Talk:Neo-creationism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
 Archives |
Contents |
[edit] Untitled rant
Does anybody really think this is a decent article? I'm certainly no friend of creationism in any of its forms, but this article has obvious POV problems. It basically starts with the assumption that "intelligent design" advocates are trying to deceive people about their true motives. That might be true, but it's not "encyclopedic" to assume as much from the get-go, which is what this article does. If Skeptical Inquirer published a glossary, this is what I think their entry on intelligent design would read like, which means this article does not meet POV standards.
-
- I think TalkOrigins has the Wedge Strategy document somewhere which strongly implies deception. I also changed changed "scientific creationism" to "creation science" where appropriate-both are misnomers as neither uses any scientific method, but creation science is the more accepted term. 67.184.132.39 (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
A quality article, in my view, should describe the origins of the term "neo-creationism", explain why it is distinct from traditional creationism (if indeed it is), lay out the views of its proponents, and then (and ONLY then) get around to the point that skeptics consider the whole thing an evangelical Christian front movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.248.171 (talk) 09:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Problems
This article is slowly turning into a piece of crud. We are not allowed to call biblical literalism biblical literalism? We have to call it plain meaning? And we have to assume there are two types of science, naturalistic science and nonnaturalistic science? This is complete nonsense. There is NO SUCH thing as nonnaturalistic science. I challenge anyone to show me a reliable source, say in Science magazine, or Scientific American, or National Academy of Sciences, or Royal Society Journal, or Nature magazine, or something equivalent that such a thing as nonnaturalistic science exists. This is outrageous. We are an encyclopedia, not a religious recruiting tract.--Filll (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- The naturalistic/nonnaturalistic cruft is a recent addition & I've gotten rid of it. What's this about "not allowed to call biblical literalism biblical literalism"? I'd be surprised if there's a consensus for this 'policy', so it would probably be safe to revert it. HrafnTalkStalk 23:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
It was maybe the last few edits. I was watching it devolve and a bit unsure if I should revert or not.--Filll (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks like this entry should be divied into a few more sections perhaps, proponents and opponents (though termed more appropriately). Terms like "biblical literalism" should be preserved as they are not derogatory in nature as verified by a simple definition. A distinction between "naturalistic" and "nonnaturalistic" science is justified given the fact that our views of "science" are at least partially informed by various historical processes, and it is not beyond reason to assume that there is at least a potential for bias involved that deserves addressing.
Phrasing such as this should be avoided, "Neo-creationists seek nothing less than the replacement of empirical and logical evidence with ideology and dogmatic belief," it is accusational, and honestly, will merely put neo-creationists on the offensive rather than bringing them into a reasonable dialogue. Phrases that are less attacking and contain factual "ammunition" concerning opinion should be considered tolerable, i.e. "Thus, neo-creationism is considered by Eugenie C. Scott and other critics as the most successful form of irrationalism." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.196.172 (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- The phrasing is a bit overly colourful, but "ideology and dogmatic belief" is not an unreasonable characterisation of the theistic realism that IDers are proposing to replace the scientific method with. HrafnTalkStalk 08:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- PS: "'nonnaturalistic' science" is an oxymoron. The "historic processes" in question were that (methodological) naturalism worked as a basis for science, supernaturalism didn't. Case closed. HrafnTalkStalk 08:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Creationist CPOV, Intelligent Design IDPOV, Wedge Strategy WSPOV
I am not sure what the writer below is trying to get at? I am seen enough creationwikipedia on creationism to scare the bejesus out of me. Perhaps this is a form of Wedge Strategy arising from the Intelligent Design political-religious movement, their monograph is available from Discovery Institute. the commentary below appears calculated to mislead the topic.
If people want creationist bias, Conservapedia.com and Creationwiki.org is their next stop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy Editorial please check article for vandalism asap.
--220.239.179.128 (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Neo-Creationism
I have nominated Category:Neo-Creationism for merger into Category:Intelligent design here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 20. HrafnTalkStalk 15:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
