Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fradulent Ideas (talk | contribs) at 17:36, 3 July 2007 (→Mainstream churches and timeframes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:V0.5

Creationism was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. Review: September 27, 2006.

Sociology B‑class Mid‑importance

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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of creationism please do so at talk.origins, True.Origins Archive, or Wikireason. 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.

Archives

Archives 1 - 11 (November 2001 – March 2005 Archive 12 (May 2005) Archive 13 (June 2005) Archive 14 (September 2005) Archive 15 (August 2006) Archive 16 (remainder of 2006) Archive 17 (Jan 2007 - Mar 2007) Is Creationism a theory (August/September 2004) What is wrong with the lead section (September 2004) History of Creationism (September 2004) Selection as a creative force (October 2004) Ranting (May 2005)

Archives

4+ archives are excesive 10+ archives are worse

I merged the archives, I think material discussed loses relevancy when broken. I simply cut pasted material together. Page will load faster than user can read even on a 56k machine. This page was 200+kb large. Excesive is an under statement. Archived all entries till april. -- Cat 10:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hope no one had an Heart Attack. Thanks. -- Cat 11:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Archive 12

There seem to be a lot of discussions that have been adequately adressed. The topic on Salva could conceivably be moved there in a short while aswell, though I wouldn't mind it if this topic grew into a single archive that we could like to from the article on the creation-evolution controversy as an example of a typical discussion on the subject.

I moved Removal of two sections to creation-evolution controversy to the archive aswell, as a #New Criticism section has been created which continues the discussion. - Ec5618 18:13, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have now moved the Salva/Aaaagh monologues to this archive aswell. I'm trying to keep this page from cluttering to a point where new editors are scared off because of the mess. -- Ec5618

Have moved

• Merging with 'Origins beliefs'
• New critisism section
• Copyright status of image?
• Approaching Creationism

to /Archive 12 -- Ec5618 23:45, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Truthteller ranting

Archived Truthteller ranting, as suggested by JoeD (/Ranting) -- Ec5618 23:45, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Excellent job on the NPOV folks. This article seems to strive to present material in a factual manner without making judgment calls as to what is correct, which is the proper role of an encyclopaedia. 70.16.1.207 14:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A compliment? That's so rare on here, I might have to sit down and catch my breath. I haven't done much editing to this article, but I think your comments are breath of fresh air.Orangemarlin 19:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, but you spend a lot of time deleting posts in talk topics. For someone makes a mockery of Religion, God and all those who believe because of both faith and scientific evidence, you sure spend a lot of time on a topic that is repugnant to you.

This article is merely "ok", except for the obviously biased and disgustingly unfair critique section that the extremist left wing Editors will not allow in their precious "Evolution' article. Ymous 17:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The above post seems to be little more than a personal attack on Orangemarlin. I think it might be a good idea for Ymous to withdraw it. SheffieldSteel 17:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Libs Still Controlling Wiki I See?

I see all of the pro-evolution liberal/socialist gore nuts are still getting to say anything they want without any fear of ever having their POV squashed.

Wiki is pathetic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.145.184.6 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your posts using ~~~~ so we can see who we're talking to. Thanks for your concern about the POV of this article. Please do point out specific instances and then we can work together to improve the article.

Please try not to make personal attacks against other editors. I know it's frustrating but it is possible to make improvements without needing to start a bunfight. A sincere desire to produce a quality NPOV article will be met positively and with cooperation. SheffieldSteel 19:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually thought that Wiki was controlled by right-wing nut jobs with a pro-Christrian agenda. But since this America, and we have free speech, I figured that me, along with a few of my commie friends would stand up to it, and slowly make this encyclopedia as neutral as possible. The difference between you and me is that I have the guts to stand up for what I believe, but you choose to whine. Wiki is getting better every day. Orangemarlin 19:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're complaining, I suggest you go to Conservapedia, where they all take a conservative stance. I would join them, but I have "miles to go before I sleep." bibliomaniac15 20:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's something that's going to be POV. Anyways, I'm not sure I understand your reference of "miles to go before I sleep." I'm probably missing a funny pop reference here. Orangemarlin 20:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening by Robert Frost. bibliomaniac15 04:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Contrast to Evolution

I recomend that a section be given to contrast creationism and evolution. For example the opening statments state that creationism presupposes there is a God. Evolution presupposes that there is not one.Fbc215 19:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Pope seems to be okay with the idea of evolution. SheffieldSteel 19:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Straight from the horse's mouth: "Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him." http://www.catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp SheffieldSteel 19:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Pope is not in charge or president of Christianity. The Pope is a religious leader of Catholics. There is also Protestantism. Also, 90% of the worlds population belives there is a higher power, that is God. Fbc215 23:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not cite the Pope as a spokesperson for all Christianity, but as an excellent example of a prominent and notable Christian, and the head of a prominent and notable Christian church. If evolution indeed presupposes, as you assert, that there is no God, why do you suppose that the Pope, and the Catholic Church, are so willing to consider it? Shouldn't the Church be invoking infallibility and condemning the very idea of evolution rather than using such tentative and thoughtful language as in the quote above? SheffieldSteel 23:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The supposed presupposition there is not a God is not, in fact, true. The only presupposition is that the world works in a logical, elucible manner. Adam Cuerden 03:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Adam is correct. Evolution makes no statement about the existence or nonexistence of God. What it does provide is a simple, straightforward explanation for the development of life on Earth, without the need to resort to miracles or supernatural explanations. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Also, 90% of the worlds population believes there is a higher power, that is God." Please quote a reference for these ridiculous numbers. Firstly 90% of the worlds population will say anything the are told to (90% of "educated" Americans apparently believed in weapons of mass destruction) secondly nobody has spoken to 90% of the worlds population and thirdly 90% of the worlds population may believe in some higher power because they are prevented from being educated that there is no higher power or god by people who have a vested interest in this superstitious imaginary friend nonsense continuing. user :cdxp

'uperstitious imaginary friend nonsense'? Hey hey, calm down. Nobody is challenging anybody's atheistic religion, this is just a discussion page. Please stay friendly. - WolfieInu

Can someone clarify? Does 'evolution' assert that only natural forces shaped living things and asserts that there was no 'intelligent entity' influencing the development of life in any way? 69.211.150.60 13:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a slightly different question. The theory of evolution does indeed state that the observed fact of evolution is explained by physical mechanisms alone. As such, it does not require or assume the existence of a god, but this is not the same as saying that it requires or assumes that no god exists, which was the claim made above by Fbc215. If that were the case, all Christians, Jews, and Moslems would have a religous duty to view evolution as fundamentally opposed to their religion. Only a small minority of these groups have thought it necessary to take that position. SheffieldSteel 13:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Vague and nebulous

'Many of those who hold strict creationist views reject any scientific explanations for natural phenomena that contradict their interpretation of scripture as to how the same phenomena occurred.' This is elementary, and I don't see why it needs to be in the article. Similarly, 'many of those who wear green are not wearing red,' but this is so obvious that nobody appends it to any articles. WolfieInu 10:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a poor analogy. Wearing green and red are mutually exclusive. Science and religion are not necessarily so; it is only when people make specific "interpretations of scripture" (or try to apply science to inappropriate questions) that we perceive a conflict between the two. I think it's good that the article points out that the issue of scientific explanations for natural phenomena is one of those areas where this particular interpretation of scripture conflicts with the scientific consensus. SheffieldSteel 13:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my criticism was a bit vague :) . All I meant is that the statement I quoted sounds as if it came off the top of the author's head, seeing as it doesn't even state a reference. It's as if the quote tries to be both definite (judging by the tone of the sentence) and generalising ('Many of those...') at the same time.

That's just my impression. I don't want to change the material, which is true (I guess it would be splitting hairs to change it to say '...naturalistic scientific explanations...'). WolfieInu 10:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think you're right in that it could be better phrased. It cetainly begins with a weasel word. We could do something like this...

"Strict creationism involves an interpretation of scripture that contradicts the scientific explanations of various natural phenomena, and which therefore rejects those scientific theories."

I think this also runs into the second sentence better. But it's far from perfect. SheffieldSteel 13:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We could go on endlessly refining this sentence, but that's already an improvement. How about, "Strict creationism involves an interpretation of scripture that contradicts naturalistic scientific explanations of various natural phenomena, and which therefore rejects mainstream scientific theories."? That would qualify the word 'scientific', which is probably necessary since creationists argue that creationism is also scientific, just not naturalistic. And the second occursnce of the word 'scientific' may be unnecessary, although of course we wouldn't want the sentence to become ambiguous... WolfieInu 06:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Your sentence looks like pandering to creationist perspectives. Emphasizing "naturalistic" is artificial because all science is naturalistic by definition. Qualifying "scientific" is weaseling away from the point that creationists are antagonistic towards science. --ScienceApologist 13:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, we could go on refining forever. Maybe we should implement your (SheffieldSteel's) suggestion and leave it at that, perhaps merely replacing the second occurrence of "scientific" with "mainstream" to make it sound less awkward. And if I may go off on a tangent, I wouldn't say that 'creationists are antagonistic towards science', since by definition creationism can only contradict current origins science, and not neutral territory such as chemistry, quantum mechanics, etc. WolfieInu 18:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with the "neutral territory" statement. All of science is intertwined. Chemistry is a fundamental aspect of all of evolution, from the first DNA and proteins being formed 4 billion years ago to complex cellular metabolism. Physics, of course, is a fundamental part of Chemistry, so it could go on and on. Since science does not utilize qualitative judgments, then to state one part of science is "wrong" is to be antagonistic to all science. Orangemarlin 20:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A statement that one part of science is wrong could only be a statement that all science is wrong if the thing being accused of being wrong is fundamental to science. While Chemistry, and by extension several other fields of science, are fundamental aspects of evolution, evolution is not a fundamental aspect of Chemistry, or most fundamental type fields of science. I know i'm kind of being random by jumping into this, but i've had this talk page on my watchlist for quite awhile, and I don't feel like sitting by while i'm being indirectly accused of being antagonistic to all science (As I am, of course, a Creationist) while awaiting to take an AP Chemistry exam next tuesday, and I certainly wouldn't waste even a moment of my time taking an AP course related to science if I, someone who operates on a creationist perspective, (YEC to boot!) was antagonistic to all science. Homestarmy 20:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin and Homestarmy? What have I done, I got the Big Names involved! :) Creationism can't be antagonistic to science, since nobody will deny that a lot of science was getting done long before the theory of evolution was formalised by Darwin and Wallace. A lot of science has happened since - the overwhelming majority of which has had totally no bearing on 'origins' science (for example, rocketry, electronics, telecommunications, etc.). Before we get into something bearing a striking similarity to a debate, could we at least edit the sentence I highlighted to what SheffieldSteel suggested? Otherwise the edit itself might fall totally by the wayside. PS. Good luck with the exam WolfieInu 20:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Big Name??? Oh that's priceless. BTW, rocketry, electronics and telecommunications aren't science strictly speaking. They are applied sciences, meaning they utilize the scientific theories and knowledge and "apply" them to making things (usually). You can't use scientific method to build a rocket, but you use the vast wealth of knowledge to build the rocket and make sure it goes where it's supposed to go. The problem with creationism (setting aside the religious aspects) is that it chooses to deny the scientific reasoning in several areas (evolution is not the only field of science that would set aside by a Creationist outlook), even though the exact same scientific method and quality of research in Evolution as it is in organic chemistry. For example, the basis of all Biology is evolution, so it becomes antagonistic to medicine, ecology, etc. etc. So Homestarmy should move on and not take that AP exam!!!! Orangemarlin 01:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Homest below) Wolfie, you seem to be missing something. First, everyone should note that creationism in the most general meaning does not conflict with evolution or science necessarily. Now, the reason that certain forms of creationism are antagonistic to science is essentially that science progressed. For example, believing the world was some 5000 years old didn't contradict the known science in 1700. Later, it did. Modern creationism in many incarnations insists based on theology certain propositions that as far as modern science is concerned, are divorced from reality. It is these modern incarnations that antagnostic. JoshuaZ 02:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Choosing to deny the supposedly scientific reasoning in several areas of science that pertain to the evolutionary synthesis doesn't make a Creationist antagonistic to all science. Whether or not the same scientific method is used in all parts of science doesn't matter, what matters is what the result is, and in this instance, the resulting branch of evolutionary biology is the problem for Creationists such as myself. The field of biology most certainly existed before evolutionary theory was first proposed, and although it is certainly now the field most pertinant to the evolutionary synthesis today, there are still some parts of Biology which don't directly involve evolutionary theory. For instance, while the classification scheme of species is certainly relied on to build the phylogenetic trees of evolutionary models, if evolutionary theory didn't exist, the classification system of the different species wouldn't just vanish into obscurity, as it is used first to classify species for identification purposes, not used just so that there will be some cool sounding names to plug into phylogenetic charts. And while I did indeed "move on" from these Creationism and Evolution related articles quite some time ago to pursue fun times in other articles, i've kept this talk page on my watchlist for quite some time, and I do believe, Orange, that your attitude concerning what the article should propose Creationists believe presents an excellent invitation for a person such as myself to discuss things here once more. Some of the topics in our AP Chemistry exam that you may be familiar with include Gibbs free energy, Electrochemistry, Equilibrium, (The calculating and usage of the constant primarily, with Le Chatelier's principle thrown in too) Acid-base reactions, Redox reactions, VSEPR theory, introductory parts of Quantum Physics, (Just the most basic formulas and theories mostly) Periodicity, Thermochemistry, the relationships between Spontaneity, Entropy, Enthalpy, and Gibbs free energy, and i'm really quite interested in reading the material of creationists who reject the scientific principles behind any of these topics, as I for one never heard anything that even remotely related to evolution even once when learning any of these topics, and as far as I know, the only way they are incorporated into evolution related reaserch is through the use of these concepts when dealing with Organic molecules and chemical reactions within cells, and believe it or don't, but Chemistry doesn't really deal first and foremost with organic molecules and cellular reactions. You'd think Chemistry would mention those things in the intro if it did. Homestarmy 02:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems some of the participants in this dicussion are missing the point. Saying that God created heaven, earth and everything that lives on it is a bit like pointing at the spattering of drops of paint on the floor of the Sistine Chapel, and saying: "Look, Michelangelo created this". It's better to look up.--Robert van der Hoff 06:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

<let's just decrease the indent a bit here> It's like I said, as soon as a debate gets going, the editing of the sentence is not going to get done. That's a shame, I kind of liked SheffieldSteel's suggestion. Concerning the scientific method.

