Talk:Creationism: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:23, 23 June 2019 editSineBot (talk \| contribs)Bots2,555,350 editsm Signing comment by DavidDarden - ""← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 00:49, 7 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,347,740 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}}.
(92 intermediate revisions by 49 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\|importance=high~~\|class=B~~\|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
	\|search= yes		\|search= yes
	\|collapsible= yes		\|collapsible= yes
	\|bot=~~MiszaBot~~ I		\|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III
	\|age=60		\|age=60
			\|auto=long
	\|;Topical archives		\|;Topical archives
	*]		*]
Line 57:		Line 52:
	*]		*]
	*]		*]
			}}
			{{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 ==
	== Why is the Oxford Dictionary definition cut? The allusion to evolution is deleted ==
			{{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 ==
	Hi! I just wanted to ask something. Why is the Oxford Dictionary definition cut? This is complete the Oxford Dictionary definition:
			{{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:
	"The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution".
			"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:
	'''I believe the evolution part is essential, since creationism by definition implies the negation of evolution.''' In the United States, creationism is (shamefully) taught as an alternative explanation to evolution. Personally, I don't understand why the evolution part is deleted from the lead sentence. Can't we have the following lead sentence?:
			"Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown authored their Commentary on the Whole

			Bible in 1871. It is a comprehensive, verse-by-verse exposition that is still recognized as one of
	Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation", as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes such as evolution.'''. ] (]) 23:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
			the great whole-Bible commentaries. Preacher Charles Spurgeon wrote “I consult it continually.” In their
	:{{yo\|James343e}} You don't think that the thread above covers this? ] (]) 20:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
			commentary on Genesis chapter 1 they concurred with key points 2 and 3 (above).
	::Hi {{yo\|Jim1138}} I believe it is very different, since the former user was asking to delete "as opposed to the scientific consenssus". For me, it is fine if "as opposed to the scientific consensus" is included. What I personally don't understand is the deliberate deletion of the word evolution, which is included in the Oxford Dictionary definition. This is the complete Oxford Dictionary Definition:


			http://newgeology.us/YBC.pdf
	::"The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by '''natural processes such as evolution'''".
			Also:

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

			] (]) 02:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC) ] (]) 02:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
	::Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation", as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes such as evolution.'''. ] (]) 22:17, 20 October 2018 (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}}
	:::No, creationism is not just the denial of evolution, it is the denial of evolution, geology, cosmology and physics and basically the entire scientific method. The main point is that it the denial of natural causes, the OED entry is just using evolution as an example. This article covers the subject in some depth so we do not need to include everything in the lead. - ] ] 05:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


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

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

	"Because God does all things well, nothing half-heartedly or without complete effectiveness, the '''languages created at Babel will almost certainly turn out to be radically distinct from each other'''. That is what the current evidence already suggests". ] (]) 14:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
	:Needs a secondary source, may be worth looking in ]'s '''', or , though nothing obvious on first search. . . ], ] 15:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
	::Thank you ].
	::In google's presentation of Tower of Babel by Robert T. Pennock it reads:

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

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


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


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

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

	::We read: "Evolutionists, in particular, have no explanation for the origin of languages. They’ve tried to explain it on the basis of gradual development of communication forms, starting with the early grunts of cavemen and, over time, resulting in our complex form of communication. However, man’s unique ability for communication has always posed a problem"
	::It continues: "There is no explanation for the '''origins of different languages''' except in terms of the special purpose of the Creator. .., men tried to unite themselves into a very centrally located political system around the Tower of Babel (see Genesis 11). We are told that God confused their language, and that mankind was then scattered over the face of the earth"

