Talk:Creationism/Archive 1

message: Some parents tell the children stories of creationism.  And other parents sue in court to keep creationism out of public schools.
Some parents think they should protect their children from the doctrines that the majority wants to teach. Rednblu 00:48, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance to Creationism

message: No doubt there are people who would question whether parents should have the right to decide how their children should be raised and/or what their children should be taught in school, but for me that issue is a non-starter.  The only exceptions that I see to that general rule are the issues of when children should be removed from an abusive parent and/or when children should have the right to emancipate themselves and take on the rights and responsibilities of an adult and/or the right to choose their own legal guardian.
In the United States, minors are more or less automatically emancipated at the age of 18, but for the fact that people under the age of 21 cannot drink alcoholic beverages, people under the age of 25 cannot run for Congress, and people under the age of 35 cannot run for President.  Emancipation proceedings for minors over the age of 16 are fairly common, a little less common for minors over the age of 14, and extremely rare (but not unheard of) for minors under the age of 14. -- NetEsq 00:07 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
: NetSeq, we are guinea pigs for the new software!  Congratulations.
: We might do a better job of planning an article if we look at the parental control problem in terms of us figuring out what is going on in the system.  When we get a good hypothesis for what is going on in the system, then we can find the experts who have written about the various aspects of what we think is going on.
: Does that make sense?  I gave you a bit of my story to give you a sense of how wrong I think parents often are.  But, even if my parents were wrong, I'm glad that no state agency took me away from them.  It was a great lesson in how to safely fight authority without giving in. 
: So what would be a theme to thread through our article describing what is going on in the Creationism versus evolution debate? Rednblu 00:48, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing children from parental control?

message: ::<< [T]he "controllers" of this page will not let you say anything on the subject of this page unless you toe the line of either a Christian creationist or an Anti-Christian evolutionist. >>
::To be clear, there are no "controllers" of this page.  Rather, there is one particularly "eloquent" Wikipedian who sees no merit to the views expressed by various other Wikipedians who are very unhappy with the current state of the creationism article, and he enjoys the silent support of other Wikipedians who don't really understand what the big deal is.  This type of impasse is not uncommon here at Wikipedia, and I have abandoned my fair share of POV disputes after noting my objections.  In any event, the best way to resolve such impasses -- when they can be resolved -- is through the passage of time and (more importantly) through the involvement of more Wikipedians. -- NetEsq 06:03, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Just checking: Are the terms "Eurocentric" and "UScentric" perceived as meaning something more than "I assume things elsewhere are much as they are where I am"?  Mkmcconn 13:23, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  The term "Eurocentric" was a widely code-word among black supremacists for racism against everyone who is not a white European, by all (or nearly all) people of white European descent. This use of the term has moved into parts of the mainstream. On many college campuses, in African studies, Black studies, Womens Studies departments, and even some English departments, this term is often a code word for racist denigration of non-white views.  On the other hand, to most Americans, the word "Eurocentric" probably has little meaning at all. Fortunately, many Wikipedia users on the WikiEn list use it in a non-perjorative way, and they use this term in the same way that you think it means. RK 13:35, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: My views have shifted along the way, as well.  I was originally (overly?) jealous of the fact that the term, "creationism", is tied to the creation science controversy, so tightly and confusingly.  It's too bad that the discussion is too long for most people to read, because I think that it might be one of the most interesting dialogues concerning the debate, in terms of an overview, that I have ever come across. But, I regret it if it has seemed to be a destraction, rather than serving toward the improvement of the article. Mkmcconn 14:44, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christians supposedly controlling this article 

message: : The article on evolution is an article on science, and should only include scientific points for and against how evolution is understood.
Perhaps an article on a religious belief should only include religious points for and against that belief? Arguments from scripture and such? There is the belief in that the world was created as described in Genesis. That's a religious belief. Then there is the purported science, that attempts (and fails, I believe) to give a scientific grounding to that religious belief.
I propose having one article on Creationism for the Genesis-based creation myth, and another article on creation science. The term "creation science" is well used (63,000 hits), and unambiguously refers to the purported science. Then we add in creationism (soul) for the Catholics, creation belief for a general overview of creation myths around the world.Martin 10:13, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Religious arguments for a literal interpretation can be included in the article as is. The kind of arguments that should be moved to creation beliefs are the ones that detail the creation story as given in the Bible. The term "creation science" is perceived as an oxymoron by many in the anti-creationist movement, so choosing it as a title would not be neutral.—Eloquence 12:19, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)
I understand that some proponents of the theory of evolution consider "creation science" to be misleading. Similarly, some proponents of Holocaust revisionism consider "Holocaust denial" to be misleading. These concerns should be taken into account, but they are not the whole story. However, given your objection I take back my specific suggestion with respect to titles. Martin 12:57, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: It is in the nature of ideas that the first people to describe them well generally get to pick what they are called. So while "creation science" may not be an excellent description of the set of views that are generally called "creation science," it is nonetheless what that set of views is most commonly called.  What other, widely-used term would you consider for that body of belief which purports that the Genesis 1 account is (a) literally true, and (b) scientifically demonstrable, as opposed to that body of belief which holds that it is (a) (literally or otherwise) true, and (b) not a topic of scientific inquiry. User:Shimmin  <<Attribution added by User:Rednblu following the PageHistory.>>
Its best to have a disambiguation page as for 'English'. I brought this issue for discussion in a general sense in the village pump- referring to cases such as calculus, Tajmahal, architecture etc., But the solution suggested- to qualify every meaning in a bracket- seemed to me inadequate. After this there was not much reaction, probably because I am a newbie:-)
Here the primary tussle is which meaning is more important than the other or is the 'first among equals'. This cannot be resolved by any discussion, each person[especially two] thinks his POV is correct. It is therefore best to have a very short creationsim disambiguation page which will redirect to creationism[creation science] and creationism [theology]---KRS 14:01, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  On what page should the ''Creationism versus evolutionism'' debate go? 

message: I offer the following as an attempt to develop consensus on what the beginning and Introduction of the Creationism page might be.
I have cut out specific authors, such as [Author1]¸ and specific quotes, such as [Assertion1], to assist those who reject specific authors as being "creationist," for whatever reason.  Fill in your own sources and quotes!
I suggest we edit this beginning and introduction between the container marks here on this TalkPage to minimize edit wars.  Let's see what we have. Rednblu 21:04, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific proposal as to what the introduction should look like 

message: Argument number 6 on the evolutionist side gives a reference - [1].
Could somebody specifiy which link is meant? --JackH 16:00, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reptile - mammal transition 

message: I feel that the whole issue of creationism cannot be discussed properly without considering what the Bible actually says about creation in the two stories at the beginning of the Book of Genesis. I hope that other readers and contributors will find this of interest and use. (MG)
: The Genesis stories are only relevant as an issue to Young Earth Creationism. Therefore, I propose moving the section into the article on YEC. Martin 09:49, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a bit of an overstatement.  The way that the Genesis story is interpreted has very much to do with all versions of Christian Creationism.  Genesis is supposedly irrelevant to "scientific creationism" (predominantly advanced by Young Earth proponents, to adapt their view for the public school classroom), but I'm not alone in thinking that this is a very strange claim.  Mkmcconn 15:22, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: Hmm. You're right: I didn't express myself clearly, and my thoughts weren't too clear too start off with. I'll come back later. Martin 16:33, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  The two creation stories in the Bible 

message: Wikipedians may be interested in the article that I've just submitted on the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar, beloved of Young Earth Creationists. - ChrisO 00:44, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: New article on [[Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar]]

