Talk:Creationism/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Creationism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Definition in the lead

I note that the 'theological' definition of creationism in the lead (which has been the cause of considerable argument at Talk:Answers in Genesis#Section Header) is sourced to James Hayward, a biology professor. While not claiming that he is an unreliable source, I would think that an expert on science and religion or religious studies might provide a more authoritative, clearer and/or more well-developed definition. The 'working definition' is sourced to Ronald L. Numbers, which seems more appropriate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well... We have the main definition, and public definition per Creation/Evolution controversy (from Numbers) so far. It doesn't seem fair to cite public perception of the term as it's inside definition.

I have a hunch we're not going to find a definition of Creationism agreed upon by Creationists themselves (which would also seem to exclude outside experts from forming one). Well, I didn't, anyway. --Draco 2k (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Your 'main definition' is my 'theological definition', in that it is defining a "religious belief". I am suggesting that a "religious belief" would be more authoritatively defined by an expert in religious studies, 'science and religion', or some related field, than by a biologist (who expertise with respect to creationism would be more in terms of how creationism conflicts with the scientific evidence from Biology).
I have no idea where your ideas of "cit[ing] public perception of the term as it's inside definition" or "a definition of Creationism agreed upon by Creationists themselves" come into this.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a definition. I have (and had) nothing to do with this article at all other than watching over it from time to time and trying to help. I would appreciate it if we could discuss this as grown-ups instead of flipping out because X reverted Y's edits Z times.

I meant that what you term the "main definition" was what I termed the "theological definition". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can find any such experts, please, go ahead. As it stands, Jayward's definition would remain the most valid and logically encompassing to the rest of definitions given.

Numbers cites the definition of Creationism as it is applied to public perception, and thus popular interpretation, of the term (I think). Thus, I am led to believe it guarantees a mention.

Numbers does no such thing. He describes how the self-identification of the advocates of this view changed from referring to themselves as 'antievolutionists' (cf the Evolution Protest Movement) to 'creationists' in the mid 20th Century. By "commonly" he is not referring to "by the public" but "by themselves". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

To maintain NPOV, we should either cite both sides' definitions (Scientists/Creationists) or an outside expert's one. So far the main definition comes from a biologist (and secondary from a third-party expert), which is slightly off course - and all I'm saying is that the definition coming from Creationists themselves might be a hard to obtain.

And I'm saying that a scientist would be an expert on why creationists are wrong, not on what defines a creationist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Anything else? --Draco 2k (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad we cleared that up. Please excuse my poor wording.

Well, do you have a definition? --Draco 2k (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Creationism's Trojan Horse (p283) contains the following description (as opposed to a formal definition) of Creationism:

CURRENT COMMONALITIES
An analysis of American creationism of all varieties reveals a number of shared characteristics: (1) belief in the creation of the universe by a supernatural designer and (usually) the designer's continuing intervention in the creation; (2) implacable anti-evolutionism, stemming from opposition to the scientific consensus on the evolution of the universe and life, such opposition being based on theological, moral, ideological, and political, but never scientific grounds; (3) criticism of all or most methodologies underpinning current scientific evidence for the evolution of life, without presenting for peer review any competing theory of origins; and (4)the most fundamental aspect of creationism: the explicit or implicit grounding of anti-evolutionism in religious scripture. And, of course there is the indefatigable political effort to influence and ultimately rewrite school science curricula.

I think the problem with the current 'main definition' is that it blurs the second point, by making it unclear if it's definition of 'Creationism' accepts or rejects the possibility of the evolution of the universe and/or life. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ron Numbers is a suitable authority, as a historian specialising in creationism, and the cited page makes it clear that it's meant various things at different times, as well as being contested as to which particular belief it includes. Thus different creationists will give different definitions, and we require expert opinion rather than trying to collect self-definitions by creationists. Creationism's Trojan Horse focusses on the anti-evolution meaning, it would be good to find other expert opinions about the uses that include compatibility with evolution. .. dave souza, talk 12:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Numbers makes it very clear that 'antievolutionism' and 'creationism' (as it is now known) are the same phenomenon. He also makes it clear that the term "Creationism" started to be used by this movement 80 years ago. What the term originally meant 150 years ago is, I would suggest, largely irrelevant and of only historical interest -- and thus (at best) deserves only a footnote. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What a mess. If we cite all or at least some of these definitions in the article, what happens to sections that don't comply with one or more of them, or continuity or... Maybe create a new section dealing with "History of definition" or something? Place the common denominator in the intro, then elaborate on it later on. --Draco 2k (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed definition

Creationism, originally known as antievolutionism, is the religiously motivated rejection of the scientific consensus on the evolution of the universe and life, in favour of its supernatural creation. The term was first used by Harold W. Clark, one of George McCready Price’s former students, in 1929, in a brief self-published book titled Back to Creationism which urged readers to cease simply opposing evolution and to adopt instead the new "science of creationism" (Price’s flood geology).

This definition would appear to be consonant with both Numbers' and Forrest's descriptions of Creationism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. But is the historical trivia really necessary?

Creationism, originally known as antievolutionism, is the religiously motivated rejection of the scientific consensus on the evolution of the universe and life in favour of its supernatural creation by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities, whose existence is presupposed. In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution.

Would this work? It's a bit of mish-mash (WP:OR?), but throwing out Hayward's definition sounds like a bad idea altogether. --Draco 2k (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The last sentence duplicates the first, except for the introduction of the phrase "strict creationism" which, although cited to him in the current version, is not contained in Numbers' piece. It also raises the question of 'what the heck is non-strict creationism?' I think the term merely muddies the waters.
I don't really see any point in attempting to tie up specifics of who the supernatural deity might be in what is meant to be a general definition. I think most readers will realise that "supernatural creation" most probably means 'God did it' in most contexts, but this still allows the definition to remain general to other forms of creationism (e.g. Hindu creationism). Mention of the 'Abrahamic God' can reasonably wait until later, explanatory rather than definitional paragraphs.
Does anybody have a copy of what Hayward actually said? Given how loose the Numbers paraphrase was, I have no assurance that the definition is an accurate representation of what Hayward wrote. In any case, Numbers & Forrest more than trump Hayward as authoritative sources on Creationism. Additionally, this whole argument started off because this definition cited to Hayward allows contradictory interpretations.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Good points. With all that, it's should look like this...

Creationism, originally known as antievolutionism, is the religiously motivated rejection of the scientific consensus on the evolution of the universe and life in favour of its supernatural creation by a deity or deities, whose existence is presupposed.

Sound good? This would actually mirror most of the available definitions, including Hayward's.

And no, I don't have a copy. Google books doesn't seem to either. --Draco 2k (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Two questions:

Can you conceive of a supernatural agency capable of creating "the universe and life" that wouldn't be sufficiently powerful to be considered to be "deity or deities"?
Can you point to any deity whose existence has been inferred from the evidence without its existence previously being "presupposed"?

My point is that both additions are merely extraneous and unnecessary elaborations of the core definition. A definition should be as concise as possible, without losing information. Unnecessary elaboration tends to lead to unintentional ambiguity (as happened with the Hayward-cited definition). Can you point to any conceivable candidate for inclusion in the set 'Creationism' that would be intentionally included/excluded differently under my proposal versus your latest one? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Plenty. Maybe it was some sort of accident at the magic soup factory? Maybe the agent blew itself up in the process? Maybe it was killed later on (like in some ancient creation stories). Who knows.

No. That's why it's important to outline - Creationism doesn't attempt to explain why deity is there (or anything for that matter), it just says it is. It's a good summary.

Other than that, if you can think of a way to shorten it - please do.

Our first and last revisions are basically the same, save for "by a deity or deities, whose existence is presupposed" bit - which sounds unnecessary, but helps outline an important point or two as previously stated. The trivia about first usage of the term could go in History section. --Draco 2k (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that the term was used in this meaning by Darwin and others in private, and there seem to have been other terms for the position in the nineteenth century. It's also confusing to use the term evolution for cosmological development, though stellar evolution is used as a term, it has little or no connection to biological evolution. Suggest – "Creationism, also known as antievolutionism, is the religiously motivated rejection of the scientific consensus on the development of the universe and the evolution of life, in favour of a presupposition of supernatural creation. The term in its modern usage was introduced by...." .. dave souza, talk 16:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Also, how about "...presupposition of supernatural creation by an intelligent agent..." or something (can we even say "deity"?). Supernatural creation as a term doesn't necessary require a designer/creator, so it might be a good idea to clarify what is what. --Draco 2k (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with Dave's version. I don't see how 'supernatural creation by unintelligent means' (assuming somebody thought up the 'Church of the Sacred Pratfall' or similar to make an issue of it) would be any less 'Creationism' than 'supernatural creation by the ultimate brainiac'. It's extraneous and is not contained in any of the sources that are currently available to consult (which also happen to be the more authoritative). Shall we also specify that the 'intelligent supernatural agency' doesn't eat hotdogs on Friday? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said, supernatural creation does not require a designer/creator by it's definition. Creationism, however, does. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

We are attempting to come up with a definition of Creationism on the basis of how the experts describe it (i.e. the definition is the product of this discussion, not an input into it). Can you quote an expert stating that creationism requires an explicit designer/creator not merely supernatural creation (which may or may not in itself be interpreted to implicate a creator)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Eugenie Scott describes it as a "supernatural force" in Evolution Vs. Creationism (pg. 51: "...to Christian, Jews and Muslims this supernatural force is God; to people of other religions, it is other deities...").

Frankly, it doesn't even make sense (or makes less sense...) without God. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

All this means is that most religions interpret "supernatural force" (as they would the 'whatever' behind "supernatural creation") as being the deity or deities they worship. The 'intelligent' part is non-determinative, merely virtually ubiquitous. Would some particularly bizarre Taoist who decided that science conflicted with the Tao Te Ching and thus that the Tao formed the universe in some way that science contradicts be any less a creationist? I don't think so. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay... So far it'd be:

Creationism, originally known as antievolutionism, is the religiously motivated rejection of the scientific consensus on the development of the universe and the evolution of life in favour of its creation by supernatural forces, whose existence is presupposed.

It'd be nice to specify said forces, or maybe use some other phrase. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that the original name is shrouded in complexity but "antievolution" is still in occasional use. Also, while I'm happy with "its supernatural creation" as that covers all deities and any other "intelligent designer", however here's an option –

Creationism, also known as antievolution, is the religiously motivated rejection of the scientific consensus on the development of the universe and the evolution of life in favor of creation by a supernatural entity such as god, whose existence is presupposed.

Note USian spelling, and not sure if it should be god or God. . . dave souza, talk 20:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds about perfect. --Draco 2k (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I prefer ~~your~~[Dave's] first version [i.e. the one dated 16:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)] -- it was tighter. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

~~Which first version? Could you quote it~~, maybe explain what could be changed about current one? --Draco 2k (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

They're identical save for terminology (antievolution; development of the universe), and the latter actually clarifies *which* kind of supernatural creation we're talking about, and offers room for some examples. --Draco 2k (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not a 'clarification', it is a completely unnecessary elaboration. What other "kind of supernatural creation" is there? And why wouldn't it be creationism? The more non-core elaborations that get dumped into the definition, the vaguer and more ambiguous it becomes. This means that it should have no "usually...", "typically..." or "such as..." clauses -- these merely muddy what is essential to the definition by adding in inessential (but near-ubiquitous) elements, which are better handled as examples outside the definition. I'm also uncomfortable with moving "which is presupposed" into its own clause, as that appears to open the door for an 'I'm-not-a-creationist-really' to argue tendentiously that their deity is inferred rather than presupposed, so 'it's not creationism'. I'd actually prefer to leave presupposed out entirely (as it doesn't appear to be determinative), but am willing to accept it in Dave's original version, as it gives 'presupposed supernatural creation' as a single integral unit, rather than giving the impression that 'supernatural' and 'presupposed' might be separable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"antievolutionism"??? Never heard of it in 35 years of reading about creationism. ^ross ^nixon 02:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hardly surprising then. The move to rename it started in 1929, and was more or less complete by the early 1970s (last remnant that I know of was the 'Evolution Protest Movement' which was renamed the Creation Science Movement in 1980). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the article with the new definition. Modify as needed - please state your reasoning if you do. --Draco 2k (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was premature, as there is as yet no consensus for a specific new definition.
You have no idea what Hayward originally wrote, so cannot tell that the version you inserted was "partly Hayward's", or if the language retained from the older version was merely some earlier editor's elaboration on what Hayward actually wrote.
There is no particular need to retain any second-hand information from a source who is not an expert on the definition of Creationism, when we have the first-hand words of three experts on the subject (Scott, Forrest & Numbers).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I figured it's already better than the previous version, so it's a start. Just edit it as needed.

Yes, I didn't pick up Hayward's book - I assumed the previous definition (presupposed deities, etc.) was paraphrased from his words, and the new one goes in line with it. If not, the reference will have to go, I assume. Should it? Any other problems? --Draco 2k (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you have no idea as to how close a paraphrase it was, let alone whether this new frankensteined version actually reflects what Hayward wrote (or if the added material in some way contradicts his version). If you don't have the original in front of you, you should not be citing substantially altered material to it, nor attempting to merge it with newer material. We should base the new definitions on sources that we actually have to hand -- particularly when all three of these new sources are more authoriative than Hayward in any case. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither of the other two sources contain the description we have now, too. The cited Scott/Eldredge define it as "...the idea that supernatural force created..." and Numbers and Forrest define it as... Actually, I don't know where that came from - you didn't give any citations (please do). Hayward defines it as (I assume) religious belief that deity X created everything, which is what the previous revision was about. --Draco 2k (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The Numbers citation is already in the article,[1] a quote of the cited Forrest material (from Creationism's Trojan Horse) is above (including page number). Assuming what Hayward might have written simply isn't good enough. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding anything even relatively resembling what we have now in supposedly Number's material (that link), and the Forrest doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere...

