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 , http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/philosophy/9780199246540/toc.html , retrieved 2008-07-15 (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)
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 was actually referring to theological anthropology ] 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)
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. . . 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 .
"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”.
"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.
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. Safeguarded (talk) 12:42, 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?
Pool Filters
... looking to upgrade that old system, or just replace part of it, we have everything you will need to make that swimming pool sparkle like a diamond. We have Hayward pool filters, ...
Hayward Pool Filters and Spa Filters
Hayward Cartridge, D.E. and Sand Pool Filters and Spa Filters. ... No part of this web site text, graphics or html document may be ...
Hayward Pool Filter Parts : Pentair Pool Filter Parts : Aquaquality ...
Let us help you find the best Hayward Pool Filter Parts and Pentair Pool Filter Parts at Aquaquality Pools & Spas, inc.
Aqua Products : Aquabots Pool Cleaner Turbo : Aquamax Blue Diamond ...
... Pool Cleaner, Pool Rover, Turbo Remote, Hayward Motor, Letro Legend Part, Polaris 280, Polaris 180, Prowler Pool ... Pool & Spa Pumps ► Pool & Spa Filters ► Pool ...
Parts for Hayward Easy-Clear filters, Discount Hayward C400, C550 ...
Schematic Diagram of Hayward Easy-Clear Cartridge pool filter parts, Discount Parts for Hayward Easy-Clear Cartridge Filters are original replacement parts for Hayward Easy-Clear ...
Hayward Micro Star Clear Filter Parts: POOLplaza Pool Supplies
Category: Hayward Micro Star Clear Filter Parts- ... Order a part by keying the quantity of the parts you need on the appropriate line, then click the button above.
HAYWARD Pool Filter Cartridge 178569 UNICEL C-7469, PLEATCO PCC60 ...
Pleatco Filter with Free-Flow Core Technology for the purest water quality and durability Replaces OEM Filter Brands and Part Numbers: Hayward Pool Products: Clean & Clear Plus 240
Parts for Hayward ASL filters, Discount Hayward C850, C1250 filter ...
Schematic Diagram of Hayward ASL Cartridge pool filter parts, Discount Parts for Hayward ASL Cartridge Filters are original replacement parts for Hayward ASL Cartridge Filter ...
Hayward Perflex DE Pool Filter
Hayward Perflex DE Pool Filter ... 2009, by WWW Development Inc -all rights reserved, no part ...
Hayward Pool Products Pool and Spa Filters
Pleatco Filters to replace Hayward Pool Products part numbers: CX-500RE, CX-870RE, CX-1200RE, C-1200RE, CX1750RE, CX-1750, C-250, CX250RE, C-470RE, C2000, C-750RE, CX750RE, C-570RE ...