think "belief" is good-enough, let's stay with "belief" for now. ---Rednblu 17:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just to comment on belief a bit more, a belief doesn't have to be an airy-fairy thing that has no connection to reality. We believe, for example, that if we sit on a chair, it will hold our weight, based on the experience that we have with sitting on chairs previously.

As for what should come under the heading of "creationism", the following articles could be instructive, although personally I wouldn't take everything this author says at face value: [19] [20] [21] Philip J. Rayment 15:30, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We've discussed the topic of creationism: theory/belief/hypothesis/etc.? at length previously here: Talk:Creationism/Is_Creationism_a_theory.

A hypothesis or conjecture requires the following to qualify as a theory:

is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,

is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,

has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,

makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory, and is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data,

Creationism clearly does not qualify as a theory. Barring any additional credible proof that it is indeed a theory, then it remains in the realm of belief, or conjecture at best. It seems some are bent on getting a second- and third bite at the apple on this point.--FeloniousMonk 17:42, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC) Sure. You have expressed exactly my particular point-of-view; that is how I want to use the word theory; that is how I have trained myself to use the word theory. But that point-of-view is not how most people use the English word theory. Just take for example what most people mean by "domino theory." That is, most people use "theory" not to mean scientific method; but rather to mean an organization of knowledge that explicitly names assumptions, accepted principles, and rules to explain the knowledge--with no requirement for verifiability.

1. Just because scientists use a term of art in a particularly peculiar though very useful way does not justify censoring how most people use the term. For example, the word work has a very peculiar though very useful meaning in physics, but the usefulness of that term of art in physics does not justify censoring how people use the word work in the phrase "right-to-work laws."
2. Just because the previous edit war ended up with the evolutionists getting their bigoted view of theory enforced throughout Wikipedia does not prevent correcting the Creationism page today to reflect reality accurately. ---Rednblu 18:20, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since we are in essence talking about creationism's relation to scientific explanations of the same phenomena, we should use the definition of theory as it applies to science, regardless of the existence of a less rigorous definition used in common speech outside of science. Particularly considering that the word "theory" is hardly a term-of-art or jargon as you imply, nor is it's use by scientists "peculiar." The point is, calling creationism a theory creates a false impression as to its validity as an explanation for matters that are also (and better) addressed by science.

The current opening paragraph identifying creationism as a belief does reflect reality. Creationism fails to qualify as anything more than a belief since it: 1) is inconsistent with any pre-existing theory that has withstood verification experimentally or in reality, 2) is not supported by any credible evidence but rather rests on a single foundation of magical thinking, 3) cannot be verified or tested, but must be accepted on faith, leaving it open to unresolvable disputes regarding interpretation and its nature, 4) makes no predictions that might someday be used to prove or disprove its claim, or those of any of the alternative explanations for the same data.

Are you seriously claiming that "bigoted evolutionists" have managed to enforce their strictly POV content in the wikipedia theory article, or are you just being ironic here? --FeloniousMonk 21:48, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

<<considering that the word "theory" is hardly a term-of-art or jargon as you imply, nor is its use by scientists "peculiar.">>

Ok. Would you say that the "domino theory" applies the

1. definition of theory as used by scientists or the
2. Encyclopædia Britannica definition of "theory"? ---Rednblu 22:55, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your point about which usage of theory in the phrase Domino Theory is a non sequitur; if we are to maintain more than just a pretense of intellectual rigor and stringency in wikipedia, then of we must insist on equally rigorous definitions. As are found at our own theory article, for which there is no reason to abandon here. I'm not surprised Britannica uses a lax interpretation of theory in this particular instance, considering that they are in the business of selling books and subscriptions. Why would they alienate over an intellectual subtlety the significant percentage of the potential market who'd be offended to find their personal objects of faith are not legitimate theories with some parity to actual science? Their customers might even insist on redefining the term theory then...

