Talk:Creationism

From RationalWiki

Under construction, so don't tease me, mf's. I'm trying to build this as an explication fo a religious philosophy, which it is. Also, I'm making it fairly serious. No goats. --PalMD ^{-yada yada} 17:54, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Goats are part of the glory of creation, too! --Kels 17:59, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

I think this needs work still, but what could be added, specifically? This should probably be a showpiece article.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 18:30, 11 December 2007 (EST)

1 UNIVERSE WAS CREATED BY SURPREME BEING
2 This needs work
3 If the article is going to ridicule Creationism is it necessary to have that big template there?
4 Having it both ways
5 Creationism and Christian theology
6 What i was trying to say before the cough medicine kicked in
7 Check It Out
8 Two creation stories

[edit] UNIVERSE WAS CREATED BY SURPREME BEING

I know that creationism is correct!!! The universe is Gods palace. Beings appear out of Gods hand. God all loving. Obey God or he cast you into bad place beneath earth! 202.115.130.23 18:16, 2 December 2007 (EST)

I don't feel like it.--PalMD ^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 18:22, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Well, he just seems like a troll or parodist, but i have real proof. 207.108.244.3 19:01, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Well, 202.115.130.23, IF that's your REAL name, you should know that most even vaguely religious people have no problem with the idea that their deities of choice created the universe. The problem comes when the "literalists" keep insisting that every single discovery in the fields of biology, physics, astronomy, and history in the last 200 years are a pack of LIES, because they contradict a 2500-year-old fairy tale. --Gulik 18:47, 11 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] This needs work

If someone's looking for something to do, beautification of this would be a sooooollid start-αmεσ (soldier) 23:25, 16 January 2008 (EST)

I'm not so sure. It really works as a bridge between the OEC and YEC article. All the interesting stuff is in them.--Bob ^{bing up} 03:35, 17 January 2008 (EST)

The main trouble for me is that I just want to get hold of their ears and beat their heads on a wall while screaming: "It's all a load of bollocks, you poopumninks". I suppose that I'm as much suffering from "faith" as they are but I have faith in science and scientists whereas they have faith in a bronze/iron age myth and theologians. Consequently I'm incapable of reasoned argument when faced with such absolute twaddle. Sad but true : -( Susan ^Purrrrrrr 11:47, 17 January 2008 (EST)

[edit] If the article is going to ridicule Creationism is it necessary to have that big template there?

If the article is going to ridicule Creationism is it necessary to have that big template there? Newton 23:03, 15 February 2008

Depends -- do we trust the reader to realize this article is ridiculing creationism:)? Exposing people to the ideas of creationism without warning labels could lead to lawsuits ... Ungtss 23:11, 15 February 2008 (EST)

And blind adoption of burning stupid...hate it when that happens[[User:PalMD/sig]] 23:15, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Doh, sorry, (hangs head low) Andy hates big templates indicating that what he "thinks" is bullshit, we apologise and will bring this wiki within the limits suggested by Crapopedia, this instant. (not). PS, Doc, your sig is broken. human^{be in} 23:17, 15 February 2008 (EST)

[edit] Having it both ways

Your OEC section defines theistic evolutionists as old earth creationists. Then in the footnote, you say those same people think creationism is bullshit. Which one is it? Ungtss 23:13, 15 February 2008 (EST)

"Your"? You are one of us now. Propose improvements? human^{itarian aid} 23:18, 15 February 2008 (EST)

My improvements aren't consonant with the purpose of this wiki. This wiki exists to make fun of morons like some of the folks running CP. I'd want to write an article that accurately described the topic. I don't think that sort of thing is in demand here, unfortunately. Ungtss 23:21, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Cheap reply. What are we getting wrong in our article about creationism - young earth, and old earth, both? The OEC part is inaccurate? I'll buy that, since some OEC could simple be" "Big bang? God did it". Well, can't really refute that. Of course, can't prove it, either... I'll try to look at the two things you mention and see if this needs work.

