VOOZH about

URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Creationism

⇱ Talk:Creationism - Wikipedia

Jump to content
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Creationism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 12 months 👁 Image
Frequently asked questions

Many of these questions arise on frequently on the talk page concerning Creationism.

👁 Image
 To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Should the article characterize creationism as a religious belief? (Yes.)
A1: Yes. Creationism is a religious belief; it is not a theory.
Q2: Should the article use the term myth? (Yes.)
A2: Yes. Myth as used in the context of the article means "a sacred narrative explaining how the world and mankind came to be in their present form." This terminology is extensively used in religion and comparative religion fields of study at the academic and scholarly levels, as well as in many of the reliable sources cited in the article. With this in mind, usage of the term is explicitly supported by WP:RNPOV and WP:WTA.

FAQ notes and references:

👁 Image
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to pseudoscience and fringe science.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

👁 Image
Arbitration ruling on the treatment of pseudoscience

In December 2006, the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision included the following:

  • Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
  • Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
  • Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
  • Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
  • Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
  • Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Broken sentence

[edit]

This attempt at a sentence is faulty: "Mainline Protestants and the Catholic Church reconcile modern science with their faith in Creation through forms of theistic evolution which hold that God purposefully created through the laws of nature, and accept evolution." Specifically, "... God purposefully created through the laws of nature" has no referent (God purposefully created what through the laws of nature?). I'm not sure what the "what" is supposed to be, so I'm not sure how to repair this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[]

Here are some options to complete the sentence: reality, the universe, everything that exists.
As I think that is not the only way in which the sentence in question is a challenge to read, here's my suggested replacement.
"Mainline Protestants and the Catholic Church accept evolution, reconciling modern science with their Christian faith through forms of theistic evolution which hold that God purposefully created the universe through the laws of nature." Jamestnights (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[]

Is Creationsim pseudoscience?

[edit]

I changed the first paragraph to include the sentence:

But lest I be accused of pushing a POV (heaven forbid!), I ask what the official Wikipedia position is on creationism. Is it:

  1. Officially considered pseudoscience (on the basis of an ArbCom, consensus, etc.); or
  2. Generally believed to be pseudoscience by a most editors; or
  3. Regarded as pseudoscience by nearly all reputable scientists; or
  4. Not really something Wikipedia has a position on

No matter which it is (or even if it's something else), I promise not to edit war on this. I just like the word considered. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[]

Of course it is, so I changed it back. - Roxy the dog 17:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[]
Per WP:LEAD and WP:BALANCE, yes it is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[]
Yes it is. Carlstak (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[]
Hi Ed, it's been restored to the previous version which better meets WP:FALSEBALANCE policy and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE policy which requires that pseudoscientific views should not br given undue weight, and fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. As is well shown by reliable sources, the overwhelming majority viewpoint of scientists is that creationism is often pseudoscientific, not merely "often considered" to be such – the exception is when it is clearly and explicitly a religious view with no pretenses to scientific status. . . dave souza, talk 20:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[]
  • I liked the overwhelming majority viewpoint of scientists is that creationism is often pseudoscientific, not merely "often considered" to be such because it was so clear! Thanks, Dave. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[]
    I think it'd be appropiate to say "some variants of this belief, such as Young Earth Creationism are often pseudoscientific"
    Old Earth Creationists are creationists, but most tend to accept evolution and a 4.53 billion year old earth. Yusuf Michael (talk) 07:23, 27 December 2025 (UTC) Old Earth Creationism is not pseudoscientific because it accepts the current scientific consensus of how the world was made.[]

Creationism is No More Pseudoscientific Than Evolution or Big Bang

[edit]
WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:ICANTHEARTHAT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In regard to this claim in the article's lede "Creationism... is often pseudoscientific":

Creationism is just an opposing viewpoint to Naturalism (philosophy) and is no more pseudoscientific than Evolution or the Big Bang. If Evolution was falsifiable it would have been abandoned in 1972 when Gould and Eldredge in 'Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism' (Punctuated Equilibrium) acknowledged the fossil record does not support Darwin's original model of steady gradual evolution in the fossil record.[1] The cases of existing Evolutionist hypotheses being revised by tacking on tens or hundreds of millions of years in response to fossil finds at different points in the fossil record than expected according to existing consensus are myriad, as documented at Creationwiki.[2] Darwin said that the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was the "most obvious and gravest objection" that could be urged against Evolution yet Gould and Eldredge just revised the model to abandon that test of falsifiability. Darwin also claimed that "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." However, efforts to quantify that test in a falsifiable manner per Behe's mousetrap analogy, what is known as Intelligent Design, are labeled pseudoscientific. Naturalists refuse to hold Evolution accountable by the tests of falsifiability Darwin himself set.