	::Should I search for other sources or check more thorougly in Pennock's book ( If I find it... ) ] (]) 02:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
	:::Since this article is an overview of creationism, {{cite web \| last=Isaak \| first=Mark \| title=CG110: Complex early language \| website=TalkOrigins Archive \| url=http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG110.html \| access-date=29 December 2018}} is a good simple source for a mention, for this article we're less interested in the detail of the creationist claim (you link to a primary source for it), but the TalkOrigins Archive page gives both a brief overview of the claim, and a secondary source showing the mainstream response (see ] for policy on that).
	:::Pennock's book may go into excessive detail and isn't concise, but if you're interested in the topic it's well worth reading. {{cite book\|author=Robert T. Pennock\|title=Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qbYrCjNHHbEC&pg=PA117\|date=28 February 2000\|publisher=MIT Press\|isbn=978-0-262-26405-1\|pages=117–179}} covers the topic, that link should show you some of the pages.
	:::Pennock gives good mainstream context for the ] young Earth creationist web page which comes down to "if you believe in our literal reading of the Bible, languages are explained by the tower of Babel." The CMI author mentions ] – the wikipedia page is, I think, more informative. See ] for a nice diagram.
	:::Another book worth looking for as an authority on creationism is {{cite book\|first=Ronald L.\|last= Numbers\|title=The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GQ3TI5njXfIC&pg=PA102\|year=2006\|publisher=Harvard University Press\|isbn=978-0-674-02339-0\|pages=102–103}} which briefly covers the influential ]'s YEC ideas of human races being formed by Babel followed by environmental influence so that "The poor little fellow who went to the south Got lost in the forests dank; His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat...", while has Lammerts of the ] explaining Babel as designed change in DNA. . . . ], ] 20:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
	::::Hello ], thank you for your guidance. I managed to read the third chapter of Tower of Babel, where Pennock uses the term ''creationist linguistics'' all along. The text is interesting and clear.
	::::I would like to add a paragraph in ]'s entry in Education and Carrear as a last paragraph. Here is a possibilty:
	::::===The book: Tower of Babel===
	::::In his book Pennock addresses the issue of '''creationist linguistics'''. In chapter 3 he quotes ], the ] saying " There really seems no way to explain the different languages except in terms of the special creative purpose of the Creator " (p. 123), Pennock goes to describe the evolution of linguistics in the last 200 years. He also quotes Darwin saying "the formation of different languages and of distinct species, and the proofs that both have been developed through a gradual process, are curiously the same."(p. 125). Once he shows that biology and linguistics share the evolutionary rational as they share the same opponents, Pennock uses the later to support the former: " The evidence that supports the evolution of species is of the same kind and is as incontrovertible as that which supports the evolution of languages, so accepting creationist biology is as absurd as accepting creationist linguistics" (p. 147).
	::::I will appreciate any comment on this. ] (]) 22:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
	* This looks like an unnecessary rabbit trail. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
	**Oh I like the quote and think we should use it. I meant to look at my own copy of Pennock but didn't have time. ] ] 09:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

	== Lede ==

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

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

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

	] (]) 23:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

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

	===Broad versus narrow creationism resources===
	Aside from Numbers (already in the article), here are some possibly useful references:

	* {{cite web \| last=Ruse \| first=Michael \| title=Creationism \|quote=First published Sat Aug 30, 2003; substantive revision Fri Sep 21, 2018 \| website=] \| year=2018 \| url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/creationism/ \| ref=harv \| access-date=26 April 2019}}
	*{{Cite web\|url=https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/intro/evolucrea-frame.html\|title=Creationism\|website=www.pbs.org\|access-date=2019-04-17}}
	*{{Cite web\|url=https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/dealing-scientific-creationism/\|title=Dealing With "Scientific" Creationism\|website=American Humanist Association\|language=en-US\|access-date=2019-04-17}}
	*{{Cite web\|url=https://ncse.com/library-resource/creationevolution-continuum\|title=The Creation/Evolution Continuum\|website=NCSE\|language=en\|access-date=2019-04-17}}
	*{{Cite journal\|last=Greener\|first=Mark\|date=2007-12\|title=Taking on creationism. Which arguments and evidence counter pseudoscience?\|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2267227/\|journal=EMBO Reports\|volume=8\|issue=12\|pages=1107–1109\|doi=10.1038/sj.embor.7401131\|issn=1469-221X\|pmc=PMCPMC2267227\|pmid=18059309}}
	*{{Cite web\|url=https://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/overview-the-conflict-between-religion-and-evolution/\|title=Overview: The Conflict Between Religion and Evolution {{!}} \|last=Pew Research Center\|city=Washington, D.C.\|date=2009-02-04\|language=en-US\|access-date=2019-04-19\|last3=Inquiries\|first3=DC 20036 USA202-419-4300 {{!}} Main202-419-4349 {{!}} Fax202-419-4372 {{!}} Media}}

