Template talk:Creationism sidebar

message: There is an archived discussion of this template at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/May_2005#Template:Creationism2.  There was no consensus for deletion.  Joe D (t) 10:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So there should be no tag at all indicating it is proposed for deletion? - Tεxτurε 16:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So there should be a tag for deletion on a template that was once but is no longer on TFD? - Hm. SV|t 20:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I'm only asking the question because the tag still existed but Joe D's comment said the vote was over.  Glad to see it's resolved. - Tεxτurε 20:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Section header inserted here

message: You don't need to include every word that can be associated with creationism, never mind the suptopics for these. The nav bar is not supposed to be longer than the articles. Bensaccount 8 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)
:Bensaccount explained his edits Ungtss; they weren't "destructive", its called editing... and in this case culling. - RoyBoy 800 8 July 2005 18:25 (UTC)
::that's not an explanation, it's a bald and erroneous assertion by a repeatedly proven vandal  that no one has the courage to rfc.  the template allows the reader to quickly, easily and conveniently access creationism articles.  it is not longer than the article, as bensaccount claimed.  on the contrary, it is shorter than every single article there is.  deleting the bulk of the links serves absolutely no purpose except allowing bensaccount to giggle to himself.  it plainly and simply a destructive edit.  culling?  no.  poaching.  Ungtss 8 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)
:::Yes, culling; because the template is long Ungtss. One of the longest I've seen; and there is no expectation or need for it be comprehensive on the subject. - RoyBoy 800 9 July 2005 04:49 (UTC)
My explanation, which Ungtss must have missed, is that subtopics of distantly related associations don't belong in a nav bar. Ungtss has posted the above link about a dozen times so far, while omitting the following: . This is an attempt to mislead, no doubt motivated by spite. Ungtss, as usual, offers nothing of value. Bensaccount 8 July 2005 23:26 (UTC)
:The explanation comes to late, firstly. This rather large edit should have been discussed on the Talk page. Its what Talk pages are for. Secondly, I agree with Uggtss' assesment. The template allows the reader to quickly, easily and conveniently access articles refering to creationism. There is no reason to change it. -- Ec5618 July 9, 2005 01:33 (UTC)
::Yes there is. - RoyBoy 800 9 July 2005 04:49 (UTC)
:::the stated reasons are "shortness" and "prevent distantly related topics."  both of these fall far short of the arguments for "access," "clarity," and "convenience."  the claim that it is longer than all other templates is false.  have a look at Islam.  your ultimate argument is that "there is no need for it to be comprehensive."  What?  you'd prefer mediocrity?  Isn't "comprehensive" better than "half-ass?"  Ungtss 02:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't claim its longer than all other templates. And I prefer brevity over comprehensive; I would consider it half-ass if those sub-articles aren't linked from the main articles listed. - RoyBoy 800 04:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: so which would you like removed, insofar as they aren't linked to the topic?  Perhaps we should start with Flat Earth Society and geocentrism, which have absolutely nothing to do with creationism, and leave things like Creation biology and flood geology, which are, for all intents and purposes, core to contemporary creationism, but which bensaccount removed.  what criterion would you like to apply here for determining which links are in and which are out, as opposed to sheer culling?  Ungtss 20:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What you've said so far sounds like a good start; Baraminology, Vapor canopy, Created kinds are sub-articles that aren't necessary. While I understand the Vapor canopy is a key creation concept; if its one of the key concepts in Flood geology; then IMO its already been pointed to and the reader won't have trouble finding it. (but upon looking at the articles, the vapor canopy is not a key creation concept, and hence should not be cited in the template) And I'd clarify that although I felt a culling was necessary; Bensaccount did go overboard, but from now on if I need a template assassin I know who to call. - RoyBoy 800 02:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I concur; although I'd like to see Teach the controversy stay given its recent prominence; and I suspect it will be a strategy that will be front and center for some time to come. - RoyBoy 800 04:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: you're telling me that you don't think it's any use to have a template linking to creation biology and flood geology.  cute.  Ungtss 20:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Length

