Talk:Creationism/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions about Creationism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Movements?

The article describes several creationist "movements" and lumped under this are various types of creationist belief. I think that these are not "movements" but examples of creationist beliefs. Therefore lumping all this together as movements is IMHO quite wrong.

Now I believe that there are clearly some "movements" in relation to this topic but these should be dealth with separately. These range from the people active in trying to persuade people that men and dinosaurs co-existed to those adopting the more subtle "creation science" technique which seeks to convice people that other scientific theories about the origin of the universe are wrong or that take the position that postulating "a creator" is just about as valid a piece of scientific theorising as was postulations about the atom hundreds of years before more concrete evidence for the atom was found. I would argue therefore that we should not label "belief systems" as "movements", and we should create a new sub section summarising the attempts made in recent years by activist groups in trying to counter scientific based naturalistic explanations.

What do other editors think?--Hauskalainen (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly assert that there exists an intelligent design movement, centred around the Discovery Institute (and subsidiary organisations) and a Young Earth Creationism/Creation Science movement (centred around Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, the Creation Research Society, and a host of lesser institutions and organisations). Historically there has been a (generally OEC) creationist movement since the early 20th century (with organisations including the Anti-Evolution League of America and the Evolution Protest Movement). A belief system becomes a "movement" when it forms organisational structures to promote its beliefs -- both to the general public and/or in the political sphere. Various strands of creationism have done this, so it is entirely appropriate to identify them as "movements"(particularly when at least some of them have explicitly self-identified as such). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Or are these movements better described merely as a form of evangelism attached to a particular belief system? I guess what I am asking is "should these activist movements be listed under the appropriate forms of creationist belief or be listed separately?". I think it is wrong to list for example African forms of creation by deities as being "movements" if there is no active form of evangelism associated with these cultural belief systems. --Hauskalainen (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No. These movements have as their purpose Christian apologetics defending, as well as evangelism promoting, these beliefs. And their focus is an individual belief (some form of creationism) that forms a part of a number of differing "belief systems" (e.g. YEC in Seventh Day Adventistism, much of conservative Evangelicalism and some/many?/most? Traditionalist Catholics, ID in other conservative Evangelicals, and some conservative Catholics). 'Creationism' is generally only taken to mean belief in a creation theology when that belief is sufficiently narrow and/or rigid as to deny science that threatens/contradicts some of those beliefs. That is not true of "African forms of creation by deities" (or any other non-Abrahamic religions except for Hindu creationism) AFAIK, so they are not relevant. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

the major issue i have with this article is maybe the theological misuse of the word 'literal'- it is ambivalent and not strictly defined. Personally,I would argue that the only literal position is Old earth creationism ( which is historically the church's position, even amongst the early fundamentalist movement).That is my position. I would seperate young earth creationism by describing it as a methodology of expounding scripture which has no respect for revelation as the foundation of theology and has no desire to let God speak through his word but rather misuses and misinterprets biblical text to make a political and social point- but I wouldn't write it in an encyclopedia! Articles like this should serve as portals and give as little POV as possible- by using 'literal' one makes a qualified judgment which is opinion and not fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.210 (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hinduism and creationism edit

I spent 3 hours sourcing this paragraph, adding 2 new references and multiple wikipedia links as below, which was undone. Please be considerate before randomly undoing it, especially if you are not a hindu. I welcome comments from all religions. Thampran (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

My edit in the subsection below, which I feel has significantly improved on the stub before.

Hinduism and creationism

A variety of theories exist regarding the universe, but in general the Hindu view of the cosmos is both eternal and cyclic. An account is recorded in the scriptures according to which the universe, the Earth, along with humans and other creatures undergo repeated cycles of creation and destruction (pralaya) depending on whether it is the day or night for the creator god Brahma of the Hindu Trinity. Put simply, creation occurs when Brahma is awake as his lila (amusement) and the universe is destroyed when he sleeps. The time scales of the Hindu creation cycle correspond roughly to the modern cosmology. According to Carl Sagan, "A day of Brahma is 8.64 billion years long, longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang".^[1]

In general, many Hindus also believe in evolution due to the serial progression of avatars, which are similar to the scientific concept of evolution.^[2] When Brahma is awake, in addition to all life, the god also creates "avatars" which are (manifestations) of the second god in the trinity, Vishnu. There are several stages and avatars of several gods, (25 in some texts, but the 10 attributed to Vishnu, called Dasavatara of Vishnu), are important in maintaining life. Among the ten major avatars, nine have already appeared and the final one will appear in the future (at the end of the Brahma's day when all time ends). The 8.4 billion years is divided into four epochs or yugas, named in reverse order (4 or Sathya, 3 or treta , 2 or dwapara and 1 or Kali) of progression in time. The avatars of Vishnu start with the non human: the first is a fish (Matsya), then a tortoise (Kurma), then a boar (Varaha) and finally a half-man/half-lion (Narasimha); all of which appeared in the Satya Yuga (or the "pure age or true age"). The first humanoid, a dwarf man (Vamana), then appears, followed by an axe bearing man (Parashurama), and then appears a fully human avatar (Ramachandra), all described in the Treta Yuga (third epoch). More human avatars appear in the next, Dwapara Yuga (or second epoch), with Krishna (meaning 'dark colored' or 'very attractive') avatar, along with his brother Balarama (or Buddha in other texts). When Krishna disappeared from the earth, the final epoch or Kali Yuga (the "foul" age or the "age of Anger") started. We are now living in the Kali Yuga. The only avatar expected in this epoch is the final avatar Kalki (in some texts Shiva), also called "the destroyer of foulness", or "Eternity", or simply "time"). This is the final of the god trinity, who will bring with him the end of the life and time cycles and all life will be released from Brahma's lila or maya (translates to play or farce or unreality) to rejoin the cosmic consciousness or Brahman to attain (moksha). Then Brahma will sleep until his next day comes, when he wakes up the life cycles and time cycles begin once again.

Some Hindu religious and political organizations have been promoting creationism-evolution study.^[3]

"Good reason" for removing: it's UNSOURCED

The above, striking unsourced material:

A variety of theories exist regarding the universe, but in general the Hindu view of the cosmos is both eternal and cyclic. An account is recorded in the scriptures according to which the universe, the Earth, along with humans and other creatures undergo repeated cycles of creation and destruction (pralaya) depending on whether it is the day or night for the creator god Brahma of the Hindu Trinity. Put simply, creation occurs when Brahma is awake as his lila (amusement) and the universe is destroyed when he sleeps. The time scales of the Hindu creation cycle correspond roughly to the modern cosmology. According to Carl Sagan, "A day of Brahma is 8.64 billion years long, longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang".^[4]
In general, many Hindus also believe in evolution due to the serial progression of avatars, which are similar to the scientific concept of evolution.^[5] When Brahma is awake, in addition to all life, the god also creates "avatars" which are (manifestations) of the second god in the trinity, Vishnu. There are several stages and avatars of several gods, (25 in some texts, but the 10 attributed to Vishnu, called Dasavatara of Vishnu), are important in maintaining life. Among the ten major avatars, nine have already appeared and the final one will appear in the future (at the end of the Brahma's day when all time ends). The 8.4 billion years is divided into four epochs or yugas, named in reverse order (4 or Sathya, 3 or treta , 2 or dwapara and 1 or Kali) of progression in time. The avatars of Vishnu start with the non human: the first is a fish (Matsya), then a tortoise (Kurma), then a boar (Varaha) and finally a half-man/half-lion (Narasimha); all of which appeared in the Satya Yuga (or the "pure age or true age"). The first humanoid, a dwarf man (Vamana), then appears, followed by an axe bearing man (Parashurama), and then appears a fully human avatar (Ramachandra), all described in the Treta Yuga (third epoch). More human avatars appear in the next, Dwapara Yuga (or second epoch), with Krishna (meaning 'dark colored' or 'very attractive') avatar, along with his brother Balarama (or Buddha in other texts). When Krishna disappeared from the earth, the final epoch or Kali Yuga (the "foul" age or the "age of Anger") started. We are now living in the Kali Yuga. The only avatar expected in this epoch is the final avatar Kalki (in some texts Shiva), also called "the destroyer of foulness", or "Eternity", or simply "time"). This is the final of the god trinity, who will bring with him the end of the life and time cycles and all life will be released from Brahma's lila or maya (translates to play or farce or unreality) to rejoin the cosmic consciousness or Brahman to attain (moksha). Then Brahma will sleep until his next day comes, when he wakes up the life cycles and time cycles begin once again.
Some Hindu religious and political organizations have been promoting creationism-evolution study.^[6]

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Be it also noted that Hinduwebsite.com doesn't use the word avatar and that Thampran's interpretation of the website seems to be OR.83.248.186.17 (talk) 07:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS

I would like to note that User:Thampran is WP:CANVASing for reverts to his favoured version on:

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible Sources for Hindu time estimation and creation myths (Please discuss if valid)

~~http://www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/41.html~~

http://vinaymangal.googlepages.com/VedicTimeTravel.pdf

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/vp/vp037.htm

I am too sleepy :) Can seem to find only western interpretations. No direct hindu articles Thampran (talk) 08:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The subject of this article is Creationism, not "Hindu time estimation" or Hindu creation myths -- so those issues are largely off-topic here.
Geocities is not a WP:RS, and in any case, that link is broken.
The Vishnu Purana is a WP:PRIMARY source, so requires a secondary source for interpretation.
vinaymangal.googlepages.com appears to be WP:SELFPUB, so cannot be used on an article on anything other than Vinay Mangal.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I am finding that the www.hinduwebsite.com is run by an single individual (possibly a hindu influenced by christian theology by the opinions expressed). http://www.hinduwebsite.com/onegod.asp almost advocates for one god! Mostly opinion on the site and not that useful to me. Thampran (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Then either (i) place a {{verify credibility}} or {{Self-published inline}} tag next to it, or (ii) if you feel strongly about it, then remove the material cited to it. I would however point out that this would leave the section with so little (and so unconnected) sourced information, that it is likely to be eliminated altogether. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hrafa. Is there a real "creationist movement" in Indian right now? Is evolution not taught in schools? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hindu creationism appears to be solely an International Society for Krishna Consciousness thing. Whether that counts as "real" or not, I'd prefer not to speculate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Update?

So what happened to the stuff above? The stuff sought to be inserted by User:Thampran was substantially correct, so if it is considered relevant, then it is worth finding sources. Given that "Creationism is the religious belief that [...] were created in some form by [...] deity", and given that creationism doesn't seem to mean "rejection of evolution", I don't see why "Hindu creation myths" would not be relevant to this article. Shreevatsa (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What happened is that it was rejected, as badly sourced and/or off-topic. Creation myths belong in creation myths, not here. The creationist movement started off calling itself the 'anti-evolution' movement, so yes it does mean "rejection of evolution". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I would further point out that this article does not contain the creation myths of any other religion -- including ones that have far greater connection to the term 'creationism' (for more detail, read the book The Creationists) than Hinduism does. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, thanks for the clarification. As I said, "badly sourced" is possible to fix, but if it is off-topic then it is not worth doing so. It is unfortunate that the generic-sounding word "creationism" is used to mean something so specific, but American usage does seem to have a tendency to coin vague, poorly descriptive phrases like "pro-life" and "pro-choice". :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

New resource - NCSE makes available online the Creation/Evolution Journal

NCSE makes available on-line the Creation/Evolution Journal running from 1980 to 1996. I guess a good resource for all Creationism/ID/Evolution articles--LexCorp (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

and the Reports of the National Center for Science Education running from 1997 to 2009.--LexCorp (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "creationism" (again)

I've fact-tagged the statement "In a broad sense, it covers a wide range of interpretations of beliefs that a supernatural force such as a deity intervenes, or has intervened, directly in the natural world." -- for two reasons:

As far as I know, we don't have a WP:RS for this definition.
Its undue breadth is being used as an excuse to introduce creation myths into the article.

The problem is that most of the scholarly material written about creationism is written in an American (or Anglo-American) context. This means that what explicit (Creationism's Trojan Horse p283, Evolution vs. creationism ppxxi-xxiii) and implicit (The Creationists, Tower of Babel) descriptions of it are in that context. This means that although Creationism may exist outside this context, a WP:RS definition does not. While this creates problems for us, I do think that it means that, at the very least, we should not state a 'general' definition of "creationism" that conflicts with them. Both an allegorical interpretations of Genesis and theistic evolution exist in the American context, but are not taken to be "creationism" by scholars of the subject in that context. Therefore it would be inappropriate to have a definition of "creationism" that would appear to be inclusive of such scholar-excluded things (as it appears "In a broad sense, it covers a wide range of interpretations of beliefs that a supernatural force such as a deity intervenes, or has intervened, directly in the natural world" does). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur Hrafn, this has been an ongoing source of misunderstanding. Creation myths is an article that deals with details of creation mythology from religions all over the world, and throughout history. Anything related to Hindu creation myths (or others) properly belongs there. This article, Creationism, is specifically about the contemporary Christian (and primarily American) response to science and evolutionary theory, and it is a political movement as much as it is a religous belief. Perhaps the hat note at the top of the article could be used to clarify this? Doc Tropics 14:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far -- Judaic & Islamic creationism is very real, and there is at least vestigial evidence that Hindu creationism exists. The problem is that there has been no in-depth scholarship outside Christianity, so little to base a definition on beyond analogy/extrapolation from the American/Christian definition, and occasional comments such as this (which I think distinguishes Creationism from creation myths generally rather well):

Creationism is about maintaining particular, narrow forms of religious belief -- beliefs that seem to their adherents to be threatened by the very idea of evolution.
— Eugenie Scott (2004), Evolution vs. creationism: an introduction, p xii

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Many — if not most — Americans think of the creation and evolution controversy as a dichotomy with "creationists" on one side, and "evolutionists" on the other. This assumption all too often leads to the unfortunate conclusion that because creationists are believers in God, that evolutionists must be atheists. The true situation is much more complicated: creationism comes in many forms, and not all of them reject evolution.
It is highly desirable to move people away from this inaccurate dichotomy. A simple classroom exercise, the Creationism/Evolution Continuum, has been used successfully by middle and high school teachers as well as university professors to illustrate the many intermediate positions between the extremes. ....
— Eugenie Scott (December 7th, 2000), The Creation/Evolution Continuum

As I recall, that was the original reason for casting creationism as a spectrum including theistic evolution. If we accept that the more recent definition excludes positions compatible with science on evolution and Earth history, then we still need to make it explicit that the term has been contested, and many believers in creation dispute the validity of belief in antievolution. The historical aspect also gets messy: creationists have a habit of claiming as predecessors scientists who did not hold the modern dogmatic rejection of science on biblical grounds. Care would be needed to recast the article, and it's questionable if it would stop editors from wanting other creation myths to be included. However, it could be possible to make a statement in the lead that this article covers only the wide range of beliefs in the antievolution movement, limiting it to the narrower definition while acknowledging that the term has been contested by other denominations and religions covered by the creation myth article. . dave souza, talk 18:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the topic of this article is 'Creationism' not the 'Creationism/Evolution Continuum', and as such only contains the Creationism side of the continuum. The issue isn't who the creationists claim for their side, but what viewpoints self-label, or are labeled by experts, as 'Creationist'. Do all that "many believers in creation dispute the validity of" describing "belief in antievolution" as "creationism"? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Ronald L. Numbers