What constitutes a theory is sufficiently well defined for everyone except those whose beliefs don't get a place at the table. Special pleadings here for redefining what constitutes theory have already been declined, as you apparently already know.--FeloniousMonk 07:23, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Restatement of Hypothesis: The evolutionists on Wikipedia enforce a censorship on Wikipedia from a bigoted and parochial view of theory that contradicts the general usage of the English word "theory".

<<Your point about which usage of theory in the phrase Domino Theory is a non sequitur; if we are to maintain more than just a pretense of intellectual rigor and stringency in wikipedia, then of we must insist on equally rigorous definitions.>>

Thank you for your example in support of my hypothesis. No need to reply; typical misuse of facts, logic, and grammar. ---Rednblu 17:04, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you're going to get too far with either that tone or that reasoning. You are making a special pleading for an exception to the standard definition of theory, plain and simple. Theory is well defined on wikipedia, and it is consistent with the common usage in science, and I've presented a plausible explanation for Britannica's misuse of the phrase. Just because Britannica is wrong does not mean that we should be too. You could produce supporting facts to further make your case for an exceptional use of the term theory instead of ranting and alleging an "evolutionist" conspiracy, which is virtually guaranteed to get you nowhere.

If you have a problem with how wikipedia defines theory, I'd normally say take it to RFC or even through the dispute resolution process, but since the current theory article is actually the product of that already, I'll say you should probably just get used to the fact that your opinion on the matter is not mainstream. Also, your allegations of my misuse of facts, logic and grammar, remains as unsupported as your claim that theory is incorrectly defined here and that there's an "evolutionist" plot on wikipedia to deny you your special pleading.--FeloniousMonk 17:48, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Obviously there is a dispute whether creationism is a theory. One side says it is, one side says it isn't. Therefore it would be a violation of NPOV to start the article with "Creationism is the theory that...". The obvious solution, for me, is to start with "Creationism is the belief that...", then say that "creation scientists" claim it is also a theory. Hob 17:44, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC) No price for good style, but another possibility would be:

Creationism is the theory, however not in the scientific understanding of "theory", that the universe and all life were created by the deliberate act of God as described in the Bible.

Pjacobi 21:44, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) I disagree with this solution. Calling creationism a theory, even in a relaxed, vernacular form, when it fails to meet any of the criteria of an actual theory, is misleading and confusing to readers, who would first have to understand the nuance. Also, as long as creationists consistently insist their belief is an alternative to scientific explanations for the universe's origin, not to mention consistently insisting that such science is wrong and/or flawed, their belief should then have to meet the same standard as any other explanation for the origin of the cosmos if they want it to be taken as an credible alternative explanation. The correct solution is to call reader's attention the fact some creationism proponents insist that their beliefs qualify as theories and outline the criticisms of those claims.--FeloniousMonk 04:50, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) Arrgh! I forgot to put this page on my watch list. A bit of catching up here...
<<Creationism clearly does not qualify as a theory.>>
I am not pushing for using the word theory', but some things need to be said here (although I just know I'm going to regret this).

• I have previously said that I am happy to use belief, but now have second thoughts. Just as theory means different things to different people (scientific vs. non-scientifice, for example), so does belief. To me, a belief is an understanding of something that may or may not be provable. For example, I believe that most scientists are evolutionists. Does anybody want to dispute that belief? But for others, belief is something divorced from reality, as in "that's not a fact, just a belief". Using it that way, I reject the word belief in this article.
• If Creationism clearly does not qualify as a theory, then neither does (goo-to-you) evolution. Evolution is a set of explanations about the past to explain how the present came to be. So is creation. The past cannot be observed nor replicated; therefore evolution has not been observed nor replicated, any more than creation has. (NOTE: Both evolution and creation incorporate natural selection, although each uses it in a slightly different way; it is not natural selection that I am talking about here.)
• To elaborate, and take FeloniousMonk's criteria for a theory,