If the Big Bang was falsifiable it would be falsified by the existence of large cosmic structures like the Giant Arc or Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall which fundamentally oppose the Cosmological Principle and principle of Equal Distribution of Matter undergirding the Big Bang.[3] That 96% of the universe does not conform to Big Bang models is evident by the origination of Dark Energy and Dark Matter to explain where much of the universe is at. Age of the universe calculations are heavily dependent upon knowing the Hubble Constant and expansion rate of the universe, but scientists keep getting different values when they try calculating the Hubble Constant. The Naturalistic assumptions at the heart of Evolution and Big Bang models are never treated as if they are falsifiable. --~2025-32081-79 (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[]

Also, there are many cases of famous Christian scientists who could rightfully be considered Creationists including Georges Cuvier, founder of paleontology, who strongly opposed evolution, Lord Kelvin, who opposed Darwinian Evolutionists at the time in arguing for a younger Earth (20-40 million years), an approach similar to Creationist Gap Theory, Isaac Newton, who wrote analyses of the Biblical books of Daniel and Revelation, Louis Pasteur, who used science to disprove spontaneous generation, Matthew Maury, father of hydrology, who studied ocean currents on the basis of Psalms 8:8's references to the paths of the seas, and William Buckland, father of geology, who studied geology in support of the Flood. As such it should be clear they made quality scientific discoveries while still having Creationist beliefs. --~2025-32081-79 (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[]

