Talk:Creation (theology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. 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. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

I would like to state that the JEPD theory of Biblical authorship that this article discusses as fact is widely been disproved and is rejected by the majority of Evangelical scholars.

Contents

[edit] Oct 05

I removed the redirect to creationism as there is much more to this doctrine than simply the creationist view. KHM03 11:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Please elaborate. How is the concept of creation different from creationism? I am going to revert for now, as the stub you created merely states that 'Christian doctrine is not synonomus [sic] with creationism.' Please continue your work, but please, provide something we can read. All you have provided thusfar is speculation, which is unencyclopedic and adds nothing. -- Ec5618 15:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I intend to add more in the days (and weeks) ahead. Mind you, I'm not opposed to creationism, I just recognize that there are other perspectives of the doctrine in Christendom. I'm going to restore my previous version and add an "under construction" template. I'd ask for a few days grace to get some things up; anyone is free to participate! KHM03 16:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

This is an inappropriate POV-push that creation (theology) is only part of Christianity. I might see including this as a separate article from creationism, but it should not be considered only Christian. Joshuaschroeder 15:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

That's fine; I say we have separate sections of the article explaining creation theology from the perspective of Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc. No problem with that. KHM03 16:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oct 10 05

To date, I have focused upon a structure for the page and the establishment of critical, scholarly background. My intention is to add (soon, I hope) the theological importance of the Biblical stories for the Judeo-Christian communities. Folks are free to help, esp. with the Islamic, Hindu, (et al) parts of the article. KHM03 13:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Changed "a portion of contemporary scholars..." to "mainstream scholars...", which is a true statement; mainstream scholars do believe that Genesis 2 predates Genesis 1...that's not debated in academia.
I also removed this paragraph:
Many other Biblical students and scholars, while in agreement that the focus of chapter 2 is mankind, and not the universe in total, hold that the chapter 2 account is a divinely inspired and accurate accounting of the origin of man.
The opening says nothing about inspiration or accuracy, so the added part was unnecessary (and not relevant). KHM03 17:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creation == Creationism ?

Strictly speaking, all that could be discussed here can also be discussed on Creationism. However, the term "Creationism" is usually reserved for contemporary fundamentalist ???????? ideas: Few people would call Bede a "creationist", even though he believed the world was created in the 40th century BC. That is because Bede was a very intelligent scholar, improving the knowledge of his age, and not some illiterate crackpot. So I suggest that this article should treat the history of the theological discussion of creation (see also Anno Mundi), without being sidetracked by contemporary red herrings, which can safely be delegated to Creationism. 17:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

My personal hope would be that we could use this article to discuss the theology of creation in the light of mainstream, contemporary Biblical scholarship. Creationism is but a piece of creation theology; there are other perspectives. KHM03 19:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] How to reconcile this article with Origin Belief?

This article is very similar to Origin belief. I do think both need their own article though. My suggestion would be to pare down the Origin belief article and move all the origin beliefs which involve a God or Gods of some sort here (the majority do however). Would that be appropriate? Or do others think this article should just redirect there? Any ideas?--Ben 11:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Ohhhh this is theology. My bad. I thought it was going to be "God-only" origin beliefs. never mind then. (Serves me right for not reading closely enough)--Ben 11:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem with quantum mechanics is that their notion of 'nothingness' is different to most people's. Their nothingness is capable of vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles. Whereas in fact nothingness is a state of unreality.

[edit] Expert tag

This article needs the attention of a divinity school student expert in theological matters. It would be especially nice to get someone who was aware of the theological implications of belief in creation and advocacy of creationism in a variety of spiritual traditions from Roman Catholicism to Islam. --ScienceApologist 00:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Been a while

Just took a look at this page on Creation theology and was pretty surprised. Small, little info, and little use, really. I graduated with a BA in Old Testament and studied more in Seminary on theology and other things relating to the OT. If I have time and the resources available (it's a pain looking through all those books) I'd like to whip up this page a bit better. --Monasticknight 22:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources?

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia editing, but it seems that the current version of this 'Creation' document fails to cite it's sources. In example: "It is believed that the "P" source... (...) Hence, the account ends with the establishment of the Sabbath as an act of God, and an important part of the creative process." Who 'believes that the "P" source...'? Can we cite something or someone there? It does not seem neutral to proclaim that the Creation story is fictional by saying 'part of the creative process.' God bless, Captain Vimes 21:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that any re-write of this article use footnote-style sourcing to identify the sources for each specific POV and claim presented. A reviewer needs to be able to verify not just that there are some sources for the article, but that each specific controversial claim or POV is individually appropriately sourced. A long bibliography at the end (presenting lists of books with no page numbers or associations with article content) looks impressive but cannot effectively be used, and hence is essentially worthless so far as meeting the obligation of Wikipedia policies (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:A) is concerned. A non-expert reader cannot be expected to read all these books in their entirety to identify where an article claim is being backed up. Wikipedia policies require that all claims be verifiable by a non-expert reader. Otherwise they aren't backed up at all. (As an extreme example, suppose the entire Library of Congress catalog was cited as a source. It may look impressive, but citing in a way that can't practically be checked is equivalent to not citing at all). Best, --Shirahadasha 19:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Totally disputed tag

I have added a "totally disputed" tag. One fundamental problem with this article, which is essentially an essay presenting a certain academic point of view, is that it presents certain academic scholarship claims as being theology. Mis-attributing academic scholarship claims as "theology" is every bit as violative of WP:V and WP:NPOV as attributing theology claims as "science". A second problem is that it repeatedly presents a single POV as "mainstream." It neither sources this claim, nor presents any other POV. In a subject involving such fundamental divergence as religion, such an approach is simply not appropriate for an encyclopedic article which must be written from a neutral point of view. --Shirahadasha 19:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creationism does not mean biblical inerrancy

I have had an attempt to correct a POV error of the article. Creationism is not the same as Biblical inerrancy. Nor is it necessarily anti-scientific. The view that some transcendent divinity created the cosmos, which has then unfolded according to a divine plan is not the same as a belief that a particular texts is the best description of the process. John D. Croft 01:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution not based on materialism or doctrine

The page has been edited to suggest that evolution is based upon materialism and doctrine. This is in error and reflects a particular "Creationist" POV. In fact as "theistic evolution" shows, (See the work of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin), evolution is independent of materialism and doctrine, but is an interpretation of evidence. This interpretation leads to many views both materialistic (as argued by Dawkins) and non-materialistic (as argued by Swimme and Berry). So I am deleting the statement as a POV pushing. John D. Croft 00:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mess

This article is a bit of a mess, I think. The Mayan section is just one big long quote. The first two sections seem sort of disconnected out, of place and poorly written.--Filll 02:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am confused why the creationism sections are here, although in general they are somewhat reasonable summaries of the history of creationism, with a couple of notable exceptions. I also am not sure about the relation of this to origin beliefs or to creation according to genesis.--Filll 14:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering if some of this violates WP:NOR??--Filll 14:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theory

I changed this article to a more neutral standpoint by writing that Creation is a scientific theory. To say it is only a religious and philisophical belief is not neutral. To say so is biased against it. Neutrality is to say it is a theory, because it is. A theory is according to Webster's, "an analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another." This website itself states that a theory "is an explanation of the observations." That is what creation is through the looking glass of science. I did not write that Creation was a law. If I were to write that it was a law, then I would be biased. Then I would be stating something that leans to what I believe, rather than in the middle. But to state that Creation is a theory is neutral, for it is an analysis, just as evolution and the big bang is, of the facts that scientists know. And to deny it the right to be called a theory is biased, and therefore unacceptable on this website.

When the page on evolution does not state that it(evolution) is a religious(secular humanist, marxist/leninist, and cosmic humanist) belief, but yet states that it is and not that it could be, how can you possibly tell me that it is not neutral to write that Creation could be. As a result of the invalidity of AuntEntropy's accusation that my edit was wrong, I will change the Creation page back.

This website is supposed to be neutral, and to deny that Creation is a scientific theory is anything but neutral. MusicFoot822 (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To claim Creation is a Scientific Theory depends upon an understanding of the nature of Science. As science proceeds by the "scientific method", which proceeds through the testing of hyptheses through the presentation of repeatable evidence, before a process of peer review, to claim that Creation is scientific it needs to meet these criteria. Generally the tests are established as conditions that could disprove the hypothesis, and acceptance is when the disproof fails to occur. As creation has not yet been scientifically tested in this fashion, it therefore cannot be called "Scientific".
The discussion here is listed as an article under the "Theology" banner. Theology is a philosophical and religious subject. To claim Creation is scientific here, therefore is to have it mislabelled. For these reasons I am reverting your edit. John D. Croft (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)