	] (]) 13:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

	*{{cite book\|ref=harv\|first=Eugenie C. \|last=Scott\|title=Evolution Vs. Creationism: An Introduction\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FAAlDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA57\|date=3 August 2009\|publisher=Univ of California Press\|isbn=978-0-520-26187-7\|pages=57–75}}
	::This broader overall definition, like Ruse and the NCSE continuum, includes mainstream religious acceptance of evolution – "special creation" draws the distinction between that and the anti-evolution which became commonly known as creationism in the 1960s, though the mainstream still has a claim to be creationist in a broad sense. . ], ] 19:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

	====Scott (2009) broad and narrow definitions====
	creationism has a broad and a narrow definition. Broadly, creationism refers to the idea of creation by a supernatural force. To Christians, Jews, and Muslims, this supernatural force is God; to people of other religions, it is other deities. The creative power may be unlimited, like that of the Christian God, or it may be restricted to the ability to affect certain parts of nature, such as heavenly bodies or certain kinds of living things.<br>The term creationism to many people connotes the theological doctrine of special creationism: that God created the universe essentially as we see it today, and that this universe has not changed appreciably since that creation event. Special creationism includes the idea that God created living things in their present forms, and it reflects a literalist view of the Bible. It is most closely associated with the endeavour of "creation science," which includes the view that the universe is only 10,000 years old. But the most important aspect of special creation is the idea that things are created in their present forms. In intelligent design creationism, for example, God is specially required to create complex structures such as the bacterial flagellum or the body plans of animals of the Cambrian period, even though many if not most intelligent design proponents accept an ancient Earth.{{harv\|Scott\|2009\|p=}}
	::added by . .. ], ] 19:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

	===Current wording and workshop===

	I am not a particularly big fan of this construction. I think we should stick with paragraph one being a definition, but then we should spend some time differentiating between narrow and broad definitions and break out to a little more global look (with nods towards things such as ], ], and ], perhaps). This would probably be a good thing to have an entire section on in the article. I think that paragraph two could do nicely to round-out a lede, but a bit more ] and less "listy". Finally, I think that paragraph three should likely be in the body rather than in the lede. ] (]) 17:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
	:Thanks, fully agree – getting the broad and narrow definitions in at the start will be a great improvement, para 3. is wrong about "first use" as CD used the terms "creationist" and "creationists" in his . Ron Numbers has an interesting analysis of how the meaning of the term (and of "the ordinary view of creation") changed with time, so this needs coverage in the body text and a brief summary in the lede. . ], ] 19:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
	::Etymology online has some interesting history of the term as well: . ] (]) 19:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

	====Paragraph One: Definition====

	'''Creationism''' is the ] that the ] and ] originated "from specific acts of ]",<ref name="Gunn2004">], p. 9, "The ''Concise Oxford Dictionary'' says that creationism is 'the belief that the universe and living organisms originated from specific acts of divine creation.'"</ref><ref>{{cite book\|url=https://books.google.com/?id=46aUBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA789&dq=Handbook+of+Evolutionary+Thinking+in+the+Sciences#v=onepage&q=881&f=false\|title=Handbook of Evolutionary Thinking in the Sciences\|last1=Brosseau\|first1=Olivier\|last2=Silberstein\|first2=Marc\|publisher=Springer\|year=2015\|isbn=9789401790147\|editor-last1=Heams\|editor-first1=Thomas\|place=Dordrecht\|pages=881–96\|contribution=Evolutionism(s) and Creationism(s)\|ref=harv\|editor-last2=Huneman\|editor-first2=Philippe\|editor-last3=Lecointre\|editor-first3=Guillaume\|editor-last4=Silberstein.\|editor-first4=Marc}}</ref> as opposed to through natural processes, such as ].<ref name="OD_creationism">{{cite web\|url=http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/creationism?q=creationism\|title=creationism: definition of creationism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)\|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->\|website=Oxford Dictionaries\|publisher=]\|location=Oxford\|type=Definition\|oclc=656668849\|accessdate=2014-03-05\|quote=The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.}}</ref>

	;Reworking according to discussion below.

