Category talk:Creationists

Text transfered from the Alan Keyes talk page

Background: There was a discussion about whether Keyes should be regarded as a creationist. There is a clear difference of opinion with regard to who should be considered as a Creationist. Some, as argued by Jason Gastrich below, think that all Christians (and many non-Christians) are creatioinists, others argued that some Christians are not creationists.

---

I would also note that your conclusion that he is a creationist because he "acknowledges his faith in Jesus Christ" is not logical. You know there are many Christians that are not creationsists, Kenneth Miller for one. Unless you are using a definition of creationist which is, again, so broad that it is next to useless and certainly NOT conventional. David D. (Talk) 18:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Not all Christians are creationists. This is an invalid category until proven otherwise. Keyes is a very intelligent man and is therefore probably not a creationist. Harvestdancer 19:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

All Christians believe in the Bible. The Bible tells us that God created. Therefore, all Christians are creationists. A creationist simply believes God created. That's it.

A Christian writer is a Christian minister. His or her writings minister to others. However, a Christian minister is not necessarily a Christian writer. This is what keeps the categories meaningful. Example: JP Holding is a minister. He is not an author. Keyes is both.

A Christian writer isn't necessarily a Christian leader, but if his book is read by millions it would certainly bring him into consideration as one. Nonetheless, Keyes is a Christian and he was an ambassador, so that qualifies him as a Christian leader. A Christian who is a leader is a Christian leader. --Jason Gastrich 21:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

By your definition it seems that any prominent Christian is a Christian leader. is this how you define Christian leader? If so, the category is going to be overwhelmed by Christians that most people do not consider to be Christian leaders. When users go to the category Christian leaders they are expecting to find popes, Billy Graham, Rev Moon and other similar figures in Christian history. Please address this point since it makes no sense to have most Christians in every Christian category.

With respect to ALL christians are creationists, you can only say that using the broadest definition of the term creationist. Creationism would never include people that believe that Genesis is an allegory. Do you claim that this type of Christian is to be viewed as a creationist or do you claim that this type of Christian does not exist? It has to be one or the other. If the former, that is a very atypical view of creationism. David D. (Talk) 21:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed your conversation with Cyde. Looking at Creationist#Types_of_creationism i notice that there is theistic evolution mentioned as a type of creationism. However, where do those Christians that believe that God has had no influence with regard to creation, ever, on earth fit into those defintions? David D. (Talk) 21:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

So in your view "creationism" is an extremely wide tent. It basically includes anyone who believes in religion. That's one way of looking at it. But the standard way of looking at it is that "creationist" means someone who says life was created by God pretty much in its present form rather than evolving over millions or billions of years. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 21:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

See Creationist and look on the right hand side. The term creationist (or creationism) has a wide variety of differences among its adherents. The term is general. I wouldn't say Keyes is a YEC. I don't know that. I'm am certain that he believes God created, though. --Jason Gastrich 21:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It just occurs to me that your definition of the word makes it a synonym of theist, which is unnecessarily broad. Your broad definition includes Last Thursdayists, Young Earthers, Old Earthers, theistic evolutionists, and everything else inbetween. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 21:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You really need to read Creationist and examine that article. This isn't my definition. Your definition is incorrect as it contradicts Wiki's and is too narrow. --Jason Gastrich 21:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Gastrich, I'm a theist. I accept Big Bang Theory and Evolutionary Theory. Am I a creationist because I'm a theist? It seems the one in need of reading isn't Cyde. Harvestdancer 22:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You need to read a little more carefully. I never said all theists were creationists. I said all Christians were creationists; according to the Wiki definition of creationist. --Jason Gastrich 23:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll ask again, where do those Christians that believe that God has had no influence with regard to creation, ever, on earth fit into those defintions of creationist? David D. (Talk) 04:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The hypothetical person you mention holds a contradictory viewpoint. Christians believe in the Bible. The Bible teaches that God created. Therefore, Christians are creationists and the hypothetical person you describe cannot exist. --Jason Gastrich 21:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

