Difference between revisions of "Talk:Creationism"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(deleted material on Catholicism)
m (Reverted edits by Hellofriends12 (talk) to last revision by JZambrano)
 
(164 intermediate revisions by 56 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
== Added material about Dover Trial ==
+
'''[[talk:creationism archive1|Archive 1]]'''
 +
{{Wikiproject Religion}}
  
−
Here is what I added:  "However, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] "
+
=Page Moved=
 +
This talk page has been moved to [[talk:creationism archive1|Archive 1]].
 +
[[User:JonM|JonM]] 22:22, 20 December 2011 (EST)
  
−
== ID and creationism ==
+
== Proposed Section: Public Opinion ==
  
−
The article discusses ID as if it was a form of creationism.  It is not.  It is a criticism of the theory of evolution.  That is why the people referred to in the ID paragraph are able to simultaneously support ID while they hold differing views on creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:22, 25 February 2007 (EST)
+
I'm proposing a section on public opinion relating to Creationism based on Gallup, based on the following primary sources:
  
−
The article explicitly says that "It is unclear if Intelligent Design amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism". Given the source material this seems like a reasonable description of the matter. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:06, 25 February 2007 (EST)
+
* http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx
 +
* http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
  
−
::What I am saying is that ID is not a form of creationism.  It is not "unclear" at all.  ID is more properly seen as an offshoot or product of creationism.  It makes no attempt to describe how the world was created other than by saying that there was a designer.  In that sense it just supports creationism.  It really is merely a re-statement of the argument from incredulity (i.e. I don't understand how that could have happened, therefore it must be God). The problem with the particular paragraph in the article is that it indicates that there is a question surrounding the classification of ID where none in fact exisits. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:21, 25 February 2007 (EST)
+
According to this, 46% of Americans believe in Young Earth Creationism as of May 2012, that God created man in present form in the last 10,000 years. 32% believe in Old Earth Creationism, that humans evolved with God guiding. Just 15% believe in atheistic evolution, that humans evolved but God played no role in the process. 7% have no opinion. The range of support for Americans believing in Young Earth Creationism has ranged from 40-47% since 1982 when Gallup began polling the question, which has been asked 11 times.
  
−
:::Horace, your vision of the article would include a bias, while saying that it is ''unclear'' whether Intelligent Design amounts to a form of Creationism yields no bias. --[[User:David R|David R]] 22:34, 25 February 2007 (EST)
+
In June 2007, 39% said Young Earth Creationism was "definitely true" and 27% said it was "probably true", a total of 66% support. On the other hand, 18% said Evolution is "definitely true" and 35% said it's "probably true", a total of 53% support.  
  
−
::: Horace, I'm going to have to disagree here. At least one proponent of ID, Chris Buttars, a state senator of Utah repeatedly called it "Divine Design" and Dembski's Logos comment sounds very close to creationism- the Logos is (to many theologians, and arguably from a straight reading of the text of John) the creative spark. If ID is about the Logos, it is creationism. It seems clear to me that there is sufficient ambiguity that the current version should stand. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:37, 25 February 2007 (EST)
+
--[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 02:10, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
 +
:The percentage of support for Young Earth Creationism has actually gone up 2 points since 1982 when the question was first asked. 2/3 of Americans believing it's true is much higher than most people realize. I think a public polling section here would be fitting. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 12:33, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
 +
::I will fix it later this week. Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:02, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
  
−
::::I am not sure that comments by state senators are in any way helpful (in this discussion anyway).  I imagine you could find a state senator to say almost anything.  You will have to help me out with you reference to the Logos.  What is that?  I was approaching this in what I intended to be a purely logical manner.  The article suggests that there is some mystery surrounding the fact that several persons accept ID but hold different views on creation.  There is no such mystery when you appreciate what ID is.  It is not a version of creationism.  It is a support to creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)
+
:::Alright, thanks! Here's the content I'm proposing - I'd add it myself if the page weren't protected:
−
::::: Demsbki stated (in the source referenced in the article) "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." The first verse of the John refers to the Logos, or "word" in Greek. A common translation of the verse is "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" Or alternatively, ""In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" According to many Christian theologians (indeed, pretty much all the Catholics and as far as I'm aware, most of the Protestants) the Logos in John is intrisically connected to the creation ex nihilo as described in Genesis in which God speaks. Pope Benedict for example said that "Christianity must always remember that it is the religion of the `Logos.' It is faith in the "Creator Spiritus," in the Creator Spirit, from which proceeds everything tha" Indeed, looking at the next few verses, one sees the the strong connection between the Logos, creation and Jesus. The second verse is "He was in the beginning with God" and "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (using the NAS translation here, but most translations will be substantially similar for our purposes). Claiming that ID is the Logos theology is to come about as close to identifying ID with creationism in the broad sense as one can without going out and saying it. Given that such claims came from William Dembski, one of the chief proponents of Intelligent Design, it is very hard to see this is as not strong evidence for the creationist nature of ID. There is a large body of evidence other than Dembski's comment, which if you want I can discuss. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)
+
  
−
::::::I am sure this Dembski fellow is as bright as the next creationist, but what do YOU think? It seems to me that we are talking about a matter of logic. You know what ID is. You tell me how the shared beliefs of Nelson and Behe in ID is in any way inconsistent with their differing views on creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:19, 25 February 2007 (EST)
+
==Public Opinion==
−
::::::: Hmm? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you arguing simply that we should remove the sentences noting that Nelson and Behe disagree on the age of the earth? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:23, 25 February 2007 (EST)
+
Public polling, as seen below (sourced from Gallup<ref name=gallup1>''Gallup'' (2012).[http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design].</ref>), reveals that 46% of Americans believe in Young Earth Creationism, that "''God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so''" (2012, May 3-6). 32% believe that humans evolved with God guiding (Old Earth Creationism), and just 15% believe humans evolved but God had no part in the process (Atheistic Evolution).<ref>Newport, F. (2012, June 1).[http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx In U.S.,46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins]. ''Gallup''</ref>
  
−
::::::::My primary position is that references to ID ought be minimal.  ID is not creationism. It is a tool of creationism.  Unlike all other creation stories (careful Horace) it says nothing about creation other than that there was a designer. It has no creation week.  It does not propose that the world is balanced on the backs of a tower of turtles.  Nor that it was thought into existence by Tepeu and Gucumatz.  It is really just a criticism of the theory of evolution.  My secondary position is that the references to the difficulty of reconciling the beliefs of Nelson and Behe are misguided (no doubt those gentlemen will be relieved). When one thinks about what ID is, there is no logical contradiction in the both of them believing in ID at the same time as believing in their different versions of creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:43, 25 February 2007 (EST)
+
{| border="1" cellpadding="2" align="center"
 +
! Polling Date
 +
! God created humans in present form
 +
! Humans evolved, with God guiding
 +
! Humans evolved, but God had no part in process
 +
! No opinion
 +
|-
 +
| 2012, May 3-6
 +
|align="center"|46%
 +
|align="center"|32%
 +
|align="center"|15%
 +
|align="center"|7%
 +
|-
 +
| 2010, December 10-12
 +
|align="center"|40%
 +
|align="center"|38%
 +
|align="center"|16%
 +
|align="center"|6%
 +
|-
 +
| 2008, May 8-11
 +
|align="center"|44%
 +
|align="center"|36%
 +
|align="center"|14%
 +
|align="center"|5%
 +
|-
 +
| 2007, May 10-13
 +
|align="center"|43%
 +
|align="center"|38%
 +
|align="center"|14%
 +
|align="center"|4%
 +
|-
 +
| 2006, May 8-11
 +
|align="center"|46%
 +
|align="center"|36%
 +
|align="center"|13%
 +
|align="center"|5%
 +
|-
 +
| 2004, November 7-10
 +
|align="center"|45%
 +
|align="center"|38%
 +
|align="center"|13%
 +
|align="center"|4%
 +
|-
 +
| 2001, November 19-21
 +
|align="center"|45%
 +
|align="center"|37%
 +
|align="center"|12%
 +
|align="center"|5%
 +
|-
 +
| 1999, August 24-26
 +
|align="center"|47%
 +
|align="center"|40%
 +
|align="center"|9%
 +
|align="center"|4%
 +
|-
 +
| 1997, November 6-9
 +
|align="center"|44%
 +
|align="center"|39%
 +
|align="center"|10%
 +
|align="center"|7%
 +
|-
 +
| 1993, June 23-26
 +
|align="center"|47%
 +
|align="center"|35%
 +
|align="center"|11%
 +
|align="center"|7%
 +
|-
 +
| 1982, January
 +
|align="center"|44%
 +
|align="center"|38%
 +
|align="center"|9%
 +
|align="center"|9%
 +
|-
 +
|}
  
−
::::::::: Ok, I propose that we split this into a variety of different issues: 1) Is there enough of a question about the nature of ID that we should discuss the matter? 2) If we do so, should we discuss that different proponents of ID have different opinions in regard to the details of creation- this second question only makes much sense in light of the first, so I suggest we resolve the first question before discussing the second.  To the first question, I would answer yes, even given your phrasing, in that there was creation week, nor anything similar, you still call it a "creation story." Now, we are using the sourced defintion of creationism that "Creationism is the belief that the universe was originally created by God." Given the comments, whether ID is form of belief in the universe being created by God certainly seems to be under dispute. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:59, 25 February 2007 (EST)
 
  
−
:::::::::: I will contemplate the matter further overnight.  Thanks for your considered views.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:07, 26 February 2007 (EST)
+
In 2007 (June 1-3), Gallup also asked Americans what they thought of Young Earth Creationism and Evolution, whether they believe them to be Definitely True, Probably True, Probably False, or Definitely False. 39% answered Young Earth Creationism is Definitely True, and 27% Probably True, a total of 66% support. 18% answered Evolution is Definitely True, and 35% Probably True, a total of 53% support.<ref name=gallup1 />
  
−
== Problems with the section "Attempts to Criticize Creationism" ==
 
  
−
There are many problems with this section. It includes a high degree of imprecision and conflation between the different meanings of the term "creationist." There is very little criticism directed at creationism in the general sense (unless you count general arguments against religion). The vast majority of arguments are about YEC or various other forms of creationism.
+
{| border="1" cellpadding="2" align="center"
 +
! Answer
 +
! Definitely True
 +
! Probably True
 +
! Probably False
 +
! Definitely False
 +
! No opinion
 +
|-
 +
| Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years
 +
|align="center"|39%
 +
|align="center"|27%
 +
|align="center"|16%
 +
|align="center"|15%
 +
|align="center"|3%
 +
|-
 +
| Evolution, that is, the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life
 +
|align="center"|18%
 +
|align="center"|35%
 +
|align="center"|16%
 +
|align="center"|28%
 +
|align="center"|3%
 +
|-
 +
|}
  
−
1. The first section about Augustine seems to be grossly out of context. I'm not aware who argues that Augustine was not a creationist (nor for that matter, that it would make  much sense someone to otherwise). This seems to be part of the general problem of conflating Young Earth Creationism with Creationism in general. Furthermore, as criticisms of creationism go, this would be very far down on the list (and again, isn't even much of a criticism of creationism but a criticism of insisting on certain close to literal Biblical interpretations)
+
--[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 00:53, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
  
−
2. The second  refers to "Young-earth creationism, which holds that the earth is about 7000 years old, is consistent with many observations, such as the existence and nature of the freshwater Great Lakes, the young moon and the Grand Canyon." First, even if all of these were young features it would in no way argue for young earth creationism but rather that these specific features were old. Second of all, claiming that things are old doesn't make them so especially when there is a large disagreement with these claims by most relevant scientists. At minimum, some form of note that YECism argues that these objects are young would be necessary. Finally, I'm not sure if the writer of this read the above parts of the article where YECism is defined, since a repeated definition is uncessary (and the range given above of 6000-10000 is a bit more precise. In fact, the lower end seems to be about 5500 with the upper end of most creationists at 6500 and the only way one gets towards the upper end is by minor day lengthening generally).
+
:Changed column headers of poll to the actual poll wording. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:11, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
 +
::Yeah - only reason I left those like that was because (A) it made for better column widths, and (B) I wasn't sure if Gallup would like the tables looking too identical. I figured it'd be safer for Fair Use purposes to show some differences. I'm fine with the changes though. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 10:28, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
  
−
3. "Creationism is accepted by most Americans and by the most significant scientists in history. Intolerance by opponents of creationism has led to a silencing of contemporary scientists on this issue, but many risk their careers by speaking out against theories that earth is somehow billions of years old." The first sentence has a multitude of problems. The sentence is true seems to confuse the matter of general creationism and young earth creationism. About half the US population are YEC, while about 90% acknowledge some form of creator deity. (According to the November 2004 Gallup Poll, the numbers are 45% answered yes to "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?", 38% answered yes to "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" 13% believed that humans had evolved without divine intervention, and 4% were undecided (or gave an unclassifiable other answer)). Thus, if one means that most Americans are creationists in this very general sense then it is true. However, the fraction of the American population that believes in creation of any form is irrelevant in this context (which is a section on ''criticisms'' of creationism). If this is an attempt to argue for creationism, then it is an almost textbook example of  ad populum falllacy. The claim about "the most significant scientists in history" is also interesting. Again, whether one is talking about YEC or some other form of creationism becomes highly relevant. If one is talking about creationism in general, this seems hardly relevant. If one is talking about YECism, then about whom we are talking becomes highly relevant. There are a fair set of standard lists of scientists who were YECs, and many of the standard individuals on the lists (such as Newton) were around well before any modern theories about the age of the earth or related issues. Furthermore, science is not decided by authority and so the presence of notable historical scientists who were creationists (of any sort) is simply irrelevant (and note also that in its more general forms, creationism is not a scientific claim at all but a religious one anyways). The final sentence is unsourced and most likely false. I'd love to see examples of this supposed "intolerance" and the assertion that many "risk their careers." I have trouble seeing Henry F. Schaefer who is an avowed and loud creationist and one of the world's most respected chemists as being silenced or having his career threatened. 
+
<references/>
−
 
+
−
If this is to include important, actually common criticism of Young Earth Creationism, it should discuss among other major issues, varves, the doublenested hierarchy, why creationists claim there is a clear cut line between apes and humans in the fossil record but can't agree with eachother which ones are apes and which are fossils. All of those would be good for starters. And all of that should go on the page for [[Young Earth Creationism]], not creationism in general . [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)
+
−
 
+
−
==Creationism as Myth==
+
−
 
+
−
Please do not remove this section unless you can provide appropriate references to show that the information within is incorrect.  This is Conservapedia.  We are interested here in the truth, not in bias.  If you are looking for bias, your edits would be more welcome at wikipedia.  If there are references that show that Creationism is indeed a science, you would serve the community better by posting them, rather than just deleting entries you do not like.  It would be helpful if you read the guidelines for editing an entry before randomly deleting lines.  --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 23:49, 26 February 2007 (EST)
+
−
 
+
−
== deleted material on Catholicism ==
+
−
 
+
−
Deleted a bunch of stuff about the position of the Catholic church because it's not very accurate.
+
−
 
+
−
I understand that Catholicism is hard to understand.  If you can't get it right, don't write anything at all.
+

Latest revision as of 22:08, December 8, 2012

Archive 1

! This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Conservlogo.png

Page Moved

This talk page has been moved to Archive 1. JonM 22:22, 20 December 2011 (EST)

Proposed Section: Public Opinion

I'm proposing a section on public opinion relating to Creationism based on Gallup, based on the following primary sources:

According to this, 46% of Americans believe in Young Earth Creationism as of May 2012, that God created man in present form in the last 10,000 years. 32% believe in Old Earth Creationism, that humans evolved with God guiding. Just 15% believe in atheistic evolution, that humans evolved but God played no role in the process. 7% have no opinion. The range of support for Americans believing in Young Earth Creationism has ranged from 40-47% since 1982 when Gallup began polling the question, which has been asked 11 times.

In June 2007, 39% said Young Earth Creationism was "definitely true" and 27% said it was "probably true", a total of 66% support. On the other hand, 18% said Evolution is "definitely true" and 35% said it's "probably true", a total of 53% support.

--Jzyehoshua 02:10, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

The percentage of support for Young Earth Creationism has actually gone up 2 points since 1982 when the question was first asked. 2/3 of Americans believing it's true is much higher than most people realize. I think a public polling section here would be fitting. --Jzyehoshua 12:33, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
I will fix it later this week. Thanks. Conservative 13:02, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
Alright, thanks! Here's the content I'm proposing - I'd add it myself if the page weren't protected:

Public Opinion

Public polling, as seen below (sourced from Gallup[1]), reveals that 46% of Americans believe in Young Earth Creationism, that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so" (2012, May 3-6). 32% believe that humans evolved with God guiding (Old Earth Creationism), and just 15% believe humans evolved but God had no part in the process (Atheistic Evolution).[2]

Polling Date God created humans in present form Humans evolved, with God guiding Humans evolved, but God had no part in process No opinion
2012, May 3-6 46% 32% 15% 7%
2010, December 10-12 40% 38% 16% 6%
2008, May 8-11 44% 36% 14% 5%
2007, May 10-13 43% 38% 14% 4%
2006, May 8-11 46% 36% 13% 5%
2004, November 7-10 45% 38% 13% 4%
2001, November 19-21 45% 37% 12% 5%
1999, August 24-26 47% 40% 9% 4%
1997, November 6-9 44% 39% 10% 7%
1993, June 23-26 47% 35% 11% 7%
1982, January 44% 38% 9% 9%


In 2007 (June 1-3), Gallup also asked Americans what they thought of Young Earth Creationism and Evolution, whether they believe them to be Definitely True, Probably True, Probably False, or Definitely False. 39% answered Young Earth Creationism is Definitely True, and 27% Probably True, a total of 66% support. 18% answered Evolution is Definitely True, and 35% Probably True, a total of 53% support.[1]


Answer Definitely True Probably True Probably False Definitely False No opinion
Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years 39% 27% 16% 15% 3%
Evolution, that is, the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life 18% 35% 16% 28% 3%

--Joshua Zambrano 00:53, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Changed column headers of poll to the actual poll wording. SharonW 10:11, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
Yeah - only reason I left those like that was because (A) it made for better column widths, and (B) I wasn't sure if Gallup would like the tables looking too identical. I figured it'd be safer for Fair Use purposes to show some differences. I'm fine with the changes though. --Joshua Zambrano 10:28, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Gallup (2012).Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design.
  2. ↑ Newport, F. (2012, June 1).In U.S.,46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins. Gallup
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Creationism&oldid=1022466"