Talk:Young earth creationism

Please ensure you are familiar with the Citizendium Neutrality Policy in its entirety before editing this article.

The Citizendium Forum also contains some good discussions on Citizendium neutrality which are advisable to read, particularly the topics:

• Neutrality and edit warring

• Neutral exposition is broader than exposition of the expert view

(Please keep this section visible to users at the top of this page. Many thanks.) Mark Jones 09:39, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Initial text

Unless the author quickly replaces this initial text with a scholarly introduction - or puts a bibliography here on the discusion page I believe this article should be speedily deleted. Citizendium is a compendium of knowlege and starting a new article requires a committment to scholarship, especially when it is a controversial topic. Nancy Sculerati 17:13, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

I've expanded it, and the article needs editors' help. Thanks! PLEASE do not turn this article into a diatribe against young earth creationism. It should be neutral. Yi Zhe Wu 21:09, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

if true THEN 7 days

literally true means 7 days. Robert Tito |  Talk 

The article needs to be neutral, please do not turn it into a diatribe. Yi Zhe Wu 21:09, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

literally seems to be what it says, literally.

By the way, one cannot invent physical properties, only apply them. Robert Tito |  Talk  21:11, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

one question

can somebody explain to me the role of biology in young earth creationism? That seems quite inappropriate to put biology in creationism. Robert Tito |  Talk  21:24, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Because the young earth creationism does address some issues about origin of organisms, which is within the purview of biology. But I'm not sure. If the biology workgroup guys have the consensus to remove the workgroup designation, they are free to do so. Yi Zhe Wu 21:30, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

never mind Robert Tito |  Talk  21:40, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Sorry if I write something wrong there, I'm only a teenager, not an expert in anything. Yi Zhe Wu 21:44, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

I've removed the word 'theory' and altered a phrase to distance science from any suggestion that it could be a submissable claim. John Stephenson 22:28, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

And the reason is...? Yi Zhe Wu 22:32, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Because it's not a theory; we should be careful to avoid discussing belief in scientific terms. John Stephenson 22:55, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

of minimal importance Robert Tito |  Talk 

could you please state all peer-reviewed magazines that censored articles about this topic, as well as their reasons? Robert Tito |  Talk  22:47, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Yi, you're doing a great job. Rob, principle YEC authors in their books detail journal names and their article names that they say indicates suppression of their submissions to mainstream scientific journals. According to its proponents, the history of the YEC movement is one that never wished to be a movement at all, but one who wished to operate within the mainstream of debate but could not. I do not have these books at this time, however. Stephen Ewen 04:29, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Well, I just put there the one I found, don't know about the others. I'm not an expert. Sorry. But I will try to add more information about the subject. Of course, it's better if experts begin to edit this article. Yi Zhe Wu 23:15, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

That was not from a peer-reviewed magazine. Hence my question. Robert Tito |  Talk  23:18, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, I agree that more peer-reviewed magazine should be cited. If you can access JSTOR it would be good. Too much controversy is going on with the subject of this article...ehh...I think it's better for me to not get too far involved in content issues. I gotta go write my history paper on John C. Calhoun now. Yi Zhe Wu 23:22, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Well, the most vocal YECs have typically also been PhD level biologists. Stephen Ewen 03:34, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Inclusion of censorship allegation

The lawsuit of Robert Gentry was brought up in court, and legal documents can prove that. So it's not a spurious one. Regards. Yi Zhe Wu 23:27, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Anyways, I have to go write my Calhoun paper for school now. Tonight I've written this article about young earth creationism and I think editors can improve it, since I'm not an expert. Good night everyone. Yi Zhe Wu 23:30, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Robert V. Gentry - and this entry

Mr. Gentry's doctorate is not an earned degree, it's an honorary degree from Columbia Union College, a religious school in Takoma Park, Maryland, operated by Seventh Day Adventists. So far as I have been able to determine, he is not a nuclear physicist, and is only described as such on creationist websites.