message: I removed it from the template because I'm confident this is not the place for statements; and I'm assuming pseudoscience will remain in the article(s) listed. - RoyBoy 800 01:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: It appears I've deleted the "Creationism2" template. This was not my purpose but it happened due to my clumsy computer skills. What I tried was to remove the box from "Flat Eath Society" article. A message I sent to the Flat Earth discussion is below (with some typos corrected).
::Don't worry about it. It was easily fixed. --Ian Pitchford 12:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry for trouble 

message: This template is used by articles outside of the ones mentioned in the template. I'm note sure what common procedure is, but shouldn't the template contain links to all articles? Or shouldn't there be a project page in which all relevant pages are linked? Should we not put a link to  in the template to help people find all creationism related articles? 
I understand the template needn't be comprehensive, but shouldn't something tie the creationism articles together?
Should we perhaps link to Category:creationism?
-- Ec5618 18:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part of a series 

message: While certainly many creationists revel in this idea, it is not part-and-parcel to creationism as a subject. In general, creationism derives from creation (theology) not from any sort of philosophical concern over proofs of the existence of god. Teleological argument may be appropriate for the Intelligent Design template, but creationism as a bigger tent doesn't necessarily ground itself in William Paley or his watchmaker. --ScienceApologist 15:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Teleological argument

message: I've made some appearance changes to match it to Template:Intelligent Design and Template:Evolution3, which it shared some pages with. Notably, I upped the width so it plays nicely with being combined into one box.  Adam Cuerden talk 05:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also rearranged the links a bit so it is more practically ordered. I was wondering if there was a way to integrate umbrella term distinction into the template. Intelligent design includes all forms of creationism excluding theistic evolution; Old-earth creationism includes gap creationism, day-age creationism, and progressive creationism. This distinction should be noted in the template somehow. Pbarnes 16:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: There's an article about the reactions of the Roman Catholic Church to evolution and of course creationism, and a small discussion as to which template we could include it in here.  Is it all right to put the article in this template and vice versa? -- StevenDH (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church]] 

message: The section titles on this template do not seem logical to me.  The "types of creationism" section is followed by the "other religious views".  The latter seems to suggest that the former deals entirely with Christian creationism.  If this is true, why isn't the "types of creationism" section called "Christian views"?  If this is not true, an article called Christian creationism or Christian views on evolution should be listed along with the other religions represented in "other religous views", which should then be renamed simply "religous views". Neelix (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section titles 

message: Given the increasing utilisation of infoboxes, could we come to some consesnsus on the best way of displaying this template in an article which has the infobox occupying the top-right-tand corner of the article. My preference would be for the template to be immediately below the infobox, but others tend to put it into a lower section (e.g. Answers in Genesis). If the former, what is the cleanest way of coding it? HrafnTalkStalk 06:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template & infoboxs 

message: Would anybody object to removal of TE from this template, and removal of this template from Theistic evolution? TE is not generally considered to be 'creationism', and a number of prominent TEists are prominent anti-creationists. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theistic evolution & this template 

