Talk:Neo-creationism

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 am sorry but this article is so biased that it should probably be just deleted. I am a biologist, so hardly biased towards creationism, and wanted to learn what neo-creationist movement is, what are their main claims and what evidence/arguments neo-creationists present to support them but it turned out to be impossible because the article was obviously written by some fundamentalists and haters of the concept. As a scientist I value unbiased information which allows the reader to make their own mind. Going all "evangelical" and spreading propaganda in an encyclopedia is completely inappropriate and makes it useless. To all the rational people reading this (no haters and fundamentalists) who still have doubts if this article is terribly biased and should be deleted - see how huge a difference between the tone of this article and the one on Atheism is. Just start reading both. Really, this is just pathetic and makes wikipedia infamous in academic circles. For now I am going to mark it as POV but I really think it is beyond repair and should just be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.69.76 (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

This article rebelled against intelligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.154.190.174 (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Category:Neo-Creationism

I have nominated Category:Neo-Creationism for merger into Category:Intelligent design here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 20. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Bias

This article is incredibly biased in some sections, and has undertones of trying to discredit neo-creationists. This really should be looked at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.191.192 (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point...they are discredited, and quite thoroughly so. Reporting this fact is perfectly in keeping with our policies. Doc Tropics 20:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Balanced articles should dispassionately describe the arguments for and against a theory. They should not attack the theory, whether it is widely understood to be discredited or not.

Another point, anyone like to write a section on why these crank and backward views seem always to come out of the USA?

whiskey tango foxtrot

"One of its principal claims is that ostensibly objective orthodox science, with a foundation in naturalism, is actually a dogmatically atheistic religion.[4]"

i believe that is an argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy. should i remove? Project2501a (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This is what Johnson says in the referenced tract:

 One reason the Darwinist educators panic at the first sign of public rebellion is that they fear exposure of the implicit religious content in what they are.

I also do not see where the term "ostensibly objective orthodox science" appears in this reference. I am going to delete this sentence. If somebody wants to rewrite it in a more honest manner, have at it.Desoto10 (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

---

This piece:

One of its principal claims is that ostensibly objective orthodox science, with a foundation in naturalism, is actually a dogmatically atheistic religion.

...appears to be well supported by the source:

"ostensibly objective orthodox science"

The root of the problem is that "science" has been given two contradictory

definitions in modern culture. On the one hand, science refers to a method of investigation involving procedures like careful measurements and repeatable experiments. Science by definition requires investigators to maintain a skeptical attitude, insisting that all claims be carefully tested. That requirement of unbiased testing should extend to the central Darwinist claims that some combination of chance and physical law is sufficient to cause life to emerge spontaneously from non-living chemicals, and that the Darwinist mechanism of random genetic variation and natural selection is capable of designing complex organs such as brains and vision systems. There is no proof that natural selection- or any law/chance combination- has any of the creative power Darwinists claim for it. Dawkins concedes that even the simplest living organisms contain immense amounts of genetic information, and natural selection has no demonstrated information-creating

power.

"with a foundation in naturalism":

That lack of proof should be enough to discredit Darwinism, except that the

second definition of science comes to the theory’s rescue by dispensing with the need for proof. Science has become identified with a philosophy known as materialism, or naturalism. This philosophy insists that nature is all there is, and nature is made up of particles. It follows that matter had to do its own creating, and that the means of creation must not have included a role for anything outside of nature, such as God. Scientists guided by this second definition are not permitted to approach materialism with open minds or skeptical questions, but must believe it on faith and consider no objections. If materialism is true, then something at least roughly like Darwinism must also be true as a matter of logic, because materialist science has no viable alternative. Scientific inquiry is limited to the details, because the fundamental points are all decided by defining “science” as

applied materialist philosophy.

"is actually a dogmatically atheistic":

The reason the theory of evolution is so important to society is that it is the2

main scientific prop for a godless philosophy that either repudiates Christian theism or confines it to the marginal realm of subjective personal experience that has no standing as public knowledge. Students first learn to recite that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection, and random variation. That means that God is out of the picture, and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a purposeless universe. It is futile for Christians to try to reconcile their faith with Darwinist claims by imagining that natural selection is God’s means of creating, because the claim that natural selection has creative power is derived not from impartial testing of evidence, but from a materialist philosophy that excludes God by definition.

All the most prominent Darwinists proclaim atheism when they are not trying to disarm the religious people with illusory reassurances. Carl Sagan had nothing but contempt for any who deny that humans and all other species "arose by blind physical and chemical forces over eons from slime." Richard Dawkins exults that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist," and Richard Lewontin has written that scientists must stick to philosophical materialism regardless of the evidence, because "we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Stephen Jay Gould condescendingly offered to allow religious people to express their subjective opinions about morals, provided they don't interfere with the authority of scientists to determine the "facts" - one of the facts being that God is merely a comforting myth.

I will admit that the sentence needs a bit of rewritting -- materialism is part of the indictment, not the "ostensible" bit, and Johnson does not call atheism a "religion", but the bare bones are there. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Liberty University

In the article, I noticed this sentence: "Notable examples are the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture." It is not incorrect, however, I would like to add that Liberty University is a notable example of a Neo-creationist group which run scientific enterprises that they say conduct legitimate scientific research, possibly even more so then Discovery, since they are accredited by Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. I am new to editing pages, so I'm reluctant to change this myself right now. Do I need to prove the Neo-creationism of LU in this 'talk', or is this not necessary, given the fact that this is generally well known? Helemaalnicks (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the difference between the subject matter of this article and Intelligent design movement?