What makes you think these are hypothetical Christians? Your assertion that ALL Christians believe God created earth and life is unjustified even if that is your own experience. i suspect you would not call these people Christians since they do not conform to your statement of faith but this is not the point since they describe themselves as Christians. So what is Kenneth Miller's stance on creation? Has he shared his views? David D. (Talk) 21:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I see no statement from this man that tells me he is a Christian. Do you have one? I only see a label from someone that he is a Roman Catholic and (not that this matters much, but) Wiki seems to make a distinction between Christians and Roman Catholics. All I see is that he is an evolution proponent. Are you saying he is a Christian who rejects creation? Can you show me where he has said this? --Jason Gastrich 21:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, so every Christian is a creationst? I know many christians who would disagree with that. Harvestdancer 21:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

i will continue here since the indents are getting out of control. Roman catholics are definitely Christian. Where does wiki distinguish them as something else? The moral is don't believe everything you read on wikipedia. With regard to Kenneth Miller (who is a roman catholic Christian) I don't know what his position is on Creation. I know he does not have a problem with evolution, so it is possible he is an example of a Christian who believes that God set the universe in motion (created at the time of the big bang) and then the rest of history just followed the physical rules without the intervention of God. If he does believe this, and insists he is a Christian, would you still categorise him as a creationist? Or are you saying these people have to form a off shoot religion from Christianity?

While we are at it, are creationists only Christian or should the term, with respect to the wikipedia categories, also include other religions? David D. (Talk) 21:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Are we to once again be subjected to self-serving attempts by Gastrich to force Wikipedia to be conform to his views of what is and is not a "Christian?" His claim that Wikipedia makes such a "dictinction" between Christians and Catholics is entirely disingenuous, and is influenced by his own peculiar reading of Wikipedia text and his anti-Catholic bias. Notice his "I" talk: "All I see is that he is an evolution proponent," according to Gastrich. Not only is that good enough for him, and should require no more thought or consideration, it must be good enough for everyone else, as well, at least at Wikipedia. A dispassionate view, uncolored by religious biases, clearly reveals that Catholicism is simply a specific form of Christianity, as distinguished from Protestantism. One can further study the history of the Christian movement and understand the roots of the controversy, but they must not be allowed to color the content of a secular encyclopedic resource. If all Gastrich sees is an evolution proponent, in large part because Miller is Catholic, then his view is slanted, biased, and laden with a non-neutral POV. WarriorScribe 21:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not make that distinction.Harvestdancer 21:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

A schematic of Christian denominational taxonomy.

Neither does history or common sense. There are many kinds of Christians, though we all know about the "true Scotsman" application with respect to that sort of thing, and we also know about the general arrogance of those whom claim that their particular or favored group has it right, while everyone else has it wrong, somewhere or somehow.

It is fair to say that, in a very general sense, all Christians are creationists, that is, if we decide that "creationist" is someone who believes that the Universe was created by God through some mechanism or another. However, the last 45 years or so, particularly, have forced a specific view upon us, that is, that creationists are generally thought to be those who view certain specific passages in the Bible as literal history, leading them to believe that the Universe, and the Earth with it, were created in literally six, twenty-four hour days. If that's the accepted definition of a creationist, then there are lots of Christians who don't meet that criteria, just as there are also lots of Christians who don't think that God had any hand in the natural history of the Universe beyond its initial creation. Of course, to some, these aren't "real Christians," either. In the end, however, Christian theology and tradition says that it's God who makes the determination and it's God who knows. No one, claiming to be a Christian, has the right to decide whether someone is a Christian or not (and I can certainly debate those aspects of Scripture that are interpreted to say otherwise). If Kenneth Miller says he's a Christian, that's good enough. If he's a practicing Catholic, that's evidence of his Christianity, since Catholicism is a Christian religion. WarriorScribe 22:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

