Talk:Creationism

Critism of the United States Courts Decision

I'm writing this on the Reverting that was taking place on 11/9/07,

I felt that it seemed bias to say that " ""many"" other countries that disagree with the """United States""" ", therefore i tried to compromise with "however some disagree with the united states courts"

Many is the majority, or at least a large number, whearas some suggests only a few, also stating that the disagreement was with the United States Courts, rather than with the United States as a country seemed fairer.

It seemed that it had only been placed to discredit what had been put beforehand

I hope a suitable article, that has a neutral point of view, is reached, one that doesn't show either side of the argument in any more or less light.

thank you

Twilight Arceus 21:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

1. The word "many", in English, does not imply a majority. If you mean to suggest a majority when there is none, it is POV pushing. Why did you remove the word "countries" and change it to the vague, weaselly "some"??? It isn't just a few odd people who disagree as your edit misleadingly suggests, it is entire countries (governments, even) that take this stance.
2. In what way does my edit "discredit" anything? I am trying to give balance in accordance with NPOV by telling the *whole* story, not just the selected parts of it that are convenient to only one POV. 'Balance' is not the samre thing as 'discrediting'. If I thought any part of it was not credible, I would have simply removed it. It seems there is still an obvious attempt now to turn the article into a platform for pushing a certain POV without regard for what many readers might think about it. 70.105.30.46 21:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Many means to have a large number- depending on the number of countries that did in fact disagree with the decision, if more people disagreed, it would be a large number of countries which disagreed, in comparison with those that did agree. The example used in the simple wikitionary was quite befitting, that the population of China is large, large in comparison with the population of other countries.

Although i do agree with you that it is still a vague word, that is dependant on opinions, so we definately need more than our own thoughts on this matter.

On the case of some countries, i think it is fair to say that although a government says something does not mean that the country itself agrees. However "some Countries" would probably be a better way of putting it. Also the fact that you suggest the word "some" misleadingly suggests few people is ironic, considering the word "many" is its antonym, and therefore would suggest saying many would be an exxageration.

Putting a vague "Many Countries Disagree with the United states" with no examples, nor links (if there are none, there are sure to be some on en.wikipedia, which i would be more than happy to help make articles on) does seem as though it's just there to question the believablity of the part beforehand, I'm not, however, saying what I eventually edited it to is any better at a fair statement.

However, on a topic such as this one, it will be nearly impossible to create a perfectly evenly balanced argument for both sides of the argument, I don't think we should forget that the entire article is actually about Creationism, and not the United States, which is the key point of the article, and therefore having a balance to the creationism, would make the article more balanced.

It would probably be better to put arguments for and against(with examples) the Courts decison on the "Edwards v. Aguillard" Page.

Also, referring to what you put on one of your "edit Summaries", i am in no way more positively inclined to the United States decisions (to be honest, i would say i dislike the decisions moreso) but it's not about my opinion on the country at all, furthermore i find it upsetting to be called arrogant. Also accusing me of only considering the USA's opinion solid, without knowing me, as i hope i've shown, i do not only consider the USA's opinion, I believe in Equality for all people, because we are all people.

As i've said we really need more people to suggest what should be done about this.

Twilight Arceus 22:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's some support for the "many countries disagree" thing, we should skip it. I know of Governmental rulings for Britain and the U.S., I'm not aware of any countries actually supporting creationism, except maybe some of the Muslim ones. Turkey and the like. Adam Cuerden 22:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputing Neutrality

This article is now being used as a platform for pushing one POV, and insulting everyone who holds another POV, and is therefore a violation of neutrality. It is not the role of Wikipedia to preach any one opinion and attack another. For this reason, I am requesting someone who is able to edit to add the NPOV tag. If not, I will do so myself as soon as it is unprotected.

70.105.30.46 00:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Everything in the article is supported by thousands of papers, books, and other reports. I'll add some references tomorrow. It contains about as much information as such a short article can.

