| Revision as of 16:08, 25 August 2004 editRednblu (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,620 edits Is "creationism" a ''belief,'' an ''explanation,'' or a ''theory''?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 00:49, 7 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,332,481 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}}. |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{todo2}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Talk header|noarchives=yes|search=no}} |
|
|
{{not a forum}} |
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
|
{{Article history| action1 = GAN |
|
|
| action1date = 16:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
| action1result = listed |
|
|
| action1oldid = 36189680 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| action2 = GAR |
|
See archives for past discussions: |
|
|
|
| action2date = 00:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
| action2link = Talk:Creationism/Archive 16#GA Re-Review and In-line citations |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
| action2result = delisted |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
| action2oldid = 78375908 |
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] -- October 2003 to August 2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| currentstatus = DGA |
|
----- |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=high|religion=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Theology|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Zoroastrianism|importance=}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Creationism|importance=Top|}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=high}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{To do|2}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{ArbComPseudoscience}} |
|
Page archived. It was 76Kb. --] 05:49, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
==Capitalisation== |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|
|counter = 25 |
|
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Creationism/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{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}} |
|
|
{{archives |
|
|
|index= /Archive index |
|
|
|search= yes |
|
|
|collapsible= yes |
|
|
|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |
|
|
|age=60 |
|
|
|auto=long |
|
|
|;Topical archives |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{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":}} --> |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2020 == |
|
Should all of the ''See also'' links be capitalised? I have already changed them before but someone keeps changing e.g. ] to ], ] to ], ] to ] etc. I was trying to follow ] but now I see that there is no consensus at all and that issue needs to be discussed again. ] 00:19, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{cot|usual demands to unjustly legitimize pseudoscience, move along}} |
|
|
{{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) |
|
|
:{{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) |
|
|
{{cob}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2021 == |
|
The capitalisation across this article is very inconsistent and keeps changing quite chaoticly (not without my own fault of course) so I suggest making a short list of words to capitalise. If anyone thinks “creationism” should always be capitalised, please add it to the list below before changing the article, so everyone could discuss it and agree upon a common, consistent spelling. Thanks. ] 16:45, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{cot|fringe advocacy wall o’ text}} |
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Creationism|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Change the following: |
|
|
"Since the 1970s, the commonest form of this has been Young Earth Creationism which posits special creation of the universe and lifeforms within the last 10,000 years on the basis of Flood geology, and promotes pseudoscientific creation science. From the 18th century onward, Old Earth Creationism accepted geological time harmonized with Genesis through gap or day-age theory, while supporting anti-evolution. Modern old-Earth creationists support progressive creationism and continue to reject evolutionary explanations. Following political controversy, creation science was reformulated as intelligent design and neo-creationism." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
To: |
|
===Which words should always be capitalised=== |
|
|
|
"Since the 1970s, the commonest form of this has been Young Earth Creationism which posits special creation of the universe and lifeforms within the last 10,000 years on the basis of Flood geology, and promotes pseudoscientific creation science. From the 19th century onward, Young Biosphere Creation accepted the age of the universe and the age of the Earth, while accepting creation week as six sequential ordinary days and continues to reject evolutionary explanations as well as progressive creationism. From the 18th century onward, Old Earth Creationism accepted geological time harmonized with Genesis through gap or day-age theory, while supporting anti-evolution. Modern old-Earth creationists support progressive creationism and continue to reject evolutionary explanations. Following political controversy, creation science was reformulated as intelligent design and neo-creationism." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
References to be found: |
|
* God, Earth, Bible (just a few for a good start—please add more) |
|
|
|
"Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown authored their Commentary on the Whole |
|
* names of religions but not names of theories (Is that correct?) |
|
|
|
Bible in 1871. It is a comprehensive, verse-by-verse exposition that is still recognized as one of |
|
