Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups

message: I had a few notes on my TODO list about the above FAQ, so will express them here in case others are interested in evaluating their merits and/or improving it before I do.  I otherwise think that it's pretty good already.
* Q3 lacks (or it may be for a possible Q4, perhaps):
*: A common argument is that if it's not science it's religious so does not merit any scientific scrutiny.  The answer is of course that it attempts to pass as science (sources about the history from YEC to Creation Science to ID to prevent neutral biology education in schools may be relevant here); that it makes false claims about topics that science properly covers; that it aims to corrupt science education.
* There's no mention of pseudoscience in Q3 either (it's implicit, not explicit), but the above could also address that.
* Common arguments are in relation to metaphysics, that they're all equal doctrines including idealism (and that they each could provide proper science resulting in different conclusions versus methodological naturalism and materialism, etc), but the scientific method allows to evaluate and test their tenets and positions against reality (i.e. a proper "theistic science" would either deny evidence or achieve the same results).  Some relevant sources may be found in relation to philosophy of science, the history of science and deep history, etc.
—PaleoNeonate – 10:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible FAQ improvements 

message: The rejection of evolution by religious groups surely is a very notable topic, especially in the filed of American culture wars, so this article has a great deal of references. This article covers mostly the rejection of evolution by American fundamentalists in the 2000s, when it was a prominent issue in the culture wars, in the context of the creation of Conservapedia and the foundation of the Creation Museum, when even president George W. Bush was in favor of the teaching of "intelligent design".
However, this article has few, but any, references to rejection of evolution in the 2010s and 2020s. I know American politics and debates are very complex (if not crazy), but as an educated guess, it seems that the subject of this article has become dated and historical, because rejection of evolution still exists but is no longer propagated by its foremost supporters, American conservatives. The culture wars have shifted, have you seen Donald Trump defending the teaching of intelligent design? The former real estate magnate and U.S. President surely is an indicator that the political polarization in the U.S. still exists but its subjects change.
Just to be clear, I know that evolution is a fact, and the rejection of evolution is a purely political discussion, not a scientific controversy. I just say that this article has become dated as American politics surprise us every day with a new polarizing subject, and it seems the subject of this article has moved on. 2804:14D:8084:A496:7882:1F19:B1E4:27D0 (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it could be true. Do you have a source for your claim? tgeorgescu (talk)  18:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

text: "references to rejection of evolution in the 2010s and 2020s." The article is probably outdated, but the Ark Encounter opened in 2016, and is used to propagate Young Earth creationism to gullible audiences. That Donald Trump does not seem to care about the topic does not mean that creationism has suddenly died out. Dimadick (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has the rejection of evolution died out?