What more would you include? There's nothing preventing it from becoming a bigger article. Adam Cuerden 04:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The idea that God created the Universe is also supported by thousands of papers and books, not to mention what many see as the clinching proof, the very fact that the Universe exists and does not seem to them to be an accident. Please, do not assert the primacy of only those select books and papers that support YOUR beliefs and POV, and use them to attack every other belief system in the world; that is the very definition of POV warring, and the very opposite of "neutrality". 70.105.30.46 10:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

But Creationism is presenting itself as science, so the scientific evidence is what matters. Adam Cuerden 15:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Creationism can't "present itself" as anything, it is not a person but a name given to the widespread belief that God created the universe. That is a poor excuse to insert only your own POV about "what matters" with regard to your belief, or claim that other POVs don't matter as much as yours. There is a wide range of significant opinions held by significant numbers of people on this question, so policy calls for them all to be addressed, and neutrally (ie. without endorsing one POV above the rest, or taking sides). 70.105.30.46 15:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we may be having problems because there's two very different things called creationism. It usually means the political movement against evolution and attempting to justify a literal interpretation of Genesis. It also has a theological meaning which just means "the belief the universe was created." This article is (presumably) on the better-known meaning, but you're looking at the other meaning. Maybe we should split it in two? Adam Cuerden 15:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen any source claim that there are two different things called "creationism" in this way, do you have a reference for this research? 70.105.30.46 15:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[1]. Although I think I misremembered slightly. IT's actually to do with souls. Adam Cuerden 17:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You may be thinking of "The doctrine that a new soul is created afresh for each person: opposed to traducianism" (Oxford Philosphy Dictionary). That's the only other distinct definition of the word, but I think that is a red herring, since neither of us had that definition in mind. Is this what you are labelling as "the religious definition"?? Creationism (as this article describes it) has always meant positively "the belief that God created the universe", but you are redefining it negatively as "an attack on a competing belief (evolution)", just so that you can tear down that strawman. No doubt, certain proponents of creationism have indeed attacked evolution, but that is not what defines "creationism". For instance, certain proponents of creationism have also historically attacked polytheism, or any number of other conflicting ideas, but that also does not define "creationism". 70.105.30.46 20:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there was an intentional straw man but creationism is used at different times with different meanings. Sometimes creationism means to the whole of creationism, Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism. Other times creationism just means Young Earth Creationism. This can cause confusion and get people to make mistakes. I've explained that there are two different meanings and written new articles about Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism. I hope that will help people understand. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Why don't we make an article on the religious definition at Creation? Then we could use this for the political movement, and link back there? I'm not against the religious version. But creationism is, by definition, an anti-science movement which is only loosely connected to creation itself. Adam Cuerden 19:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Because that "by definition" you just provided, that you claim is "only loosely connected to creation itself", is YOUR definition, but it is not one that is agreed upon by everyone. If you look it up on answers.com, you will see a wide variety of different (sometimes conflicting) definitions that various sources have given it, all on one page. 70.105.30.46 20:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, all but one of the dictionaries provided at dictionary.com [2] (ignoring the two specialised dictionaries that talk about software creation) explicitly say that it is in opposition to evolution. The remaining one just says that it's a literal belief in Genesis, without saying the consequences of this. Adam Cuerden 21:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, here are the definitions from aforementioned answers.com:

• "Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible." - American Heritage Dictionary

• "The belief that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing. Biblical creationists believe that the story told in Genesis of God's six-day creation of the universe and all living things is literally correct." - Britannica

• "In the philosophy of biology, the belief that perceived difficulties or gaps in the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection are well filled by positing Divine intervention, to create new species, and certainly to create people." Oxford Philosophy dictionary

• "The attribution of all matter and biological species to separate acts of creation rather than evolution." Oxford Archaeology dictionary

• "the belief that life on Earth is the product of a divine act rather than organic evolution, has had a strong and persistent presence in American culture." American History Encyclopedia

• "belief in the biblical account of the creation of the world as described in Genesis, a characteristic especially of fundamentalist Protestantism (see fundamentalism)." Columbia Encyclopedia

• "the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a supernatural deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed." (Wikipedia (main English version)

Note that of these, only the two Oxford definitions and AHE mention evolution, and give IMO a biased definition. The various Encyclopedias all do mention the conflict with evolution as part of the history of Creationism, which is fair enough and to be expected, but notice that not one of them defines it negatively in apposition to evolution, but rather in positive terms, by stating what it does believe in. 70.105.30.46 21:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at now. I have no problems with your last few changes, as of this one. If you just don't think that evolution should be mentioned in the first sentence, I'm fine with that. Adam Cuerden 02:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Some people..."