Among other things, all of the scientists you've mentioned have all championed scientific theories have been superseded centuries ago due to additional, contradicting observations (no more Catastrophism, for example), or were, in the case of Lord Kelvin, arguing from faulty premises (like how he was not aware of how much more time nuclear fission would give the Sun). Then there's the problem of how no one, especially not Creationists, uses Creationism or their Creationist beliefs to do any science at all today. Mr Fink (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[]
Actually, after opposing Catastrophism in favor of Charles Lyell's Uniformitarianism for over a century, Naturalists abandoned Darwin's original model of phyletic gradualism in favor of the belief that catastrophes caused Evolution to speed up over short time periods to explain the lack of millions of expected transitional forms in the fossil record, or what is known as Punctuated Equilibrium, per the Blackwell Publishing source I cited earlier. My understanding is that Evolution has come full circle, from originally arguing against catastrophes in favor of slow, gradual processes to now arguing there were multiple major catastrophes/Extinction Events. Catastrophism however was originally a Creationist concept that was coopted by Evolution even as Evolution still sticks dogmatically to its claims of slow, gradual processes and rates despite the recent acknowledgment that they can speed up quickly in response to catastrophes.
For a recent example of a Creationist doing major research, see Raymond Damadian's invention of the MRI Machine, for which he arguably should have won the Nobel Prize, and was possibly denied due to his Creationist beliefs. Creationists are active in Biblical Archaeology, for example Eilat Mazar, who recently discovered King David's palace based on details given in the Biblical account. For examples of Creationist scientists making specifically Creationist predictions that were accurately fulfilled, see Andrew A. Snelling's prediction that polonium radiohaloes can form rapidly, D. Russell Humphrey's predictions about rapid magnetic field reversals,[4] the research by D.A. DeWitt and W.L. Skinner in 2000 establishing that modern humans and Neanderthals share a recent common gene pool which preempted the scientific consensus,[5] and Carl Baugh's claims of animal gigantism caused by his hyperbaric biosphere[6] which preempted the later scientific discovery that oxygen levels 50% higher than today's levels led to the insect gigantism of Earth's ancient past.[7] --~2025-32081-79 (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[]
Mazar's claim that the LSS is King David's palace did not get traction in mainstream archeology. Garfinkel later claimed to have discovered King David's palace, at a distance of 25 km from LSS. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[]
My understanding is that Mazar's claims of the LSS being King David's Palace are widely accepted among archaeologists given the discovery of clay bullae at the site with the names of Nathan-Melech, an official in King Josiah's court[8], and Shemaliah and Gedaliah, the royal ministers who imprisoned Jeremiah.[9] I think the only ones really opposing the identification of the LSS as King David's Palace by this point are Biblical minimalists like Israel Finkelstein. --~2025-32081-79 (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[]
Your understanding of Evolutionary Biology is inadequate if you would accuse Evolution of "coming full circle" because no one taught you the distinction between Catastrophism, Punctuated Equilibrium and the concept of "extinction events." Mr Fink (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[]
Punctuated Equilibrium clearly adopted the beliefs of Catastrophism after Evolution initially supported the principles of Uniformitarianism instead under the auspices of Phyletic Gradualism for roughly a century leading up to Punk-Eek. Punctuated Equlibrium essentially combined both Catastrophism and Uniformitarianism after the evidence for Catastrophism became too great to deny, along with the evidence that there is sudden appearance of brand new types of life in the fossil record with no gradual transition of fossils leading up to them. --~2025-32081-79 (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[]
It didn't. Something demonstrating loosely related phenomena which are superficially similar is not "adopting the beliefs of" something else. Lostsandwich (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[]
Catastrophism originally claimed mass catastrophes occurred and were responsible for much of the fossil record. It is now widely acknowledged mass catastrophes occurred in the past and that phenomena like dinosaur soft tissue evince fossilization through rapid catastrophic means. After all, you cannot fossilize anything by it slowly sinking down into swamps over thousands of years, as schoolchildren were once taught. Bacteria, scavengers, and erosion will destroy whatever is being fossilized before that can happen. Fossilization is itself evidence of catastrophism. I honestly don't see how you can claim catastrophism is no longer viable. --~2025-32081-79 (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[]
Just like I said before. Something demonstrating some loosely related phenomena (catastrophic events) does not make it some other thing (Catastrophism). You mischaracterize not only "what is said by the establishment" but also continue to claim incorrect or incomplete statements (like that about "school children being taught"). Lostsandwich (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[]
How exactly do you recognize evidence for catastrophic events while denying there is evidence for Catastrophism?
Famed apologist Josh McDowell, along with Don Stewart, in an old book called 'Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity' criticized the teaching at the time that fossilization occurs by slow covering of .024 inches per year of deposition. McDowell there cites J.B. Birdsell's book 'Human Evolution' by Rand McNally, 1972, p. 141. McDowell and Stewart make the arguments on pages 201-204 and 212-215.Reasons+Skeptics+Should+Consider+Christianity.pdf My understanding is that textbooks in the past like Birdsell's did teach slow depositional rates that could never practically fossilize anything as pointed out by McDowell and Stewart. ~2025-32081-79 (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[]
Creationsim meets every criteria of pseudoscience, evolution does not. You using bog standard Answers in Genesis style talking points almost to the word(see: false clams about what "evolutionists" actually say and do, continual deferral to whatever "Darwinian evolution" is supposed to be, and mischaracterization or outright lying about what people like Snelling did) is not very encouraging. Lostsandwich (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[]
What standards that Darwin posed for Evolution to be falsifiable would you say Evolution is held to? I fail to see how my statements about Snelling were inaccurate. I have yet to see any source contest that he made accurate predictions beforehand regarding rapidly forming polonium radiohaloes. --~2025-32081-79 (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[]
Charles Darwin died 140 years ago.
I'd imagine you "fail to see any sources" because you aren't looking at sources beyond Answers in Genesis. Lostsandwich (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[]
I already cited plenty of sources other than Answers in Genesis. If Evolution was originally presented as a falsifiable hypothesis then you should be able to identify which standards of falsifiability Darwin asserted, and how Evolution has measured up to them. ~2025-32081-79 (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[]
Charles Darwin died 140 years ago. Lostsandwich (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[]
That still doesn't exempt Naturalistic Evolution from being required to explain how it was originally falsifiable under Darwin's standards if opposing philosophies like Creationism are to be labeled 'pseudoscience.' Given how long ago it was, there should have been plenty of time to identify how Evolution was falsifiable by what standards, if it is to be claimed that Evolution is science. ~2025-32081-79 (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[]