WarriorScribe said, "there are also lots of Christians who don't think that God had any hand in the natural history of the Universe beyond its initial creation." Actually, there aren't any at all. Christianity is a theistic religion (believing that God never ceases to maintain and control all of creation), while what you described is deism (believing in God as creator, but not believing in His providence). -- Chris 04:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

A Christian may well believe that God never ceases to maintain control and control all of creation. But that is not the same as believing that God is continually creating. I believe the creationist category should be reserved for Christinas who believe the later. As Warrior scribes points out below and i have mentioned here too, the latter group is not insignificant. David D. (Talk) 20:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I said (or, rather, wrote), and I stand by it. That you don't know of any and appear to subscribe to unnecessarily restrictive definitions of Christianity and theism does not mean that those concepts do not have application outside of your experience. Theism is simply a belief one or more higher beings with "godlike" attributes, but it does not require that he/they/it continually demonstrate those attributes or that he/they/it always demonstrate and never relinquish control or guidance of the Creation. I've run into quite a few Christians (def., followers of Jesus) who are pretty close to deistic in their view of God's participation in the Universe. In fact, before I ultimately abandoned the faith, entirely, that was my view, having seen no evidence of God's intervention, anywhere. Regardless, arguments from incredulity are hardly compelling, but they should at least be properly identified. It may be that you don't know any Christians like that, but they do exist, and I suspect that you may find that they compose a larger percentage of professing Christians than might be supposed, if they were to be honest with themselves and with you. WarriorScribe 05:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

To David: Wiki has categories for Roman Catholics, Methodists, evangelical Christians, born again Christians, etc. This is all I was saying.

"I only see a label from someone that he is a Roman Catholic and (not that this matters much, but) Wiki seems to make a distinction between Christians [emphasis added] and Roman Catholics." I love it when they have to backpedal... WarriorScribe 22:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You may have a good example of someone who is a Christian who is not a creationist, but we won't know unless we read what he says on the topics of his faith and belief about creation. For the sake of categorization, we might want to research this man's words or just call it an abberation. --Jason Gastrich

There is no doubt that there are different sects of Christianity. i agree with that interpretation. but the issue here is how do deal with Christians that do not believe in the creation of life on earth. I do not know if Kenneth Miller is such a person although he is the one public figure that comes to mind. I do not believe he is an abberation, many in the Church of England think that way, many scientists who are religious think that way too. So you need to consider their position under the umbrella of Christianity. Despit the fact that your own version of Christianity does not harbor such beliefs this does not mean you can shoe horn others into wikipedia categories. In summary, it is wrong to say ALL Christians are creationists. David D. (Talk) 22:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

According to Wiki's article on creationism, the category of Creationist can include other faiths. For instance, it would be fully possible for a theistic evolutionist to reject Christ and still believe in creation. Now, if the term category were "biblical creation," that would be another story.

Hope these things help. Glad we could discuss this. --Jason Gastrich 21:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes and this leads to the problem of what is the category intending to convey. i was under the impression it was a narrow category that was representing the subset of Christians that belive in biblical creation. If it is the very broad version of Creationism then you open the category up to Hindu and other religions. I don't particularly care how it is defined (braod or narrow) but i was under the impression that it was the meant to be the sub set of Christianity category. David D. (Talk) 22:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

At this point, I see only two options. 1) We follow Wiki's definition of creationism and use that as our benchmark for the Creationists category. This means it would remain a broad category and include anyone who believes God created. 2) We delete the Creationists category and use YEC, OEC, and perhaps other more specific categories. What do I say? I'm open to the consensus, but I like the idea of having both general and specific categories, so I vote we keep Creationists and follow Wiki's definition of creationism when it comes to each entry's conclusion. --Jason Gastrich 22:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Continuing the discussion

A Christian may well believe that God never ceases to maintain control and control all of creation. But that is not the same as believing that God is continually creating. I believe the creationist category should be reserved for Christians who believe the later. As Warrior scribes points out below and i have mentioned here too, the latter group is not insignificant. David D. (Talk) 20:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think any Christians believe the latter. I think all Christians recognize that biblical creation represents one point in time, in the past. They recognize that matter is neither created or destroyed, now. Would you care to elaborate on what you mean and how this should effect the categories? --Jason Gastrich 20:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Michael Behe definitely believes that creation has happened after the first living organism. He does not seem to believe in 'kinds' being formed in their present (or at least similar) form. I should point out that i misspoke in the paragraph above. I meant to say the creationist category should be reserved for those that believe in the biblical creation or Behe style creation. Those Christians that believe that "God never ceases to maintain control and control all of creation" but believe the creation occured prior to the formation of earth should not be considered creationists. David D. (Talk) 20:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think the conversation has been any more confused than it is at this point. Let's define some terms. What do you call biblical creation? What do you call Behe style creation? Are those two types YEC and OEC, respectively? It would seem so, since Behe is an OEC. I agree that these two camps are Creationists, but according to Wiki's creationism entry, so are theistic evolutionists and several other types, so they must be included in the general, broad category of Creationist.

As I said above, Christians don't believe that God is still creating. Some believe in various types of evolution happening after the first creation, but nothing new has been created. Everything that was to be created was created in the beginning. I believe this is a universal, Christian belief. However, it's somewhat moot. It seems overly clear that we must define Creationist as anyone who meets the Wiki criteria for creationism. We can leave Christianity out of it. --Jason Gastrich 20:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the literal definitions are but this is how I think about it.

• OEC: believe that genesis is true but timeframe in Bible is compressed/metaphorical.
• YEC: believe in literal truth of Bible.

Many YEC and OEC seem to accept evolution with respect to the diversification of kinds. Although, I'm not sure if they all do.

• Theistic evolutionist: (like Behe). Does not dispute that evolution can occur as described by science but believe that certain hurdles must have had designer, such as the bacterial flagellum, as they appear to be irreducibly complex. Another form would be that God created life and let evolution do the rest.
• non creationist Christian: believe that earth and life were formed without God. But do believe that God created the universe.

I think the first three types of Christian would be defined by the common usage of the term creationist. The fourth type of Christian is not a creationist.

• Actually, in retrospect, these last two are both versions of a Theistic evolutionist but believes biological systems require the creative power of God and the other does not. David D. (Talk) 23:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

A separate issue is whether this category is narrow, only contains Christian creationists (would fit with common usage) or whether ALL creationists from every religion are included in this category (the literal usage). I note that user Duncharris created this category. His input would probably be worth seeking. David D. (Talk) 20:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I'm not sure if Behe is a theistic evolutionist or an OEC, I still maintain that we should follow Wiki's definition for creationism when we define who is or isn't a Creationist. Also, I don't believe that your 4th category of Christian exists; but as I keep saying, it's probably a moot point. If we just follow Wiki's definition for creationism when we define each potential Creationist, I don't see how we can go wrong. --Jason Gastrich 21:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

What this boils down to is verifyability and I don't think that being able to verify someone is a Cristian is enough to put them into this category. There needs to be a written or spoken quotes that clearly define someone as being a creationist.

I know you do not think that my fourth category exists but I have met people who classify themselves that way. In general, I think one cannot pigeon hole peoples religious faith. Besides if we put every Christian in this category it would be completely useless. In my opinion, if a person has no notable contributions to the creationist movement or the idea then it seems silly to put them in this category. David D. (Talk) 21:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Many of these need to be subcatted out to category:Young earth creationists. — Dunc|☺ 22:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

I removed the Category:Pseudoscience tag, because not all Creationists or forms of Creationism make scientific claims.

Some certainly do, notably Creation Scientists. They claim that their literal view of Genesis is "scientific". They also reject the Fossil record.

Intelligent Design is also considered pseudoscience; the fact that mainstream science considers ID to be pseudoscience is not disputed anywhere. --Uncle Ed 16:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Not all creationists espouse Intelligent design. Not all creationists reject the fossil record. Not all creationists are scientists, so they can't all be pseudoscientists. DJ Clayworth 16:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is you're including theistic evolutionists. They believe in God creating at the origin of life, or setting the universe in motion (then doing the whole Jesus thing later.) and not creationism. According to the article on theistic evolution in wiki.--Ytaker (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, Theistic evolution is a sub-category of Category:Creationism. Since this is controversial and describes living people, it needs to be removed. StAnselm (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

As is Evolutionism. Neither are considered to actually be subtypes of Creationism, merely closely related topics (incidentally, both are articles, not sub-categories). Given that all Creationism, regardless of form (YEC, OEC, ID, Progressive, etc), involves the denial of the scientific evidence for evolution, it is hard to imagine how it can avoid being pseudoscientific. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed Evolutionism and Theistic evolution from Category:Creationism. Amusingly enough, the cat-tag in the latter article was in a section titled "Creationist opponents of theistic evolution", clearly demonstrating the incongruity of the categorisation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the "pseduoscience" category is a separate case to that of "pseudoscientists", since we are categorising people here. Mike Huckabee, for example, would not claim to be a scientist, so he can't really be called a pseudoscientist, even though he is a creationist. But getting back to Theistic evolution, the alternate name is "evolutionary creationism", which does suggest it's a subset of something called "creationism". StAnselm (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd probably agree with that. Perhaps we need to either (i) create sub-cats that differentiate between those actively involved in formulating & propagating creationist claims versus mere supporters or (ii) remove the mere supporters (many/most? of whom aren't particularly known for their creationism) from the category. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

And the obvious category would be Category:Creation scientists. I've just seen the same problem with Category:Intelligent design advocates - it means Michele Bachmann is listed a "pseudoscientist". StAnselm (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No. Creation science is only one thread of pseudoscientific creationism (one associated almost exclusively with YEC). Inteligent design is another. Additionally, you have a few non-ID-affiliated OECs claiming a scientific basis for their views (e.g. Hugh Ross (creationist)). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about it, it would probably make sense to have Category:Christian creationists → Category:Young earth creationists (unlike OECs, a fairly homogeneous group) → Category:Creation scientists. ID pseudoscientists are almost exclusively already in Category:Discovery Institute fellows and advisors and/or Category:Fellows of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

bad advice

I changed the cate description. The old wording seemed to try to give advice to people, who weren't quite sure where to slot somebody. People should simply follow what reliable sources say, and that's it. --Rob (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed subcats

Per discussion in #Pseudoscience above, I am proposing two new subcategories of Category:Christian creationists:

• Category:Young earth creationists, and within it:
  • Category:Creation scientists

I'll post a notice of this on WT:WikiProject Creationism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware of this discussion, but I created Category:Christian Old Earth creationists, since I thought it would be useful for the category structure to distinguish Old Earth and Young Earth schools. As I've browsed the parent category, I've found that many of the individuals are either identified as or implied to be Young Earth, so it may make sense to transition Category:Christian creationists into a mostly container category, though I don't think everyone would fit neatly into the Young Earth or Old Earth camps. As I populate my new category, I'm only including people reliably sourced as OECs, or those with reliable statements that accurately describe the belief, i.e. "Professor Foo believes that God created the earth 4.5 billion years ago." --BDD (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• However, I'm skeptical of making the categories you mention above subcats of Category:Christian creationists, as not all creationists are Christians, though it often seems that way. (For what it's worth, YEC seems to be almost exclusive to Christians and sympathetic Jews.) My titling was deliberate. Especially with categories of people, precision is important. --BDD (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)