Well, should we remove Hayward's ref then? According to previously revision, he defined it as mainly a religious belief in creation rather than rejection of evolution in favour of said creation. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It should not be defined by what it isn't nor by what it (often) rejects. Broadly, creationism is a belief in a creator. Theistic evolutionists are creationists who do not reject evolution. Rlsheehan (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is historically defined as an anti-evolution/science/etc. as well as creation movement - and we even have some references to support that. Theistic evolution does not fall under this definition entirely, but it's still quite relevant to the subject. --Draco 2k (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Online Webster says: "a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis —" The literal interpretation of Genesis is only one view, among many. Imagery, poetry, and alegory are also common among mainline protestant beliefs. (references are available)Rlsheehan (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Eugenie Scott and Niles Eldredge, both experts in the field of creation-evolution controversy, also describe it as an adherence to the idea of supernatural creation, but Numbers also describes historical origins of the movement as stemming from antievolution one, citing that the only thing that really changed about it since the then is the name (much like with Creationism and ID). And, frankly, rejection of evolutionary and other scientific theories follow logically here, as well (which is also described later on in the article).

Old Earth Creationism is an example of non-literal interpretation of the Bible in this case. The definition doesn't address literal or non-literal interpretation of any applicable religious texts.

It's a tricky thing - we need a definition that encompasses Creationism in it's entirety most accurately, but it also needs to come from a reliable source or sources. --Draco 2k (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

A recent edit changed the currently disputed definition to predominantly Hayward's one - this is something we'll have to avoid if we don't have proper citations and if cited definitions starkly conflict with each other. Hayward's definition is also the main reason the edit was proposed to begin with. All in all, we need non-conflicting definition(s) from reliable (and citable) expert(s) in the field. --Draco 2k (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed Hayward's ref since it's no longer relevant. His definition described Creationism as a religious belief, which is not mentioned in current revision - mostly - and maybe it should be. It also appears to be virtually unverifiable.

Do we have a citation from Forrest/Numbers on this definition, or any part of it? --Draco 2k (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Take two

I'd like to present three principles for formulating a consensus definition of 'Creationism'

It should be consistent with the descriptions of Creationism contained in the authoritative reliable sources available to date.
Without conflicting with #1, it should encompass the widest range of creation myths that could conceivably produce a creationist apologetic.
It should not contain any inessential/non-determinative material ("typically...", "such as...", etc), which should be left for later paragraphs.

Numbers lists this movement as being described as "advocates of creation" and "anti-evolutionists", and describes them as dedicating their organizations to "Christian Fundamentals" and "Anti-Evolution". This clearly and unambiguously indicates that a key point is anti-evolutionism. 'Creation' is left amorphous, with the implication from the context that it is meant in a religious (and thus supernatural) sense.
Forrest describes American (i.e. predominantly Christian) creationism as involving "creation of the universe by a supernatural designer" (her 1st point), anti-evolutionism (2nd & 3rd), and a clear link between the two (4th).
Scott states that "Broadly, "creationism" refers to the idea that a supernatural force created"(p51), and that the "Pillars of Creationism" are the view that "Evolution is a 'Theory in Crisis'", "Evolution and Religion are Incompatible" and that "'Balancing' Evolution" (with Creationism) is desirable.(pp xxi-xxiii)
Creation myth lists a large range of supernatural creator entities, archetypes and forces, many of which would not typically described as 'deities'.

I would therefore suggest that the definition:

focus upon (i) supernatural creation & (ii) anti-evolutionism; and
leave the identity of the agent of this 'creation' as general as possible (preferably by merely leaving its existence as an implication of 'supernatural creation')

I would therefore like to propose the following:

Creationism, also known as antievolutionism, is the religiously motivated rejection of the scientific consensus on the the evolution of life in favor of supernatural creation.

I would be willing, as a compromise, to accept either "a presupposed supernatural creation" or "creation by a supernatural force" (or even "a presupposed creation by a supernatural force" -- though the latter is clumsy), but would object to either (i) further non-determinative specificity on the identity of the 'creator' (that would unnecessarily remove some mythologies' creators from contention) or (ii) giving emphasis to the 'presupposition' when it is not explicitly mentioned in any of the available sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Good, sound principles and a good opening sentence. The idea of "creationism" as meaning "religious views of creation irrespective of whether or not evolution is involved" has been superseded in general usage by the anti-evolution meaning. That could be dealt with in a second sentence, perhaps on the lines of "The concept of divine creation is also part of what has been termed theistic evolution, but in the creation-evolution controversy such beliefs are not usually described as creationism." . . dave souza, talk 10:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

~~I would concur with everything but the last few words.~~

Scott and Eldridge mention that it's not just "supernatural creation", but "creation by supernatural forces" - and then go on to clarify exactly which forces ("deity or deities, such as God or Allah"). Supernatural Creation is an extremely broad term, and is not something Creationism argues for in general. "Presupposed" bit is also important - otherwise it would sound like Creationism actually tries to prove existence of God (like it should, according to scientific method).

Also, technically, "rejection of [...] development of the universe and the evolution of life" - though I'm not sure we have a reliable source on that.

And it's "antievolution", not "antievolutionism" - the latter is out-of-use term.

As for the second paragraph, yes, some clarification might be in order. --Draco 2k (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I really wish that Draco 2k would learn the difference between a direct quote and a paraphrase. Scott and Eldridge do not use the phrase "deity or deities, such as God or Allah" nor do they provide what this is a (bad) paraphrase of as a clarification but merely as an example ("To Christians, Jews and Muslims, this supernatural force is God..."). Also, antievolution is the adjective, antievolutionism is the known (hence The Antievolution Pamphlets of Harry Rimmer, The Antievolution Works of Arthur I. Brown). The noun form has been largely supercded by 'Creationism', but the adjective is still used somewhat more frequently. Attempting to use 'antievolution' as a noun is both improper and likely to cause confusion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The exact context is, "...broadly, 'Creationism' refers to the idea that a supernatural force created. To Christians, Jews, and Muslims, this supernatural force is God..." - I never proposed the definition to refer to deities as such, but rather clarify the exact type of creation. Good point about anti-evolution. I'll assume that you don't have any further criticisms regarding mine or anyone else's remarks.

I also wouldn't mind it if you would stop throwing snide remarks around. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted "antievolution" again for at least these reasons.

It has not been in use for a long time and is now an unknown term.
There is no citation.
If it was current, the correct form (grammar in the sentence) would be "antievolutionism".
It is inaccurate anyway, as all young earth creationists agree with many aspects of evolution. ^ross ^nixon 11:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Numbers lists this movement as being described as "advocates of creation" and "anti-evolutionists", and describes them as dedicating their organizations to "Christian Fundamentals" and "Anti-Evolution". If "all young earth creationists agree with many aspects of evolution", it does seem remarkable that so many seem to oppose it being taught. Citation from a secondary source? . . dave souza, talk 12:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) is irrelevant, and untrue. Creationism movement stems from and a continuation of the antievolution movement. Historically, it's both. (2) There is, though it's hard to obtain. See discussion above. (3)"Antievolution" is the much more commonly used term, despite being interchangeable with "Antievolutionism". (4) Is not cited anywhere in the article. --Draco 2k (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the article back to previous definition as per antievolution definition dispute. The definition that was reverted reads:

Creationism, also known as antievolution, is the religiously motivated rejection of the scientific consensus on the development of the universe and the evolution of life in favor of it's creation by a supernatural entity, such as God, whose existence is presupposed.^{[disputed – discuss]}^[1]^[2]

Signed. --Draco 2k (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Another proposed definition:

Creationism, also known as antievolutionism, is the religiously motivated rejection of the scientific consensus on the evolution of life in favor of its creation by a supernatural force, whose existence is presupposed.^[1]^[3]

Cited (supposedly) directly from Number's/Forrest's material (first ref - hard to verify). Partially ("creation" part) supported by Scott's/Eldrige's definition (second ref, exact page cited).

Not sure if it should also mention rejection of consensus on development of the universe - any sources on that?

Not sure if you can address "force" as "who", maybe it's better to say "entity"?

Not sure if it should clarify the type of "supernatural forces".

Signed. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What sources give prominence to the "whose existence is presupposed", necessitating that it be given its own clause in the definition? This essentially changes the 'checklist' from two boxes to be 'ticked' in order to conclude 'Creationism' (antievolutionism, supernatural creation) to include a third (presupposition). Where do the sources indicate that this point is crucial to the question of 'what is or is not Creationism'? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. While theistic religion inherently presupposes the existence of a aupernatural force, it's superfluous to the definition and opens a weasel hole for the ID argument that "it could have been time travelling aliens, or Anthony Flew". So, crop it. . . dave souza, talk 09:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a clarifying statement. Creationism doesn't draw conclusions that God exists, nor does it follow as a consequence of rejecting evolution, it just assumes he does.

Presupposition is vital part of all god-myths, and is usually not used when describing them as such - like we don't use "mechanical" when talking about cars - but we're describing God thinly veiled as "supernatural force" here - and what kind of force this is clearly follows from cited sources. So It's either call them by name - God, Allah, whatever, long list - or call them by their definition.

Basically, Creationism is not a theory or hypothesis, or science for that matter - it doesn't draw conclusions from evidence; it just assumes something exists, and that's it. I think it's a hugely important point, which should be mentioned one way or the other. --Draco 2k (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

From which I gather that your only justification for inclusion of "whose existence is presupposed" is WP:OR. Further, I see no evidence that "supernatural force" is any less 'presupposed' than any god, deity or whatever, so "supernatural force, whose existence is presupposed" is just as redundant and excessive as "car, which is mechanical". This is therefore an unnecessary OR elaboration, "clarifying" nothing that is not already abundantly clear. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really - it's paraphrasing. It's either that or listing Yahweh, Allah, etc. or each respective religion according to Scott/Eldridge definition - which would be extremely cumbersome.

Supernatural forces don't have to be presupposed, it's not in their definition. It's in definition of God, sure, but we're not calling it that here. So we either have to stray away from the exact definition by calling them Gods/Deities, or elaborate on what kind of forces we're talking about here - either by listing examples, or by narrowing down the scope of the definition. --Draco 2k (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If it is "paraphrasing" then quote the passage in the source that it is a paraphrase of.
Give a WP:RS for your "definition" of "Supernatural forces". Give a WP:RS for your "definition" of "God". Because quite frankly, all these assertions appear to be complete (and very flimsy) WP:OR. I see no reason why anything supernatural would not necessarily be "presupposed", nor why some supernatural entities would be presupposed while others weren't. And we "have to" do nothing of the sort. Neither of the options you delineate are either (i) necessary (ii) desirable or (iii) substantiated by the sources as anything beyond examples of the supernatural forces under discussion.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Actually, there doesn't appear to exist a definition of not just "supernatural force", but also "evolution of life" or "supernatural creation". But that's beyond the point.

Then why are you making claims about things being "not in" or "in" these non-existent definitions? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph in question is: "...broadly, 'Creationism' refers to the idea that a supernatural force created. To Christians, Jews, and Muslims, this supernatural force is God..."

I'm quoting this for about sixth time here.

This paragraph says nothing about "presupposition". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the answer to your other question. I'll assume you don't have anything to say about it then. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Supernatural force" is bullshit. It does not have a definition, and it's exactly that - two words: "supernatural" and "force". The only way we know what this means is the clarifying statement, listed above.

As I said before, without clarification, it's a meaningless statement.

No. It is this claim that is "bullshit". Both "supernatural" and "force" have well-understood meanings. "Supernatural force" is simply the juxtaposition of those two meanings. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you won't object to it's usage here, or ask me to provide you with RS explaining it's meaning like you did above. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's also rather weird to ask for sources on something you said you know meaning of in the first place, even without "unnecessary" clarifications.

I was only asking you for the "source" for your made-up definitions of them. As far as I could see you were simply pulling them out of your arse -- but I assumed good faith and asked if you actually had a source to back up your claims. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Your definitions, not mine. "Supernatural forces" is direct quote - asking for RS on it is meaningless. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If you suggest that any "supernatural force" has to be presupposed or not, the burden of proof is on you. By default, we'll have to assume it can be either.

Basically, it can be whatever - this is why clarification is in order, as well as to avoid misquoting the original source.

<Bzzzz> Wrong -- per WP:V, the burden of proof is on you as the editor attempting to introduce "whose existence is presupposed" into the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

We're not discussing whether or not to insert this statement here, but whether or not it "supernatural forces" are presupposed or not. The burden of proof is on you, otherwise we'll have to clarify the definition to correctly paraphrase the source. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I've yet to see you list the exact quote from Numbers or Forrest on this definition. Doesn't feel right to work with something that's not even there.

Then you need your eyes checked. The quote from Forrest is above, and I specifically cited which of her points support 'anti-evolution' & 'supernatural creation' at the start of this thread. I likewise specified where Numbers supports these points.

If I can direct you over five times over to Scott/Eldrige quote, you can probably quote your definition the second time. So please do, because I don't see it. Mind, I'm asking for a direct quote too, not your paraphrasing. If you'd be so kind. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and it doesn't make sense denounce something as "undesirable" or "unnecessary" when going for consensus among multiple individuals. Nor does it make sense to define points of said consensus to begin with. --Draco 2k (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I never said that anything was "undesirable" (hint: do not use quotation marks unless what you are saying is a direct quote). Likewise, as far as I know, I did not "define points of said consensus", I merely suggested basic principles that might lead to one. And it is perfectly unexceptionable to point out that a piece of text is "unnecessary", in that it "clarifies" no point requiring clarification.