In response to the removal of this section, it is relevant to whether or not a major sentence in the lede calls Creationism 'pseudoscience.' There are only two sources given for that claim, a reference to a Concise Oxford Dictionary that does not even say Creationism is pseudoscience, so that that source should be removed, and a 1986 article by the NCSE discussing the same issue of falsifiability I just addressed.[10] Others here (58.99.101.16, Perseus Meredith, 2601:600:C982:1500:3DB7:6277:5F55:AB9F) have pointed out the same concerns about those questionable sources. I argue those sources are insufficient to brand Creationism as pseudoscience in the article lede. --~2025-32081-79 (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[]

I have added another source. Theroadislong (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[]
I see you added a new source now. However, it is mainly an opinion piece arguing that biologists view the idea of divine creation with contempt. What it does NOT address however is why biologists specifically are chosen. What about astronomers? Many astronomers view favorably ideas that life was seeded by a higher intelligence, even Richard Dawkins proposed the idea.[11] Nor is it all that uncommon among scientists to consider such a possibility.[12] Apparently it only becomes problematic to consider extraterrestrial design when one calls the extraterrestrial 'GOD.' --~2025-32081-79 (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[]
Erm... did you read the text beneath the video in the link you just posted? Girth Summit (blether) 14:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[]
I hadn't read it until now. I don't see how the point is made that it was 'deceptive editing.' Dawkins admits that he made the point itself, of life possibly being seeded by extraterrestrials. --~2025-32081-79 (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[]
See IP’s talk page. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[]

. --~2025-32081-79 (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[]

Pseudoscience

[edit]

In the beginning of this article it states

"Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation, and is often pseudoscientific."

That is incorrect. It is not often pseudoscientific, it is always pseudoscience. That is the scientific consensus. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[]

