| Revision as of 01:10, 30 April 2005 editDoc glasgow (talk | contribs)26,084 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:14, 30 April 2005 edit undoMegan1967 (talk | contribs)11,849 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| :::because theistic realism goes all the way back to ]. ] 00:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) | :::because theistic realism goes all the way back to ]. ] 00:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) | ||
| * Seems to me that the fact is has started this (inexplicably) strong debate points to notability. A quick google confirms the term is being used (and critiqued) by various different people. If this article is one-sided then let it be edited not deleted '''keep''' --] 01:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) | * Seems to me that the fact is has started this (inexplicably) strong debate points to notability. A quick google confirms the term is being used (and critiqued) by various different people. If this article is one-sided then let it be edited not deleted '''keep''' --] 01:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Merge''' and redirect to ]. ] 02:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:14, 30 April 2005
Theistic realism
This article is basically a personal research essay by User:Ungtss about a term invented by creationist author Philip Johnson in his book Reason in the Balance. Johnson coined the term as a means to justify Intelligent Design from a Christian philosophy perspective. While there are other creationists who are on the ID bandwagon and bandy about Johnson's invented term (notably those from Leader U, a creationist "web-based" university), you will find that the term has no counterpart on ] (0 hits) and Google contains a mere 347 hits which are mostly propaganda. The essay as it appears right now is obviously a creationist soapbox meant to encourage the invention of a constituency for a concept that only one person has ever stated exists. Parts of the essay about Johnson's beliefs can be salvaged and incorporated into the Philip Johnson article or the Intelligent Design article as need be, but this article as a seperate subject is absolutely unwarranted and serves only to bring a POV-fork to other articles on creationism. Joshuaschroeder 22:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. formal debate at stanford on the topic. published article against it. application of TR to theory of human persons. education book from loyola describing thomas aquinas as a founder of theistic realism. another book describing it as a "voice in education." another article. this article, which was selected and copied word for word for the dictionary of religion. mention in stanford dictionary of philosophy. The topic exists, is distinct from intelligent design, and has been specifically addressed by a number of authors, pro and con. there is no reason to vfd.Ungtss 23:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You shouldn't include wikipedia mirrors to illustrate your point, Ungtss. John Mark Reynolds argues against the concept as he enjoys taking on Philip Johnson. It doesn't mean we should have an article in wikipedia on the subject. The leaderu articles are all done by Johnson bandwagoneers including the so-called "formal debate at Stanford" on the subject. The topic is distinct from intelligent design only in that it is Philip Johnson's own personal take on how intelligent design is justified. Gerald L. Gutek invented the term "Theistic Realism" to describe Thomism. It is not the same thing as Johnson advocates despite Ungtss' poor research in the area. What we have here, folks, is a list of propaganda from a creationist and a whole lot of fluff with no real substance. Joshuaschroeder 23:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- suggested new approach: let other people think for themselves rather than telling them what they ought to think. Ungtss 23:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with intelligent design. I don't think this subject really exists. In any case, it doesn't deserve more than 2 or 3 sentences as a subsection of intelligent design. Bensaccount 23:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. There are any number of articles in Category:Creationism and its subcategories or on Template:Creationism that could be folded into others, but... why? And if the article is such a soapbox, why does the nomination read even more like a soapbox? ("term invented... bandy about Johnson's invented term... mostly propaganda... obviously... invention...") The article seems well-cited. By the way, well-worth reading: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view#A consequence: writing for the enemy. Samaritan 23:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The article, unfortunately, includes citations to only Johnson that are relevent. Why should we reproduce a piece of creationist propaganda written by Philip Johnson in Misplaced Pages? Can't we just report it on the Philip Johnson page? Joshuaschroeder 23:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Seems to me that the fact is has started this (inexplicably) strong debate points to notability. A quick google confirms the term is being used (and critiqued) by various different people. If this article is one-sided then let it be edited not deleted keep --Doc Glasgow 01:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Intelligent design. Megan1967 02:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)