• Evolution was inconsistent with the pre-existing theory (creation). Creation had been accepted scientifically at the time.
• Evolution is not supported by any credible evidence but rather rests on a foundation of magical thinking, specifically that order can come from disorder for no reason.
• Evolution cannot be verified or tested, but must be accepted on faith, leaving it open to unresolvable disputes regarding interpretation and its nature. This is due to its nature as a series of unique past events that were not observed and cannot be replicated.
• Creation makes predictions that might someday be used to prove or disprove its claim. For example, creation predicts a lack of transitional fossils (between major groups), which is what is found.
• Evolution makes few predictions that might someday be used to prove or disprove its claim. For example, Darwin predicted the discovery of lots of transitional fossils, but when they failed to materialise, the theory was not discarded, but altered to argue that transitional fossils should not be expected in significant numbers.

On a slightly different note, I am frequently amused by people arguing that:

• Creation was falsified 150 years ago.
• Creation is not scientific because it is not falsifiable.

So which is it really?
Philip J. Rayment 04:24, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry, we're equally amused by anyone that thinks creationism could ever be tested...

Based on your comments here and at Talk:Intelligent_design, I'm inclined to agree with Graft's comments to you at Talk:Intelligent_design: it's clear you neither understand the basic undelying science you address here, nor the scientific method. --FeloniousMonk 05:27, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So rather than actually address what I wrote, you dismiss me as an ignoramus. At least in my description of how evolution does not meet your criteria for a theory, I explained how it didn't with examples, unlike your description which merely assumes that creation doesn't meet the criteria. Do you care to actually get down to specifics? How, for example, does one observe and replicate the evolution of reptiles into birds? It is not falsifiable. Philip J. Rayment 06:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As I've said before, I will not be drawn into sideline debates on peripheral topics. I'm only here to address the matters at hand: editing wikipedia in an equitable and accurate fashion. If you want to debate evolution vs. creationism, there are articles with their own discussions for that. You've made enough errors of fact, logic, and method that your understanding of the science of the topic, and science in general are suspect, and I see no benefit to be gained from arguing points barely related to the matter at hand with someone who is unable to discern a correct argument from one in error.

The point being discussed here is whether identifying creationism as a theory in the opening sentence of the article is accurate and I will only discuss that topic here. I say calling it a theory is not accurate, indeed it is misleading.--FeloniousMonk 07:01, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You introduced the "sideline debate" by dogmatically expressing you POV that creation is not a scientific theory. I was not arguing for using the word "theory", and Rednblu was not arguing for using in a scientific sense, but you still thought it relevant to put your POV on whether or not it can be used that way.

<<I say calling it a theory is not accurate, indeed it is misleading.>>

I say calling it a theory is not NPOV. If you want to agree with and leave it at that, then fine. But you are going further and arguing your POV that "it is not a theory". I was debating that because you introduced that debate.

<<it's clear you neither understand the basic undelying science you address here, nor the scientific method. --FeloniousMonk>>

<<Insults, implied or overt, are neither welcome nor in the spirit of wikipedia.--FeloniousMonk>>

Hmmm!

Philip J. Rayment 23:23, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The fact that creationism is not a scientific theory is not my POV, it is the official position of the majority of the relevant scientific community, as stated by the National Academy of Sciences, The American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, The Geophysical Union and nearly every other eminent scientific organization... I am merely advocating their position. Creationists continually insisting (as you have) that their beliefs are a credible alternative explanation to those of science mandates that the use of the word theory in relation to creationism be consistent with how it is used in science. Additionally, any claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and creationism as equally credible explanations of our origin reflects a profound misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted.

My observation that it seems you do not understand the science behind evolution or the scientific method is shared by others elsewhere as well and was not intended as an insult; the difference between an insult and an observation is a point that should be apparent to those who insist on using nuanced definitions here.