When the Origin of Species went on sale late in 1859, the term "creationist" commonly designated a person who believed in the special origination of a soul for each human fetus, as opposed to a traducianist, who believed that the souls of children were inherited from their parents. Although Darwin (in private) and his allies occasionally referred to their opponents as "creationists," for about seventy-five years after the publication of his book such adversaries were more typically called "advocates of creation" or, increasingly, "anti-evolutionists." This custom prevailed well into the twentieth century, in large part because antievolutionists remained united far more by their hostility to evolution than by any common commitment to a particular view of creation. 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.[3]

Eugenie Scott

The "Pillars of Creationism" are the view that "Evolution is a 'Theory in Crisis'", "Evolution and Religion are Incompatible" and that "Balancing' Evolution" (with Creationism) is desirable.(Evolution vs. creationism pp xxi-xxiii)

Barbara Forrest

CURRENT COMMONALITIES An analysis of American creationism of all varieties reveals a number of shared characteristics: (1) belief in the creation of the universe by a supernatural designer and (usually) the designer's continuing intervention in the creation; (2) implacable anti-evolutionism, stemming from opposition to the scientific consensus on the evolution of the universe and life, such opposition being based on theological, moral, ideological, and political, but never scientific grounds; (3) criticism of all or most methodologies underpinning current scientific evidence for the evolution of life, without presenting for peer review any competing theory of origins; and (4)the most fundamental aspect of creationism: the explicit or implicit grounding of anti-evolutionism in religious scripture. And, of course there is the indefatigable political effort to influence and ultimately rewrite school science curricula.
— Creationism's Trojan Horse, p283

Oxford English Dictionary

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).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the "broad" definition of creationism - i.e. "In a broad sense, it covers a wide range of interpretations of beliefs that a supernatural force such as a deity intervenes, or has intervened, directly in the natural world" - is misleading, and should be deleted until someone can find a convincing source that backs it. While it is obviously likely that a creationist may believe that a divine being intervenes in the world more generally, "creationism" refers to creation. Any broader use of the term "creationism" is probably just bad English, I'm afraid. Westmorlandia (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested replacement

How's this as an alternate to the current rather woolly lead paragraph:

Creationism is the religious belief,<ref>Scott & Eldredge 2005, p. 114</ref> that attributes the origin of the universe and life, to supernatural 'special creation'.<ref>'Creationism', [[Oxford English Dictionary]], Second Edition, 1989</ref> It is closely associated with a religiously-motivated rejection of the theory of evolution.<ref name=num/><ref>Scott & Eldredge 2005, ppxxi-xxiii, summarised at [http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/pillars-creationism The Pillars of Creationism]</ref><ref>''[[Creationism's Trojan Horse]]'', p283</ref>

Without the ref-tags being nowiki'd:

Creationism is the religious belief,^[7] that attributes the origin of the universe and life, to supernatural 'special creation'.^[8] It is closely associated with a religiously-motivated rejection of the theory of evolution.^[9]^[10]^[11]

Note that the definition does not state "a single act of supernatural 'special creation'" -- so allows for the possibility of progressive creationism and/or multiple tinkering by an intelligent designer. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks reasonable, it appears that special creation needs improvement. Theory of evolution is a redirect to evolution, suggest scientific theory of evolution.

Since pro-evolution use of the term has been removed, the 2nd paragraph sentence "Whilst some have tried to refute these theories, others believe in types of creationism that do not exclude all of these theories" looks a bit odd. Suggest changing it to "Whilst some religious views are opposed to these theories, other religious beliefs in divine creation are compatible with or do not exclude all of these theories. The latter previously held that their beliefs were rightly called creationism, but by the 1980s the term had been co-opted by flood geologists and anti-evolution creationists."

That could be cited to Ron Numbers as quoted above. . . dave souza, talk 13:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's rather murky even as is. "These theories" (P2S2) appears to refer to the "naturalistic explanations for the universe and for life" (P2S1) rather than the "natural biological processes, in particular evolution, as an explanation accounting for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth" (P1S2, which is the sentences before, and only refers, indirectly, to a single 'theory', evolution). I don't think, by any stretch, that it can be considered to have been referring to the recently-deleted sentence: "a wide range of interpretations of beliefs" (which I think is what you mean by "pro-evolution use of the term has been removed"). I would suggest simply replacing "these theories" with "these explanations" to clarify. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point, "these explanations" works better. The recently-deleted sentence: "a wide range of interpretations of beliefs" was indeed what I was referring to: without saying that my proposal is in any way ideal, I think the second paragraph should cover the point that historically, theists could consider themselves creationists while accepting evolutionary and geological science. Once that's stated, we can then follow modern usage and have anti-evolution creationists of various views, divided from pro-science people including theists who accept evolution. Here are the first three sentences of the second paragraph at present:

In many countries, belief in creationism has decreased as scientific theories have been presented that support more naturalistic explanations for the universe and for life. Whilst some have tried to refute these theories, others believe in types of creationism that do not exclude all of these theories. When mainstream scientific research produces conclusions which contradict a strict creationist interpretation of scripture, some will reject the conclusions of the research and/or its underlying scientific theories and/or its methodology

Rethinking that to avoid the implication that science has caused a decline in belief,

Many mainstream denominations and religious believers in divine creation have come to terms with scientific theories that present naturalistic explanations of the formation of the universe and of life, a range of beliefs which have been termed theistic evolution. While believers in theistic evolution have in the past used the label creationism for their views, by the 1980s the term had been co-opted by flood geologists and anti-evolution creationists. When mainstream scientific research has produced work which contradicts a literal interpretation of scripture, creationists have rejected the conclusions of the research and/or its underlying scientific theories and/or its methodology.

The remainder of the paragraph would follow on from that. . . dave souza, talk 18:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

How hard were the pro-evolution theists trying to claim the word 'Creationism' for themselves? My impression was that the anti-evolutionists were only using the word sporadically before the resurgence in the 1960s, so any concerted effort by the pro-evolution forces would have foreclosed the issue. Was their use sufficiently wide that it deserves WP:DUE in the lead? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thumbing (admittedly fairly quickly) through The Creationists the first contemporary usage of Creationism I can find (after Clark's) is in the title of Morris' Scientific Creationism (1974). The progression in the mainstream seems to be 'Deluge' (particularly 'Deluge Geology') in the 40s-50s to 'Creation' ('Progressive Creation' & 'Creation Research Society') in the 50s-60s, with Creationism becoming widespread reasonably late. Any early conflict over the use of it would therefore seem to be quite low-intensity. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've tended to accept Ron Numbers, "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, looking at my 1985 Chambers Concise dictionary, I was surprised to find only the anti-evolution sense, so that meaning had taken hold in the UK by then. Ruse 2003 takes care to use the broad sense any believer / narrow sense antievolution distinction, but gives no indication of who uses the broad sense. I've had individual editors here take that view, but hardly a reliable source. However, still worth reviewing that paragraph to avoid the science = loss of belief suggestion as currently phrased, and to simplify it. . dave souza, talk 20:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

<ri> Looking at Chapter 7 of Forster & Marston's 1999 Genesis Through History (pdf from here) p. 54:

Finally, the word ‘creationist’ is itself confusing. The
creatorship of God is central to Christianity, and it is in our view impossible to be any sort of a Christian without being a ‘creationist’. So to a Christian theist who believes that God can work through ‘natural’ processes, when does a so-called ‘progressive creationist’ become an ‘evolutionary creationist’? Exactly how much micro-evolution is acceptable? R L Numbers, having called his book The Creationists, seems to want to limit it (for some reason) to non-evolutionary creationists – though at
times is hard put to delineate them.

They cite Howard J. Van Till as one example of an "evolutionary creationist". . . dave souza, talk 21:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Numbers' "squabbled" does not necessarily mean a particularly intense or extensive conflict (and tends to support a fairly low-intensity & sporadic one) -- also (given "various Christian groups") one that may have involved YEC vs OEC conflicts & the like as much as (or more than) pro vs anti evolution.
AFAIK the advocates of the viewpoint tend to term it 'evolutionary creation' not 'evolutionary creationism'.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

With this definition, 'creationists' (a tiny group of people, principally in the US) have expanded their importance by representing most everyone on the planet. The definition is missing several necessary additions: (1) creationists believe traditional religions and traditional science are in conflict; and (2) creationists don't distinguish the objects of the physical & natural sciences from the subjects of religions, philosophies, and arts; and (3) creationists believe the word 'true' as used by scientists (which happily flips to false when science progresses) is the same word 'true' as used in philosophy and religions; and creationists believe scientific theories are judged by their explanations, not by examining their predictions. These beliefs distinguish creationists from most religious people and from scientists.

The question 'Did God have an influence in the evolution of man?' is not a scientific question. No consequence of this assumption can be tested by scientists. Most scientists I know have no objection to answering 'Yes': including those who have devoted their lives to evolutionary biology. Geologist (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Genetic engineering, universe simulation etc.

Why does this article presuppose that creationism is a religious concept? Surely it is just the belief that the human species was created by some other being or group of beings, a belief that does not require that those beings would be Gods or supernatural - they may merely have been aliens using genetic engineering, or beings in an "outer universe" that have created this one as a simulation environment in which they engineer artificial creatures such as humans and other life (i.e. the Simulation hypothesis). Without the requirement that the creators were Gods, the definition would include the beliefs of Raëlism as a form of creationism. And what would the difference be between the creators of a simulation hypothesis universe and Gods anyway, as they would have the ultimate power to manipulate the universe and its physical laws, whilst occupying a space inaccessible from within the simulated universe? Is this not a form of creationism? Josh Keen (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Creationism could be about a lot of things, but in practice it is closely bound to religion. Very few people push the other views you mentioned. Johnuniq (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Because creationism is ubiquitously religiously based -- read the book The Creationists. Those holding a viewpoint of a natural creator are only a 'tiny minority' (and thus not eligible for WP:DUE) nor do we have reliable sources expanding the definition of 'Creationism' to include them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As always, verification from reliable sources has shown that creationism has been used since 1929 for specific anti-evolution religious concepts, and before that has been used widely for a religious doctrine as well as being in limited use for the idea that species were created by direct divine intervention rather than by laws (or secondary causes in the words of the time). The beliefs of Raëlism include a form of creationism, and also appear to be a form of religion. . dave souza, talk 04:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

C. S. Lewis

Is this edit really such a great idea?

In his works Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain, Clive Staples Lewis describes the biblical account of Adam and Eve as a "true myth", as something with a factually correct metaphorical message not to be taken literally. He comments in chapter 33 of Mere Christianity that "Perhaps a modern man can understand the Christian idea best if he takes it in connection with Evolution." He describes the process of human evolution in The Problem of Pain by writing: "For long centuries God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. He gave it hands whose thumbs could be applied to each of its fingers, and jaws and teeth and the throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated."[4]

Merely being a prominent novelist (such as Lewis) does not make his opinion notable enough for inclusion in this article. Especially when the quotes mentioned don't have a very direct and explicit connection with creationism per se. Gabbe (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

CS Lewis is also notable in the field of Christian apologetics, and was somewhere on the border between Theistic evolution and Creationism (and from what I've read tending publicly towards TE but privately towards Creo). I would however suggest that a good WP:SECONDARY source is needed. His association with Bernard Acworth (founder of the Evolution Protest Movement), and vacillation on the subject, garners him half a page in The Creationists. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I would however agree that the above material is pretty much irrelevant to this article's topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Lewis is a believer in evolution, and he refers to evolution positively in both books. Thus, he is perfectly in tune with all of the other statements in the section- since the purpose of the section is about those against Christian rejection of evolution. The Squicks (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Privately, however, {Lewis} found Acworth's arguments against evolution increasingly compelling—and the pretensions of many biologists repellent. In 1951 he confessed that his belief in the unimportance of evolution had been shaken while reading one of his friend's {Acworth's} manuscripts. "I wish I were younger," he confided to Acworth. "What inclines me now to think that you might be right in regarding it [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders."

—The Creationists, Expanded Ed. p 175 (square brackets= Numbers' interpolations; curly-brackets=mine)Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Ummm... what was the point of posting that? Because I see no point. Expressing thoughts of possible doubt in your belief at times absolutely does not mean anything. You can easily find quotes of Lewis saying that he has doubted whether or not God exists even after his conversion to Christianity. The Squicks (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I would regard stating that he "think[s] that [Acworth] might be right in regarding it [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives" is going considerably more than "Expressing thoughts of possible doubt" -- it is "expressing" very strong doubts -- and thus relevant to evaluation of Lewis' earlier public comments. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, Lewis had privately doubted his Christian faith with language that is almost identical to what you quoted about his faith in evolution. Does that mean, as you are seeming to suggest, that his Christianity was merely a public facade? The Squicks (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

For the purposes of this article and hence this talk page, the question is whether we have a reliable secondary source about the relevance and significance of CS Lewis to creationism. The text above is cited to Gary Gilley at the Southern View Chapel website, who asserts that Lewis believed in theistic evolution, and concludes that "he was a man who rejected or minimized many of the most important truths given to us by God." No mention that I've found of creationism, and not an impressive source. Looks like an irrelevance, and undue weight to original research. Hrafn's source is good, but doesn't seem to indicate any great significance for this article. Lewis does get called in aid by intelligent design creationists, but they'd quote mine their own grandmothers and are not reliable secondary sources. . . dave souza, talk 19:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I own Lewis' books, I could just as easily cite the exact page numbers for those quotes if you want. The Squicks (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue if of significance to the article subject, and per WP:V and WP:PSTS we need a reliable third party secondary source to base any paragraph or section about Lewis upon. We can't just synthesise our own opinion that the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe had major influence on creation science, an expert opinion is needed. . . dave souza, talk 20:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion sort of derailed a bit. Are you (The Squicks) disputing my claim that Lewis is not notable enough for inclusion in this article? Because to me, it's a bit like quoting Tom Hanks' opinion on God and evolution. Sure, Hanks is a prominent actor, but how relevant is his opinion to an article on Creationism? Gabbe (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. You're Tom Hanks comparison is so far out of left-field that I really don't know what to say. Lewis is one of the most prominent philosophical Christian apologists of the past 100 or so years. He has been described by some as "the Pope of Protestantism". He is a religious thinker the same way that Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Søren Kierkegaard were religious thinkers. If we quote Kierkegaard as a Christian philosopher, then we can quote Lewis as a Christian philosopher. The Squicks (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Without doubting his prominence as a philosphical Christian apologist, is there a secondary source confirming that his musings are prominent enough in relation to the general subject of creationism to be featured in this overview article? . . dave souza, talk 00:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Everything in that section is sourced to a primary source.

The 19th-century Danish theologian and forebear of Christian existentialism, Søren Kierkegaard, also rejects appeals to creationism, saying that: I still do not demonstrate God's existence from [the natural] order of things, and even if I began I would never finish and also would be obliged continually to live in suspenso lest something so terrible happen that my fragment of demonstration would be ruined.