I quote from above: "Neither of the options you delineate are either (i) necessary (ii) desirable or (iii) substantiated [...]". These are meaningless descriptions if you don't give any clarifications as to why, where and how.

And again: "I'd like to present three principles for formulating a consensus definition of 'Creationism'". Might be a misunderstanding on my part, but you basically said: "What we agree on should look like this". I assumed it to be bad wording and you really meant pointers as to what the definition should look like so, moving on.

I also wouldn't mind if you could be a bit more civil here. I don't mean to be hostile to you or anyone else here. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

As for ensuing confusion: why am I arguing that it makes sense to clarify the type of creation we're discussing here.

Supernatural creation is a broad term. It could refer to God (deity?) just as well as space aliens, but we can easily infer that Creationism only addresses the first one in this case - from the sources we cite, as well as well as rest of the article and any given examples.

Without clarification, however, the reader may assume it's space aliens.

<Bzzzz> Wrong -- aliens are generally not considered to be supernatural. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What about space magicians? The three old ladies? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? --Draco 2k (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What does this supernatural creation has to do with Creationism? Well, easily, Creationism assumes it to exist. It doesn't infer it from evidence, it doesn't argue for it's possibility, it doesn't say it may or may not exist.

Without clarification, however, the reader may assume that Creationism holds any of the latter positions.

Assuming for the sake of argument that 'inferred supernatural creation' were possible, demonstrate (without using bogus definitions, or other unsubstantiated assertions) why this would not be 'Creationism'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is why we have to provide such a definition. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This could be worded better, of course. It'd be nice if someone could clarify it without using far-off terms or constructs. --Draco 2k (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(i) You have demonstrated no need for "clarification". (ii) You have demonstrated neither need nor RS basis for "presupposed" (iii) You have in fact given neither evidentiary support nor coherent logic for anything that you have been advocating here. I am tired of arguing around in circles on this. Either cite solid evidence supporting your positions, or expect to be simply ignored. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've demonstrated all of the above and provided all citations required, most of which you've successfully ignored, or failed to provide a rebuttal to (as of current time). If you disagree with my position, I would kindly ask you to explain why or accept it as a matter of consensus. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Take three

Well, we seem to have narrowed the path down to two definitions. Since it's hard to establish a consensus on any matter across the Internet, let's, for the sake of experiment, try this format:

Simply sound off below the definition. Do not reply to previous comments, but rather the definition itself. I'll start:

Creationism, also known as antievolutionism, is the religiously motivated rejection of the scientific consensus on the the evolution of life in favor of supernatural creation.^[4] ^[5]

Mostly accepted. A good definition. I've yet to see exact references on it, but it gets the point across fairly nicely and comes from a couple of third-part experts. Does not clarify the the type of supernatural creation as does at least one of the sources though - possibly broadens the scope of the definition.

Creationism, also known as antievolutionism, is the religiously motivated rejection of the scientific consensus on the evolution of life in favor of its creation by a supernatural force, whose existence is presupposed.^[1]^[6]

Mostly accepted. Basically an extension of the above. The ending doesn't sound quite as nice and is a bit more lengthy. Clarifies the exact type of creation in question - narrows the definition down to it's supposed original meaning as cited in the respective source. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Supernatural forces don't have to be presupposed, it's not in their definition. It's in definition of God...
— Draco 2k

But by Draco 2k's own admission these 'definitions' of "Supernatural forces" & "God" don't exist -- he simply made up these definitions and whether 'presupposed' is "not in"/"in" them. I am, at this stage, heartily sick of all this irrelevant, unsubstantiated hand-waving. I will not accept the introduction of "whose existence is presupposed", unless and until Draco 2k actually comes up with a quote from one of these sources that actually makes use of "presupposed" or a close cognate of it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I would ask you, again, to cease personal attacks.

These definitions do not exist seperately - this doesn't mean they don't retain their meaning (although vague), and I've never said otherwise. I certainly didn't make them up - they are merely quoted directly from original source.

I explained why "presupposed" bit is important before. I'll repeat:

What does (this) supernatural creation has to do with Creationism? Well, easily, Creationism assumes it to exist. It doesn't infer it from evidence, it doesn't argue for it's possibility, it doesn't say it may or may not exist. Without clarification, however, the reader may assume that Creationism holds any of the latter positions.

I assume paraphrasing of the source does not qualify as original research. But here we face a simple choice of either naming all of the associated "supernatural forces" by name - Yahweh, Allah, Thor, "other deities", what have you, like the source does - or insert them all under one umbrella term.

I assume this umbrella term to be adequately represented as "presupposed supernatural forces or entities". I wouldn't object to an introduction of a better equivalent. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I dispute virtually all of the above, but as you've presented no factual basis whatsoever for your claims, I really can't be bothered arguing individual points. So I will simply state that it is all unfounded and impermissible WP:OR and leave it at that. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Further, there is no "exact type of creation" requiring 'clarification' -- it is a general definition, meant to be applicable to all types of creation myth that might generate a creationist apologetic. I would also point out that I have given the "exact references" on the first version, repeatedly. They are Creationism's Trojan Horse (p283), Antievolutionists and Creationists & Evolution Vs. Creationism (pp xxi-xxiii, 51). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm merely attempting to avoid misquoting the source - and source so far provides a very clear definition of the type of creation in question by providing adequate examples.

Examples are not part of a definition. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. They are used to clarify an unclear definition. --Draco 2k (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for providing references. I'll put them after the first definition, if you don't object. I have yet to see the exact quote dealing with the matter, however, as it does not appear to be in the references cited. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You can do so for all I care -- as nobody can read them it serves no purpose whatsoever however. I have already given you exact quotes and demonstrated how they indicate that Creationism involves (i) antievolutionism and (ii) supernatural creation. I do not intend to go over this again -- I am heartily sick of your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Though providing an exact quote would probably resolve this a lot quicker. I'll see if I can dig it up myself. --Draco 2k (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Trojan Horse is on Google books, that's a good start. -Link-

You've also quoted it above (way above), so, apparently I overlooked that. My bad.

CURRENT COMMONALITIES
An analysis of American creationism of all varieties reveals a number of shared characteristics: (1) belief in the creation of the universe by a supernatural designer and (usually) the designer's continuing intervention in the creation; (2) implacable anti-evolutionism, stemming from opposition to the scientific consensus on the evolution of the universe and life, such opposition being based on theological, moral, ideological, and political, but never scientific grounds; (3) criticism of all or most methodologies underpinning current scientific evidence for the evolution of life, without presenting for peer review any competing theory of origins; and (4)the most fundamental aspect of creationism: the explicit or implicit grounding of anti-evolutionism in religious scripture. And, of course there is the indefatigable political effort to influence and ultimately rewrite school science curricula.

As the first criteria, we are greeted with "creation of the universe by a supernatural designer". Given that...

Creationism, also known as antievolutionism, is the religiously motivated rejection of the scientific consensus on the evolution of life in favor of belief in its creation by a supernatural designer.^[1]^[7]^[8] ^[9]

There. It's a direct quote, and we no longer need to clarify the kind of creation - it's by a designer - and whether this designer is "presupposed" or not, since it's called by it's name now, a "belief".

How about that? --Draco 2k (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, it could also be:

Creationism, also known as antievolutionism, is a belief in creation of life by a supernatural designer, accompanied by religiously motivated rejection of the scientific consensus on the evolution of life. ^[1]^[10]^[11] ^[12]

Most common definition first. It could also be attributed to a way bigger number of sources, starting with Ofxord's dictionary and currently mentioned Hayward. --Draco 2k (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Belief"

Did anyone here actually tried a Google search for this thing?.. An awful lot of sources define Creationism as a "belief that all living things and the universe were created..." Etc.

Not the least of which would be the Dictionary: "The belief that all living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution".

It wouldn't seem fair to not give a slight mention of that lot of sources, would it? Any comments? --Draco 2k (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Making it sound so simple is....well...what we should be doing? Creationism is a belief set. Why do we have to complicate things? I'd support changes that you propose Draco. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

So a proposal using this source, reworded to avoid plagiarism? Also, theistic evolution (not creationism in the anti-evolution sense) is the belief that all living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation before evolution kicks in, and if you mean separate acts for each "baramin", species or whatever, certain ID creationists appear to accept some descent and origination of species through evolution, though they're inconsistent about that. Needs thought. . dave souza, talk 20:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's all mighty confusing. "Belief" thing seems to be the most common definition, but that doesn't mean it's right or even consistent... Quite ironic, considering the nature of Creationism itself, may I add. Maybe cite a few different definitions in the lead? Can we do that? --Draco 2k (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Take four

How about that?

Creationism, historically known as antievolutionism, is a belief in creation of life by a supernatural designer, accompanied by religiously motivated rejection of the scientific consensus on the evolution of life. ^[1]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]

Most common definition first, clarification later on. Looks like it has all bases covered, to me. --Draco 2k (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want that little phrase "also known as antievolutionism." Known by whom? Until I saw it here, I've never seen it before, and I've read a lot of books about this subject. It's also kind of POV. Creationism is not the antithesis of evolution, they work in separate belief sets. Essentially, from a philosophical standpoint, they ignore each other (though from a sociopolitical one they don't). OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I can't remember right now. I think it comes directly from one of the references, which establishes Creationism in logical and historical continuity with anti-evolution movement.

The fact that Creationism is opposed to evolution, however, is cited in pretty much every reference provided. Googling the term will mostly return the same results. --Draco 2k (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Offtopic. I hear talk.origins is a good place to discuss validity of Creationism or Evolution

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Creationism is not the antithesis of evolution, they work in separate belief sets. Essentially, from a philosophical standpoint, they ignore each other. Not true. Evolution is a scientific theory, but creationism is a metaphysical belief system which has (since shortly after Paley's watchmaker analogy was refuted in the mid 1800s) only proceeded by strawman arguments against evolution. It has never developed any independent theories of phylogenetics.Trilobitealive (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Evolution is not and has never been a scientific theory. Rather, it is the working assumption of Naturalism. Natualism is the metaphysical belief system that is behind how most scientists interpret geology and life knowingly or not. Creationism and Naturalism are compeating paradigms within each of which science is done. Science is a method of studying nature, but it can only be done within paradigms the supply the assumptions needed to do science. Both Naturalism and Creationism supply the required assumptions.

Creationists will never develop any theory of phylogentics because the animals, plants and fungi, etc., are not related but created as different things in different kinds. They are developing the science of baraminology instead. Which is, of course, based on Biblical explanation and observations. --Christian Skeptic (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I too have never heard creationism refered to as "antievolutionism." Look, Democrats may be anti-Republican, but they ar not "knoiwn as" Antirepublicans. Let's not mix up a common feature with a name. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before, it's not original research - it's historical. Creationism movement is what was previously known as as anti-evolution movement, which was, in turn, previously known as anti-science movement. At least that's what the source says, if I recall correctly. Same thing for ID and Creationism itself, really. --Draco 2k (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Draco2K, are you responding to me? Did I use the phrase "original research?" My point is very very simple: you say that creationists are opposed to evolution. i happen to agree with you. But this simply is not the same thing as saying that they are also "known as anti-Evolutionists." It is simple English semantics. You are confused about the difference between a description and a name. You keep saying over and over that creationists oppose Evolution and few will argue with that ... but it is a non-sequitor, it does not mean that creationists are "known as" (and jeez, that awful passive voice that good writers of English typically avoid as it is such lousy style) "anti-evolutionists." Slrubenstein | Talk 15:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just trying to say that one of the sources cited Creationism as basically a new name for what was previously known as anti-evolution movement. I don't remember exactly which one though - but you could probably ask Hrafn about that - he brought it up to begin with, and he seems to know a thing or two about the whole subject overall. --Draco 2k (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

But today Creationisn is 'not "known as" anti-evolutionism. Here is my suggestion which will resolve this conflict: first, create an article entitled "anti-evolutionism" and have it just redirect to this article. Second, in the body of this article (not the introduction) have a section that explains the historical relationship between creationism and anti-evolutionists, including citing the quote you provide below. If you follow my suggestion we will remove what is false from the intro (that creationism is "known as anti-evolutionism," which is not so), but anyone looking up anti-evolutionism will be directed to this article, and the appropriate place for nuance and history - the body of the article - will explain the connection between the two. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea. Still not sure about the exact reference though. --Draco 2k (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! About references, I thought people were finding referenced material, below. Anyway, I am glad you like my idea and will leave you to execute it, since you have been more active in this discussion and have a better sense of what would be acceptable to others active on this page, Slrubenstein | Talk 01:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you. I hope we'll figure something out. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Updated version below.

