Talk:Neo-creationism/Archive 1

message: I admit I am not a supporter of creationism, but to counter its arguments I need to know what they are.  I turned to this page for help on neo-creationism and found it confusing.  Some some parts of the page say that neo-creationism aims to cast creationism in a non-religious way  - that it disputes the scientific basis for evolution, and looks for scientific evidence of creationism (perhaps meaning that "Creation Science" and "Intelligent Design" part of neo-creationism).  Other parts of the page say specifically that neo-creationsism aims to take creationism away from scientific debate because it rejects the enlightenment view of what kinds of logical thinking is valid (ie it is back-to-basics Creationism which has no interest in reprsenting creationism an alternative SCIENTIFIC theory). I would be happy if the page said that SOME PEOPLE use neocreationism to mean the first and some people use it to mean the second, but that is not what the page says.  My best guess is that neo-creationism includes "creation science"; and that the second point of view was just an evolutionist having a dig at ALL forms of creationism.  But I am willing to learn, so can someone who genuinely knows what neocreationism says (or who wishes to clearly state that there is a debate over what it is) please help ? 62.25.106.209 12:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't anyone who calls himself a neocreationist. The term is just an evolutionist epithet. What you are observing is inconsistencies in how evolutionists badmouth people they don't like. Roger 00:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflicting POVs (not just disagreement) 

message: Wow...
"As do postmodernists, neo-creationists reject the traditions arising from the Enlightenment upon which modern scientific epistemology is founded. Neo-creationists seek nothing less than the replacement of empirical and logical evidence with ideology and dogmatic belief. Thus, neo-creationism is considered by Eugenie C. Scott and other critics as the most successful form of irrationalism.
I'm no fan of the Discovery Institute, but at least the middle sentence here is like...its like, if a perfumier wanted to make essence of POV, he'd use that one.Corbmobile 12:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly a fair cop I'd say.  I've replaced one or two of the changes that I think are fair to leave in.  Your mileage may vary.  --Plumbago 10:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: In an attempt to avoid generalizations you've added equivocations. It's no gernalization to say that all Neo-Creationists claim to present scientific theories while making thinly veiled religious allusions with an open and often hostile opposition to what they term "Darwinism." These points are what specifically distinguish Neo-Creationism from Creationism. It's simply not a matter of "most," "some," or "many" and "often": Either they they distinctions in their arguments, or they're not Neo-Creationists, but run-of-the-mill creationists. FeloniousMonk 15:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Wow, talk about an absolute violation of NPOV... I especially like the parts about "Neo-creationists seek nothing less than the replacement of empirical and logical evidence with ideology and dogmatic belief." and "Motivating the neo-creationist movement is the fear that religion is under attack by the study of evolution."  To say this article needs to be repaired would be a bit of an understatement.  Izuko 03:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Just to head off any claim from Rich that the DI is not promoting his book "From Darwin to Hitler," a Whois search for the book's website domain name, darwintohitler.com, reveals that it was registered by the Discovery Institute: . Additionally, the institute's name and logo are prominently displayed on the site's front page: . FeloniousMonk 00:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Surprisingly enough though, it really is published by MacMillan.  I saw that edit yesterday, assumed it was just another dash for respectability by the NCs, but it turns out to be correct.  I don't know what MacMillan are thinking (apart from dollar signs).  --Plumbago 09:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By Weikart/130.17.182.200's own admission yesterday , From Darwin to Hitler was funded by the Discovery Institute, so MacMillan had little financial risk. As for being peer-reviewed, MacMillan lists it in its history/social sciences catalog. So peer review there is a very different thing that PR for scientific articles and books. FeloniousMonk 02:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: A lack of logical consistancy is one of the more common criticisms of neo-creationism. The passage was correct as it was and cites are availible to back it up. Sorry, but I'm reverting your changes. FeloniousMonk 03:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Forest, there are trees there.  •Jim62sch• 00:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  204.108.237.194, you misunderstand science.  Many scientists believe in God.  Since science is about developing testable hypotheses about the workings of the world, and you can't test the Lord your God, God stays right out of it.  Read the statements by the Pope, and the Archbishop of Canterbury.  They are fine with science. You mentioned a evidence (presumably testable) that there is a deity.  And that is?
Trishm 22:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: From Darwin to Hitler

message: There is no tag on the article page, and this article is not on the Afd page - but Endomion apparently created an Afd page for this article. I am completely confused by this. Feel free to do whatever seems appropriate. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neo-Creationism KillerChihuahua 05:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Afd FYI

message: What other ones are there? Simões (talk/contribs) 19:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FSM? •Jim62sch• 23:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but really? Simões (talk/contribs) 02:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article mentions, "Abrupt Appearance Theory." ID is by far the most notable though. FeloniousMonk 05:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neo-creationisms other than intelligent design? 

message: The 'tactics' section reads like an indictment of anyone associated with the ID movement. There is a decided lack of anything approaching a 'both sides' viewpoint. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 18:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is a dispassionate description of the topic. If there are any glaring ommissions from either side then let's correct that. Exactly what content from the ID-side is missing and what sources for do you have? FeloniousMonk 19:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Again 

message: Neo-creationism, from my understanding of the word, is the critical author's name for intelligent design. I fail to see how this article has the information to stand on its own without becoming a content fork for a critical POV of the intelligent design movement. It should be deleted, but I will propose a merge instead. Pbarnes 16:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neocreationism is a term for a broader movement, of which ID is a part.  Merging the broader idea into the narrower idea makes no sense, nor does merging the better known term into the less well known term.  Guettarda 16:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Merging an article into another were the latter (ID movement) is a subset of the former (neo-creationism) doesn't make much sense. ID is a form of neo-creationism, not the other way around. 151.151.73.169 17:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: - Pbarnes 17:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I started it...and now I'm ending it. Pbarnes 17:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But looking below you haven't really, have you? 151.151.21.99 22:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: "Abrupt appearance theory" is not the same thing as ID. Not even close. Abrupt Appearance Theory is a version of creation science, and Wendell Bird was pushing it long before the ID movement in The Origin of Species Revisited  151.151.73.169 17:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More creationist nonsense.  I frankly could care less.  Maybe we should put green aliens in too.  Orangemarlin 17:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure that they are neo-creationist.  Guettarda 17:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And have you set up an experiment to test your hypothesis?  I stand by my original assertion.  Orangemarlin 22:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Abrupt Appearance Theory and ID are present in the article in roughly the proportion they make up neo creationism, so things are as they should be. AAT is a small but notable subset of Creation Science, if it's not as notable as ID, that's no reason to exclude it because it's still the most notable form of neo creationism that is not ID. 151.151.73.169 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, Abrupt appearance theory isn't even defined in the article. Pbarnes 17:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Abrupt appearance theory is just another name for ID or Creationism.  It deserves a brief mention, and that's about it.  Orangemarlin 17:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I doubt Abrupt Appearance Theory is worthy of an article, but if it were, writing something informative about it would require buying Bird's and Morris's books, which I refuse to do. I will not help purveyors of woo feather their nests. 151.151.73.169 19:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added the definition from Bird's book. 151.151.73.169 19:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abrupt Appearance Theory