That you continually insist on interjecting sidelines about evolution and other peripheral topics here is your own doing, I have not done that nor am I responsible for you doing so as you stated.--FeloniousMonk 02:19, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

<<The fact that creationism is not a scientific theory is not my POV,>>

I never said that it was exclusively your POV. But it is a point of view that you apparently agree with.

<<...it is the official position of the majority of the relevant scientific community,...>>

Yes, the majority. There is also a significant minority that have a different point of view.

<<Additionally, any claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and creationism as equally credible explanations of our origin reflects a profound misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted.>>

That, also, is your point of view. It is, also, a majority point of view amongst academia. It is not the only point of view, even amongst academia.

<<...was not intended as an insult;>>

I'll accept that it wasn't intended that way, but telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about, I do find insulting. Frankly, I don't think that you know what you are talking about, but I say that merely so that you will experience what it is like to be on the receiving end of such an "observation". If you want to tell me that I don't know what I am talking about, tell me, specifically, where I am wrong.

<<That you continually insist on interjecting sidelines about evolution and other peripheral topics here is your own doing, I have not done that nor am I responsible for you doing so as you stated.>>

So you can say something like "creation is not scientific", and I am not allowed to debate the point? Because that is what I was doing--debating the claim that you made.

Philip J. Rayment 02:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If your are as knowledgable on the topic as you claim then I should not have to tell you here that when I wrote "Additionally, any claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and creationism as equally credible explanations of our origin reflects a profound misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted." I was not stating only my own opinion as you insist here, but I am citing nearly verbatim the official position of the National Academy of Sciences regarding the validity, or invalidity more accurately, of creationism as a putative scientific theory.[22]

Both the terms "scientific" and "theory" have been sufficiently well defined on these pages and it has been repeatedly shown here how creationism fails to qualify as an actual part of science. Additionally, to this end, references have been given showing that the majority of the scientific community and the eminent organizations thereof do not consider creationism science or theory; that you willfully refuse to accept that does not change the fact.

This dialog has turned unproductive and I suggest we end it. You are entitled to your views, but you are not entitled to redefine ours or what is considered science. It's time to put this particular discussion to rest.--FeloniousMonk 05:37, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

<<I was not stating only my own opinion as you insist here>>

Did you properly read what I wrote? I said, "It is, also, a majority point of view amongst academia." How do you read that as me insisting that it was only your opinion?

<<it has been repeatedly shown here how creationism fails to qualify as an actual part of science.>>

I don't believe that it has been shown. It has been claimed, but not shown. In any case, my point was that creation is just as scientific as evolution. That is, perhaps creation is not scientific, but if so evolution is not either. That point has not been addressed, other than perhaps to quote majority views.

<<references have been given showing that the majority of the scientific community and the eminent organizations thereof do not consider creationism science or theory; that you willfully refuse to accept that does not change the fact.>>

Again, you haven't really read what I have said. I have willingly acknowledged that your POV is also the majority POV at least among the scientific/academic community. But it is still a point of view.

Philip J. Rayment 23:29, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What Points-of-View should get "air-time" on the Creationism page?

It seems to me that our struggle here is a valid one. We are attempting to define among ourselves what points-of-view should be allowed to make statements on the Creationism page. The final constructive outcome of our struggles here would be a list of the allowed points-of-view. Here are some of the points of friction that we have encountered so far.

• There is a question of whether a science view should be allowed to dictate such things as the definition of theory, particularly when the subject of "creationism" has deep roots in history, which often has been at odds with science.
• Here is a short list of the points-of-view that think they have something to say about "creationism." Some of these points-of-view may have more relevance to "creationism" than science.
  • Philosophy -- looking at the types of epistemology operating within creationism.
  • Ethics -- particularly taking into consideration, for example, Tom Paine's and Thomas Jefferson's view of the importance for the society to worship the Creator in the right way.
  • Faith -- Many parts of creationism do not depend on proof or logical consistency.
  • Competitiveness -- There are several published scholars who have analyzed the political dynamics of the creationism versus evolutionism debate and interpreted it as mere "power dynamics" -- which would-be alpha male can get the other alpha males to bow to him.
  • Anthropology -- Particularly, looking at the elements of creationism that are required to give the satisfaction of "explaining enough."