	'''Creationism''' is the ] that the ] (particularly the ], ], ], and ]) was ].<ref name="Gunn2004">], p. 9, "The ''Concise Oxford Dictionary'' says that creationism is 'the belief that the universe and living organisms originated from specific acts of divine creation.'"</ref><ref>{{cite book\|url=https://books.google.com/?id=46aUBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA789&dq=Handbook+of+Evolutionary+Thinking+in+the+Sciences#v=onepage&q=881&f=false\|title=Handbook of Evolutionary Thinking in the Sciences\|last1=Brosseau\|first1=Olivier\|last2=Silberstein\|first2=Marc\|publisher=Springer\|year=2015\|isbn=9789401790147\|editor-last1=Heams\|editor-first1=Thomas\|place=Dordrecht\|pages=881–96\|contribution=Evolutionism(s) and Creationism(s)\|ref=harv\|editor-last2=Huneman\|editor-first2=Philippe\|editor-last3=Lecointre\|editor-first3=Guillaume\|editor-last4=Silberstein.\|editor-first4=Marc}}</ref> Creationism is often contrasted with and opposed to the ] explanations for the origins and development of the material world through natural processes, most famously ].<ref name="OD_creationism">{{cite web\|url=http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/creationism?q=creationism\|title=creationism: definition of creationism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)\|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->\|website=Oxford Dictionaries\|publisher=]\|location=Oxford\|type=Definition\|oclc=656668849\|accessdate=2014-03-05\|quote=The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.}}</ref>

	;Reworking including broader sense
	'''Creationism''' is the ] that ], and aspects such as the ], ], ], and ], originated with ] acts of ].<ref name="Gunn2004">], p. 9, "The ''Concise Oxford Dictionary'' says that creationism is 'the belief that the universe and living organisms originated from specific acts of divine creation.'"</ref> In a broad sense, this belief is held by all practitioners of ] faiths including the ], whose deity is ], beyond nature, and ], ready to intervene in the world.{{sfn \| Ruse \| 2018}} More specifically, creationism commonly refers to the doctrine of ] which holds that God created things in their present forms, and opposes ] explanations for the origins and development of the material world through natural processes such as ].{{sfn\|Scott\|2009\|p=}}<ref name="OD_creationism">{{cite web\|url=http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/creationism?q=creationism\|title=creationism: definition of creationism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)\|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->\|website=Oxford Dictionaries\|publisher=]\|location=Oxford\|type=Definition\|oclc=656668849\|accessdate=2014-03-05\|quote=The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.}}</ref>

	=====Discussion=====
	*Is the belief always religious? In fact, the connection to religion be it organized or otherwise is usually secondary in our sources perhaps because of the equivocation between the two different definitions. Indeed, the broader definition is somewhat ], but the narrower definition relies on any acceptance of creation myth interpretations that act as foundational and fundamental descriptions of the origins of various aspects of the material world. This could be part of one's religion, but it could simply be an acceptance of a literal mythology independent of a religion as well, in principle. ] (]) 16:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
	::Scott's broad definition of "the idea of creation by a supernatural force" leaves that aside, the crucial point is supernatural creation. That's not uncommon in religions, theoretically the idea might be held without religion but we'd need a source discussing it. Either way, I think the religion issue is a bit of a distraction to the broad definition. . ], ] 18:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
	:::Turns out that Jerry Coyne has written an analysis of this point. Coyne takes the side of those who argue that religion is ''the thing'' while he points to a lot of others who oppose his perspective as saying otherwise: . I think it may be important that we do not take explicit sides in this debate, though I think the people who identify religion as the proximate cause are likely correct. ] (]) 15:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
	*Widespread use of the term ''creationism'' in its modern meaning only goes back to the 1970s, so think we could say that it's become associated with the theological doctrine of special creation. . . ], ] 18:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
	**That seems reasonable. ] (]) 14:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