I agree with Orangemarlin, the scientific method cannot be directly applied to anything. That was my point. What the scientific method assumes is that there are certain laws of the universe that can be applied anywhere, at any time. In other words, no Flying Spaghetti Monsters are changing the results before our very eyes. Creationists agree with and subscribe to the entire scientific method, without reservation. As such, applied science cannot be affected by creationism, or evolutionism either for that matter.

The difference lies in our assumptions about how the universe, to which this scientific method can be applied, came about. This cannot be determined by just looking at the evidence, since there is a nearly infinite amount of factors, far too much for the human brain to process and come up with an answer (whether or not this is 42 remains to be seen). The only way a model can be constructed is to assume certain things about the universe beforehand (this is commonly known as a bias). The predictions of the theory can then be tested against hard facts. If it doesn't measure up, out it goes. At this point in time, both the creationists and evolutionists have a lot going for them and, IMHO, a set of problems each. The conflict creationists have is not with science (as in the scientific method) but the bias it is currently being applied to (evolution is the starting assumption). That's why it is possible for genuine scientists to be creationists. They have the same education and use the same method, but have a different bias.

'he basis of all Biology is evolution' - how, exactly? Does it change the metabolism of sugar, the working of enzymes, the 'unzipping' of DNA, Natural Selection, or anything else that is relevant to Biology? The creation/evolution issue is only making headlines because of the religious component. It hardly affects real-world biology at all.

As for JoshuaZ's objection, I stand corrected. I am referring specifically to YEC, not 'creationism' in the most general sense. This provides an additional reason to fix the sentence and to make things less ambiguous. WolfieInu 07:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Top to bottom nonsense I'm afraid. Firstly, that evolution has happened and continues to happen is a cornerstone of day-to-day biological research. Whole areas of biology (e.g. phylogenetics) are founded entirely on this. In other areas, assuming that the systems in front of you represent a locally optimal solution arrived at by random mutation and non-random survival is absolutely fundamental to progress. Operationally, it may appear invisible for most of the time, but that's very far away from saying "It hardly affects real-world biology at all".

Secondly, YEC (or creationism, or whatever you're happy calling it) does not accept the scientific method. YEC "research" boils down to a fundamental inversion of the method. Rather than build a model from limited data, collect more data to test said model, and then discount unsuccessful models, YEC starts with The Model, then carefully sifts the appropriate data, disregarding all of it that doesn't support The Model (of which, make no mistake, there is an abundance). It is inconceivable that The Model be discounted. Ask yourself, when was the last time that The Model was changed? Despite radioisotopes, sedimentary records, ice sheets, dendrochronology, etc., YEC "scientists" cling to events like the Flood. This is quite simply not science.

Regarding why "it is possible for genuine scientists to be creationists", look at said scientists' publication records. See if you can spot the YEC publications. Yes, scientists individually have all sorts of ideas running around their heads, but unless they can support them using the scientific method, they'll never manage to publish them. What's worse for YEC is that a lot of ultimately unsuccessful ideas are published because they're able to muster enough of a case to be exposed to the wider community. YEC is unable to do even this. Which, I'm sure you'll tell us, is all down to bias ...

Anyway, this screed isn't improving the article, so I'll stop. --Plumbago 08:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Your response is quite general, I must say, and poorly researched. The statement '...assuming that the systems in front of you represent a locally optimal solution arrived at by random mutation and non-random survival is absolutely fundamental...' is incendiary, not constructive. Here (and by your assertion that 'evolution... is a cornerstone of day-to-day biological research') you are describing Natural Selection, not evolution. As I said, creationists have no problem with Natural Selection. I can't go into detail here, seeing as we're supposed to be debating a single sentence - but we're all happily ignoring that statement in big red letters at the top of the page :)

'YEC... does not accept the scientific method'. At the risk of causing an irreconcible 'is-not, is-too' situation, I will try to explain things from my side. It seems that in spite of my endeavours, you are still confusing a scientific field with the current scientific consensus, since according to your response, 'radioisotopes, sedimentary records, ice sheets, dendrology, etc.' refute creationism. However, these are fields, not debaters, so they can't refute anything. For example, Physics cannot refute perpetual motion - but physicists can, by utilising what is known of physics.

Yes, creationists depend on what you refer to as The Model, but as I explained (or tried to), evolutionists must also depend on a model of their own before evidence can be interpreted. Sherlock-Holmes-like model-less inductive reasoning ceases to function if there are too many factors (and hence too many possible explanations), because even if all factors could be considered, alternate explanations must arise. That is why everyone must start with a bias. The more evidence there is to support your view (and creationists and evolutionists often use the exact same piece of evidence to reach opposite conclusions), the more likely it is that your conclusions are true, but you can only evaluate evidence if you start with a model, which is continuously being refined. Yes, the YEC Model is continuously being refined, otherwise there would be no point in being a creationist scientist. All we would've had to say would have been, 'Oh, God did it. Just believe.' Nobody is that stupid. You are knocking down straw men, which is fun but achieves nothing.

You're right about the fact that 'ultimately unsuccessful ideas are published'. As soon as a model is 'able to muster enough of a case', it is 'exposed to the wider community'. This interesting phenomenon is called science. If there were no ultimately unsuccessful ideas, there would be no ideas at all.

BTW, could we get back to the sentence? Keep debating, just append your thoughts on the sentence. That way, what we're doing is legal. ;) WolfieInu 11:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Creationism does not necessarily mean that you have to reject the scientific method, not even YEC. There's nothing wrong with the hypothesis that the world is only 6000 years old, but was created to look billions of years old, except that it is untestable. It accepts that science shows that the world is billions of years old. Belief in a God is equally untestable, equally unscientific, but doesn't require you to reject the scientific method. On the other hand, large swaths of the population reject the scientific method...not just creationists, but also left wing intellectuals. Obviously using the Bible to argue against science is a rejection of the scientific method. "Creation science" as it currently exists is a rejection of the scientific method, because it does not use the scientific method to test its "hypotheses", it proposes hypotheses to conform the Bible. Regardless of what Wolfie says, bumper stickers which say things like "The Bible said it, I believe it, that settles it" do not represent a straw man - if you think otherwise, come down to the Bible Belt. The sentence is a fair representation of the situation. Guettarda 13:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Although i personally agree with Guettarda, I think it is possible that this is one of those cases where a definition is getting in the way of our addressing a complex NPOV issue. The issue is not whether we think science and creationism are mutually exclusive, because editors' views do not count. The question is, do (1) scientists (2) creationists (3) sociologists of science and (4) sociologists of religion (minimally - there may be other important views I neglected) believe that science and creationism are mutually exclusive? I would not automatically assume that any one group does. Indeed, I suspect that within each group there may be more than the two obvious (yes, no) views. The issue is, do we have verifiable sources we can draw on in order to provide a good account of these diverse views? I don't know. All the scientists I know would say they are mutually exclusive, but I have not read any verifiable studies. And i have no idea what creationists thing (again, I am not asking editors who are creationists what they personally think, only if they know verifiable sources) and I have no idea what sociologists and other scholars of science and religion think but I bet it is more interesting than "yes" or "no." Slrubenstein | Talk 13:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On reflection, there's a bit more to this issue than the current sentence allows (even after a bit of modification). Probably that why this debate kicked off: I think everyone in some way sees that the description, as it was, was unsatisfactory. Or maybe I'm just reading too much into it. Anyway, I'm now thinking that this change would suit the third paragraph...

I'm sure it could be worded better, but it's not as easy as it looks to get a sentence that reads well and isn't misleading somehow. I do think this form sums up the issue of when and how creationism and science come into conflict. Also it avoids the weaselly many/most in the second sentence. What do people think? SheffieldSteel 14:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It reads well. Do we have sources to back it up? One question: are there no creationists who change their minds? I imagine there are at least some, the first question is whether they are of negligible number. If there is a significant number of creationists who have changed their views, we need to allow for that. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It leaves me asking the question what a non-strict creationist approach is :/. If the reaserch in question directly contradicts creationist scriptural interpretations, (Which, by the way, isn't singular, YEC and OEC are quite different, and creationism with other religions becomes even more different.) I think it would be obvious that a creationist wouldn't accept the conclusions of the reaserch as true. Other than that, it seems fine, though ben's observation that some creationists may choose to just stop being creationists might be important. Homestarmy 14:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There is an old atheist argument that is threaded through this discussion that relies on negative proof: In principle it is easier, so it is said, to convince an atheist that there is a God (by, say, having a booming voice identify Himself from heaven) than it is to convince a theist that there is no God (since all observable evidence can be interpreted away and God in the gaps is easily invoked). This is to say that the rejection by creationists of naturalistic science follows the old "walk by faith and not by sight" notion of a standard distrust of sensory data that contradicts "revealed" truth. There are instances where this kind of obfuscation has become so strident that Christians have themselves rejected creationism in order to avoid what they deem to be basic dishonesty and a reapportionment of reality. --ScienceApologist 14:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Great job with that sentence, SheffieldSteel. As far as I'm concerned we can implement it straight away.

Concerning that bumper sticker Guettarda tells us about... yes, unfortunately that is true. A lot of negative impressions have been created by the "more emotional" advocates of creationism - I don't live in the Bible Belt, so perhaps my perspective of creationism (the movement, not the science) is skewed away from its Southern populist elements. But this is fortunately not the way real creation scientists (and put that between quote marks if you like) go about things.

On the whole, everybody's done a great job of keeping this discussion academic and aboveboard. Thanks everyone, looking forward to your further input on the sentence(s). WolfieInu 16:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think a non-strict creationist approach is maybe one that might also consider interpreting scripture differently, as per the Catholic principle that "truth cannot contradict truth" - God does not present us with truths which are inconsistent, so if scientific observations and interpretation of scripture are at odds, then either the observations (or conclusions) or the interpretation may be wrong. As Homestarmy pointed out, there are multiple possible interpretations of scripture (but as to whether taking a different interpretation might make one no longer a creationist, I don't know much about that.) Anyway, as far as citations are concerned, I'm hoping that AiG and/or the DI can provide plenty of examples of challenging the various aspects of the "theory -> research -> data -> conclusion" process. SheffieldSteel 17:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(un-dent) Made the change; off to look for references SheffieldSteel 17:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Refs are in. I am not offering them up as brilliant examples; rather, they are tokens of the approach generally taken by creationists when challenging scientific findings. Hope this is acceptable. SheffieldSteel 19:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll go with that. Sorry I haven't been much help WolfieInu 20:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What?

What the hell is this? " Creationism is separate from and should not be confused with the Christian tradition of "Creation Spirituality," which draws upon the theology of Matthew Fox. " Aside from not being factual (the Fox part) was there really a reason to make any distinction? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested by your tone. What motivated your use of, and I quote, 'hat the hell...'?

Yes, I remember reading this sentence, but I can't seem to find it right now. Did you remove it? WolfieInu 07:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow...how is it not factual? (Credits Fox too heavily?) The distinction is valid (I rather doubt Fox is a creationist), though it's probably a little too minor a movement to deserve mention in this article. So yeah, I don't quite see what you are saying. Guettarda 13:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"Evidence is not a point of view" claim

I don't believe this box belongs as a Misplaced Pages's-point-of-view box, although it can be asserted as an editor's POV. Empiricism represents one point of view among others, such as idealism, phenomenalism, etc. A claim that creationism is a scientific truth can be refuted by scientists, but a preference for faith over empirical methods as the source of ones worldview cannot be refuted by scientists. There is a distinction between claims to being science and claims to truth. The idea that the only possible route to truth involves the scientific method is indeed a POV. Proofs depend on the assumptions one is willing to accept. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

'...a preference for faith over empirical methods as the source of ones worldview cannot be refuted by scientists.' While this is true, on what basis do you adhere to a worldview if it is divorced from (what is scientifically perceived to be) reality? We cannot deny that the only societies in which any considerable technological progress was made, made use of empirical methods (which we commonly refer to as 'science'). Of course there are numerous exceptions to this rule, but it does seem to indicate a general trend.

In general, creationists argue that, since Christian Europe gave rise to the empirical method, science should support every aspect of Christian teaching that touches directly upon scientific matters. Or, to put it more bluntly, 'Christianity is a science-friendly religion'. On this basis, they argue that Christianity, if divorced from science, becomes irrelevant. This is what YEC creationists and long-age creationists have in common; they differ only on how the problem of disparity between 'Biblical science' and 'secular science' should be approached.