This , which has been an accepted, consensus supported part of this article for a while, is sourced to a primary source. All I am advocating is that I include Lewis' opinions in the exact same fashion that ya'll have included Kierkegaard's opinions. The Squicks (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:PSTS. Wikipedia strongly prefers WP:SECONDARY sources. This is particularly true where conflicting primary sources (in this case Lewis' public writings versus private letters to Acworth, archived in the Marion E. Wade Collection) suggest an ambiguity as to his views. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Then, you would not mind me taking out the Kierkegaard quote and the rest of the information? The Squicks (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think removal of the the Kierkegaard quote would be justified, lacking a secondary source relating it to creationism. The text of the quote itself appears to be more a rejection of natural theology than creationism. As to "the rest of the information" (if that is taken beyond this quote & its framing), that needs to be decided on a case by case basis. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So by "famous author" you (The Squicks) meant "notable Christian apologist" rather than "bestselling novelist". Then your argument makes much more sense, I apologise for my misunderstanding. Nevertheless, I'm with Hrafn on this one, since a secondary source has not been attributed for making the connection between Creationism and the quotes by Kierkegaard and Lewis I support removing them both. Gabbe (talk) 09:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with removing Kierkegaard quotes, I can only find very obscure and indirect connections between creationism and Kierkegaard.[5]][6] However, not "Everything in that section is sourced to a primary source" – the Archbish of Canterbury speaking directly about modern creationism is sourced to the Grauniad. Murphy's opinions are cited: he is evidently a published author on creationism, cited in Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA and quoted at more length on the subject in this book, which might be a useful secondary source for the section. No doubt others can be found. . . . dave souza, talk 11:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

'Christian critique' section more generally

The closer I look at this section, the more I come around to The Squicks view of "taking out … the rest of the information".

Too many authors, who express no explicit view on creationism, are baldly cited within the article for support of the 'Christian critique'.

The most ridiculous example is Martin Luther who, given his Biblically-literalist views on geocentricity, would appear to be right at home with the YEC crowd, were he alive today. That some authors have based their criticism of creationism, in part, on his criticism of 'Glory Theology', does not make him a critic of creationism, and he should not be presented as such.

We should not be presenting 'XXX criticised <something-that-was-not-creationism>' explicitly or implicitly as rejection of creationism.

At most we should state that 'YYY criticised creationism, and based this on XXX's criticism of <something-that-was-not-creationism>' -- but even then only when that 'basis' is sufficiently relevant.

I have removed again the Kierkegaard material, as it both implicitly and explicitly ("He rejects appeals to creationism") presents him as rejecting creationism, when none of the sources state that he did so (only that they do so, and cite his work as support for their position). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Kierkegaard material has been re-added, sans the explicit claim that he rejects creationism. However, the bald statement of his views in a section on the 'Christian critique' of creationism still contains the implicit claim that he was 'critiquing' it, which is WP:SYNTH. Unless the material is itself a critique of creationism, or is explicitly discussed as part of somebody else's critique (though see my "but even then only when that 'basis' is sufficiently relevant" point above), it would appear to be both (i) off-topic & (ii) misleading, to mention it within this article. I will not re-delete the Kierkegaard material myself (at least not yet), so as to avoid an WP:EDITWAR, but would fully support its removal by another editor. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"Allah" vs "God"

AFAIK, most Muslims use 'Allah', even when speaking in English (most probably because Islam privileges Arabic, as the original language of the Koran, above other languages). It would therefore seem more appropriate to use 'Allah' rather than 'God' in the context of "Islamic Creationism". I will not revert to change this, but would support any editor who does so, and would disapprove of any attempt to change it back to 'God'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

MOS:ISLAM recommends using God instead of Allah. Gabbe (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Have also linked to God in Islam per that MOS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"Prevalence" section

How large was the sample?

67.148.120.103 (talk)stardingo747 —Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC).

There are several polls and surveys mentioned in that section. Which one are you refering to? Gabbe (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Christianity section - none of the creation theories are based on Christ's teachings.... they should be labelled biblical creationism not Christian creationism

Am I the only one baffled by the listing of ideas not based on New Testament texts as "types of Christian creationism"?

I fail to see how anyone can mix up the contents of these ideas about "creation" with Christianity. As far as I can see, Christ did not have any input into these theories nor are they based in any way on His life, His teachings, or those of his immediate followers. How can they legitimately be called Christian? Personally I am offended by this.

Whilst it is undoubtedly true that (in America especially) there are some Christians that pay attention to the Old Testament, the truth is that only the New Testament is truly a Christian text. These people are not following Christ when they give credance to works written before He came to us. I think we should label these ideas as Biblical creationism and not Christian creationism. --Hauskalainen (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The only time I've ever seen or read about Christians claiming that the Gospels were divinely inspired while that the older Hebrew texts were not divine were those behind Positive Christianity under the Nazis, who viewed the older texts as inferior "Jewish" influences.

Other than that, I believe that there's essentially no prominent sources that can be cited that support your view. Of course, I mean no offense to your particular sect or belief group- I respect your right to believe what you do- but it's clearly a fringe view among Christians. The Squicks (talk) 05:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I miswrote. It was late when I wrote that. I meant to write FULL credance. The ascription of the texts as being Christian, is wrong because that cannot be. The works in the Old Testament are pre-Christian. That is undeniable. If they are pre-Christian they cannot be Christian. That Christians regard PARTS of the Old Testament as divinely inspired is not in question, but most do not regard them as wholly the true Word because there are many passages therein that do not sccord with the teachings of Christ. Faith in the Trinity does not allow both the entire Old testament and the New Testament to be regarded as divine unless one makes excuses. Therefore Christian circles I move in are much more selective as to what they choose to take from the Old Testament. That SOME Christians (especially in the U.S.) are more inclined to give divine credence to the entire Old Testament is not in doubt, but that does not make the description "Christian" correct as an adjective for the creationists beliefs. There are very very many Christians that do not regard the creation story in Genesis as being entirely correct, nor do many of us adhere to these theories. Hence Biblical is prefereable to Christian because they stem from words in the bible and not the words of Christ.--Hauskalainen (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Have boldly changed the "types of Christian creationism" heading to "types of creationism" – it includes specifically Judaic ideas of evolutionary creationism, and also includes Theistic evolution which covers Christians opposed to literalist creationism. While the texts are Old Iestament, I've seen creationists referring to Christ's teachings that these old testament texts are to be accepted or believed: don't have the source immediately to hand. So, from their viewpoint the New Testament incorporates and supports these earlier texts. . . dave souza, talk 10:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

" I've seen creationists referring to Christ's teachings that these old testament texts are to be accepted or believed". I thnk we'd all love to see that! Especially with the reference to New Testament scripture where Christ teaches this...... You'd better invest the time asap in finding that reference!--Hauskalainen (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd better pull together some more important articles, or go for a walk, or finish my coffee. However, being easily diverted, I've done the googling that you seem to be unable to do. See this article, and this may also be useful. No need to thank me effusively, dave souza, talk 23:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The Old Testament is accepted by Christians as having equal authority with the New Testament. A big reason is Jesus Himself had a very high view of the Old Testament. For example, "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18, NIV) Genesis is part of the Torah, which is the Law.--Jorfer (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

These verses from Jesus are used to back up the canonicity of the Old Testament: Luke 24:44-46, Luke 24:27, John 5:39, Matt. 4:4,7,10, and Luke 11:51. These verses make clear that Jesus viewed the Old Testament as truthful. This does leave room for interpretation as to what kind of truth it contains (literal or metaphorical) but does not leave room for significant inaccuracy. Jesus expected the Jews to believe He was The Messiah on His embodiment of the Old Testament, which requires the Old Testament be a reliable source.--Jorfer (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Since Jesus Christ is God (second member of the Trinity, known as the only begotten Son of God) as John writes in his Gospel and God inspired the Old Testament writers, then Jesus Christ inspired the Old Testament writers. Therefore, the Old Testament is Christian. (You may disagree with either or both premises, so then replace "since" with "if").66.53.221.160 (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(1) This topic is an argument from silence, which is not a strong argument style. (1a) The reported Jesus was strangely silent about lots of things. (1b) Most of what Jesus mentioned was criticism of contemporary Torah interpretation; anything he didn't mention, he must have agreed with. (2) The first chapter of Matthew gives lineage from Abraham to Jesus (3) Paul (and John) decided what Christianity was, not Jesus. (4) 2 Timothy 3:16 says ALL scripture is "god-breathed" (5) in Galatians 3:16, Paul examines trivial details of Genesis and comes to his doctrinal conclusion (6) The first council of Nicaea determined the codex of the Bible, included the Sadducee OT, and thus wrote "Christianity". It doesn't matter if Bob The Builder penned the OT; once it was appropriated by Roman Christians, it became "Christian". (7) Sure, Gnostic Christians don't believe in the OT, so we can't blame it on them. Bipedia (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

'Judaism and Christianity' intro

The introductory paragraph to this section makes a number of WP:OR (or possibly WP:SYNTH) conclusions:

"creationism based on Genesis owes more to Judaism than to Christ's own teaching" -- I'm fairly sure there're passages of the New Testament that Creos point to as Jesus reaffirming the truth of the Old.
"Although some Christians today still believe in creationism based on Genesis, they are following an earlier Jewish tradition" -- this is particularly dodgy, as there does not seem to be a particularly strong "Jewish tradition" of Biblical literalism -- that is mainly a Christian (and particularly a Protestant) view.

Even the following should probably have a ref:

"Most Christians regard the books of the Old Testament, including the Torah, as holy and revered as being inspired by God"

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoever wrote these things was uninformed about the development of early thinking on creation. The first line of Genesis is normally translated: "In the beginning God created the heavens (note the plural) and the earth, and the earth was empty and without form..." In fact the Hebrew is inherently ambiguous, and can equally be translated "In the beginning of God's creating, when the everything (i.e., the heavens and the Earth) was empty and formless..." (The second is the translation used by Rashi, for example). In the second translation God's work isn't one of creation, ("everything" already exists), but of ordering. The bias towards the first meaning began with the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, who was heavily influenced by Greek Platonism. The Greeks were the first to point out that the world must have had a beginning, a point prior to which it did not exist; Philo saw the logic of this and taught accordingly. His writings were immensely influential among the early Christians (the more intellectual ones), and formed the basis of the idea that God existed prior to the world, which he created. Gradually this came to be the dominant view in Judaism as well, but it wasn't the original view.PiCo (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you have sources to hand that you could use to rewrite this? Actually, I suspect a whole article on 'Development of Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Old Testament' (or similar) would probably be warranted if somebody could find the time and the sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

== 'Judaism and Christianity' intro ==

The introductory paragraph to this section makes a number of WP:OR (or possibly WP:SYNTH) conclusions:

"creationism based on Genesis owes more to Judaism than to Christ's own teaching" -- I'm fairly sure there're passages of the New Testament that Creos point to as Jesus reaffirming the truth of the Old.
"Although some Christians today still believe in creationism based on Genesis, they are following an earlier Jewish tradition" -- this is particularly dodgy, as there does not seem to be a particularly strong "Jewish tradition" of Biblical literalism -- that is mainly a Christian (and particularly a Protestant) view.

Even the following should probably have a ref:

"Most Christians regard the books of the Old Testament, including the Torah, as holy and revered as being inspired by God"

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoever wrote these things was uninformed about the development of early thinking on creation. The first line of Genesis is normally translated: "In the beginning God created the heavens (note the plural) and the earth, and the earth was empty and without form..." In fact the Hebrew is inherently ambiguous, and can equally be translated "In the beginning of God's creating, when the everything (i.e., the heavens and the Earth) was empty and formless..." (The second is the translation used by Rashi, for example). In the second translation God's work isn't one of creation, ("everything" already exists), but of ordering. The bias towards the first meaning began with the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, who was heavily influenced by Greek Platonism. The Greeks were the first to point out that the world must have had a beginning, a point prior to which it did not exist; Philo saw the logic of this and taught accordingly. His writings were immensely influential among the early Christians (the more intellectual ones), and formed the basis of the idea that God existed prior to the world, which he created. Gradually this came to be the dominant view in Judaism as well, but it wasn't the original view.PiCo (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you have sources to hand that you could use to rewrite this? Actually, I suspect a whole article on 'Development of Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Old Testament' (or similar) would probably be warranted if somebody could find the time and the sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Evolutionists should be careful of not falling into the historicist trap, seeing the contemporary age of scientific modernity as less deluded than any given point in the past. Actually, in my perception, such a faith in the progress of humanity due to the rationality and modern science (most often etnocentrically defined) resonates with a theleology usually more characteristic of who evolutionists opposes. And Creationists, who find evolution and science problematic, should start to read the Bible they proclaim as fundamental. With the following I reply to the request mentioned above: I find it improbable that pre-modern christian theologicans, philosophers like Martin Luther, for instant, when heralding a literal interpretation of the days of creation were as illiterate as some creationists today. We need to keep in mind that evolution versus creation is a pretty modern discussion. My argument is simple. I think it is probable that I'm not the first to read that the stars, the Sun and the Moon, in that order, were not created until the fourth day of Creation. It is unbelievable clear in regard of the dispute: "God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of sky to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; [15] and let them be for lights in the expanse of sky to give light on the earth," and it was so. [16] God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He also made the stars. [17] God set them in the expanse of sky to give light to the earth, [18] and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. [19] There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day." [7]. Not only didn't the dinosaurs exist in the first days of creation. The Sun, the Moon, The Stars that marks the seasons and the days, did not exist until the fourth day. So, the real mystery is why at all this discussion exist. A less stratified (i.e. materialistic) interpretation of taking the days of creation literally, as in the case of Luther, implies that an ordinary week may be read as an emanation of the sacred week of creation. In other words, Time itself is perceived as an unfolding of the divine will, different aspects of the Godhead. That is for those who have restored their perception of sacred reality. By no means is a linear understanding of time more (or less) scientific than a cyclic one. I hope that it is understood, that I'm not adressing a particular point of view, a personal faith, but aspiring for a less totalizing paradigm (example) as the basis of discourse in regard of both the scientific and religious aproach to existence. It is possible to have a scientific approach to religious sentiments, even understand it without necessarily being subject to whatever particular faith in question. --Xact (talk) 05:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Original research on relationship to book of Genesis

Hauskalainen (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added the following sentence at the start of the Judaism and Christianity section:

The Book of Genesis predates Christianity and forms part of the Torah, a Hebrew Jewish scripture and therefore creationism based on Genesis owes more to Judaism than to Christ's own teaching.

