Talk:Creationism

IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of creationism please do so at talk.origins or Debatepedia. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

Growing evidence for evolution

I question why this irrelevant section was put in the article, especially when there is no Creationism section in the Evolution article. If anyone can come up with a logical reason why it is in the article, I would like to know a logical reason why there is no creationism section in the Evolution article.--Jacksoncw (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Creationism, as we now use the term, is a re-branding of anti-evolution which responded to the growing evidence for evolution and it, s general acceptance in science. . . dave souza, talk 23:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It is impossible to understand creationism except in the context of evolution. As Dave says - creationism wouldn't exist without evolution. Guettarda (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Creationism did exist before evolution, it just didn't have the label. The belief has been around since the creation of man. I don't get your meaning, the belief that a being created the universe has been around forever, long before evolutionism.--Jacksoncw (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. The phenomenon we recognize as Creationism today dates back only to the 1920s, long after Darwin introduced his theories. It was an outgrowth of Fundamentalism and a reaction to German thinking during WWI, which the Fundamentalists believed was at least partially due to what they imagined as "Darwinism". Modern Creationism is indeed a reaction to Evolution, without which it would not exist in its present form(s). Modern Creationism was invented as if in an intellectual vacuum, and is not a continuation of previous schools of thought on creation. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It most certainly is a continuation of previous schools of thought. The article itself states: "is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being." This belief has been around since man existed. Its present form may have been altered during that time period but it certainly cannot be said that creationism is a reaction to evolution, although the title is derived from that time period the ideal most certainly is not.--Jacksoncw (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Creationism isn't the same as a belief in 'creation', either in the broad sense of a creator God (as opposed to a deistic God) or in the sense of a belief in any specific creation myth. Words can be used in more than one sense. That's especially problematic if, as in a case like this, the meanings overlap or shade into one-another. The article may not convey it well (and if so, we need to work on that), but creationism is a specifically 20th century phenomenon, born of a rejection not only of evolutionary science, but also of 19th century biblical scholarship.

By the way, you shouldn't quote Wikipedia articles to argue factual points, especially not on Wikipedia. Since, you know, you may well be arguing with the people who wrote the article. And the best you are likely to get is an admission that they didn't write as clearly as they should have. Guettarda (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly the article does not convey that message very well. That's not the message I was getting at all. Might I reccomend specifying that extremely broad and extremely vague description in the lede. Because what I got was that Creationism is the belief that a supernatural being created everything, which has been around for thousands of years.--Jacksoncw (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

As late as the 1920s antievolutionists chose to dedicate their organizations to "Christian Fundamentals," "Anti-Evolution," and "Anti-False Science," not to creationism. It was not until 1929 that one of George McCready Price’s former students, the Seventh-day Adventist biologist Harold W. Clark, explicitly packaged Price’s new catastrophism as "creationism." In a brief self-published book titled Back to Creationism Clark urged readers to quit simply opposing evolution and to adopt the new "science of creationism," by which he meant Price’s flood geology. For decades to come various Christian groups, from flood geologists to theistic evolutionists, squabbled over which camp most deserved to use the creationist label. However, by the 1980s the flood geologists/scientific creationists had clearly co-opted the term for their distinctive interpretation of earth history.

— Ronald L. Numbers, Antievolutionists and Creationists

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

My previous statement still stands, the ideal has been around for millinea.--Jacksoncw (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Your "previous statement" falls flat on its face. We have a cast iron source stating that Creationism is an outgrowth/rebranding of anti-evolutionism and particularly "Price’s new catastrophism". It should be blindingly obvious that the advent of uniformitarian geology and Darwinian evolution fundamentally changed the focus of what had previously been the unopposed default assumption of the historical accuracy of (a literal interpretation of) the Genesis account. To treat 'after' as a mere continuation of 'before' is both historically (as acceptance of the literal interpretation went into eclipse in the latter half of the 19th century) and epistemologically inaccurate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn, Jacksoncw is indeed making an important point. The lead starts out with a definition of creationism sensu lato and then shifts to discussing Creationism sensu stricto. I agree with him that this is confusing and needs to be addressed. Not everyone who fits the definition of the lead would consider themselves or be considered by most to be a Creationist. Most Christians, Jews and Moslems hold that belief. Practically all Catholics fit that description, for example, but there are not many Catholics who are Creationists.

Creationism (big "C") is not simply holding that belief, but actively rejecting selected conclusions of various branches of science because they are perceived as conflicting with that belief. It is in its very essence a reaction to science, and the article does indeed do a poor job of establishing that at the outset.

I submit that the scope of this article needs to be more clearly defined, so that the reader is clear about whether creationism or Creationism is being discussed in each particular section. The history section also needs work to make it clear that what we call Creationism today is a 20th century movement with no roots in the past. The way it reads now, it is no wonder that Jacksoncw sees continuity between previous schools of creationist thought and the modern forms of Creationism.