Creationism is a belief in creation of life by a supernatural designer, accompanied by religiously motivated rejection of the scientific consensus on the evolution of life. ^[1]^[18]^[19]^[20]^[21]^[22]

Removing trivia about antievolutionism: seems more appropriate to mention it in the History section, as per Slrubenstein's suggestion. --Draco 2k (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

An obsessively over-cited version for people who still can't work out where everything comes from

Creationism, historically known as antievolutionism[ref]Antievolutionists and Creationists[/ref][ref]Numbers(2006) throughout, but especially pp55-59[/ref] is the religiously motivated[ref]"As late as the 1920s antievolutionists chose to dedicate their organizations to 'Christian Fundamentals,'" Antievolutionists and Creationists[/ref] rejection of the scientific consensus on the evolution of life[ref]"An analysis of American creationism of all varieties reveals a number of shared characteristics: ... (2) implacable anti-evolutionism, stemming from opposition to the scientific consensus on the evolution of the universe and life, such opposition being based on theological, moral, ideological, and political, but never scientific grounds; (3) criticism of all or most methodologies underpinning current scientific evidence for the evolution of life, without presenting for peer review any competing theory of origins;" Creationism's Trojan Horse p 51[/ref][ref]Evolution vs Creationism (pp xxi-xxiii) lists the "Pillars of Creationism" as that "Evolution is a 'Theory in Crisis'", "Evolution and Religion are Incompatible" and that "'Balancing' Evolution" (with Creationism) is desirable.[/ref][ref]"...for about seventy-five years after the publication of [Origin of Species] such adversaries were more typically called "advocates of creation" or, increasingly, "anti-evolutionists. This custom prevailed well into the twentieth century, in large part because antievolutionists remained united far more by their hostility to evolution than by any common commitment to a particular view of creation." Antievolutionists and Creationists[/ref] in favour of its supernatural creation.[ref]"An analysis of American creationism of all varieties reveals a number of shared characteristics: (1) belief in the creation of the universe by a supernatural designer..." Creationism's Trojan Horse p 51[/ref][ref]"...for about seventy-five years after the publication of [Origin of Species] such adversaries were more typically called 'advocates of creation'" Antievolutionists and Creationists[/ref][ref]"Broadly, 'creationism' refers to the idea that a supernatural force created" Evolution Vs. Creationism p 51[/ref]

(Numbers(2006) = latest version of The Creationists.)

Shorter version:

Creationism, historically known as antievolutionism is the religiously motivated rejection of the scientific consensus on the evolution of life in favour of its supernatural creation.

Note this is actually far closer to my original version due to:

The need for a compromise between the "it's still occasionally called antievolutionism" vs "I've never heard it called that" sides. "Historically" leaves open the possibility that it's still occasionally called that today, but does not state it is.
"Supernatural creation" appears to be the greatest-common-factor consensus between "creation of the universe by a supernatural designer", "supernatural force created" and mere "creation" (in "advocates of creation", though for the latter it is a slight, but I think permissible, stretch).

Of course I am not suggesting that this level of over-citation be introduced in the article -- it really only needs the page numbers, at the end of the definition, without the quote-spam. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That's nice of you. I hope you can pick up and read, at least the definition parts, of the original sources and work out where this comes from if you really want to, like I had to.

Good point.

I object. Oxford's definition clearly states it as a belief in creation by God, Forrest says it's belief in a creation by designer, Scott says it's an idea that God, Allah, or some other deity created everything... It's not just "supernatural creation" - it's creation by a designer (a direct quote) and, furthermore, it's a belief in creation by a designer (another direct quote).

The order of words is confusing. Only one of the sources cited defines Creationism as "historically known as antievolutionism" or "rejection of evolution", the rest cite it as a belief in creation of life/etc. by X or Y - all while this amends mentioning that the "belief" definition is the most commonly-used one and, indeed, most supported by reliable sources already cited, or amended from citing.

Basically: There's misquoting, misleading statements, frankensteinism, undue emphasis, and bad readability. I'd consider the previously suggested version superior to this one in all but "historical" aspects (though "historical" could be a weasel word). --Draco 2k (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

My proposal is not framed as a direct quote of anybody, so cannot be misquoting.
I am not engaging in WP:SYNTH (the closest wikipedia policy relevant to your vague claim of "frankensteinism") as all the sources cited emphasise the two points contained in my proposed definition.
Forrest is explicitly talking about "American" and therefore predominantly Christian creationism. She is also generally most focused on the Neo-creationism of Intelligent design. That the Intelligent designer (of the IDM) is the Christian God is well established. This particular instantiation should however not limit a general definition of creationism. Placing "designer" in the definition gives WP:UNDUE weight to Intelligent design over other forms of creationism.
You are misrepresenting Scott. She states that it is the idea that "...the idea that supernatural force created..." and goes on to say "to Christian, Jews and Muslims this supernatural force is God; to people of other religions, it is other deities". She gives no impression that this list of examples is meant to be exhaustive (to list all possible 'supernatural forces') or restrictive (that creation by supernatural forces not in her examples wouldn't be 'Creationism'). I have no problem with including similar discussion/explanation of the identity of the 'creator', but would prefer to follow Scott in separating it from the core definition.
Given that the "only one of the sources" is Ronald L. Numbers, we don't need any other source. He is the absolute gold standard of Creationism scholarship. In any case both Forrest and Scott concentrate almost exclusively on the modern American controversy, so for the "historical" aspect we are left with Numbers by default.
Placing rejection of evolution before "creation" in the definition reflects both the historic development of the movement, as well as the weight that all three sources give to the balance. The Creationists (at 600 pages) is rather diffuse for seeing this, but look at the balance between anti-evolution & creation in Forrest's 4 points, and the fact that Scott's "Pillars of Creationism" are all concerned with evolution.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's the definition of misquoting - not quoting anything at all. Though maybe it's correct to call this "misrepresenting", when paraphrasing.
I would say you are, though I'm sure, unwillingly. I'm just trying to explain why your proposed definition does not accurately represent the cited sources.
Good point. I haven't seen a presented definition of Creationism as such, however, unless you're attributing it to Scott - in which case it would make sense to quote her directly. Another thing is that Creationism typically seems to be defined as an American movement - by Oxford and a some other sources, I think.
Good point. But your definition does not outline it as an "idea" either (actually it simply doesn't say what it is). I think it would make sense to define this as a "belief in creation", as per Forrest and Oxford. Either way, an idea held by a person constitutes a belief, if I recall correctly.
Another good point. But this is not enough ground to cross out the rest of professionally defined and most commonly used definitions. I'm not sure I recall Number's definition, but he didn't expressly state that it's rejection of evolution *without* asserting anything to extent of "God did it"?
Yet most of the sources express Creationism as foremost a belief in creation, sometimes followed by rejection of evolution. I'd suggest listing it as a belief first for easier readability of the subject and moving the historical origins to it's respective section. More than that, I think it's important to state that an important aspect of Creationism is a belief in creation, as outlined by all sources cited.

tl;dr: I think we should mention it's also a belief. Maybe also improve readability by visibly breaking the definition into two fundamental aspects - rejection of X and belief in Y. Also, thanks for being civil in your explanation, it was a pleasant read. --Draco 2k (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A few points:

"Belief in creation" may be the source of creationism, but it is not sufficient and not determinative. Believers in Theistic Evolution believe in creation, but include a number of ardent and explicit anti-creationists.
Creationism is not a purely American movement -- it has had strong followings in the UK (particularly the Creation Science Movement and the Biblical Creation Society), and more recently in the Middle East, particularly Turkey. Going beyond the Abrahamic religions there is also Hindu Creationism.
Numbers historical perspective does not "cross out" the others, it merely supplements them with a historical perspective that they lack.
Anything 'supernatural' involves belief (as the existence of supernatural entities cannot be proven -- at least by accepted means). It can thus quite conveniently be left implicit. Explicit mention just opens up the door for the 'I can prove my god empirically' or 'evolution requires just as much belief as creationism' arguments.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought we agreed before that TE only vaguely relates to Creationism?.. Anyway, I think it's still an important point to clarify: creationists don't just reject X, they reject X and believe (not assert, not try to find out, not argue for) in Y. It's easily citable.
Do you have any sources on that? I have an impression it's mainly an American movement which had small repercussions in one or two other places. It might be a good idea to cite definitions of both "American" and "Universal" creationism if we can.
Yes. That's why I'm saying it's important to clarify the overall definition according to other sources - they simply doesn't interfere with Number's definition.
I'm not sure where you get this idea. Supernatural entities may or may not exist independently of anyone's belief in them. Your statement would be true, however, if all supernatural forces were objectively proven not to exist. Which is simply not the case.

--Draco 2k (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How about a compromise –

Creationism is the religiously motivated rejection of the scientific consensus on the evolution of life in favour of its supernatural creation. The antievolution movement of the 1920s adopted the term creationism in 1929, and this alternative term became predominant in the 1980s.

Tweak to suit, dave souza, talk 14:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that version's quite accurate. To be accurate it'd need to read something like:

Creationism is the religiously motivated rejection of the scientific consensus on the evolution of life in favour of its supernatural creation. The movement was originally known as antievolutionism, with the term creationism first being introduced to describe it in 1929, and becoming predominant by the 1980s.

The original, 1929, change was just one author, not the movement as a whole (so "introduced" not "adopted"). Also, the noun was 'antievolutionism' (with 'antievolution' being used as an adjective). With these alterations, I can probably live with it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I still think we should mention it's a belief in X as well as rejection of Y in the definition, as per sources cited. Kinda like this:

Creationism is the religiously motivated rejection of the scientific consensus on the evolution of life in favour of a belief in its creation by a supernatural designer. The movement was originally known as antievolutionism, with the term creationism first being introduced to describe it in 1929, and becoming predominant by the 1980s.

Still think the "belief" definition should go first for notability and readability purposes, but it's not hugely important.

The "creation by a designer" bit is a narrowed down definition of "supernatural creation", which I think most of the sources allude to (at least two explicitly so). They might, however, refer to American Creationism movement, but Creationism really seems to predominantly be an American movement. The definition could expand on it a bit, actually.

The anti-evolution trivia might do better in History section, though there's little harm in keeping it in the introduction - it all comes down to how notable it is. --Draco 2k (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree with "designer" as it gives WP:UNDUE weight to Intelligent design. I think the "belief" makes it clumsier (as well as opening up arguments, per comment above). I think "antievolutionism" should stay in the lead -- as this was how the movement was known, and was called by its own members, for much of its existence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how this could be an undue emphasis - the presence of designer is a clarifying characteristic explicitly or implicitly mentioned in most of the sources we're citing. Same goes for "belief" - it's a defining characteristic which is, again, predominantly mentioned in the sources. If we can trust Numbers on anti-evolution to be notable and defining enough to be mentioned here, we can trust him, or Forrest, or Oxford, on the belief/designer part.

I've tried to say it before, but leaving out clarifying details broadens the term beyond it's scope, and is not entirely faithful to the whole idea of citing things in the first place. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree about the importance of anti-evolution as that's not only the original name for this religious movement, but it's the defining characteristic of creationism as the term is used nowadays. Similarly, "designer" is a particular brand of relabelling God, and too specific. Hrafn's version of 14:57 looks good to me, "belief" is arguably unnecessary and potentially confusing, here's a version with it added. :

Creationism is the religiously motivated rejection of the scientific consensus on the evolution of life in favour of belief in its supernatural creation. The movement was originally known as antievolutionism, with the term creationism first being introduced to describe it in 1929, and becoming predominant by the 1980s.

On balance I think it's probably as well to miss out the belief. . . dave souza, talk 18:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the whole idea. The definitions we're paraphrasing are very specific on the fact that creationists assert/hold an idea/believe there's a God/creator/designer. Failing to cite these details simply broadens the term.

I think it would make sense to cite the anti-evolution thing at the end of first paragraph, for readability purposes. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Concrete example of how it "broadens the term"

Draco 2k: could you give a concrete example of how failure to include "belief" (or your earlier details of "designer", "deity", "presupposed", etc) illegitimately "broadens the term". I.e. can you point to any viewpoint that unambiguously shouldn't be considered 'Creationism' (or which the cited sources clearly don't envision as creationism) that would be included in the definition without these "details"? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In advance, please excuse me if I happen to misunderstand something.

But, of course. I'm not an expert in creationism or world's religions - but it's all arguing for a possible scenarios, really.

For example, a certain religious group believing in creation of life because of, say, some bacteria from the surface of a distant starship drifted off and landed on our planet, followed by rejecting evolution would comply with "supernatural creation" definition, but would be rejected by Forrest's definition, as no designer was involved.

I'm an idiot. "Creation by a designer" is a tautology, it's not needed. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Or, a certain group claiming to have harvested evidence and logical arguments to prove a possibility of existence of God and creation of life would qualify for "supernatural creation"/"rejection of evolution" definition, but will be rejected by Forrest's or Oxford's definition, which also requires a belief in proposed claims.

This would clearly be a natural theology-type argument, of which intelligent design is the most prominent modern example. It is most certainly creationism. It would also most certainly be encompassed by Forrest's description, which was written principally with ID in mind (the subtitle of the book is "The Wedge of Intelligent Design"). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Almost. Intelligent Design, however, also makes a claim (assertion, idea, belief) that this Designer exists, out of the blue, while this proposed hypothetical group doesn't. In light of this, ID still fits Forrest's description nicely though.

I sincerely hope I'm not giving Creationists any new ideas writing this. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Advocacy of "supernatural creation" implicitly contains a "claim" that this creation took place (an 'it didn't happen but you should believe it anyway' advocacy being incoherent). Your "certain group" (which could, from the description, quite easily be the Discovery Institute) is advocating creationism and would be encompassed within Forrest's description. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. Theory of evolution also "advocates for" or "claims that", say, genetic changes in populations over time. ID "advocates for" and "claims" the existence of God. The difference between the two is that MES does not propose a belief in something, but offers an explanation for a group of observed phenomena based on X and Y, leaving belief or lack of thereof to be formed by the observer.

A "belief" is a rather broad term, but is usually defined as "a proposition held by an individual as true". ID rests on it as it, Evolution does not (though maybe it does if we take into account all the axioms), and neither does my hypothetical group - and it's just one of the possible examples.