Therefore, according to the creationist argument, a scientific challenge to the authority of the Bible should be met with a scientific response, if at all possible. So, as you say, 'he idea that the only possible route to truth involves the scientific method is indeed a POV.' However, it is the POV of creationists. Since the article is describing the creationist movement, its pro-empiricism is inherently required, and therefore NPOV. Sincerely, WolfieInu 17:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Recolonisation theory

What's this? It has just been added to the article as a whole new section - which reads like a lot of original research without much in the way of verifiable sources. Does it really exist? If so, shouldn't it have its own wikipedia article at Recolonisation theory, and shouldn't the section here primarily point to that article? I'm not going to write such an article, because I've not heard of "recolonisation theory" before I came across it here - and a google search reveals... well, not a lot, in fact! Anyone know anything about it? If it's notable enough for mention here, it's notable enough for its own article. Snalwibma 09:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I took it out. It's both nonsense and, as far as I can tell, non-notable. Also, the description given was full of unsourced commentary. And the only source given was a primary website.--Stephan Schulz 09:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any reliable sources discussing the matter either. It should also be removed from the table. JoshuaZ 20:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It sounds a little like the catastrophicism that was popular int he Victorian period: You know, each geological age as a seprate creation? But really badly explained. Adam Cuerden 15:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Recolonisation theory is the basis on which most UK geologists who include creation in their world-view interpret the geological and palaeontological record. In the UK, therefore, most do not interpret the 'fossil record as a record of the destruction of the global flood recorded in Genesis'. It has, moreover, considerably more adherents than the 'omphalos hypothesis' that is deemed to warrant a mention in the article. Comments such as 'nonsense' and 'badly explained' reinforce what we all know, that emotion so often takes the place of reason in this area, and that at least some of the content of the creationism article - and omitted potential content - is determined by participants who are not as well acquainted with the subject as they should be.

Catastrophism was more common in the pre-Victorian period than in the Victorian: by the 1830s the intellectual world was ripe for Lyellian uniformitarianism. Recolonisation theory does not in fact resemble Victorian catastrophism and expressly rejects the idea of a 'seprate creation' in each geological age (see Recolonisation in a nutshell). Regardless of its strengths and weaknesses, it is a radically new theory. Fastnet 19:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that's actually a Victorian theory. Gould describes it in one of his books. Each geological age with its own fauna, then complete destruction, followed by the Garden of Eden and the current age? Victorian catastrophic seperate creations. It never really caught on, even at the time, and, indeed, Gould's description of it was probably the first modern account of it. It's kind of scary if creationists are reading Gould's description of failed forms of Creationism to mine ideas. Adam Cuerden 01:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not a theory. Something that is massively inconsistent with easily observable facts (e.g. radioactive decay, the constancy of which can be measured through astronomical observations even for ages past) is not a theory, it's nonsense. Of course, we include a lot of nonsense here, but it has to be notable nonsense described in reliable sources. What we have is only an incomplete self-description on a nice, but self-published web site. --Stephan Schulz 20:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Notable nonsense. Oh, that's now one of my favorite statements ever on here. Stephan, you made my day. Orangemarlin 23:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad to be useful (or at least entertaining ;-). --Stephan Schulz 23:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I can appreciate the joke, if not the sentiment P Seriously, though, radioactive dating is not a good argument for long ages, since it must assume initial isotope concentrations to be almost 100% parent matter - an assumption which is only reasonable if naturalism is presumed to be true in the first place. BTW, I agree that we don't need to include Recolonisation 'theory' in the article, but perhaps we could start a small article and link to it from here, and then wait to see if it grows? I must admit it's a slightly obscure subject, though -- WolfieInu 19:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read (and try to understand) Radiometric dating, Uranium-lead dating, and in particular Isochron dating. An extended technical discussion is here. In short, you are wrong about the initial isotope concentrations. Now, if we allow for supernatural intervention, Last Tuesdayism is as plausible as anything else. But the almighty IPU faking a world with an apparent age (or variants of this speculation) is philosophically rather unsatisifable, and certainly not science. --Stephan Schulz 19:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right about my general understanding of radiometric dating: I was talking rubbish, and need to do some more research. Sorry about that, I stand corrected. -- WolfieInu 10:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

We should only include it in Misplaced Pages if we can find any notable content on it. Gould's article is simply an analysis of what he considered an old, dead theory that was nonetheless an interesting attempt by a woman scientist-theologian to combine science and religion on the cusp of Darwin's revolution. Can you show any evidence that it's notable or widely-held today? Adam Cuerden 20:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is this woman Gould mentions? This Early Modern Geology reference mentions Benoît de Maillet in 1748 proposing a series of epochs, later catastrophism proper beginning with Georges Cuvier, then adapted by William Buckland to support the Biblical flood, and the debate with Charles Lyell's uniformitarianism continuing to the 1850s with modified catastrophism the more favoured. History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth has more detail and supports the earlier demise of diluvialism. It has Darwin's tutor Adam Sedgwick recanting it in 1831 but still supporting the truth of the Biblical flood, Buckland also changing his mind, and "Scriptural Geology" proponents running into difficulties by 1837. Then resurfacing,.... dave souza, talk 23:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really, but surely if we create a small article about it, it will attract activity if there still is some activity. Even if only for the historical interest. -- WolfieInu 10:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Other religious creationist movements

There's no nice way to say this: This section is appalling. It consists of ridiculously short, context free subsections, one of which (Islamic creationism) is a single sentence that merely says it exists. Flying Spaghetti monsterism opens the section, this arguably demeans the other religions, as the description of it is in exactly the same neutral language as the Hinduism summary following, no attempt is made to make it clear that most of these creationist movements are tiny. Adam Cuerden 19:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

My next action after this reply is to remove the FSM. If it is to be included in the page at all, it should not be in the 'Other religious creationist movements' section. Perhaps a pop culture or satire section. (ETA - the FSM section was added very recently by an anon IP, and re-inserted after I initially removed it. I don't believe it should remain on the page as a serious-appearing entry) WLU 19:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I also tried to address the other sub-sections, but all I could really do is re-name the main section and expand Islamic creationism every so slightly. I don't know enough about the other versions to do much else; I think part of the solution is to trim down the Judaic creationism section so it isn't so overbalanced - since all of the sub-sections have 'main's, there's no need for a lengthy discussion. WLU 20:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

But even the longer ones aren't on-topic. The Hindu creationism subsection is instead a brief summary of Hinduism, followed by a statement that Hindu creationism exists. Adam Cuerden 21:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree, the article presumes an understanding of Genesis, but then gives backgound on Hinduism. Addhoc 22:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a better solution would be to say There are several non-Christian versions of Creationism, including ], Islam and Judaism (with their own wikilinks natch)? I don't have enough experience with articles this developed to know what the next step is! WLU

That's a good idea. Given that the political context of (American Christian) Creationism is explicitly covered by the article, the inclusion of the creationism of other religions could be beyond scope. Perhaps we should start a disambiguation page, with something like "", if there's enough material. Any thoughts on this? WolfieInu 16:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The only issue I see is that when people think of creationism, it's usually in terms of the dominant form, which is US-style nutter creationism. However, it's not a bad thing to have general 'Christian/Hindu/Islam/Judaism Creationism', and a separate page for the political aspects (which is what gets most of the attention anyway). I'd know better if I could see it, could you perhaps set it up in a sub-page so we could build a more specific structure? WLU 19:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to get around to it on Friday, at the moment though I'm up to my neck in end-of-semester exams. - 'nutter creationism', eh? That's probably not quite the most conciliatory terminology you could have chosen ;) -- WolfieInu 20:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he meant "nutter" in some obtusely complementary way? Many creationists use their "nut" when studying origins science. Good on you WLU - you nutter materialist! ;-) 01:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I and most others have no problem with those of creationist beliefs UNTIL they verge over into intolerance and irrationality imposed on others. It is fine to believe in a literal interpretation of the bible AS LONG as you do not use it to abuse others or to insist that others reject their beliefs or rational evidence. Other than that, feel free to believe whatever you like! After all, there is no law against delusions, insanity, irrationality, etc.--Filll 02:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dare I ask what started this? Homestarmy 02:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Filll, you're a tolerant individual. Really very enlightened of you ... no, not really. I suggest you visit SheffieldSteel's user page, you could learn a lesson or two there. All we're actually trying to do at the moment is clear up a little confusion over what the term 'creationism' conveys to different people - did you miss that big red paragraph at the very start of the page? I just couldn't resist a little dig at WLU because of that unacademic adjective ;) -- WolfieInu 06:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying "non-Christian versions of Creationism" gives the impression that ˙Hindu creationism is basically the same, but with different labels, which isn't the case. Also, given that Christian ideas are a heresy / development of Judaism, not sure that is the most appropriate wording. Addhoc 06:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Homestarmy - I called creationists nutters. It's a personal opinion I would never attempt to put on the page. Further discussion is well off topic and I'm going to be dropping it.

My apologies, I'm not sure I understand Addhoc's comment. Is it because the Hindu equivalent uses a different term than 'Creationism'? The reaons it's suggested is because conservative Christian creationism is the dominant form, and other forms are less visible, but they do exist. Is there a way to acknowledge the dominance of CCC within the public arena? Should we bother? Is there a comparable set of wikipages that has dealt with a similar topic successfully and even-handedly? Right now I see a very strong possibility of an excessive emphasis on the US version of creationism, which is something I'd like to avoid. WLU 20:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm suggesting a disambiguation page... please let me know what you think -- WolfieInu 06:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement added to article intro by Keepyouhonest

Why is this last paragraph in here? It should be on the discussion page. Check out the evolution page; it doesn't tout the "opposition" and all their opinions and what they do with evidences; nor does it discuss the fraudulent cases associated with evolution. Another intellectually honest article by wikipedia. ;o(

I've reverted this statement by User:Keepyouhonest which was obviously placed in the article rather than the talk page by error or misunderstanding. The answer is, the paragraph shows the areas in which strict creationists make claims, WP:NPOV requires that we make clear the majority science position as well as their claims. Check out the evolution page; it does mention these religious controversies in a proportionate way in accordance with policy. ... dave souza, talk 21:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I must agree, even as a creationist. It just so happens that what the world considers NPOV is not creationism. Don't worry, Keepyouhonest... "therefore be not conformed to this world"... ;) -- WolfieInu 06:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

...as I said during a previous discussion, perhaps we should provide a disambiguation page for this article? -- WolfieInu 15:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Creationism = Origin Beliefs?

The disambiguation note at the top of the article says: ""Creationism" can also refer to origin beliefs in general, or to an alternative of traducianism."

I would like to question this particular formulation. Do such things as the ancient Greek myths about creation of the universe qualify as 'creationism'? One problem is that Creation myths on Misplaced Pages have been diverted to Origin beliefs, presumably on the basis that 'myths' is a pejorative term. This, and the tone of the first paragraph, seem to imply that any kind of creation myth belongs to 'creationism'.

Can anyone come up with citations (other than this article) to prove that 'creationism' can equally be understood refer to Roman, Greek, Japanese, etc. myths and legends, even where the belief factor is essentially dead?

Bathrobe 07:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You have a point, the only well-known variants of creationism are dependent on the so-called Abrahamic religions, not "origin beliefs in general". As far as I know. WolfieInu 14:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose one could construct a nesting of all of these:

• Origin beliefs
  • Natural origin
    • Extinct beliefs (= falsified scientific theories)
    • Extant beliefs (= as yet unfalsified scientific theories)
  • Supernatural origin
    • Extinct beliefs (= myths; in common parlance)
    • Extant beliefs (= creationism, in common parlance)

In this scheme, even evidence-based concepts (the big bang, evolution) are still "origin beliefs". But they posit no supernatural component, so can be easily separated from those which involve supernatural elements (which is far from saying that they are true; many natural origin beliefs have turned out to be incorrect). However, those that contain supernatural elements are harder to divide up, and are only reasonably divisible on the basis of whether they're extant (some people believe them) or extinct (no one alive believes them, but people once did). That doesn't move us along much, but it might inspire others more astute than I. One immediate problem is that extant (and extinct, for that matter) supernatural beliefs vary in their parsimony with extant natural beliefs, which suggests another distinction, but ... --Plumbago 15:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, you seem to be equating concepts, hypotheses and theories with beliefs – it should be obvious that these are not faith positions. The real question is whether the term "creationism" is always associated with Abrahamic religions – looking at Eugenie Scott's spectrum, she seems to take it as meaning biblical and specifically Christian creationism, though of course she draws a spectrum with materialism as one extreme. Is there any source for usage referring to other religions? .. dave souza, talk 17:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll echo that. It may make sense to categorize them all as creationism, but without sources (and a source that portrays it as common practice to label them all as such) it seems like WP:OR. WLU 17:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A little investigation rapidly demonstrates that there are Hindu creationist movements which are similar in spirit if not in detail to the Abrahamic creationist movements. I would not be surprised if we could find creationist-type movements among the Jainists or the Sikhs or the Shintoists. In fact, most of the Shinto faith has long had a character that is not much different than creationism, with denial of all kinds of evidence and belief in a fair among of unscientific and irrational nonsense. Animist and other traditional religions also probably have some difficulty with modern scientific understanding, but since they are not in much position to do anything about it, the impact of creationist feelings has less influence. Hindus, Christians and Muslims and a few Jews are often in a position to cause friction with science over religious beliefs, and this gives rise to assorted "creationist"-like movements. There have been writers that used the term "creationism" to describe the various movements in Hinduism, in both India and the US, among other places. However, I am not so sure that the Moslems use the term "creationism" to describe their activities in this arena. It is just a term. What is similar is not the name for the beliefs and activities, but the nature of the interactions with science and the educational and political systems.--Filll 19:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that "What is similar is not the name for the beliefs and activities, but the nature of the interactions with science and the educational and political systems". To put Greek myths and legends on a par with the creationist movement as it is known today seems to stretch the meaning of creationism to ridiculous limits. Greek myths and legends are not in a state of conflict with the teaching of science in schools, and I think you would be hard put to find many (any?) people demanding that the Greek creations myths should displace the teaching of evolution in schools.

As for Indian and Muslim creationism, yes, it appears that they exist. But I have yet to hear of a Shinto creationism that tries to oust evolution and displace it with Izanagi and Izanami. The only people likely to do that are extreme Japanese nationalists, and I haven't heard any rumblings from that quarter yet. Have you?

Incidentally, as I've pointed out elsewhere, the note before the article originally read: This article deals only with the concept of creationism as found in the Abrahamic religions. Please refer to Origin beliefs for other stories of creation. Later this was changed to: This article is about the Abrahamic belief; creationism can also refer to origin beliefs in general. Then someone 'improved' this to: "Creationism" can also refer to origin beliefs in general. These creeping changes broadened the scope of the term "creationism" to any kind of origin belief, which actually sounds rather New Age.

