Talk:Politics of creationism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The politics of creationism concerns efforts to change public policy in favor of creationism.
[edit] Rationale
Unnecessary Fork?
I don't think so, but then, I created it. The Creation-evolution controversy article rightfully focuses on the historical and philosophical/ideological debate, yet almost all of the introduction/summary in the beginning is about the political issue of today regarding public policy on teaching creation and evolution in public education. However, this topic is mainly covered in the last section of the article, as Ramifications of the controversy, and seldom mentioned in the main text.
By separating out the political aspects of the controversy in the new entry on the politics of creationism, the new entry can cover the ever changing political issues more in detail, allowing the Creation-evolution controversy article to progress faster towards stability.
-- Terjen 06:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
All of the Ramifications of the controversy section from the Creation-evolution controversy article has now been moved to the politics of creationism entry. Terjen 05:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
History of the creation-evolution controversy now covers the historical aspects of the controversy, leaving the Creation-evolution controversy article to the philosophical debate and the Politics of creationism article to document the attempts on changing public policy. Terjen 05:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What this article might include
I think that the article is redundant if all it does is focus on the battles regarding teaching creationism. However, I think it could become a very interesting and worthwhile addition if it actually took on the politics associated with the creationist movement--the "culture war," alliances with political parties, ideas about taxes and sovergnty (check out Kent Hovind), and so forth. 68.165.23.148 (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Focus on education
There is too much of a focus here on education. I've restructured the article slightly to make it clear how much space is given to the subject. The article also contains unique material not covered in the daughter article; this shouldn't be so, as a summary should be like a lead section in that it contains no information not included in the full coverage. A better summary is needed. Richard001 (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