Question as per section title. There are indeed several other articles which apparently overlap >50% in subject matter, but this couple seem the most blatant and apparently have no significant difference at all in their target topic?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I cannot even find any reliable sources that even use the term neo-creationism. Apparently Eugenie Scott made up the term to make her opponeents sound irrational, but the term never caught on. If a columnist criticized Pres. Obama's foreign policy as "neo-Cheneyism", someone might create an article on neo-Cheneyism. That is what this article is like. Roger (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Where were you looking? Normally I would start with a scholar search, but in this case it's as simple as looking at the article in question, which contains a list of sources that have used the term: Neo-creationism#Criticism. N^oformation ^Talk 23:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at the references in the article. None of them have anyone but Scott using the term. The article says that Morris accepted the term, but in fact he only quoted Scott using the term. If you find a suitable reference of someone other than Scott using the term, then please put it in the article. Otherwise the article should be re-titled "Eugenie Scott's favorite neologism". Roger (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, without delving too far into this my guess is that this is a case of all cherries being red but not all red things being cherries. That is, ID is a form of neo-creationism but is not equivalent to it and is not the only one. Perhaps reading the sources I pointed out above would allow you to tighten the article a bit if you have the inclination. N^oformation ^Talk 23:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Have been looking. At this stage, I think the two articles should be merged. The subject matter is defined the same way. It appears that being an intelligent design proponent is what turns a creation scientist into a neo-creationist? (But even if it was only 95% the same normally we would not have two articles for these.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, so looking at material in this article, is there anything in it which is not effectively already covered in Intelligent design movement?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave it as an exercise for someone else to create a redirect for neo-creationist movement. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neo-creationism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timesofoman.com/newsdetails.asp?newsid=11764

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Tactic of denying creationism or creator

What's a good way to describe the ID tactic of denying that "evidence of design" implies a specifically supernatural Creator? I mean, we all know that ID broke away from Creation Science - which began with the premise of "God Himself" (as in Genesis) - and began to present anti-evolutionary arguments entirely in scientific terms. That's why opponents call it neo-Creationism: the goal posts have moved slightly and some of the ground rules are different (think rugby vs. American football). But the purpose is the same.

The ID movement seems to be trying to argue that there is a role for a supernatural Creator (i.e., God) but they want to have their cake and eat it too. On the one hand, they tell their followers (and funders!) that they are promoting God; on the other hand, they tell school boards that they are merely pointing out flaws in "Darwinism".

I'd like to see something in the article (or another article, if this is not exactly the right place) about the tactic of simultaneously (a) denying that ID asserts the existence of a supernatural creator - while (b) asserting that "unguided forces" alone are insufficient to account for human origins, i.e., observed facts imply design by (some sort of) a designer.

We could mention anyone who says this is sheer poppycock and a deliberate sham, along with anyone (Dawkins, maybe?) who see nothing wrong with denying that ID has a supernatural premise while promoting an argument which seems to imply the need for the supernatural. Assuredly, such a person would be in a minority - maybe even smaller than the percentage of climate scientists who doubt that people have caused most of the last century and a half of global warming. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Limits of the scientific approach

• Its proponents argue that the scientific method excludes certain explanations of phenomena, particularly where they point towards supernatural elements ...

Is merely something that neo-creationists argue, or do scientists openly admit (or forcefully maintain) that the scientific method has to exclude any and all supernatural explanations? I vaguely recall some sources warning that if ghosts or spirits are allowed as possible causes for a phenomenon, there would be no way to test this notion - no falsifiability or replication of results. Some have even spoken of (1) methodological naturalism as a cornerstone of modern science, arguing that there is no way to conduct the scientific enterprise without it. Yet some creationists have argued that methodological naturalism tends to lapse into (2) scientific materialism.

I wonder if we can amplify the distinction between (1) and (2) and maybe even describe the controversy over how well that distinction is observed in practice and/or how this affects the creation-evolution controversy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes it has been explicitly argued, but of course it goes beyond ghosts. Francis Bacon had to argue against Aristotles science which did allow or even demand that invisible causes needed to be taken into account when explaining nature. It is of course a vague idea of that history which the Neocreationists draw upon without much understanding. Bacons arguments are also largely forgotten by those who follow the project he proposed but in general as you say the falsifiability concept is a kind of twisted memory of it that however was invented long after modern science was doing just fine; and scientists do maybe even unconsciously keep away from using explanations that require unobservable things.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe in gravity, electricity, magnetism, and microwaves - even though I can't see any of them. But the question is whether a deliberate act by a being can cause something really important. No one thinks Stonehenge is the result of erosion, even if it's no longer known who erected it or why (see Theories about Stonehenge).

But I did not come to this article to advance any particular argument; rather, to clarify the arguments that major/reliable sources have already made. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Neo-creationism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060829011506/http://www.coralridge.org/darwin/ to http://www.coralridge.org/darwin/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150809025945/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/back_to_the_quo.html to http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/back_to_the_quo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)