While the first part up to the comma may seem a truism, the conclusions then drawn from it are clearly original research and as such unacceptable without verification from a reliable source presenting the same conclusions. Hauskalainen. please present a source for the statement, and discuss it here before re-adding a statement that several editors find problematic. Thanks, dave souza, talk 22:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that the block on my editing has been lifted I want to return the disucssion to the point that had been added to the article (and multiply deleted) that Christian belief based on Genesis is primarily related to earlier Jewish beliefs being based entirely on a jewish text predating Christ. Although Jews and Christians both believe in the Old Testament, their interpretations can be different and Jews and Christians mostly diverge on the teachings of Christ and Christ's place in faith. These differences arise from the teachings of Christ and of Christian scholars that came after him. It is of course a truism that Christians founding their belief in creationism on a book of the Torah are essentially following a an earlier Jewish faith and not the word of Christ who actually spoke of nothing about the mechanism of creation and the means by which God had created the world. It seems to me that editors who removed my reference to Christians believing in the literal truth of Genesis are primarily sourcing their belief on a Jewish text did so because they do not want that to be "revealed" (though clearly it is blindingly obvious to many). Now, I have been accused of breaching WP:AGF in doing so, but that is because I find their argument (that it needs someone scholarly to have said this) to be wholly unconvincing. But to get around the argument I would like those editors to tell me how the article can make the point (that belief in Creation based on Genesis is primarily built on an earlier Jewish belief and not on the teachings of Christ). That is fundamentally true and I believe that the point should clearly be made in the article. Christian scholars mostly assume that most Christians do not have to have such a thing pointed out to them, but there will be people reading Wikipedia who do not know this.

Incidental note: This is not the first time I have met this kind of difficulty in editing Wikipedia. I had the same problem with an article on health care in the UK when I stated in WP that losing one's job in the UK does not result in losing access to health care because health care is provided by the government. An American insisted that I had to find a British source that said that losing a job does not result in losing access to health care, but no British source would ever write such a thing because the very notion (that health care access should be tied to employment) is, in British eyes, ridiculous. The only way to prove the point was to appeal to logic. It went to arbitration and of course it came back that it was not necessary to provide a source for such a thing that was obvious from logic. I regard this dispute about the Christian faith in Genesis (by some Christians at least) as owing more to Judaism than to the teachings of Christ as being in the same category as the health care dispute. The test of this is for the person(s) opposing this statement to give good reasons in logic for their doing so. As far as I can see, there are none and I challenge them to provide some before I take this to arbitration. Or, if we can come up with a form of words which expresses the intent without offending the sensibilities of those who deleted my edit then maybe we can avoid going to dispute resolution on this one. But that puts the onus on them to make the first move.--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Before I reply, could you provide a link to this arbitration discussion? The one that "came back that it was not necessary to provide a source for such a thing that was obvious from logic"? Gabbe (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't have gone to arbitration, ArbCom doesn't deal with content issues, etc. " it will not make editorial statements or decisions about how articles should read ("content decisions"), and users should not ask the Committee to make these kinds of decisions, as it will not do so." I suspect the editor is talking about something like the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Hauskalainen, your edit was "The Book of Genesis predates Christianity and forms part of the Torah, a Hebrew Jewish scripture and therefore creationism based on Genesis owes more to Judaism than to Christ's own teaching." First, there's the problem of 'Christ's own teaching' which is not encyclopedic. 'Christ' is a title & not only do we not use titles this way, this particular title is used to acknowledge divinity. Then there's the issue of whether we know what Jesus taught at all. But I think the basic problem is that ' Christian creationism' is an interpretation of the Bible by Christians, not by Jews, and that's optional. You can't blame the Torah for the way some Christians interpret it. This is not at all similar to your health care dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 13:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Gabbe: I used the word arbitration very loosely. I meant dispute resolution but as this was several years ago I cannot remember which route was taken or even which article it was discussed in. I edit very many health care articles. However, the issue is very clear in my mind because an editor asked for a reference about something so obvious ´(to a Brit at least). I have no intention of trawling my past edits to look for this but you can do so if you wish. The point is, I think, very clear.

Dougweller: You are right. It was not to the arbitration committee. My bad use of words unfortunately. (See my reply to Gabbe above). As to the point you make about interpretation, I agree, but the point is that they are interpreting a document that pre-dates Christ and which is a fundamental text of another religion. That is the point I want the article to make. The parallel to the healthcare argument is what I regard as an unreasonable calling for a citation for something that is fundamentally very obvious from pure logic. Below is text which Gabbe posted at my TALK page.

The bit you included was "The Book of Genesis predates Christianity and forms part of the Torah, a Hebrew Jewish scripture and therefore creationism based on Genesis owes more to Judaism than to Christ's own teaching."
In that sentence, the following five statements are made (either explicitly or implicitly): P1) The Book of Genesis predates Christianity P2) The Book of Genesis forms part of the Torah P3) The Torah is a Hebrew Jewish scripture C) Creationism based on Genesis owes more to Judaism than to Christ's own teaching. S) P1, P2 and P3 together lead to C
All five of them must be attributable in order to meet the threshold for inclusion. For the statements P1, P2 and P3 sourcing would be trivial, any decent book on the history of Christianity would suffice. I don't think a citation for those three statements would add anything to the article. So far I think we are all in perfect agreement. Statements C and S, however, may well be true – but are less trivial to verify. For them a citation would (in my view) be prudent. Specifically, if there isn't a source for S, it is an example of novel synthesis. Remember that the onus is on you.
Also, let me again emphasise that the reason you were blocked was edit-warring, not including the sentence marked in green. If, for example, you had been editing the article World War II, and someone asked you for a source that WW2 ended in 1945, violating WP:3RR on that article would likewise in all likelihood have gotten you (or anyone else for that matter) blocked. Gabbe (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume that Gabbe meant to tell us P1 P2 and P3 are all propositions, that C is a conclusion and that this is based on the Supposition S that P1 P2 and P3 taken together can only lead us to that conclusion. Of that is so, then he has indeed summed up the issue quite well. He seems to accept that it would be easy to get sources for P1 P2 and P3 so these are not really propositions as much as fact. We could label then as F1 F2 and F3 for argument but I don't think that is really at issue. He accepts (or seems to accept that C and S may well be true), but like my detractor in the health care issue, he wants a reference for someone else coming to the same conclusion. Well, just as it was not necessary for me to provide a reference for stating the obvious (that losing one's job in in the UK does not result in the loss of health care) I would argue that it is not necessary to obtain a citation for someone saying because F1 F2 and F3 are true, C must be true. One can argue the case using logic. Now WP: does state that using mathematical transformations does not breach WP:NOR has this to say on "Routine calculations".

This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived.

I know its pushing it a bit but pure logic is involved in if P1=TRUE and P2=TRUE and P3=TRUE then C=TRUE.

Now we can argue perhaps what is the right way to phrase C (in other words "Creationism based on Genesis owes more to Judaism than to Christ's own teaching" is not really a proper conclusion without an examination of Christ's teaching), so I think I can be flexible (you might argue we need to be more rigid) about what C should say. But the issue really is that Christians that do take a literal interpretation of Genesis are using a ancient jewish text rather than relying on anything which scripture tells us that Jesus said. That is what I think needs to be said. It may be obvious to you and me, but like the health care issue, it clearly nay be not so transparent to others. --Hauskalainen (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It may help if my detractors could give us an example of why, if P1 P2 and P3 are true then under what circumstances might C NOT be true. That may help us to get a better definition of C (as per my example above, i.e. that we have not examined what Christ actually did say).--Hauskalainen (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are so sure, take it to WP:NOR. That's the appropriate place for this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The more energy (and space) someone dedicates to laying out his or her argument about a certain point, the more likely it is that the editor is violating NOR, because NOR forbids us from putting our own arguments (no matter how logical) into articles. period. Now, we can put in significant views from reliable sources. So, Hauskalainen, just find a verifiable source that makes this argument. That is all. Do what all editors of an encyclopedia do, do research (read books on the history of creationism, read the Anchor Bible volumes on Genesis and the four Gospels, etc) and see if any scholar has made this argument. If one has, and you have a citation, put it in! Otherwise, move on. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dougweller, at this point a query on WP:NORN would seem the most reasonable course of action. Gabbe (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Cannot even one of you make an argument that the opposite could be true? By which I mean that that Creationism based on Genesis owes more to the teachings of Christ than it does to Genesis, a founding Jewish scripture? I think if someone could do that we could have a real dispute on outr hands. At the moment it seems a bit one sided. --Hauskalainen (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult for you to provide a source? I could argue that Christ taught Genesis according to his own interpretation and that's what his followers adhere to today. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That might be a valid argument if you could get a WP:RS to cite. Jesus said he was not trying to overturn the Old Law but he was not talking about Genesis. I know of no one who regards the creation story as law.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's my point! You're assuming people who are reading the article have some knowledge about the Torah/Bible/Christ's teachings. Having only a "pop culture" knowledge of the three, I was able to make a plausible argument rebutting your proposed addition. If I added it in the article, you or someone else would have removed it and asked that I provide sources. You need to provide sources not to convince people who are knowledgeable about the subject, but to show readers unfamiliar with the subject that a reliable source has made that judgement. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not so. What you created was a false proposition P. My argument is that pure logic supports a certain conclusion C based on P1 P2 and P3 which are petty much irrefutable (though I would modify C slightly from the original text).--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You're still not getting it. My proposition was false but plausible to people unfamiliar with the subject. Bottom line: arguing here that you don't need a source won't get you anywhere. You'll have to take it "up the chain" if you want but it'd be much more productive if you just provide a source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't have to make an argument that the opposite is true. See WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Gabbe (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That is what the opposition argument centred on in the health care argument. The argument was overturned because one can appeal to logic.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"Overturned"? By whom? Has someone claimed the authority to settle content disputes? Gabbe (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not comparable, but I've raised the issue here: [8]. Please take the discussion there as you aren't convincing anyone here. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The very use of the word "therefore" is a pretty obvious indication of a synthesis. The sentence also seems to add little to the article. Perhaps the idea that the culture wars is all the Jews fault? I can't see how it adds information to the page beyond a bit of tautology, and very much support its removal.

One can't appeal to logic, that's original research. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

<ri> As it happens, the source cited for much of the passage deals with the significance of the Torah and early Jewish readings of Genesis, as well as the first Christian approaches. I've therefore reorganised the opening paragraphs to reflect that source more accurately, putting things in a chronological sequence without unsourced "appeal to logic". One of the links to the other source gave a 404 page, so have replaced it with the index to the section including the second link, and have made it clearer that this is a translation of Philo. . . dave souza, talk 23:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hideous POV issues

Firstly, who is anyone to say that any theory is a myth, and then at the same time say that they are neutral? What is the definition of neutral? Especially considering theories commonly accepted, such as the Genesis theory. I, for one, absolutely believe in the Genesis theory, and also believe that God may have carried out these actions through evolution as the Bible doesn't say that God piled everything together with his hands. Apparently, we came from dust, isn't it possible that God created us just as said in the Bible, and that when he said for us to be that we evolved, not by chance, but through intelligent design? Furthermore, would the people who deny the evolution theory entirely consider this to be NPOV? These articles have been responsible for a lot of criticism of Wikipedia, which could greatly be reduced if we were to simply neutralize these articles. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore articles are based on fact and scientific observations rather than belief systems. We should not be using the word theory when the phrase Philosophical theory is appropriate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Still yet, there has to be words other than "myth" that we can use, and not just for the Genesis "account," but for the other popular beliefs as well. Fact is it's believed by many, and cannot be proved wrong anymore than it can be proved correct, so "myth" is not here. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're a little confused about the term myth. I just check Oxford's Dictionary of the Bible and it tells me that the term myth

covers those stories or narratives which describe the actions of the other-worldly in terms of this world, in both OT and NT. In Genesis, the Creation and the Fall are myths, and are markedly similar to the creation stories of Israel's Near Eastern neighbours. It was a mistake of expositors and preachers in the past to treat these chapters as ‘historical’ accounts of the origin of the universe and the cause of original sin. There are also myths in OT (e.g. Isa. 25: 7) and NT (e.g. Matt. 24: 31) to express beliefs about the end of the world and God's judgement. Some theologians use the term ‘myth’ to denote a way of expressing intimations of supernatural significance; they are rendered intelligible by means of familiar terms derived from valid natural experience.

Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The words 'sledgehammer' and 'nut' keep jumping into my head as I read this. Can't everyone just agree that the word 'myth' has particular connotations in the mind of the average reader, that it's therefore, probably, offensive to tens of millions of Christian readers and just replace it with something else. Why are non-believers so determined to have their way in things like this? And I don't want to burst your little Wiki bubble guys, but when it comes to the accuracy of terminology in this resource, one of the longest ever discussions held here centred on whether an article about the Northern Irish town of Londonderry should be headed 'Londonderry' or 'Derry'. It is still, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, incorrectly headed 'Derry' - again, sadly lacking in the factual neutrality that people expect from encyclopedias81.156.0.191 (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no justification for describing Genesis as anything other than a "myth". It is treated equally with all other creation myths, and isn't separated out for any special criticism or praise, which is what NPOV demands. NPOV doesn't demand that we elevate any creation myth to the status of scientific theory.—Kww(talk) 03:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it should not be praised or denied on the project. Neither should any other account for the Earth's existance IMHO unless there's definate proof, thus making it fact. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

e/cYes, that's explained in the thread directly above this one as a matter of fact, which I didn't notice at first, but did shortly after starting the thread. It is actually indeed a valid term to use here, but would the average reader know this? Some people will automatically associate it with "myth" as in Mythbusters for example. Perhaps instead of getting rid of the word "myth" we could explain what exactly constitutes a "myth" in a way that clearly separates the use of the term from it's use in MythBusters? I still think this article is off balance however, because it seems to be pro evolution theory, which has been enough to set more than a few notable figures on fire with the project. The word myth was not originally what caught my attention; I first noticed how it was written like "creationists reject science and reason." PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this article is a suitable place to get into the details of the word myth any more than I think the evolution article is a suitable place to get into the details of the word theory. However, we make use of wikilinks to aid the curious reader. Cheers, Ben (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling them all myth keeps us within our NPOV policy. Using the word 'theory' would be absolutely wrong and confusing as it's a scientific term and this is not about science. Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering that "myth" has connotations of untruth for some readers maybe we can find some other NPOV word for this article, and it seems to me that "account" or "story" both would be acceptable for all creation myths. Myth is used in the specific sence mentioned above mostly in academia, and since the main purpose of this article isn't biblical exegesis I think we could use some other, less technical term.Sjö (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

/agreed81.156.0.191 (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This issue comes up quite frequently. Any motion to change from using the word "myth" is unlikely to make headway unless someone reviews and understands that -massive- amount of conversation on the subject and can provide some novel reasons and sources that would make such a change acceptable for Wikipedia.Quietmarc (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Myth issues aside

The article still seems of balance. For example, the article states "Most Christians around the world today accept evolution as the most likely explanation for the origins of life, and do not take a literal view of the Genesis creation myth." It seems to imply that creationism, or at least the literal belief in the accounts for creation, is dying. Bottom line is I've heard more than one complaint that Wikipedia is "atheist," and articles related to creationism and evolution are often cited. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Viewed on a world-wide basis, belief in Genesis and similar myths as literal fact is dying. To state otherwise would be misrepresenting reality. The article doesn't represent this as a good or a bad thing, because that would be an NPOV violation.—Kww(talk) 04:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. And we don't rewrite our articles because there are complaints we are atheist, rightwing leftwing whatever. Dougweller (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you look at Creationism#Prevalence or the articles linked therein, you'll find several sources supporting the statement "Most Christians around the world today accept evolution as the most likely explanation for the origins of life, and do not take a literal view of the Genesis creation myth." Do you have any other specific complaints regarding NPOV? I don't mean to be blunt, but "I've heard more than one complaint that Wikipedia is atheist" is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to put a {{NPOV}} tag on the article. Gabbe (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