Approaching the problem of making a great Creationism page from this angle, we might make a list of the points-of-view in the current Creationism page--and then see what points-of-view would need to be added to make that great Creationism page. ---Rednblu 05:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think your approach to and framing of this particular question is flawed. In a very real way we as wikipedians don't get to "define what points-of-view should be allowed to make statements on the Creationism page" as you say. The points that should be addressed are the ones that are relevant to describing accurately and concisely creationism, and they are already determined. The Creationism article should be an accurate and concise description of creationism and its status in society; nothing more and nothing less. Most have stated here and on the main discussion page it it does that already. Further, neither you nor I own the article or the debate, so I don't think creating your proposed "a list of the allowed points-of-view" is in the spirit or the best interest of wikipedia, it smacks of censorship and power grabbing. I would oppose it, as attempting to control knowledge in such a manner is anti-wikipedia and likely to fail. Continual attempts by self-appointed minders to redefine and restructure the debate will only smack of POVism, as some have discovered.

Addressing your individual points and suggestion here:

• Whether a science view should be allowed to dictate the definition of theory: This is a non-starter. There is and has been historically a majority consensus on this article that creationism is a belief, not a theory in any meaningful sense of the word. As long as creationists continually insist that their beliefs are a credible alternative explanation to those of science the use of the word theory in relation to creationism must be consistent with how it is used in science. You'll have to make the case that history has indeed been at odds with science before you can adopt this new position.

• As for your short list:

• • Philosophy -- addressing the types of epistemology operating within creationism seems reasonable, but might be better suited to a new article dedicated to The Philosophy of Creationism.

• • Ethics -- being a subset of philosophy this is only marginally relevant here, particularly content that explores historical figure's religious beliefs. It is better suited to the proposed new page, Philosophy of Creationism.

• • Faith -- You are correct, most elements of creationism are appeals to faith or authority, not observed data. This is already pointed out in the article if I remember correctly, but could stand to be expanded upon slightly. A more thorough expansion would again be appropriate to a Philosophy of Creationism article.

• • Competitiveness -- I'm not sure this is appropriate or significant enough to warrant inclusion in the Creationism article.

• • Anthropology -- This is likely significant enough to warrant a few sentences or paragraph in the Creationism article. I don't believe a separate Anthropology of Creationism article is warranted, though.

I feel that the points raised here point out the need for Philosophy of Creationism article that leaves the original Creationism article to deal a concise and balanced way with describing creationism. I will be moving to have that article created, so to speak.--FeloniousMonk 07:32, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In what way would a history view contradict a science view?

<<..it's clear you neither understand the basic underlying science you address here, nor..>>

In my opinion, it is irrelevant whether a participant on this page understands the underlying science. And it is unnecessary to engage in this standard chimpanzee politics and hierarchy challenge that we all inherited from the ancestors of the chimpanzees. We are writing an encyclopedia page. And what matters is whether the participant faithfully represents a valid and documented point of view on the Creationism page. We will expect legitimate citations, of course. The Creationism page does not address, challenge, overlap, threaten, nor discuss science, though some wrongfully keep twisting the Creationism page to do so. In my opinion, Mr. Rayment's statements faithfully represent history and standard uses of the English language whether or not they correspond to the narrow views of science. ---Rednblu 06:01, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Insults, implied or overt, are neither welcome nor in the spirit of wikipedia. We can add these to your previous put downs of those who oppose your position as being "bigoted evolutionists." You may want to reconsider your tone here and blatant POV edits made to the main discussion page lately.--FeloniousMonk 07:01, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let me start with saying, that I'm also of the opinion, that Creationism is a belief. But as some important believers want the label "theory", I agree with putting "theory" in the first sentence and suggested above the possibility of the clarifying however not in the scientific understanding of "theory" sub-sentence for a NPOV treatment. Please consider three points.