Not always, see the next sentence and the rest of the lead. Evolutionary creationism isn't necessarily pseudoscience, and is usually compatible with science. . dave souza, talk 15:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[]
Do you have a reputable source for that claim? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[]
If not, then it should be changed. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[]
It's linked more than once in citations, but a link from a lead cite had died: sad you didn't notice that. For clarification, I've extended the citation quote:
Eugenie Scott (12 March 2025). "The Creation/Evolution Continuum". NCSE. Retrieved 14 May 2025. creationism comes in many forms, and not all of them reject evolution .... From a scientific point of view, evolutionary creationism is hardly distinguishable from theistic evolution, which follows it on the continuum. The differences between EC and theistic evolution lie not in science but in theology, .... Theistic evolutionists (TEs) accept all the results of modern science, in anthropology and biology as well as in astronomy, physics, and geology. . . dave souza, talk 19:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[]
https://www.britannica.com/topic/creationism
Scientists of today reject creationism. It is not more or often. It is not a part of modern science. 2001:B042:4005:481B:B11A:62CA:9F54:CD18 (talk) 08:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[]
You should provide a peer review source that creationism is scientific or can be or delete it. 2001:B042:4005:4B04:B11A:62CA:9F54:CD18 (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[]
Creationism is never science, and the article does not say it is. Not all things are either science or pseudoscience. When a creationist does not pretend to do science or present facts, but instead says it is purely religious, they are not doing pseudoscience. (And not doing science, of course.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[]
I agree with what you're saying. And certainly people are allowed to believe in creationism. Just the introduction right now says:
"Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation, and is often pseudoscientific."
Would it be better to delete the "often" because it might be misleading and doesn't have support from sources. It indicates that there are a scientific way of doing creationism. 220.138.192.113 (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[]
"It might be misleading" is better than "it is plain wrong". It would be even better to find a wording that is neither wrong nor misleading. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[]
N.B. Theistic evolution, (also known as theistic evolutionism or God-guided evolution), alternatively called evolutionary creationism, does not claim to be scientific, so is not pseudoscience. Of course, it can be seen as a creationist way of doing science. rather than a scientific way of doing creationism. . . dave souza, talk 21:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[]
"That is the scientific consensus." - What is the basis for this sentence?
Most scientists believe in God or a higher power.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/an-overview-of-religion-and-science-in-the-united-states/
and an overwhelming number of people don't believe a universe appeared out of nothing on its own.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx
The reference to pseudoscience is inappropriate. Neither of the sources cited refer to creationism as pseudoscience. PerseusMeredith (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[]
Most scientists aren't American. Statistics for the USA don't prove anything about the other 95% of the world's population. HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[]
A collection of non sequiturs. For a start, believing in God is not the same as advocating creation science or intelligent design. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[]
Neither of those are mentioned in the definition. Below is the definition:
the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation, PerseusMeredith (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[]
That's a theological position which says nothing about any claim to be scientific, but creationism often includes that claim, and then is pseudoscientific. Why changes in the wording do you propose, and how do you relate your proposals to reliable published sources? . . dave souza, talk 21:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[]
  • Ref added and ref with only limited preview commented out. See:
    Albert, Leon H. (12 March 2025). ""Scientific" Creationism as a Pseudoscience". National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 17 May 2025. originally published in Creation/Evolution Journal | Volume 6 | No. 2 | Summer 1986. . . dave souza, talk 04:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[]
    in the lead it shouldn't say often pseudoscience it should be is considered pseudoscience, period. 125.129.7.7 (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[]
    Nope, because you can endorse everything that mainstream science says, and afterwards add "... and this is the work of God". Such a creationist standpoint isn't pseudoscience, it is non-science. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[]
    i think everyone agrees that it should be clarified that creationism doesn't have anything to do with science at all but as the lead is now it gives the impression that some kind of creationism is scientific which it is not. 1.211.228.154 (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[]
    It seems to be clear just the way it’s currently written. As has already been pointed out, many distinguished members of the scientific community believe in God. Some of them may well be convinced that God actually exists.
    This belief isn’t pseudoscientific unless an individual begins lecturing and/or publishing scientific papers stating that the currently extant evidence supports the proposition that God exists.
