Talk:Creationism/Is Creationism a theory

message: If we would pattern the beginning of the Creationism page after the Phlogiston theory page, we would have the following.
:Creationism is a now discredited pre-5th century BC hypothesis regarding the formation of the universe and the origin of species.
That beginning sentence would at least be accurate--and defensible.  In contrast, the current first sentence is indefensible.  It would similarly be indefensible to define Evolution as
:Evolution is the belief that natural selection over millions of years has provided the origin of species from ancient lifeforms.
That is not what evolution is!  Evolution is a whole complex of observations, conjectures,  and progressively better explanations for the observations.  Now, someone might believe that some version of evolution is more accurate than some other explanation.  But the belief is forever separate from what is believed--even for the "creationists."
And the evolutionists will not let the creationists make a clear statement of what the "discredited hypothesis" is.  ---Rednblu 21:09, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Creationism is not a discredited hypothesis.  Which is the whole point of this discussion.  There is enough forthcoming evidence of the validity of Creationism to create a daily raido broadcast.  To see some of the recent evidence the raido spot has a web page at .  To see some of this recent evidence, click on "View Transcripts" and look at the latest volume.  KeyStroke
---
Though I personally think that creationism as at  is a discredited hypothesis, I concede that you make a very important point--whether creationism is a discredited hypothesis is the "whole point of this discussion."  And we should not hope to prove one way or the other here on this Talk:Creationism page.  Here, we should be figuring out how to turn the Creationism page into a coherent presentation of what "creationism" is.  Would you agree?  ---Rednblu 05:30, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes, I would agree that the Creationism entry, itself, and perhaps this talk page are not the place to "prove", one way or the other, the validity of Creationism.  The purpose of Wikipedia is to make encyclopedia entries.  It needs to take the approach that the old Dragnet TV show investigators took - "Just the facts, ma'am".  We need to present the ideas of Creationism in a way that cohesively and accurately represents what Creationsim is.  The article is not the place to try to convince people that Creationism is right, and it is not the place to try to convince people that Creationism is wrong.  Those people who are led by God to accept those ideas would do so, without the article needing to "convince" them that Creationism is right.  Those people who have determined to reject ideas based on faith would do so, without the article needing to "convince" them that Creationsim is wrong.  Let the ideas stand on their own merit with the reader.  KeyStroke
---
What you say makes sense to me.  But let's wait to get discussion on this Talk:Creationism page from other points-of-view before we do anything.  Okay?  Meanwhile, what do you think of the proposed split of the Creationism page that many of us have been discussing in various forms for the last couple of years? ---Rednblu 14:46, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: As an interested reader, the split seems eminently sensible. The subject is, IMHO, large enough and contentious enough to make the work worthwhile. Katherine Shaw 10:40, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
I have put back a summary of the creation accounts in Genesis. To discuss rationally what creationists believe it is imperative to consider what the Bible actually says. I realise that what I have written may be contentious but it needs to be done.
Michael Glass 03:23, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Is "creationism" a discredited hypothesis?