Misplaced Pages

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

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

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.

FAQ notes and references:

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.

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.

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.

Topical archives

• /Is Creationism a theory
• /Selection as a creative force
• /What is wrong with the lead section
• /Ranting

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)

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)