    If an individual believes they are in possession of new “credible and profound” evidence, it should be published and examined with open-minded skepticism if a peer reviewed journal believes there is merit. This is exactly how the “breakthrough” evidence concerning “cold fusion” was handled. It was skeptically examined and dismissed.
    Creationism is NOT pseudoscience unless an individual suggests that the current “evidence” is both credible and sufficient AND considered acceptable for publication by a peer reviewed journal.
    That’s what this means:
    "Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation, and is often pseudoscientific." 2601:600:C982:1500:3DB7:6277:5F55:AB9F (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[]
    Now there are members arguing that creationism is scientific. Great. But it is not. Anything to back up your claim? It should be changed. It should clearly state that it is never science.thats why it is not published in journals. 222.237.197.45 (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[]
    Apparently you didn’t read my comment very carefully. The alternative is that you did, but still didn’t understand it.
    “Anything to back up your claim?”
    I have made no claim that there is ANY evidence supporting creationism. I outlined what would be necessary to have NEW evidence considered by the scientific community.
    when I was a young man, any individual who considered “continental drift” to be a reasonable theory, they had a very strong chance of ruining their career. I learned from that experience that one sets a bar and declares that anyone who can meet the standards of evidence AND convince a peer reviewed journal that the evidence is worth publishing should be allowed to do so.
    Personally, I have no patience for creationism but if they can reach the bar I’m all for taking a look. When plate tectonics become a subject of interest, some hard-headed individuals knew that it should be ignored. I don’t give a damn about Creationism, I just want the next “plate tectonics” theory to get a fair hearing.
    Cold Fusion got a hearing and it was evaluated and rejected even AFTER it was considered worth publishing. At this point that’s not in the future for Creationism. THAT SAID HOWEVER, one bar for all!!
    what I said was:
    “IF an individual believes they are in possession of NEW ‘credible and profound’ evidence.” Meaning something more than is currently known. I even pointed to the publication of the paper on cold fusion as NEW research that was published and rejected.
    I also stated that it would require “a peer reviewed journal” to consider it credible and note worthy.
    I rarely weigh in on these discussions because too many here are more interested in insults and foolishness. Your arrogant and uninformed reply reminded yet again of everything I detest about Talk pages on Wikipedia.
    Do you even KNOW that a distinguished member of the physics community once wrote a letter saying that Einstein’s references to photons in some of his papers should not be held against him. At the time, belief in photons was so controversial that it could derail careers in particle physics. Pretty certain you didn’t know that. SO LOOK IT UP.
    Finally I stand by my defense of any scientist who chooses to believe in a god. As long as an individual doesn’t teach it as science or publish papers on the subject (since no credible evidence exists to support gods or creationism) it is of no consequence what they do on their personal life.
    I have no time for the arrogance of those who are to pick insignificant nits and criticize others when they don’t even take the time to understand what what others are even saying.
    I am done!! 2601:600:C982:1500:AD05:32AC:476D:5848 (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[]
    stay on topic.
    It's not insignificant as it stands the article is not accurate.
    You're pushing creationism which is fringe.
    You claim that it should get a chance in science but that's not what Wikipedia is. This is not a debate, you're wrong, creationism will never be accepted as science and you cannot compare it with Einstein's work.
    And please be nice when you're writing. 218.152.4.144 (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[]
    More importantly, everyone please remember that the talkpage is WP:NOTAFORUM to debate whether Creationism is or isn't pseudoscience or science.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[]
    This is not a reliable source. This is not peer reviewed, devoid of any scientific citations and is ostensibly an op ed piece. The fact that he is citing George Carlin underscores what is obvious, this is one mans opinion and is too general to be of use in this article. Who is Leon Albert and how does his opinion piece from 40 years ago get to interlope into the definition of "pseudoscience" into creationism? So the article is not peer reviewed, the context is only evolution as opposed to origin of the universe, origin of life and other topics of the article...
    Reliable sources
    I again assert that there is no source that has been put forth to support the use of the word "pseudoscientific" in the article. PerseusMeredith (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[]
    First, not all creationism is pseudoscience, just the creationism that pretends it is scientific. Second, even without Albert, there are many WP:RS WP:CITED in the article which WP:V pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[]
    The first citation is the Oxford dictionary. The second is the Albert article. I don’t see anything else. PerseusMeredith (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[]
    Also, the Oxford Dictionary expressly does NOT include the word pseudoscience. PerseusMeredith (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[]
    Ctrl+F -> "pseudo" -> 12 matches. Just read those, a bunch are sources other are links to articles directly related which, I'm sure also contain sources. --McSly (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[]