• Whereas in the scientific discourse it is a honor to be a theory, in popular usage of the word, it is a dishonor. There is an interesting precedent of Wikipedia acknowledging this mismatch. Shortly after the Black hole article was featured on the front page, the necessity was seen of removing [[theory|theoretical]] from the first sentence [23] to avoid mis-interpretation as "not established", of "second class status".
• At many different, difficult spots, we accept self-labeling of groups, to clarify later the opposing view. For example in characterising Jehovah's Witnesses as christian (intro sentence may change every second). The situation there is more bizarre, as not only the JWs self-label them as christian, but also most non-christians will label them christian, only most christians refuse vehemently. Same story with Samaritanism and Judaism.
• It is pointless, leading only to overlong debates and edit wars, to put the fight to the top of the pyramid: the label, the summary, the "judgement". Get the facts right, and the reader can judge. It's the "Don't start the Adolf Hitler article with Adolf Hitler was an evil man argument", see [24].

And, BTW, has anybody read something of de:Harun Yaha? We are seeking some concrete counter-arguments for some of his concrete arguments but so far nobody volunteered to actually obtaining his book. Pjacobi 10:03, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree it is important to get the facts right and let the reader judge, which is why I suggested outlining both sides of the controversy over use of the word theory in relation to creationism, as opposed to just using the phrase with what amounts to a disclaimer. I'm not summarily objecting to the proposed statement because it is not accurate, but because the sentence is confusing and not explicit; it requires of the reader an understanding of the differences and significance of those differences between "theory" in the sense of a nonacademic belief or notion, and an actual scientific theory, without providing an explanation of those differences. In other words, explicit statements are preferable to implicit statements, or tautological statements. If we can rework it to be an explicit statement, that would be an improvement and something I could support.--FeloniousMonk 17:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was aware that my formulation attempt will most likely not be stringent enough for a first sentence, as I said in my first post here. I'm still of the opinion that the statement is correct, and I interpret your post to agree on this. I fear I'm not much help in finding a good formulation, as I'm not a native speaker, and subtle difference between German and English may blur my view. On de: we settled (so far) on "ist die These" (is the thesis), which is less awkward but also less informative than is a theory, however not in the scientific understanding of "theory". In German the is the belief ("ist der Glaube") formulation would look rather strange. "Menschen glauben an X" (people believe in X), but we want to talk of X, and in some places of the believers (persons, organisations and tactics), not about the belief in X.

Sorry for confusing everbody.

Pjacobi 19:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

--

I have a feeling your English is likely better than ours, so please, have a go at it.--FeloniousMonk 07:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Again, I think your approach and framing of the question are flawed. Historic POVs and scientific POV's are not competition in academia, or in an encyclopedia. One POV does not trump the other generally, but share space. Nor should either impinge on the other's purview. They coexist within our corpus of knowledge and as to what extent this is relevant to keeping the article accurate it should be pointed out.--FeloniousMonk 07:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"POV" Headings

I have reverted the headings in Talk:Creationism#What is wrong with the lead section of Creationism? to NPOV headings. As my previous comments failed to convince, I am here enlarging on why.

• Changed The Creationist point of view to One point of view

It is ludicrous to paint this POV as the creationist one when (a) the person putting this point of view is an evolutionist, and (b) no creationist has said that they agree with this POV. As a creationist, I am not arguing that point of view. "One point of view" is NPOV wording anyway.

• Changed The Scientific Community point of view to Another point of view

This is now also NPOV. Calling it the scientific community point of view implies that the "scientific community" have a single point of view on this. Whilst not disputing that it is the majority point of view within the scientific community, it is most certainly not the only point of view in that community.