"Some people do not believe their religious book to be word-for-word true, and say God used evolution to create life. (...) Others believe that evolution alone created life."

Surely you guys too must have policies against Weasel Words. Shouldn't this be supported by some reference or other? - Fyrius (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup we do, but like anything on a wiki, things slip through the cracks. Its a case of be bold and fix it. -Djsasso (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

I have put up a neutrality banner for this article, because as far as I can see, this article attacks itself in favor of evolution. If you object to this, discuss it here before you delete it. TheMan (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I just read the article and do not really have a problem with the neutrality of it. Is there anything specific that you could point out that you find to be anti-Creationist? Katerenka ^Talk 03:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The statement "There are things that show evolution, such as fossils, the remains of living things that died long ago" seems to say that evolution must be true, despite the article. TheMan (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I see the POV problem, the article spends more time explaining the evidence against it and the fact that scientist and US courts say it's not science then explaining what it is, which is what it should be doing it.--  † CR₉₀  20:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia anyone can edit, so if you are unhappy with the article, please improve it. Note however:

In order to fit in the idea of evolution with their religious views, people have come up with ideas like guided evolution or theistic evolution. They say that evolution is real, but they say that someone is guiding it in certain ways. There are many different concepts of theistic evolution. Many creationists believe that the creation myth found in their religion goes against the idea of evolution. As Darwin realised, the most controversial part of the evolutionary thought is what it means for human origins. (from the evolution article; I have removed the references)

(...)

Some people disagree with the idea of evolution. They disagree with it for a number of reasons. Most often these reasons are influenced by or based on their religious beliefs. People who do not agree with evolution usually believe in creationism or intelligent design.

Despite this, evolution is one of the most successful theories in science. People have found it to be useful for different kinds of research. None of the other proposals explain things, such as fossil records, as well. So, for almost all scientists, evolution is not in doubt. (also from the Evolution article, but in another place; again I have left out the references for clarity).

Since I am not from the ID/Creationism crowd, I cannot really judge how much such a statement goes against neutrality. When you change it , please remember that there is no sole truth, other people may differ in their views. For this reason, alternatives (that is: evolution) should still be mentioned. --Eptalon (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat as Eptalon. Not believing in theistic evolution or intelligent design, I really don't see how either of the statements brought up are non-neutral. However, if you disagree, you're more than welcome to change them. Just please don't flip from one "bias" to another. Cheers, ···Lauryn 20:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The only solution I see is expanding which I'm not good at and kinda too lazy to do.--  † CR₉₀  20:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least you're honest. :p Any comment on the addition that I made? ···Lauryn 20:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's step in the right direction.--  † CR₉₀  21:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, by all means, feel free to improve upon it. ···Lauryn 21:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I also think that we should make a short section on old earth creationism and possibly evolution. However, if we put an evolutionary article on this page, we should put a creationism in the evolutionary article TheMan (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a creationist, and I find it okay... poorly written, but not infuriatingly biased. Needs some work though. On enwp I tend to shy away from religious/political issues, but here I guess it's okay and I won't get flamed... *adds to watchlist* SS✞^(Kay) 05:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(<-) Feel free, then. I think most of all this article needs work; when you add, do not forget ot add (reliable) references as well. And be sure you read the apple/orange thing below ;) --Eptalon (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Size

I think one of the problem is that at the moment we are comparing apples with oranges, so to speak. The evolution article is cited above. Besides being one of the best articles we currently have, that article is almost 50k in size, compared to the 7k this article currently has. One option would be to get this article into shape, for example by pointing out the different creationist movements, or their history. Once this is done, and the article gives an overview as a whole, we can look at getting the article to GA. If you can come up with a reliable reference, it might also be used for the DYK process. As you can see, the section Responses to the idea of Evolution, is bigger than this whole article. I would of course have helped, but as an outsider, I'd need to rely on the EnWP article. Unfortunately, that article is a mess (which is of course nothing against the idea). --Eptalon (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Belittles evolution

Whatever this article was like before, as it stands now, it belittles evolution as just one other way of looking at the origin of life, instead of one of the best-evidenced theories in science. 109.145.25.63 (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all, have you read WP:NEUTRAL? This article is neutral, because it states facts in an unbiased way. This article is not about evolution, but it does mention it (not in a belittling way) along with a link to its article, so that people who want to can read about that theory as well. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)