BUT. As an editor here, you are relieved PERMANENTLY of calling RationalWiki "you". Do you understand the second person plural yet? human^{there is no cabal} 23:39, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Sir yes sir:).

Its probably better to simply make the distinction (in this article, the OEC and TE ones are better in this regard) between the more innocent theistic evolutionism and the "literal genesis interpretation in an ancient/undefined point in time in spite of evidence" creationism. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 00:06, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Ungtss, I'd like the serious material... I think the order of the wiki is serious interspersed with snark. Please halp us?-αmεσ (historian) 23:40, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Will do -- but I'll always defer to snark when it surfaces. Wasted too much of my life going against the grain in wikis with purposes different from my own ... Ungtss 23:43, 15 February 2008 (EST)

I think it's best to treat RW as having no purpose that one can cut against, unless you're trying to insert "LITERAL GENESIS IS THE ONE WAY OMG" into mainspace... so, in other words, I wouldn't worry about stepping on too many toes...-αmεσ (pirate) 23:44, 15 February 2008 (EST)

[edit] Creationism and Christian theology

You say that Creationism rests in Christian theology. But Genesis was written a thousand years before there were any Christians. WTF? Ungtss 23:15, 15 February 2008 (EST)

I presume you mean this line: "The underpinnings of creationism rest in Fundamentalist Christian theology." And yes, it needs work, thank you for pointing that out. However, you say "You say that Creationism rests in Christian theology". This is a wiki. You are one of the editors. There is no you - there is only "us". human^{be in} 23:20, 15 February 2008 (EST)

M. Ungtss, i must point out a small fallacy in your reasoning. Genesis predates Xtianity, but it is canonical liturgy of creationist brand of xtians.User:PalMD/sig 23:23, 15 February 2008 (EST)

As well as the Jews and Muslims. To be accurate, we'd say the roots of creationism rest in the book of Genesis ... which is accepted by all three religions ... Ungtss 23:25, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Sort of...at least in this country most creationists are the Christian sort. Im sure it's different in Indonesia. The ID mov't is pretty much exclusively Xtian.--PalMD ^{--You don't know harsh!} 23:30, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Yeah, but the article's not about "American Creationism" or "Intelligent Design." It's about creationism, a really old idea that Christianity and Islam got from Genesis. The article says that Creationism stems from Fundamentalist Christian Theology. It doesn't. Creationism stems from a book written about 3000 years before there were any fundamentalist Christians, by people that wouldn't even know what a fundamentalist Christian was if they met one. Ungtss 23:36, 15 February 2008 (EST)

"which is accepted by all three religions" Just to say my own part here: And they are all wrong - Unequivocally. human^bean 23:34, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Wrong or not, they don't get their ideas from Fundamentalist Christianity. Ungtss 23:36, 15 February 2008 (EST)

How about, "belief in a literal reading of Genesis is foundational to creationism, a tenet shared by fundamentalist version of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and popularized by the American Christian fundamentalism movement"?-αmεσ (historian) 23:42, 15 February 2008 (EST)

PERFECT! Ungtss 23:43, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Thanks Ames... no thanks Ungtstst. Sometimes this stuff bores me (because cretinism is so stoopid, really), though I care when editors say "you're wrong, your're wrong" - especially without offering "help" - as in - "editing" or suggestions on talk pages, if they are timid, or at least cautious (please, suggest better wordings, simple challenges are easy but cheap). Anyway, back to the first line - Thanks, Ames. human^woo 23:51, 15 February 2008 (EST)

I still think we need to make clear that Creationism, in the AMerican and british context, is not some isolated belief by many religions in Genesis--it is a theocratic movement by Fundamentalisst Cristians.--PalMD ^{--You don't know harsh!} 00:00, 16 February 2008 (EST)

I'm with the spelling and punctuation impaired Doc (blessed be his non-existent soul) on this one. human^{hilarious link to my talk page goes here} 00:27, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Kiss me, you delightful n00b@@@@2222...cough medicine rokxzorzzz!--PalMD ^{--You don't know harsh!} 00:37, 16 February 2008 (EST)

My understanding is that there are also some creationist Muslims. And Christian creationism is by no means limited to the US and GB.--Bob ^{bing up} 04:38, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Bob! Arent you on hiatus? --PalMD ^{--You don't know harsh!} 08:46, 16 February 2008 (EST)

I'm sticking my toe back in. :-) --Bob ^{bing up} 15:36, 16 February 2008 (EST)

How about, 'Creationism rests in Abrahamic theology'? ^{— Unsigned, by: 62.254.216.181 / talk / contribs}

[edit] What i was trying to say before the cough medicine kicked in

With all due respect to my fellow editor, in the context with which I am most familiar (North America), creationism is a socio-political movement as well as a religious idea.

From a pure, religious standpoint, all religions have creation myths, and the so-called Abrahamic religions share an approximate myth a laid out in Genesis, depending on what sects you ask. The vast majority of educated Christian, Jews, and Muslims do not take a 6 day creation literally, or are able to separate their religious beliefs from "daily reality".

In North America, there is a specific movement of anti-science theocrats interesting in changing public policy to reflect their version of reality. They are primarily Fundamentalist Christians. Most Orthodox Jews, for instance, simply remove themselves from secular society rather than trying to change it.

This movement represents a small fringe of the vast majority of North American Christians, but they are very politically active. It would be foolish and disingenuous to minimize this.--PalMD ^{--You don't know harsh!} 08:56, 16 February 2008 (EST)

And the political movement seeks to conflate the small minority of YECers with the large majority of nominally Christian Americans to leverage their power. This movement has succeeded in getting a large number of Christians to at least loosely accept some YEC tenets (ie, evolution did not happen). human^troll 10:43, 16 February 2008 (EST)

All due respect being mutual, according to all relevant polls, the vast majority of college-educated Americans are creationists[1]. According to that poll, 25% of college grads in 91 were biblically literal creationists, and 54% were evolutionary creationists. Only 16.5% of college grads believe in the non-creationary standpoint. 45% of scientists are creationist.[2] I respectfully disagree with the proposition that creationism is held only be a "small fringe" of "theocrats" within the United States. Creationism of one flavor or another is, and always has been, the majority position in the US. And if you broaden your study to the world as a whole, secular evolution becomes even more of a fringe position, as all the Muslims, Jews, and African/East Asian Christians are taken into account. Ungtss 10:54, 16 February 2008 (EST)

I think residual cough medicine may have caused Doc to conflate YEC with creationism. At the simplest level, yes, almost everyone is a creationist ("Did God create the universe?" "Yes."). Many of those also think evolution happened. Some, of course, don't think the Modern Synthesis is correct, they think God guided the development of speciec. YECs think there was no such process to need guiding, that God pretty much the world/universe as we see it less than 10k years ago.

Fundamental YECs are so visible and politically active here in the US that USians aften make the linguistic error of saying "creationist" when they mean "young earth creationist". human^bean 11:04, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Bingo. If we want to write a serious article, we should stick with the stats. "Creationism" is nearly everybody. YEC is about 45% of the population, 25% of college grads and 5% of scientists. Ungtss 11:16, 16 February 2008 (EST)

I suspect some of those stats depend on how the poll questions are asked. human^culous 11:20, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Doubtless true. Ungtss 11:22, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Just to lower the level of discourse a little, I think, Ungtss, that your position is disingenuous at best, intentionally misleading at worst. Clearly, the majority of Americans are not "Creationists" in the sense the word is usually understood. Also, if that were true, it does not make creationism any more legitimate as science. Frankly, you are being a distracting shit-disturber rather than a useful foil. Perhaps you could contain yourself to the talk pages for a while, instead of eviscerating the meaning of articles that we have worked long and hard on. (giggle..i said "hard on").--PalMD ^{--You don't know harsh!} 15:47, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Between you telling me to stick to the talk-pages and Human telling me to quit bitching and start contributing, I'm in a bit of a quandary. For my part, I think you've resorted to ad hominem name-calling and proof by assertion, rather than addressing the facts at issue. Creationism is belief in creation. Lots of people in lots of different countries believe in lots of different creations. Why do you want to limit it to a particular country, a particular religion, and a particular politically-charged use of the word? Is it possible that weird troll who keeps calling this wiki "for whites only" has some factual basis for his vandalism? I grew up primarily in West Africa and Saudi Arabia, places full of the creationists you want to pretend don't exist ... Ungtss

Is it possible that weird troll who keeps calling this wiki "for whites only" has some factual basis for his vandalism?

No, no he doesn't. --Gulik 01:43, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Context is important, Unt. This article applies mainly to the concept as understood my the majority of North Americans, and probably Europeans as well. You can try to dilute it by generalization, etc, but it's really not the point. We certainly have room on the wiki for an article on creation myths. --PalMD ^{--You don't know harsh!} 01:50, 17 February 2008 (EST)

The majority of people in the US and Europe know that Genesis was not written by Christians but by Jews. The only people pretending it rests in Christian fundamentalism are those trying to erect a strawman. You lose your credibility when you resort to strawman. Ungtss 01:58, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Well, Christianity _is_ a Jewish heresy, so the point still stands. --Gulik 13:29, 17 February 2008 (EST)

that doesn't support the point. Genesis is a Jewish book. Christianity and Islam are Jewish heresies that use the book. It's absurd to say that an idea rests in a religion that didn't exist when the idea was developed. The only identifiable purpose of that anachronism is to stain creationism with negative associations with fundamentalism. Empty rhetoric costs you credibility. If you want to be taken seriously, tell the truth. Ungtss 14:15, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Who are the "people pretending it rests in Christian fundamentalism" and where did they say it? I can't find it, must have missed it... human^clues 20:27, 17 February 2008 (EST)

the article used to say that creationism had its roots in fundamentalist Christian theology or words to that effect. Amesg fixed it. Palmd indicated some desire to return it to its prior state, based on the reasoning detailed above. I disagreed, because creationism has its roots in a Jewish history book written at least 3,000 years before Christian fundamentalists appeared on the scene. Ungtss 21:24, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Unt, that's a load of bullshit. Yes, Genesis (Breishit) is originally a Jewish text, and before that it was something else. What counts is how it is used today. Creationism, in the context of North America is, was, and likely always will be a Fundamentalist Chrisitan movement. Don't fuck up the articles. Go troll yourself in a corner for a little while by writing essays, or just jack off in a corner. I don't really care what you do, but people worked hard on these articles. Set up a debate page or something. Oh, and fuck off.--PalMD ^{--You don't know harsh!} 21:30, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Ah, I see, thanks. Some here have a tendency to conflate, as I said above "creationism" with "young earth creationism" - which, in its modern form, is a construct of Christian fundamentalists. This article should serve as a more of a disambiguation page, with the heavy guns aimed at the YEC page. At the same time, endlessly defending "all" creationism with the unbrella of OEC and other, more science-friendly beliefs is a fig leaf meant, in my opinion, to deflect legitimate strong criticism - and mockery - of the YEC position. Cdesign proponentsists, indeed, seek to create a "wedge" who's sharp tip are the YEC loons, and whose thick base depends on implying that the broad range of various Christian denominations and believers are "on their side". ;) human^{there is no cabal} 21:34, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Exactly. Creationism is a minority Christian view that the Earth was created by a supreme deity in 6 days, and that the massive geological and fossil evidence that suggests otherwise is a practical joke on the part of the creator. The vast majority of Jews and Christians understand Genesis as a metaphorical account, whether or not a god started the whole thing going and intervened now and then when existence in the void got boring. As it is, there are two accounts of creation in Genesis itself, so taking it literally takes some doing. PoorEd 21:40, 17 February 2008 (EST)