Talk:Creationism

This will be an article, we can't do everything at once, please do not delete. It serves as a disambiguation page at the moment and that is important for the articles that it directs to. We have a robust "Yound earth creationism" and this will come, please do not delete disambiguation pages that point to developed articles. Nancy Sculerati 10:09, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

I'm thinking about starting work on this - creationism is a topic in itself, and YEC/OEC are subtopics. --Tom Morris 12:06, 28 June 2008 (CDT)

This looks like a good start. Something which is often overlooked in discussions of creationism is that political opposition to evolution gained a significant amount of moral force from its opposition to Social Darwinism, which was often presented as the morality dictated by the science of evolution. This should be examined in the article. Anthony Argyriou 13:51, 15 July 2008 (CDT)

Poor start. It blurs the distinction between Creationism and Creation Science and largely takes the pro-Evolution pov of Eugenie Scott. A section purporting to explain scientific reaction to Creationism actually only contains one long quote defending the way evolution is taught in schools.

We need to explain what Creationism is, in its various forms (notably 'young earth' and 'old earth' variants, an almost even split in the US). On what basis do people subscribe to these views? If it's on the basis of faith, do Creationism's advocates acknowledge this basis?

How is creationism different from scientific views on origins? Is materialism an aspect that should be mentioned?

What are the implications of accepting or endorsing creationism? Are there political ramifications? If so, what are these?

Who opposes creationism? On what grounds? Is it, for example, on the grounds that there is no God, hence, no Creator, hence no possibility of the universe or life or human beings being created by a non-existent Being? Is it, likewise, on the grounds of materialism, i.e., that the material world is "all there is" so no supernatural being could possibly have any effect on it? Or is there a sort of "methodological naturalism" in play here, wherein some philosophers choose to look only at natural causes (for one reason or another) while not explicitly denying the possible existence of the Supernatural?

Last but not least, is intelligent design correctly classified as Creationism? Is this only on the view of Eugenie Scott, or is it common knowledge? Or is it simply that if ID is true, there must be a designer, and that it's an obvious inference that such a designer could only be a supernatural being such as a Greek god or even God?

Without answering all these questions, the article will remain weak. I'd suggest taking a look at the New World Encyclopedia's version, especially with regard to ID. --Ed Poor 23:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it's really taking Scott's point-of-view. I've been trying pretty hard to keep up on the literature around creationism (especially when doing my dissertation on Intelligent Design), and I haven't really seen anyone else either provide significant critique of Scott's taxonomy of creationist beliefs, or proposed and produced an alternative. I think that while there is an important historical difference between Creationism and Creation Science - the latter being the movement in the United States during the twentieth century that started after the Scopes trial, peaking with McLean v. Arkansas (but still going today with groups like the ICR). Thing is, I'm not sure what space there is left in the word 'creationism' for creationist-but-not-Creation-Science folks: if you were someone who believed that God created the Earth but not in a literalistic way as per Genesis, would you really be called a creationist? Most of the people who aren't creationists in the sense of special creation would not use the label 'creationist'. Take for instance the typical moderate or liberal Anglican or mainstream Protestant who believes that God did 'create' but that the process of his creation is scientifically indistinguishable from what science says - someone like Archbishop Rowan Williams or maybe even the previous Pope. They do believe that God is a creative power and has used that power to create the universe and the things inside it. But they aren't exactly what the word 'creationist' denotes.

To illustrate my point, here is the definition of 'creationism' from the Oxford American Dictionary (as it is on the Macintosh's Dictionary application): "the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution". It also states that it is "another term for creation science". If you take the first definition and lop the last clause off, the scope is enlarged enormously. Pretty much every Christian would match that definition. But then how do we pick out the authors of The Genesis Flood, and folks like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Henry M. Morris etc.? There will be edge cases, and some of the ID people would seem to be pretty close to the edge of the Oxford American Dictionary definition. Certainly, opponents of intelligent design classify it as a form of creationism, the court in Kitzmiller said it was basically rebranded creationism (to the point where one could take a book about creationism and do a find-and-replace to then produce a book about Intelligent Design). Of course, the Discovery Institute says it's not. I guess the most we can say is that it is widely accused of being rebadged creationism, but that proponents of it vigourously deny this charge. --Tom Morris 23:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Considered pseudoscience?

The last sentence of par. 1 says: "Creationism, at least in the form of young earth creationism, is considered by the scientific community to be pseudoscience." Is this true? I should think that scientists regard "creation science" and "intelligent design" as a pseudoscience. Creationism per se, by contrast with these, is a religious doctrine that does not even purport to be scientific. No? --Larry Sanger 02:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just trying to make *some* sense out of what I think is a lede paragraph that tries to encompass too many elements. I'm no expert on the subject -- in fact, I wish it would go away. Hayford Peirce 03:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Scope of the article

Referring both to Tom and Larry above: Creationism, in the "lopped off" sense, would seem to be a purely religious doctrine, and explicitly a matter of faith. As opposed, say, to a conclusion induced from a careful look at all the evidence gathered by astronomers, geologists and biologists. A particular current within American creationism would be the "Creation Science" movement, wherein fundamentalists (or "Young Earth Creationists") assert that modern science is wrong on all the origins questions - but not because they disagree with the faith of the creationists: rather because their science is wrong. Perhaps this is what gets everyone's dander up.

I approach the matter differently, somewhat more dispassionately I hope. I'm here to describe:

1. what each group believes
2. what reasons they give to justify their position
3. what objections any opponents have given

There's clearly no point in trying to determine which group has the "right" belief or position.

Given this framework, I think I could help organize a lot of material from Wikipedia, New World Encyclopedia, and other free licensed sources. But only as long as I can be sure I'm adhering to Larry's idea of NPOV policy. (Wikipedia seems to think I've forgotten what NPOV means, but it's like the old Christian joke: "If you don't feel close to God any more, who moved?")

If Creationism is the religious doctrine that God created (1) the universe, (2) life on earth in the first place, (3) every major new species of life (not to say, ahem, "creature"), and most importantly (4) human beings, then I can help write about it here. How creationists have tried to spread their viewpoint or discredit/censor other viewpoints is an interesting, if ancillary, question. It would seem that Creation Science is a an attempt to present creationism as scientific - I believe it has been called "scientific creationism" for just that reason.

However, it is chiefly the YECs who carry the Creation Science banner. If 40% of Americans are YEC, and 45% are Old Earth creationists, than perhaps we can say that most creationists do not support the Creation Science viewpoint. And thus that Creation Science is not representative of Creationism as a whole. Indeed, there is roughly an equal split between YEC and OEC, a point that is often lost in (political? politically charged?) debates between evolution supporters and evolution opponents, when it comes to "what will be taught to our children" in public schools.

This brings me to an interesting aside: should ideas like evolution or intelligent design be taught at all to schoolchildren? If so, how should they be taught? The same way English literature classes teach about the Greek myths of gods and goddesses? That is, as legends that other people in other lands and times believed? Specifically, when you "teach evolution" do you teach what it is, and why its supporters say it's true? Or do you tell students that it's true? If it's the latter, do you let them question it, or do you require them to accept it? And if acceptance is mandatory, how is that different from fundamentalists promulgating dogma in sectarian schools? (Not arguing that it's the same: I'm just asking us to provide explicit answers to all these questions in our articles.)

Part of the problem we as encyclopedia writers have, is that there are two armed camps locked in bitter strife. It looks like a battle to the end, a contest with no hold barred, no prisoners taken and no quarter given. There is a sizable contingent of religious believers want to wipe out naturalistic evolution altogether: YECs want even the idea of "progressive appearance" of various species eliminated; OECs will accept the progressive appearance aspect (see progressive creation), but they march in lockstep with YECs on the issue of natural causation. Both divisions of creationists reject adamantly the idea that natural causes alone can account for (1) the origin of the first living cell or (2) the appearance of additional species of life.

The reason for this, as I have begun to point out at Conservapedia [1], are that if life can start or 'evolve' without God then this undermines religion itself. If science can support an alternative to Creationism to answer the origins question, then materialism and atheism are tenable positions. (I don't think this is a novel observation on my part: don't some prominent evolution supports say pretty much the same?)

Contrariwise, if evolution is undermined, then advocates of atheism and materialism don't have a leg to stand on and must then admit at least the viability of religious faith. At any rate, their refusal to examine or consider religion stops looking rational, even in their own eyes. And if they have to take religious faith seriously, might they not have to change their behavior as well? A change in worldview affects everything, from ethics to politics to economics.

There's more to this than simply describing what Creationism is. There's also what it entails.

Oh, and Tom, if you haven't seen anything beyond Scott's taxomony may I suggest you spend a bit more time looking around? Our sister project, the New World Encyclopedia, has some excellent articles whose writing was supervised by editors holding PhD's in their respective fields. --Ed Poor 20:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I might note, briefly, that Teilhard du Chardin, SJ, also a paleontologist, had a model that reconciled evolutionary biology and a full Catholic view of divine creation. He, however, did not suggest that it was a faith versus science basis; he made the point, which I think, Ed, you are ignoring, that it is the testability issue that is primary in what is taught. If creation isn't testable, it's not teachable as science, yet there are devout scientists that have full faith in divine origin.

"are that if life can start or 'evolve' without God then this undermines religion itself" Oh? This undermines Buddhism? Wicca? might argue Shinto... Undermines Abrahamic and some other active-deity religions, perhaps. I admit to the possibility of religious faith, and indeed that the fundamentalists might be right — but I can't test it so I don't let it guide my ethics. No, I wouldn't call myself an atheist or materialist, although I'm not quite sure how the latter fits here. If, however, $DEITY wants to do lunch, I'm fine with a good serious talk with her. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)