Bathrobe 02:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

...precisely, which is why I suggested a disambig page. I didn't know that the note at the top of the page had once read "This article deals only with the concept of creationism as found in the Abrahamic religions. Please refer to Origin beliefs for other stories of creation". Perhaps reinstating this original note would make my disambig page unnecessary.

Re Filll: " denial of all kinds of evidence and belief in a fair among of unscientific and irrational nonsense"... you are trying my patience with your unhelpful remarks. And yes, I'm aware of the fact that you're experienced (5 barnstars, wow!) and I'm a total n00b. But I feel I must say that we are trying to build a better encyclopedia. We are not here to evangelise each other. -- WolfieInu 10:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

<undent>Let clarify things. I have no problem with anyone having their own personal beliefs. I have no problem with someone personally believing the literal account in Genesis or the Vedas or the Koran or any other religious text. I have a problem when in the secular public sphere, as in public school classrooms, or a secular encyclopedia like Misplaced Pages, people want to insist that others submit to them and their own personal religious beliefs. These are usually not based on science or evidence, but just a particular interpretation of a particular religious text. I am sorry, but I believe that this starts to verge on intolerance, and I must insist that we avoid it.--Filll 13:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in the modern sense of the word "tolerance", one is tolerated as long as one makes no claim to truth (i.e., "admit that what you believe is a load of nonsense, and then I'll leave you alone" ;)

Regardless, let's get back to this article. Perhaps (in the light of "Creationism"'s original disambig note, as mentioned by Bathrobe) my move for an entire disambig page is excessive, if we can get the "Origin Belief" article up to standard. Currently, however, "Origin Belief" is requesting a cleanup. I looked over it and it seems to have caught a heavy dose of POV. Perhaps we should go over and help? -- WolfieInu 14:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Origin beliefs is in a bit of a mess. In fact, I've now tagged Creation within belief systems and Origin beliefs for a merger.

Perhaps I'm being a little biased here, but isn't the (Western) debate over creationism rather distorting the Misplaced Pages treatment of creation myths? The heated ideological struggle between Christian creationism and evolutionary theory seems to have completely overshadowed (pre-empted, if you like) the more general field of creation stories among mankind.

Bathrobe 02:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you there. The 'big picture' of mankind's quest for knowledge of his own origins is getting an unbalanced press here on WP. However, creation myths in general aren't really in my field, so I don't think I should co-ordinate any changes to Origin beliefs. I'll try to help there though, if someone more involved with the article requests something.

As for merging the 2 articles: yes, this is a good move. Creation within belief systems has a much broader base, and comes many orders of magnitude closer to NPOV than Origin beliefs. I think we could scrap (or at least summarise) everything other than the Overview in Origin beliefs, and then integrate what remains with Creation within belief systems as an introduction. Though perhaps the resultant article should be called Origin beliefs, since it is more descriptive. -- WolfieInu 09:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not my field either. Of course it would be possible to do a cut and paste job, as you say.

I checked the history of the article on Origin beliefs. The split-off of Creation within belief systems was done by a user called User:BlueValour on 26 November 2006. BlueValour's sole comment on the Talk Page is: "I simply do not see this title (Creation myths) as being NPOV - whatever the strict definition most readers will relate to myth as an untruth. I should like to retitle this section Creation stories which, though it still carries baggage, is somewhat more neutral. May I have views, please. BlueValour 05:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)" The split was done without any warning or discussion among users.

This split is the reason for the scrappiness of the article, which is now nothing more than a rump of the previous article (although the original article itself was poorly integrated -- the split merely made this painfully obvious). Do we reintegrate the two articles? BlueValour's split appears to have at least been partly motivated by objection to the term 'creation myth'.

Rather than reintegrate the two articles (which was overly long to start with and was crying out to be split), it is possibly better to rewrite the Origin beliefs article to remove the current bias, and add a short summary on Creation stories that links to Creation within belief systems (the latter preferably renamed). What do you think?

Bathrobe 00:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of two points

Apologies if this has already been discussed, but two points in the Overview bothered me a bit.

• 1. "Almost all churches teach that God created the cosmos." Almost all? are there any that don't?
• 2. "Anglican and Catholic scholars now explicitly accept the theory of Evolution". I understand that this is official doctrine, but this sentence seems to suggest that *all* catholic and anglican scholars accept this doctrine... people like Behe and Schönborn, would argue I think. Perhaps it could be more explicitly stated: "Official doctrine of the Anglican and Catholic churches now explicitly accepts the theory of Evolution..." cornis 07:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: 1. Yes. There are some churches that don't. See Unitarian Universalism. A church that does not require a belief in God has a hard time teaching that God created the cosmos. However, many individual UUs do believe in a God-driven creation of some kind. It's up to the individual; there is no doctrine on that point. Studerby 07:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ack... .. I forgot about them, or the Society of Friends for that matter... cornis 07:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Unitarian Universalism no longer clearly self-identifies itself as Christian though, as that article points out, ("Unitarian Universalist congregations and fellowships tend to retain some Christian traditions such as Sunday worship that includes a sermon and singing of hymns, but do not necessarily identify themselves as Christians.") and since this part of the article seems to be talking about Christian beliefs, well, I think there's a bit of a problem with that. The Society of Friends article also only seems to indicate that some Quakers are atheist, not whether or not any Quaker churches as a matter of doctrine are actually atheistic, (and thusly non-creationist). Homestarmy 00:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that this demonstrates a lot of confusion. What is your point?--Filll 00:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My point is that "Almost all" isn't accurate when, as far as I can tell, there are not in fact confirmably Christian churches that do not believe Creationism is true one way or another. However, i'll be happy to try and explain it better, if you can tell me what I said that was typed confusingly. Homestarmy 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Aren't there some weird denominations that say Satan made the universe, and so on? The ones where it's gotten a bit mixed in with other religions? Adam Cuerden 00:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The only things that come to mind for me are Gnostics of various degrees, since from what I understand, it can be polytheistic to an extent, and I think some Gnostic groups believe that the Universe was actually created by an evil god of sorts. But the Gnosticism article seems a bit of a muddle, it is in a category for Ancient Roman Christianity and Anti-Christianity, and besides all that, I don't even know if Gnostic groups even had churches per se. Also, the wording in question seems to be in the present tense here, I don't know of any surviving Gnostic groups that claim to be Christian these days anyway. Homestarmy 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there's some South American and Latin American mixed religions too. Adam Cuerden 13:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about point 1, but I think the proposed edit to point 2 is a good idea. I've gone and edited it, any objections? -- WolfieInu 09:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to provide some seriously verifiable sources. I don't think it's true. Orangemarlin 12:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I'm not so sure about the Anglicans. I know I saw in a Time recently that the Catholic Church officially accepts evolution ... but please don't ask me to delve through those stacks of Times lying around in my study ... -- WolfieInu 19:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You can find the Catholic church's position . As for the Quakers, they are a very difficult group to pin down, but in general it's safer to say that they accept, rather than reject, evolution, if only because they are likely to be pragmatic rather than dogmatic on most theological issues. SheffieldSteel 19:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's illustrating my point about Quakers:- "When Quakers were writing for fellow Quakers, the older evangelicals tended to be suspicious of evolution, while many younger Quakers adopted it enthusiastically as part of their engagement with modernism. However, by the time of the Manchester Conference (1895) — which marks the eclipse of evangelicalism and the rise of modernism — a doctrine of progressive revelation became aligned with evolutionary ideas. Turning to Quaker naturalists, while some encompassed evolution as an essential theory for any practising botanist or zoologist, others considered that natural selection needed to be supplemented by some other process, especially in accounting for the development of mind. Despite this diversity, Quakers were generally supportive of Darwin’s theory and were critical of those Christians who rejected the theory on religious grounds." Hope this helps! SheffieldSteel 19:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the zealous SheffieldSteel comes to the rescue. Thank you :)

OK, how about "Official Catholic doctrine allows individual Catholics to accept or reject evolution" ... but that doesn't lead into the rest of the sentence so well. -- WolfieInu 08:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of the clarification

Most Christian churches in the US have no objection to evolution and do not subscribe to creationism:

United Methodist Church, National Baptist Convention, USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), National Baptist Convention of America, African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, and others.

The members of these churches constitute over 78% of the Christians in the US. In the past, this number has been as high as 90%.

The churches that reject evolution in the US constitute a tiny minority. These include churches like Assemblies of God, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Free Methodist Church, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, Pentecostal Churches, Seventh-day Adventist Churches, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Christian Reformed Church, and the Pentecostal Oneness churches.

As for statements that God created the cosmos, these are NOT part of evolution.

Also, it is very common for fundamentalists and creationists to just resort to claiming that anyone that disagrees with them is not Christian.--Filll 14:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I actually debated (OK, let's say "argued with" :) a theistic evolutionist the other day, and when eventually neither of us was willing to back down after about one and a half hours, he accused me of accusing him that he wasn't Christian. Nowhere during the course of our discussion had I given any indication that I'd thought this was true... on the contrary, many of my Christian friends are evolutionists, and we agree to disagree. I haven't actually heard this accusation from a creationist yet, just from evolutionists trying to, IMO, smear the opposition. Far from being "very common," it is almost unheard of. -- WolfieInu 08:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Then you might need a wider set of experiences to become acquainted with this tactic.--Filll 17:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a nice South African word that is the only possible answer to that statement: "eish". -- WolfieInu 10:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Accepting evolution or not objecting to evolution isn't the same as rejecting Creationism Filll, come on now, this isn't the Young Earth Creationism article. Isn't there some saying out there that Evolution is agnostic on the existance of a creator or something? That first reference even says that many biology teachers in a survey agreed with both Creationism and evolution, I really don't understand how this supports the idea that the churches of these biologists do not subscribe to creationism, it most definently does not support the idea that none of those churches believe Creationism in some form or another to be true. The last paragraph doesn't seem to have really anything to do with Creationism, and since this section is supposed to be an overview of Creationism, going on about who rejects evolution really seems terribly off-topic. Homestarmy 16:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This all depends on what you define as evolution and creationism. I think there is NO problem with belief in a creator/deity simultaneously with evolution, as demonstrated over and over (see theistic evolution for example, although I am sure you know this). However, what MOST people define as creationism (which, as you point out, is really a family of competing religious beliefs) is incompatible with a lot of the current understanding of the universe and reality from different sciences, including evolutionary biology. So it is true that as most people understand creationism, most of the large Christian churches in the US reject creationism, although if you stand on your head and change the definitions, you can argue the opposite.--Filll 16:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think this all depends on how this Misplaced Pages article on Creationism defines Creationism, that is why we're here after all, and this article is not confined to traditional orthodox Christian creationist beliefs. What I, and most likely many other fundamentalist/conservative/even slightly orthodox Christians define as creationism, may not be compatible with the positions of the churches you list, but that doesn't matter here, because this article on Creationism isn't about the fundamentalist/conservative/even slightly orthodox Christian opinion on what Creationism is, it is about Creationism in general, and if any of those churches believe that "humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a supernatural deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed.", then they are creationist churches, whether or not their theology on the issue actually is sound or not. (Which I highly doubt, based on your reference) Homestarmy 16:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course there are many types of creationist (Young Earth, Old Earth, Adamite, etc etc). But creationists in general usually reject the scientific method, and introduce the supernatural as an explanation for natural events. Most creationists reject some or all aspects of the Modern Synthesis or NeoDarwinian Evolutionary theory. Many Christian creationists accept biblical literalism or biblical inerrancy, at least for some aspects of the biblical text. Islamic creationists do the same for the koran. Hindu creationists or their counterparts in Hinduism do the same for some of the vedic texts. Jewish creationists do the same for the Torah. If an individual accepts the dominant scientific explanations of the universe and life and its origins, then even if they believe in God or a Creator, then they would not be referred to as a creationist in general. In fact, many fundamentalists might dismiss them and call them atheists, or Satanists, or threaten them and curse them, in a most "unChristian" fashion, but one that is quite typical in my experience, and those of others. Often, fundamentalists will accept people who believe in theistic evolution when it suits their uses to inflate certain statistics or to make a case, but then reject them in other circumstances. Just typical and annoying and it does not reflect well on them.--Filll 18:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

While it would be interesting to debate this issue, I think this is getting very far away from the point that according to this Misplaced Pages article's definition of Creationism, (Which explicitly mentions that Theistic Evolution can count) none of the churches you've named fail to qualify under this Misplaced Pages article's definition of what Creationism is or can be, at least as far as I see. You may think that my attempts to argue that the groups you name are actually Creationists is merely an act on my part to artifically inflate statistics, as your comment seems to suggest, but when the Misplaced Pages article definition of Creationism fits these groups irregardless of my motivations or yours, it really doesn't matter one way or another, I still don't see the case for "Almost all" churches believing in Creationism as opposed to saying that Christian churches believe in Creationism. Besides, being a Creationist doesn't make someone a Christian on its own, why would I want to reject these church's Creationist beliefs as non-creationist just because their theology on the issue (and likely many other issues) is likely ridiculously out of touch with the Bible? I'm starting to get the impression that you'd much rather me argue with you about fundamentalist Christianity rather than discuss whether or not all Christian churches are Creationist or not. Homestarmy 19:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not care what Misplaced Pages defines creationism as. It is not a primary authority. We can change it if it is wrong. By that definition, OrangeMarlin and myself and half or more of all scientists are creationists. Do you think this is a reasonable definition? Do you think I am a creationist? Do you think OrangeMarlin is a creationist? It is so ludicrous as to be laughable. You have seen our edits over the months. Do you HONESTLY believe OrangeMarlin and I are creationists? Definitely being a creationist does not make one Christian since there are Muslim and Hindu and Jewish creationists. And please try to leave out discussions of whether any given church or other is out of touch with the bible or not. The reason there are tens of thousands of different Christian sects is that they disagree with each other about the bible (and possibly other issues as well). And of course each one of these sects believes that their sect is correct and all others are wrong. I have no interest in addressing this and it is inappropriate here. But anyone who wades into this is swimming in molasses and opening up a terrible can of worms.--Filll 20:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do care, because if the definition this article gives (Which is referenced in the intro, I even took care of that myself partly awhile ago) contradicts what we write in other places of the article, then this article will not be as helpful a resource to readers. If you, Orangemarlin, and half or more of all scientists believe, as far as this article is concerned, that "humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a supernatural deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed." in some form or another, then congradulations, welcome to the Creationist team. Your jerseys should arrive in the mail within the next three business days. Intermurial debates start next week, looks like its YEC vs. OEC, Hindu Creationism vs. Islamic Creationism, and Evolutionary Creationism vs. Neo-Creationism in the first round, looks like you'll have to fend off some tough accusations of "Dogmatically atheistic" religiosity, better start developing a good game plan by game time.... Homestarmy 20:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yea, and due to schedualing conflicts with Jewish Holidays, and the fact that most of the Intelligent Design team is also in the OEC team or Neo-Creationism team, Jewish Creationism and Intelligent Design will have their match a little after the first round. Homestarmy 20:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If one includes pantheist and panentheistic definitions of God, then most atheists are on the creationist team too, including Richard Dawkins probably. So if one makes the definition broad enough, one can get every single human to be defined as a creationist. This is not particularly helpful, however. I went to http://www.onelook.com and looked up both creationist and creationism and I see there are about 50+ definitions or so. Some of these definitions are very similar, so there are maybe a good 10 definitions which are distinguishable. Perhaps a separate article on Definitions of creationism is called for to explore this issue, and different types of creationist and creationism. --Filll 20:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make up this definition of Creationism, "Hayward, James L." did, and even though it replaces the references I once found on what Creationism is, it sounds pretty close to what it said when I helped reference it months ago. But if there's no supernatural deity involved in your beliefs or Richard Dawkins beliefs, (Or an actual act of Creation at all, if I understand this right, certain branches of Hinduism believe all of reality to be an illusion, and hence, not really created.) it sure doesn't sound like they can be creationists, and those deposits on your team jerseys aren't refundable. Homestarmy 20:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it depends on how one defines a deity and supernatural.--Filll 21:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say every Christian church more or less defines a deity and supernatural in similar ways, (Even by the extraordinarily broad definition Misplaced Pages often has of what a Christian church is) so once again, I really don't see why the "Almost all" is justified when talking about whether or not Christians churches are Creationist or not. Homestarmy 21:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm I think you have pointed out that we have some definition problems in our articles.--Filll 21:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There certainly is some confusion over classification when some as-of-yet undetermined churches supposedly reject Creationism. Homestarmy 21:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Theistic evolution maybe should not be part of creationism, although it is on the "creationism spectrum." And naturalistic views of the Creator such as pantheism which is verging on atheism probably should not be part of creationism either, but by some definitions pantheists and other atheists would be creationists as well. Another source of confusion arises because some meanings of creationism define only where the soul comes from, so that instead of coming from the parents, the soul is created by God. So Roman Catholicism is creationist by that definition of creationism, and maybe by some others as well, but not by the most common definitions. I could go on and on through each definition in any of 30 or so dictionaries, and we could define creationism to include no more than 1 or 2% of the US population, all the way up to 95% or more of the US population. Do we need to explore this further? --Filll 21:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think we do need to get the definition(s) straight. Scott's continuum has evolutionary creationism and theistic evolution very nearly the same, and by their own definition the RC church is creationist in holding that souls are directly created, at the same time as holding to theistic evolution (with a few exceptions such as Behe). However, post 1965 the term creationism has been widely used to refer to creation science. Thus,

Creationists view evolution as a source of society's ills, and the writings of Morris and Clark are typical expressions of that view.... Creationists have adopted the view of Fundamentalists generally that there are only two positions with respect to the origins of the earth and life: belief in the inerrancy of the Genesis story of creation and of a worldwide flood as fact, or a belief in what they call evolution.... The creationist organizations consider the introduction of creation science into the public schools part of their ministry.

Though the emphasis on the spectrum is useful to avoid that "two position" fallacy, this common definition should be made clear.. .. dave souza, talk 22:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would talkorigins be a more reliable reference than what's in the introduction and discussed throughout the article already? (I'm not being sarcastic here, I wasn't around when the latest reference and definition was put in, I merely found some references months ago for a similar definition that was in the intro) Homestarmy 22:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not claiming talkorigins is a great reference on this issue. I am alsoo not claiming that the National Center for Science Education necessarily should have the final say in how we define creationism. But Homestarmy has clearly highlighted a difficulty we have ignored in the multiple conflicting and overlapping definitions of "creationism". Just as evolution and evolutionism have had a number of meanings over the years, so it appears that creationism has had and still retains a plethora of contradictory meanings. And now, here we are writing a semi-authorative text, and we have some confusion here. I personally would like to define creationism to include:

• insistence on supernatural, miraculous intervention at one or more stages during the development of the species.
• insistence that the supernatural agent did not choose to use the laws of nature in the creation of the species or many other features of the world or the universe
• rejection of standard accepted scientific explanations and scientific data on many issues
• tendency to insist on inerrancy and literalism of various segments of religious texts

This is just a starter, but clearly enables one to draw a clear distinction between atheists and creationists, or between creationists and the vast majority of scientists, or between creation scientists and scientists, or between Catholic doctrine and Pentecostal doctrine, for example.--Filll 22:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Homestarmy, that's not TalkOrigins defining anything: it's the definition used in the Decision by U.S. District Court Judge William R. Overton in January 1982. So the usage was clearly in circulation then, and the term continues to have a dual definition – theoretically it applies to anyone believing in Creation, in general practice it refers to the fundamentalist rejection of evolution and any other science perceived as contradicting a literal interpretation of biblical texts. Whether they make that explicit or, as in Thaxton and ID, they hide it behind claims that the Creator is unknowable and outside science. ... dave souza, talk 22:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake then. Why not have this article just not have one definition, but discuss all of them? And even then, with the way the sentence that started this reads, that still leaves the question as to which churches supposedly do not teach that "God created the cosmos". Homestarmy 23:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

<undent>Well we could discuss them all, but we do not really have the space for it in this article. That is why I suggest an article on Definitions of creationism..--Filll 01:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. That's what I was trying to achieve with a disambig page, but a Definitions of creationism article could be a more succinct way to do it. -- WolfieInu 09:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Since Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary, a "definitions of" articles are generally considered inappropriate and are routinely deleted (e.g. definitions of evolution article was deleted a few years back). If you want to write such a thing, consider going over to Wikitionary. --ScienceApologist 13:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As I understand, the proposed article would not define creationism the way a dictionary defines a term, but would try to clarify what the word "creationism" could mean in different contexts, as a sort of disambig page, but without having to adhere to standard disambig page structure. -- WolfieInu 22:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that Definitions of evolution was a very inadequate article. The present evolutionism article basically describes in detail a variety of definitions of the term.--Filll 15:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

ID and public schools

Well, I don't want to violate WP:3RR, so I'll just post here. By the morning, User:Homestarmy will either have to violate 3RR or I'm wrong. Anyways, the Kitzmiller decision clearly stated that schools can't teach ID. Once a court decides, it becomes de facto, unless another court overturns it, which will not happen. But I'm bored with these reversions. I expect that the sentence will be gone by the time I wake up Saturday morning. Orangemarlin 07:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW Homestarmy, the decision was based on constitutional law. Your reversion of what is essentially a constitutional fact belies your POV on the issue. Religious dogma, in whatever form, and by whatever disingenuous method utilized by religious types, is prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the first Amendment of the United States Constitution. You know that piece of paper that sits in Washington DC? And findings by court to have the force of law. You know better than this, even though it didn't appear in your AP Chemistry exams. Now I'm really exhausted. Orangemarlin 07:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaning in your direction, but why give some proud-to-be fundamentalist another reason to cry about the atheist cabal on Misplaced Pages? The sentence is clear enough as it is now. I know that "courts have found" is a bit redundant (because they're the only ones in charge of finding something like that) but don't think its untrue or POV. Malc82 07:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

A view from outside the USA: without "courts have found" it looks like an empty assertion of a POV. With "courts have found" it is clearly a statement of the legal position. Therefore much better with "courts have found". Snalwibma 08:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Courts have found is a POV. In fact, you cannot teach ID in public schools as a result of that decision (unless of course, you want to fund a another losing trial). It requires no other descriptive other than you cannot teach it. Oh well. Not a big deal. Orangemarlin 08:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

A minor point (refering to an edit summary) when something is "de facto law" we do not say "de facto" we say "de jure." Slrubenstein | Talk 15:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

My latin is very bad, neither being Catholic, nor really focusing on those pieces of latin I needed in med school. I actually have a link to a site that has "legal latin." I should have gone there! I hope that I did not destroy your faith in me to be a decent editor.  :) Orangemarlin 16:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

When I get reverted by two different people, I think i'm capable of taking the hint that I shouldn't keep on going, do I look like a User:Jason Gastrich sock to you? The decision was based on the opinions and interpretations of the Middle District of Pennsylvania court, these judges have no more ability to state once and for all what is constitutional fact and what isn't than any other judges who could have different opinions, including the Supreme Court, since future Supreme Courts can and have overruled the findings of previous courts on many occasions. "Constitutional facts" have a rather nasty little habit of being hard to pin down when decades of court decisions constantly override previous decisions, don't you think?

Though I admit, had I looked slightly closer to the reference in question, I probably would of been able to bring a much stronger argument to the table. This Kitzmiller decision was decided by the Pennsylvania Middle District appealate court. It has the force of law alright....in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In the rest of the U.S, this court is compleatly powerless to stop any school district from teaching ID. Of course, if a school outside the Pennsylvania Middle District deciding to teach ID, the ACLU or someone would probably use the Kitzmiller decision as precedent to get a speedier decision, but that decision would have to come from a compleatly different court for it to have any affect at all outside the Pennsylvania Middle District. "Courts have found" was even me giving you a little bit of leeway, I assume by now courts besides this one district have probably given decisions against ID before, if I had really wanted to be ornery about attribution here, I could have even just written "John E. Jones III., a Pennsylvania District Court judge, found that....", and that wouldn't be a POV statement at all, but an absolute fact based on the one reference given. In fact, you can teach ID anywhere in the United States where a court has not made some binding decision against it, and as far as this Kitzmiller ref tells me, that is anywhere in the U.S. where the Pennsylvania Middle District court has no jurisdiction. As far as I can tell from the reference given, the statement currently in the article is an outright lie; Teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools does not once and for all violate the Establishment Clause of the constitution all through the country, but only in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, everywhere else, the question of whether it is or isn't a violation has yet to be decided.

And I can do without the slyly vieled accusations of hypocrasy Malc. Homestarmy 17:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'll never accuse you of being a sockpuppet of anything but maybe yourself :) I appreciate your candor and the fact that you took AP Chemistry! I agree with you that technically it has the force of law only in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. But it's not going to be appealed, and no school district anywhere is going to waste millions of dollars given this decision. I guess that's why I used de facto, because it is now going to be followed period. But with regards to the constitution, I doubt you'll be able to find anywhere that a court has found for the teaching of any religious matter. When they have, it has been overturned at the appellate or supreme court levels. Moreover, the case in Pennsylvania really didn't come down to whether religion could be taught in school (which won't happen), it came down to whether ID was a religion or not. Jones said it was. I don't think there are any further cases that will test that, since the evidence was quite clear. So technically you're right. But practically, ID won't be taught in a public school. Courts has found, however, sounds weasel wordy to me.Orangemarlin 18:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The decision doesn't need to be appealed or even fought anywhere outside the Middle District of Pennsylvania, my point is that this court has no power outside its district, and so any other school outside this district (That isn't already under some other court orders not to teach ID) is free to teach ID, assuming the district and parents allow it and all that stuff. Why should this decision be followed, legally speaking, anywhere that the Kitzmiller decision has no authority?

I really don't understand why "courts have found" is very weaselly, Killer's explanation in his revert really seems to be stretching in my opinion, "some have found" is a far cry from "courts have found", "some have found" tells the reader nothing about "some", while "courts have found" identifies who the subjects are, and attributes the opinion to at least the one verifiable source and the other sources which I presume exist which sided against ID. A weasel worded statement, however, would have to "seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources". However, if being specific is a must, I think something like "In the United States, the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania found in the ruling of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that Intelligent Design may not be taught as an alternative to Evolution in public schools. The District judge in the case, John E. Jones III, stated in his ruling that intelligent design was not science, that teaching Intelligent Design in public schools was a violation of the United States Constitutions Establishment Clause, and that Intelligent Design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." would work fine. Homestarmy 18:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The hypocrisy assumption wasn't specifically to you (and it wasn't "slyly veiled"), POV-accusations come on a weekly basis for these articles, your's is actually one of those that deserve discussion. The proud-to-be fundamentalist of course referred to your user page. Malc82 22:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(ri)There are many things you do not understand. First is how the US court system works. Jones is a judge in the US Court system. His ruling was not appealed. It stands as the current precedent based on previous SCOTUS rulings. End of story. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

End of unreferenced story, which compleatly fails to actually cite which SCOTUS decisions agree that Intelligent Design is a violation of the 1st amendment in the entire United States and that it may not be taught in any public school in the entire United States as an alternative to evolution? Homestarmy 21:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as this court is the highest level that has ever judged on this matter, it's ruling is the current state of the law. SCOTUS can't decide on everything, they could only overrule. As long as they don't, the lower court's judgement stands as the current law. Malc82 22:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Throughout the entire United States, or in the Pennsylvania Middle District? Homestarmy 23:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

READ THE RULING -- It clearly states the legal precedence, clearly citing appropriate SCOTUS rulings. This really isn't that hard, but I'm also not doing your research for you. If you read the decision, the light will go on. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The beginning makes it look like this court took the lemon test and Supreme Court precedents concerning school prayer and access to schools for Christian groups, (and things like that) and applied the lemon test and endorsement test to the question of whether or not teaching Intelligent Design in this district could be legal. So far, all I get from this is that in the Pennsylvania Middle District, the District Court used supreme court precedents for cases dealing with Christian involvement in schools in various ways to make a compleatly new ruling about Intelligent Design, which will apply only in the Pennsylvania Middle District. The Supreme Court and other courts mentioned in this decision may have applied tests similar to the ones used in the Kitzmiller decision, but I see not a single court case cited in this ruling that also dealt not only with the issue of teaching Intelligent Design in public schools, but with the issue of whether or not it can be legally taught anywhere in the United States.

The rationale of this decision clearly was based on other court's tests alright, but I see nothing at all in any cited rulings that deals specifically with intelligent design. Unless there is a SCOTUS case that makes it illegal for any public school in the entire United States to specifically teach Intelligent Design, I really don't see how the mere existance of the tests Jones used translates into Intelligent Design being outlawed nation-wide, or why a court in a separate district who has a different opinion on the issue could not take the same tests and interpret them in favor of intelligent design, thusly making it legal in at least one district for any school inside the district to teach intelligent design. The closest case I saw cited in this decision was when the Supreme Court in 1987 outlawyed teaching creation science, but just because Jones then went on to conclude that Intelligent Design is basically the same thing as creation science doesn't mean that the previous Supreme Court decision itself now applies to Intelligent Design, and once again, I still don't see what decisions are supposedly on the books outlawying Intelligent Design specifically nation-wide, or why someone won't cite them. Homestarmy 22:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as well you're not giving legal advice, then, Homestarmy. .. dave souza, talk 22:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps you could explain how the decision of the Pennsylvania Middle District court has outlawed the teaching of Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution nation-wide? I don't need a five page essay or the entire U.S. court system explained to me, a simple explanation would do. Homestarmy 22:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Since you operate under English law rather than Scots law I'll be cautious, but my reading is that it's not the decision that has outlawed teaching of ID, but the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. The findings are that ID clearly contravenes that, and so is outlawed. Try it in another court anywhere in the US and the first thing they'll look at is the Kitzmiller findings. For some strange reason even ID enthusiasts seem reluctant to try, these days. .... dave souza, talk 23:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The ruling only has an immediate legal standing in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. But the precedent and the strength of the ruling is such that school districts will be reluctant to teach ID, because the cost of defending and probably losing a ruling will be prohibitive. If I'm using the latin right, de jure, it only is legally binding in the jurisdiction of the Middle District of PA. However, de facto, the ruling is so strong that it has the effect of prohibiting the teaching of ID everywhere. Homestarmy, I guess you could convince some school district in the states to fight it, but I doubt it. Here in California (which has more Creationists than I thought possible), a small school district withdrew ID from its curriculum immediately after the ruling, because its lawyers stated that the district would probably lose the impending lawsuit, but would be on the hook for several million dollars if it did lose. This happens all the time in the US legal system. Remember, there is no hope that a school district could teach Creationism, because it clearly violates the Establishment Clause. BUT, this case didn't rule on that, it ruled that ID was essentially religious in nature. The court found that it was, and now that case established precedent everywhere. Orangemarlin 05:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, as it's a lower court it's not a Binding precedent, but it is a strong Persuasive precedent throughout the U.S. and was set out in detail for that reason. Similarly, McLean v. Arkansas gives detail of what science is, and how "creation science" isn't science. That case had considerable effect on later court decisions, but was not binding nationally: that needed the Supremes at Edwards v. Aguillard. ... dave souza, talk 09:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Precedent is a powerful thing. This is part of the reason the DI did not want this fight. Unfortunately, their own strategy of aggressively publicizing their stance and campaigning frantically for ID eventually created this situation where a schoolboard changed their curriculum.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs) 13:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

<RI>Conclusion. For anyone who reads this discussion, note that it was done in a WP:CIVIL manner, between highly opinionated people, and we arrived at somewhat of a consensus. Jim62sch, you know I love you, but READ THE RULING wasn't quite fair. Homestarmy made a valid point, which is the ruling really only is binding in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, but carries substantial weight as precedent elsewhere. Personally, I don't think any school district would be stupid enough to spend that kind of money to fight it, so it becomes, de facto, the law of the land. By the way, I made a change to the section so that it reflected what I believed is how it works, but Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a Constitutional Lawyer. (I have been waiting years to actually say that to someone named Jim.) LOL.Orangemarlin 16:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope your medical tricorder is all charged up, Bones. Too bad you're in the wrong 'universe' - bacta tanks make life so much easier :) -- WolfieInu 11:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I want to see the sick bay...

OM, READ THE RULING was actually quite fair in that Jones outlines the legal precedents that drove his decision. Absent these precedents it sounds like he just made it up as he went along, which is clearly not the case. Additionally, absent an appeal or another lawsuit, his decision has the de jure force of law in the US. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Creatianism

The OED has nothing on this term, and we cannot use a Wiki to source a Wiki as Wikis do not meet WP:RS

"The OED on Creationism:

A system or theory of creation: spec. a. The theory that God immediately creates a soul for every human being born (opposed to traducianism); b. The theory which attributes the origin of matter, the different species of animals and plants, etc., to ‘special creation’ (opposed to evolutionism).

1847 BUCH tr. Hagenbach's Hist. Doctr. II. 1 The theory designated Creationism..was now more precisely defined. 1872 LIDDON Elem. Relig. iii. 102 The other and more generally received doctrine is known as Creationism. Each soul is an immediate work of the Creator. 1880 GRAY Nat. Sc. & Relig. 89 The true issue as regards design is not between Darwinism and direct Creationism.

Also, this, from Str1977 is nonsense: "(created article for those denying the term)" . &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reasoned debate, Jim. It appears however that the term exists (see the AFD debate), no matter whether an article on the concept is placed under "Creationism (soul)" or "Creatianism". Str1977 08:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Though as I understand the topic, it has absolutely no relation to creationism in the sense used on this page. WLU 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

... I'm not sure this article has one. While I don't agree with Creationism one iota, surely NPoV requires that both eventualities be accepted as equally likely, at least in this article? In reality, the view expressed is decidedly Evolutonist (especially in the intro), and so for the sake of article quality I'd argue that this be remedied. Disclaimer - I am definitely an evolutionist, I just think that this isn't NPoV. The fact that it's my PoV expressed is neither here nor there. --poorsod 11:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, it doesn't have to present them as equally valid, because they're not. That's the NPoV, see undue weight, equal validity and Pseudoscience. Oh and "...I don't agree with creationism..but..", sounds alot like, "...well I'm not racist, but..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConfuciusOrnis (talk • contribs) 12:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with ConfuciousOrnis here. There are numerous articles on Misplaced Pages that are controversial. If you present both sides as being essentially equal, then there is a disservice done to the reader. I believe that verifiability from well-written, peer-reviewed, and published sources far outweighs a few pieces of speculation. However, this article is about a religious doctrine--to be NPOV, this article should thoroughly describe the doctrine, but place a few pieces of SPOV (that would be the scientific POV) to state what the "other side" thinks. Go to the Evolution article for a thorough and NPOV explanation of the science. Orangemarlin 16:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"Oh and “...I don't agree with creationism, but..', sounds a lot like, '...well I'm not racist, but...”.

What do you mean by a comparison of the "I'm not racist, but..." analogy to the users comments? The user wished to assert their concerns over POV as a Evolutionist while having a regard for the views of Creationists in the belief that this might make his own standpoint seem less weighted, which is frankly more than a lot of ‘editors’ seem to be doing with pages like this. The “I'm not racist, but...” phrase is typically invoked when the person making the statement follows it up with an invariably racist comment, not at all similar to what poorsod was attempting to do. So no, it’s not comparable with his comments at all. I really think you should apologise to be quite honest. I also am not a creationist… but I agree more with ‘Poorsod’ than I would you, I’m convinced there is still a fair amount of subtle weaseling from both parties at the end of certain paragraphs that I suspect would obviously not be tolerated if they were identified as coming from a particularly creationist standpoint. Isn’t it sloppy to have un-sourced statements at the end of the overview for instance as well as a statement with either critical or positive standpoints at the end of sections? Even if these statements were sourced I don’t think weighted comment should be placed at the end of sections, it’s too leading either way. Rather like childishly having the final words in a playground argument. 195.92.168.165 04:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break. It is hard to put much credence in poorly written tirade from an anon. What exactly are you protesting? That ConfuciusOrnis drew a particularly apt comparison and made a great analogy? I have been on these pages long enough to be able to smell a creationist, and that turn of phrase definitely is a red flag, particularly when dealing with such a feeble excuse for an alternative scientific theory as creationism. If these articles were not diligently policed, they would soon degenerate into religious polemics and creationist tracts full of the most outrageous statements, completely unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Given the visibility of Misplaced Pages, this would be a very undesirable situation. We do not have enough editors interested in real science working on these articles to even keep up with the creationist nonsense that has accumulated here on WP (for example, see evolutionism which is an embarassment for an encyclopedia). Another dead giveaway that "poorsod" and probably this anon as well are biblical literalists who are anti-science is the use of the term "evolutionist". ONLY creationists and Christian fundamentalists use that kind of language. You are quite welcome to contribute to some creationist wiki, if this is your inclination. We have quite enough of such things here already, but thanks anyway for your efforts. --Filll 10:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Filll, if you can smell creationists, that probably means you've been online for so long, nanobots have travelled through your internet tubes and set up a wireless connection between your olfactory nerves and nanobots hiding in or near other people's computers, and that's generally a strong sign you might be suffering from Wikipediholicism, not a sign of faithfully policing articles from our vast right-wing conspiracy against all you evilutionists. Just a thought. Homestarmy 19:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you are right. I am probably diseased and/or addicted. I notice I rank at about position 1000 among all editors, measured by edit count, including editors that have been here quite a bit longer. However, my sense of "smell" for creationists (my fundie-dar, or creationist-dar, as it were) was already well developed before I came to WP, since I have been involved in these debates for longer than you have been alive Homestarmy, and possibly longer than your parents have been alive. What is hilarious, particularly if you look at the history of creationism, is that although science has changed considerably over the last 100 or 150 years, creationists use almost the identical arguments that were used by creationists decades and decades ago, and a lot of the same terminology. Interesting, huh? --Filll 19:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page, I think my big old rant of a reply sort of tipped this off the deep end of off-topic. Homestarmy 20:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's great that you think you can ‘smell’ creationists Filll, it means you probably shovel as much as you 'edit' according to your judgment. It's wonderful to know such balanced editors are so highly regarded on Misplaced Pages. I couldn’t give a toss about posturing creationists nuts, what bothers me more are attempts by self important non-professional wiki editors with equally outrageous and manipulative intentions, you do curious internet browsers no service whatsoever. Reading pages like this simply offends me when I feel attempts at manipulation according to a clearly biased agenda. I am glad your wiki ranking gives you comfort because it scares the hell out of me. You’re just one of the reasons I refuse to join this site because Misplaced Pages is clearly a doomed project under the ushering of individuals such as yourself. Perhaps you should scrutinize you own motives just as equally as those Creationists you clearly have such bias against. Have a nice ‘break’. 195.92.168.165 16:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

DNFTT. A quick survey of this anon demonstrates that it is a high school student who is probably just having a juvenile tantrum. Maybe a nice block is in order.--Filll 16:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you block everyone who criticizes you? Do you really think you are that unassailable? --Fradulent Ideas 23:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I criticized him humorously, and i'm not blocked :/. Homestarmy 16:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fradulent Ideas, I think you missed the point. The post by the anon was clearly an ad hom, has the appearance of trolling, and offers nothing to the discussion. And Homestarmy is correct: while I very rarely agree with his positions on many subjects, I also know that he's an editor who can make his point without rancor and is really just seeking to share information. Even when he is critical, he's nice about it and attacks the point (ad rem rather than the person (ad hom). I hope this clears it up. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Imho this article does belong into the cat pseudoscience because it lists all the pseudoscience of creationists (like 4.1 Young Earth creationism 4.1.1 Modern geocentrism 4.1.2 Omphalos hypothesis 4.1.3 Creation science 4.2 Old Earth creationism 4.2.1 Gap creationism 4.2.2 Day-age creationism 4.2.3 Progressive creationism 4.3 Theistic evolution 4.4 Neo-Creationism 4.4.1 Intelligent design ) greetings. --hroest 00:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No. As the article defines it creatiomism "refers to the concept that all humanity, life, the Earth, or the universe as a whole was created by a deity" This is not pseudoscience since it is not a scientific claim. Once one starts making claims that what you are doing is somehow scientific, such as with Intelligent Design, or most forms of Young Earth Creationism then it becomes pseudoscience. JoshuaZ 01:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

yes but the article mentions e.g. Young Earth Creationism, Intelligend Design etc which are pseudoscince... that's what I mean. --hroest 11:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty broad criterion for inclusion. The evolution article mentions creationism too. Should it go in the pseudoscience category? Tsumetai 12:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a good compromise would be for each of the subjects listed by hroest to be put in the pseudoscience category, but not this article, because Creationism is ultimately a religous position rather than a (pseudo)scientific one. SheffieldSteel 00:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Although it pains me to agree with the Creationist crowd, this article is a description of faith, not a claim of science, so it could hardly be considered a pseudoscience. However, Creation science, which describes the science behind creationism, is definitely pseudoscience. So hroest, you might want to take your arguments to other articles, but those have already been identified. Anyways, I agree with RossNixon's revert. Still don't agree with his belief in this myth, but I do agree with his editing. Orangemarlin 06:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is coming up once again, and I had forgotten that there was a consensus herein. JoshuaZ and I have got to be the two of the most vigilant anti-pseudoscience editors on Misplaced Pages, and we agree that this is not pseudo science. I even made a revert to add the tag, because this article has crept a lot since early-March and includes some pseudoscientific claims. Now, I reverted to remove the tags, but this is a close vote in my brain. The "science" in this article has to be removed, or I will side over with the pseudoscience tag. Orangemarlin 06:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Only thing is, it's a little hard to separate the religion and pseudoscience, since this article seems to be a broad overview of creationism in it's various forms, both purely religious, and anti-evolution. If the consensus is that creationism isn't pseudoscience per se, then perhaps it shouldn't be parented to cat:pseudoscience, with only subjects like ID, baraminology, flood geology, etc, made sub cats of pseudoscience. ornis 06:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm biased, but if we've been doing fine without pseudoscience tags up until now, then what is the sudden emergency? Ornis is right, it's pretty hard to seperate the religion from the 'pseudoscience'. As long as the article claims to be an overview, the proposed hairsplitting is unnecessary, IMHO. As it is the article does not claim that creationism is a science, which is enough NPOV to go a long way. To slap 'pseudoscience' on the article is superfluous.