	Creationism covers a spectrum of views including ],{{citation needed\|reason=We need a reliable source which explicitly says that creationism "covers" the evolutionary creationism and/or other views.\|date=January 2019}} but the term is commonly used for ] creationists who reject various aspects of science, and instead promote ] beliefs.<ref name="Scott1999">{{cite journal\|last=Scott\|first=Eugenie C.\|authorlink=Eugenie Scott\|date=July–August 1999\|title=The Creation/Evolution Continuum\|url=http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum\|journal=Reports of the National Center for Science Education\|volume=19\|issue=4\|pages=16–17, 23–25\|issn=2158-818X\|accessdate=2014-03-14}}</ref><ref name="Stewart2009">], p. 168, "Some Christians, often called 'Young Earth creationists,' reject evolution in order to maintain a semi-literal interpretation of certain biblical passages. Other Christians, called 'progressive creationists,' accept the scientific evidence for some evolution over a long history of the earth, but also insist that God must have performed some miracles during that history to create new life-forms. ], as it is promoted in North America is a form of progressive creation. Still other Christians, called 'theistic evolutionists' or 'evolutionary creationists,' assert that the scientific theory of evolution and the religious beliefs of Christianity can both be true."</ref> Literal creationists base their beliefs on a ] reading of ], including the ] found in ] and the ].<ref name="nytimes.com">{{cite news\|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/science/03islam.html?_r=0\|title=Creationism, Without a Young Earth, Emerges in the Islamic World\|last1=Chang\|first1=Kenneth\|date=November 2, 2009\|work=The New York Times\|language=en}}</ref><ref name="Huffpo">{{cite web\|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/usaama-alazami/muslims-and-evolution-in-the-21st-century-a-galileo-moment_b_2688895.html\|title=Muslims and Evolution in the 21st Century: A Galileo Moment?\|last=al-Azami\|first=Usaama\|date=2013-02-14\|work=Huffington Post Religion Blog\|accessdate=19 February 2013}}</ref><ref name="Campbell_2006">{{cite news\|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/21/religion.highereducation\|title=Academics fight rise of creationism at universities\|last=Campbell\|first=Duncan\|date=February 20, 2006\|newspaper=]\|accessdate=2010-04-07\|publisher=]\|location=London}}</ref> For ], these beliefs are based on a ] interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative and rejection of the ] of evolution.<ref name="Stewart2009" /> Literalist creationists believe that evolution cannot adequately account for the ], ], and ] of life on ].<ref name="Campbell_2006" />

