Talk:Neo-creationism

message: Does anybody really think this is a decent article?  I'm certainly no friend of creationism in any of its forms, but this article has obvious POV problems.  It basically starts with the assumption that "intelligent design" advocates are trying to deceive people about their true motives.  That might be true, but it's not "encyclopedic" to assume as much from the get-go, which is what this article does.  If Skeptical Inquirer published a glossary, this is what I think their entry on intelligent design would read like, which means this article does not meet POV standards.
:I am sorry but this article is so biased that it should probably be just deleted.  I am a biologist, so hardly biased towards creationism, and wanted to learn what neo-creationist movement is, what are their main claims and what evidence/arguments neo-creationists present to support them but it turned out to be impossible because the article was obviously written by some fundamentalists and haters of the concept.  As a scientist I value unbiased information which allows the reader to make their own mind.  Going all "evangelical" and spreading propaganda in an encyclopedia is completely inappropriate and makes it useless.  To all the rational people reading this (no haters and fundamentalists) who still have doubts if this article is terribly biased and should be deleted - see how huge a difference between the tone of this article and the one on Atheism is.  Just start reading both.  Really, this is just pathetic and makes wikipedia infamous in academic circles.  For now I am going to mark it as POV but I really think it is beyond repair and should just be deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.69.76 (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think TalkOrigins has the Wedge Strategy document somewhere which strongly implies deception. I also changed changed "scientific creationism" to "creation science" where appropriate-both are misnomers as neither uses any scientific method, but creation science is the more accepted term. 67.184.132.39 (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled rant

message: This article is slowly turning into a piece of crud. We are not allowed to call biblical literalism biblical literalism? We have to call it plain meaning? And we have to assume there are two types of science, naturalistic science and nonnaturalistic science? This is complete nonsense. There is NO SUCH thing as nonnaturalistic science. I challenge anyone to show me a reliable source, say in Science magazine, or Scientific American, or National Academy of Sciences, or Royal Society Journal, or Nature magazine, or something equivalent that such a thing as nonnaturalistic science exists. This is outrageous. We are an encyclopedia, not a religious recruiting tract.--Filll (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The naturalistic/nonnaturalistic cruft is a recent addition & I've gotten rid of it. What's this about "not allowed to call biblical literalism biblical literalism"? I'd be surprised if there's a consensus for this 'policy', so it would probably be safe to revert it. HrafnTalkStalk 23:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The phrasing is a bit overly colourful, but "ideology and dogmatic belief" is not an unreasonable characterisation of the theistic realism that IDers are proposing to replace the scientific method with. HrafnTalkStalk 08:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: PS: "'nonnaturalistic' science" is an oxymoron. The "historic processes" in question were that (methodological) naturalism worked as a basis for science, supernaturalism didn't. Case closed. HrafnTalkStalk 08:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems

message: I am not sure what the writer below is trying to get at?
I am seen enough creationwikipedia on creationism to scare the bejesus out of me.
Perhaps this is a form of Wedge Strategy arising from the Intelligent Design political-religious movement, their monograph is available from  Discovery Institute. the commentary below appears calculated to mislead the topic.
If people want creationist bias, Conservapedia.com and Creationwiki.org is their next stop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
Editorial please check article for vandalism asap.
--220.239.179.128 (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Creationist CPOV, Intelligent Design IDPOV, Wedge Strategy WSPOV

message: I have nominated :Category:Neo-Creationism for merger into :Category:Intelligent design here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 20. HrafnTalkStalk 15:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Neo-Creationism]] 

message: "One of its principal claims is that ostensibly objective orthodox science, with a foundation in naturalism, is actually a dogmatically atheistic religion.[4]"
i believe that is an argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy. should i remove? Project2501a (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what Johnson says in the referenced tract:
  One reason the Darwinist educators panic at the first sign of public rebellion is that they fear exposure of the implicit religious content in what they are.
I also do not see where the term "ostensibly objective orthodox science" appears in this reference. I am going to delete this sentence.  If somebody wants to rewrite it in a more honest manner, have at it.Desoto10 (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  whiskey tango foxtrot 

message: In the article, I noticed this sentence: "Notable examples are the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture." It is not incorrect, however, I would like to add that Liberty University is a notable example of a Neo-creationist group which run scientific enterprises that they say conduct legitimate scientific research, possibly even more so then Discovery, since they are accredited by Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. I am new to editing pages, so I'm reluctant to change this myself right now. Do I need to prove the Neo-creationism of LU in this 'talk', or is this not necessary, given the fact that this is generally well known? Helemaalnicks (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberty University 

message: Question as per section title. There are indeed several other articles which apparently overlap >50% in subject matter, but this couple seem the most blatant and apparently have no significant difference at all in their target topic?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot even find any reliable sources that even use the term neo-creationism. Apparently Eugenie Scott made up the term to make her opponeents sound irrational, but the term never caught on. If a columnist criticized Pres. Obama's foreign policy as "neo-Cheneyism", someone might create an article on neo-Cheneyism. That is what this article is like. Roger (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Where were you looking? Normally I would start with a scholar search, but in this case it's as simple as looking at the article in question, which contains a list of sources that have used the term: Neo-creationism#Criticism.  Noformation Talk 23:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

text:  Yes, I looked at the references in the article. None of them have anyone but Scott using the term. The article says that Morris accepted the term, but in fact he only quoted Scott using the term. If you find a suitable reference of someone other than Scott using the term, then please put it in the article. Otherwise the article should be re-titled "Eugenie Scott's favorite neologism". Roger (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Andrew, without delving too far into this my guess is that this is a case of all cherries being red but not all red things being cherries.  That is, ID is a form of neo-creationism but is not equivalent to it and is not the only one.  Perhaps reading the sources I pointed out above would allow you to tighten the article a bit if you have the inclination.  Noformation Talk 23:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Have been looking. At this stage, I think the two articles should be merged. The subject matter is defined the same way. It appears that being an intelligent design proponent is what turns a creation scientist into a neo-creationist? (But even if it was only 95% the same normally we would not have two articles for these.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

text: I'll leave it as an exercise for someone else to create a redirect for neo-creationist movement. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the difference between the subject matter of this article and [[Intelligent design movement]]?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Neo-creationism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timesofoman.com/newsdetails.asp?newsid=11764
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What's a good way to describe the ID tactic of denying that "evidence of design" implies a specifically supernatural Creator? I mean, we all know that ID broke away from Creation Science - which began with the premise of "God Himself" (as in Genesis) - and began to present anti-evolutionary arguments entirely in scientific terms. That's why opponents call it neo-Creationism: the goal posts have moved slightly and some of the ground rules are different (think rugby vs. American football). But the purpose is the same. 
The ID movement seems to be trying to argue that there is a role for a supernatural Creator (i.e., God) but they want to have their cake and eat it too. On the one hand, they tell their followers (and funders!) that they are promoting God; on the other hand, they tell school boards that they are merely pointing out flaws in "Darwinism". 
I'd like to see something in the article (or another article, if this is not exactly the right place) about the tactic of simultaneously (a) denying that ID asserts the existence of a supernatural creator - while (b) asserting that "unguided forces" alone are insufficient to account for human origins, i.e., observed facts imply design by (some sort of) a designer. 
We could mention anyone who says this is sheer poppycock and a deliberate sham, along with anyone (Dawkins, maybe?) who see nothing wrong with denying that ID has a supernatural premise while promoting an argument which seems to imply the need for the supernatural. Assuredly, such a person would be in a minority - maybe even smaller than the percentage of climate scientists who doubt that people have caused most of the last century and a half of global warming. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Tactic of denying creationism or creator

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Neo-creationism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060829011506/http://www.coralridge.org/darwin/ to http://www.coralridge.org/darwin/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150809025945/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/back_to_the_quo.html to http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/back_to_the_quo.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)