PCHS, I do not see how any of this has anything to do with atheism. Of course one can believe in God and also evolution, and reject the first two chapters of Genesis as not being a scientific (read, accurate) account of creation. In fact, the subject of the sentence you quote refers not to atheists but to Christians, so obviously all of them believe in God and are not atheists. Now, what is your point? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not my opinion (that WP is athiest); I'm going to play wise and keep my opinon out of the matter, but there are quite a few people who do say that Wikipedia is athiest based on this. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to be atheist: if it used any religion as the basis for articles, it couldn't possible be neutral towards all religions.—Kww(talk) 00:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean 'agnostic', rather than atheist (which implies antagonism). ^ross ^nixon 01:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break. Ben (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Atheist" doesn't imply antagonism.—Kww(talk) 04:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

PCHS-NJROTC: I'm not saying this is only your opinion. And you're perfectly welcome to criticise this article if you think it's got an atheist bias. But you have to bring specific, explicit suggestions for improvement. Something like: "I think this sentence in this paragraph should say such and such based on this and that reliable source". Vague and unattributed accusations like "there are quite a few people who do say that Wikipedia is athiest" is not likely to get this discussion anywhere. Gabbe (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yawn... Many parts of the article are in fact neutral, but there are certain elements that seem to promote evolution. For example, intelligent design was apparently invented by a "politcally conservative think tank" and is not science according to the article. That's all good and well, but the evolution article implies that evolution by chance is uncontested science. Who's to say "chance" is real? Chance cannot be science as it cannot be proven to exist through scientific method, or at least not when considering evolution. It is impossible to prove that anything happens by chance rather than by God's will, therefore making chance in itself a religious belief. All of the explainations on the origins of species are merely inferences, not science or fact. It's all a hypothesis on history, not science. The evolutionary process is science however; evolution takes place and it is observed. I just think both sides of the issue should be addressed equally. Also, I do not believe that Wikipedia is atheist or I would not be here. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Evolution is not a chance/random process and never will as long as natural selection is one of its main mechanism. I highly doubt the evolution article implies anything of the sort. Chance in science is meaningless, but there is a more rigorous similar concept known as the probability of an event happening or probability for short. If in "It is impossible to prove that anything happens by chance rather than by God's will, therefore making chance in itself a religious belief." you mean to use an event with random probability then it is well within the scientific "powers" to analyse and prove them. Many processes in science today are best explained when said probability is a random variable, see Brownian motion, so randomness is observed in the natural world with not problem. No faith required. If in the other hand by chance you mean simple probability, then using statistic and a large number (but not really that large) of data-points you can constraint the probability distribution of any given event to near 100% accuracy. Sadly this has nothing to do with evolution or for that matter with ID. --LexCorp (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, but the wording is poor as I'm sure you will agree. It is inappropriate to write the word "chance" and wikilink it to probability. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

PCHS-NJROTC: Actually, among present-day biologists, evolution is pretty much uncontested. WP:NPOV says (in WP:MNA, WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL) that we should describe the majority opinion as such. You are certainly right about "It is impossible to prove that anything happens by chance rather than by God's will". For example, if I throw a fair die many times, approximately one sixth of the time it will show a two. This is not a proof that the act of throwing a die is "random", an explanation that is just as possible is that God decides the outcome of every throw, and tomorrow God might make it so that all the dice of the world result in threes every time. However, the latter explanation goes against methodological naturalism, which is a cornerstone of the scientific method. And finally, just as LexCorp says, there are several driving processes behind evolution, two very important ones being genetic drift (which in some sense is "random") and natural selection (which certainly is not). Gabbe (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

PCHS, you stated that the article was "promoting" the theory of evolution. Let us take another article, the one on gravitation, which states that, "Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity, in which gravitation is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime which governs the motion of inertial objects." In truth, the mechanisms behind evolution are better understood than the mechanisms behind gravitation or curvature of spacetime. Yet no one argues that the article on gravitation is "promoting" the theory of gravitation. Someone could easily come along and say that gravity is the result of God's invisible hands deliberately pushing things together and any article that does not give equal weight to this "theory" is not neutral. But no one does. Why? Because a book written thousands of years ago does not say anything about gravity. Those who contest scientific views on the basis of religion will always decide that their argument is valid enough to be given weight in an encyclopedia. But for the encyclopedia to give in to these wishes would be the biased thing to do, for those views originate in a historically unscientific book and would not exist (as we see with gravitation) if that book did not mention the topic.

Furthermore, your comment that "chance is a religion" is a ridiculous Non sequitur that makes no sense as no clear-thinking scientist would argue that "luck" (which is what you decided was an appropriate synonym to chance) exists. As stated, the mechanisms behind evolution are more well understood than ID-supporters would have you believe (see the above arguments by Gabbe and LexCorp). from hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 01:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If you understand the purpose of this talk/discussion page it is not for debate of the topic - but for constructive critique of the text itself. The term "myth" should be changed to "story" to remain neutral. There has been much debate here on the meaning of the term "myth" and that is the point. Why make it confusing or misleading to the reader? Debate or not the definition in Merriam-Webster uses terms such as ostensible, imaginary, and unverifiable. Clearly this definition is the source of the debate. Just change it to "story" to avoid unnecessary argumentation. This is not the forum for that - the page should be neutral and the word "myth" is not neutral. Toneron2 (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeking consensus to change "myth" to "story"

Archived

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There is so much debate here about using the word "myth". This ends up being a debate about Creationism itself which is clearly outside the stated scope of talk: pages.

The definition in Merriam-Webster uses terms such as ostensible, imaginary, and unverifiable. Clearly this definition is the source of the debate.

Why can't we change it to the neutral term "story"? Toneron2 (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: The use of the word "myth" is appropriate because it is the correct term, not because anyone is pushing an anti-Christian agenda. I go to Georgetown University, a Catholic university, and in my theology classes we refer to biblical stories, and the stories of every other religion, as "myths." Every text we have read for the class does likewise. It is not about offending anyone or making any statement of truth or untruth, for it is simply the academic way of referring to such stories. If a reader extracts negative connotations from these words then that is their logical fallacy and Wikipedia has no business using euphemisms to appease their qualms.
Changing the word to "story" would detract from the encyclopedic quality of Wikipedia as it is not the word that a theologist would use. Imagine going to the article on temperature and finding that someone had switched every instance of the word "molecule" to "little thingy" because they thought some readers wouldn't know what a molecule was. The article would be less encyclopedic because "little thingy" is not the terminology that a chemist would use. It does not matter, really, what Merriam-Webster says because the "industry standard," you could say, in theology is to call such texts myths. Just as it is inappropriate to cater to those who do not know the word "molecule" by using a different word, it is inappropriate to cater to the Christians who will get offended at first glance by the word "myth." from hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 08:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you look at the REFERENCES of the article, they as well refer to all such texts as myths. It would be biased to change the word. from hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 08:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: For the same reason we shouldn't avoid the word theory in scientific articles - after all, it has negative connotations too. Myth is the correct and neutral term. Ben (talk) 08:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose: As per Hajatvrc and Ben. Although, come to think of it, replacing "myth" (with its subtle definition that doesn't preclude factual) with "story" (with its connotation of fiction or subjective history) does have certain attractions when it comes to creationism. --PLUMBAGO 08:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Hjatvrc makes excellent points - myth is the correct word. The arguments against it would lead to us getting rid of the word from most articles, which would be, in my opinion, ridculous. As for 'stories', didn't anyone else have their mother tell them not to tell stories? I don't see how story is a better word given that it also has such negative connotations. Dougweller (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose: Agree with Hajatvrc. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not an "Encyclopaedia for Dummies". Why dumb down an article so that the uninformed remains uninformed is beyond me. Much better to try to disseminate knowledge. As an aside there is also a version of Wikipedia for Simple English.--LexCorp (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You are right - looking at the Merriam-Webster for "story" it may be even more biased. Thank you. Toneron2 (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: the definition for myth given above is only one definition, there are others. And scholars of religion do not use myth to mean false. This is an encyclopedia, if we use scholarly words in ways people may be unfamiliar with, well, just explain what we mean or provide a link to the article on myth, and make sure that it explains how historians of religion, anthropologists, and others use the word myth. And has been pointed out "story" is at least as controversial if not more. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with you there. Wikipedia is definitely not an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles are written by subject matter experts. This article, for example, is not written by experts in Creationism. My point is moot anyway. Toneron2 (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, here on the Wiki it is not the administrators who hold positions of respect, it is those who own the intellectual capital in their respective fields. In general, articles are written by people who have degrees in the subject. They are then copy-edited and wikified by those editors with more general skills. But people who do not have degrees in history will typically not write an article on, say, Ancient Egypt. It would require far too much time and effort for someone to come in without prior knowledge and do all the research for such a topic. Therefore, experts on these subjects are regularly sought out and recruited to add the bulk of the content. from hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 07:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: Story and Myth are both negative terms. Myth is considered a negative word because Myths are taught to be of ill informed people trying to explain the Impossible. Where as a story is considered a made up or imaginative telling of an Incredible event (Bedtime story) And, since theory is not allowed. (Because then it might be considered truth). Then how about hypothesis? No? How about belief? The Creation Belief? No, that might be construed as fact also. Then keep "myth" if it makes the people happy. Just because some people say "myth" doesn't affect my belief that God created the Earth and the Heavens. This argument just amplifies the tensions and is really a POV. Some people just use it to bring chaos to the Wiki. Wait; is Chaos a theory or Hypothesis? Anyway both are negative. Big Roger (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, but...: this will probably come up again and again. As I see it, part of the problem is that myth has two meanings and it's not clear from the article if the word is used in the colloquial or the academic sence. Wikilinking myth doesn't really help because it redirects to Mythology which mentions both uses: "The term "myth" is often used colloquially to refer to a false story; however, the academic use of the term generally does not refer to truth or falsity." I suggest adding a short explanation about how "myth" is used in this article.Sjö (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

We can't possibly (nor should we if we could) do that for every article that uses the term myth, and I can't imagine why someone would assume that an encyclopedia would be using colloquial language. Still, maybe the mythology article could be improved a little to help out all those articles nevertheless, but I think that is a discussion for the mythology article. Ben (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem in adding an explanation as to what myth means to the FAQ at the top of this page. It is a bit OT given that the article is about creationism, and as a precedent it could open the floodgates to ever increasing clarification of why any given word is used in the article, but it may also stop the over-reaction of the uninformed readers.--LexCorp (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with LexCorp. A note on the FAQ of this page is a good move. from hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 17:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm also agreed. Ben (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a good solution LexCorp. It should be assumed that readers are uninformed. Toneron2 (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Myth = popular narrative? Toneron2 (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No; from Mythology: "a myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form." from hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 05:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

My request to revise this article appears to be founded by this article. Toneron2 (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that. After reading what you linked to I see it says exactly what we've been saying: "Formal use of the word is commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia is no exception. However, except in rare cases (e.g., urban myth), informal use of the word should be avoided, and should not be assumed."

This supports our use of the word with its formal meaning (Wikipedia is no exception) and counters those who would assume it was being used informally. Our use of the word myth is quite obviously formal, usually being accompanied by the word "creation." "Creation myth" is a formal use of the word myth. from hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 05:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just by the simple fact that it appears on a list of words to avoid. Toneron2 (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Anthropologists and historians use the word "myth" to refer to stories that are located in the past but used to explain or justify something about the present world, social relations, or moral order. The bulk of critical scholarship on Genesis 1 an 2 view it in just this way, so it is not a casual use of the term. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, I am so tired of this idiotic debate. let me sum things up so that everyone can see the level that wikipedia has sunk to.

some editors note that the term myth has well-defined pejorative connotations in common use (a fact almost everyone agrees to), and suggest that the term be replaced by an equivalent term without such negative usages.
other editors note that the esoteric academic use of the word has no such connotations, and that wikipedia only needs to respect the academic usage, regardless of any hurt feelings that the word might engender for those who don't know the academic use.
the first group begins to suspect (with a certain acuity) that the second group is intentionally wikilawyering in order to preserve a deeply entrenched disdain for the hard-core christian perspective.

I say that there's a certain acuity in that because there's really no reason not to change the word 'myth' to the word 'story' (the terms are used interchangeably in academic research) except to rub a few christian noses in it. and FYI, no, I'm not a creationist - I'm not even a Christian in the way most people mean the word, and I think creationism as a whole is a misguided effort. but even I can see the pettiness of this.

But no one is going to make any headway on this issue, ever. scientific zealots (definition of zealot: a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in the pursuit of their ideals) are just as intractable as religious zealots, and a good deal more smug about it. and they have certain advantages on wikipedia in terms of policy. sad, but true. so long as they want to be petty, they can continue to be petty, and there's nothing to do but deal with it. --Ludwigs2 22:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs, perhaps instead of "summing up" your perception of this discussion for others you should sum up Wikipedia's rules regarding no personal attacks and assume good faith for your own enlightenment. Your attacks on "scientific zealots" are inappropriate and uniformed, for how can you ever know the intentions or thought processes behind someone else's actions? Are you psychic? Our arguments for using the word myth go way beyond what you so kindly "summed up" for us, and your inclusion of only the observations that satisfy your argument is clear. It is simply not true that "story" serves the same purpose as "myth," and the article would suffer if we changed it. You countered this by saying "the terms are used interchangeably in academic research." In this case you are saying the exact opposite of what we have been saying, and yet you provide us with no support for this assertion. Do you really think that saying the two terms are the same after all that has already been said to the contrary is going to serve any purpose without you actually citing some sources?