	;Reworking

	Creationism, it its broadest sense, includes a spectrum of views including ],<ref>{{harv\|Scott\|2009\|p=}}</ref> but the term is commonly applied to believers in ] which demands that key aspects of material reality were created as they exist today by divine action. The most famous of these creationists are ] who believe in a ] interpretation of the ] found in the ]'s ]. These people distinguish themselves by rejecting certain aspects of ], and instead promote various ] beliefs.<ref name="Scott1999">{{cite journal\|last=Scott\|first=Eugenie C.\|authorlink=Eugenie Scott\|date=July–August 1999\|title=The Creation/Evolution Continuum\|url=http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum\|journal=Reports of the National Center for Science Education\|volume=19\|issue=4\|pages=16–17, 23–25\|issn=2158-818X\|accessdate=2014-03-14}}</ref><ref name="Stewart2009">], p. 168, "Some Christians, often called 'Young Earth creationists,' reject evolution in order to maintain a semi-literal interpretation of certain biblical passages. Other Christians, called 'progressive creationists,' accept the scientific evidence for some evolution over a long history of the earth, but also insist that God must have performed some miracles during that history to create new life-forms. ], as it is promoted in North America is a form of progressive creation. Still other Christians, called 'theistic evolutionists' or 'evolutionary creationists,' assert that the scientific theory of evolution and the religious beliefs of Christianity can both be true."</ref> The most visible creationists adhere either to ]<ref name="Stewart2009" /> or to ];<ref>{{Cite web\|url=https://ncse.com/creationism/general/what-is-intelligent-design-creationism\|title=What is "Intelligent Design" Creationism?\|date=2008-10-17\|website=NCSE\|language=en\|access-date=2019-04-23}}</ref> both beliefs reject parts of the ] of evolution and have been the subject of ongoing ].<ref name="Campbell_2006">{{cite news\|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/21/religion.highereducation\|title=Academics fight rise of creationism at universities\|last=Campbell\|first=Duncan\|date=February 20, 2006\|newspaper=]\|accessdate=2010-04-07\|publisher=]\|location=London}}</ref> Less prominently, there are also members of the ],<ref name="nytimes.com">{{cite news\|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/science/03islam.html?_r=0\|title=Creationism, Without a Young Earth, Emerges in the Islamic World\|last1=Chang\|first1=Kenneth\|date=November 2, 2009\|work=The New York Times\|language=en}}</ref><ref name="Huffpo">{{cite web\|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/usaama-alazami/muslims-and-evolution-in-the-21st-century-a-galileo-moment_b_2688895.html\|title=Muslims and Evolution in the 21st Century: A Galileo Moment?\|last=al-Azami\|first=Usaama\|date=2013-02-14\|work=Huffington Post Religion Blog\|accessdate=19 February 2013}}</ref> ],<ref>{{Cite web\|url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/groves.html\|title=Creationism: The Hindu View\|website=www.talkorigins.org\|access-date=2019-04-23}}</ref>, and ]<ref>{{Cite news\|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/22/science/indian-tribes-creationists-thwart-archeologists.html\|title=Indian Tribes' Creationists Thwart Archeologists\|last=Johnson\|first=George\|date=1996-10-22\|work=The New York Times\|access-date=2019-04-23\|language=en-US\|issn=0362-4331}}</ref> faiths who are creationists.

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


	=====Discussion=====

	Regarding the broad definition of creationism, what the "Scott 2009" source says is "{{tq\|Broadly, creationism refers to the idea of creation by a supernatural force.}}", not "includes a spectrum of views including forms that accept the reality of biological evolution". --] (]) 16:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
	:You're absolutely right. I mistook Dave's explanation above for the actual quote. I will go looking now for a source. ] (]) 17:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
	::Hi folks, ] above is a transcription to the best of my ability from of Scott's book. The broad definition is the first paragraph, as Matt points out, and the second paragraph gives narrower meanings. The "spectrum of views" bit is on pp. 61–75 which should be viewable from the same link. Citation on this talk page, , links to an updated version based on the 2009 book, and looks pretty much the same. Hope that clarifies things! . . ], ] 18:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
	:::Thanks, Dave. Do you think that the wording is okay? It seems to me that there is some tension as to whether evolutionary creationism is strictly creationism or not, perhaps owing to a question as to whether there is any action being done that is "supernatural". ] (]) 18:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
	::::Thanks jps, the wording covers points but needs tightened, will try to come back on this. The "broad" issue is that even theistic evolution overlaps considerably with creationism and variants tend to require some supernatural intervention, there's a tendency to equate creationism with anti-evolution which can be misleading. The evolutionary creationism tag has been used (and I think still is used) by those who feel their beliefs are creationist, but accept evolution to a greater extent than hardline anti-evolutionists. Hence a continuum with the only clear divide being between YEC and OEC, and even that is spanned by various ID proponentsists. So Scott's continuum stands, can try to find again sources on evolutionary creationism. . . ], ] 19:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
	As above, I think the broad and narrow issue works better in the first paragraph. The reference to Scott's continuum is outdated, worth changing it to {{cite web \|author=] \| title=The Creation/Evolution Continuum \| website=] \| date=13 February 2018 \| url=https://ncse.com/library-resource/creationevolution-continuum \| access-date=26 April 2019}} . . . ], ] 15:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
	* To tie in with moving the broad and narrow issue to paragraph 1, I've drafted '''reworking outlining types''' above on the basis of continuum sources – this is ground the article should cover, looks rather long so expect will have to trim it. . . ], ] 14:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
	::I think it important that we have a section on non-Christian cretaionists. ]'s ] comes to mind as deserving a mention. ] (]) 22:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
	:::Yes, that should be a separate paragraph in the lead. It's covered in the article in ] and ], but Numbers (2006) gives a lot more detail and Prevalence doesn't seem to cover Asia, so update needed. To some extent it's exported from the US, but each religion has distinctive theology and creation accounts so rather complex. Didn't know Oktar/Yahya initially studied ID (Interior Design). . . ], ] 09:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