Thank you. I'd like to point out creation science as being the prominent variety of creationism which claims scientific support. That is pseudoscience. Philosophical and theological discussions are not pseudoscience, only if they make no claims of scientific validation. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[]

Great so then that should be clarified in the lead, that creationism is never science. Because right now that's not what is says. 61.72.83.209 (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[]
It does not need clarification in the lead, any more than that creationism is not interpretive dance. Right now the lead calls it a religious belief (not science) often pseudoscientific (also not science.) If you want to be useful here, kindly propose some specific wording and point to sources for it. Just plain Bill (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[]
Well, looking at what the reference actually says, I propose remove the word "often" pseudoscientific and just stick with pseudoscientific. The reference just say it's pseudoscientific and not using the word often or anything similar to that. 222.111.206.198 (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[]
If you mean the Albert source, it deals witn "scientific" creationism, not creationism in general. Just plain Bill (talk) 05:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[]
Reference nr. 2. Doesn't say "often." So if it's true what you say then the lead is wrong. Then something needs to be added or taken away. There is no source that says creationism in general is anything but scientific. Any reference for that? 121.166.137.201 (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[]
I meant unscientific 121.166.137.201 (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[]

Islam: 'Less prominently' creationist -- original research? Confusing wording later?

[edit]

(Final paragraph of the lead) There is no evidence for members of the Islamic faith being "less prominently" creationist than Christians. It's hard to support such a comparison, and the cited articles don't make any comparisons (or evidence the notion that creationism is less prominent in Islam). Further, sources documenting creationism are Western- and English-biased, and so more sources on Christian creationism doesn't mean it's more prominent than Islamic creationism. Seems like original research.

Clearly a substantial proportion of the Muslim world views evolution as false, reaching majorities in more devout countries. [Pew Survey]

Furthermore, the paragraph doesn't really flow as it's making claims about the official positions of specific religious organizations/groups, and then a general statement about followers of the faiths of Islam and Hinduism.

I was gonna edit and just remove that sentence, but I realize that it is important to mention these religions -- I just don't see how this statement is supported, and dislike the flow of the paragraph. Any suggestions on how to rectify this? I'm happy to do the work. Disagreements welcome but again really tough to see how this can be supported by a source.

Additionally, I'm trying to understand what is meant by the following: In 1873, Asa Gray published an article in The Nation saying a "special creationist" who held that species "were supernaturally originated just as they are, by the very terms of his doctrine places them out of the reach of scientific explanation."

I have really tried to understand it, but I fear I'm not smart enough, despite having found the extract in the source. If anyone could please explain what this means I'd be happy to edit it to make it clearer. Eroz7 (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[]

From what I get from this sentence: A supernatural origin would be out of scope for scientific explanations. Basically the equivalent of saying that there is no natural explanation for a phenomenon, because a deity, a demon, or an ancient astronaut is the cause behind it. Dimadick (talk) 09:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[]

Indigenous American criticism

[edit]

@Eldomtom2: The claim that there have been "multiple prominent cases" of Indigenous Americans rejecting scientific accounts is not supported by refs. One ref is Red Earth, White Lies. The other contains some commentary on Red Earth, White Lies. That's one prominent critic. PepperBeast (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[]

I agree. And I'll note that having a creation myth, as some tribes do, is not the same thing as actually rejecting anything. Doug Weller talk 17:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[]
One ref is a review of Red Earth, White Lies. The other does not merely discuss Red Earth, White Lies, but also discusses support by others for creationism, such as by Devon A. Mihesuah
@Doug Weller, have you actually read the sources in question? It has nothing to do with just having a creation myth.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[]
Having read https://www.academia.edu/43428850/Creationist_pseudoscience_in_the_American_university
that source seems more nuanced than you suggest. Doug Weller talk 17:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[]
What about the "Rejection of Science in Academia", "Genetics and Archaeology", and "Crisis in Multicultural Education" sections in any way fails to support my edits to the article? Norbert Francis has no problem using words like "creationism" and "denial".--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[]

👁 Image
 The redirect Answers in Creation has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 22 § Answers in Creation until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[]

Young/Old Earth Creationism Distinction

[edit]

I think it'd be appropiate to say "some variants of this belief, such as Young Earth Creationism are often pseudoscientific" Old Earth Creationists are creationists, but most tend to accept evolution and a 4.53 billion year old earth. Old Earth Creationism is not pseudoscientific because it accepts the current scientific consensus of how the world was made.

Young Earth Creationism is most definetly pseudoscientific, but Old Earth Creationism is not. Yusuf Michael (talk) 08:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[]

"However, creationism in its many forms insists that everything in nature was created by a deity". That is what [13] one of the sources say. @Yusuf Michael Please don't keep adding your version which is not supported by the source. We follow what the sources say, not opinions.of editors. Doug Weller talk 10:42, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[]
The problem is not what caused everything to be made. Even science can't explain what caused everything. It's either God or a mysterious force. What we're dealing with here is how everything actually came to fruition. Young Earth Creationists deny that evolution is true, while Old Earth Creationists support it. Old Earth Creationists believe that God created everything through evolution throughout billions of years (which is the same view as the modern scientific consensus). Young Earth Creationists believe that God created everything all at once and that the earth is only 7,000 years old. There's a clear distinction between these two views. One is pseudoscience while the other is not. [14][15] Yusuf Michael (talk) 10:50, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[]
Those are not reliable sources. Old Earth creationists don't get to decide that their ideas are not pseudoscience anymore than any other pseudoscientists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[]
Categories:
Hidden categories: