Talk:Creationism/What is wrong with the lead section

message: It seems to me that our struggle here is a valid one.  We are attempting to define among ourselves what points-of-view should be allowed to make statements on the Creationism page.  The final constructive outcome of our struggles here would be a list of the allowed points-of-view.  Here are some of the points of friction that we have encountered so far.
* There is a question of whether a science view should be allowed to dictate such things as the definition of theory, particularly when the subject of "creationism" has deep roots in history, which often has been at odds with science.
* Here is a short list of the points-of-view that think they have something to say about "creationism."  Some of these points-of-view may have more relevance to "creationism" than science.
** Philosophy -- looking at the types of epistemology operating within creationism. 
** Ethics -- particularly taking into consideration, for example, Tom Paine's and Thomas Jefferson's view of the importance for the society to worship the Creator in the right way.
** Faith -- Many parts of creationism do not depend on proof or logical consistency.  
** Competitiveness -- There are several published scholars who have analyzed the political dynamics of the creationism versus evolutionism debate and interpreted it as mere "power dynamics" -- which would-be alpha male can get the other alpha males to bow to him.
** Anthropology -- Particularly, looking at the elements of creationism that are required to give the satisfaction of "explaining enough."
Approaching the problem of making a great Creationism page from this angle, we might make a list of the points-of-view in the current Creationism page--and then see what points-of-view would need to be added to make that great Creationism page.  ---Rednblu 05:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Points-of-View should get "air-time" on the [[Creationism]] page? 

message: : <<..it's clear you neither understand the basic underlying science you address here, nor..>>
In my opinion, it is irrelevant whether a participant on this page understands the underlying science.  And it is unnecessary to engage in this standard chimpanzee politics and hierarchy challenge that we all inherited from the ancestors of the chimpanzees.  We are writing an encyclopedia page.  And what matters is whether the participant faithfully represents a valid and documented point of view on the Creationism page.  We will expect legitimate citations, of course.  The Creationism page does not address, challenge, overlap, threaten, nor discuss science, though some wrongfully keep twisting the Creationism page to do so.  In my opinion, Mr. Rayment's statements faithfully represent history and standard uses of the English language whether or not they correspond to the narrow views of science.  ---Rednblu 06:01, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Insults, implied or overt, are neither welcome nor in the spirit of wikipedia. We can add these to your previous put downs of those who oppose your position as being "bigoted evolutionists." You may want to reconsider your tone here and blatant POV edits made to the main discussion page lately.--FeloniousMonk 07:01, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I have a feeling your English is likely better than ours, so please, have a go at it.--FeloniousMonk 07:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  In what way would a [[history]] view contradict a [[science]] view? 

message: : <<By positioning its assertions in the realm of science and opposing science, Creationism should then have to meet the same standard as science when identifying its claims or itself as a "theory.">>
Maybe for some enterprises your principle of "have to meet the same standard as" would be constructive.  But I doubt that your principle of "have to meet the same standard as" is a good approach for writing a truthful and accurate encyclopedia.  For in establishing the principle of "have to meet the same standard as," someone must declare which standard is the winner, within what otherwise would be a free-market competition among different standards.
Perhaps, the Wikipedia community would like to encourage the scientists in winning the competition over what definition of theory is allowed within Wikipedia.  After all, as Justice Holmes once said, "If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition."  
Above you argue that the Wikipedia community should declare that "Creationism should then have to meet the same standard as science."  But I suggest that declaring the monopoly outcome for science over control of the word and definition of theory would be fatal in trying to put together an accurate and truthful encyclopedia.
For as Justice Holmes said, it is natural to want to sweep away all opposition.  Then he continued, "But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out." 
I suggest that instead of adopting the principle of "have to meet the same standard as," a truthful and accurate encyclopedia would display the participants in the "free trade in ideas"--something like  Creationist A says "A theory is the following . . .," and Nobel Prize Winner B says "A theory is something different . . . ."  You may think that such an accurate description of the "free trade in ideas" would permit the creationists to manipulate people's minds with their pseudoscience.  I do not take such a dim view of what natural selection and circumstance have made of us.  Do you really think that pseudoscience has such power? ---Rednblu 06:58, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  No [[free market|civilized]] approach would allow [[Scientific method|science]] to own the word and definition of "theory" 