While I do not mean to be impolite, I wish to provide you with some insight regarding your image right now (for your benefit, not my gratification). Following the comments that you just made you appear to others as a judgmental, immature child. I do not think that this perception of you is correct, and I'm sure you are a jolly fine person in real life. But when you come into a conversation and claim to have some intelligent, universal perspective of a situation and then fail to make a coherent argument that actually counters the points that the opposition is making, you do not create a favorable image for yourself. You have no informed reason to suspect that our intentions are to "rub a few christian noses in it" or that anyone, say me, is a Christian or not. "But no one is going to make any headway on this issue, ever", until you either provide facts or leave the discussion. The no personal attacks rule exists for this very reason. The only thing you need to do to further your cause is to provide and argument and cite sources that support it. Making an attack on the other editor does not "make any headway, ever." from hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 23:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hajatvrc: thanks for your thoughtful reply. However, let's be clear with each other:

I am not particularly concerned with images, for myself or for others. Wikipedia is about the article, not the editors, in my view. if you personally worry about such things, then I will try to be more circumspect when speaking with you in the future.
I was not attacking anyone. 'Zealot' (like 'myth') is denotatively a perfectly adequate word to describe someone who is thoroughly dedicated to an ideal. There are any number of editors on this site (and involved in arguments like this) who are in fact thoroughly and completely dedicated to promoting and preserving the ideals of scientific reasoning on Wikipedia. I salute them, though I think they may take it a bit too far at times. Any negative connotations the word 'zealot' has in your mind, however, are irrelevant to the discussion.
I have never met and cannot imagine an academic who would pause for even a moment to object to the use of 'creation story' in place of 'creation myth'. 'creation myth' is part of the academic jargon in anthropology and a couple of related fields, true, but academics are primarily concerned with communicating abstract ideas clearly. if a phrase does that, academics will use it; if a phrase starts to muddy the waters (as is happening here) academics will abandon it. Of course, I cannot cite academics who point out that people should use common sense in language-use problems like this. I am, however, confused as to why you would need me to do that.
I am not indulging in suspicions or evaluating anyone's intentions. I'm merely observing that a number of people do insist quite strongly on the use of words like 'myth' (even while acknowledging the derogatory aspects of the word) without providing anything that resembles a proper reason for insisting on it. In the absence of rational explanations, emotional explanations have to suffice. I'm willing to be proven wrong, of course, but if in fact it is an example of emotional reasoning, then I am well within my rights to suggest that it will not change: emotional reasoning does not lend itself productive discussion.

To date, the only argument I've seen in favor of the term 'myth' is that academics use it. that is an excellent argument for using the word 'myth' in direct quotations from academic sources. extending it to our word use, however, is specious, since it rests on the (currently groundless and unproven) assumption that academics would for some reason reject the term 'story' as an alternate. Is that your argument, and can you flesh it out with some evidence that scholarly sources would object to such alternate terms? --Ludwigs2 00:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Everyone cool down for a moment. @Ludwigs2: Your opinion is noted. The clear consensus as seen above is to use the word "myth". Please abide by consensus and drop this issue.--LexCorp (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to abide by the consensus (you'll note that I've made no effort to make any changes to this article) but if you're asking me to accept the consensus as somehow 'correct' then I'm going to have to respectfully decline. I believe the consensus (such as it is) is misguided, I've explained why I believe it's misguided, and I'm awaiting a rational explanation why my belief is wrong. I think I'm being quite reasonable about this, though I understand how it might seem otherwise.

Using the word 'myth' is an editorial choice, and when an editorial choice is contested on Wikipedia there ought to be (a) an attempt at compromise or (b) a reasonable explanation of why no compromise is possible. (a) has never been offered and the (b) given is not exactly satisfactory. I'm waiting for someone to do better, on either count. When that happens I'll drop the issue. fair enough? --Ludwigs2 01:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You said it best yourself: To date, the only argument I've seen in favor of the term 'myth' is that academics use it. Wikipedia is not the place to right what you perceive to be some wrong in the literature. Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that argument would work if it were actually consistent with what I said. But since it's not, I see no reason to do anything except discount it. do you have any non-rhetorical arguments available? --Ludwigs2 02:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

sorry, for clarification: there's no issue that academics use the term. the issue is the presumption that academics would insist on using the term exclusive of all others, which seems highly doubtful. --Ludwigs2 02:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

At this point in the thread there is nothing to gain by engaging with you, and nothing to lose by not. I'll simply share LexCorp's sentiment and note your opinion, and then watch this thread die, or in the case something substantial is brought to the table later, rejoin at that point in time. Ben (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly the response I expected to get; clear indication that you're collectively relying on an emotional reasoning to win the argument. thank you for making it explicit. --Ludwigs2 02:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok I am going to be concise. (a) I suggested substituting "myth" for "creation myth". As of now all but one instance of the word "myth" is preceded by the word "creation". How much more explicit you want the context to be?. Other editors suggested changing to "story" instead. This was clearly rejected. I count these as trying to compromise. (b) The main objection to the use of "myth" seem to be that it is offensive to some. This is not failure of the article but of those readers that fail to assign correct meaning of "myth" in the given context. Amazing, if you think about it, given that only in one instance it is not preceded by "creation". We should not dumb down the article to accommodate said readers. There is also a Simple English Wikipedia version of this article for those readers with poor command of English. All these is made clear in the discussion above. Again it is noted that you do not agree with these reasons. Further discussion without bringing something fresh to the table is really pointless at this point.--LexCorp (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)I will return the favor and respond as concisely as possible. Bullet points are the same as yours.

a-1) The troubling word is 'myth'; prefixing it with 'creation' may be an improvement, but hardly resolves the original complaint.

a-2) I'm well aware that users rejected use of the word 'story'. I'm still waiting for a decent explanation of why they did that. Please remember that consensus is not the same as simple majority rule on wikipedia.

b) The vast majority of English speakers in the world understand 'myth' to imply falsehood. The people who understand myth in the way you are expressing it constitute a small percentage of the already tiny population of professional English-speaking academics. Your 'dumbing down' seems to mean 'understood correctly by people who aren't graduate students or better in Anthropology'. Setting aside the unbridled intellectual elitism of that (mostly because I'm frequently guilty of it myself), the purpose of an encyclopedia is to explain things for non-professionals, not for professional scholars.

The only reason this discussion is (and likely will continue to be) pointless is because you refuse or are unable to answer the fairly straight-forward question I asked above. What makes you assume that scholars would reject the use of the word 'story' (or equivalent) in place of 'myth'? As I see it you have (on one hand) a notable number of WP editors who find the term 'myth' distasteful, and (on the other hand)... nothing. a blind insistence on the use of the word, it seems, without any basis for that insistence in scholarly work or analytical reason. One of us has to face facts, here: if you can give me a decent scholarly rationale to mandate use of an offensive term I'll accept it; if you can't, then you're going to have to accept a change you won't much like. Or we can just stare each other down for eternity like angry mules. It's up to you. --Ludwigs2 03:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Great. I think there was consensus to add an entry in the FAQ for this article that says something like "Myth, in this context, means a sacred narrative" (per Hajatvrc's note above). Or better yet I like the whole definition the Hajatvrc provided which to me sums up a perfect definition of Creationism: "a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be." Toneron2 (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

OK I added myth into the FAQ. Feel free to improve.--LexCorp (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs, I have to say I like your style and enjoy reading your writing :). I agree that the thread is dead as far as changing the article, but I still believe there is knowledge to be gained from a continued discussion so I will post my reply.

I never quibbled over your use of the word "zealot." I quibbled over your implications that WE are "taking it too far" and acting based on "emotional" motivation.
This IS "indulging in suspicions or evaluating...intentions." What you are implying is that I am being an irrational person, which is a conclusion that would usually be saved for AFTER a discussion has occurred between us through which you can actually make such a judgment.
You stated, "the only argument I've seen in favor of the term 'myth' is that academics use it." But the discussion above was LESS about that point than it was about the more important issue at hand. As an encyclopedia our mission is to educate people. LexCorp said it best: "Much better to try to disseminate knowledge" than to change a word that so many agree is simply the better word. You could suspect that this is motivated only by a will to "rub Christian noses in it," but, as I said, you have no informed basis for your accusation that I give a flying damn about offending Christians. The use of the word shouldn't be offending to anyone anyway, as I have already explained.
Here's the point: You are right: this debate is GETTING REALLY, REALLY OLD. But where we disagree is not so much about the attitudes of the academic community regarding the use of the word myth (side note: which we still disagree about but it's kind of beside the point as so many would agree that myth SOUNDS better and is more encyclopedic than "story" and they would not really care about whether "story" was a PROPER word to use or not. They would still use myth because they LIKE IT better as a word, DISCOUNTING ALL CONNOTATIONS, which is why we are in this discussion) but about how we suggest the Wikipedian community FIX the problem. You suggest that we simply give in to the demands of the uninformed masses and change the word as myth is NOT "better" than story. We suggest that we fix the situation by spreading the knowledge about the proper use of the word "myth." This, as I said, is more about it being perceived to be better AS A WORD by the editing community than it is about "rubbing Christian noses" in anything. We intend to inform those who become offended by linking to the information that will explain how to properly use the word myth. This is the best way to SOLVE the problem. The method that you suggest will simply MASK the problem, and then this discussion will arise again and again and again and again as editors on other pages will instinctively use the word "myth" at first because they like it the best, and then the cycle you described above will be perpetuated forever.

So I replied to your first edit so harshly because you did not touch on this issue, which was discussed already. Your exclusion of this issue in the midst of your attacking other editors as thinkers led to your bad image. I comment on your image not because I assume you give a flying damn about it but because in a debate image is very important as it affects how legitimate other debatees find your arguments and how long they are willing to debate with you. from hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 03:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I'll admit, I've been enjoying this debate (after a brief moment at the beginning of being miffed that this argument was still ongoing). and you have to forgive me if I get under the skin a bit - I'm a political psychologist by training, and I can get aggressively Socratic if I don't watch myself.

the real problem I see here (if I can be frank) is that I personally don't like offending people without reason. I have no problem offending people if I have call to, mind you, but if I'm going to say something that offends someone I want some value added that makes the offense worthwhile. for instance, I've been consciously pushing people's buttons throughout this debate, but I've been doing it because I've been trying to force a certain type of reflection on the problem. the whole thing about zealots, for instance, was intended to use a word I knew you wouldn't like but couldn't actually object to on technical grounds (and pardon me if I'm still smirking over the irony of you complaining that I "attacked you as thinkers" three lines after you discounted the opinion of "the uninformed masses"). with respect to the word 'myth', though, I can see people are offended by it. I might question whether they have reason to be offended by it, but I can see that they are (and emotions like that aren't really subject to rational analysis). I can't at the moment see what value is added by using the word that justifies that offense, and that's what's bothering me. Sure, myth is a better word, but is stylistic umpf sufficient grounds to say something that likely angers tens of thousands of people? that's the kind of issue that I'm wrestling with.

No worries about being harsh; I didn't take it personally.

If you want my opinion, the way to resolve this problem is to reach a real consensus with the people that object to the term, rather than deciding what the consensus should be from a policy perspective and trying to impose it. I mean, ideally, this article should neither be used to support creationism nor to attack it, and I can see how an excessive insistence on the work 'myth' could easily translate into a back-door attack on the subject. it's a matter of judgement whether that's happening, of course, but we can' really judge that issue correctly if a large portion of the other side is more-or-less excluded from the discussion. --Ludwigs2 04:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

But what would you suggest we do about the rest of the articles on WP that use the word "myth?" The reason I never saw it as a viable option to "reach a real consensus" in the way that you describe it is that it is comical to suggest that this would even be possible. My suggestion was based upon working within the consensus that already exists to diminish (and over time destroy completely) the misinformed objection to the use of an academic word. I felt annoyed by your comments because in reality I am completely separated emotionally from the issue. My objections are purely intellectual. You hit the nail on the head when you pointed out what I see now is the major difference between our points of view: I do not care if others choose to be offended by something I say. You say "emotions like that aren't really subject to rational analysis," but I disagree. I believe that someone can always choose to not be offended through the use of Reason (I do not wish to enter a debate regarding this difference in view as it would never end, though it would be interesting. I think we can just accept this difference in each other). Now, for the most part I find it against my best interest for others to be offended as that usually results in emotional debates devoid of any Reason, hence my assertion that it is necessary to inform those who get offended at first as to why their taking offense is irrational. from hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 04:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

re: "hence my assertion that it is necessary to inform those who get offended at first as to why their taking offense is irrational"... I take it you're not married?

I understand your position (it's a very common one, at least in the last 300/400 years: rationality as a panacea for social ills). unfortunately, I don't think it works as expected. basically it means that whoever is in power gets to decide what is and what is not a valid emotion, and you end up with some unsavory "rich=eccentric/poor=crazy" dichotomies. so, these people happen to believe in creationism. you think their belief is irrational (which I'd probably agree with), and so you think that heir offense at having their beliefs mocked is irrational (which I would probably not agree with), and your attitude towards them becomes, basically, "suck it up" (which I can't agree with at all). they have a right to their beliefs, no mater what we think of those beliefs. they do not have a right to promulgate those beliefs on wikipedia, obviously, but then neither to you and I. it is not wikipedia's place to destroy their misinformation; wikipedia should only concern itself with informing, and leave people to do with the information what they choose.

That's my take, anyway. --Ludwigs2 05:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"so, these people happen to believe in creationism. you think their belief is irrational (which I'd probably agree with), and so you think that heir offense at having their beliefs mocked is irrational (which I would probably not agree with), and your attitude towards them becomes, basically, "suck it up" (which I can't agree with at all)."

I don't understand where this is coming from. I thought we were past any discussion about the rationality of Creationism and were solely talking about the rationality of being offended by a word that in no way calls their belief fictitious. I am very distraught by this response from you as it is not founded in anything that I said. When I was talking about Reason I was not referring to the rationality of a creation myth itself, and I thought I made it quite clear in this discussion that I don't give a damn whether Christians believe the Bible is literal or not. It is immaterial to my argument.

Therefore, with regard to your statement of the person in power unfairly choosing what belief is correct, I heartily agree with you and never said anything to the contrary. My argument was about the misinformation regarding the meaning of the word "myth" (which is not something that is subjective, for while it has an academic meaning and a colloquial meaning it should be assumed that on Wiki it is being used in the academic sense) and nothing else. It can be said that it is irrational to be offended by the word myth because the basis for that offense, that it calls the belief false, does not exist. from hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 05:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

And no, marriage is not for me, as you have observed. I subscribe to polyamory. :) from hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 05:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I had an ex who was polyamorous. not my cup of tea (hence the 'ex' part), but an interesting lifestyle if you are mature enough to handle it. She is, but I have my doubts about some of her later partners. people, I swear...

at any rate, I don't see how you can separate the act of being offended from the thing they are offended about. these people are not offended by the word 'myth' in some kind of abstract linguistic sense. they are offended (some of them, anyway) by the word because they feel it degrades one of their deeply held beliefs. If someone calls you a bad name and you get offended by it, you're not offended by the word itself, really, but by the violation of your self image that is implied by the word, yah?

you're taking a dominant position here, and asserting (ab initio) that no one should be offended by the word 'myth', because from a scientific-minded perspective 'myth' is not an offensive word. so when someone says they are offended by it, you automatically assume they are irrational? that, my friend, is a power-play, an attempt to dictate what are and are not valid emotional states, and through that, to dictate what are and are not valid statements. telling someone they should not be offended by that word is basically telling them that they have lost the right to defend their beliefs (because if they have no right to be offended that you called their belief a myth then they must accept that their belief can be categorized as a myth, and they might as well give it up). Is that your goal? --Ludwigs2 07:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

:Only one statement you made there was a logical follow-through to anything I've said: "they must accept that their belief can be categorized as a myth." A myth "is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form." Genesis "is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form." Thus, the story behind their beliefs is a myth. It is a very simple, factual concept. Again, it has nothing to do with the legitimacy or illegitimacy of their beliefs. My arguement goes no further than this, and the connections you made, claiming that they are ideas that necessarily follow my argument, are not logical.

