Jump to content

Talk:Creationism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neutrality

[edit]

I challenge the "neutrality" (Article Policy) of the word MYTH when referring to the Genesis account of creation. There are several definitions, and the one chosen by your source, a skeptic of creationism, is derogatory of the Genesis account. A common understanding of the word MYTH is that it's an invented story, idea, or concept; an imaginary or fictitious thing or person; an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.{Dictionary.com} Article is tainted. The word "myth" as used by skeptics of the Genesis account of creation does not come from a "Neutral point of view" as required by Article Policy. It would be sufficient to simply call it "the Genesis account." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roglenoff (talkcontribs) 06:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roglenoff - I've refactored your comment slightly, since that section header you created was exceedingly long - I hope you don't mind.
The use of the word 'myth' in this context is actually discussed explicitly by the cited source which appears directly after the word is first used in the article (Scott 2009, p58). Here is a brief extract: ...the word myth is a term of art in the anthroplogical study of cultures. The common connotation of myth is something that is untrue, primitive or superstitious – something that should be discounted. Yet when anthropologists talk of myths, it is to describe stories within a culture that symbolise what members of that culture hold to be most important. A culture's myths are unquestionably important, and myth is not a term of denigration. In that context, I believe that it is the appropriate term to use in our article. Best Girth Summit (blether) 08:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Roglenoff: it's hard to believe you've even read the article, as the first sentence says "Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation". No where do we refer to Genesis as a myth. We say "Genesis creation narratives". And see Creation myth. It's not our fault that so many people misunderstand the use of myth in this sort of context. Doug Weller talk 08:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Criticism

[edit]

The very first line in the Christian Criticism section states that: "Most Christians disagree with the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution in schools." I am challenging this claim.

As the (2) citations for this statement cite two books to support its stance (none of which have undertaken the required scientific polls or other methods to verify its legitimacy), I am challenging unsubstantiated assertion. It is simply an opinion held by these two authors, which are not real proofs to support such a broad assertion. It is much more accurate to say that Some rather than Most disagree, since these two books on their own cannot justify a broad claim as so, and should be shown as so. DSXG Plays (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only a small minority of fundamentalist Christians - mostly in the United States agree with the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution in schools there are many sources for this. Theroadislong (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
“Most Christians worldwide, as represented by statements from their governing bodies, are in fact accepting of biological evolution as being fully compatible with their faith.” [1]. Theroadislong (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Oktar

[edit]

The article about Adnan Oktar, which was written under the title of Islam, should be removed. Adnan Oktar is the leader of the organization and is currently in prison in Turkey. Because he is dishonest, his statements are also not valid. 78.190.128.59 (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made this edit [2], I don't think we lose much by not mentioning him here. Even if The Atlas of Creation is an interesting book. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Broken sentence

[edit]

This attempt at a sentence is faulty: "Mainline Protestants and the Catholic Church reconcile modern science with their faith in Creation through forms of theistic evolution which hold that God purposefully created through the laws of nature, and accept evolution." Specifically, "... God purposefully created through the laws of nature" has no referent (God purposefully created what through the laws of nature?). I'm not sure what the "what" is supposed to be, so I'm not sure how to repair this.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  09:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Creationsim pseudoscience?

[edit]

I changed the first paragraph to include the sentence:

But lest I be accused of pushing a POV (heaven forbid!), I ask what the official Wikipedia position is on creationism. Is it:

  1. Officially considered pseudoscience (on the basis of an ArbCom, consensus, etc.); or
  2. Generally believed to be pseudoscience by a most editors; or
  3. Regarded as pseudoscience by nearly all reputable scientists; or
  4. Not really something Wikipedia has a position on

No matter which it is (or even if it's something else), I promise not to edit war on this. I just like the word considered. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is, so I changed it back. - Roxy the dog 17:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LEAD and WP:BALANCE, yes it is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Carlstak (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ed, it's been restored to the previous version which better meets WP:FALSEBALANCE policy and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE policy which requires that pseudoscientific views should not br given undue weight, and fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. As is well shown by reliable sources, the overwhelming majority viewpoint of scientists is that creationism is often pseudoscientific, not merely "often considered" to be such – the exception is when it is clearly and explicitly a religious view with no pretenses to scientific status. . . dave souza, talk 20:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I liked the overwhelming majority viewpoint of scientists is that creationism is often pseudoscientific, not merely "often considered" to be such because it was so clear! Thanks, Dave. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]