Talk:Abrahamic creationism

message: I am contemplating the integrated system of topics related to creationism.  And I do not see a non-overlapping logical distinction between the creationism and creationism (theology).  That is, consider with me for a second the following. Suppose I am designing a sorting algorithm input to output, where input is some scholarly POV on creationism, such as Plato's POV in the Timaeus that the demiurge created the universe from an "eternal archetype" of the Good.  Would the short summary of Plato's POV on creationism go on the Creationism page or on the Creationism (theology) page?  The Renaissance theologians recognized Plato's POV as theology, good theology, and leading theology.
Perhaps we should consider the real name of the current Creationism page to be effectively Creationism (creation science), with the understanding that the current Creationism page will contain all of the Creationism versus evolution scholarly POVs.  At some point when we have the Creationism (theology) page clearly containing creationism (theology), then it may become logically clear that the current Creationism page should be a short disambiguation page with *links to Creationism versus evolution and Creationism (theology).  But, in my opinion, we won't know until we have an actual Creationism (theology) page that we feel ok about.  Any ideas?  Rednblu 14:46, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: You are preaching to the choir.  (No pun intended.)  To wit, an article entitled "creation science" or "scientific creationism" would be the proper receptacle for the content that is currently featured in the "creationism" article.  However, at least one "eloquent" Wikipedian sees these titles as being a POV endorsement of the pseudo-science of creation science, and the mere reinstatement of an article entitled "creationism (theology)" was a hard-won compromise brought about by the involvement of Wikipedian Miguel.  At this point in time, I think it's best to move forward with the present awkwardly-named article until such time as the merits of the above-narrated arguments become self-evident. -- NetEsq 00:07, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: In Catholic theology, the proposition that the human soul is immediately created by God is a corollary of the soul's spirituality. Certain psychical phenomena, such as intellectual and volitional phenomena regarding immaterial objects, indicates that their essence is intrinsically independent of the purely corporeal organism. This transmaterial subsistence supposes a corresponding mode of origin.
----
<< Could someone translate this into English? >>
The above-referenced passage is in English.
<< Detailed technical theological terms needs to be defined before being used. >>
In your opinion, which "detailed technical theological terms need to be defined"?  Perhaps you could list them here on the talk page. -- NetEsq 00:15, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinguishing [[Creationism (theology)]] from [[Creationism]] 

message: The language of this article struck me as a bit familiar, so I did a bit of Googling - it turns out that everything from "History of the idea of creation" onwards (a good two thirds of the article) has been copied and pasted in its entirety from the online Catholic Encyclopedia (see http://www.knight.org/advent/cathen/04470a.htm).  It has clearly come from an online version of the CE - note the odd formatting under "Creation the prerogative of God alone". This is characteristic of a bulleted or ordered list which has been copied from a web page into an HTML editor such as Dreamweaver, which strips off the list formatting but messes up the spacing in doing so. The contributor appears to have overlooked this.
Given that the source has a copyright notice, this could be a violation of Wikipedia copyright policies. (I notice that the copyright status of the CE has been raised before on Wikipedia - see http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Public_Domain_Resources - but apparently without resolution.) It's certainly a violation of the requirement to acknowledge the original source. This alone makes the contributor's insertion of this unacknowledged article blatant plagiarism. 
So what do we do about it?  I think the copyrighted bits should be deleted, at the very least. -- ChrisO 22:22, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at Wikipedia:Public domain resources#Encyclopedic or general resources. The source should be credit, however. --snoyes 23:02, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has been plagiarised from Catholic Encyclopedia - copyright problem? 

message: I removed the redirect to creationism as there is much more to this doctrine than simply the creationist view.  KHM03 11:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oct 05