Besides, the concept of 'pseudoscience' includes subjects like astrology, alchemy, witch-doctoring, etc., and not alternate views on origins as far as I know, except if anti-evolutionism is labelled pseudoscientific by definition - and how far can we expect science to progress under such conditions? If anti-creationism had been forbidden in 19th Century England, everybody would be creationists today, which I think is great but would <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">have stifled scientific inquiry (and could have prevented the development of modern creationism!).

In other words, I don't think that creationism belongs under 'pseudoscience' anyway. But that's probably just because I'm a creationist :) -- WolfieInu 11:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, anti-creationism was forbidden in 19th Century England, on pain of imprisonment for heresy and was prosecuted severely by the authorities who thought it as treasonable as other outrageous ideas like republicanism and giving the vote to anyone but the landed aristocracy. One odd effect was that writers on evolution were punished by losing copyright, which made pirating the books easier and increased their distribution. Of course, repression eased with began to ease after the Reform Act in the 1830s, and though the author of Vestiges of Creation took elaborate care to remain anonymous, the public controversy over that Lamarkian book was less severe than feared, and paved the way for a relatively muted and welcoming reception for The Origin of Species at a time when the clergy were much more concerned about the higher criticism controversy. Anyway, on-topic, categories are just ways for readers to find articles, and don't label the contents of articles. However, I've favoured leaving "creationism" out of the pseudoscience category, while keeping explicit examples like creation science and ID in. ... dave souza, talk 13:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC) tweak 23:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Several answers. To Ornis, yes, I agree, although I contend that any vestige of "science" needs to be extracted from this article. This article must stick with religious dogma, that is that some being created this place yada yada yada. Any "proof" will make this article pseudoscience, since there is no proof. To Wolfielnu, yes I agree too. However, any science that tries to prove Creationism is no different than alchemy, astrology, etc., and is therefore, by definition, pseudoscience. To Souza, yes. This discussion is making me ill, because I know that Creationism is in fact anti-science. But as long as it stays out of the article, them I think it remains neutral. So, Homestarmy and RossNixon, please try to keep the pseudoscience out of here, and keep it a religious article. There are only so many times that I can support you on these issues, or they're going to toss me out of the secret Darwinist Society meetings. Orangemarlin 15:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason I made my revert was because I had thought there was already a consensus on this issue, created no less by people such as yourself. I normally only interact with this article when I see something of interest appear on my watchlist concerning it, which does seem to be happening more and more often lately. Homestarmy 15:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

<RI>Homestarmy, yeah I agree we had a consensus. But when I reread the article, I thought it had changed, which it had. I've deleted a lot of the pseudoscience stuff, and I happen to agree wholeheartedly with you. Now when are you going to report that AP Chemistry score? Orangemarlin 17:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If the scores really come in July, don't you think June 25th is a bit early for that? Homestarmy 18:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Homestarmy, I missed something -- I'm guessing you were in an AP Chem class? Maybe you'll beat my AP Chem score, I had a 96, but that was a while ago, and I've forgotten some of what I learned.

OM, if we do the article from an entirely religious perspective, we might as well just post Gen 1 & 2 ... how dull. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the scores go from a 1-5 scale, and has been that way since I was a snot nosed kid. And I'll bet I was a snot nosed kid before you were born there Jim. As for the article, let the POV forks get the exciting stuff. Let's keep Creationism like the Noah's Ark article--talk religion, but we'll stand up to the attempt to throw in science. Orangemarlin 19:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Not on a percentage basis they don't -- unless we're talking about different things. Which is possible. But since I missed the reference to the AP test, I assumed you were refering to a final exam. Obviously, that's not the case. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, all they tell you is the number you got 1 to 5, not the percentages. The test these days is curved so much though, that the way our chem teacher tells us, getting around a 60 percent counts as a five, and getting all the multiple choice right and no points on the free response at all gets you a three, so the curve is pretty big. Homestarmy 20:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Our young Creationist padawan is correct. For Jim, the AP Exam is a standardized test managed by the College Board. Theoretically, it's a test given to prove that you have taken and passed a college-level course, while in High School. Back in my day, prior to the existence of computers, I took 6 or 7 AP courses. It got me out of my first year of college. Orangemarlin 23:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK, sorry guys, I was thinking just the final in the AP course. Thanks for explaining. I never did take the tests to get credit for the AP courses, but then I also took two years off before I went to college, and I was pretty undirected so I wasn't sure what I was going to do anyway. Anyway, hope you get a good score Homestarmy. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> OM, this article really should start by showing how there are various ideas of what "creationism" means, including the soul version (Aretha Franklin?) and the general term, but with an emphasis on the usage popularized in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy of the 1920s (in "an upsurge of fundamentalist religious fervor" to cite Edwards) as meaning opposition to evolution as part of the fundies' argument against higher criticism and liberal Christianity – at heart this is a theological dispute rather than religion vs. science as it's often misrepresented... dave souza, talk 23:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually Dave, this is a great idea. Creationism really isn't a science vs. religion competition, it IS a religion vs. religion controversy. But this is a huge rewrite. Orangemarlin 23:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of presenting this as a religion vs. religion controversy. The way in which the creationists like to position this "debate" is completely dishonest (although I do not even think it is a debate, really; there is no controversy, at least in science). Science is NOT anti-religion and I have no idea how anyone could think that, since science really does not deal with the same questions that religion does. Creationists want to claim that all Christians believe what they believe, or some huge fraction of the American/world's population disbelieves evolution, but the data do not support this claim. They just like to rant and rave and lie and cheat to rally people to their side, and, I suspect, to raise money.--Filll 21:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Science did actually take away their last seemingly strong argument, and it also keeps marginalizing the kind of deities fundamentalists believe in, leaving them with less and less space where to tuck their magic-man in. What you probably mean is that it doesn't conflict with watered down moderatism. –Fatalis 08:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Money makes the world go round. (OK, it's really the effect of a molten core and gravity, and stuff like that, but...) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a conflict thesis which is accepted by many. The curent atheist thinkers like Richard Dawkins are fairly adamant that science directly contradicts religion. Misplaced Pages articles must acknowledge this perspective. --Creationism is pseudoscience 18:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a username that didn't last long. The ID crew share that adamant thought, though they have a different solution in mind. The question is whether that's relevant to this specific article. .. dave souza, talk 19:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it is relevant to this article since creationists are in direct conflict with science, as Dawkins and others point out. --Creationism=Pseudoscience 22:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And your point is? Perhaps this post was not meant for this section? Or maybe not meant for this talk page?--Filll 19:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the point was that that user was indef blocked within about half an hour of having registered. ornis 20:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I think that this account was just created by a creationist to troll and irritate others with meaningless posts.--Filll 20:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You'd think he would of made at least one post trolling against y'all then, so far, I see only evidence that he's an anti-creationist troll, not a creationist troll. Homestarmy 22:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Think on it a bit Homestarmy. If one covers Dawkins' minority viewpoint, it strengthens the argument that science, and in particular evolution, are against religion. It's a perfect setup. Alas, it failed. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that Dawkins is in the minority? --Religion hates science 23:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

He is unusually persistant though, why doesn't he just stay an anon, then he wouldn't keep getting blocked for violating username policy.... Homestarmy 23:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

He sure wants to be blocked badly, and maybe get a nice IP block as well.--Filll 23:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I want to discuss including Dawkins work in this since he is the most visible critic of creationism as of right now. --Fradulent Ideas 23:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, at last you've found a less offensive username, and an admirable self-description it seems to be. Do please present your ideas for improving this article on this talk page so that they can be properly considered for undue weight. ... dave souza, talk 23:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

(ri)Ah, the cat's out of the bag...cue the dogs... &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Scientific critique

Since the scientific critique section was so short, I included a Dawkins quote to expand the section a bit. --Fradulent Ideas 23:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why this was removed from the article? --Fradulent Ideas 12:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

As it said in the summary, because of WP:NPOV. –Fatalis 13:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you forgetting WP:BITE? Shouldn't you try to route this obviously well-intentioned editor's efforts to some place (perhaps another article) where the contributions would be appreciated? Just a thought. Silly rabbit 14:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't it neutral to mention Dakwins' opinion on the matter? --Fradulent Ideas 16:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Since this is clearly a section about scientific critique of creationism, I think that Richard Dawkins belongs in this section. He's the most vocal scientific opponent of creationist pseudoscience, after all. --Fradulent Ideas 16:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it okay for me to reinclude this statement? --Fradulent Ideas 11:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. That particular bit is about YECs, not creationism in general (which could include theistic evolution, for example), and the whole article is more editorial than scientific. –Fatalis 12:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is editorial because it is a critique. The section in question is about critique. --Fradulent Ideas 13:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

(ri) "..mind shrinking nonsense.." is amusing, but it isn't really a scientific critique. In any case I think the idea is to largly confine this article to the theology of creationism, and leave the science and pseudoscience, to the appropriate sub-articles. ornis 12:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't for us to decide what is a "scientific critique" and what isn't. Dawkins is a scientist and when he criticizes creationism he is providing a critique. There seems to be no reason to exclude his criticism. --Fradulent Ideas 13:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends -- was he writing as a scientist or as an atheist? Admittedly, either way Dawkins had a point, however what he writes for popular consumption is not necessarily a scientific critique. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, maybe it doesn't fit in that section. Surely we can find a place for it in the article though since he is talking about creationism and he's probably the most famous living critic of the subject. --Fradulent Ideas 00:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Definition of creationism

The Merriam-Webster's dictionary does not define creationism as we do. The article uses, supposedly, a definition provided by Hayward. I am not at liberty to get Hayward's book at this time so can someone tell me why Hayward's definition is more verifiable than the typical definition provided by Merriam-Webster? --Fradulent Ideas 12:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of verifiability, it's a matter of completeness and currency. The dicdef you mention is virtually identical to the version in the 1935 Webster's unabridged diction, in other words, it's just a tad out of date. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

While creationists have tried to reinvent themselves, they have been famously unsuccessful. Intelligent design was supposed to remove the stigma, but the latest court decision and elections have reintroduced it in the public eye. I do not see many people who support evolution calling themselves "creationists" even though this article seems to indicate that this is what they do. I think the article is promoting a fringe conception of what creationism is: the popular conception is that it is the ideas that opposed evolution. --Fradulent Ideas 13:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The popular conception is not always the right one, and certainly isn't the only one that a respectable encyclopedia should cover. Homestarmy 17:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit difficult to determine how a pseudo-subject such as "creationism" can have a "right" conception. There is no reliable authority that determines what is and isn't creationism. I think we have to go with public judgement on this count. --Fradulent Ideas 18:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are a great many reliable authorities that qualify under WP:RS that have an opinion on what Creationism is, especially various dictionaries or other encyclopedias, and so far, it doesn't look like there's so many widely varying definitions that some would need to be excluded for notabilities sake. I don't see many evolution supporters calling themselves creationist myself, but i'm sure if I found a theistic evolutionist, they would probably agree more or less that "humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe created in entirety by a deity or deities". Why does there need to be one single reliable authority which is the only body authorized to make a singular, non-inclusive definition on what Creationism is? So far, it looks like there's plenty of room in the lead to include any more notable definitions on what Creationism is, removal of the U.S. centric material if necessary could provide plenty of space. Homestarmy 18:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

So you want to provide multiple definitions? Or a really long one? What do you have in mind? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Me? Oh no, I think the given definitions are fine, several months ago I found some references that more or less (mostly less) said what's already there, though the wording, detail, and references have changed since then. I was just saying to Fraudulent that there doesn't have to be a single reliable authority on the subject in order to write the article. The lead is, as I think people have already pointed out, oddly U.S. centric, but I don't know how to fix that any more than other people do probably. Homestarmy 22:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you share those references with us? --Fradulent Ideas 00:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The ones I got were just from googling, I assume somebody must of considered the books that are being used now as more reliable than what I put there. Homestarmy 01:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that Numbers' resource is great, but I'm not sure about Hayward's. --Fradulent Ideas 13:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