"I don't see how you can separate the act of being offended from the thing they are offended about."
I have already explained why this connection does not exist. No offense to their beliefs is necessitated by the use of the word myth. They take offense because they perceive that it claims their ideas are false, and yet it does not.

Again, from here the only argument that can be made (which we WERE discussing and yet somehow you found it necessary to claim I am trying to dictate that a Christian is wrong to take Genesis literally) is whether or not we should consent to the using of a sub-par word in order to protect people from their own misconception that the better word claims falsity in their ideology. From your perspective, it is not worth people misunderstanding our proper usage. From mine, we should provide them with the proper usage, explain to them why it is proper, and then allow them to choose whether or not to still be offended. Again, if someone still chooses to be offended by a word on grounds that are false (i.e. the grounds that the word claims falsity in their beliefs), then that is their choice. There is no reason why an encyclopedia should do anything but provide the fact (which is that mythology does not claim falsity), because that is what an encyclopedia exists for: to provide facts. Notice I did not make any claim here about the Genesis creation myth being fact or fiction. There is no reason to bring that into the argument. This will be my last post in this discussion. If you look at my talk page I already have people warning me that you are just trolling (i.e. arguing for the sake of being an ass) and to ignore you. While I can't make any judgment about your intentions, this discussion has run out of all use. I'll see you around, I'm sure. from hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 07:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

here's the problem right here. you say "No offense to their beliefs is necessitated by the use of the word myth. They take offense because they perceive that it claims their ideas are false, and yet it does not." This is simply a ludicrous statement. We've already establish that 'myth' implies falsehood for the vast majority of English speakers on the planet, and the fact that you seem to be getting progressively more irate over a simple discussion about the meaning of words should put rest to any beliefs you have that people can rationally control what offends them. I suggest you go back to your talk page and continue the discussion with people who already agree with you, because at the moment you don't seem to know what to do with a discussion where there is an honest and earnest opposite point of view. when you are done with ad hominems, come back and we can continue. --Ludwigs2 08:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

'Still beating the dead horse'
How about Legend instead of Myth. according to Meriam Webster Dictionary and Wikitionarythis is an acceptable synonym of the word myth without the negative connotation.Big Roger (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think using the word "legend" will solve the problem. from hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 04:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ludwig, please let it go. Consensus has been determined. Auntie E. 07:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The second sentence is awkward and imprecise

I find the second sentence--in particular, its first clause--terribly awkward and slightly misleading:

However the term is more commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of certain biological processes

The use of 'however' and the comparative 'more' imply that common usage contradicts the meaning given in the previous sentence. It would be more accurate to regard common usage as being more restrictive (that is, limiting the range possible meanings) or particular.

Also, doesn't "used to refer to religiously motivated rejection" read a bit awkwardly? Every time I read it, I expect "religiously motivated rejection" to be preceded by the definite article ("the religiously motivated rejection") or be pluralized ("religiously motivated rejections"), but perhaps this is idiosyncratic.

I also think that it is not particularly encyclopedic to impute motives. Better to say that creationism has religious grounds.

Finally, I think it slightly imprecise to say that creationism rejects biological processes. It doesn't reject the processes so much as it denies they exist. 'Rejection' is ambiguous, because one could conceivably reject evolution without rejecting it exists. (For example, someone might labor to counteract the effects of natural selection on ethical grounds.) It would therefore be more appropriate, in my opinion, to say that creationism is the rejection of biological explanations.

This article has undergone quite a bit of scrutiny, so I decided against making any edits myself before consulting other editors. If I were to edit the article, I would rephrase the second sentence as follows:

Most commonly, the term is used to refer to the denial, on religious grounds, that biological processes (most commonly, evolution) could^† provide an adequate account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth.

^† I wrote could provide because creationism is not merely unsatisfied with biology as it stands, but is rather in principle opposed to the notion that biology could adequately account for the origin of life, etc.

I realize my proposed edit may come across as somehow soft on creationism. For the record, I'm a militant atheist. My points are motivated purely by concerns over style and precision. Comments are very welcome. Ori.livneh (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, let me commend you on taking your issue to the article talk page first, in a civil fashion. Quite a rarity regarding these articles. Secondly, having read through your comment I find your argument very persuasive and I agree completely with your suggestion. My suggestion is waiting a day or two to see if some objections pop up, and then do they alteration you propose. Gabbe (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ori, well explained. I don't think anyone would argue with your proposed edit. Go for it. And regarding the 'militant atheism', if I may offer a gentle poke... "get well soon!" ;-) ^ross ^nixon 02:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both your logic and proposed solution, with one caveat--I would propose changing "could" to "are able to", so as not to give the impression that biological processes are a speculative explanation of life. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Have put in the proposed sentence, with only minor grammar changes. ^ross ^nixon 01:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The flow is a little off: "most commonly" is used twice in the sentence. Perhaps the second (parenthetical) use could be changed to "for example" or "especially"? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Changed one 'most commonly' => usually. ^ross ^nixon 02:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Christian myth?

Why does this article refer on more than one occasion to 'the Christian myth..'? The author may believe creation as described in Genesis is a myth, but that's entirely subjective...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.247.125 (talk)

From Mythology : "In the study of folklore, a myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form."--LexCorp (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, except that the Bible isn't folklore and in modern usage, the term myth always implies something which is in no way true. I'm aware that this has been discussed in much more detail on other discussion pages, but my point is that other words could be used here - myth is incorrect and is used, I suspect, primarily by non-Christians in order to offend... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.247.125 (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

From Folklore: "Folklore culture, including stories, music, dance, legends, oral history, proverbs, jokes, popular beliefs, customs, and so forth within a particular population comprising the traditions (including oral traditions) of that culture, subculture, or group." Emphasis is mine. The Bible is the single most important piece of folklore in the Christian culture (particularly the parables section). Myth as used in the article is exactly correct. The only correct alternative that comes to mind is Creation Myths so maybe change 'the Christian myth..' to 'the Christian creation myth..' is a good edit. Your suspicions are groundless and as an addendum, me thinks some Christians will find it very offensive if you demote their sacred narrative from the myth status to simply a narrative. Your failure to assign the correct meaning of a word given its contexts and, further more, substitute its meaning with the one that gives most offence to a Christian subset group should not be the basis for editorial changes to this article. The average Christian's intelligence is greater than what you seem to credit them with and I think most, if not all of them, will clearly understand and assign the correct meaning of the word "myth".--LexCorp (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

'Myth' does sound offensive to Christians in this context, however most Wikipedia editors have decided to use this to cover the less commonly understood 'scholarly' use of the term, which does not necessarily imply that the text is not true. ^ross ^nixon 01:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Something I feel worth pointing out is that Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms. Basically, it's best to keep it simple yet formal. For example, "wall" is prefered over "bulkhead" as most people will recognize wall whereas many people will get confused over bulkhead. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The use of the words "Christian myth" do not portray a neutral standpoint. It should be changes to "biblical scripture", as this is not offensive to any user, and is not portraying Christian nor non-Christian standpoints. Francisoh7 (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The use of the words "Christian myth" does portray a neutral standpoint. I go to Georgetown University, a Catholic university, and in my theology class we refer to biblical stories as "myths." Every text we have read for the class does likewise. It is not about offending anyone, for it is simply the academic way of referring to such stories. If a reader extracts negative connotations from these words then that is their logical fallacy and Wikipedia has no business using euphemisms to appease their qualms. I move to archive this discussion now as it has no potential for improving the encyclopedia. from hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 02:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It never stops to amaze me as an atheist how uninformed are the majority of theists about their own faith. For something so central to their lives, and may I dare say eternal salvation, they seem to dedicate very little time to reflect and study on their own religion. It is understandable that some theist have problems with the dual meaning of the word "theory" and try to use it pejoratively when referring to evolution (I am referring to SOME theist) but for them to misrepresent the word "myth" is just plain astounding to me. One of the main staples of any group of people that share a culture is precisely a rich mythology and folklore that culturally binds them even when they are separated in geographical space and/or time. I agree that we should close this discussion but also suggest we left it in here for everyone to read and hope some of it stick to their minds.--LexCorp (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The term "myth" should be changed to "story" to remain neutral. There has been much debate here on the meaning of the term "myth" and that is the point. Why make it confusing or misleading to the reader? Debate or not the definition in Merriam-Webster uses terms such as ostensible, imaginary, and unverifiable. Clearly this definition is the source of the debate. Just change it to "story" to avoid unnecessary argumentation. This is not the forum for that - the page should be neutral and the word "myth" is not neutral. Toneron2 (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Story has no formal definition and is commonly used to describe fiction or lies (check the definitions). "myth" when used in a formal term has only one definition and by no means does it imply falsehood. Because some people might not understand that does not mean that we shouldn't use it per WP:RNPOV and WP:WTA#Myth and Legend. Nefariousski (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is a good example of why wikipedia is not used as a source. There is so much biased information here ,where as, if you went the evolution page it is much less biased. Evolution has no critism on the page and even the Charles Darwin won't mention that he married his first cousin as far as I can see. Remember, it is your wikireality just because it is or is not on here does not make it so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.166.224.192 (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that this is not a discussion forum on the topic of Creationism (per WP:TALK and WP:NOTAFORUM), do you have any constructive suggestions for improvement of this article which you would like to discuss? Gabbe (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that we have implemented an in-article note and a FAQ question both explaining the meaning of "myth" and why it is used in the article as a way to mitigate confusion from uniformed readers as to the meaning of "myth".--LexCorp (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a suggestion that may be a reasonable compromise. Could the in-article note be moved up to the lead section, instead of sitting down low in a footnote? Or at least put a brief parenthesis when the word myth is first used (it's currently on the second instance of the word, which is a mistake), suggesting that the reader see the footnote for an explanation of the term as it is used in this article. Something like: "(for an explanation of myth, see [footnote])".

An article as well-documented as this one is has such an abundance of footnotes that I don't normally read them as I'm reading the article. I'm not a creationist by any means, nor am I ignorant of non-pejorative definitions of the word myth, but when I started reading the article I was immediately put off by the word, and I didn't notice until quite a lot later that there was a footnote explaining its use.

Wikipedia (as I understand it—please correct me if I'm wrong) is intended for use by the general public, not only by people who happen to know that the word myth has a single "formal definition" (whatever that means) that includes no negative connotations whatsoever. Clearly I don't know what all English speakers think, but I and everybody I know ordinarily read myth as if it were a synonym for fable, but slightly more pejorative than fable is. If I were a creationist (and as I said, I'm not) I would be offended by the word. We don't want to offend people if we can avoid it, do we? The people most likely to be offended by the word until they understand how it is being used in this article are the very ones who have the most to gain by reading it, which they may not do if the introduction uses a term they misinterpret.

Regardless of what its formal definition is, I'm pretty sure the word myth is most widely understood by ordinary English speakers to mean a story made up by relatively ignorant people to explain natural phenomena, a story that may have some element of moral or psychological truth in it, but little if any fact. That's how I learned it in elementary school, and what you learn that young is hard to unlearn: that definition still fuels my initial gut reaction to the word, as I discovered today. A TV show called MythBusters (the title alone should tell us something) reflects what surely is a very widespread if not universal popular understanding of what a myth is; the show's web site has a quiz called "Myth or Fact", in which we guess whether a commonly accepted story is true or not. Do we want people to assume we have that attitude toward their religious beliefs if we can avoid it?

I understand now why the term is used here, and I no longer have any problem with it personally, but it is naive to assume that everybody who reads this article will also read the footnote. I missed out on the consensus discussion, and if somebody already suggested this solution and it was rejected, I apologize for resurrecting it. But it seems as if a very small modification like the one I've suggested could help ameliorate the problem (and let's be honest: there is a problem, or this discussion never would have happened).

It's fine to expect the reader to accept the formal definition, but would it hurt to make it just a little bit easier for him or her to find the definition? Leaving the article as it is invites controversy, and surely nobody really wants that. We're here to inform, aren't we—to help people?—not see how far we can go before somebody gets offended. I believe we can defuse the issue significantly without compromising the article's integrity at all.

--Jim10701 (talk) 05:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree that the term "myth" is very misleading, not to mention highly objectionable to the majority of those who would consider their self to be creationists. If this page is suppose to be an unbiased page rather than coming across as naturalistic propaganda, it should be amended. Quintessential1 (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)JPD

Unfortunately per WP:WTA#Myth and Legend, WP:RNPOV, WP:NOT#CENSORED we don't consider feelings and objections based on appeal to emotion when considering whether to use the word or not. As long as it's being used in its formal sense and due diligence is made to establish formal use and formal context it's perfectly acceptable (per policy and multiple debates that all thus far have turned out to support formal usage). Nefariousski (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Misleading how? Did you read the FAQ at the top of this page? The note referred in the article?--LexCorp (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Gallup Poll about Young Earth Creationism

This poll http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm is proving contentious as to whether it should be included in this article and if so how phrased. To summarize the positions as I see it the nays say that the poll questioned people only about what they believed with regard to the creation of humans (10,000 BCE) and not the Earth. Therefore using the poll to justify the line "Young Earth creationist views are held by as many as 44%" is not correct. The other side, and I'm quoting Rossnixon from his/her summary "yes, but you will find there is no group of note than says both that the earth is billions of years old and humans are less than 10,000 years old". I think there are two issues here, not being able to find such a group (and I don't even know how to begin looking) does not justify reinterpreting the original article even if we're convinced the two versions practically mean the same thing -- we should not make those kinds of judgement calls and just use the original wording. The second issue is that it's been over 20 years since I held any religious belief but I'm almost positive that I did, at one point, believe that the Earth/universe was billions of years old but that humans were 6,000 - 10,000 years old (my need to reconcile science and religion). While I might have been unique in this belief as a young teenager I can't help but think I must have gotten it from other people. Yes, that's anecdotal, but I think that's all that's necessary to demonstrate that the possibility exists for groups of people to hold both views (Earth=billions, humans=thousands) which renders the current phrasing misleading. SQGibbon (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I have found one exception to the conflation. Jehovah's Witnesses seem to accept millions+ years for the earth (they have increased it from 50,000) but less than 10,000 years for Adam and Eve. Someone may be able to confirm that. If they were a fringe group, we could ignore that, but it appears there are about 7 million (worldwide) - so I presume they break the poll's usefulness. Comments? ^ross ^nixon 01:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the poll is a decent source, but that it doesn't substantiate the statement "Young Earth creationist views are held by as many as 44%". Gabbe (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Realistic

This passage here: Since the end of the 19th century, belief in creationism has decreased as scientific theories have been presented that may support more naturalistic explanations for the universe and for life.

