Talk:Creationism/Archive 17

message: Since this article is specifically titled creationism, there is another article on evolution, and yet another on the creation-evolution controversy, I intend to move all discussion of evolution to the controversy page, where it is more properly placed.  Any objections?
Trishm 06:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion has rapidly changed into one which involves far more topics it seems. Homestarmy 06:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not at all sure whether this is a good idea I'm afraid.  Can we think about it for a day or two, and see what other editors think? NBeale 08:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Creationists take the position that neither theory is verifiable in the scientific sense, and that the scientific evidence conforms more closely to the creation model of origins than it does to the evolutionary model. [9]
It just seems that it would be better placed elsewhere.
Trishm 12:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Creationists take the position that neither theory is verifiable in the scientific sense, and that the scientific evidence conforms more closely to the creation model of origins than it does to the evolutionary model. [9]
I have actually changed "creationists" to Gish, which is more specific, since the reference is a link to Gish's website, comparing the merits of creationsim and evolution.  If I were to choose a single article to put this argument in, it would be the [creation-evolution controversy], not creationism.
My concern is actually a structural one.  This article is about creationism, and should stick to the topic.   After the definition and explanation, the impact of creationism is also appropriate to the article. i.e. the push to get it taught in schools, whether it should be taught at all, what class it should be taught in.  
The conflict arises from the attempt to classify creationism as science.  Once we get into the discussion of the relative merits of creationism and evolution, we have crossed the boundary between the two topics.  I think there should be a link to creation-evolution controversy, and the discussion should continue there, rather than be repeated as nauseum, with varying quality, across the myriad of articles touching on any of the topics involved.  The duplication is unmanageable, and actually obscures the issues on both sides. Trishm 11:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: A quick search found this, but there's bound to be a better one: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i6f.htm rossnixon 07:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This one is quite good http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/origines/myth.htm rossnixon 08:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a handy link: Is Evolution Science, and What Does 'Science' Mean? ... dave souza, talk 09:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "It is well-known that social Darwinism was the main basis for Hitler's notion of the superiority of the Aryan race which served to justify the massacre of six million Jews. Would we dare again place power in the hands of someone who really believes in the theory of evolution?"
It is hard to argue that nationalism, racism and pogroms started with Darwin, or even Hitler.  As for anti-semitism, Christianity is not entirely blameless. . The line about where power can be placed can all too easily be turned against Christians, and hence I would be reluctant to use that source as an example of the Creationist view.
Dave, thanks for the link.  It is a very nice piece on the criteria used to distinguish science from non-science, but quite heavy. Its central theme is that just as scientific theories change over time as new evidence crops up or new understandings emerge, so even the concept of what science is changes over time.  In its conclusion, it endorses evolution as a science. 
The best so far, then, on the Creationist side is this one:http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i6f.htm
And this for the rebuttal:Is Evolution Science, and What Does 'Science' Mean?
Any others out there?   
Trishm 00:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up article: evolution not part of creationism. 

message: In the context of religion, the label "conservative" is used, particularly in the US, to describe a particular way of viewing religion, tending toward a literal interpretation of the bible.
Elsewhere, "conservative" in the context of religion would mean belonging to a long-standing religious organisation, most likely Eastern Orthodox, RC or Anglican, with an emphasis on tradition. 
To avoid confusion, I have replaced the term "conservative" with "literal".Trishm 11:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  conservative - semantics 

message: In the intro as part of the definition of a Creationist, was the phrase "They do not accept abiogenesis ..."
Abiogenesis, as I understand it, is the current understanding of the physical processes by which life may possibly have originated.  
It is not so well established that not accepting it should be notable in any group, so I have removed it.  It did not have the weight to belong in the group of far more established science topics such as evolution, age of the earth and formation of the solar system.Trishm 21:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  abiogenesis 

message: I hope this isn't covered elsewhere, or archived already.  I'm not a regular on this board, I just had a thought when I read this article.  Here [] it says "In the US, it is not permitted to teach religion in public schools".  Now I know how contentious this kind of topic is, but on semantic grounds I have trouble with this.  Theology/philosophy classes and discussions of any religion and/or religion in general are not prohibited by law.  In that light, it might be more clear to change the phrase to something along the lines of it is prohibited to give religious instruction, or teach that one religion is correct, or something like that.  Thoughts? Invidus 18:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no prohibitions on teaching religion. The prohibition is on officially propagating a religion. Students, of course are free to do the latter (freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights), athough some schools have tried to squelch it. Pollinator 21:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the thoughts.  I'll make the change to "provide religious instruction."Invidus 23:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "teach religion" versus "providing religious instruction" 

message: Please look at it and give me your comments: User talk:Filll/AllAboutGod--Filll 02:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rough draft of article on creationist organization

message: Why do we not define it in this article?--Filll 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it doesn't exist, that's why we havent defined it there :). Homestarmy 01:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've often wondered this myself. However, a year and a half ago when I thought to try to write such an article, I found to my surprise that there weren't any good (that is to say, reliable) sources that define and analyze special creationism as a subset of creationism (specifically the subset that defies scientific consensus). I think the idea has merit as a way of teasing out the anti-science creationists from the fideists, spiritualists, symbolists, etc. who accept creation theology but reject an anti-science stance based on their belief. --ScienceApologist 02:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I know the term is used a lot. Interestingly, it isn't verifiably defined or analyzed in a way that we can use as a source for writing an article on the subject. At least, that's what I've found, but if you can dig up something it might be a major coup-de-grace. --ScienceApologist 02:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Special Creationism]]

message: Does anyone even know if the reference given, a book titled "Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism" even claims that flood geologists are the most common creationists associated with Biblical creationism? Because if there's no way to know if the reference given supports the sentence, it seems to me whether Ross is trying to "purify" creationism (whatever that means) or not, the weird flood geologist thing shouldn't be in the article. Homestarmy 01:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me explain "purify" at least with respect to Flood Geology.  This article is all about Creationism, and although it appears that creationist thought runs the gamut from OEC, who more or less reconcile science and evolution with a creator all the way to YEC who take Genesis literally, and one editor cannot decide which portion of that range of ideas to present.  So if you or another editor happens to think that Flood Geology is just too much to stomach for a good Creationist to believe in, well, I'm not sure that works.  So when I said "purify", I meant that RossNixon was trying to make the article more palatable (thought I don't know for sure, since I never understand his edits).  Orangemarlin 07:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Whoooah there, I wasn't asking about political correctness, i'm just wondering about the actual fact at hand, namely, the thing about the particular creationists in the sentence at hand generally being assocated with flood geologists or whatever. And, as i've said in a way, it doesn't really matter whether Ross is trying to make creationism more palatable or not, that's not an excuse to leave something in an article and claim its referenced if nobody can show that the reference given actually references the fact. I don't know if the reference given cites the thing being argued over or not, which is why i've asked. Homestarmy 14:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Then why does the sentence in question suppose that, in this one case, it mostly applies to flood geologists? It seems like a sort of weird assertion honestly, i've never heard it before. I mean, I know there's creationists who are flood geologists because i've watched their shows, but most YEC types being flood geologists....? Homestarmy 17:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit conflict) I suppose that since creationism usually has an extremely literal reading of the Bible at its core, it's to be expected that most creationists would support some flavour of flood geology.  Perhaps they'd focus on other aspects of creationist earth history, and only be "flood geologists" in the same way that an oceanographer might be a "quantum physicist" (i.e. would support its propositions without necessarily being au fait with the topic).  But it would seem odd to me were creationists to insist on a literal reading of one part of the Bible, but be more laissez faire on another part ("Sure, Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs, but a global flood?  Are you out of your mind?").  That said, I suppose that creationists like Hugh Ross and other Old Earth creationists are trying to do exactly this; so I guess I'm not being imaginative enough.  Anyway, enough rambling.  --Plumbago 17:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This is what drives me completely batty about Creationism.  At least Evolution is a consistent fact with only very subtle differences from scientist to scientist, and that's only as new theories arise.  Just about every "creationist" has a different description of what they believe.  Take the Noah's Ark myth.  We've got some editors arguing that "kinds" mean genera, when that means they're not taking Genesis literally, they are "translating" it to fit their story better.  Frustrating.  Anyways, for this article to be truly NPOV, all creationist myths have to be exhibited.  Orangemarlin 18:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreeing with Homestarmy, I also am not a geologist, but I am a creationist. I am sure that Orangemarlin did not mean to say that I equate to (am equal to) a geologist! rossnixon 00:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps its some hidden talent we all have inside of us. Maybe if we concentrate reeeeal hard, the powers of flood geologists everywhere will flow through us! Concentrate......feel the force of flood geology flow through your veins Ross....but beware the dark side of the flood, approximently 1,000 feet below sea level. Nobody wants the dark side of flood geology i'd hope. Hard to breath and whatnot. Homestarmy 00:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree entirely. We may talk about "flood geology" but it is unfair on professional geologists to call it's proponents "geologists". --Michael Johnson 00:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Organizations from the early rise of the modern YEC movement are one thing, but Young Earth creationists as a whole is quite another thing. I've never even heard of Henry Morris, while what you've got here certainly supports that most YEC organizations are seen as more or less big on flood geology, it doesn't say anything about the perceptions of Young Earth creationists as a whole, (Or the more vauge category of Biblical creationists for that matter) who certainly existed before these organizations did anyway. Homestarmy 18:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Before we try to destroy each other....

message: In this article or any religous related article, reaching a NPoV is extremely difficult. A religous related article is going to be made up of religious PoV's. This is an atheists PoV by the way. GoodDay 21:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe it or not, it is possible, but it takes work.  For example, the article only uses verifiable sources.  So, Evolution is a fact.  A supernatural being controlling evolution is faith, and cannot be verified.  That's why Creationism and all of its kindred spirits (like Intelligent Design and Creation Science) are considered pseudoscience, meaning you cannot utilize true scientific methods that can be published in a verified peer-reviewed journal.  Of course, the Christians believe these articles are POV, but I think it is presented as NPOV as you can.  Don't even bother to read the abortion article.  I have no clue how that was written.  Hockey is infinitely more fun.  Orangemarlin 21:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, agreed. GoodDay 21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well yes actually :)Abtract 09:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I seriously doubt the person who posted that comment meant the kind of evolution that's been experimentally proven. Homestarmy 14:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This conversation is getting a bit inane, and someone attempted to revert part of it for some silly reason.  However the person above should sign their posts. Orangemarlin 18:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say "silly". The above comment ("i do not belive [sic] in evolution") has no relevance to improving the article in question, therefore removing it is not that unreasonable. yandman 18:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe one should ever delete anything from a talk page of any article.  Unless, you find something in something YOU posted isn't clear, so you fix the grammar or something.  Even if the garbage posted above makes no sense.  I don't know how to add signatures, but it is clear who posted it.  Orangemarlin 19:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a side note, sometimes it's a real pain in the NPOV of my rear-end to do things on Wikipedia.  It was not easy adding these things to unsigned comments.  Orangemarlin 19:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Get the name from the history, and use . yandman 19:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPoV ??

message: In the Prevalence of creationism (7.0) heading, wouldn't it be more logical to have:
The western world outside the United States heading before the United States heading - as the US is a subset of the western world. 
In fact why is western world even defined with reference to the United States? 
I know creationism is a topic which is hottest in the US, but isn't that like writing an article about London with all references comparing London to the US e.g. "Big Ben is nice, it looks a little like the Washington Monument but is sort of square all they way up, brownish and has a clock in it" - Wikipedia is en.wikipedia and not us.wikipedia. -- Quantockgoblin 13:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prevalence of creationism (topic order?) 

message: Responding to Filll's question above:
:...you are not including all the types of Young earth and old earth and evolution. It is far more complicated than that. For example, where is theistic evolution?
First off, I think there is already some confusion over what belief in "theistic evolution" refers to. It seems to mean any of:
#Evolution is true, and it's the "hands-off" way God brought all present species into being
#Evolution is true, but God intervened in each case or in major cases to create new species
#Evolution is not true, so God had to create each new species directly
This is not covered well in the Theistic evolution article. Cases one and two are blurred together, I think. 
This leads to the situation I've illustrated at Talk:Guided evolution, where the two "camps" wind up talking at cross purposes, because each uses a different definition of the sides in the debate. Creationists appear to be claiming everything but "unguided evolution"; evolutionists appear to claiming everything but "Young-Earth creationism". 
It's a mess, and all the sniping and ruffled feathers isn't helping. Let's try to work together on this. --Uncle Ed 16:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Well I think that is a nice chart/table. I think it is more complicated however. For example, I have encountered some young earth believers that believe in at least some parts if not most parts of evolution. Some people believe that the rules that  the universe operates under (and result in evolution) are the product of a divine design, and classify those people who subscribe to that as creationists. Some creationists believe in biblical literalism and some do not. Some creationists disagree with the biblical interpretations of other creationists. The only thing that is very well defined in this entire mess is the "modern synthesis" evolution theory. However, even this becomes more complicated because there are assorted other evolution hypotheses that have not yet been tested, or  accepted, or other evolution hypotheses that have been tested and found wanting.--Filll 17:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ed, the term theistic evolution along with the other "types" comes from Eugenie Scott's The Creation/Evolution Continuum of 2000, with the minor modification that what she calls Evolutionary Creationism is merged into it as the only difference is theological, and not very clear. You'll note that this merged type is clearly distinguished from nonreligious Materialist Evolutionism which would appear to relate to your Unguided evolution, and in the other direction from Old-Earth creationism. If you have a look at her definitions that should help clear up ambiguity: to cite her, "The Creation/Evolution Continuum, like most continua, has few sharp boundaries. There is a sharp division between YEC and OEC, but less clear cut separation between the various OEC persuasions. Even though OECs accept most of modern physics, chemistry, and geology, they are not very dissimilar to YECs in their rejection of descent with modification." and of theistic evolutionists, they "vary in whether and how much God is allowed to intervene -- some come pretty close to Deists. Other TEs see God as intervening at critical intervals during the history of life (especially in the origin of humans), and they in turn come closer to progressive creationism. In one form or another, TE is the view of creation taught at mainline Protestant seminaries, and it is the official position of the Catholic church." Hope that shows you the "evolutionist" viewpoint cited by the NSCE and TalkOrigins Archive. .. dave souza, talk 18:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed, I think this is an interesting proposal.  However, I've observed that there is actually a range of ideas that go from unguided evolution all the way YEC, and there seems to be subtle differences.  It's almost like a range of species!!!  Orangemarlin 19:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually they go even farther than the vanilla YEC to the modern geocentrism and the flat earth society. There are also strange variants like the Adamites who believe there were two creations (corresponding to the two creations in the bible), sometimes with billions of years between the two creations. And then some who believe that common descent, neoDarwinism etc applies to all animals except for humans. Then there are other strange syncretic versions that combine creationism with UFO visitation, or theosophy  and spiritualism or witchcraft and astrology. On the other end, there are people who call themselves creationists who claim they are biblical literalists but who nonetheless agree with microevolution, macroevolution, speciation and common descent. It all gets to be a bit much. However, I do think Ed has made a good observation, and it might be interesting to make an article on taxonomy of creationism.--Filll 19:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, what Dave just said!!!!  Orangemarlin 19:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ed, this edit to theistic evolution confused the intro, so I'll try to edit that to bring it nearer to Scott's definition... dave souza, talk 19:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Guided" evolution

message: "This literal interpretation requires the harmonisation of the two creation stories, Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25, which require interpretation to be consistent [6][7]. "  Is the word "interpretation" here a euphemism for "fudging" or otherwise manipulating the meaning of the text?  This is not the definition of the word "interpretation" and perhaps is POV.  Would anyone have a problem changing it to:  "Adherers of this literal interpretation claim the two creation stories, Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25, are in harmony and consistent [6][7]."  --PSzalapski 20:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds very reasonable to me to make that change. However, they DO interpret them as not being inconsistent. Perhaps you have never discussed this issued with them? Many of them even deny the 2nd account exists. Many of them claim it is a summary or restatement of the first account. Many of them claim that all evidence to the contrary, the two accounts are identical. Some claim the two accounts correspond to two separate creations. And many other variations.--Filll 01:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I own up to writing that passage, in which the word interpretation is used slightly ambiguously.  What I was trying to say is that it is impossible to believe the two accounts of Genesis are both true word for word as written. It requires a non-literal interpretation to make the two passages consistent.  There is nothing wrong with this, most Christians interpret these passages allegorically anyway. The point is that what is called a literal interpretation of the Bible isn't really.  The citations at the end are to a Christian site which more or less fudges it, demonstrating that you need more than what is written in Genesis to reconcile the two accounts, and a skeptics site which lays the passages side by side, to clearly demonstrate that there are inconsistencies.Trishm 11:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, I should say that the accounts are consistent if you read the subtext: God created the earth, and everything in it.  No one else, no other god, those idols that the other tribes worship are not gods, they are part of God's creation. The accounts are inconsistent only if you read them as a history text.Trishm 11:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "interpretation" can't make anything consistent that isn't already consistent 

message: Hey everyone, I'm pretty new here. I just saw some news story on creationism in the US and had some questions. What happens to kids of people who teach creationism when they go to college and take biology class? I would imagine a scene where the students who went to normal public school in progressive cities start laughing when people start telling a professor s/he is all wrong when s/he starts talking about evolution. Do people who raise their kids as creationists even allow them to go to accredited universitites? I'm not trying to judge or make fun, I'm just curious. I grew up near big cities and if anyone ever started saying some of the things that creationists often seem to say, they'd be laughed out of school by all the other kids. Please inform me about how this works. GingerGin 05:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think college kids would laugh exactly.  Almost every research oriented or secular university in the US teaches evolution as the primary foundation of biology.  I guess someone could go to a university with creationism as their high-school educational background, and learn about evolution.  They could reject it, but still pass the biology course, or maybe actually understand evolutionary biology.  It would be impossible to go on in biology either at a graduate school level or medical school without the evolutionary science knowledge and understanding.  If you have a child who has been home-schooled in Creationism, then I'd suggest a couple of things:  your child could go to a religious university or avoid taking biology courses (sad for a liberal arts education, but it's an alternative).  Orangemarlin 05:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do believe Ken Ham did what Orange suggests with learning about Evolution and passing his biology courses despite being a Creationist, though he doesn't seem to of turned out worse for the wear from it. Homestarmy 15:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ken Ham is Australian, and did his applied science degree in Environmental Biology in Queensland.  I'm not sure when he became a fundamentalist, because they were pretty thin on the ground at that time in Australia. I know that when I saw him in the early-eighties, fundamentalism was pretty radical. He was the only one I saw trying to recruit that didn't have a US accent.Trishm 01:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Will they be allowed in college at all? There’s a court case right now over this very situation. Some students from Christian schools are being denied entrance to state-run universities in California.  rossnixon 00:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the answer is that someone with creationist religious belief has three options - (1) do not study life sciences (2) answer the questions correctly and pass (3) answer the questions according to their beliefs and fail. As for other students "laughing" at them, I doubt it. Universities are known for the diversity of views that are expressed within them. --Michael Johnson 02:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This does not bode well.... Homestarmy 00:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not go too far here.  The University of California, a very competitive university system, has the absolute right to determine what are the core courses required by all high school students entering the system.  If the core courses include science, then so be it.  Frankly, if they want to go to an exclusive university, then they should meet the requirements.  If they don't, there are numerous outstanding colleges in the US that don't have these standards.  Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, in the matter of academic freedom, I hope they lose the court case.  In the matter of religion vs. science, it's more complicated.  I think taking the SATII is a good compromise.  Orangemarlin 01:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely amazing.--Filll 01:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Right.  Calvary loses, UC wins.  And I'm not talking NCAA basketball.  Orangemarlin 01:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think either of those collages has a Doctrate of Burger-Flipping however. Homestarmy 02:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but that is not the point. I am not sure if either one is even accredited, to be honest.--Filll 02:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there's some serious whitewashing going on, Bob Jones University is definently accredited. I was going to say Liberty is too, but a google search brings up what look like different collages with separate names.... Homestarmy 02:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: questions from new person

message: I created this article from the redlink on the lead paragraph. Please expand and improve, as I'm not too sure how to organize this. bibliomaniac15 05:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirected to a more complete, if awful, page. Adam Cuerden talk 18:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Biblical creationism]] 

message: Please vote on the relevance of this section on the article common descent. -- Pbarnes 03:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Creationism and Common descent

message: Sorry if this has been mentioned beofre but I really don't think that 47% of americans believe in young earth creationism - certainly significantly more than half of the Americans I have met seem to believe in dinosaurs and the like. Also I don't know wikipedia policy but isn't "Americans" a bit vague, couldn't it imply citizens of the United states, North American or both American continents. Also the statement probably needs a source.
-Guest9999
:Quite possibly both the survey and you are right. People are capable of believing two contradictory things so long as they arn't confronted with the contradiction (even then many people will deny a contradiction). BTW creationists don't usually deny the exitance of dinosaurs just claim they were killed in the flood. As for the American bit, I think it clear from the context it refers to the USA, but maybe it could be clarified. --Michael Johnson 21:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  47% Americans 

message: It strikes me that Islamic creationism, as a major force in Turkey, needs a much larger section, and that we could really use a more whole-world perspective in our examples section.  Talk:Intelligent_design#Status_of_Intelligent_Design_elsewhere may be useful for compiling this, as may the Intelligent design article (now a Featured article). I'll, of course, help as best I can. Adam Cuerden talk 11:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic creationism  and other focus problems 

message: I've created the image to the right. It may or may not be considered terribly wonderful, but I'd like to at least get discussion going on the idea of replacing the fuzzy blue circle as the image for the Creationism side-bar. Every time I see that image, I'm horribly confused, as it's so non-representational, in contrast to the sidebar "topic" images that appear everywhere else in Wikipedia. The image contains elements of the creation myths of three cultures that developed at different time periods, and thus represent a sampling of the creationism concept throughout the history of man. -Harmil 22:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too complicated.  I really don't think the image matters.  Orangemarlin 23:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good idea, but... I think it's rather too small and too busy to make sense. Er, and isn't the Michaelangelo part (at least) copyright? SheffieldSteel 00:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, I'm not seeing a glowing blue circle. Has it been replaced already? Adam Cuerden talk 00:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would seem so. -Harmil 08:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The marble image: suggestion 

message: I thought the large "Creation of Light" image that was at the top of the page was poorly placed, since the exact same image is in the infobox directly below it. Additionally, placing the infobox beneath the image caused the infobox to not be right-aligned and did not look attractive. I moved the large image to the Citations section, and moved the infobox up to the top of the page where infoboxes are usually found, and which is consistent with the other articles with the infobox.--Puddleglum Marshwiggle 02:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved "Creation of Light" image 

message: I've tried to avoid making any major change in meaning or intent, major points:
* "Strictly, Creationism is a philosophical perspective that presupposes the existence of a supernatural creator." is useless as a core definition, as there are many things that presuppose this and are not creationism. "Philosophical perspective" might have good context in the cited book, but it is too vague here - in what sense philosophical? In what sense a perspective?
* Removed "or" - I've never heard of creationism that states that humans were created, but that the universe was not, or vice-versa. If anyone has a cite to the contrary, please re-add and cite.
* "Contrasts" is more neutral than "conflicts". Something can be spiritual without being theistic (which is the proper term). A cite should be provided for this for those that want to persue the subject.
–MT 19:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: By the way, you probably all noticed, but I've made some tweaks to it. This mainly has to do with getting it to play nicely with other sidebars it's often found with - same width and so on, so they can be grouped into one "holding" table. Adam Cuerden talk 21:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creationism sidebar 

message: I tink that this should be moved to "Theory of Creationism." It is more accurate and more NPOV. I am a creationist by the way so I am not doing this because it is my POV. God bless:) --James, La gloria è a dio 22:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're spamming a few articles with the same comments.  Thanks, but no thanks.  Orangemarlin 23:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with my Jewish friend. :-) rossnixon 01:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: I don't get it....why do you believe in this when there's so much evidence that we EVOLVED?  I mean, I understand faith and everything and believing in a higher power, but if He created everything then how was He created?  It doesn't make much sense to me, especially now that I'm in Biology and we're learning the scientific side of everything.  Yeah....so I don't exactly understand!
:Please don't use article talk pages for debating the topic of the article. The short answer might be something like the following: Origin stories are a part of mosts religious mythologies, and in some religions or shades of religions, fundamental beliefs are more closely tied to those mythologies; therefore, the two aren't easily separable. In addition, evolution deals with changes on scales of millions and billions of years, a timeframe for which the human brain is ill-equipped to grasp. While it is easy to observe the effects of evolution on short time scales, many people have difficulty extrapolating that to timescales comparable to the age of the Earth. The origin problem exists for both supernatural and scientific explanations of the origin of the universe. Most people who believe in a single God believe that God has existed eternally and was not ever created. If you have further interests in exploring these topics, I could help you find some resources on the Internet or try answering further questions. Feel free to ask me on my talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creationism 

message: I question the accuracy of the article on the use of this term. The definition the article provides makes it appear as if Creationism is the same as having a literal interpretation of the bible. That is a point of view skewed to the American perspective-- creationists are more widely people that argue the bible against other theories of pre-history. I shall analyze the sources for this article to see if this article does indeed follow them closely.Lotusduck 04:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please give substantive points of dispute, rather than just stating a general impression of the article. You're probably right that there is an American bias here, just because there usually is on Wikipedia -- but it's worth noting that the very first few sentences of the article point out that Biblical creationism is only one kind of creationism, although the intro goes on to state that the term "creationism" is usually associated with Christian fundamentalist creationism. --FOo 04:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy of the article 

message: I removed the quotes around the term "Macroevolution" in the chart.  I think that this is in the interests of NPOV, since the quotes imply that the term is nonsense.  I think it is appropriate to use Creationist terminology to discuss Creationism.
If removing the quotes gives the word too much validity, perhaps the word should become a link to an explanation of the term. --Brilliand 03:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never noticed until you deleted them.  I agree with your logic, but I think wiki-linking the term might be the best idea.  Orangemarlin 03:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wikified the first occurrence of the term in the section. --Brilliand 16:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Macroevolution"