How the term is "most often" used

I think the section about how the term is most often used is correct, but should there be a citation for it? Maybe a survey or a citation search? --Fradulent Ideas 12:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that any standard dictionary definition would be sufficient. For instance, the Merriam-Webster discussed above. Adam Cuerden 13:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Does a dictionary really determine how something is "most often" used? --Fradulent Ideas 16:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to be careful about it, why not do a serious study. Start with onelook.com and look up creationism and then follow it up with other definitions from other sources. You will find a variety of current and past definitions. You might even be inspired to put together an article on the definitions of creationism.--Filll 16:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the general definition of creationism (belief that God created the universe) is the least useful for writing an encyclopedia article. The most useful starting point is the American Heritage Dictionary's definition which is probably a good place to begin because of the curious visibility of American fundamentalism in this area. AHD says "NOUN: Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible." I think that since most of the resources written about creationism is about such a belief, this is where we should start. Literalism is an important part of creationism. --Fradulent Ideas 11:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Although creationism demands a literal interpretation of Genesis, this is a long way from being literalist with respect to the entire Bible. For example, few if any creationists would want you to read Daniel or the Book of Revelation literally, except if someone thinks that literal seven-headed dragons are meant to be scientific truth, in which case there is no hope for him :) . -- WolfieInu 13:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but it cannot be included in the article because we are writing about the general ideas and not one person's opinion. The fact is that many creationists proudly proclaim their view that the bible is completely 100% scientifically accurate. --Fradulent Ideas 18:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

<undent> Am giving this consideration, as in my opinion the broad definition comes first, and includes the multiple more-or-less literal/allegorical interpretations of the Biblical account that have been around since the first century, then in the 1920s the term begins to be primarily associated with Fundamentalists who accept old earth creation, and even animal evolution, but reject the moral implications of human evolution and successfully demand that no evolution be taught in US schools. Around this time purely literal Flood geology originates, but is confined to 7th day adventists, then that's revived in 1961 and around 1965 "scientific creationism" becomes the widely recognised idea of what it means, hence the American Heritage Dictionary's definition. The encarta article Creationism, Contributed By: Ronald L. Numbers and William Coleman gives a very useful overview. ... dave souza, talk 16:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've rethought the second paragraph to cover these points, and have inserted it while commenting out the original second para. The first paragraph needs to be revised, preferably on the basis of these definitions discussed above, not least as "Biblical creationism is the belief in literal interpretations of the book of Genesis." links via a redirect to Creation according to Genesis which discusses both literal and allegorical viewpoints. .. dave souza, talk 18:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Nota bene: a good dictionary lists definitions in chronological order, from oldest to newest, but it does not concern itself with popularity. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

But we're not writing a dictionary, we're writing an encyclopedia. What does a good encyclopedia do? --Fradulent Ideas 13:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Since my comment has been displaced by inter-posting it's a bit out of place. The comment refered to "Does a dictionary really determine how something is "most often" used?" The answer is clearly, no.

A good encyclopedia should provide a good definition of a term as needed. Personally, I think the current def is OK. On the other hand, Homes has other ideas, I'm hoping he'll offer something that we can consider that builds on the current def if needed. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if a dictionary doesn't provide such a determination, then Adam's suggestion won't work for a citation. Are there any other thoughts on how to determine what is the "most often" used? --Fradulent Ideas 00:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

An undiscussed undoing

An editor undid my edits: with the summary: "undid earlier change to more neutral and coherent version." I think there is a number of problems with the current version:

1. The current version says that "in the secular sense" creationism is a "political doctrine". This statement is not cited and worse, I do not think it is true. There is no "creationism" political action committee, there is no creationist "litmus test". Creationism is primarily a religious, not political, belief. It is only because religion has become politicized that creationism has political implications. The version I wrote explains this better (and makes the context clear since the United States is basically the only place where creationism is a political issue: everywhere else it is a cultural/religious phenomenon)
2. The current version does not link to Creation and evolution in public education which is obviously the place where creationism is most politicized.
3. The current version has a sentence that reads: "The meaning of the term "creationism" depends upon the context wherein it is used, as it refers to a particular origin belief within a particular political culture." This sentence is not strictly related to potlicial context even as it makes a vague gesture towards such. The first clause is completely superfluous: the meaning of all words is dependent on the context "wherein it is used". The second clause is equally meaningless simply saying that the context is particular. This isn't good writing at all.
4. The current version wastes an entire paragraph saying "creationism is hard to define". That is not really about the political context at all. The second paragraph should be the lead which is why, in my writing, I switched their order.

In sum, I think that my version is actually more coherent than the current version.

As for neutrality, I do not see any evidence that my version is somehow lacking over the current version. I encourage the editor who made this undo to explain precisely what they meant in this section of the talk page.

--Fradulent Ideas 13:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, my objection was more to do with your changes lack of coherence, than its neutrality. To address your points one at a time...

1. It is only because religion has become politicized that creationism has political implications No, it's because creationists have used largely political means to push their agenda that it has political implications. In fact the source you provided supports this.
2. ..does not link to Creation and evolution in public education.. Quite right, I hadn't meant to undo that.
3. .."The meaning of the term "creationism" depends upon the context wherein it is used.. Good writing or not, it's true. "Creationism" means something quite different to a hindu nationalist, than it would to a US christian fundamentalist. This is dependant on their political and cultural context. And the old order was better, it defined the common feature of disparate forms of creationism, then gave the best known example.
4. The current version wastes an entire paragraph saying "creationism is hard to define" Really? Does it? Seems to me it says that creationism in a political sense, is a movement to promote ones religious dogma of origins above other explanations, particularly scientific ones, and acknowledges that since those dogmas differ from person to person, group to group, it can be rather difficult to pin down.

Anyway, I would suggest in future, that you propose changes here first, and let other editors discuss them, since this is contentious issue. ornis 14:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ornis, you do a lot to keep WP NPOV. -- WolfieInu 14:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments such as this are really unhelpful as they do little more than say "I agree" without offering substantive criticism. Please read talk page guidelines and keep your comments on point. --Fradulent Ideas 15:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, are you a member of the talk page police, our own little wiki thought- and speach-crimes einsatzgruppen? Knock off the high-dudgeon (or is that trunceon?) crap, if you want to be taken seriously. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is also not appropriate for a talk page. See WP:TALK. If you have a problem with me, comment on my user talk. And also, remember WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY. --Fradulent Ideas 00:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that ornis has really understood my critique and in fact has made points in favor of my version:

1. creationists have used largely political means to push their agenda that it has political implications. In fact the source you provided supports this. While it is correct that creationists have used political means to push their agenda, this does not respond to my point that creationism is not a political doctrine. That creationism gets promoted politically does not make it a political doctrine. The current wording is false!
2. I hadn't meant to undo that. Please be more careful with your edits in the future.
3. Good writing or not, it's true. "Creationism" means something quite different to a hindu nationalist, than it would to a US christian fundamentalist. This is irrelevant to the point was making. The fact is that what creationism "means" is not a political issue. This point (made well) does not belong in this section.
4. Seems to me it says that creationism in a political sense, is a movement to promote ones religious dogma of origins above other explanations, particularly scientific ones, and acknowledges that since those dogmas differ from person to person, group to group, it can be rather difficult to pin down. An interesting interpretation, but as I demonstrated with my first point that's problematic in two ways: 1. creationism isn't a political movement and 2. the fact that the dogmas differ from person-to-person is a feature of dogma and political thought. It's like saying "people think differently from person to person". That's not very encyclopedic.

In short, I think that the reasons given for the undo and the subsequent defense made is very poor. I think that we need to writing-workshop this section because right now it says almost nothing encyclopedic.

--Fradulent Ideas 15:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

When did this doggerel become a verb, "writing-workshop"?

BTW, creationism has become a de facto political doctrine: the appropriation of creationism for political ends is well-known, well-funded, quite the vote-getter in the US, and a driver of various decisions taken in the several states and in the Federal government. I'm not too clear on what planet you live, but these are simple facts here on Earth. Maybe you should read-workshop a little. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, but unless we have a reference that states that creationism is a de facto political doctrine, we cannot simply state it. I think that this is a novel interpretation and bordering on violation of WP:NOR. Also, your response to me violates the spirit of WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY. It wasn't necessary for you to say "I'm not too clear on what planet you live." Please apologize. --Fradulent Ideas 00:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sentence about rulings

Creation science was ruled unacceptable for teaching in public school science classes in the ruling for the court case Edwards versus Aguillard, after which creationists invented the concept of intelligent design that was recently ruled unacceptable for teaching in public school science classes in the Dover Panda Trial ruling. That's some pretty substandard english right there. Again, I suggest you discuss these edits you want to make first. ornis 16:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Other than being a bit long, what is substandard about it? --Fradulent Ideas 16:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I split the sentences up into two shorter sentences if that helps. I also think it is disingenuous and mean for you to revert without discussing which you have done twice by my count. You seem to think that it's okay for you to revert without discussion while criticizing me for making edits without discussion. That seems very hypocritical. Isn't there a Misplaced Pages policy against hypocrisy and being mean? --Fradulent Ideas 16:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, I reverted you for making contentious and poorly written edits without discussing them. That sentence above for instance, can you really not see how ugly it is? and what exactly does it add over the original version: After legal judgements that teaching this in public schools contravened constitutional separation of Church and State, it was stripped of biblical references and called creation science, then when this was ruled unacceptable, presented as intelligent design.? If anything your version obfuscates the relationship of creationism, creation science and intelligent design. ornis 17:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

David Souza has recently cleaned up the new addition. Though longer, it does seem to have advantages over the earlier version, at least on a cursory examination. Silly rabbit 17:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict> Here it is for discussion:

After legal judgements that teaching this in public schools contravened constitutional separation of Church and State, it was stripped of biblical references and called creation science. When the court case Edwards versus Aguillard ruled that creation science similarly contravened the constitution, all references to "creation" in a draft school textbook were changed to refer to intelligent design, which was subsequently claimed to be a new scientific theory. The Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science, and contravenes the constitutional restriction on teaching religion in public school science classes.

If an earlier version is preferred or improvements can be made, that will be welcome. .. dave souza, talk 17:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that is better. ornis 17:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for listening, Dave. I made a few new tweaks to add McLean v. Arkansas. I'm curious, though, maybe this historical explanation is best left for the political controversy section? It may be too specific according to WP:LEAD. --Fradulent Ideas 18:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It should really be Daniel v. Waters that stopped creationism being taught, McLean v. Arkansas ruled creation science unconstitutional in the relevant district but was ignored nationwide. The court cases are central to the renaming of creationism, it's complex but this very simplified account is focussed on the name changes. I was trying to minimise the detail in the lead to focus on the naming, but as is evident a bit more information makes the statement a much clearer summary of the article. ... dave souza, talk 19:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, Dave. I do think that the court cases are central, but is it possible to summarize this excellent prose and then put it in lower section? --Fradulent Ideas 00:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream churches and timeframes

While it is true that most mainstream churches allow for the timeframes given by science, most do not go as far as to make it a dogmatic acceptance. Many mainstream churches are somewhat accomodating of those people who would believe in a literal interpretation when it gets right down to it. For example, while the Catholic Church has made strong statements in support of science, they also have not said it is an error to support Ussher's chronology and therefore there are plenty of Catholic creationists in the right-wing of the church fighting against the timeframes as other creationists do. Mainstream churches tend not to attack creationism directly: they instead tend to attack the ideas that only literal interpretations can be correct.

The claim was insinuated in the article that creationists timeframes are directly opposed to the theology of mainstream churches. I think that science is accepted by mainstream churches in a more nuanced apologetic fashion than that.

--Fradulent Ideas 13:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

While churches might be accommodating to a wide range of beliefs, many churches have issued statements condemning creationism and biblical literalism. There are many examples. See level of support for evolution of clergy letter project.--Filll 14:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Individual clergy members that make statements do not equate to the statements of the entire church organization. We could include comments that there are mainstream clergy-members which dispute creationism, but stating that the mainstream churches themselves do is slightly misleading. --Fradulent Ideas 16:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this a reading comprehension problem? Take a look at this for example.--Filll 17:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this illustrates perfectly the mainstream denomination's "agnosticism" towards evolution vs. creationism. Let's look carefully at the statements of the churches:

Neither evolution over an immensity of time nor the work done in a six-day week are articles of the creeds. EPISCOPAL BISHOP OF ATLANTA, PASTORAL LETTER.

Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That this 67th General Convention affirm its belief in the glorious ability of God to create in any manner.... THE GENERAL CONVENTION OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH.

To preserve their own integrity both science and religion need to remain in a healthful tension of respect toward one another and to engage in a searching debate which no more permits theologians to pose as scientists than it permits scientists to pose as theologians. THE LUTHERAN WORLD FEDERATION

3. That the General Assembly urge congregations to encourage and assist teachers and administrators in becoming sensitive to the religious perspectives of all persons in the schools, without sacrificing their professional commitments and standards regarding the teaching of science and teaching about religion. UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE U.S.A. (1983)

These all indicate that the churches make delicate accomodations of the creationist impulses of those in their particular communion. To be sure, I'm certain that these mainstream churches have not excommunicated heretics for preaching creationism or creation science, despite their stated disdain and lack of approbation for the subject.

17:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Filll, the way that clergy letter project seems to be spinning it, i'm having a hard time seeing anything there that explicitly rejects any possibility of God creating the universe, just plenty of vauge doublespeak about "religious truth" and "scientific truth", and it only seems to explicitly accept evolution, which of course, has little in and of itself to do with the creation of the universe. Homestarmy 17:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

References

1. Christianity, Evolution Not in Conflict, John Richard Schrock, Wichita Eagle May 17, 2005 page 17A
2. GCAG 1977 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGCAG1977 (help), General Council of the Assemblies of Godofficial assertion of creationism
3. Evangelical Presbyterian Church position that Bible is "infallible"
4. Barry 2001, p. 60-61 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBarry2001 (help)
5. Official Seventh-day Adventist belief statement advocating creationism
6. Prof. Michael J. Ghedotti, "Evolutionary Biology at Regis, a Jesuit Catholic School.
7. McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, Decision January 5, 1982.

BTW

Could we remove or archive the "References" section? It's no logner relevant. -- WolfieInu 15:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference entries are auto-generated by some references in the preceding text. They will automatically vanish once that text is archived. I would remove the section only when it is empty, otherwise we have dangling references. --Stephan Schulz 15:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delisted good articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists