Talk:Creationism/Archive 14

message: I tried to replace the POV disagreement over the section  with the following. 
::"The motivation behind animated attacks of the Young Earth creationist movement towards evolution stems from their belief that the first eleven chapters of Genesis should be understood as a literal description of the origin of the universe and everything it contains."
But I'm not sure my rewording is any better than the previous. I prefer animated over aggresive but I don't like the attack insertion. The entire sentence should probably be redone completely in order to get a more precise  and short sentene.  Falphin 17:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a go and came up with variants on "Because Young Earth creationists believe in the literal truth of the description in Genesis  of divine creation of every "kind" of plant and creature during a week about 6,000 years ago, they dispute evolution which describes species developing without a need for divine intervention over a much longer time, and take particular issue with the implication of common descent that humans are descended from "lesser creatures". " but decided that this whole section describes creationism rather than the critique of creationism, and is largely redundant, so added by sentence to the young earth creationists section. I propose deletion of the Miscellaneous critique of creationism section. =dave souza 11:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellaneous critique of creationism

message: Per the discussion we've been having, and in the absence of anyone having offerred a reason for keeping it, I went ahead and deleted the "Misc. critique" section just now. I'm pasting it below, in case anyone wants to salvage something from it. -- John Callender 09:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted the "misc critique" section 

message: I assume that it's been discussed before, but where? Where does the introduction come from?  While the belief may be interpreted "literally" (i.e. in physical terms), religious discussion is generally limited to a spiritual meaning.  By whom is it limited, and why do their views merit the virtual honorific of "generally"?  Why does an approach that essentially evades the controversy subsequently described end up in the introduction?   Please pardon my lack of familiarity with the process by which the page came to its present state.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I support an edit of the introduction which does stand now as very confusing and not exactly descriptive of creationism in general. What should be in the introduction is a definition of creationism, a disambig between creation theology and creation science (this page is about the former), and a discussion of criticisms against it. Neutral, straightforward, adn to the point. Edit away. Joshuaschroeder 12:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generally limited 

message: What appears to be my breaking of the 3RR is just the result of Wikipedia screwing up. It took forever to revert once, and kept giving me errors. It appears the same was happening for the anon. -- BRIAN0918  17:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Not 3RR

message: There is a serious error on the creationism page.
I am referring to this section on the creationism page
"Plea to reject nonsense
In his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim), Saint Augustine (354-430), embarrassed by Christians who would not accept this implication of the Doctrine of Creation, wrote against them. This translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, [..] and this knowledge he holds as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?" [1 Timothy 1.7]" 
The problem with using Augustine to reject young earth creationism is that Augustine was a young earth creationist. 
I cite the following:
"In his later and greatest work, The City of God, Augustine wrote, "the Scripture . . . has paramount authority . . . to which we yield assent in all matters . . . That God made the world, we can believe from no one more safely than God Himself."3 Regarding the age of the earth, he wrote in The City of God, "Reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have past."4 
However, particularly in his earlier commentary, Augustine's interpretation of Scripture was influenced by Greek philosophy and science. Through both Neoplatonist philosophy and the "science" of spontaneous generation, Augustine saw three phases of creation: the "unchangeable forms in the Word of God," "seminal seeds" created in the instant of creation, and a later "springing forth" in the course of time.5 Frederick Copleston in his A History of Philosophy noted that these ideas were doubtless found by Augustine in the philosophy of the Neoplatonist, Plotinus, and could be traced back to Stoicism.6 The later "springing forth," of which Augustine wrote, reflected the common belief in spontaneous generation. According to W. K. C. Guthrie, "St. Augustine's version of [spontaneous generation] was that there were two kinds of seed, one implanted in animals that they might reproduce their own kinds, and the other existing in the elements and becoming active under certain conditions."7 
How did these secular beliefs affect Augustine's view of the six creation days? In the words of Louis Berkhof, Augustine "was evidently inclined to think God created all things in a moment of time, and that the thought of days was simply introduced to aid the finite intelligence."8 Looking at Augustine's own words, taken from his Genesis commentary, we read, "In this narrative of creation Holy Scripture has said of the Creator that He completed His works in six days, and elsewhere, without contradicting this, it has been written of the same Creator that He created all things together . . . Why then was there any need for six distinct days to be set forth in the narrative one after the other? The reason is that those who cannot understand the meaning of the text, He created all things together, cannot understand the meaning of the Scripture unless the narrative proceeds slowly step by step . . . For this Scripture text that narrates the works of God according to the days mentioned above, and that Scripture text that says God created all things together, are both true."9 
5 Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Ancient Christian Writers 41-42, tr. and annotated by John Hammond Taylor, New York: Newman Press, 1982, 5.12.28. 
6 Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy, London: Search, 1950, 2.76. 
7 W. K. C. Guthrie, In the Beginning, 41. 
8 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977(1938), 127. 
9 Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 4.33-34, 52-53. 
taken from: http://capo.org/cpc/lavallee.htm
Here is another resource which confirms what I am saying:
The Early Church & the Age of the Earth
http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm#
I think the problem here is there are a lot of non-YECs contributors who do not really understand the YEC position and have not studied it sufficiently.
I suggest the Augustine material be added to and it should be stated that Augustine was a young earth creationist.  
kdbuffalo 7/22/05
:Why not just delete the Augustine material, as it's not really relevant. RossNixon 01:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase "who would not accept this implication of the Doctrine of Creation" sounds odd and, depending on what its referring to, may be in error, but I think this quote is useful in the context of a literal vs a figurative Genesis. I've also seen this quote before several times, so I think it may be notable enough to include. Just change the above phrase to something more appropriate, maybe? TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 02:07, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
--------------------
Here is some proposed text for use in a science textbook under "Creationism" or "Intelligent Design". It likely needs simplification for lower-grades, but can serve as a template for the grade-level rewording experts.
Some believe that life was entirely or partially created by an intelligent "designer" rather than through incremental processes of nature, such as Natural Selection. However, direct methods to test this theory have remained elusive. Some have suggested that certain complex, multi-part processes in biochemistry could not have arisen incrementally, as natural selection usually requires, but rather would have to be formed as a full-functioning unit in order to function.
For example, a mouse-trap will not work if any of the components are missing, and thus just takes up space. Natural Selection tends to get rid of unnecessary structures over time because forming and carrying them consume precious energy. Thus, "almost working" structures are unlikely to stay around long.
However, just because no person has yet to think of a possible working incremental combination does not necessarily mean that no possible natural, incrementally-derived combination is possible. Thus, one cannot tell for sure whether the difficult problems can only be accounted for by interference or construction from an intelligent creator, or whether a natural sequence exists, but has yet to be discovered.
Previous combinations considered by some too complex to have incremental solutions have since had plausible incremental solutions put forth. Natural selection has a known pattern of adapting existing complex components for new uses. This "cross borrowing" results in less need to have to form complex structures from scratch. Our ear bones can be traced back to non-hearing-related uses, for example. However, the fossil record may not necessarily record all prior contributor mechanisms to a given mechanism. This can make it difficult to trace the history of complex processes.
Opponents of Intelligent Design often feel that proponents are biased by their religious beliefs and that the unsolved "gaps" are not large or serious enough to make Intelligent Design a serious contender to Natural Selection so far. Proponents of Natural Selection suggest it is unrealistic to expect a complete, detailed history of every known biological process, especially those not preserved well in fossils, such as biochemistry.
===another entry===
When Creationism is called "pseudoscience" in the article I think this makes Wikipedia look bad.  You don't see Britannica and other encyclopedias using this tone which looks unprofessional and immature.  I think it should be changed.
7/24/05  kdbuffalo
*See the long discussion on the talk page of Creation science. Britannica is too PC to state facts or post objectionable material. -- BRIAN0918  19:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Augustine and YEC

message: When Creationism is called "pseudoscience" in the article I think this makes Wikipedia look bad.  You don't see Britannica and other encyclopedias using this tone which looks unprofessional and immature.  I think it should be changed.
7/24/05  kdbuffalo
*See the long discussion on the talk page of Creation science. Britannica is too PC to state facts or post objectionable material. -- BRIAN0918  19:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: another entry

message: I reformatted the external links to try to get rid of all the fluff that has accumulated there.  Basically, unless a website is the leading proponent of its particular viewpoint, then it should go in the ELs of the subpage on that viewpoint.  (Its not as if the web has too few creationist websites!).  That way it gets a less cluttered.  Now, I've probably missed some blindingly obvious important ones out but hopefully linking to the talk.origins-maintained list of websites, that should cover that.  The other type of link are of the reference-style link, such as the Stamford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, and they've gone at the top.
The old mess is archived at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&oldid=19733475 Dunc|☺ 11:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: A newbie, just poking around, I wandered here and saw the warning of NPOV and so, perused.
Right at the fore, we have this:
: <TT>However the book of Job also has a dialogue between God and Job about the creation, in which God says:
:: "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the world?" (38:4) 
: Ironically, because the God of Christianity is omniscient, he should already know the answer to this question. This can be seen as a Biblical contradiction.
</TT>
We almost swerve into the truth with the word dialogue. 
God, in response to Job's questioning of how God ran His universe, asks him, 
: "[Oh, and just w]here were you when I laid the foundations of the world?" (38:4)
I've taken many leaps in my day, but I can't fathom this leap of destroying God's omniscience and thereby the whole veracity of the biblical narative on mere wishful thinking.
The author hasn't even done a pedestrian reading of the text he's quoting; he's mindlessly parroting propaganda from the view with which he's most comfortable. Unseemly for the rigor desired for Wikipedia.
God may or may not exist, and the Bible true or not; this, however, is no proof.
I'm very interested in the Creation/Evolution debate. Stephen J. Gould, recently deceased, a huge anti-creationist icon, wrote about Evolution, a Theory in Trouble, an attempt to get his side to honestly investigate the weaknesses of their postitions. Just because an evolutionist can destroy the argument of a creationist doesn't validate the evolutionist's argument.
Let's keep up with Joe Friday, "Just the fact, mamam."
WikiParsons 13:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch on that one. Don't know who slipped that nonsense in, but it obviously doesn't belong in the article at all. I have rewritten the section to conform to a discussion of creationism -- not a free-for-all over the attributes of the Abrahamic god. Joshuaschroeder 14:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually wrote the line "Ironically, because the God of Christianity is omniscient, he should already know the answer to this question. This can be seen as a Biblical contradiction.". I should point out however that I agree that this whole section deserved to be removed. I added this during a period when me and Rossnixon were both editing the article at the same time. He added the Job quote and I added the 'contradiction' line very soon after - probably less than a minute later. It was probably an immature move on my part that was designed more than anything to highlight the absurdity of his own addition, and for that I apologise. Glad to see it got removed anyway. Hope this helps at least clarify this a little bit. Aaarrrggh 12:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias Parrots in the writing 

message: I just discovered this site today.  The concept is awsome!!
However, I wanted to see how a controversial subject such as evolution was handled considering the no Point of View guideline.  I'm very disappointed by what I see.  I would strongly suggest these topics be covered by individuals who are open minded to both sides.
:Those would have to be people who have no clue. Bad idea. --Hob Gadling 16:53, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
::BTW, the "N" in "NPOV" means "neutral", not "no". NPOV means you have to write about every more or less common position (proponents, arguments, counterarguments, proof or disproof, etc.) while avoiding to endorse any. It's not the solution, but it's probably the least bad choice considering Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. --Pablo D. Flores 18:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Bias