| Revision as of 02:13, 15 March 2021 editWessteinbr (talk | contribs)1 edit →Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2021: new section← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 00:49, 7 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,311,730 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 10 WikiProject templates. Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 10 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Religion}}, {{WikiProject Philosophy}}, {{WikiProject Sociology}}, {{WikiProject Skepticism}}, {{WikiProject Theology}}, {{WikiProject Christianity}}, {{WikiProject Islam}}, {{WikiProject Zoroastrianism}}, {{WikiProject Creationism}}, {{WikiProject Alternative Views}}. |
| (45 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header|noarchives=yes|search=no}} |
|
{{Talk header|noarchives=yes|search=no}} |
|
|
{{not a forum}} |
|
{{vital article|topic=Philosophy|level=5|class=B}} |
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
| ⚫ |
{{Calm}} |
|
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
{{Article history| action1 = GAN |
|
{{Article history| action1 = GAN |
| Line 18: |
Line 17: |
|
| currentstatus = DGA |
|
| currentstatus = DGA |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Religion|class=B}} |
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|class=B|importance=high|religion=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=high|religion=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Theology|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Theology|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Islam|class=B|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Zoroastrianism|class=B|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Zoroastrianism|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Creationism|class=B|importance=Top|}} |
|
{{WikiProject Creationism|importance=Top|}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=high}} |
|
{{WP1.0|class=B|v0.5=pass|category=Philrelig}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{To do|2}} |
|
{{To do|2}} |
| Line 41: |
Line 40: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Creationism/Archive index|mask=Talk:Creationism/Archive <#>|mask1=Talk:Creationism/Is Creationism a theory|mask2=Talk:Creationism/Selection as a creative force|mask3=Talk:Creationism/What is wrong with the lead section|mask4=Talk:Creationism/Ranting|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}} |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Creationism/Archive index|mask=Talk:Creationism/Archive <#>|mask1=Talk:Creationism/Is Creationism a theory|mask2=Talk:Creationism/Selection as a creative force|mask3=Talk:Creationism/What is wrong with the lead section|mask4=Talk:Creationism/Ranting|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}} |
|
{{Discretionary sanctions|topic=ps|style=brief}} |
|
|
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|<font color="E32636"><big>'''IMPORTANT''' - If you wish to discuss or debate the ''validity'' of creationism please do so at or Debatepedia. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Misplaced Pages article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.</big></font> |
|
| ⚫ |
|} |
|
|
{{archives |
|
{{archives |
|
|index= /Archive index |
|
|index= /Archive index |
| Line 59: |
Line 53: |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Broken anchors|links= |
|
|
|
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Publications and media) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"Publications and media","appear":{"revid":452303931,"parentid":452297526,"timestamp":"2011-09-25T04:35:41Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":630249308,"parentid":630058811,"timestamp":"2014-10-19T15:37:49Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> |
|
== Scientific methods and Mythology == |
|
|
⚫ |
}} |
|
|
|
|
With the following sentence; |
|
|
"Creationism, in its broadest sense, includes a spectrum or continuum of religious views, some of which accept the reality of biological evolution; evolutionary creationism and varieties of theistic evolution '''reconcile''' their faith with modern science and hold that God purposefully created through the laws of nature." |
|
|
|
|
|
The word reconcile does not fit here, because reconcile means "make (one account) consistent with another, especially by allowing for transactions begun but not yet completed." |
|
|
|
|
|
The "purposeful creations of laws of nature" cannot be reconciled with the scientific method of experimentation and observation. |
|
|
|
|
|
I would suggest changing it to this |
|
|
Creationism, in its broadest sense, includes a spectrum or continuum of religious views, '''disillusioned''' some of which accept the reality of biological evolution; evolutionary creationism and varieties of theistic evolution '''attempt to unsuccessfully''' reconcile their faith with modern science and hold that God purposefully created through the laws of nature.--]<small>]</small> 07:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:Putting the word disillusioned in there doesn't even make grammatical sense, and there's no particular reason to believe that everyone who tries to reconcile their faith with science is unsuccessful. The idea that they "cannot" be reconciled is your opinion. ] ] 08:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
{{u|pepperbeast}} It's not my opinion the ] is well established and defined, stating that laws of nature come about by supernatural processes is not consistent with the scientific processes. And supported by multiple ] such as <ref>https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/sep/24/big-issue-no-mystery-science-and-religion-cannot-be-reconciled</ref>--]<small>]</small> 08:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I agree that "disillusioned" makes no sense and isn't sourced, but the sentence as it stands is clearly wrong/ungrammatical. "Views" cannot "reconcile their faith", only people have faith. {{re|Dave souza}} could you help fix this please? Thanks. ] ] 13:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Thanks everyone, good call that "views" can't reconcile faith. Have reworded it: {{quote|Creationism, in its broadest sense, includes a spectrum or ] of religious views. Some types accept the reality of biological evolution; ]ism and varieties of ] reconcile religious faith with modern science, and hold that God purposefully created through the ].}} |
|
|
:Feel that's clearer. As for the reconciliation, the question of where laws of nature come from is beyond science. These types of creationism combine their religious belief in divine creation with acceptance of all the findings of science – to quote , |
|
|
:"Theistic evolution is a theological view in which God creates through the laws of nature. Theistic evolutionists (TEs) accept all the results of modern science, in anthropology and biology as well as in astronomy, physics, and geology. . . . .However, TEs vary in whether and how much God is allowed to intervene — some believe that God created the laws of nature and allows events to occur with no further intervention. Other TEs believe that God intervenes at critical intervals during the history of life (especially in the origin of humans)." |
|
|
:These theological views exist, whether they're successful or not isn't an issue for this concise lead statement. . . ], ] 16:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{u|Dave souza}}The issue with it is that it makes it appear as if even if you adopt least intervening TE's to say that "God created the laws of nature" it gives the illusion that there is a possibility that this position can be successfully reconciled with modern science and accepted. When reality is this in itself does not at all reconcile with modern science. For a reader that's unfamiliar with the topic, it should be made clear, that although there has been an attempt at reconciling their beliefs with modern science, it is impossible to be reconciled without the even passing the first step of the scientific method that is a testable hypothesis.--]<small>]</small> 21:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Source? . . . . . ], ] 04:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Even while I agree that accommodationist theism does not present falsifiable hypotheses for a scientist to consider, people who believe that theism and scientific results can be reconciled do not generally claim that this reconciliation is supposed to happen using the scientific method. ] (]) 13:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::For examples, ]. . . ], ] 19:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
{{ref talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Nomination of ] for deletion == |
|
|
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
The page will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. |
|
|
|
|
|
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page.<!-- Template:mfd-notice --> <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 23:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Biased Statement== |
|
|
|
|
|
In the following line in the article: "are compatible with a Christian fundamentalist literal interpretation of the creation myths found in the Bible's Genesis" the phrase "creation myth", by definition implies that creationism is a false idea. This is a biased statement. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Hello David. I recommend reading ]. ] may also be useful on how to approach perceived bias in relation to improving the encyclopedia. —]] – 19:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2019 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Creationism|answered=no-yes}} |
|
|
Under “Types” correct spelling to “between the” ] (]) 08:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Fixed. Thanks for the heads up. ] (]) 08:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2020 == |
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2020 == |
|
|
{{cot|usual demands to unjustly legitimize pseudoscience, move along}} |
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Creationism|answered=yes}} |
|
{{edit semi-protected|Creationism|answered=yes}} |
|
Please remove reference to all instances of evolution being "scientific". Evolution is just as much an unprovable religious belief system (called atheism) as any creation hypothesis. Stating evolution as "scientific" is misleading at best and simply lying at worst. Let's keep Misplaced Pages a safe and informative platform and not one for spouting off religious dogma. Thank you. ] (]) 21:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
Please remove reference to all instances of evolution being "scientific". Evolution is just as much an unprovable religious belief system (called atheism) as any creation hypothesis. Stating evolution as "scientific" is misleading at best and simply lying at worst. Let's keep Misplaced Pages a safe and informative platform and not one for spouting off religious dogma. Thank you. ] (]) 21:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
:{{not done}} Plainly nonsense. ] (]) 23:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
:{{not done}} Plainly nonsense. ] (]) 23:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
:Requesting to expunge all instances of evolution being called "scientific" because one can not be bothered to differentiate atheism from evolution and religion is to have the article rewritten as antiscience propaganda, and runs afoul of ], ], ] and ].--] (]) 23:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
:Requesting to expunge all instances of evolution being called "scientific" because one can not be bothered to differentiate atheism from evolution and religion is to have the article rewritten as antiscience propaganda, and runs afoul of ], ], ] and ].--] (]) 23:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
⚫ |
{{cob}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2021 == |
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2021 == |
|
|
{{cot|fringe advocacy wall o’ text}} |
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Creationism|answered=no}} |
|
{{edit semi-protected|Creationism|answered=yes}} |
|
Change the following: |
|
Change the following: |
|
"Since the 1970s, the commonest form of this has been Young Earth Creationism which posits special creation of the universe and lifeforms within the last 10,000 years on the basis of Flood geology, and promotes pseudoscientific creation science. From the 18th century onward, Old Earth Creationism accepted geological time harmonized with Genesis through gap or day-age theory, while supporting anti-evolution. Modern old-Earth creationists support progressive creationism and continue to reject evolutionary explanations. Following political controversy, creation science was reformulated as intelligent design and neo-creationism." |
|