It may be obvious to you and me that, in the section in question, Creationism sensu stricto is being discussed. However, I cannot fault Jacksoncw for assuming otherwise. The fault is in the article, and we should be grateful to Jacksoncw for pointing out the inconsistency so that it can be addressed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This paragraph belongs in either the Evolution page or the Creation-Evolution Controversy page, period. It contains no information in understanding the concept of Creationism and displays a bias that does not belong in an encyclopedia article. The Creation-Evolution Controversy page is ALWAYS going to try to creep in here and everywhere else it can via people with their own agenda. I hope Wiki doesn't lose its integrity and cleans this article up from everything that is not Creationism information. Thinktank33 (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"It contains no information in understanding the concept of Creationism": wrong. It contains no information useful to understand the concept of "belief in creation", but that's not the subject of the article either. As explained above by others, Creationism sensu stricto was born in the 1920s precisely as a reaction against the theory of Evolution.Spree85 (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

One question: is the article on Creationism "sensu strictu" or "generalno"? It seems to cover a larger area w/a focus on the recent movement. Then, those paragraphs on the broader meaning of the term could be described as the conditions (from a Hx point of view). Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 19:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Judaism

It appears that under the Movements section Judaism has two sections. Can these be consolidated? Mthoodhood (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Claims vs. statements

Diff Weasel words are unsupported attributions, such as "It is said that" without naming who said it. Here the issue is about differences such as the one between "claimed" and "said" in contexts such as "...intelligent design, which was subsequently claimed to be a new scientific theory."

WP:CLAIM does not forbid the use of words such as "claim," but calls for them to be used judiciously.

In this context the word "claim" is correct, since the statement's credibility was indeed called into question in court, in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. The judge's ruling explicitly stated that The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.

__ Just plain Bill (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Also, replacing it with "says" or similar becomes quite clumsy when it is not an individual doing the 'saying'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

'Says' and 'state' are more neutral. 'Claim', however, would be more appropriate in a sentence specifically about a trial and *only* about a trial. ^rossnixon 02:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Have put back two 'claims' that seem relevant. Have I missed any? ^rossnixon 03:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it would be appropriate anywhere the claim/statement has been discredited or heavily contradicted -- per WP:GEVAL. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not happy with this group of changes by Rossnixon, which appear to change "said" to "claim" everywhere discussing points of view opposite to creationism, and "claim" to "said" everywhere discussing points of view supportive of creationism. I don't believe that's what Bill and Hrafn were suggesting above, nor is it a change with the goal of neutrality in mind. I've reverted. Ross, please discuss such changes here before instituting them again, so we can agree on a scope under which to change the wording globally throughout the article. Also, Ross and Mthoodhood, there seems to be a lot of edit warring going on over this... please discuss the change instead. Edit warring is unlikely to accomplish anything productive.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean giving two viewpoints equal weight. Can you provide some reasoning as to why you disagree with the changes.IRWolfie- (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, but you have it the other way around. rossnixon was making the changes as to subtly give more apparent credence to creationism. Anyway, those changes are months old. It has already been reverted.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Section titled "Christianity" - formerly "Judaism and Christianity

I propose a different name for the section... Judaism has its own section slightly further down the page that focuses more specifically on Judaism. The section that was formerly titled " Judaism and Christianity" seems to change focus from first Christianity (with a minor mention of old Jewish views; which are covered in the history section anyhow) then focuses entirely on the Bible. user:Mthoodhood brought the point up a month ago and suggested the two sections were consolidated... but there's nothing more than two sentences on Judaism to consolidate from the first section.

Maybe a little too bold in changing the name of the section to just "Christianity", but to include Judaism in the title seems misleading and confusing. Perhaps a better title would be something like "Biblical interpretation vs. Genesis", because the whole section and the sub-sections are about biblical interpretation and Christian views. Peter (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. You're right, the article's been needing that distinction for a while. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 17:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Sensu Strictu Creationism

So, if this article is about the 're-branding of anti-evolution which responded to the growing evidence for evolution and its general acceptance in science' (Dave Souza, an earlier post), where is the article on Creationism as a belief that a supreme being created the world (not necessarily restricted to modern times)? Should there be an in-article separation or two separate articles or no article...ideas, anyone? Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 14:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Genesis creation narrative and creation myth in general.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

GI. Thanks. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 19:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Theistic evolution

Can we have a section on Theistic Evolution? It is the belief that God created everything by means of what has been discovered in science. Technically it is a form of Creationism, so is it possible for it to have a section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.223.184 (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we still have a section on creationism#Theistic evolution but for some reason the sections on old earth creationism, young earth creationism etc. have been rolled into creationism#Views in the United States. Less clear about the continuum of views and the sequence, not a good idea. . . dave souza, talk 21:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The 'Creationism internationally' section is a complete dog's breakfast. We have TE & the Catholic Church tossed in there, as well as various individual European and Middle-Eastern countries listed independently of 'Europe and Middle East' and 'Islamic countries'. The forms of creationism are currently discussed as an (un-ToC-listed) section called 'Types of Biblical creationism' within the Christianity section. This is ludicrously improper WP:WEIGHTing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

(The lack of ToC listing was due to a limiter-tag. I've restructured things so that they're hopefully in a more easy-to-find hierarchy -- with 'internationally' divided up by continent, and the forms of creationism no longer in a sub-sub-sub-sub-category.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we have a section on this that is more conspicuous?