In any case, the proposals should be considered on their merits, not on the basis of whose points of view they are.
Philip J. Rayment 03:15, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I understand the struggle here to find NPOV descriptions all too well, but I don't think leaving the particular arguments unindentified with the stance or groups with which they are assoicated is an improvement.

Nor can one make much of a valid argument for RednBlu's personal POV being "evolutionist" considering his anti-evolutionist rants here and elsewhere and his personal statement on his User homepage. He may accept evolution as the best explantion, but he's clearly against those who he considers "evolutionists" and has consistantly worked to opposed them aggressively.--FeloniousMonk 18:09, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I learned a lot from that "Summary" exercise of Points-of-View, though sometimes it felt like a mere Chimpanzee Politics turf battle in which I felt like I acted like a chimpanzee ganging up in temporary coalitions to defend turf like everyone else I saw. However in the process, I consulted more actual encyclopedias and dictionaries in more depth than I had before. User:Steinsky wisely, in my opinion, replaced the ramble on the parent page with a thumbnail summary that actually works. And, in my opinion, it would be constructive for the quality of the Creationism page if we would continue that "Summary" exercise here on the subpage where that work toward a "Summary" actually belongs. Accordingly, I structure a "Summary area" below where I would suggest that each contributor wanting to participate would edit only their own Summary statement. Whose statement goes first or last does not matter to me; so feel free to move the position of my statement as you feel that position would strengthen your own personal point-of-view. And of course, I invite anyone else not listed below to make a summary statement, particularly anyone reading that has not yet had a chance to make a statement on what they think would be the most accurate lead section for the Creationism page. Please limit statements to around ten lines--merely for clarity. If you want to make a long statement, please do so outside the following "Summary statements of participants" section. ---Rednblu 16:04, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've stated my opinions here clearly a number of times already, readers will have no trouble finding them. Constantly refactoring the Talk pages is a well-known tactic here on wikipedia used to wear down resistance of opposing POVs and shape debates to favor a particular POV, so please be aware of this and the three edit and three revert rule, and keep your refactorings here within that range to avoid being accused of running a campaign.

I'll re-summarize my opinion here again, but I will not be limited to an arbitrary ten line limit that you've dictated without seeking consensus. I think interested parties should be free to use as many lines as needed to clearly state their position.--FeloniousMonk 18:09, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No civilized approach would allow science to own the word and definition of "theory"

<<By positioning its assertions in the realm of science and opposing science, Creationism should then have to meet the same standard as science when identifying its claims or itself as a "theory.">>

Maybe for some enterprises your principle of "have to meet the same standard as" would be constructive. But I doubt that your principle of "have to meet the same standard as" is a good approach for writing a truthful and accurate encyclopedia. For in establishing the principle of "have to meet the same standard as," someone must declare which standard is the winner, within what otherwise would be a free-market competition among different standards.

Perhaps, the Wikipedia community would like to encourage the scientists in winning the competition over what definition of theory is allowed within Wikipedia. After all, as Justice Holmes once said, "If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition."

Above you argue that the Wikipedia community should declare that "Creationism should then have to meet the same standard as science." But I suggest that declaring the monopoly outcome for science over control of the word and definition of theory would be fatal in trying to put together an accurate and truthful encyclopedia.

For as Justice Holmes said, it is natural to want to sweep away all opposition. Then he continued, "But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out." [25]

I suggest that instead of adopting the principle of "have to meet the same standard as," a truthful and accurate encyclopedia would display the participants in the "free trade in ideas"--something like Creationist A says "A theory is the following . . .," and Nobel Prize Winner B says "A theory is something different . . . ." You may think that such an accurate description of the "free trade in ideas" would permit the creationists to manipulate people's minds with their pseudoscience. I do not take such a dim view of what natural selection and circumstance have made of us. Do you really think that pseudoscience has such power? ---Rednblu 06:58, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So wikipedia should allow Straw Man arguments to redefine the word "theory" for everyone to accomodate your special pleading?