"Since the 1970s, the commonest form of this has been Young Earth Creationism which posits special creation of the universe and lifeforms within the last 10,000 years on the basis of Flood geology, and promotes pseudoscientific creation science. From the 18th century onward, Old Earth Creationism accepted geological time harmonized with Genesis through gap or day-age theory, while supporting anti-evolution. Modern old-Earth creationists support progressive creationism and continue to reject evolutionary explanations. Following political controversy, creation science was reformulated as intelligent design and neo-creationism." |
| Line 132: |
Line 85: |
|
wessteinbr |
|
wessteinbr |
|
] (]) 02:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC) ] (]) 02:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
] (]) 02:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC) ] (]) 02:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:Looks like ] to a tiny minority view, lacks ], in particular we need to see ]. Also, any wiki is unacceptable as a source, particularly creationwiki. . . ], ] 16:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
{{cob}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Biblical basis == |
|
|
|
|
|
I feel the biblical basis section needs more sources and more scholars analyzing the matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
Because I feel like there is more information regarding that section.] (]) 16:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Neutrality== |
|
|
|
|
|
I challenge the "neutrality" (Article Policy) of the word MYTH when referring to the Genesis account of creation. There are several definitions, and the one chosen by your source, a skeptic of creationism, is derogatory of the Genesis account. A common understanding of the word MYTH is that it's an invented story, idea, or concept; an imaginary or fictitious thing or person; an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.{Dictionary.com} Article is tainted. The word "myth" as used by skeptics of the Genesis account of creation does not come from a "Neutral point of view" as required by Article Policy. It would be sufficient to simply call it "the Genesis account." <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:{{u|Roglenoff}} - I've refactored your comment slightly, since that section header you created was exceedingly long - I hope you don't mind. |
|
|
:The use of the word 'myth' in this context is actually discussed explicitly by the cited source which appears directly after the word is first used in the article (Scott 2009, p58). Here is a brief extract: {{tq|...the word ''myth'' is a term of art in the anthroplogical study of cultures. The common connotation of ''myth'' is something that is untrue, primitive or superstitious – something that should be discounted. Yet when anthropologists talk of myths, it is to describe stories within a culture that symbolise what members of that culture hold to be most important. A culture's myths are unquestionably important, and ''myth'' is not a term of denigration.}} In that context, I believe that it is the appropriate term to use in our article. Best ]] 08:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::{{re|Roglenoff}} it's hard to believe you've even read the article, as the first sentence says "Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation". No where do we refer to Genesis as a myth. We say "Genesis creation narratives". And see ]. It's not our fault that so many people misunderstand the use of myth in this sort of context. ] ] 08:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Christian Criticism == |
|
|
|
|
|
The very first line in the '''''Christian Criticism''''' section states that: "<u>'''Most'''</u> Christians disagree with the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution in schools." I am challenging this claim. |
|
|
|
|
|
As the (2) citations for this statement cite two books to support its stance (''none'' of which have undertaken the required scientific polls or other methods to verify its legitimacy), I am challenging unsubstantiated assertion. It is simply an opinion held by these two authors, which are not real proofs to support such a broad assertion. It is much more accurate to say that ''Some'' rather than ''Most'' disagree, since these two books on their own cannot justify a broad claim as so, and should be shown as so. ] (]) 20:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:Only a small minority of fundamentalist Christians - mostly in the United States agree with the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution in schools there are many sources for this. ] (]) 20:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::“Most Christians worldwide, as represented by statements from their governing bodies, are in fact accepting of biological evolution as being fully compatible with their faith.” . ] (]) 20:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Adnan Oktar == |
|
|
|
|
|
The article about Adnan Oktar, which was written under the title of Islam, should be removed. Adnan Oktar is the leader of the organization and is currently in prison in Turkey. Because he is dishonest, his statements are also not valid. ] (]) 19:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I made this edit , I don't think we lose much by not mentioning him here. Even if '']'' is an interesting book. ] (]) 20:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC) |
I feel the biblical basis section needs more sources and more scholars analyzing the matter.
I challenge the "neutrality" (Article Policy) of the word MYTH when referring to the Genesis account of creation. There are several definitions, and the one chosen by your source, a skeptic of creationism, is derogatory of the Genesis account. A common understanding of the word MYTH is that it's an invented story, idea, or concept; an imaginary or fictitious thing or person; an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.{Dictionary.com} Article is tainted. The word "myth" as used by skeptics of the Genesis account of creation does not come from a "Neutral point of view" as required by Article Policy. It would be sufficient to simply call it "the Genesis account." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roglenoff (talk • contribs) 06:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The article about Adnan Oktar, which was written under the title of Islam, should be removed. Adnan Oktar is the leader of the organization and is currently in prison in Turkey. Because he is dishonest, his statements are also not valid. 78.190.128.59 (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Not done Plainly nonsense.