message: You have a singular gift for coming up with straw man arguments. Science doesn't "own" the term "theory" any more than Christians own the term religion; dictionaries define words based on what is found in general usage, and according to most dictionaries, people associate the word theory first with science before they associate it with a notion or idle conjecture, which is what you're arguing it is in this limited case (making your claim a special pleading).
"...I doubt that your principle of "have to meet the same standard as" is a good approach for writing a truthful and accurate encyclopedia.  For in establishing the principle of "have to meet the same standard as," someone must declare which standard is the winner, within what otherwise would be a free-market competition among different standards."
OK, so it's your position that in order to have a "a truthful and accurate encyclopedia" we should not define terms consistently or demand stringency in our justifications for defining thusly? Your "free-market" justification for abandoning explicit definitions leads to a race to the bottom and intellectual mediocrity; it only assures that all definitions so defined will be so vague as to be near useless.
"Perhaps, the Wikipedia community would like to encourage the scientists in winning the competition over what definition of theory is allowed within Wikipedia...  Above you argue that the Wikipedia community should declare that "Creationism should then have to meet the same standard as science."  But I suggest that declaring the monopoly outcome for science over control of the word and definition of theory would be fatal in trying to put together an accurate and truthful encyclopedia."
That's singularly threadbare and ignoble reasoning. Not exactly in the spirit of wikipedia now, is it? Trying to make this out as a competition and that scientists here are trying to make a power grab is a shabby and intellectually vacuous tactic. You used the same ploy in your creationist campaign at talk.origins and alt.atheism and it didn't work there, what makes you think it's going to work here? You and the proponents of creationism are the ones seeking to redefine the term and change the article, not us, we are satisfied as it is. Those here you call "scientists" are not asking for the article to be changed, you are. You've been flooding this debate with every form of specious notion to find an angle, and barring that now you're stooping to new lows. Your POV campaign here isn't able to make the case so you try to tar your opponents... Nice!
"For as Justice Holmes said, it is natural to want to sweep away all opposition..."
Well, Justice Holmes also said "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." in Buck v. Bell, 1927, endorsing Virginia's eugenics program. I'm not surprised you'd cite his likes as support. 
Then again he may have had a point, perhaps we have had enough generations of imbeciles...
"I suggest that instead of adopting the principle of "have to meet the same standard as," a truthful and accurate encyclopedia would display the participants in the "free trade in ideas"--something like  Creationist A says "A theory is the following . . .," and Nobel Prize Winner B says "A theory is something different . . . ."
Using your logic here one would never be able to have meaningful foundational basis for the word. It's like saying even though most experts and the public agree dogs are members of the species lupus, some non-experts should be allowed to say they belong to the species silvestris, because their religious beliefs dictate that any other belief is wrong and so they should get a special exemption. That's singularly bad logic.
You repeatedly use the phrase here"...a truthful and accurate encyclopedia..." but I have to ask why the concern about truth and accuracy now? I mean, you haven't bothered to be truthful or accurate to us about your POV agenda and history now, have you? Bringing up this argument now after our summaries is again an attempt to get another bite at the apple and refactor the debate, just more proof of the shabby tactics of your POV campaigning here; it's blatant flooding of the Talk pages, a violation of wikipolicy. 
I'm reluctant to engage you again in anymore discussions here considering the recent revelations as to your true POV, the lack of good faith it indicates, your history and identity. Obviously your mild claims of supporting evolution are nothing more than a beard you've hidden your creationist, religionist agenda behind to disarm your opponents, based on my reading your extensive history of usenet tactics in talk.origins, alt.atheism, etc. going as far back as 1996. You used the very same tactics and arguments there and were shown up to be a fraud. I feel your pet POV campaign here to redefine creationism as a theory and dishonesty about your true POV bias here precludes you from contributing anything with semblance of NPOV. I think you've got a lot of explaining to do before I and others will give you full faith and credit as a wikipedian.--FeloniousMonk 09:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  So wikipedia should allow [[Straw_man|Straw Man]] arguments to redefine the word "theory" for everyone to accomodate your special pleading? 

message: : <<Therefore, my first choice of wording would be along the lines of:
::Creationism is the movement that proposes that the universe and all life were created by deliberate act of God as described in the Bible.>>
In my opinion, movement is a great improvement in accuracy over belief--because I think movement captures both the idea and the organization that promotes the idea. Also, I think Mr. Monk's suggestion is a good one:  "Creationism is the religious doctrine that . . . ."  What came to my mind on reading both of your summary statements was this possibility:
: "Creationism is the movement and religious doctrine promoting the idea that . . . ."
Your phrase "Creationism is the movement that . . ." may be simpler and more accessible to the reader.
Is there any significant view within creationism that would feel a bias against them in the statement "Creationism is the movement that ... "?  Perhaps a significant portion of creationists might not like to associate themselves with the Organization of a movement.  Also, in your opinion, is there a significant view within creationism that would feel that the phrase "as described in the Bible" is biased against them?  For example, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica article on "creationism,"
: "Scientific creationists believe that a creator made all that exists, but they may not hold that the Genesis story is a literal history of that creation."
Would the statement Creationism is the movement that proposes that the universe and all life were created by deliberate act of God as described in the Bible be biased against such scientific creationists?  ---Rednblu 17:32, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The creationists' points-of-view should dominate the [[Wikipedia:Lead section|lead section]] of [[Creationism]] 

message: I didn't participate in the above discussion, but I think I'm the contributor of the disputed sentence. (Let me take a moment and *blush* if I'm not ;-)
Here is what I'd like to see now, in view of the recent, er, unpleasantness:
"Creationism is the belief that the universe, the planet earth and all life on the earth was created as deliberate act by a divine being. 
A later sentence -- possibly even in the same intro paragraph -- would identify the religious believers espousing this view, why they believe it, and some important variations of the belief. If this is too much for the lead paragraph, trim it and allude to details to follow:
Jews and Christians cite the Old Testament account in Genesis as authority for their faith: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. ... God created man in his image ... male and female He created them." (Genesis, chapter one from memory, so please correct the wording)
Whether the view should be called a "belief" or a "theory" is another question. If the term theory is disputed by us contributors, just use view as a catch-all term. I think most of us can agree on belief simply because a lot of people believe this viewpoint. We could also mention somewhere in the article the movement which is trying to get the view re-classified as a scientific theory (see creation science or scientific creationism). Note that the intelligent design movement is also trying to get scientists to agree to use the term hypothesis in a this context. --Uncle Ed 15:03, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ed Poor butts in