	====Paragraph Three: First use of the term====

	The first use of the term "creationist" to describe a proponent of creationism is found in an 1856 letter of ] describing those who objected on religious grounds to the then-emerging science of ].<ref name="Darwin_letters_1856_1863">{{cite web\|url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-1919\|title=Darwin, C. R. to Hooker, J. D.\|last=Darwin\|first=Charles\|authorlink=Charles Darwin\|date=July 5, 1856\|website=]\|publisher=]\|location=Cambridge, UK\|id=Letter 1919\|accessdate=2010-08-11}}

	* {{cite web\|url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-4196\|title=Darwin, C. R. to Gray, Asa\|last=Darwin\|first=Charles\|date=May 31, 1863\|website=Darwin Correspondence Project\|publisher=Cambridge University Library\|location=Cambridge, UK\|id=Letter 4196\|accessdate=2010-08-11}}</ref>
	======First use: history in progress======
	Just for information, using Ron Numbers' ''Darwinism Comes to America'' and online sources I've put together some information. Here's the basic framework, I can add sources shortly, or cut it back further: think this big picture is needed somewhere, an outline in this article would be good but it can get into a lot of detail! 20th century developments to follow. . ], ] 19:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
	{{quote\|In the 19th century, the term '']'' commonly referred to the doctrine that God directly created the soul for each baby, as opposed to other doctrines such as ] which held that souls were inherited through natural generation.

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

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

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

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

	In 1889 the '']'' defined Creationism as "The doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by the fiat of an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed : opposed to evolutionism." The entry is attributed to ], an opponent of creationism.}}
	{{ref talk}}

	== Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2019 ==

	{{edit semi-protected\|Creationism\|answered=yes}}
	Please delete any mention of myth because creationism is a theory. Please delete or change the first sentence under section "Christianity" because it is not true. Any believer in the Bible who does not adhere to Biblical teachings is obviously not a believer in the Bible. ] (]) 02:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
	:Not done, please provide specific suggestions backed by academic sources. Biblical literalism is not a prerequisite for Christian belief. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 02:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

			== Biblical basis ==
	== Scientific methods and Mythology ==

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

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

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

			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-->
	I would suggest changing it to this
			:{{u\|Roglenoff}} - I've refactored your comment slightly, since that section header you created was exceedingly long - I hope you don't mind.
	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)
			: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)
	: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)		::{{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 ==
	: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}}

			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.
	== 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 ].

			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)
	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.
			: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 ==
	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)

			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)
	==Biased Statement==

			: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)
	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-->

Latest revision as of 00:49, 7 January 2024

Skip to table of contents

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

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

Article policies

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

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Creationism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Creationism at the Reference desk.

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

view · edit Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

FAQ notes and references:

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

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

Current status: Delisted good article

This

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

Religion High‑importance

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

Philosophy: Religion High‑importance

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

High

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of religion

Sociology Mid‑importance

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

Skepticism Mid‑importance

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

Theology Mid‑importance

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

Christianity Mid‑importance

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

Islam High‑importance

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

Zoroastrianism

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

Creationism Top‑importance

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

Alternative views High‑importance

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

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

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

Priority 2

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

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

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

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

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

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20	Archive 21
Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24
Archive 25

Topical archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

] The anchor (#Publications and media) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2020

usual demands to unjustly legitimize pseudoscience, move along

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

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. William.The.Honest (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Not done Plainly nonsense. Theroadislong (talk) 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 WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTAFORUM.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2021

fringe advocacy wall o’ text

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

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

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

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

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

Biblical basis

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

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

Neutrality

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

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

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

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

Christian Criticism

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

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

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

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

Adnan Oktar

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

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

Categories: