Talk:Creationism
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Creationism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 12 months ![]() |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Many of these questions arise on frequently on the talk page concerning Creationism.
Q1: Should the article characterize creationism as a religious belief? (Yes.)
A1: Yes. Creationism is a religious belief; it is not a theory. Q2: Should the article use the term myth? (Yes.)
A2: Yes. Myth as used in the context of the article means "a sacred narrative explaining how the world and mankind came to be in their present form." This terminology is extensively used in religion and comparative religion fields of study at the academic and scholarly levels, as well as in many of the reliable sources cited in the article. With this in mind, usage of the term is explicitly supported by WP:RNPOV and WP:WTA. FAQ notes and references: |
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
![]() | Other talk page banners | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
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)
- 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)
- “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)
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)
- 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)
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)
Is Creationsim pseudoscience?
[edit]I changed the first paragraph to include the sentence:
- It is often considered pseudoscientific.
But lest I be accused of pushing a POV (heaven forbid!), I ask what the official Wikipedia position is on creationism. Is it:
- Officially considered pseudoscience (on the basis of an ArbCom, consensus, etc.); or
- Generally believed to be pseudoscience by a most editors; or
- Regarded as pseudoscience by nearly all reputable scientists; or
- 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)
- Of course it is, so I changed it back. - Roxy the dog 17:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Per WP:LEAD and WP:BALANCE, yes it is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes it is. Carlstak (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Pseudoscience articles under contentious topics procedure
- Delisted good articles
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- B-Class vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- B-Class Religion articles
- High-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- High-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class philosophy of religion articles
- High-importance philosophy of religion articles
- Philosophy of religion task force articles
- B-Class sociology articles
- Mid-importance sociology articles
- B-Class Skepticism articles
- Mid-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- B-Class Theology articles
- Mid-importance Theology articles
- WikiProject Theology articles
- B-Class Christianity articles
- Mid-importance Christianity articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- B-Class Islam-related articles
- High-importance Islam-related articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- B-Class Zoroastrianism articles
- High-importance Zoroastrianism articles
- WikiProject Zoroastrianism articles
- B-Class Creationism articles
- Top-importance Creationism articles
- WikiProject Creationism articles
- B-Class Alternative views articles
- High-importance Alternative views articles
- WikiProject Alternative views articles
- Wikipedia pages with to-do lists