Talk:creationism

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

:I made this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=1130564211&oldid=1120278952], I don't think we lose much by not mentioning him here. Even if The Atlas of Creation is an interesting book. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

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

I changed the first paragraph to include the sentence:

• It is often considered pseudoscientific.

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

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

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

:Of course it is, so I changed it back. - Roxy the dog 17:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

:Per WP:LEAD and WP:BALANCE, yes it is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

:Yes it is. Carlstak (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

:Hi Ed, it's been restored to the previous version which better meets WP:FALSEBALANCE policy and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE policy which requires that pseudoscientific views should not br given undue weight, and fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. As is well shown by reliable sources, the overwhelming majority viewpoint of scientists is that creationism is often pseudoscientific, not merely "often considered" to be such – the exception is when it is clearly and explicitly a religious view with no pretenses to scientific status. . . dave souza, talk 20:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

:*I liked the overwhelming majority viewpoint of scientists is that creationism is often pseudoscientific, not merely "often considered" to be such because it was so clear! Thanks, Dave. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

What is going on with the archives? 18-25 are all blank and the latest comment on 17 is from 2021? Kaotac (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:Judging by the threads on this talkpage, 2022 and onwards, 2021 seems about right, I don't think there is stuff missing. Cluebot archives to archive 17 atm.

:Per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creationism/Archive_25&action=history Talk:Creationism/Archive 25: Revision history], @Wizmut did something to the archives in January, that may be the cause of this, and I don't know if it was a good idea or not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::Should it be reverted? The splitting seems to have happened, but now we just have a bunch of blank archive pages. Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions%2FWizmut&target=Wizmut&offset=20250105202755001&limit=31 Here] are the relevant edits. Polygnotus (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Kaotac|Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Harryhenry1}} I am no Python expert but I think that we can ignore it and that ClueBot will slowly over time fill them with archived threads. Deleting them is not an option for copyright reasons. Unfortunately that means that it will take quite a while until the {{tl|Talk header}} no longer links to empty pages. Polygnotus (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

In the beginning of this article it states

"Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation, and is often pseudoscientific."

That is incorrect. It is not often pseudoscientific, it is always pseudoscience. That is the scientific consensus. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Not always, see the next sentence and the rest of the lead. Evolutionary creationism isn't necessarily pseudoscience, and is usually compatible with science. . dave souza, talk 15:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::Do you have a reputable source for that claim? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If not, then it should be changed. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It's linked more than once in citations, but a link from a lead cite had died: sad you didn't notice that. For clarification, I've extended the citation quote:
{{cite web |author=Eugenie Scott | author-link=Eugenie Scott |title=The Creation/Evolution Continuum |website=NCSE |date=12 March 2025 |url=https://ncse.ngo/creationevolution-continuum |access-date=14 May 2025|quote=creationism comes in many forms, and not all of them reject evolution .... From a scientific point of view, evolutionary creationism is hardly distinguishable from theistic evolution, which follows it on the continuum. The differences between EC and theistic evolution lie not in science but in theology, .... Theistic evolutionists (TEs) accept all the results of modern science, in anthropology and biology as well as in astronomy, physics, and geology.}} . . dave souza, talk 19:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::https://www.britannica.com/topic/creationism

:::::Scientists of today reject creationism. It is not more or often. It is not a part of modern science. 2001:B042:4005:481B:B11A:62CA:9F54:CD18 (talk) 08:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::You should provide a peer review source that creationism is scientific or can be or delete it. 2001:B042:4005:4B04:B11A:62CA:9F54:CD18 (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Creationism is never science, and the article does not say it is. Not all things are either science or pseudoscience. When a creationist does not pretend to do science or present facts, but instead says it is purely religious, they are not doing pseudoscience. (And not doing science, of course.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I agree with what you're saying. And certainly people are allowed to believe in creationism. Just the introduction right now says:

:::::::"Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation, and is often pseudoscientific."

:::::::Would it be better to delete the "often" because it might be misleading and doesn't have support from sources. It indicates that there are a scientific way of doing creationism. 220.138.192.113 (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::"It might be misleading" is better than "it is plain wrong". It would be even better to find a wording that is neither wrong nor misleading. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::N.B. Theistic evolution, (also known as theistic evolutionism or God-guided evolution), alternatively called evolutionary creationism, does not claim to be scientific, so is not pseudoscience. Of course, it can be seen as a creationist way of doing science. rather than a scientific way of doing creationism. . . dave souza, talk 21:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:"That is the scientific consensus." - What is the basis for this sentence?

:Most scientists believe in God or a higher power.

:https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/an-overview-of-religion-and-science-in-the-united-states/

:and an overwhelming number of people don't believe a universe appeared out of nothing on its own.

:https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx

:The reference to pseudoscience is inappropriate. Neither of the sources cited refer to creationism as pseudoscience. PerseusMeredith (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Most scientists aren't American. Statistics for the USA don't prove anything about the other 95% of the world's population. HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::A collection of non sequiturs. For a start, believing in God is not the same as advocating creation science or intelligent design. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Neither of those are mentioned in the definition. Below is the definition:

:::the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation, PerseusMeredith (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::That's a theological position which says nothing about any claim to be scientific, but creationism often includes that claim, and then is pseudoscientific. Why changes in the wording do you propose, and how do you relate your proposals to reliable published sources? . . dave souza, talk 21:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=1290801030&oldid=1290432848 Ref added] and ref with only limited preview commented out. See:
  {{cite web |last=Albert |first=Leon H. |title="Scientific" Creationism as a Pseudoscience |website=National Center for Science Education |date=12 March 2025 |url=https://ncse.ngo/scientific-creationism-pseudoscience |access-date=17 May 2025}} originally published in Creation/Evolution Journal | Volume 6 | No. 2 | Summer 1986. . . dave souza, talk 04:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)