You have a singular gift for coming up with straw man arguments. Science doesn't "own" the term "theory" any more than Christians own the term religion; dictionaries define words based on what is found in general usage, and according to most dictionaries, people associate the word theory first with science before they associate it with a notion or idle conjecture, which is what you're arguing it is in this limited case (making your claim a special pleading).

"...I doubt that your principle of "have to meet the same standard as" is a good approach for writing a truthful and accurate encyclopedia. For in establishing the principle of "have to meet the same standard as," someone must declare which standard is the winner, within what otherwise would be a free-market competition among different standards."

OK, so it's your position that in order to have a "a truthful and accurate encyclopedia" we should not define terms consistently or demand stringency in our justifications for defining thusly? Your "free-market" justification for abandoning explicit definitions leads to a race to the bottom and intellectual mediocrity; it only assures that all definitions so defined will be so vague as to be near useless.

"Perhaps, the Wikipedia community would like to encourage the scientists in winning the competition over what definition of theory is allowed within Wikipedia... Above you argue that the Wikipedia community should declare that "Creationism should then have to meet the same standard as science." But I suggest that declaring the monopoly outcome for science over control of the word and definition of theory would be fatal in trying to put together an accurate and truthful encyclopedia."

That's singularly threadbare and ignoble reasoning. Not exactly in the spirit of wikipedia now, is it? Trying to make this out as a competition and that scientists here are trying to make a power grab is a shabby and intellectually vacuous tactic. You used the same ploy in your creationist campaign at talk.origins and alt.atheism and it didn't work there, what makes you think it's going to work here? You and the proponents of creationism are the ones seeking to redefine the term and change the article, not us, we are satisfied as it is. Those here you call "scientists" are not asking for the article to be changed, you are. You've been flooding this debate with every form of specious notion to find an angle, and barring that now you're stooping to new lows. Your POV campaign here isn't able to make the case so you try to tar your opponents... Nice!

"For as Justice Holmes said, it is natural to want to sweep away all opposition..."

Well, Justice Holmes also said "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." in Buck v. Bell, 1927, endorsing Virginia's eugenics program. I'm not surprised you'd cite his likes as support.

Then again he may have had a point, perhaps we have had enough generations of imbeciles...

"I suggest that instead of adopting the principle of "have to meet the same standard as," a truthful and accurate encyclopedia would display the participants in the "free trade in ideas"--something like Creationist A says "A theory is the following . . .," and Nobel Prize Winner B says "A theory is something different . . . ."

Using your logic here one would never be able to have meaningful foundational basis for the word. It's like saying even though most experts and the public agree dogs are members of the species lupus, some non-experts should be allowed to say they belong to the species silvestris, because their religious beliefs dictate that any other belief is wrong and so they should get a special exemption. That's singularly bad logic.

You repeatedly use the phrase here"...a truthful and accurate encyclopedia..." but I have to ask why the concern about truth and accuracy now? I mean, you haven't bothered to be truthful or accurate to us about your POV agenda and history now, have you? Bringing up this argument now after our summaries is again an attempt to get another bite at the apple and refactor the debate, just more proof of the shabby tactics of your POV campaigning here; it's blatant flooding of the Talk pages, a violation of wikipolicy.

I'm reluctant to engage you again in anymore discussions here considering the recent revelations as to your true POV, the lack of good faith it indicates, your history and identity. Obviously your mild claims of supporting evolution are nothing more than a beard you've hidden your creationist, religionist agenda behind to disarm your opponents, based on my reading your extensive history of usenet tactics in talk.origins, alt.atheism, etc. going as far back as 1996. You used the very same tactics and arguments there and were shown up to be a fraud. I feel your pet POV campaign here to redefine creationism as a theory and dishonesty about your true POV bias here precludes you from contributing anything with semblance of NPOV. I think you've got a lot of explaining to do before I and others will give you full faith and credit as a wikipedian.--FeloniousMonk 09:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)