Should be changed to: Since the end of the 19th century, belief in creationism has decreased as scientific theories have been presented that may support more realistic explanations for the universe and for life. Jbhf1 (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The word "naturalistic" is more accurate and less-POV as everyone has their own interpretation of "realistic". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree. A fair amount of human evolution happened in the desert, and The Real is a desert! So, it isn't too far off the mark to refer to evolution as "realistic". Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Religious belief

The article opens with the assertion that "Creationism is the religious belief..." The quoted statement is both sourced and true ... a lot of the time, anyway, but not in every instance. Implicit in the opening line is that creationism cannot be anything other than a religious belief. Given this implication, let's say (hypothetically) that I believe that X ("X" being any supernatural entity that feels personally meaningful to me, and--as it turns out--only to me) created all of everything because he/she/it simply wanted to. My belief would match the remainder of the article's definition of creationism. It would not, however, meet several definitions of "religion". If this belief contributes to my "selfhood", then it meets Thomas Luckmann's very broad definition of religion. Such a belief could fit quite nicely with Alfred North Whitehead's summary of religion as that which one does with one's "solitariness". Belief in X might be somewhat consistent with Paul Tillich's description of religion as that which makes one experience a sense of holiness and awe. X could, at least in theory, accomplish this for me. But consider Peter Berger, who stated that this meaningfulness must be of the sort that makes everything seem "humanly significant". Maybe my belief in X doesn't go quite that far. And it doesn't have to go so far as accepting that a God or saviour exists (in contrast to the belief that religion makes such acceptances); my "supernatural entity" could be nothing but a sentient blob of ectoplasm. Or consider Clifford Geertz, who saw religion as a "cultural system". If my belief is idiosyncratic, it's not a "cultural" system. And so on. I would change the line to something like, "Creationism is the belief, often of a religious nature, that..." What do others think about this suggestion? Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to object to this. I don't see how creationism - the belief that everything appeared abruptly by a supernatural creator - can be anything but religious in nature, given its fundamentally supernatural/spiritual premise. This change should be undone. Not to mention that the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest scientific organization in the world, considers it to be a purely religious belief, along with intelligent design. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made this change. Please let me know if there are any problems with the change or with my rationale. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Creationism is the belief, often religious in nature, that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural agency..." How can a belief in a supernatural being having created something not be religious? Janfrie1988 (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I reverted the edit.--LexCorp (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. As would Berger and Geertz (see above). And so would Stuart Kauffman [9] and Barbara Ehrenreich.[10] If Creation can be a process of emergence, then Creation-ism can defy the scientific tenet of reductionism while not becoming "religious" in the slightest. Unless, of course, we define religion along with Luckmann. Basically, both "religious belief" and "creationism" are too conceptually nuanced to be treated (respectively) as category and subcategory. A belief in creationism is often--but not necessarily--a religious belief. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well you will have to agree that those are quite fringe interpretations of creationism. This article deal with the belief of supernatural creation. For any other interpretation you will have to really start a new article specifying no supernatural causes. Mixing the two only bring confusion to those not familiar with the subject. It even looks a bit like WP:Synthesis on your part.--LexCorp (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

My basic point is still that the extent to which creationism is a "religious belief" seems largely relative to how the individual conceives of religion. Belief in creationism is not, for example, prescribed by the Bible; it's neither code nor creed; and the Book of Genesis doesn't say, "Read me literally!" One thinks of religious belief as something shared by all or most adherents of a religion--as belief that naturally follows from religion. For example, Christians generally believe in a Resurrection and a Second Coming--these would be "religious beliefs". But there are plenty of Christians out there who think that creationism is pure balderdash. So I would think either that this article (while still noting the connections between creationism and religion) shouldn't package creationism into "religious belief", or that the religious belief article should be edited so that it doesn't define religious belief in terms of code and creed. I've had trouble finding sources that define "religious belief", but I did come across one source which defines it, quite liberally, as belief in "that which is utterly self-existent or nondependent". Even with this definition, though, "religious belief" would (as far as I can tell) exclude creationism. A proposition such as "God exists" would be a religious belief, because God's existence is held to be a cosmological given. So are things like miracles and resurrections. But a belief in a divinely inspired Earth, while obviously attached to religious beliefs, can't be bundled up into "religious belief" because it does not propose that life on earth is "self-existent or nondependent". Just the opposite: It posits that all life is entirely dependent on God's will. God's will, per se, is said to depend on nothing but itself, and so belief in it would meet the given definition of religious belief. But belief in creationism doesn't seem to meet this very broad definition, let alone those that defer to code or creed. I would think, then, that although creationism can be called a belief that is connected to or dependent upon religious beliefs, it can't really be condensed into "religious belief" without overlooking some important nuances. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course Creationism is religious. It may not be what all adherents to a particular religion believe, but for those who do believe in it, it's part of their religious belief. No fiddling with words or nuancing can separate the two. Even if creation believers don't see it as part of their own or any mainstream religion, it's still religious. It's obviously not scientific. Is there a third category, not yet defined, somewhere between those two? Seriously, I cannot see that it can be described as anything else but religious. HiLo48 (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This source uses terms like "religiously inspired" and "religiously based". There are (hypothetically) instances in which creationism could be neither inspired by nor based upon religion; but for the most part, it seems to have a strong religious basis. So, I'm not denying that creationism is in a sense "religious", and I'm not denying that it's a belief. But the phrase "religious belief" implies a certain, doctrinal formality which creationism lacks, or--if we go with the source I gave above--a certain independent, self-sufficient, basic character which creationism also lacks. Creationism can be based upon religion, but it's not the base per se; it's not the "religious belief", but rather an auxiliary world-view centered upon more solid, "religious beliefs". Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Since the phrases "religiously inspired" and "religiously based" are verifiable (and, I think, more defensible than simply "religious belief"), I propose using either "religiously inspired" or "religiously based". (Personally, I like the poetic connections of "inspired", which has a religious etymology, is related to "spirit", and literally means "breathed in"--Genesis 2:7, anyone?--but suppose that "based" might sound more neutral.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with your suggestions. I prefer the current version. The "Religious" adjective does not automatically imply a doctrinal formality. Any belief that appeals to a supernatural actor is religious in nature. "Religious belief" is also verifiable, you only need a copy of the source. Furthermore your 2 suggestions are not definitions of the subject, while "religious belief" is a definition.--LexCorp (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we might have to agree to disagree on some points. As it stands, though, it really all depends on whatever it is that Eugenie Scott says on p. 114 of Evolution Vs. Creationism, considering that that's the source provided. The word "religious" seems to have been added and removed so many times that it's difficult to tell if "religious belief" or just "belief" is verified by Scott. Of course, I'm not going to change anything without consensus. Even with consensus, though, I would hesitate to change anything without a quotation from the Scott source, since that provides a starting point. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Dating back to the time of Jesus...

I have no other grievance apart from the (seemingly) hijacking of creationism by Christians. There are plenty of other earlier religions, myths and sagas that mention it. Creationism certainly dates from earlier times than the first century AD. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There are certainly other stories of creation for other religions. Those are covered in general in places like creation mythology. Creationism, however, is a specific movement that is specific to Abrahamic faiths.Farsight001 (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As per Farsight001 above I restored the material.--LexCorp (talk) 01:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, but Jesus did not invent Abrahamic faiths, therefore the history of creationism does not date to the time of Jesus, but to an earlier time, the beginning of history, possibly.Brutal Deluxe (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Creationism dates to a specific time in the Abrahamic faiths, but as far as I can tell, that time is in the 20th century. In the Middle Ages, the Church accepted Aristotle's views about how the physical universe was created, and viewed the first chapters of Genesis allegorically. Certainly many Jews interpreted them allegorically as well. Philo of Alexandria interpereted the creation stories allegorically, and I think that is the earliest interpretation we have. As for Jews before Philo, well, what evidence do you have that the people who wrote the first two chapters of Genesis intended that they be taken literally? Creationism is an ideology that developed in the 20th century or perhaps late 19th century as a reaction against modernity. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Changing legit Wiki Links

There is a user who is going back and changing all proper wiki-links in this article to an old article title. Now that old article title was only in effect for 2 months, and yet all the wiki-links were changed to match that. Somehow this user didn't object then. Now that the article is changed back, that user is pushing that the wiki-links remain the same. Does anyone else see this as pov-pushing? I certainly do. SAE (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Lutheran belief

Why does one of the paragraphs reference the Lutheran church as a church that does not hold the Bible as applicable to the physical world? I am not trying to fight or argue, but as a Lutheran I am curious as to where this reference was acquired. To my understanding, nowhere in Lutheran doctrine is the Bible discounted as a source of knowledge of the physical world. Help?Prussian725 (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone?Prussian725 (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Having looked out some references, I've rephrased it as "consider that there is no conflict between the spiritual meaning of creation and the science of evolution." For additional info, see Judge Jones interviewed by The Lutheran | NCSE and linked articles. . . dave souza, talk 17:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref's dave. I myself am a LCMS Lutheran, whereas judge Jones III is ELCA. Don't know if the distinction is pertinent enough to mention, but it might be considered as there are some differences in belief. What do you think?Prussian725 (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Different synods or groupings may well have different beliefs on this, the current statements in the article are well supported and by describing the views of "Most contemporary Christian leaders and scholars from mainstream churches" clearly indicate that a minority differ from these views. The situation may be parallel to the Roman Catholic church which has a leadership position that accepts the science of evolution subject to it not being interpreted in an atheistic way, but some groups within the church support creationist views opposing the science of evolution. Have you sources giving an estimate of the support of various views? The section already goes on to describe various views, you may wish to propose revisions to the wording. . . . dave souza, talk 19:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Religious belief, revisited

I'll acknowledge upfront that I've recently taken issue with the opening line's introduction of creationism as a "religious belief". I backed off from that argument (i.e., the position that labeling creationism a religious belief was over-simplistic), pending a look at the source already provided. I haven't checked that source and haven't seen that anyone else has checked it, and I retain my final position that the legitimacy of the opening phrase hinges on what the source says. So, I do not mean to rehash my old/original position here. However, as I was editing the article today, I still sensed something awkward about the first line. The problem, IMO, is that it's simply redundant. Even if we understand religious belief as belief generally in a supernatural agency, what we ultimately have, in the assertion that "Creationism is [a] religious belief [about] a supernatural agency" is, "Creationism is a religious belief pertaining to the object of a religious belief." To avoid this sort of redundancy, I might suggest rephrasing the line as something like, "Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural, or religious, agency." Or, perhaps, "Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural agency of religious import." Or even, "Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural deity." Or just, "...the creation of a deity." Again, I acknowledge having raised (and relented on) a related theme a while back. I trust my fellow editors not to assume that I'm trying to push any particular POV (e.g., some form of naturalistic legitimation), but nonetheless offer evidence of my neutrality to any... shall I say, non-believers. ;-) Basically, regardless of whether or not the opening line is over-simplifying, I wonder if it might be overstating its idea. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I have the second edition of the book. I found this on page 114 regarding Creationism as a religious belief

"McLean v. Arkansas was tried in federal district court... The Arkansas ACLU would argue that because creation science was inherently a religious idea, its advocacy as required by Act 590 would violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution." That is what I can find on page 114. But it goes on further about the trial and how the defense was unwilling to use people from the ICR due to the fact that they wrote Christian apologetic material.

Essentially by passing Act 590, the state of Arkansas was acting in the advancement of religion (by allowing for the teaching of creation science). The Act was overturned in that court case because creation science is a religious belief.ZgokE (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Cosmic Latte - I do see your point about the clumsiness of the opening sentence right now. There is redundancy in there. My first leaning was towards your suggestion of "Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural, or religious, agency." However, I think it's important to emphasise in the wording that by far the strongest promotion of creationist views today is from the more fundamental Christian organisations, largely within the United States. (And this comes from someone constantly working to remove US centric aspects of Wikipedia!) To mention "supernatural" before "religious" in your definition seems to put an inaccurate slant on that. How about we reverse those words, giving us.... "Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a religious or supernatural agency." HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

What is a religious agency? Sorry but that sentence does not make any sense. For what is worth I do not see any redundancy or clumsiness in the current version. Also extra ref from Decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover, by Judge John E. Jones, December 20, 2005 at page 43 reads "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.". I hope "view" as synonym of "belief" is not too problematic as it is mentioned as such in almost all dictionaries.--LexCorp (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with LexCorp ZgokE (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

True--"religious agency" doesn't sound quite right. To rephrase my initial thought, "religious belief [about] a supernatural agency" just sounds a bit like, "religious belief about a religious idea". Perhaps omitting "religious" and adding "deity" (e.g., creationism is the belief ... a deity or other supernatural agency") would do the trick. Or, perhaps, omit "religious" and replace "supernatural agency" with "Creator deity", which even has its own article. Or, of course, leave as-is: I still sense a copy-editing issue with implying "religious" twice in one sentence, but I have no doubts (after reading the above) that "religious belief" is verifiable regardless. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Growing evidence for naturalistic explanations

Don’t be sorry, be specific. Point out the evidence (I maybe missed it), rather than simply be disdainful and patronising. Mannafredo (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Cosmic Latte deleted the relevant paragraph. I agree with the deletion in that it was unsourced and irrelevant to this particular section.--LexCorp (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, Mannafredo, even if that passage as a whole had been relevant to the surrounding text, abiogenesis would not have been germane to the passage. That abiogenesis may be something of a mystery does not mean that "detailed scientific and naturalistic explanations" of abiogenesis have not been offered. They exist; they're just debated and in need of greater synthesis. And that, really, is how it often goes in academia: If there is a God of the gaps, he's lord over lots of things that scholars study. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought the passage seemed fine relevant to the heading ‘…naturalistic explanations’. The evolution bit that’s left is only part of the picture - post-origin-of-life. My problem with the passage was that it seemed to ignore the ‘gaps’, and by doing so include all the gaps (including the origin-of-life) under the ‘Growing evidence…’ part of the heading. It is this particular gap, to me a biggy, that I don’t think there is ‘growing evidence’ in solving at all - hence its being recognised as an on-going ‘mystery’ as you put it. Mannafredo (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Typical. Mannafredo (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, it's interesting but not necessarily a big step towards understanding abiogenesis. Work in progress. . . dave souza, talk 10:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

^ Sagan, Carl (1985). Cosmos. Ballantine Books. ISBN 978-0345331359. p. 258.
^ Hinduism and evolution, V. Jayaram, Hinduwebsite.com
^ evolution-fantasy-page
^ Sagan, Carl (1985). Cosmos. Ballantine Books. ISBN 978-0345331359. p. 258.
^ Hinduism and evolution, V. Jayaram, Hinduwebsite.com
^ evolution-fantasy-page
^ Scott & Eldredge 2005, p. 114
^ 'Creationism', Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, 1989
^ Cite error: The named reference num was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Scott & Eldredge 2005, ppxxi-xxiii, summarised at The Pillars of Creationism
^ Creationism's Trojan Horse, p283

[1] Sagan, Carl (1985). Cosmos. Ballantine Books. ISBN 978-0345331359. p. 258.

[2] Hinduism and evolution, V. Jayaram, Hinduwebsite.com

[3] volution-fantasy-page

[4] Sagan, Carl (1985). Cosmos. Ballantine Books. ISBN 978-0345331359. p. 258.

[5] Hinduism and evolution, V. Jayaram, Hinduwebsite.com

[6] volution-fantasy-page

[7] Scott & Eldredge 2005, p. 114

[8] 'Creationism', Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, 1989

[num-9] Cite error: The named reference num was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[10] Scott & Eldredge 2005, ppxxi-xxiii, summarised at The Pillars of Creationism

[11] Creationism's Trojan Horse, p283

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]