Yes, it's hard to conceive a Scientific explanation for God. But leaving out bits would not be scientific or encyclopaedic in itself, more so, it helps to describe what Creationism really is - which, I assume, is the whole point. --Draco 2k (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am going to ignore the "claim" thread hereafter, as it is getting increasingly garbled and beside the point -- to the extent that I have no idea what you're trying to argue for anymore. On the 'scientific argument for God' point (it can't be an "explanation" for God, as something unobservable requires no explanation) -- it is not "hard to conceive" -- this would be just the teleological argument wrapped up in pseudoscientific trappings -- i.e. ID, or something very near to it -- again this is creationism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. I've provided a hypothetical example as you asked.

If you, or anyone else, have any problems with it, please, detail them here so I could explain my position on the matter further, or retract the argument. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: by "claim thread", I meant "Not quite. Theory of evolution also 'advocates for' or 'claims that'...", which appeared, at first glance, to be in response to the first sentence of my reply prior to it, but whose relevance to the original example I could not fathom. On closer examination you appear to in some way be attempting to distinguish ID=claim-as-belief from science=claim-as-explanation. Given that you did not explicate which "claim" you meant in the original example, and as "creation" is a belief rather than an explanation, I still don't see how you have distinguished your example from ID. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If this helps any, try to imagine ID using scientific method to further it's points. It's kinda hard to do, but it's not entirely impossible.

Yes it is impossible. There is no "scientific method" for establishing the existence of a supernatural creation -- it violates methodological naturalism, as well as being untestable as there is not a possible observation that it would be inconsistent with (see latest thread on Talk:Intelligent design). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically, I feel the current definition does not make the relation between Creationism and Creation particularly clear - is it a belief, is it a presupposition, a hypothesis, or a scientific claim? The rest of the article and sources we cite give a very clear answer to that. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And I feel that you're lumping in irrelevant 'clarifications' and elaborations that muddy the waters. "Supernatural creation" is never "a scientific claim" nor is it a testable hypothesis. Whether you call it a "belief", a "presupposition" or whatever is merely descriptive, it is not prescriptive -- and as each of these alternate descriptions have slightly different meanings, none of which is any more necessary for the viewpoint in question to be "creationism" than any of the other descriptions, it is best not to tie down the definition to a specific description. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's a description. A description used by the original source in order to clarify the meaning of the term. As such, I don't see how it could be irrelevant or unimportant. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not something to consider when you usually think of Creationism, and does not fall under the definitions our sources offer - and that's why I feel it's (mildly) important to mention. It's just one word, to patch a small hole in the proverbial ship- but those can still be rather annoying if they sprung a leak. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Rather than Draco 2k & myself arguing around and around in circles, does anybody else have an opinion on whether his/her example, above, is consistent with ID and therefore (or for other reasons) legitimately a form of creationism? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not the right way to do it. If anyone else has anything to say about this (would be nice), please comment on the original issue - whether or not Creationism should be defined by a belief in supernatural creation along with rejection of evolution. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The reasoning above gets a bit baffling, and I think perhaps this is because the section starts with a question if anything shouldn't be considered 'Creationism' that would be included in the definition without "belief" being required. ID follows in the tradition of empirical theology, the idea that there is empirical testable "evidences of Christianity" which formed the basis of natural theology. This goes against transcendental or mythical views of theology which assert faith as belief which does not require physical evidence. Natural theology was at a peak in the 1820s, at a time when religion and the sciences were thought to be in harmony. It then got increasingly difficult to accommodate findings in geology and biology,[2] and liberal Christianity adopted a more deistic approach in which God is a first cause, and the working out of geology and life develops though laws determining secondary causes. Asa Gray produced apologias on these lines.[3][4] ID attempts to give creationism validity as science by asserting empirical testable support which does not require belief. Thus, in principle ID could exist without belief, and they wheel out old Flew to support that claim. This fails because the claims are just an extension of the negative argument already common in creation science, they're incapable of testing their models because the supernatural is inherently incomprehensible and untestable, and the testable negative arguments consistently fail as research explains the previously unexplained. Also, they have a habit of misrepresenting science which does them no good in court. However, in a theoretical alternative universe where empirical evidence meant that belief was not needed as creation was testable, this ideal ID would be creationism without any need for belief. Including "belief" narrows the definition to exclude empirical theology in which belief is asserted to be unnecessary. . . dave souza, talk 19:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This was very interesting, thanks.

I still don't see how ID falls under the this (what do you call it) definition. It might claim to have evidence, but that does little to cover the fact that it doesn't, and that's it's still based on belief. The simple fact is: if empirical theology did have anything in it's deck, it wouldn't be considered creationism according to the sources we cite.

In other words, it's a hypothetical test the otherwise paraphrased definition fails. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is that including belief gives ID or other forms of creation science the loophole that if they assert that their assertions are empirically based, they can then claim that they're not creationism. The essential isn't the belief, though all religious views involve kinds of belief, the essential attribute is the claim of creation outside testable natural laws. . . dave souza, talk 21:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

ID is based on unfounded beliefs. It's a simple, well-documented fact. Asserting it doesn't isn't going to help it any more than asserting it's science will help it become science. I'm not exactly sure how clarifying this point opens the backdoor to these things any more than not asserting any status at all, which also weakens the unfounded-crap connotations of Creationism, if we're going for POV pushing here...

But even if it did, it'd be none of our business - our business is to report what other people have to say about this, isn't it? Most of the sources we cite cite belief as an essential part of this sad outfit. Really, this could only be easier if they called it "faith", for what it is.

If this helps any: "Believing is thinking of something as true. What do Creationists think about Creation?" --Draco 2k (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The core definition of Creationism

To illustrate why I do not wish to place extraneous descriptors in the definition of 'Creationism', I'd like to offer the following example.

Prior to the exploration of the southern hemisphere, all known swans were white. Although colour was in no way determinative of 'swan-ness' it is possible then that somebody could have defined them as a "white bird that ..." instead of a "bird that ...". When the black swan was discovered, there is two things that might have happened under the first definition -- (i) the could admit that the definition is (and always was) wrong; (ii) they could say (rather arbitrarily) 'it's not white, so it's not a swan'.

I am attempting to avoid the same problem with the definition of 'Creationism' -- allowing loopholes whereby a tendentious creationists comes along and says 'my concept of creation is not a [belief/presupposition/whatever], it's [some-other-whatever] -- so its not creationism.'

I think Draco 2k is getting sidetracked on the trying to nail down the type of creation that 'creationism' encompasses, when it is not so much the type of creation as its relationship to evolution that is determinative.

Looking at this with formal logic:

Let C be the set of all creation myths and interpretations thereof, and c be an arbitrary member of that set.
Let E be "the scientific consensus on the evolution of life".
There exists a subset of C: C_~E: (C|c => ~E), the subset such that all of its members have the implication that E is false.
As a corollary of this, E => ~c_~E for all c_~E that are members of C_~E (E implies that all c_~E are false)
Therefore for an advocate of any particular c_~E, they must falsify E, for their own creation myth/interpretation to remain unfalsified -- a position of ~E and (some arbitrary) c_~E. It is this conflict that is determinative of creationism, not the precise contents of the myth/interpretation.

Specifically, the definition of creationism is unconstrained by either:

The identity (or failure to identify) the supernatural force/entity/designer/deity/etc responsible for the creation.
The exact epistemology (divine revelation, natural theology, etc) by which the advocate justifies their acceptance of it.

Also, given that it is the conflict with evolution that is defining, not the specific conception of creation, it is appropriate that evolution goes first. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That'll be a problem. We cannot, and should not decide what Creationism is - we can only quote what people who actually know what they're talking about have to say about this. As an encyclopedia, it's always better to define white swans until we can say otherwise.

If you have any reliable sources that suggest that rejection of evolution is the backbone/primary definition/whatever of Creationism, just say so. So far we have two core components (plus a historical one), but only one source that places "belief" definition prior to "rejection" one (which logically follows anyway, as per your example). --Draco 2k (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"We cannot, and should not decide what Creationism is" -- yet you've been deciding this all along, stating that it must involve a "deity", "designer", "presupposition" or "belief" to be creationism, based upon an inaccurate synthesis of examples in the sources' descriptions. All I'm really suggesting is that we should not exclude anything that the sources don't themselves explicitly exclude.

I don't recall any such occasions currently. I have been, however, trying to point out that chopping bits of the definitions we cite would be - misciting. A lot of the sources we cite define Creationism by it's belief in supernatural creation, as well as rejection of evolution. --Draco 2k (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Your quote on "rejection of evolution is the backbone/primary definition/whatever of Creationism":

Although Darwin (in private) and his allies occasionally referred to their opponents as "creationists," for about seventy-five years after the publication of his book such adversaries were more typically called "advocates of creation" or, increasingly, "anti-evolutionists." This custom prevailed well into the twentieth century, in large part because antievolutionists remained united far more by their hostility to evolution than by any common commitment to a particular view of creation.
— Antievolutionists and Creationists

75 years of increasing use of the term "anti-evolutionists", and being "united far more by their hostility to evolution than by any common commitment to a particular view of creation" would appear to place rejection of evolution at the forefront. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

An interesting bit - could we cite it anywhere in History section?

A minor problem would be the fact that this is a historical anecdote, not the proposed part of definition of Creationism. It could be used to imply that anti-evolution is indeed more common among creationists that belief in creation - but that'd be somewhat OR. If there's a more clear statement anywhere, or if I'm misunderstanding something, this would seal the deal about mentioning rejection of evolution as the first and defining characteristic of Creationism. Good job. --Draco 2k (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would further point out that all three of Scott's "Pillars of Creationism" have to do with rejection of evolution, and that of Forrest's 4 points, 2 have solely to do with anti-evolutionism, as opposed to only one solely to do with creation (and one to do with both). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"Pillars of Creationism"?.. Well, yes. But Forrest still mentions "belief in creation" as one of the defining points, as does Scott, as does Oxford. --Draco 2k (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A definition is best when it describes what someting is rather than what it sometimes is against. Creationism is a belief in creation by a creator. This may include or exclude scientific processes such as evolution. The Stanford Enclyclopedia of Philosophy [5] says "Creationism: At a broad level, a Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will. Such a deity is generally thought to be constantly involved (‘immanent’) in the creation, ready to intervene as necessary, and without whose constant concern the creation would cease or disappear. Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all Creationists in this sense." This says it well. Rlsheehan (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There's that "belief" definition again. There's always both belief and creation and rejection of evolution, but it's seemingly never agreed which is the defining one - though the excerpt by Hrafn above gives a pretty good insight on that.

But, anyway, I'm not sure what gives you the idea that definitions of words have to describe something in a positive cue. Case in point: atheism. --Draco 2k (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the question about "belief"? An -ism is often a system of beliefs. We are not limited to scientifically provable facts. We are talking about Creationism which is belief about creation and a Creator. Basically all Christians (and most other religious people) are Creationists. Only a vocal portion, however, are against evolution: Many others accept evolution. The definition of Creationism must be inclusive. It certainly cannot be defined as "anti-evolution, even though some people have tried to label it as such. Rlsheehan (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing for 'antievolutionism'

This "antievolutionism" is nothing but POV framing. Drop it. Everyone. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

How come? It's properly cited and all. --Draco 2k (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Anybody can hide behind policy by citing a reliable source and using it to push their POV. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Do please provide a reliable source supporting the POV that you're pushing. Don't forget the need to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ. . . dave souza, talk 22:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost. What are we discussing here? --Draco 2k (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that this lengthy discussion is all about gaining consensus for a POV pushing statement. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is about replacing an old introduction paragraph, as it is currently attributed to a biologist, instead of a third-party expert in the field of creation/evolution controversy or a reliable dictionary. If you have any problems with any proposed definitions, please, do say so - but take care to outline exact causes of concern. --Draco 2k (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that Pwnage8 "drop" his ill-informed claim.

Our source for "antievolutionism" is Ronald L. Numbers, the premier scholar on the history of Creationism, and the author of the most authoritative history of the movement, The Creationists.
The truth of this historic self-identification is attested to by the names of such groups as the Anti-Evolution League of America and the Evolution Protest Movement.
The move in self-identifying as 'antievolutionists' to 'creationists' only started in 1929 following the conception of flood geology by George McCready Price. It was not completed until after publication of The Genesis Flood in 1961.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't belong in the opening sentence. If some sources say creationism is also referred to sometimes as "antievolutionism" then it should probably be in the lead. But I fail to see how putting this in the first sentence is not POV pushing. It's automatically framing creationism as "anti-evolution" before even explaining what it is. Since anything other than evolution is perceived by the majority to be automatically wrong, this is not presenting the subject from a neutral point of view. Another problem is that "antievolutionism" excludes those who believe in theistic evolution (which is a form of creationism), and this article is supposed to cover all types of beliefs in creationism. Also, creationism has been around much longer than the theory of evolution, so how can it be "anti" something that hasn't been thought up yet? Your source only covers 1923 onwards. A better wording choice would be "Modern Young Earth Creationism is sometimes referred to as antievolutionsim". The fact that there's been such a long discussion demonstrates that others also have issues with this change as well. --Pwnage8 (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that this could be dropped from the lead - and instead put into the History section where historical things belong (probably in the introduction somewhere; also allows for more lengthy explanation).

But there is no avoiding mentioning that Creationism is anti-evolution as it's cited in nearly every source available, including Forrest's, Hayward's and Oxford's definitions. The idea that Earth was created by some sort of God is older than Evolution - Creationism, however, is not.--Draco 2k (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

But belief that the universe was created by God is exactly the definition of creationism. Before the theory of evolution, what did all the scientists believe? So then how can creationism itself be antievolution? Evolution is anti-creationism, yes, but which one of them came first? Only a modern YEC movement could meet the definition of antievolutionism. But this narrow definition should not be in the first sentence. --Pwnage8 (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Creationism did not exist before mid-90s, and is a technical continuation of the anti-evolution movement. Creationism is defined not only by a belief in creation, but also rejection of evolution - as per cited sources. You can also do a Google search if you want. --Draco 2k (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comments keep getting more and more ridiculous. Creationism has existed long before evolution has. Sources say that it's "often used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of evolution". That does not mean that it's necessarily part of the belief. How could someone in the 1700s, for example, reject something that hasn't been come up with yet? There are some creationist beliefs that don't conflict with evolution as well. A google search does nothing, because it includes links to unreliable sources. Sources may also differ. Just because one source says something does not mean that other sources agree. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Copy-paste from above explanation by Hrafn:

Creationism, historically known as antievolutionism[ref]Antievolutionists and Creationists[/ref][ref]Numbers(2006) throughout, but especially pp55-59[/ref] is the religiously motivated[ref]"As late as the 1920s antievolutionists chose to dedicate their organizations to 'Christian Fundamentals,'" Antievolutionists and Creationists[/ref] rejection of the scientific consensus on the evolution of life[ref]"An analysis of American creationism of all varieties reveals a number of shared characteristics: ... (2) implacable anti-evolutionism, stemming from opposition to the scientific consensus on the evolution of the universe and life, such opposition being based on theological, moral, ideological, and political, but never scientific grounds; (3) criticism of all or most methodologies underpinning current scientific evidence for the evolution of life, without presenting for peer review any competing theory of origins;" Creationism's Trojan Horse p 51[/ref][ref]Evolution vs Creationism (pp xxi-xxiii) lists the "Pillars of Creationism" as that "Evolution is a 'Theory in Crisis'", "Evolution and Religion are Incompatible" and that "'Balancing' Evolution" (with Creationism) is desirable.[/ref][ref]"...for about seventy-five years after the publication of [Origin of Species] such adversaries were more typically called "advocates of creation" or, increasingly, "anti-evolutionists. This custom prevailed well into the twentieth century, in large part because antievolutionists remained united far more by their hostility to evolution than by any common commitment to a particular view of creation." Antievolutionists and Creationists[/ref] in favour of its supernatural creation.[ref]"An analysis of American creationism of all varieties reveals a number of shared characteristics: (1) belief in the creation of the universe by a supernatural designer..." Creationism's Trojan Horse p 51[/ref][ref]"...for about seventy-five years after the publication of [Origin of Species] such adversaries were more typically called 'advocates of creation'" Antievolutionists and Creationists[/ref][ref]"Broadly, 'creationism' refers to the idea that a supernatural force created" Evolution Vs. Creationism p 51[/ref]

All relevant quotes and sources are in the small font.

Here's another previously suggested definition which cited an exceedingly bigger number of sources, if you care to look it all up:

Creationism, historically known as antievolutionism, is a belief in creation of life by a supernatural designer, accompanied by religiously motivated rejection of the scientific consensus on the evolution of life. ^[1]^[23]^[24]^[25]^[26]^[27]

Hope that clears this issue up a bit. --Draco 2k (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Before the theory of evolution, scientists hotly contested whether evolution, or transmutation of species, or metamorphosis, was a better explanation than various ideas of creation. The debate goes back before science, to the ancient Greeks. While the term "creationist" was used privately by Darwin and a few others, Creationism meant the doctrine that God creates a soul for each body that is generated, in opposition to other doctrines about souls. The modern usage as meaning Biblical literalism opposed to evolution has been dominant since the 1980s, and most people take that meaning. Calling early ideas of how God created things "creationism" is an anachronism used by creationists to claim a pedigree for their ideas, often wrongly. . . . dave souza, talk 18:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the key difference between 'Creationism' and preceding acceptance of creation myths is that the latter were made in the context of large voids in our scientific knowledge, wherein there was no scientific information to contradict them, whereas the former is made in the presence of, and often in direct conflict with, scientific information. Prior to these voids being filled in, it was no more unreasonable to accept, with little question, a young Earth and separate creation of lifeforms, than it was for the ancient Greeks (lacking knowledge of electricity) to accept that lightning bolts came from Zeus. After these voids were filled in, there is a clear qualitative difference in continued advocacy of such positions. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Berlusconi

I have removed the text reporting Berlusconi's will to remove the theory of evolution from the curricula of public schools. It referenced an article (written in German!) which do not exist anymore: We put the clock back a 1000 years (German language). I live in Italy and do not remember such an incident.

My first thought was simply to use the "citation needed" template, but the Wikipedia page says it is better to removed unsupported references about living people.

Zio tom78 (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is still available here on Wayback, so I've restored the material with updated citation. Next time, please tag broken citations with {{Citation broken}} rather than immediately deleting. The statement is only unverifiable, if the URL for the supporting citation cannot be updated in a timely manner. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There are also many better sources available: Nature (limited access, though)[6], The Scientist (limited access) [7], Deutsche Welle (in English, free) [8], Science (short version free) [9], Embo [10]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to replace a Waybacked German-language cite with a solid English one. I'll put in the Deutsche Welle one (as it's directly available and as this issue isn't sufficiently controversial to require a bulletproof source). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry for that mess. Zio tom78 (talk) 08:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Would distinguishing Disciplines & their Vocabularies clarify this Subject?

It was my impression that 'creationism' is being sold as a 'science' in some schools for children, which makes its definition very important. The fields of philosophy, mythology, religion, and science all have different vocabularies. It may be confusing to apply a term such as 'truth' from one to another (though scientists themselves commonly do just this). Truth in science is the acceptance of axioms (when cast as a deductive theory), but not especially a belief in them. What is true today is false tomorrow (with no existential 'Angst' attached to its passing). Creationism comes with a rigid belief in one's personal religious truth. This is characteristic of some sects of religions, but is never a characteristic of scientific truth. The four fields listed above are mutually compatible; and it my experience that belief, in addition to acceptance, and rigidity, rather than flexibility, are essential in distinguishing the current use of 'creationism' from 'science' (meanings always change). One need not be a creationist simply to reject Darwin's theory of natural selection, or any current theory of evolution. Geologist (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Additional references"

Why does this section exist? As far as I can see, all the references in that section are either a "regular" reference (in which case they can be deleted from "Additional references") or there is no sign in the article of them being used as a reference (in which case they can be moved to "Further reading"). Sjö (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I made the edit since no one objected.Sjö (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Creationism as a metaphysical hypothesis

I'm not going to critique the present article except to say that I would style the introduction differently, something like:

Creationism is a metaphysical hypothesis that the universe and all it contains were created by beings which exist outside of spacetime.Kretzmann, Norman (2001, Published online 2003), The Metaphysics of Creation, ISBN 978-0-19-924654-0, retrieved 2008-07-15 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link) (Naturally the reference would be enclosed in <ref></ref> statements but I left it bare for purpose of illustration to the discussion group.) What do the usual editors think?Trilobitealive (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

First we'd require some evidence that Kretzmann and/or his position have some degree of prominence within either the communities of creationists or scholars who study them. Secondly, we'd need a more precise reference to the page where he makes this statement and preferably a quote. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. There's no concise quote as this is a distillation. So it would probably take a couple of other references to meet WP:SYN and WP:NPOV criteria for approval by such a polarized audience. Kretzmann's critique of Aquinas itself is pretty much standard fare but I don't know how well known it is among creationists, and needless to say, both writers predated most of the modern creationist jargon. The concept of creationism being a metaphysical hypothesis et cetera is pretty widely accepted in the outside world but I don't know if its even mentioned in the creationism debating community. Will put this on my to-do list to see if I can support it well enough to pass inspection but I tend to back off from editing such hotly contested articles.Trilobitealive (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A hypothesis has to be testable by it's definition - and Creationism claims simply aren't; metaphysics itself is a branch of philosophy dealing with nature of reality.

Creationism may qualify for a belief or maybe claim categories. --Draco 2k (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with this change, as the first sentence of the current page specifically connects creationism with a religious belief. You do not have to be a part of any religion to believe that the universe was created by a force outside of our understanding. Its not just science vs religion, others factors have a role in this article. The lake of scientific proof is only a burden to those that seek that proof from a scientific perspective. Though we use science in our modern times as the answer to our questions it cannot be assumed to be the only viable means; philosospy, anthropology, and other areas of study have strong connections to creationism. Salted Dragon (talk) 03:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I hold a bachelor's degree in anthropology with high honors from UC Davis, and I can tell you definitively that no branch of anthropology, whether cultural anthro, archaeology, primatology, or linguistics, considers itself to have any "strong connection" to creationism. To suggest otherwise is to show that you know little or nothing of the broader discipline. Within the University of California system the topic isn't even considered worthy of scientific mention. KDS4444 (talk)--KDS4444 10:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I was actually referring to theological anthropology [[11]] which Im guessing you know little or nothing of ;). I do appreciate that you have a degree in in anthro, but I find it rather doubtful that creationism is not talked about. Religion plays a role in social hierarchy and other anthropological areas of study. Also your last statement boarders on supremacism. cheers Salted Dragon (talk) 05:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Over-intellectualization

The discussion above has been lured off into some quasi-intellectual never-never land based on an over-weening demand for citations and references to "experts". The article goes through all kinds of contortions to be "fair" and to cover a wide range of opinions on the subject. A plethora of opinions is offered but nothing really concrete is presented. At the bottom, the Scientific Critique is virtually empty. What is missing is a scientific critique based on basic scientiific philosophy and common sense.

The modern Creationist movement is based on the mistaken notion that science (specifically Darwin's Theory of Evolution) does, or even can, disprove religion. Creationism, as manifested in classrooms where it is taught, attempts through quasi-scientific arguments to discredit the theory of evolution and science in general.

Science and religion arise from fundamentally different ways of thinking. Science strives for an objective understanding of the world and the universe around us through the mechanism of the scientific method. This is why science cannot disprove religion. Start at the beginning: A formal, objective proof of God's existence cannot be written. This goes back to Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason where he wrote, "We can make no statement regarding the metaphysical (or supernatural) because we have no way of experiencing it". Jesus of Nazareth said, God is spirit (John 4:24). The word in Koiné Greek is "pneuma" , which carries the allegorical connotation of a gentle zephyr breeze barely rustling the leaves of a tree. Beyond that, we have no idea what spirit is or what God's supernatural realm might be. We call it Heaven but know nothing more about it. We can't make a spirit detector or a meta-telescope to look into supernatural realms and therefore have no way of testing a proof (or disproof) of God's existence.

For explanations of the supernatural, people turn to subjective religious belief. Belief takes up where objective reality leaves off and science can't provide answers. The problem with this is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder as evidenced by the many, many religious systems in the world today. Religion has a valid place in our experience but is misused when it attempts to inject itself into the political arena. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice quasi-intellectual essay, perhaps even an intellectual essay, but this ain't the place for such "original research" – we need verification. .. dave souza, talk 18:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dave. Still ... I have had run-ins with many creationists and it does seem to me that they are often motivated, at least in their own minds, not first and foremost by the question "How was the universe created" but rather by a desire to defend religion against science. If I wrote this in the article I too would be violating NOR. But I am suggesting that there probably are a variety of reasons people become creationists that are more sociological than scientific. So the question is, IS there any significant research on creationists that explore thse issues? Zbvhs, Dave is right, Wikipedia is not for personal essyas. But if you are right it is possible that some sociologist or anthropolgoist has done research on creationists - as a social movement, not as a set of intellectual propositions - and may have published analysis that should go into this article. So with respect, I would like to suggest a way you may be able to help us improve this article: do a search of academic journals in the social sciences and humaitis to see what scholarship exists on creationists, the people (i.e. not just the literature on why creationism is bad science). You may bind research that really would be relevant to this article. Just be sure to comply with NPOV, V, and NOR. I think you raise some interesting points, interesting enough to set off a search in a library for published research. I really encourage you to do that, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I too must agree with Dave. I, and perhaps Dave, have noted that the article appears an extremely knowledgeable and detailed definition of varieties of creationism. It has ignored the huge elephant in the room: why is creationism religion and not science? A creationist would likely be very disappointed to read the article only to be tersely referred to legal decisions about why why courts consider creationism religion and not science.

In 2006, the Alaskan Daily News wrote: 'The Republican Party of Alaska platform says, in its section on education: "We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory."'

The phrases 'with other theories' and 'only a theory' display the failure of Alaskan creationists, at least, to understand what a scientific theory is, and why it distinguishes subjective faith from objective science. In my experience, the most influential scientists (as opposed to philosophers of science) were positivists, as Dave is: objective measurement and observation founds science, which is a collection of theories; theories we hope will change tomorrow. Science advances as these theories change. While some philosophers are realists, believing that science describes not theory, but reality, most scientists just call this bad science. There are certainly enough references extant on these subjects, from William James's 'Varieties of Religious Experience' to a short article by Albert Einstein defining science in 'Science'.

The 'Scientific Critique' at the end of the article might be better expanded using the content of its references and actually discuss the elephant in the room, moving it to the front of the article, where creationists and scientists would likely prefer it. Once science, as it should be presented in schools, is defined, there should be no need for the complex (and inexplicable to me) views of fundamentalist religious sects that support divine creation so passionately that they insist it be 'science'. Discussions of religions, vastly complex, would be unnecessary. No 'opinions' need be in the article.

Sirubenstein's excellent idea of including a social science discussion of why creationism is necessary, as opposed to a religious discussion, would be a brilliant replacement of a discussion on religions, if one could find studies acceptable to both creationists and scientists. (Otherwise, one has lost one's audience.)

Lest one think the above does not express a neutral point of view or not be verifiable, it really is. Unless creationists think that 'science' is more valid than 'faith', knowledgeable creationists simply ask that science teachers present scientific theories, such as Darwin's theory of natural selection, in the positivist manner. That positivist science is acknowledged and practiced by the vast majority of good scientists is verifiable. (It's my personal opinion that creationism arose from ignorance of what science is, either by some religious people or by science teachers themselves.)

In any case, I, too, suggest that a 'Scientific Critique' of creationism deserves more than four lines at the end of the article. Geologist (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to whomever removed the recent damage to this article by someone whose religion appears to be science. To anyone else who quotes scientists as proving the Earth is over 4 billion years old, we didn't. We don't prove anything: we offer ideas, based on assumptions, useful for predicting things. One of the assumptions used here is that the decay rate of radioactive isotopes does not change with time. These are big assumptions. They don't undermine geology, they were always part of it. It is perhaps the failure of students to realize this that created a misunderstanding and disrespect for geology that some creationists appears to display. Geologist (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Creation-evolution table

I've removed a See also link to Wikipedia:Creation-evolution table as the table isn't ready for prime time – it's very confused and / or confusing.[12] . . dave souza, talk 18:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Undesired outcomes

Gareth I made a few changes to the article and they were reverted back on the basis that: "those aren't "bad refs", and that wasn't a minor edit". Well, I'd like to say that the refs are indeed bad. But to talk about the article itself, they are some problems that I did try to remedy [13].

1. From the article it suggests that Creationism is a fairly new beleif, which it isn't. Creationism is a traditional belief. Traditional in respect to the fact, that those who professed beleif in the Bible would have all replied that the word "yom" mentioned in Genesis 2 means a literal day.

2. The sentence:

"They believe the days in Genesis Chapter 1 are 24 hours in length, while Old Earth creationism accepts geological findings and other methods of dating the earth and believes that these findings do not contradict the Genesis account, but reject evolution."

is improper because there is no "but" about it. it's not "but" it's "and". Also, Creationists do not reject evolution, but a certain aspect of it. They often give examples such as “an Indian Elephant isn't an African elephant but it's still an elephant”.

3. Apparently, you find these "refs" acceptable:

"When scientific research produces conclusions which contradict a creationist interpretation of scripture, the strict creationist approach is either to reject the conclusions of the research,< ref>Flaws in dating the earth as ancient</ ref>"

We don't use a answersingenesis website to substantiate the claim that creationists reject conclusions of research.

[I suggest one read the above critique, substututing the word '106 years' for '4.3 billion' years, 'person' for 'crystal', and 'village' for 'rock'. Geologist (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)]

4.Also see following: "its underlying scientific theories

So let's not use the excuse: "those aren't "bad refs", and that wasn't a minor edit" to keep this article from achieving it's accuracy. Let's pool our knowledge rather than revert all the time. [14]Safeguarded (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You misrepresent the article and the extent and effect of your proposed changes. Will respond in more detail to your detailed points when time permits. . . dave souza, talk 15:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

For starts, the claim that creationism is "traditional" needs support. Do you know that the re are expressions and beliefs people hold today that were uncommon thirty years ago? Sixty years ago? Now lets go back further - five hundred years ago? A thousand? Is there any reason to assume that people 1,000 years ago had the same interpretation of the Bible as people 2,000 years ago? A thousand years is a VERY long time. And three thousand years ago? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not based on guesswork, and no original research (please see our NOR policy). We cannot say that people 1,000, 2,000 or more years ago were "creationists" unless we have reliable evidence, a reliable source for a significant scholar who has made this argument. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As Slrubenstein says, "traditional" is a misleading peacock term for a wide range of contrasting beliefs, some of which were reinvented in the 20th century. Safeguarded, you don't seem to realise that many creationists reject the "literal day" interpretation – saying that both views are traditional is arguable and uninformative.

Old earth creationists accept science on the age or the earth, but reject it on evolution. Simple and grammatically correct.

AIG is cited as a primary source for the views of YEC proponents – they're certainly a leading YEC organisation, and related points were covered by the large number of reliable secondary sources that you deleted for no apparent reason.

Your edit to #Scientific critique went against the sources and misrepresented the scientific position in what looks like a blatant piece of pov pushing. Not a good change. . . dave souza, talk 17:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As the person whose reversion User:Safeguarded is objecting to, some further comments:

First off: making a bunch of substantive changes and marking them as a "minor edit" is abuse of the system, plain and simple. Frankly, your changes deserved reverting for that, even if nothing else. Now:

1. Not calling something "traditional" doesn't in the least imply that it is a recent phenomenon. (Obviously.) Calling something "the traditional religious belief that ...", however, creates some danger of implying that those who think otherwise are being unfaithful to their religious traditions. This is, to say the least, not obviously true.

2. Of course there's a "but" about it. Old earth creationists are unlike YECs in some ways (they accept various bits of standard science that YECs reject) BUT like them in others (they reject evolution -- or, as you say, some aspects of evolution).

2a. Some creationists reject evolution outright. Some reject most of it. Some reject just bits of it (though obviously important bits, or they wouldn't be creationists).

3. What do you mean "we"? I dare say *you* don't. Why shouldn't WP? It's an example of some creationists responding to research whose conclusions conflict with their creationism by rejecting the research.

4. I don't know what's happened to your text here, but it doesn't make any sense. Sorry.

Also: Your edit deleted a whole lot of material -- not just "refs" but actual content -- without any justification. (A fact which you curiously omit to acknowledge in your defence of that edit.) It added the unsubstantiated, and in fact clearly false, claim that creationists accept evolution and merely disagree with the idea that humans evolved from (other) primates. It added an almost entirely irrelevant remark about the fact that many religious authorities "back the theory of evolution although it has little basis in the Bible". This is NOT a "minor edit". It is NOT a matter of "bad refs". Re-doing it is NOT justified by saying "see talk" and pointing at your remarks above. Can we have a bit more honesty here, please?

Gareth McCaughan (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is 'Creationism' an article?

Why is this article here? That is: Why is the content of 'Creationism' extracted from mythology, philosophy, and religion (where it belongs), and given it own, long article? The article is longer than the article 'Science' and longer than 'Religion'. No where in the 'Scientific Critique' does is state clearly and unequivocally that 'creationism' is not a natural science. Would clarifying why no version of 'creationism' is a natural science of any kind violate the neutral point of view of this Encyclopedia?

Science is founded on objective observations and measurements and ends with testable predictions. Objective just means they can be shared, and reproduced by others: it does not imply 'better'. Subjective is often more accurate than objective. Scientists 'quietly' use subjective observations to get ideas, as they do religious faith and artistic beauty; but they never allow these to affect their published arguments. Are scientists less religious than those in other professions? The idea never crossed my mind until, when introduced to a couple, the people stepped back in horror and said 'Oh! An atheist!'

This section I add because of the brief edit of the 'Scientific Critique' that referenced 'Flaws in dating the earth as ancient'. If these really were flaws, this reference would be only a trivial note of a bad scientific paper. Of what relevance has this to 'creationism', unless 'creationism' is an attempt to raise the belief that 'creation science' uncovers truths superior to flawed 'natural science'. Is a deeply mystical experience religious or neurological? Both can be true: science deals with the latter; it has no business expressing an opinion on the former, just as religion has no business expressing an opinion on science.

Though 'creationism', or 'creation science', probably deserves a separate article on its attempt to replace or compete with natural science in American education (at least), should the article be so detailed, and should it avoid clarifying (on tip toes) whether 'creationism' is mythology, philosophy, religion; but not a 'natural science'? Geologist (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The group of people defined by the term 'Creationist', was (IMO) nicely defined above, by HrafnTalkStalk (though using formal logic): those who believe in a creation myth that they feel is threatened by science. (These are my words.) His logical consequence is that they must invalidate the science:

'Looking at this with formal logic: <SNIP> It is this conflict that is determinative of creationism, not the precise contents of the myth/interpretation. HrafnTalkStalk 07:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)'

This statement would appear to greatly clarify the current use of the word 'creationism'.

It seems reasonable to me that creation myths be discussed under 'Mythology' or 'Religion', and science under 'Science'. If the essence of a Creationist is a conflict between religious belief and scientific acceptance, that conflict and its proposed resolutions should compose the bulk of this article. It doesn't.

Many peoples' faith does not depend upon a particular creation myth, and many evolutionists' acceptance of Darwin's theory has no effect upon their religious faith. It would be nice to characterize creationists by social group and population, as Slrubenstein (pretty much) suggested.

The word 'truth' is used with two very different meanings by scientists and by those who have had religious experiences. When a scientific theory is expressed deductively, a statement is true if (and only if) it is consistent: that is, it cannot be proved false as well. Scientific truths thus change with the theory that is currently best at predicting. The 'truth' of a religious experience is a transforming, permanent, personal (subjective, not objective) and transcendental experience (inexpressible using language). In this confusion of 'truth's, IMO, lies the heart of the Creationist dilemma; and surely some papers have been written on this.

These links are to some expanded discussions of religious and scientific truths, with dissenting opinions that illustrate HrafnTalkStalk's definition of Creationism as conflict. Though many definitions of science are referred to below, they all share the properties of the scientific truth discussed above: properties that distinguish all scientific truths from religious truths. Some who incorporated these properties into their scientific truths were Alfred Tarski (its creator), Albert Einstein, & Percy Bridgman.

Truths from sci.geo.geology (with Dissenting Opinion)

Clarification of Truths from sci.geo.geology

Dissenting Opinion from sci.geo.geology

Undue weight

It needs to be made clear that the weighting of an opinion, for purposes of WP:UNDUE needs to be relative to the subject being discussed. While it is not necessary to consider the views of the tiny minority of creationist scientists in an article about science, you cannot exclude their views in an article about Creationism. Otherwise we might see the views of atheists not considered in the article about atheism - they are after all in a minority. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. While I don't think this article should become a platform for apologetics, I do think that Creationist claims of scientific support are relevant to this specific topic, given how frequently they're cited by Creationists. While I absolutely agree that those calling for "balanced presentation" in articles about evolution are off-base, this isn't an article about evolution; it's an article about Creationism, and it should accurately reflect the arguments advanced by Creationists. Can we find a phrasing that will satisfy everyone? --BRPierce (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, as I've indicated repeatedly above, the existence of people who hold advanced professional degrees and accept literal biblical creationism is not in dispute. However, I and others have indicated that proper inclusion of this necessitates appropriate context. Simply stating "x number of PhDs believe y" exists only as an appeal to authority no matter what x or y may be. My question above, perhaps taken as rhetorical but actually meant in earnest, addresses this. I can cite that only 7% of National Academy of Sciences members (the cream of the PhD crop)--and only 5.5% of NAS biologists--have personal belief in God; no doubt the numbers reduce further for specific beliefs along the old-earth to young-earth creationism spectrum. Project Steve alone indicates that the bean counting that organizations like the Discovery Institute do to prop up their stances reflects a numerically, if professionally, insignificant group within "science", broadly, and evolutionary biology in particular. The Clergy Letter Project provides "x number of Christian clergy accept evolution"...would this be relevant?

I'd argue that inclusion of the above information isn't necessary, either. There's currently a whole prevalence section within the article (a bit US-centric, I might add) that gives contextual information regarding whole country populations and various subgroups. For example:

In 1987, Newsweek reported: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly.'"

If there's anything more that needs to be said, perhaps sources like those I've provided and these[15][16][17][18] would be useful.

Hassandoodle's attempted inclusion lacked any nuance. There's no need to link to some fringe organization's site of 50 so-and-sos who believe y to make the claim that's already made in article. In response to DJ Clayworth in particular, given what's already in the present article, we have "record[ed] that there are scientists who believe in Creationism". — Scientizzle 20:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the continuance of Hassandoodle's edit warring by DJ Clayworth (talk · contribs) is regretable. It's clear you disagree with several of us regarding the application of WP:UNDUE, but it's also clear that many have registered on this page and in reversion edit summaries that inclusion of that version of text is not currently supported. — Scientizzle 20:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that this article is not an argument or a dispute, so you cannot reject statements based on the grounds that they are disallowed under the rules of debate, such as claiming they are an "appeal to authority". This article is a record of facts about the belief. An indication of the number of scientists who believe in Creationism is surely relevant to it, and more useful than simply stating that "some" believe it. It might also be helpful to to indicate what fraction of scientists this number represents, if you can find a referenced source for that.

I'm sorry you think my contribution part of an 'edit war', but you had certainly not established that recording the views of scientists constituted 'undue weight' which was the reason given for your statement removals. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read all the sources I linked to above--they are each far superior to the one you just added. As I said, we can disagree regarding the application of WP:UNDUE, but it's clear that current consensus rejects the inclusion of the particular addition. It has received support from you and Hassandoodle. BRPierce above seeks a middle ground. The info has been rejected by me, Ramdrake, Snalwibma, DVdm, Slrubenstein, dave souza & WLU. WP:CONSENSUS is evident--at best, there is no current consensus for inclusion, at worst, it's a complete rejection. — Scientizzle 20:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd have substantially less of a problem if these sources replaced the ones above, rather than just taking the less-reliable sources out. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any specific suggestions for improvements to Creationism#Prevalence? Also, Level of support for evolution deals specifically with the "level of support for evolution among scientists, the public and other groups". I'd suggest that detailed or large offerings may be appropriate there as Creationism should be a broader article that may not be able to effectively absorb too much. — Scientizzle 23:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe a mention is warranted if it has prominence with Creationists. After all the article is about them. I would caution that lists provided need to be tempered with the nuances and qualifications that come with individuals. Many here know of Bob Davidson who was on a Discovery Institute's list of scientists rejecting evolution, when in fact it was quite the opposite. - Roy Boy 00:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. What I'd like to see is a brief mention that covers both the argument and the very real flaws in the Creationist lists(possibly with a link to Level of support for evolution) without lapsing into ridicule. I know it's frustrating to have to engage in constant edit-warring over the same points, but we should really make a concerted effort not to let the article itself become acrimonious. --BRPierce (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The #United States section covers this in principle, "In 1987, Newsweek reported: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly.'"[71][72]", but a more explicit reference to the claims to scientific qualifications by creationists could be added as a second paragraph of the #Scientific critique section, following on from the mention of scientific consensus. . . dave souza, talk 14:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I'll be honest, though--I'm having a hard time coming up with a sufficiently-concise wording. Perhaps something like:

Various Creationist organizations produce lists of such scientists as evidence of controversy within the scientific community; however, these lists have been criticized for including individuals without relevant qualifications, or occasionally individuals who do not endorse Creationism at all.