|
the great whole-Bible commentaries. Preacher Charles Spurgeon wrote “I consult it continually.” In their |
|
|
commentary on Genesis chapter 1 they concurred with key points 2 and 3 (above). |
|
|
|
|
|
http://newgeology.us/YBC.pdf |
|
|
Also: |
|
|
http://creationwiki.org/Young_Biosphere_Creation_(YBC) |
|
|
wessteinbr |
|
|
] (]) 02:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC) ] (]) 02:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:Looks like ] to a tiny minority view, lacks ], in particular we need to see ]. Also, any wiki is unacceptable as a source, particularly creationwiki. . . ], ] 16:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
{{cob}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Biblical basis == |
|
===When other words should be capitalised=== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel the biblical basis section needs more sources and more scholars analyzing the matter. |
|
* beginning of a sentence but not in a list when there is no real sentence (Is that correct?) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because I feel like there is more information regarding that section.] (]) 16:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
:"Creationism" is not the name of a group or affiliation, as with Catholicism, Buddhism, and Republicanism (big "R"). It is the name of a specific belief or opinion, as with theism, holism, or republicanism (small "r"). It should not be capitalized except where any other common noun would be. Terms like "day-age creationism" get the same treatment. The capitalization of "Earth" is variable -- when the planet as a whole is meant, it usually ''is'' capitalized. Thus, ''young-Earth creationism''. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Neutrality== |
|
:The word "god" is capitalized when one is writing in a solely monotheist context. Thus, "Catholics believe that God sent the Archangel Gabriel to Mary," but "The Greek god Zeus wields a thunderbolt." It can be argued that when comparing monotheist and non-monotheist religions, the lowercase form should be used for both so as to not appear to be favoring the former: "The Greek god Zeus did thus-and-so, while the Christian god Jehovah did this-and-that." This isn't meant to imply that Christians have multiple gods (though a Muslim would say so!) but rather that the Christian view is not being favored over the Greek. --] 03:23, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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--> |
|
== Is "creationism" a ''belief,'' an ''explanation,'' or a ''theory''? == |
|
|
|
:{{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) |
|
<<] subtlely inserted the following reader-invisible comment into the ] page, I am resisting the temptation of inserting a response similarly into the hidden code of the ] page, and I am taking the liberty of cutting that comment below, celebrated in <font color=green>green</font> here for the historical record.>> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Christian Criticism == |
|
:'''Creationism''' is the explanation <font color=green><nowiki><!-- was the word "belief" really an "evolutionist bias"? --></nowiki></font> that the universe and all ] were ] by the deliberate act of ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The 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. |
|
In looking through the historical record at the competition between ] and ] in ] day, I was impressed by ] 1887 account of how ''Origin of Species'' provided the first explanation that in Huxley's view was a better explanation than ''creation.'' Huxley describes the sense in which he rejected ''creation'' as an explanation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
: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. |
|
|
|
: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 == |
|
Huxley describes his similar rejection of the explanations of the evolutionists prior to Darwin. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
:And, by way of being perfectly fair, I had exactly the same answer to give to the evolutionists of 1851-8. . . . thorough-going evolutionist, was Mr. ], whose acquaintance I made, I think, in 1852. . . . Many and prolonged were the battles we fought on this topic. But even my friend's rare dialectic skill and copiousness of illustration could not drive me from my agnostic position. I took my stand upon two grounds: firstly, that up to that time, the evidence in favor of transmutation was wholly insufficient; and, secondly, that no suggestion respecting the causes of the transmutation assumed, which had been made, was in any way adequate to explain the phenomena. Looking back at the state of knowledge at that time, I really do not see that any other conclusion was justifiable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
Furthermore, any self-respecting religion-neutral anthropologist, such as , Curator of the American Museum of Natural History, would classify ''creation'' and ''evolution'' as mere successive stages of incomplete but improving explanations in a universe where there is no God to assist the women and men who attempt to discover the truth of their origins. |
|
|
|
|
|
From all of the above, I suggest that it is more accurate to define ''creationism'' as an explanation rather than a belief. After all, the survival of the belief derives from the usefulness of the belief, and a primary use of creationism is explaining how we all got here. According to Thomas Huxley, until ''Origin of Species,'' creationism was as good an explanation as evolutionism. And for the majority of American voters who cannot understand the evolutionists' explanations, creationism is a better explanation than evolutionism even yet today. ---] 16:08, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
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.