Encyclopedia > Talk:Creationism
Talk:Creationism
The creationism talk page has become so long we clearly need to archive older discussions (in lieu of someone boldly deleting discussion that is no longer relevant to anything). So, see :Talk:Creationism (archive) for the creationism talk page archive.
I would be happier with the article if it became so clear that the following sentence would be untrue (and thus have to be omitted):
- Due to imprecise and shifting use of the terms evolution and creationism it is difficult to say definitively whether "creationists" believe in "evolution" or not.
I think we have won half the battle already, assuming SJK's definition of creationism holds.
It should also be possible to resolve any remaining ambiguity over the use of evolution into (a) the accepted Darwinian theory in particular and (b) evolution in general (any theory even the Darwinian one). Then I can die happy :-) Ed Poor
The article is sometimes unclear when mentioning evolution and creationism. Perhaps their meaning is shifting
Maybe we need a chart with categories such as:
- believes God was involved in creation of the various species
- believes in some sort of evolution
- accepts the Darwinian theory of evolution completely
- believes that God created/initiated life on earth
These would be overlapping categories, and the various terms could be defined in reference to them. --Ed Poor
According to the Catholic Church[1] (http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu):
- " . . . the Encyclical Humani generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis.
- "Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animal enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere inhet"; Encyclical Humani generic, AAS 42 [1950], p. 575). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."
Okay, folks, I took another stab at creationism. I hope this version makes it quite clear that scientists (a) don't accept it and (b) have very good scientific reasons for not accepting it.
My aim was to present creationism as creationists see it, while giving science its due. There are a dozen scientific articles supporting evolution, and only a couple of creationism articles. Try not to feel that every article must repudiate creationism lest science fail in its educational goals. I really doubt the creationism article (as I revised it) will sway anyone away from the scientific camp.
The goal of NPOV on controversial issues is to make clear what the various positions are, and that's all I'm trying to do here. --Ed Poor
As contentious as the debate has been at times, as have to say that the article as it now stands is pretty good article. I'd like to see a few more specific references to important works of specific creationists (this is, after all, an encyclopedia article, and should have a bibliography); but other than that, I think it does a good job covering the field. --LDC
From a recent addition to the article:
- The stories of the fall of humankind from that divinely-created state of grace, the sacrificial crucifixion, the resurrection and imminent return of the Messiah, all rely for their power on acceptance, by faith, of literal creationism, and an outright rejection of evolution.
I am not sure this makes sense:
- Current creationist thinking embraces natural selection and small changes in species
Are there any numbers known for supporters over the WORLD? It's kind of unnecessary to focus on the USA only, and read a whole paragraph with all kinds of different polls conducted only there. Jeronimo
- The stories of the fall of humankind from that divinely-created state of grace, the sacrificial crucifixion, the resurrection and imminent return of the Messiah, all rely for their power on acceptance, by faith, of literal creationism, and an outright rejection of evolution.
If a claim so sweeping is going to be made, it would be nice if it were accompanied by something like a coherent argument. The conclusion has no obvious relationship to the issue. Mkmcconn
I think that it might be helpful to point out the difference between specific kinds of creationism, which have more reliable and stable definitions - and organize the article according to those more stable definitions. The reason is, creationism is just too big of a word for what the article is targetting. The entry complains that the meaning is shifting. That's not really true, IMO. The meaning is growing, because opinions (which have always been diverse) are multiplying. Does anyone agree with me? Mkmcconn 02:13 Dec 27, 2002 (UTC)
Young Earth creationists who interpret the Bible literally believe that the Earth is somewhere around 6,000 years old (according to Bishop James Ussher's dating) and usually reject the Big Bang theory (which is related to creation of the universe). They claim that scientific findings contradict an old Earth and therefore evolution itself, a view that most mainstream scientists regard as absurd.
I would have to disagree with this statement. A 6,000 year old earth is not absurd to "most mainstream scientists", it is absurd to ALL scientists. If you believe the earth is 6,000 years old, you do so in the face of overwhelming science to the contrary, and with no science to support you. I would change it to "a view which is at odds with archaeology, biology, geology, climatology, and quantum physics", or at the very least "a view which scientists regard as absurd". Cardsharque[?]
This article still needs to do a better job of defining the various kinds of creationism. For the most part, it seems to concentrate on scientific creationism and a scientifically literally interpretation of Genesis. This leaves the majority of creationists under-described. Mkmcconn 17:10 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I hope I helped in this regard. I also removed what I thought was a shameless assumption that scientific evidence on this topic is conclusive. Scientists are unanimous in granting evolution the status of theory due to the fact that none of the various evidence discovered has been strictly conclusive. Until now this article lacked that important detail. Science will not be rushed to a conclusion in this matter. I ask you all to stop proselytizing. Jtocci 20:51 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License
|
Search Encyclopedia
|
Featured Article
|