message: What do you think about capitalizing?  Personally I think capitalizing Creationism and related terms every time they show up is silly, not to mention clashes with the intro in which they are decapitalized. silsor
: I agree. I don't know who added the capitalization, it is unnecessary and annoying.—Eloquence
:: I have fixed the capitalisation and created temporary redirects to articles with incorrectly capitalised titles (there are lots of inconsistencies—e.g. young Earth creationism, but old Earth Creationism) so the links still work, but someone should just delete my redirects and rename the articles themselves. I didn’t want to do it myself without consulting others. Rafał Pocztarski 13:33, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Simplistic? Yes. Straw man? Ayup. POV? Obviously. In line with the history of this page? Most definitely. "Religious" ferver? Maybe. Unwilling to take a breather in the attack on Creationism to see if more neutral ground can be found? Seems so. Pollinator 04:15, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Well-put. I agree. - SamE 13:29, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalisation

message: Stating unequivocally that Genesis contains two creation accounts is POV.  Most Christians I know believe that these "two accounts" are both the exact same story, with no contradictions.  Things people see as "contradictions" we see as different details that were either focused on or left out.  IMO, Genesis is a continuous narrative; the creation is described in general, then a summary statement is made and the author goes into more detail about the creation of man.
The list of events this article gives from the "two accounts" aren't contradictions.  For example, the fact that the "first account" mentions the Sabbath and the second doesn't is not a contradiction; it just means that the author already mentioned it and saw no reason to repeat it at that point.  The fact that the "second account" begins with the creation of man is not a contradiction; it means the author already described the creation of the universe and the earth and is now focusing in detail on the formation of man.  (In fact, if you'll bother to read it, the supposed "second account," that uses YHWH Elohim begins in verse 4 by summarizing the creation of everything, describing the state of the world, and then digging in in more detail into the creation of man.)
Statements like "This is important because many people are not aware that the Book of Genesis contains two distinct versions of the story of creation," come off as saying, "Some people are so stupid that even though they read Genesis over and over again in their religious studies they've never noticed that there are contradictions."  You just can't state as fact that there are two accounts here.  You need to contextualize it by saying many people SEE it as two accounts.
Now that I've looked a little lower in the article, I see that it does talk about how these can be harmonized.  But it still isn't right to begin with a "statement of fact" that there definitively ARE two accounts here; that is only somebody's opinion.  And it's even worse to have the statement about "some people aren't aware of it."  I'm fully aware that some people see this different from me; the fact is that I disagree with them, not that I am unaware.
Jdavidb 14:33, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOT two Genesis creation accounts 

message: I think it's appropriate to have a blue box to link these articles together.  Hopefully, that'll help with the naming disputes.  I'll put it at .  Feel free to edit it appropriately.Duncharris 18:05, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
:In my opinion, you have posed an interesting intellectual puzzle for everyone to examine.  Did you not also insert the blue box at the top of this page?  So let us examine the implications of inserting the two blue boxes.
:<<Blue box at the top of the page>> The insertion at the top of this page poses the question: What is the relation of creationism to evolutionary biology?  And in my opinion, creationism has nothing to do with evolutionary biology.  Historically, creationism derives from totally different forces than does evolutionary biology.  Creationism derives from the human hunger to find the "great alpha male" to whom we can bow.  In contrast, evolutionary biology derives from the human hunger to make people "self-sufficient" without having to depend on what our parents taught us.  Apparently, we humans inherited both of those contrasting hungers from the ancestors of the chimpanzees.  But the two hungers are competing.
:Here is an analogy.  The human hunger for sugar, salt, and burned fat is unrelated to the human hunger to find out what good nutrition is.  Apparently, we humans inherited at least the rudiments of both of those contrasting hungers from the ancestors of the chimpanzees. But the two hungers are unrelated.  That is, often the inherited hunger for sugar, salt, and burned fat overpowers the human hunger to find out and to follow what good nutrition is.  Similarly, the human hunger for the "great alpha male" of a God to whom we can bow often overpowers the competing human hunger to find out how to make people "self-sufficient."
:Accordingly, creationism has nothing to do with evolutionary biology--just as, the inherited human hungers for sugar, salt, and burned fat have nothing to do with nutrition.  They derive from totally different forces.
:<Bottom of the page>> Your proposed insertion at the bottom of this page poses the question: What is the relation of creationism to the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar and similar lines of inquiry?  Here it seems to me, you would have to itemize an objectively fair overview of the theoretical aspects of creationism throughout history, including Plato's Creator following the "eternal archetype of the Good" and Aristotle's "prime mover."
:From all of the above, I would suggest that you remove the blue box at the top of this page and that you expand the blue box at the bottom of this page to include the theoretical aspects of creationism throughout history. --Rednblu 20:04, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, discuss what you want to do, or what changes you want.  Your point of view will be given full respect.  Just don't throw major stuff in without saying anything.  I'd be happy to discuss with you.  Perhaps some of the things you are putting in would go better in a new article?  There are options and discussion is always possible. --DanielCD 13:27, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:   Blue boxes 

message: For evolution, we have started a list of popular science books on evolution. I think it would be good to have a similar list for creationism (or "non-evolutionary explanations for the diversity of life"), and we can link to it from the evolution list. I didn't notice any such list in this page. Is there one, and would anyone want to start a list similar to List of popular science books on evolution? Thanks. AdamRetchless 17:48, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creationism reading list 

message: I have rewritten that article from a redirect to evolution into an expanded dicdef of the word as I believe it is used by creationists as a general for us "evil atheists".  Can someone check that that is what they think of it? Dunc_Harris|☺ 00:00, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[evolutionism]] 

message: What's with this?
:"While many scientists believe in God, probably the reason for rejection of creationism or Intelligent Design is the need to have a God or an Intelligence to do the design, and to date no scientific experiments or observations support the hypothesis that such a being exists. However, perhaps as a result of resurgent Christian fundamentalism gaining converts among well-educated right-wing Americans, a small but vociferous number of academics have come out in favour of creationist ideas."
Here I thought most scientists reject Creationism because of the overwhelming PHYSICAL evidence for an ancient universe and evolution over a long period of time, contrary to the creationist account.  Obviously we can't say that "this is true" in a NPOV creationism article, but why assume this kind of insulting reasoning on behalf of "many scientists"?  Is there any evidence to back up the claim that scientists "reject Creationism" only because gods can't be observed? -- User:130.91.65.76
---
You are right.  That paragraph is just another evolutionist fantasy without empirical justification.  ---Rednblu 19:28, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Creationism#rejection of creationism|Rejection of Creationism]] 

message: The Creationism page continues to manifest the evolutionist syndrome of ignoring fact, inventing history, and censoring the attempts of the creationists to state what is true about Creationism.
A religion-neutral Wikipedia community would allow the Creationism page to develop the format of the Evolution page in stating the Theory of Creationism, with perhaps a few paragraphs at the end summarizing the opposition's rebuttals.
The opening section is nothing but an evolutionist tract and does not belong on Creationism.  A religion-neutral definition might begin as follows by recognizing historical fact. 
* Creationism is an explanation for the origin of the universe and everything in it as resulting from deliberate creation by an Intelligent Designer such as God.
Furthermore, why is it the evolutionists keep refusing to face the facts about Origin of Species?  For example, the following sentence and similar prevarications continue to come back, recur, and revert all over Creationism.  
* "Charles Darwin's famous work, The Origin of Species (1859) introduced the theory of evolution by natural selection."  
That sentence is simply not true.  Charles Darwin very carefully excluded the word evolution from the first five editions of Origin of Species.  You can make a word search through the entire text of the First Edition of Origin of Species  and find that the word evolution does not appear even once.  The creationists keep correcting this evolutionist distortion, but in Wikipedia as in most of the civilized world, the evolutionist censors win over fact.  There is no use in even correcting the evolutionist distortions of fact; it is a waste of time.  ---Rednblu 19:28, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no such thing as a "Theory of Creationism".  It's something else, but not a theory.  To state that is POV because it implies it has something to do with science.  --DanielCD 19:35, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it's a theory. A theory can relate to any field - history, sociology, literature, whatever. DJ Clayworth 20:40, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but the word "theory" has a specific meaning in science that it doesn't carry in sociology. Googling for definitions, I thought this expressed it best: "a well tested (as opposed to a hypothesis which is less well tested) explanation for observed events. A theory must allow one to make predictions which can be tested by experiment. When the results of those experiments are as predicted, it lends support to the theory as a good explanation. If the results are not as predicted, they may lead to the eventual modification of the theory, or even its replacement."  Scientists contend that creationism doesn't qualify as a scientific theory because it makes no predictions and can't be verified by experiment. -- ChrisO 13:18, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Probably stating that it is not a theory in the sense of scientific method, that being not falsifiable it is also not a hypothesis in the stricte scientific sense, and writing how does it relate to Occam's razor, should be enough to say in which sense it is called a theory. Being a theory or not using different definitions of the word can be quite subjective, but fortunately falsifiability and scientific method are precisely defined, so the issue whether any assertion follows them is a simple fact, no matter if one believes following them is important or not. Rafał Pocztarski 14:43, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree; others disagree, as we will discover in this process.  In my opinion, the Evolution page would be an appropriate template.  The Evolution page is not interrupted every few lines with an interjection about why they are wrong.  What do other people think about using the Evolution page as a template for Creationism? --- Rednblu 22:43, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: The old page is still in your browser's cache.  Reload it.  This happens to me all the time.  141.211.62.118 04:23, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutionists refuse to face reality 

message: * beginning of a sentence but not in a list when there is no real sentence (Is that correct?)
:"Creationism" is not the name of a group or affiliation, as with Catholicism, Buddhism, and Republicanism (big "R"). It is the name of a specific belief or opinion, as with theism, holism, or republicanism (small "r"). It should not be capitalized except where any other common noun would be. Terms like "day-age creationism" get the same treatment. The capitalization of "Earth" is variable -- when the planet as a whole is meant, it usually is capitalized. Thus, young-Earth creationism.
:The word "god" is capitalized when one is writing in a solely monotheist context. Thus, "Catholics believe that God sent the Archangel Gabriel to Mary," but "The Greek god Zeus wields a thunderbolt." It can be argued that when comparing monotheist and non-monotheist religions, the lowercase form should be used for both so as to not appear to be favoring the former: "The Greek god Zeus did thus-and-so, while the Christian god Jehovah did this-and-that." This isn't meant to imply that Christians have multiple gods (though a Muslim would say so!) but rather that the Christian view is not being favored over the Greek. --FOo 03:23, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: When other words should be capitalised

message: If we would pattern the beginning of the Creationism page after the Phlogiston theory page, we would have the following.
:Creationism is a now discredited pre-5th century BC hypothesis regarding the formation of the universe and the origin of species.
That beginning sentence would at least be accurate--and defensible.  In contrast, the current first sentence is indefensible.  It would similarly be indefensible to define Evolution as
:Evolution is the belief that natural selection over millions of years has provided the origin of species from ancient lifeforms.
That is not what evolution is!  Evolution is a whole complex of observations, conjectures,  and progressively better explanations for the observations.  Now, someone might believe that some version of evolution is more accurate than some other explanation.  But the belief is forever separate from what is believed--even for the "creationists."
And the evolutionists will not let the creationists make a clear statement of what the "discredited hypothesis" is.  ---Rednblu 21:09, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Creationism is not a discredited hypothesis.  Which is the whole point of this discussion.  There is enough forthcoming evidence of the validity of Creationism to create a daily raido broadcast.  To see some of the recent evidence the raido spot has a web page at .  To see some of this recent evidence, click on "View Transcripts" and look at the latest volume.  KeyStroke
---
Though I personally think that creationism as at  is a discredited hypothesis, I concede that you make a very important point--whether creationism is a discredited hypothesis is the "whole point of this discussion."  And we should not hope to prove one way or the other here on this Talk:Creationism page.  Here, we should be figuring out how to turn the Creationism page into a coherent presentation of what "creationism" is.  Would you agree?  ---Rednblu 05:30, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes, I would agree that the Creationism entry, itself, and perhaps this talk page are not the place to "prove", one way or the other, the validity of Creationism.  The purpose of Wikipedia is to make encyclopedia entries.  It needs to take the approach that the old Dragnet TV show investigators took - "Just the facts, ma'am".  We need to present the ideas of Creationism in a way that cohesively and accurately represents what Creationsim is.  The article is not the place to try to convince people that Creationism is right, and it is not the place to try to convince people that Creationism is wrong.  Those people who are led by God to accept those ideas would do so, without the article needing to "convince" them that Creationism is right.  Those people who have determined to reject ideas based on faith would do so, without the article needing to "convince" them that Creationsim is wrong.  Let the ideas stand on their own merit with the reader.  KeyStroke
---
What you say makes sense to me.  But let's wait to get discussion on this Talk:Creationism page from other points-of-view before we do anything.  Okay?  Meanwhile, what do you think of the proposed split of the Creationism page that many of us have been discussing in various forms for the last couple of years? ---Rednblu 14:46, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: As an interested reader, the split seems eminently sensible. The subject is, IMHO, large enough and contentious enough to make the work worthwhile. Katherine Shaw 10:40, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
I have put back a summary of the creation accounts in Genesis. To discuss rationally what creationists believe it is imperative to consider what the Bible actually says. I realise that what I have written may be contentious but it needs to be done.
Michael Glass 03:23, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Is "creationism" a discredited hypothesis?

message: Text copied from logical subpage to fix broken link and to restore continuity of the dialog. --- Rednblu 17:16, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  End text copy from logical subpage to fix broken link and to restore continuity of dialog 

message: The creation accounts in Genesis are already described in the Creation beliefs page.  Why are the creation accounts in Genesis repeated in the proposed Creation accounts in Genesis page?  ---Rednblu 05:34, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is not totally accurate and not NPOV (for example, it assumes that there is something to be reconciled) and I reworded it (offline), but having now read your question, I think I agree.  It is in the Creation beliefs page, and it does not need to be here also. Philip J. Rayment 12:35, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Creation accounts in Genesis

message: <<Creationism is the belief that the universe and all life were created by the deliberate act of God as described in the Bible.>>
* keep for reason previously stated.  KeyStroke
* keep I haven't met a creationist who wasn't a Christian; I haven't seen a creationist on the internet who wasn't either Jewish, Christian, or Islamic. Samboy 06:58, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 1: Creationism limited to text from the Bible

message: <<Creationism is the belief that the universe and all life were created by the deliberate act of some supernatural power (usually one or several gods).>>
Just an idea... Rama 16:29, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 3: Creationism includes supernatural powers bigger than just the Judeo-Muslim-Christian [[God]]

message: Just a minor point, but User:Michael Glass has just made some edits that include modifying the following sentence with the words I have shown in italics:  "The term usually refers to Christian creationism and especially to the belief that living organisms were created by God in their present form.  This sounds very much like an old idea that creationists perhaps once had that there has been no speciation and that creatures have not changed at all.  However, this view is not held by (most?) creationists today.  Rather, they believe that the original created kinds had sufficient genetic variability that allowed for speciation and adaption within genetic limits.  On that basis, I believe that the additional words should be removed, or if I have misunderstood the intention, the wording should be clarified. Philip J. Rayment 05:14, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comment, Philip. It is my understanding that this is what creationists believe. If this is not the case, then it would appear that creationism and a belief in evolution are compatible with evolution within species. Perhaps a better wording would be to revert to the Biblical definition of "after their kind". This would then accommodate this limited form of evolution and I will make this clarification, as you suggested.Michael Glass 05:50, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as there are a variety of evolutionary beliefs, and just as may lay believers in evolution are not up with the lastest evolutionary ideas, there are no doubt creationists that do believe in fixity of the species.  However, the leading creationary scientists have long drawn a distinction between genetic variation and specialisation within the gene pool including a loss of genetic information on the one hand and the increase of genetic information required by "goo to you via the zoo" evolution on the other hand (this has also been labelled as micro- vs. macro-evolution, but that terminology blurs the actual distinction). Philip J. Rayment 06:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Creationism is the belief that the universe and all life were created by the deliberate act of God as described in the Bible. The term usually refers to Christian creationism and especially to the belief that living organisms were created by God "after their kind".
Just out of curiosity how would you edit the above two sentences to make them right?  ---Rednblu 05:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I was going to say that I was happy with it the way it was before, but on further reflection the second sentence could be changed to something like "The term usually refers to Christian creationism and especially to the belief that God created various distinct kinds of living creatures."  I can't really see that the sentences are "atrociously" wrong, though. Philip J. Rayment 06:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixity of species

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

message: :Darwin's ideas changed the "creationism controversy" in lots of ways, because they provided the first (and only) real alternative to creationism that anyone had come up with.  This led to millions abandoning creationism, and the rise of Old-Earth creationism, Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design, are those not massive changes in the controversy for starters?  It was only because of these alternative world views that any controversy (beyond the ocassional individual questioning a bit of logic) could get started, with a creationism movement directed against Darwinism.  Perhaps you should state what you think the "creationism controversy" actually is, because I really can't see how anybody familiar with the controversy that I'm familiar with can fail to understand how Darwinism has been crucial in shaping it. --Steinsky 03:59, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: <<This led to millions abandoning creationism, and the rise of Old-Earth creationism, Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design, are those not massive changes in the controversy for starters?>>
Surely, you don't really think Old-Earth creationism and all of those other pretenses are "massive changes."  They are just preacher homiletic tricks to package the same old faith.  Do they look like science to you?  Heaven help you if they do.  They were around long before Darwin got into the act.  These are all ancient ideas; they go back at least to the Greeks.  But let's just take "modern" examples before Darwin. For example, around 1824 the Reverand William Buckland in introducing the first dinosaur fossil Megalosaurus already was interpreting the "days" of creation as "ages" in order to explain that there had been giant beasts around long before men appeared.
The idea that there had to be an Intelligent Designer was argued by William Paley as early as 1809. on-line text And Theistic Evolution was argued at least as early as an 1845 London Times article where a reviewer says about Reverand Buckland's 1836 Bridgewater Treatise that "his general conclusion being, that the present world was constructed out of the materials of a former one; that former one from the wreck of its predecessor; and so upwards, ad infinitum."  (The London Times Monday, Jun 23, 1845; pg. 6; Issue 18957; col A) Darwin no more changed "creationism" than Lavoisier changed phlogiston theory; Darwin may have disproved "creationism" but he had negligible effect on the content of the "creationism" theory that he disproved.  ---Rednblu 08:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Whether or not they are big changes in the creationist philosophy (I believe they are major changes in the way the world is viewed) [note I never mentioned they were anything like scientific, I have no idea where you got that idea from] they are a major part of the creationist movement today, and therefore they belong in an encyclopedia entry about creationism.  The fact that preaching tactics like ID and OEC exist, that many people believe in them and that a major part of their remit is tackling perceived materialism and atheism in Darwinism, has to be covered in an encyclopedia entry on creationism. --Steinsky 17:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Darwin's ideas cause Old-Earth creationism, Theistic Evolution, and Intelligent Design? 

message: Nobody is denying that, you know, we are allowed to cover both pre- and post-Darwin Creationism in the article!  You seem to be set on removing the section on the effects of Darwin's idea from the article, but only because the creationism philosophy existed before Darwin? --Steinsky 17:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: <<You seem to be set on removing the section on the effects of Darwin's idea from the article>>
Yes--because Darwin's idea had negligible effect on the "belief," "controversy," or "theory" of creationism.  One of the predominant features of "creationism" is that it does not evolve in the face of the threats from the competition.  Instead of evolving, "creationism" responds to science--not with science--but with repackages of the old faith and common sense arguments--churning through the same old set of 2000 year-old interpretations and fudges of Biblical text packaged in modern language.
Do you still contend that Old-Earth creationism, Theistic Evolution, and Intelligent Design grew out of Darwin's idea?  In my opinion, it would be accurate to pull all of the Darwin material into a section "Creationism disproved."  But it is a disservice to the reader to embed the Creationism page with the current infestation of pop-up ads for Darwin's idea.  The reader comes to Creationism in the hope of reading a clear exposition of "creationism."  Why isn't the Evolution page a sufficient advertisement for "evolution"?  ---Rednblu 18:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: <<[Darwin's idea], along with uniformitarian geology, had quite a big effect.  They gave rise to various compromise ideas (day-age, gap theory, theistic evolution, etc.)
Can you get a copy of Reverand William Buckland's 1836 Bridgewater Treatise?  I once had a link to an on-line copy; I would give you the link, but the site disappeared.  In my opinion, Buckland sketched out the logic of day-age, gap theory, and theistic evolution before he ever read Darwin.  And Buckland published those pieces of creationism theory before Darwin returned from his Beagle voyages.  Of course, Buckland  did not talk about how God guided natural selection, but he talked about how God guided a series of extinctions of life and how God built the next set of creatures from the fragments of the prior creatures, starting with an earth that had no creatures, then microscopic creatures, then vast dinosaurs--like the Megalosaurus that Reverand Buckland himself introduced to the science world--and finally, according to Buckland's 1836 treatise, God built man from the fragments of the creatures of the world in which no man existed.  And Buckland wrote about all of that day-age, gap theory, and theistic evolution before Darwin got back from his Beagle voyages--so, in my opinion, Darwin had little effect on day-age, gap theory, and theistic evolution--except maybe give a trivial label--"natural selection"--to what it was that God guided.  ---Rednblu 17:47, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, I didn't write exactly what I meant to write.  Just as evolutionary ideas were around before Darwin, some (or all?) of these compromise ideas were around before Darwin also.  But very few people accepted them.  They only became widely accepted as a result of uniformitarianism and evolution becoming widely accepted.  For example, the Gap Theory became popular as a result of it being promoted in the notes of the Schofield Reference Bible which was published in 1909 I think it was. Philip J. Rayment 18:19, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Darwin's ideas change [[Creationism]]?  Why mention Darwin in the [[Creationism]] page? 

message: Let's keep the debate focused and on topic. The original question and purpose of this Talk is the question: Should Darwin be Darwin be mentioned in the Creationism article? Remember wikipedia policy: "The Talk pages are not a place to debate which views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis."
---
My position is yes, mention of Darwin needs to remain as part of the creationism article. 
A Creationism article without Darwin is like a Goliath article without David.--FeloniousMonk 09:59, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to the original question: Should Darwin be mentioned in the Creationism article? 

message: Myself and several others over the last three months have noted in the discussions here what appears to be a loosely organized campaign on this and related articles to work POV statements and positions into the articles by repeatedly using a particular set of tactics. The most common tactic seen has been to tie up those holding the consensus view that is unfavorable to a particular POV in endless debates over semantic arguments over common terms and drawn out debates on peripheral topics, all while ignoring or denying the existence of prevailing, well-established consensus opinions. The point of this tactic is to wear down and confuse any opposition and muddle the issues making the introduction of POV content easier. The use of this particular tactic violates the wikipedia policies on abusing Talk pages: "The Talk pages are not a place to debate which views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis." and that wikipedia is not a battleground for ideologies. 
A quick perusal of the recent debate of whether creationism is a "theory" has good examples of the tactic being used, as will the User Talk and home pages of some of the participants.
I would like to see the opinions of users here and reach consensus as to how best to deal with campaigns bent on promoting a particular POV that can avoid the wikipedia mediation process.--FeloniousMonk 09:43, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspected as much. They appear to be one and the same, the positions, writing styles and phrases are identical. Taken with his actions to manipulate discussions here this just confirms it for me, Rednblu is conducting a POV campaign, apparently just as he has on the usenet. His disingenuousness and misleading statements are proof of not participating in Good Faith and against the policies.--FeloniousMonk 04:06, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: )  Yes, but to keep from disturbing our neighbors, I suggest we should keep this side discussion on the User talk:Rednblu page.  Accordingly, we ask FM to provide on the User talk:Rednblu page an example that we could discuss there.  ---Rednblu 23:26, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with campaigns promoting a POV slant 

message: You are very right to bring this up Mr. Monk, more than you realize. I've been watching this ongoing drama for the last few weeks with some amusement, because obviously none of you have any idea who you are dealing with. Rednblu is contributing here under false pretenses: he is a notorious, longtime usenet creationist crank and crackpot. His pro-creationism, pro-religion, anti-evolution posts and rants comprise one of the most famous creationist campaigns in usenet history. Longtime users of talk.origins, alt.atheism, and alt.fan.publius are very familiar with his tactics there: flooding the boards with attempts to control debates and misrepresenting his own views and those who dare oppose him. He employs deceit, insults and ingratiating flattery in equal, copious portions. The time is here for the truth to be made known, you are facing one the usenet's most notorious POV creationist campaigners here, despite his claims to being a supporter evolution. 
*
*
*
*
*
*
Some on the usenet cite an article claiming Rednblu is a grad student experiment or a bot, though there is an actual person that goes by his real name.  Search Google Groups for Rednblu and read for yourselves, dear readers, then decide if his dishonesty and POV campaigning is something that you want to put up with here...--Logic hammer 03:36, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspected as much. They appear to be one and the same, the positions, writing styles and phrases are identical. Taken with his actions to manipulate discussions here this just confirms it for me, Rednblu is conducting a POV campaign, apparently just as he has on the usenet. His disingenuousness and misleading statements are proof of not participating in Good Faith and against the policies.--FeloniousMonk 04:06, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: )  Yes, but to keep from disturbing our neighbors, I suggest we should keep this side discussion on the User talk:Rednblu page.  Accordingly, we ask FM to provide on the User talk:Rednblu page an example that we could discuss there.  ---Rednblu 23:26, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: You are right, and I'm outing your nemesis 

message: i like very much Ed Poor's recent edit. -Lethe | Talk
:It helps if you sign ~~~~ i.e. use four tildes, that way we know what time you wrote that comment, and what recent edit it therefore refers to. CheeseDreams 21:34, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  contentious phrase 

message: Considering that Barry Setterfield's article about the decay of C is an example of Junk Science (see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html ), don't you guys give it a little too much credit by not mentioning that it is a fraud?
:I don't believe that your criticism is fair.  Science puts forward lots of ideas that later turn out to be wrong.  Setterfield honestly believed what he was putting forward; it was not a fraud.  I also reject that it was junk science.  It was an interesting idea that turned out to be wrong.  The linked article is hardly a fair account, by the way.
:On the other hand, I doubt that the current wording is accurate, in that I've not heard of the idea getting any support from helium diffusion dating.
:Philip J. Rayment 02:32, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, theoretical physics considers the idea of a variable C as highly plausible. However, it disputes the plausibility of the variation proposed by Creationists, for the various reasons given. This subject, however, now belongs in the Talk:Creation vs. evolution debate talk page. Should I cut this discussion and move it there (leaving a note to state that it has been moved)? CheeseDreams 21:37, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed of Light 

message: # I don't understand the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Would someone please explain it to me, in simple terms a layman can understand? 
#: The meanings of microevolution and macroevolution seem to vary depending on who you talk to.  One definition is that microevolution refers to changes within species, whereas macroevolution refers to one species changing into another.  Another definition is that micro- refers to rearrangement, elimination, or corruption of genetic information (i.e. a "downhill" change) whereas macro- refers to the addition of new genetic information.  Creationists argue that the former had been observed whereas the latter has not been, but they also (well, Answers in Genesis at least does this) argue that use of the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are misleading in the context of differentiating between what creationists accept and don't accept, and that the terms themselves are best avoided, as they don't really consider "microevolution" to be "real" evolution at all.  Instead, they prefer to use terms such as variation.  As an aside, creationists use variation to explain the numbers of species and varieties of living things that exist today having derived (in the case of land animals and birds) from the relatively fewer kinds on the ark, without having to invoke "macro-" or "real" evolution.  This is consistent with their views that the universe could not create itself, and that the original creation was perfect but has deteriorated since, due to the fall.
#: Philip J. Rayment 15:02, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, actually *blush* it was Philip's excellent metaphor, but thanks anyway! --Uncle Ed 17:58, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Micro, macro, and selection

message: I plan on moving the "Creationism in public education" section to the Creationism in public education page according to the ToDo list we have been discussing as a means of bringing the Creationism page size to within reasonable limits.  Does anybody have any new objections or discussion?  ---Rednblu | Talk 05:40, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: one thought -- i think it might be more npov to title the page, "Creation and evolution in public education" -- ultimately, you're teaching one, the other, or both -- and THAT's what the issue is about.  thoughts?  Ungtss 16:35, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Much better title, in my opinion.  I will go ahead and change the ToDo list.  Anybody can revert the ToDo list if they have different ideas. :) ---Rednblu | Talk 18:53, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Creationism in public education still needs to exist in some way, such as a redirect, as people will search for this phrase. CheeseDreams 20:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: sounds great.  any dissent?  Ungtss 20:29, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: (echo) sounds great.  any dissent?  ---Rednblu | Talk 05:47, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: If you must move something from this page, remove some of the Genesis stuff which appears in other articles; why explain day-age creationism when you can just link to it? Also notice that the link from Creation_belief says: Some fundamentalist religious groups assert that creation beliefs should replace or complement so-called "scientific" accounts of the development of life and the cosmos. For a description of this debate, see creationism. I think the article in its current form really is about the debate, and I think that despite the opening paragraph of this article, creationism is today widely understood to mean a stance opposed to evolution, and not including Theistic Evolution. But I'm sure this has been gone over before. -Fleacircus 21:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you dissenting to either the existance of Creationism in public education as a redirect, or of the seperation of the education section? Or are you requesting some other things to be removed (if so, can I put a new header above your comment as it isnt really about the matter of this section?)? CheeseDreams 22:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was dissenting to the separation of the evolution vs. creationism to another page. What content belongs on this page, however, that isn't covered by Creation_belief and the various specific pages for each creation belief system?  Should this page should be about the creationist side of the creationist vs. evolution debate, as it now seems? Should this be discussed in a new section?  [changed indenting of CD's comment]-Fleacircus 22:58, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it should not. Please review the todo list, and notice that this page should be a series of summaries with links to main articles in the same style as the Evolution page. CheeseDreams 22:10, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completion of the [[Creationism]] page break out to reduce [[Creationism]] page size 

message: Let me summarize what may be a POV problem with the page title Creation accounts in Genesis.  I open this question here because the master ToDo list for the Creationism series is maintained at the top of this TalkPage.
* According to some POVs, there are two creation accounts in Genesis.  But according to other POVs, there is only one creation account described from two perspectives.  Hence, there is a POV problem having the plural "accounts" in the title of the page.  Have I accurately stated the POV difficulty?  ---Rednblu | Talk 06:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Creation according to Genesis would be better and use less colloquial english than as in. CheeseDreams 00:48, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Some people have significant issues with the page title, as you can see here. I think a change would remove this dispute and produce a title percieved as neutral by more readers than the current varient. CheeseDreams 00:48, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: <<can someone clarify as to who believes that there is only one creation account>>
Sorry for the lack of history in the proposal.  Here is a short explanation of history.  I jumped into a little tussle :) and proposed a compromise.  Someone renamed the "accounts" page to read "account(s)" and a little revert tussle erupted in my opinion. :)  I proposed a compromise to remove the varieties of the word account from the page title completely.
I like Mr. Dreams's suggestion of Creation according to Genesis best of all.  Does anybody have see a fault in that title?  Is there any reason to retain some variation of the word account?   ---Rednblu | Talk 01:09, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  sorry i missed all this discussion -- i like creation according to genesis best of all.  i was the one that had problems with accounts ... because i think that by its very nature it implies that there IS (pov) a contradiction in the passage.  maybe that's just the way i read it ... but i LOVE "Creation according to Genesis" best of all, because it dodges the issue entirely.  Dissent?  Ungtss 03:02, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV of the page title [[Creation accounts in Genesis]] 

message: In the section about belief in god vs evolution (philosophical naturalism, or something), there is mention of Ashley Montague as a notable advocate of both God and Evolution.
Who the hell is Ashley Montagu? 
Could we put someone of World standing here instead, so that it actually becomes meaningful to people outside of wherever it is that Ashley Montagu has been heard of?
CheeseDreams 21:09, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the Wikipedia link to Ashley Montagu sufficient?  ---Rednblu | Talk 02:32, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it shows he is significant in the subject of "female genital mutilation", but not really much else. Is there something significant with respect to creationism he has done, and if so, why isn't it mentioned in his article? CheeseDreams 00:44, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable evolutionary biologists who believe in god 

message: I removed:
:Creationism remains a minority position within Australia, closely associated with evangelical fundamentalists such as Fred Nile. It has not received anything near the social or legislative prominence accorded to it within the United States.
The first phrase is redundant, the reference to "evangelical fundamentalists" is (what's the term?) perjorative?, it is no more associated with Fred Nile than many other people, I question whether it has any less social prominence than in the U.S.A, and from what I can gather, it hasn't achieved any legislative prominence in the U.S.A. anyway, with most legislative attempts being rejected.  Philip J. Rayment 02:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the fact that there even is regular discussion about legislative aspects of creation means it has a lot more (legislative) prominence than in any other major industrialized country. One thinge we recently hashed out on the Flood geology page is that most Creation science is not so much rejected by scientist, as ignored, since most scientists (and certainly most scientists outside the US) are not even aware of the fact that this is pushed as a serious scientific position. --Stephan Schulz 14:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If "legislative attempts" and similar are factors in "legislative prominence", then I will probably concede that point, notwithstanding that some years ago there was some sort of requirement to give equal time to creation in Queensland, if I understood that situation adequately.  Philip J. Rayment 15:29, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation in Australia 

message: In the edit of 20:20, 24 Nov 2004, something went wrong.  Can somebody figure it out and fix it?  ---Rednblu | Talk 06:56, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something went wrong 

message: I've corrected sentence introducing Phillip E. Johnson to reflect that Phillip Johnson's claims are not general, but highly particular.--FeloniousMonk 06:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree ... in fact, i think that we would do well to make a daughter article that covers this topic in detail with a number of arguments on all sides -- because it really is the heart of the debate, i think.  what do you think?  Ungtss 14:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Creationism and philosophical naturalism section

message: It seems to me that this page is really poor. There isn't a well-defined use of the term "creationist". The opening paragraph seems to indicate that a creationist is someone who believes in Genesis creation. However, later on there are references to a 1997 Gallup poll that was completely neutral to whether the respondent was a believer in a Judeo-Christian formulation or some other formulation of theism. Furthermore, there are "creationists" who believe such things as the Earth and even the universe was "created" by aliens, for example. Is this a form of creationism? If not, then we should really define what exactly we are talking about. 67.172.158.8 17:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anybody else think this page needs a major reworking? 

message: um ... would you care to justify the revert of an edit which added factual information without deleting anything?  Ungtss 22:43, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: great compromise:).  thanks for working with me:).  Ungtss 02:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: new revert war

message: The article currently says
Among the scientific community, the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, and biological evolution are overwhelmingly considered to be the correct description of the origins of nature.
Two of the 3 don't make sense to me. Is this supposed to be the Big Bang, Giant impact theory, and biological evolution ?
--DavidCary 20:44, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: well said, and welcome onboard:).  i'll make the appropriate changes.  Ungtss 20:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think this is misleading. Schools in Western Europe did not teach what is called "Creationism" now, they taught the biblical creation story. And many also taught things incompatible with a literal interpretation of it at the same time. I don't think the term "Creationism" even makes sense except in contrast to evolution (and sometimes the other scientific disciplines). --Stephan Schulz 21:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: we can dodge the issue by just addressing the situation today.  however, mr. schulz's comment seems analogous to saying Lamarckism and Orthogenesis were not actually evolution.  the ideas of creationism have evolved, but the basic concept has stayed the same.  Ungtss 21:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  incomprehension 

message: The latest revision says "Creationism may be entirely based on theology (see creationist theology), entirely based on science (but often called pseudoscience by the vast majority of the scientific community who regard evolution as fact; see intelligent design), or on a mixture of both". I don't think this is adequate - most scientist (including this one) do not consider creationism pseudo-science because they consider evolution a fact (although most do), but because of the methods employed ("statements of faith", ignoring vast amounts of evidence, repeating refuted and easily refutable pseudo-facts, and so on). That it produces results in conflict with mainstream science is a symptom of its nature as pseudo science, not the reason for this designation. --Stephan Schulz 23:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creationist arguments 

message: Why was the Giant impact theory included in the following sentence?
:Among the scientific community, the Big Bang, Giant impact theory, and biological evolution are overwhelmingly considered to be the correct description of the origins of nature.
It is a very narrow theory that describes a vey particular event. I just don't see its relevance here.
Consider the following,
:Among the scientific community, the theories of the Big Bang and biological evolution are overwhelmingly considered to be the correct description for the origin of the universe and the evolution of life respectively.
::I've taken the liberty of making that change.  To maintain the rhetorical harmony of the three element list, I've added abiogenesis (more to the point, because that's often argued to be a separate theory from evolution per se).  I can't think why GIT was there.  I suppose one could add things like stellar evolution, the formation of the earth, etc, if one wanted to sketch out the whole pathway, but how much detail does one want here?  Alai 05:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes abiogenesis makes much more sense. One thing remains. I don't know if it is that I am no native English speaker or that I have a very queer sense of phraseology but the part "origins of nature" sound awful. I think it should be changed to either "correct description of nature" or "correct description of the origins of the universe and life on Earth". --LexCorp 06:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it's rather vague:  we could list anything and everything as helping explain the "origins of nature", giant impact theories and otherwise.  Your latter suggestion, especially, is nice and focussed, and matches the list as amended, if no-one has any obs...  Alai 21:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Whilst I can understand that "anti-creationist links" doesn't sound the best, "non-creationist links" sound to me like neutral sites (if such a thing is possible), whereas at least most of the links are to sites that are overtly anti-creationist.  Is there a third way we can go that's better?  If not, I'd prefer "anti-creationist links" as being more accurate.  Philip J. Rayment 12:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to "anti-creationist links", but LexCorp considered it too biased to have "anti-creationist links" instead of leaving it as "non-creationist links".  He hasn't given any argument why as yet, given the fact that most of the links are indeed anti-creationist stuff.Ethereal 14:12, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
The matter is not so much one of bias but description. Neither is really very descriptive. I propose the external link sections be entitled Creationist resources and Criticisms of creationism, or something of that ilk. --FOo 17:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I do consider "anti-creationist links" biased for the fact that some of the links are merely informatiove and do not even take a view on creationism. I agree with Fubar that we should seek a more descriptive term. Maybe "Divergent views from Creationism" or "Different views from Creationism". --LexCorp 19:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious to know which of the sites you consider to be "merely informative" rather than opposed to creationism, because at a quick glance they all appear to be opposed to creationism to me.  Philip J. Rayment 01:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  well, this is one  --LexCorp 01:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That one supports the teaching of evolution and rejects the teaching of creation.  It claims that evolution is scientific and creationism is not.  None of its references and further reading are to pro-creationism resources, but many of them are to anti-creationism resources.  It seems as one-sided as most of the others to me.  Philip J. Rayment 15:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: The site only informs.  Does not take sides at all. --LexCorp 16:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Ow. Ow. Wikipedia:Pro & con lists considered harmful. :) There are more than two sides here; we should be careful to keep that in mind. --FOo 20:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: pro + con lists -- man.  if only i'd seen that policy before Views Compared:).  Ungtss 20:04, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, it ain't a policy, just a rant of mine I cleaned up and put in the proposed guidelines category. :) --FOo 21:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Exactly my point. Some of the links are not anti-creationism just plain informative. --LexCorp 20:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd be broadly in favour, though I note that one link listed wouldn't really fit, being just a link to "pro-" and "anti-" sites itself.  (I dislike "Non-" as being unduly innocuous-sounding, and "Anti-" is overstated and/or ambiguous.  (Is that (anti-creation)ist, or anti-(creationist)?)  But at least we've on from 'evolutionist'...)  Alai 02:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess Sites critical of creationism is ok. Consider also Sites with opposing views to creationism. --LexCorp 03:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text:  I really like LexCorp's suggestion Sites critical of creationism. I also support Rayment's suggestion too as my second choice. May I suggest that links that are purely informative/neutral/do take a position/whatever be placed separately either before (my preference) or after the sectarian links.--FeloniousMonk 04:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not mine but Philip's. The fourth entry above this one. Mine is Sites with opposing views to creationism --LexCorp 04:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fact that they're external links is obvious from the section. So ... how about just Opposing views? --FOo 01:42, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And you are right there. It is just that to me it sounds better with Sites in front. But that is because I am no English native speaker. So Sites can go. Opposing is still opposite and some links are just informative so why no use Diverging views or as FeloniousMonk suggest lets put three section one pro one anti and the othe informative.--LexCorp 01:55, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-creationist or Anti-creationist link 

message: I've relocated the Criticisms of creationism to lower down on the page to allow the presentation of  info likely more relevant to creationists themselves first. Feel free to change back if anyone objects.
I also added a sub-section to it addressing creationist claims to scientific mantle. It's important to address this in light of their claims, not least of which is made in the Defenses of Creationism section.--FeloniousMonk 20:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: this is all very good, but it is EXCLUSIVELY related to creation SCIENCE -- why are we deconstructing creation SCIENCE on a page about creationISM?  Ungtss 21:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because creationism makes much the same claims as creation science, just without the overt pretense of adhering to the scientific method. Many run-of-the-mill creationists, YECs, OECs, DACs, etc., make explicit statements either to claim the mantle of science for their own views or claim that science is invalid. For example, from the creationism article: "They conclude that creationism is at least as scientifically legitimate as science grounded in philosophical naturalism, and argue further that in their view the evidence strongly supports their viewpoint." They also often assert that science is merely an atheistic conspiracy, something we as of yet have addressed in the article in any depth.--FeloniousMonk 21:47, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: the quote you noted was added in response to the growing criticism section -- check the history -- i don't want that there, but i added it to balance the criticism ... i don't want these criticisms OR defenses here at all!  they doesn't belong:(!  evolutionary creationism ACCEPTS the claims of science, and creation theology is purely metaphysical -- this page covers BOTH of those!  why is the page now a pro/con on creation SCIENCE?  Ungtss 22:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Creationism vis-a-vis science sub-section and move

message: I've merged the two sections, omitting material only relevant to creationism as scientific (that might be transferred elsewhere, but I don't think that it belongs here).  What's left is a set of criticisms, all found in the philosophical and scientific literature, either directly about creationism or about supernatutalist claims in general), which are relevant centrally to creationism as a theory about the origin (and nature) of the world, not to the claims that it's scientific.  There's one aspect that really needs expansion (the point about the nature of explanation), but I need to think about that further, and check more sources, before I do anything. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:52, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms section again 

message: I removed:
:Creationism remains a minority position within Australia, closely associated with evangelical fundamentalists such as Fred Nile. It has not received anything near the social or legislative prominence accorded to it within the United States.
The first phrase is redundant, the reference to "evangelical fundamentalists" is (what's the term?) perjorative?, it is no more associated with Fred Nile than many other people, I question whether it has any less social prominence than in the U.S.A, and from what I can gather, it hasn't achieved any legislative prominence in the U.S.A. anyway, with most legislative attempts being rejected.  Philip J. Rayment 02:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the fact that there even is regular discussion about legislative aspects of creation means it has a lot more (legislative) prominence than in any other major industrialized country. One thinge we recently hashed out on the Flood geology page is that most Creation science is not so much rejected by scientist, as ignored, since most scientists (and certainly most scientists outside the US) are not even aware of the fact that this is pushed as a serious scientific position. --Stephan Schulz 14:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If "legislative attempts" and similar are factors in "legislative prominence", then I will probably concede that point, notwithstanding that some years ago there was some sort of requirement to give equal time to creation in Queensland, if I understood that situation adequately.  Philip J. Rayment 15:29, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation in Australia 

message: In the edit of 20:20, 24 Nov 2004, something went wrong.  Can somebody figure it out and fix it?  ---Rednblu | Talk 06:56, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something went wrong 

message: I've corrected sentence introducing Phillip E. Johnson to reflect that Phillip Johnson's claims are not general, but highly particular.--FeloniousMonk 06:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree ... in fact, i think that we would do well to make a daughter article that covers this topic in detail with a number of arguments on all sides -- because it really is the heart of the debate, i think.  what do you think?  Ungtss 14:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Creationism and philosophical naturalism section

message: It seems to me that this page is really poor. There isn't a well-defined use of the term "creationist". The opening paragraph seems to indicate that a creationist is someone who believes in Genesis creation. However, later on there are references to a 1997 Gallup poll that was completely neutral to whether the respondent was a believer in a Judeo-Christian formulation or some other formulation of theism. Furthermore, there are "creationists" who believe such things as the Earth and even the universe was "created" by aliens, for example. Is this a form of creationism? If not, then we should really define what exactly we are talking about. 67.172.158.8 17:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anybody else think this page needs a major reworking? 

message: um ... would you care to justify the revert of an edit which added factual information without deleting anything?  Ungtss 22:43, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: great compromise:).  thanks for working with me:).  Ungtss 02:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: new revert war

message: The article currently says
Among the scientific community, the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, and biological evolution are overwhelmingly considered to be the correct description of the origins of nature.
Two of the 3 don't make sense to me. Is this supposed to be the Big Bang, Giant impact theory, and biological evolution ?
--DavidCary 20:44, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: well said, and welcome onboard:).  i'll make the appropriate changes.  Ungtss 20:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think this is misleading. Schools in Western Europe did not teach what is called "Creationism" now, they taught the biblical creation story. And many also taught things incompatible with a literal interpretation of it at the same time. I don't think the term "Creationism" even makes sense except in contrast to evolution (and sometimes the other scientific disciplines). --Stephan Schulz 21:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: we can dodge the issue by just addressing the situation today.  however, mr. schulz's comment seems analogous to saying Lamarckism and Orthogenesis were not actually evolution.  the ideas of creationism have evolved, but the basic concept has stayed the same.  Ungtss 21:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  incomprehension 

message: The latest revision says "Creationism may be entirely based on theology (see creationist theology), entirely based on science (but often called pseudoscience by the vast majority of the scientific community who regard evolution as fact; see intelligent design), or on a mixture of both". I don't think this is adequate - most scientist (including this one) do not consider creationism pseudo-science because they consider evolution a fact (although most do), but because of the methods employed ("statements of faith", ignoring vast amounts of evidence, repeating refuted and easily refutable pseudo-facts, and so on). That it produces results in conflict with mainstream science is a symptom of its nature as pseudo science, not the reason for this designation. --Stephan Schulz 23:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creationist arguments 

message: Why was the Giant impact theory included in the following sentence?
:Among the scientific community, the Big Bang, Giant impact theory, and biological evolution are overwhelmingly considered to be the correct description of the origins of nature.
It is a very narrow theory that describes a vey particular event. I just don't see its relevance here.
Consider the following,
:Among the scientific community, the theories of the Big Bang and biological evolution are overwhelmingly considered to be the correct description for the origin of the universe and the evolution of life respectively.
::I've taken the liberty of making that change.  To maintain the rhetorical harmony of the three element list, I've added abiogenesis (more to the point, because that's often argued to be a separate theory from evolution per se).  I can't think why GIT was there.  I suppose one could add things like stellar evolution, the formation of the earth, etc, if one wanted to sketch out the whole pathway, but how much detail does one want here?  Alai 05:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes abiogenesis makes much more sense. One thing remains. I don't know if it is that I am no native English speaker or that I have a very queer sense of phraseology but the part "origins of nature" sound awful. I think it should be changed to either "correct description of nature" or "correct description of the origins of the universe and life on Earth". --LexCorp 06:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it's rather vague:  we could list anything and everything as helping explain the "origins of nature", giant impact theories and otherwise.  Your latter suggestion, especially, is nice and focussed, and matches the list as amended, if no-one has any obs...  Alai 21:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Can't we simply do the following:  remove all references to creation science from the introduction.  Later simply state there's a "disputed basis" or something to that effect in creation science;  and move all boosterism or criticism of creationism as science to that article?  The reference in the intro is flawed in any case, as it invites us to believe that there's a significant body of people who are completely convinced of creationism by creation science, and have no religious conviction whatsoever.   Alai 18:24, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (delayed by edit conflict)  Well, with regard to removing criticisms or defences of creationism as science, I thought that I'd already done that. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an undeniable fact that many creationists define their views as an explicit rejection of mainstream science. I'm not sure what's wrong with stating this in the article. Joshuaschroeder 18:26, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: the people this article is about deny your "undeniable fact" categorically.  that's why.  Ungtss 18:44, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainstream science is defined by an acceptance of macroevolution, the Big Bang, etc. Creationists definitely define their views as an explicit rejection of this. They may think they are "scientific" in their rejection of this, but they still reject it. Joshuaschroeder 18:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A number of us were editing this talk page at the same point just now. I was just trying to mention that I think the point Ungtss made this time is probably a fair one. Although I agree with the sentiment, I think in an enyclopedia article it is fair to define creationism at least from the outset by what it asserts, rather than what it necessarily rejects. However, because it is true that creationism does tend to reject modern scientific methodology and discoveries, I will add a reworded addition to your latest edit that mentions that this form of creationism typically tends to reject the modern scientific approach, while being careful no to actual definine creationism as a 'rejection of science'. See, I made a concession! Aaarrrggh 18:35, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks:).
First of all, let's start with this sentence:  Creationists hold beliefs that may be based on creationist theology, creation science, or a combination of the two.  As I said, I think this is misleading, as it gives the impression we're (to some notable degree) describing people who believe in creationism from creation science exclusively.  At the least, if we have to say something like this, let's not say it in the article lead, where it has an inappropriate definitional character.  Alai 19:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Before I saw this I'd removed that line.  We seem to be thinking along the same lines. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:46, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A modest proposal 

message: I removed the following paranthetical statement
:...some aspects of evolution are unfalsifiable (such as common ancestry with the apes) 
The hypothesis that chimps and gorillas are the closing living relatives to humans could have been falsified. It could be have been falsified by fossil evidence indicating continuity between humans and some other living creature, and it could have been falsified by DNA evidence such as the sequence of ribosomal RNA. 
Perhaps this was just poorly written, and the author meant to indicate that the idea of common ancestry in general is unfalsifiable. I'd bet that it is falsifiable, but I don't have the evidence at hand right now. If this is truly what the author meant, I think that it would be better to write ("such as the common ancestry of all life").
AdamRetchless 21:35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  common ancestry with apes 

message: Reverted to older edit, recent changes not warranted, user must explain why he thinks they are.
Well, that wasn't exactly the most productive contribution to discussion either, was it?  Why are said changes 'unwarranted', and why do you assume Mel is under some greater obligation to explain his edits than you are?  Frankly, anything that can be done to help clean up the point-for-point mess in that section can't be all bad...  Alai 05:42, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was surprised.  Ungtss Ethereal seems to have ignored my edit summary in which I explained what I'd done, and not bothered to read the text before and after (unless he/she wrote the text originally...) To repeat it here, the main change was to remove the section on falsifiability which was dupicated in substance by the later section on testability. To be honest, while the material in the 'criticisms' section is all to be found in the philosophy of religion and philosophy of science literature, much of the response seemed to have been written on the spot by Ungtss,and some of it wasn't really adequate.  If I can, I'll do some more rewriting to make it more cogent. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:39, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, okay so I accept your argument partially on this.  You can edit the section on this but I would also like to see some more of the part on falsifiability be mentioned somewhere on the Creationism article.  The section on falsifiability is not entirely duplicated by the part on testability.  The part where it is stated that mainstream proponents claim that creationists have not offered consistent theories to test was left out.  Also missing was the part where mainstream proponents (or is it opponents?) say that some creationist claims can easily be falsified.  Some examples, such as the moon dust argument, the Arthur C. Clarke quote all help to clarify some points.  And I think it would also help if instead of using phrases like "mainstream proponents", "mainstream thinkers", something like "evolutionists" or "mainstream scientists" should be used. Ethereal 10:56, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure that anything significant has been omitted, but I'll look again.  The point about consistency is made in the criticisms; repeating it here is surely unnecessary.  I didn't really think that the (underdescribed) moon-dust example or the (dubiously relevant) Clarke quotation helped; does anyone else have thoughts on this?  I do agree on the monotonous “mainstream proponents” — some of my edits got rid of a few examples, and I hope to get rid of more. The two sections need streamlining, not further bloating, though, so I don't want to add more text if at all possible. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war brewing... 

message: I move that we put the following initial disambiguation paragraph at the top of the Creationism page.
: This article is about the religious and political movement of modern creationism.  See Creation beliefs for cultural stories that describe how the universe, our earth, life, and/or humanity came into being.  See Creation-evolution controversy for the disagreement with science over the origin of the universe, life, and humanity.
What does everybody think?  ---Rednblu | Talk 03:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motion for initial disambiguation paragraph 

message: The section on geocentric creationism under types of creationism mentions the Creation Science Association for Mid-America as an example. I went to their website, and while they seem to strongly beleive in creationism a la Genesis, I could find no mention them believing in geocentric, perfectly spherical world. Now, I'm not familiar with their organization, so I suppose it is possible that they do believe in such. But it would be nice to be able to find evidence of that if we want to keep it in the article. DaveTheRed 01:46, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Refrence to the CSAMA

message: We've got enough to contend with here; could we refrain from getting into arguments about whether the article should be in U.S. or U.K. English?  I read through the 'Defences' section, and it seems to be in U.K. English, so that that spelling of the title is appropriate.   If there's good reason to change the whole thing, fine — but let's get the content sorted out first. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 09:12, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  English 

message: I've just removed the following (added by 138.26.60.37:
:However some creationist hold a distinction that evolution and creationism are one in the same without a literal translation of biblical text. They accept the plausability of evolution and intrept the bible as a description of evolution with a more metaphorical depiction
If it were to stay it would obviously need putting into correct English, but does it belong here at all? Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 21:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed paragraph