Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups

Skip to table of contents

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to pseudoscience and fringe science, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

Arbitration ruling on the treatment of pseudoscience In December 2006, the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision included the following: Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

view · edit Frequently asked questions These questions arise frequently on this talk page. To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Q1: Is this article unfairly biased in favor of evolution? A1: There have been arguments over the years about the article's neutrality and concerns that it violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The NPOV policy does not require all points of view to be represented as equally valid, but it does require us to represent them. The policy requires that we present the theory of evolution from the point of view of disinterested philosophers, biologists and other scientists, and that we also include the views of evolution proponents and opponents. We should not present minority views as though they are majority ones, but we should also make sure the minority views are correctly described and not just criticized. Q2: Should Intelligent Design (ID) be equated with creationism? A2: ID is a form of creationism, and many sources argue that it is identical. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and Phillip E. Johnson, one of the founders of the ID movement, stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept.[1][2] Not everyone agrees with this. For example, philosopher Thomas Nagel argues that intelligent design is very different from creation science, in that it does not depend on distortion of the evidence, or on the assumption that it is immune to empirical evidence. It depends only on the idea that the hypothesis of a designer makes sense and that it is not assigned a vanishingly small probability (see "Public Education and Intelligent Design", Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 36, no. 2, 2008). Although intelligent design proponents do not name the designer, they make it clear that the designer is the Christian god.[3][4][5][1] In drafts of the 1989 high-school level textbook Of Pandas and People, almost all derivations of the word "creation", such as "creationism", were replaced with the words "intelligent design".[6] Taken together, the Kitzmiller ruling, statements of ID's main proponents, the nature of ID itself, and the history of the movement, it becomes apparent—Discovery Institute's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding—that ID is a form of creationism, modified to appear more secular than it really is. This is in line with the Discovery Institute's stated strategy in the Wedge Document. Q3: Should ID be characterized as science? A3: The majority of scientists state ID should not be characterized as science. This was the finding of Judge Jones during the Kitzmiller hearing, and is a position supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.[7] Scientists say that ID cannot be regarded as scientific theory because it is untestable even in principle. A scientific theory predicts the outcome of experiments. If the predicted outcome is not observed, the theory is false. There is no experiment which can be constructed which can disprove intelligent design. Unlike a true scientific theory, it has absolutely no predictive capability. It doesn't run the risk of being disproved by objective experiment. Notes and references Phillip Johnson: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." Johnson 2004. Christianity.ca. Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin. "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." Johnson 1996. World Magazine. Witnesses For The Prosecution. "So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing"—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do." Johnson 2000. Touchstone magazine. Berkeley's Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science."…"Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?"…"I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." Johnson 1999. Reclaiming America for Christ Conference. How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won Dembski: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999 Wedge Document Discovery Institute, 1999. "[M]embers of the national ID movement insist that their attacks on evolution aren't religiously motivated, but, rather, scientific in nature." … "Yet the express strategic objectives of the Discovery Institute; the writings, careers, and affiliations of ID's leading proponents; and the movement’s funding sources all betray a clear moral and religious agenda." Inferior Design Chris Mooney. The American Prospect, August 10, 2005. "ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief." Expert Witness Report Barbara Forrest Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, April, 2005. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., pp. 31 – 33. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., 4. Whether ID is Science, p. 87

	Rejection of evolution by religious groups was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 22, 2006 Good article nominee Listed October 4, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted November 25, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Delisted good article

This article was nominated for deletion on December 11, 2004. The result of the discussion was keep.

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Religion High‑importance Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Creationism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. History of Science High‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity High‑importance Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Evolutionary biology High‑importance Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Palaeontology High‑importance Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Geology High‑importance Geology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Astronomy Bottom‑importance Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia. Bottom This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Atheism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. For more information and how you can help, click the [Show] link opposite: If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page. Quick help Project's main talk page Article layout Links to atheism-related information · List of free online resources Writing about religion · Article development Citing sources · Verifying sources · About original research Assume good faith · Be civil Recent activity Core articles the "Atheism" article Articles recently added to Category:Atheism To do edit history watch purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold. Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members. Help with articles. See this month's adopt-an-article. Help out with this to-do list. Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles). Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box) Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it. Maintenance, etc. Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references). Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process). Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly. Always write for an encyclopedia. Articles to improve Agnosticism Create Articles on notable atheists Expand an atheism stub Immediate attention State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments. False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes. Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century.

To-do list for Rejection of evolution by religious groups: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2020-05-02 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : *Arguments relating to the definition, limits and philosophy of science' section. Expand : *'Forums for the controversy' section should go beyond debates, and eventually add an introductory sentence. 'Public policy issues' & 'Issues relating to religion' sections require introductory paragraphs to provide an overview and give structure to their sub-sections.

Text and/or other creative content from Creationism was copied or moved into Creation vs. evolution debate on October 29, 2004. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

	Archives: Index Antiquity – November 2004 November 2004 – December 2004 December 2004 – December 2004 December 2004 – January 2005 January 2005 – January 2005 January 2005 – February 2005 February 2005 – March 2005 March 2005 – September 2005 September 2005 – December 2005 December 2005 – January 2006 January 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – July 2006 July 2006 – October 2006 October 2006 – December 2006 December 2006 – January 2007 January 2007 – April 20, 2007 April 20, 2007 – May 5, 2007 May 5, 2007 – October 31, 2007 October 31, 2007 – March 31, 2008 March 31, 2008 – January, 2009 January, 2009 – August, 2011 August, 2011 – April, 2014 December, 2014 – August, 2015 August, 2015 –
	This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 3.

Do young Earth creationists reject all science?

I see an edit war going on between some (?) IP editors, who are trying to soften the stance of young Earth creationists to say that they reject all science "on the issue", and some Wikipedia regulars who are insisting on "all science" (period). I find the latter claim implausibly broad (do they reject Newton's laws? Classical thermodynamics?), and the burden of proof should be on them. So what do the sources say? Unfortunately, most of the citations clustered at the end of the paragraph don't mention young Earth creationism at all, as far as I can tell. I'm going to tag some of them. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, none of the sources support the first half of the sentence. I have also come to realize that the sentence contradicts itself, saying that "this view" completely rejects science, and then saying that creation science attempts to prove that young Earth creationism is consistent with science. This latter statement is actually supported by some of the sources, particularly the one by Eugenie Scott. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Young Earth Creationists reject everything that does not agree with their interpretation of the Bible, science, history, philosophy, math, medicine; you name it, and if it can neither conform to or be distorted in order to conform to a YEC's favorite misinterpretation of the Bible, they will reject it and denounce it as the Devil's excrement.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

e/c I was going to say the same, but less eloguemntly!! -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 22:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you - this is Wikipedia. What are your sources for this statement? RockMagnetist(talk) 22:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My spelling above, for one thing. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 22:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Among other things, RockMangetist, have you ever bothered to look at Young Earth Creationist sites to begin with, let alone that they are rife with anti-science propaganda? did you read the sources and note that they don't actually state Creation Science/Young Earth Creationist is consistent with science?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Astrophysics, astronomy, nuclear physics, geophysics, geochemistry, geology, paleontology, biology, evolutionary theory, genetics, molecular biology, paleobiology, and anthropology, according to https://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/stearns/expert_witness_ayala.pdf (Ayala 2007). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I need to apologize beforehand, but also need to say this. Mr Fink, the only way you could make the statement of "Young Earth Creationists reject everything that does not agree with their interpretation of the Bible, science, history, philosophy, math, medicine; you name it, and if it can neither conform to or be distorted in order to conform to a YEC's favorite misinterpretation of the Bible, they will reject it and denounce it as the Devil's excrement." would be if you were speaking for the entire group. I can't, and haven't heard of anyone who can. You are speaking of a group of individuals who may be influenced to an extent by those who lack sufficient knowledge. Given that, I fail to see how this type of hostility I'm seeing here is in like with the WP purpose. The idea is to provide quality articles. How that is to be accomplished is also defined in the guidelines for editing and conflict resolution. So the internal structure of WP is defined. Now how does that get accomplished amid the emotionally charged dialog I see? There does seem to be some type of conflict, if it is only the apparent hostility being tossed around above. If the idea is to hurl accusation and insult, I see that being accomplished. What I don't see is definitive methodology leading to improvement. Can we get to that? I'm also at least a little surprised that User:Tgeorgescu would be here in like manner, yet as I suspected, there may be some affiliation suspect of WP:COI: "ncse.com", tells the story. I'm calling for disclosure at this point for affiliation to the organization: National Center for Science Education (N.C.S.E.). The NCSE is decidedly biased in their anti-religious POV. Any affiliation with them is cause for COI concern. Are any editors on this page, or in this article, affiliated with NCSE? I'm asking for good faith disclosure. I don't see any disclosures listed on the article page or this one. If I missed something, help me out and direct me to the place where any disclosures might be found.BRealAlways (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The NCSE does not have an anti-religious POV, except when religious groups try to have their beliefs taught as fact in science classes. Even if editors are not "affiliated" with the NCSE, it is unsurprising that most will agree with a group whose purpose is to keep science teaching restricted to facts and reality. Black Kite (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, creationists live in a parallel universe with alternative facts where creationism is valid science and where non-religious equals anti-religious. If you want to write articles that pretend that the parallel universe is the real world, you will not be happy editing Wikipedia. There is actually a Wiki for that parallel universe: Conservapedia. You will not succeed morphing Wikipedia into another Conservapdeia, so maybe you should directly go there instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BRealAlways:, I make and stand by my statement that "Young Earth Creationists reject everything that does not agree with their interpretation of the Bible, science, history, philosophy, math, medicine; you name it, and if it can neither conform to or be distorted in order to conform to a YEC's favorite misinterpretation of the Bible, they will reject it and denounce it as the Devil's excrement" due to both personal observations of Young Earth Creationists demonizing literally everyone who commits the sin of disagreeing with them, i.e., Answers In Genesis staff twisting "I respect all religions" into a tacit confession to promoting Satanically inspired ritual cannibalism, and personal interactions with Young Earth Creationists explicitly belittling me as a hellbound idiot for committing the sin of not believing God magically poofed the world into existence over the course of six 24 hour days exactly 4 to 10,000 years ago, or praying me to go to Hell for committing the sin of pointing out that it's physically impossible for the last mammoths to be frozen by magical falling pieces of magic ice falling from a magical floating ice dome, or even that scientists, in general, are a bunch of Satanic idiots engaged in a centuries-spanning conspiracy to hate Jesus for no profit beyond hating Jesus.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since everyone is sharing their POV on the subject, I may as well chime in. As a preacher's kid from multigenerations of YEC, but now an atheist, I'd word it differently. I have two medical educations and have worked in YEC university settings and medical centers alongside medical and scientific researchers who were YEC. They live a compartmentalized existence, so here's a more accurate statement:

YECs "reject those aspects of science, history, philosophy, math, and medicine that do not agree with their interpretation of the Bible, but believe, practice, and research all other aspects of those subjects just as other, non-YEC, people do."

There are large areas of science and medicine where they will agree with others and their YEC beliefs are not evident. But there are areas where their deviance from science-based thinking will become evident. So it's not "all", but just that which disagrees with the Bible, which isn't everything. As with much in life, "all" is an extreme, and rarely true, exaggeration. Use a bit of common sense. -- Valjean (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The editors with a COI in relation to the NCSE are likely those making requests at Talk:National Center for Science Education to avoid editing the article themselves. There's only one that I'm somewhat familiar with and he's not very active on Wikipedia. I also don't find edits from him in this article's history or on this talk page. But the NCSE is notable, so it's not surprising for it to have mentions. Its focus is science education, that especially in the US has a history of corruption. An encyclopedia promoting public education and with academic bias (WP:ABIAS) like Wikipedia is compatible with that, it seems. This article also mentions theistic evolution and includes a source from the BioLogos Foundation that can be considered apologetic but does not promote rejection of evolution. —PaleoNeonate – 18:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My final analysis of this section is that it's out of control. Opinions based on "conversion from YEC to atheism" are a contrived way of expressing an opinion that is not backed up by anything other than personal POV. What I would be looking for is sources. Those hapless individuals plagued with YEC sugarplums dancing in their heads would be better served by producing content that is unbiased, pointing out the error of their ways. The verbiage above doesn't accomplish the task. Harboring an obvious animosity or contempt for the "religious" is an unacceptable norm for edits, as far as I can discern from WP guidelines for editing. That is one of the reasons I called for disclosure of affiliation. Though this is a talk page, it is not a general forum for discussion of material superficial to the article, unless it is included to support improvement of the article (with sources, of course).

User:PaleoNeonate, While it may seem innocent enough to conceptually limit the activities of a radical group to a specific topic, if we apply that same reasoning to Hitler's activities, we would end up in a position under his boot. Working under a similar assumption, if the N.C.S.E. is only about science education, why would they be concerned at all about religion? BRealAlways (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What specific changes to the article are being proposed here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the article has no merit in and of itself. Therefore it should be removed from the stacks. This will, of course be a point of conflict, but be it as it may. It comes across as a propaganda piece against religion, and doesn't cover the topic sufficiently. It is sparse on scholarly sources. Big surprise! I'm seeing Eugenie Scott and Richard Dawkins show up in the list of references. Eugenie Scott = N.C.S.E. Anyone here affiliated with that group in any way? Just a question. Yes, I move for deletion. The world will not suffer if a list of anti-religion revolutionaries don't have their day in court. If it were a scholarly piece, it would include "Religious Groups", rather than singling out Judeo-Christians. This is the only religious group I see mentioned in the article. Surely this is not the only religious group in the world that rejects evolution theory as given. If it isn't canned, it should be seriously rewritten, as in be serious about covering the topic properly and fairly. WP is not for painting targets on any religion.BRealAlways (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BRealAlways, if you want this article deleted, your next step is to go to WP:AFD and follow the instructions. --McSly (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to ping me. Sure, Scott did important work against the corruption of education and is very notable for that. Why would that be Wikipedia's problem? —PaleoNeonate – 23:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, deletion isn't absolutely necessary, but a major rewrite is the only saving factor. For example a contradictory statement is made in paragraph 4: "The Catholic Church recognizes the existence of evolution ...". The pope is then quoted as saying "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve." This is not a recognition of the existence of evolution theory, but the defining of the reliance of evolution theory on Creation, thus, a Creator. In engineering terms, God is the Designer of all self replicating machines (if life forms are to be classified as such). Some people are much smarter than I am, and might view such nonsense as an insult to their intelligence. The problem seems to be much bigger than a single article. This is only the tip of the iceberg from what I have already seen. I'll ask for advice before moving to delete. Thanks, McSly BRealAlways (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you mention that the NCSE is some sort of radical atheist group. Doug Weller talk 18:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our own interpretation of what the Pope meant is not usable per WP:OR, but if you mean that many Catholics believe in theistic evolution I think that there are sources supporting that, one is from Scott,^[1] Theistic evolution also appears to use this one.^[2] There's also an article about the Watchmaker analogy... —PaleoNeonate – 23:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of WP:COI is laughable. I mean: really funny!

Other remarks: at Wikipedia we do not sing Kumbaya, My Lord. We sing A mighty fortress is mainstream science.

There is life outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not have a monopoly on Net 2.0. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Me, on the other hand... —PaleoNeonate – 04:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. Scott, Eugenie C. (1997). "Antievolution and Creationism in the United States". Annual Review of Anthropology. 26: 263–289. JSTOR 2952523.
2. Bowler, Peter J. (2003). Evolution:The History of an Idea. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-23693-6.

This section shouldn't exist according to talk page guidelines. I will, however, answer the above opening edit to an extent. Some good information on the history of Young Earth Creationism can be found here [[1]]. The research was done by 2 authors who looked into the origin in a systematic fashion. Their book must go into the subject more thoroughly, although I haven't read it personally. Those who are interested in knowing more about the topic may want to purchase a copy. The page gives a sequence of development for the Young Earth paradigm from the origin to a point near the present (subject to date of publishing and revision). The authors have found that certain factions or sects of Christianity held to certain literal translations of selected text. This is an excerpt from the author's book: "The “heretical” and “infidel” tendencies of modern geology were roundly condemned by some churchmen, few of whom had any knowledge of geology, although there were a handful of individuals who had produced acceptable field-based studies of regional geology in Great Britain. These “Scriptural geologists,” however, found themselves increasingly marginalized by the vast majority who had extensive working geological knowledge and were now convinced that the Earth is very old."

Hope this helps. What affect it may have on article improvement is unknown at this point. The section doesn't appear to have been created for that purpose, but looking at the history of a movement always helps to determine why it is what it is. YEC doesn't seem to have been formed for any other reason than to be a "follow me" paradigm. It (YEC) is a radical isolate, not founded on sound principles. The entirety of their belief system appears to be due to the types of relationships developed by Jim Jones and David Koresh. Need I say more? Your question doesn't follow, unless it is leading to article improvement. BRealAlways (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

re: "Our own interpretation of what the Pope meant is not usable per ...". I did not interpret what the Pope meant. I interpreted what he said in the framework of the assertion. The article is self contradictory on that issue. If a person says something they don't mean, then how can I assume they mean what they say? There is a minimum expectation that a person is not suffering from some mental disorder that dissociates their ability to transmit their thoughts cogently. What you suggest is "putting words into other people's mouths". That should only be done when the person is aware of the conversation. That way, they would be able to explain to us all whether they are being "interpreted" correctly. BRealAlways (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned the discussion is done here, unless perhaps more specific proposals were done with citations. WP:BRD is also a good guide. Another possibility is creating text drafts in a sandbox for review by other editors. —PaleoNeonate – 08:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has the rejection of evolution died out?

The rejection of evolution by religious groups surely is a very notable topic, especially in the filed of American culture wars, so this article has a great deal of references. This article covers mostly the rejection of evolution by American fundamentalists in the 2000s, when it was a prominent issue in the culture wars, in the context of the creation of Conservapedia and the foundation of the Creation Museum, when even president George W. Bush was in favor of the teaching of "intelligent design".

However, this article has few, but any, references to rejection of evolution in the 2010s and 2020s. I know American politics and debates are very complex (if not crazy), but as an educated guess, it seems that the subject of this article has become dated and historical, because rejection of evolution still exists but is no longer propagated by its foremost supporters, American conservatives. The culture wars have shifted, have you seen Donald Trump defending the teaching of intelligent design? The former real estate magnate and U.S. President surely is an indicator that the political polarization in the U.S. still exists but its subjects change.

Just to be clear, I know that evolution is a fact, and the rejection of evolution is a purely political discussion, not a scientific controversy. I just say that this article has become dated as American politics surprise us every day with a new polarizing subject, and it seems the subject of this article has moved on. 2804:14D:8084:A496:7882:1F19:B1E4:27D0 (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it could be true. Do you have a source for your claim? tgeorgescu (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"references to rejection of evolution in the 2010s and 2020s." The article is probably outdated, but the Ark Encounter opened in 2016, and is used to propagate Young Earth creationism to gullible audiences. That Donald Trump does not seem to care about the topic does not mean that creationism has suddenly died out. Dimadick (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, this is definitely still a commonly-held belief. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"the rejection of evolution is a purely political discussion, not a scientific."??? Not entirely true. Yes, it is not a subject of real controversy within the world of science, but it is just as much a theological POV and doctrine as ever within the many conservative groups that elevate the authority of the Bible over anything from science. Whether or not it is a prominent point of discussion in politics is just part of the normal ebb and flow of discourse. The underlying beliefs are still there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

@Bishonen: I dispute your claim that there is "nothing unscientific" about the word "fact," and let me explain why. The main thing I need to address is the word "theory," which means something very different in popular discourse than a scientific theory, which I linked to in my edit. Take for example the theory of heliocentrism. You're probably thinking "that's not a theory, that's a proven fact," but it is in fact "just a theory" because no one has ever been able to travel far enough into outer space to directly observe it happening, especially so when Newton was writing. But it's not a hypothesis either, because it has been standard theory since Newton was writing. That's why in science, we never use the term "just a theory," because once an explanation reaches the level of theory, that's pretty much as close to fact as you're going to get. And this is also true for evolution, which is based not on direct observation of it happening over millions of years, but rather a large corpus of evidence we can access in the present. So therefore, the word "fact" isn't really as "factual" as you think. GOLDIEM J (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't thinking "that's not a theory, that's a proven fact". And the text that you changed never talked about "a proven fact" either. It stated (in the first instance that you changed) that "since the mid-19th century, evolution by natural selection has been established by the scientific community as an empirical scientific fact". Did you click on the link for scientific fact? It's not a simple concept in scientific discourse. Most of your changes are frankly not improvements. For instance, your second change of fact to theory changes "in the scientific community, evolution is accepted as fact" to "in the scientific community, evolution is widely accepted as theory". Seriously, widely accepted as theory? And another unhelpful formulation: You changed "In Europe and elsewhere, creationism is less widespread (...), and there is much less pressure to teach it as fact" to "In Europe and elsewhere, creationism is less widespread (...), and there is much less pressure to give it balance" (to give what balance, now? balance with what?). Please don't insist on your changes. And let's see what other people think. Bishonen | tålk 14:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I also noticed the same problems, eg "widely accepted as theory " makes no sense.. Doug Weller talk 15:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article concerns and classification

• Reassess article to C-class.

The article has several maintenance tags. It fails the B-class criteria #1, The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.

It is in the following categories:

• Articles with unsourced statements from July 2014,
• Wikipedia articles needing factual verification from April 2017,
• Articles with unsourced statements from April 2017,
• Articles with unsourced statements from July 2023,
• Articles with unsourced statements from January 2024,

As well as:

• Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from April 2017,
• Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2020. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]