...with appropriate citations, of course, and maybe the aforementioned link to Level of support for evolution. Thoughts? --BRPierce (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

←I think this might be close to a reasonable solution. This section of Level of support for evolution deals with these assorted "lists of scientists who __" and provides relevant links to major ones. Here's my minor tweaks to your suggestion:

Creationist organizations have challenged the scientific consensus supporting the evidence for evolution, producing—as evidence of an alleged controversy within the scientific community—lists of scientists who dispute evolutionary theory. However, these lists have been criticized for including few individuals with relevant qualifications, or occasionally individuals who do not endorse Creationism at all.

— Scientizzle 20:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That works for me. Does anyone else have objections to Scientizzle's proposed wording, or can we call it consensus? --BRPierce (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Edit

In the section that reads:

"When mainstream scientific research produces conclusions which contradict a creationist interpretation of scripture, the strict creationist approach is either to reject the conclusions of the research,[4] its underlying scientific theories,[5] and/or its methodology.[6] For this reason, both creation science and intelligent design have been labeled as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.[7]"

I think it might be useful to point out the reason why the rejection of "conclusions of research" or "scientific theories" or "methodologies" is relevant to making creationism pseudoscience - i.e. that creationism is thereby rendered unfalsifiable and not being falsifiable is a hallmark of pseudoscience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.51.39 (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Should 'Creationism' be organized as a Recruitment Booklet?

The above unsigned article brings the subject back to my point: shouldn't 'Creationism' be a discussion of a dispute itself: it's basis, reason, &c? I suspect one can find many references that support the view by very good scientists that scientific realists, those who turn science into a religion, are very bad scientists or not scientists at all. This article doesn't give the impression that Creationists are a fringe of society, and there are no religious conflicts among the vast majority of scientists.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/

I'm a positivist and have great interest in reading of scientific explanations of events in Exodus and even Genesis, which, having been a volcanologist, I have no trouble imagining true; and I have always given great respect to anecdotal evidence of animals being able to anticipate earthquakes. There is nothing 'creationist' about the former, or 'realist' about the latter.

However, I wish to examine the claim by Scientizzle that "I can cite that only 7% of National Academy of Sciences members (the cream of the PhD crop)--and only 5.5% of NAS biologists--have personal belief in God." Many of my religious friends were in the Academy; and no one has ever questioned the quality of my science or methodology. My personal experience has been that the best scientists are highly religious, their faith helping them in science. I consequently find this statement inflammatory and bigoted. I should like it's details examined. If a 'personal belief in God' mean scientific, or provable (as it once meant), I believe few or no scientists (nor Buddhist monks) would have this belief. (If it were provable, of what value would be 'faith'?)

Mine are discussions about the cause of dispute. Shouldn't discussion about the validity of Creationism be discussed elsewhere?

Bruce Bathurst, BSc, AM, MA, PhD Geologist (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The usual dispute is covered in Creation-evolution controversy, the question of creationism fully compatible with science is shown in Creationism#Theistic evolution. Any polls should be taken with a large pinch of salt, and while it's come up on the talk page it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article. Not sure what Scientific Realism has to do with it, who are they in dispute with, if anyone? The question of expectation or otherwise of physical evidence supporting or proving religion is an interesting issue going back to the theological empiricism of the late 18th century, and that might be an area worth exploring as part of the theological debates or disputes around creationism. . . dave souza, talk 23:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Scientific realism is what creationists believe science is. It's the belief that there is a unique explanation for every phenomenon, which 'scientists' believe their theories are. It is the crux of why religion appears to conflict with science. It is the reason we have creation myth, religion, and an historical outline of philosophical differences filling 'Creationism'. The belief that 'scientific realism' is good science is the crux of the conflict that creationists have with scientists.

'Looking at this with formal logic: <SNIP> It is this conflict that is determinative of creationism, not the precise contents of the myth/interpretation. HrafnTalkStalk 07:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)'

"I can cite that only 7% of NAACP members (the cream of the crop)--and only 5.5% of civil rights activists--have personal belief in God." How does that sound? Were that the statement, should I not even question it, but just let it stand and leave quietly? Geologist (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference to Creation-evolution controversy. That is the article that should be titled 'Creationism', and I believe you should make reference to it as early as possible in this article (perhaps in the first line). If 'Creationism' is indeed religion, as stated, why isn't most of this article an offshoot of Creation myth#Judaism and Christianity?

It is instead, a summary of Judean-Christian creation myths to choose from: support of Creationism (even before it existed) by various scientists, various sects' ways of coping with science, opinions of courts & lawyers -- in short, it might give some readers the illusion of being a soft-sell of Creation science.

This is not helped by the essential hiding of Creation-evolution controversy, and the huge number of offshoot articles (far in excess of their importance) that appear to offer the reader a choice of beliefs, when the simple article Creation-evolution controversy covers what the encyclopedia reader wants to know about Creationism.

It's my opinion that the title 'Creationism' should be assigned to the article 'Creation-evolution controversy', to direct the reader to the most appropriate article on the subject.

Geologist (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't agree.

Regarding your changed heading, the article is organised as an explanation of the various forms and meanings of creationism as shown in expert secondary sources. If you think that serves as a recruitment booklet presumably given your stated convictions you'll be delighted at the exposure it gives to Fr. George Coyne's illuminating statement that "in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. Judaic-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense...."

Can't find this statement by Hrafn you keep snipping – diff to the original, please.

Regarding the reference to Creation-evolution controversy, have you looked at the first two sentences of this article?

'Creationism' means more than 'Creation-evolution controversy', as this article explains. We summarise expert opinion on the subject, not your unsupported opinion on "what the encyclopedia reader wants to know about Creationism".

Hope that helps, . . dave souza, talk 08:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that "Creationism" is a polyseme. On the one hand, it can apply to anyone who believes the universe was created by a divine power; on the other hand, it applies specifically to those who believe in the Genesis account of Creation.

On the third hand, though (darn those mutations!) it applies to a very specific political and religious movement which is defined primarily by its opposition to the theory of evolution and methodoligical naturalism, and by active efforts to undermine the same. As this is one of the types of Creationism being examined in the article, it's virtually impossible NOT to devote a large part of the article to discussing evolution. --BRPierce (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

←...I've been out of town for a week and haven't yet had time to review all the new content on this page. Id did notice, however, that my citation of a correspondence in Nature (here) seems to have inflamed things (or at least one person) somewhat. The point of that citation was simple: Hassandoodle (talk · contribs) was quite adamant and willing to edit war over the inclusion of a particular list of people with PhDs that accept YEC tenets and reject evolution, and an associated cadre of weasel words. The general response, from me and others, was to criticize the proposed inclusion for several reasons.

It promoted a particular organization
It would have been WP:OR to extrapolate the existence of creationist scientists as a class from a small, agenda-driven data set
These lists, as a class, are notorious for inclusion of people with advanced degrees but no relevant qualifications or input into the field of evolutionary biology, are used to make claims stronger than that which the scientists signed on for, and occasionally even include individuals that reject that which they are asserted to support
Most of all: the existence of people who hold advanced professional degrees and accept literal biblical creationism is not in dispute, but appropriate discussion of the phenomenon necessitates clear context. Whether "x number of PhDs believe y" matters depends on their relative impact within a particular field, which is a function of their qualifications, the strength of their case, and the prevalence of their view. The NAS citation and the other sources I provided were a way of showing that relevant reliable sources, that provide substantially more context, it is clearly demonstrated that the mainstream view is highly supported within fields relevant to evolutionary biology and the scientific community in general. The NAS source was useful to counter the constant appeals to authority in the conversations with Hassandoodle & others.

My personal experience has been that the best scientists are highly religious, their faith helping them in science. I consequently find this statement inflammatory and bigoted. I should like it's details examined.

If you find it "inflammatory and bigoted", take it up with Larson & Witham. I quoted them accurately, so if you feel your anecdotal experience is sufficient to counter their claims, or question their methodology, Larson's email is provided in the source. — Scientizzle 17:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h Cite error: The named reference num was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Evolution Vs. Creationism, Eugenie Scott, Niles Eldredge, p51
^ Evolution Vs. Creationism, Eugenie Scott, Niles Eldredge, p51
^ Creationism's Trojan Horse, Barbara Forrest, Paul R. Gross, p283 Antievolutionists and Creationists
^ Evolution Vs. Creationism, Ronald Numbers, pp xxi-xxiii, 51).
^ Evolution Vs. Creationism, Eugenie Scott, Niles Eldredge, p51
^ Evolution Vs. Creationism, Eugenie Scott, Niles Eldredge, p51
^ Creationism's Trojan Horse, Barbara Forrest, Paul R. Gross, p283 Antievolutionists and Creationists
^ Evolution Vs. Creationism, Ronald Numbers, pp xxi-xxiii, 51).
^ Evolution Vs. Creationism, Eugenie Scott, Niles Eldredge, p51
^ Creationism's Trojan Horse, Barbara Forrest, Paul R. Gross, p283 Antievolutionists and Creationists
^ Evolution Vs. Creationism, Ronald Numbers, pp xxi-xxiii, 51).
^ Evolution Vs. Creationism, Eugenie Scott, Niles Eldredge, p51
^ Creationism's Trojan Horse, Barbara Forrest, Paul R. Gross, p283 Antievolutionists and Creationists
^ Evolution Vs. Creationism, Ronald Numbers, pp xxi-xxiii, 51).
^ Hayward 1998, p. 11
^ The Oxford Dictionary of Difficult Words, Archie Hobson, p. 106
^ Evolution Vs. Creationism, Eugenie Scott, Niles Eldredge, p51
^ Creationism's Trojan Horse, Barbara Forrest, Paul R. Gross, p283 Antievolutionists and Creationists
^ Evolution Vs. Creationism, Ronald Numbers, pp xxi-xxiii, 51).
^ Hayward 1998, p. 11
^ The Oxford Dictionary of Difficult Words, Archie Hobson, p. 106
^ Evolution Vs. Creationism, Eugenie Scott, Niles Eldredge, p51
^ Creationism's Trojan Horse, Barbara Forrest, Paul R. Gross, p283 Antievolutionists and Creationists
^ Evolution Vs. Creationism, Ronald Numbers, pp xxi-xxiii, 51).
^ Hayward 1998, p. 11
^ The Oxford Dictionary of Difficult Words, Archie Hobson, p. 106

[num-1] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h Cite error: The named reference num was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[2] Evolution Vs. Creationism, Eugenie Scott, Niles Eldredge, p51

[3] Evolution Vs. Creationism, Eugenie Scott, Niles Eldredge, p51

[4] Creationism's Trojan Horse, Barbara Forrest, Paul R. Gross, p283 Antievolutionists and Creationists

[5] Evolution Vs. Creationism, Ronald Numbers, pp xxi-xxiii, 51).

[6] Evolution Vs. Creationism, Eugenie Scott, Niles Eldredge, p51

[7] Evolution Vs. Creationism, Eugenie Scott, Niles Eldredge, p51

[8] Creationism's Trojan Horse, Barbara Forrest, Paul R. Gross, p283 Antievolutionists and Creationists

[9] Evolution Vs. Creationism, Ronald Numbers, pp xxi-xxiii, 51).

[10] Evolution Vs. Creationism, Eugenie Scott, Niles Eldredge, p51

[11] Creationism's Trojan Horse, Barbara Forrest, Paul R. Gross, p283 Antievolutionists and Creationists

[12] Evolution Vs. Creationism, Ronald Numbers, pp xxi-xxiii, 51).

[13] Evolution Vs. Creationism, Eugenie Scott, Niles Eldredge, p51

[14] Creationism's Trojan Horse, Barbara Forrest, Paul R. Gross, p283 Antievolutionists and Creationists

[15] Evolution Vs. Creationism, Ronald Numbers, pp xxi-xxiii, 51).

[16] Hayward 1998, p. 11

[17] The Oxford Dictionary of Difficult Words, Archie Hobson, p. 106

[18] Evolution Vs. Creationism, Eugenie Scott, Niles Eldredge, p51

[19] Creationism's Trojan Horse, Barbara Forrest, Paul R. Gross, p283 Antievolutionists and Creationists

[20] Evolution Vs. Creationism, Ronald Numbers, pp xxi-xxiii, 51).

[21] Hayward 1998, p. 11

[22] The Oxford Dictionary of Difficult Words, Archie Hobson, p. 106

[23] Evolution Vs. Creationism, Eugenie Scott, Niles Eldredge, p51

[24] Creationism's Trojan Horse, Barbara Forrest, Paul R. Gross, p283 Antievolutionists and Creationists

[25] Evolution Vs. Creationism, Ronald Numbers, pp xxi-xxiii, 51).

[26] Hayward 1998, p. 11

[27] The Oxford Dictionary of Difficult Words, Archie Hobson, p. 106

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]