message: (Cited at Theistic evolution#Evolutionary creationism HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Eugenie Scott is head of the National Center for Science Education, and is generally considered to be RS. As far as I know, no source disputes the statement. Also advocates of EC apparently tend to term it "Evolutionary creation" not "Evolutionary creationism", further distancing it from creationism. You can find discussion on all this in the archives of Talk:Creationism. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: -- Upon doing further research, and reading Eugenie Carol Scott's source material, it seems clear to me that the citation in Evolutionary Creationism is taken a bit out of context.  Rather than purporting to dilineate between evolution and creationism, eugenie carol scott was intending more to illustrate that "Evolutionary creationism" and "theistic evolution" are both similar, fairly evolutionary-friendly creationism concepts and that the former is name-branding to make theistic evolution more palatable to evangelical christians, even though both are scientifically similar and scientifically accepting of evolutionary theory.  Given this, I feel that it is appropriate to add Evolutionary Creationism to the types of creationism and make the appropriate reference fixes in the Evolutionary Creationism/Theistic Evolution article. In fact, if we were to go strictly by Eugenie Carol Scott's opinions on what constitutions "creationism" (even though she explicitly strives to make clear in the writing she's being quoted from that she's trying to illustrate a continuum of creationism viewpoints, not a dichotomy), we would have to *only* include flat earthism, geocentrism, and young earth creationism, which the template clearly does not restrict itself to.  (Simulcra (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you've got other reliable sources that disagree with Eugenie Scott, then by all means lets look at them and figure this out.  But bear in mind that we can't substitute our own judgement for reliable sources.  Guettarda (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The vast majority of sources (and particularly prominent sources), making use of the word "creationism" are doing so in context of the Creation–evolution controversy‎. This includes Islamic, Jewish and Hindu creationists, with the former actually reproducing Christian creationist anti-evolution arguments. We should therefore giveWP:DUE weight to this interpretation. Creationism does not "list[] Theistic Evolution in the section on Christian Creationism" -- but in the history of creationism (as Creationist resurgences has often been a reaction to overt Christian acceptance of evolution). AFAIK there hasn't been a prominent "creationist" movement in the last 150 years that hasn't been about this controversy, so I don't see what there is to "remove or move". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutionary creationism 

message: I changed the order in which the religions are listed around to reflect chronological precedence, and another editor changed it back to conform with alphabetical order.  Is there some sort of rule that resolves this issue? Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 04:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "precedence" consensus. Alphabetical solves the issue with no bias. Andrew Colvin • Talk  05:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  chronological or alphabetical order 

message: My attention having come here from the discussion at the talk about Template:Intelligent Design, I noticed that the image here was deleted without really having had a discussion on this talk page, so I would like to start that discussion now. I've read the edit summaries, and I realize that there are concerns that (a) it is decorative, and (b) that it is POV to represent an Abrahamic religion when other religious traditions also have creation stories. I went and read the lead at Creationism, the parent article for this template, and it summarizes the subject entirely in the Abrahamic context, and I think this image shows that in a way that is not simply decorative. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It really does seem to me that it is an error to argue that it is somehow POV or UNDUE to use this image. I think we all agree that the image arises from Abrahamic traditions. But that does not mean that Abrahamic traditions are unrepresentative of this particular topic. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You must not understand the full bias of that image. Regardless of whether there is supposedly  only one other creationism—Norse, Hopi, Babylonian, Mossi, Wakaranga, etc. to mention a few—the image misrepresents all the different versions of Judeo-Christian  creationism. Old Earth creationism, day-age creationism, progressive creationism, and especially Intelligent Design creationism consider creation to have taken place over time, not an instant creation like genesis purports. Additionally, the image is just of man’s creation. Not the creation of the earth, the universe, or other animals (or life forms). It is just Gods (the Judeo-Christian God) creation of humans (more specifically, male humans). A. Z. Colvin • Talk 00:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for coming to talk. As for what I and other editors understand, there's the lead of Creationism. And as for "just of man's creation", I think that we shouldn't be too literal here. The painting is at least as much an elegant metaphor as an attempt at photojournalism. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A. Z. Colvin: (i) You appear to be conflating Creation myths with Creationism -- they are not the same thing. (ii) Please provide WP:RS evidence of extant (let alone significant) "Norse, Hopi, Babylonian, Mossi, Wakaranga, etc" creationist movements, to demonstrate that they are "significant viewpoints" to which we should give WP:DUE weight. (iii) "especially Intelligent Design creationism" -- the Discovery Institute used banners based upon this image for a number of years, and the image features on Intelligent design. (iv) Man's direct creation by God is very near to ubiquitous as an article of faith within the creationist movement. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image in template 

message: In reverting my edit, you appear to have overlooked or ignored the second part of my rationale for removing Genesis creation narrative from the Creation–evolution controversy section: it is out of place. The article on the myth does not discuss the controversy. It belongs in Biblical cosmology, where it already is. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link out of place