I would agree with the earlier comments that the present form of this entry is not what we want for CZ -- if it can't be taken up by an editor or author in the Religion workgroup, it would be better to delete it for now until we can have a fresh start from a scholarly viewpoint. Russell Potter 09:36, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

The About Us page of the college's web site states that it is accredited. WP doesn't say anything about accreditation. Is there a way to tell for sure? And are there accrediting bodies for nuclear physicists, as there are for engineers, accountants, physicians, etc.? IMHO, encyclopedias need to be careful about diminishing religious people just because they are religious. Louis F. Sander 22:35, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

On further checking, I'd have to agree that Columbia Union College has *some* accreditation. The Middle States Commission on Higher Education, which is one of several regional accreditation agencies in the US, does recognize it. At the same time, it is also accredited by some unrecognized (by the US Dept. of Ed) agencies, such as the "Adventist Accrediting Association of the Department of Education of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists." I've removed the word "unaccredited" from my comment.

Accreditation is a somewhat murky business -- in addition to the general regional accreditation agencies, which are (or are supposed to be) nonprofit and nonsectarian, there are agencies which only accredit certain programs (nursing, education, etc.) and a shadowy group of unrecognized accreditors which range from the sectarian to the sham (websites which exist only to accredit diploma mills). In any case, an honorary doctorate does not entitle its bearer to use, except as an "honorific," the title "Dr." At the same time, I heartily agree that we should be careful to avoid equating the religious affiliation of an institution with a lack of full legitimacy. I can tell you firsthand, the Dominicans who run Providence College (an institution just around the corner from my house) are as sharp, and in many cases far sharper, in almost any field of study than their nearby secular counterparts. Evangelical Christians, on the other hand, sometimes do and sometimes don't play by the rules of accrediting bodies, such that Bob Jones University's diploma may not be exactly the same thing as one from, say Wisconsin Lutheran College (which is not to say that either is not worth something!) Russell Potter 23:00, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

The Bob Jones University types are truly an exception as regards not having regional accreditation. Nearly all Christian liberal arts colleges and universities have regional accreditation, just as the non-religious ones have. However, many become additionally accredited by other bodies, also as do non-religious schools. But believe me, for their own sakes, the U.S. regional accrediting bodies hold the schools they accredit to the same standard one and the same, with scheduled site visits, required reports (I've written a few), etc. Stephen Ewen 04:40, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, I've asked editor Richard Jensen to take a look and see how it goes. If it can be improved, then no need for deletion. Yi Zhe Wu 09:39, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Biology Workgroup removed

This article seems to have been put in the biology workgroup by mistake, or by following a precedent of the placement of the article intelligent design. A case can be made for the latter, but including a fundamentalist religious interpretation of the origin of life sets a precedent that every religious account of the creation of life on earth requires the biology workgroup's oversight. As part of that workgroup, I object to this. Nancy Sculerati 09:42, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Scholarship, science and peer review

They have their place, but history has shown their fallibility. In the present century, we have this scientist and this scholar, for example.

IMHO, the present article (about which I'm no expert) is a reasonable exposition of the topic. Louis F. Sander 10:33, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

I think this article is fine as a start. I objected when it was one line placed by a user who had not filled out his biography. I'd like to know about this belief and the lawsuits, and the rest of it. Nancy Sculerati 22:09, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

this is religion

this is a standard topic in religious history, so I have rephrased it along those lines and added some history and citations. It seems the scientists who support the notions came to them via religion, not from scientific research. The Creation Museum bit, I think, add perspective. Richard Jensen 01:38, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Well, going by memory here, YCE folk would argue it is more complicated than that. YCE folk would say that mainstream scientists approach their discipline from a set of Darwinian worldview presuppositions that are every bit as "religious" as theirs, and that Darwinian scientists impose their worldview upon the data they interpret, i.e., they find what they are looking for. So, when YCE folk simply replace another set of presuppositions and worldview stemming from a reading of Genesis's six days of creation as literal six days, they would see themselves as doing no different than Darwinists, except YCE folk would say they are the ones on solid ground since they take their presuppositions from what they view as an ultimate authoritative source, the Word of God, while Darwinists from the word of man. The debate is much epistemological and is largely all about presuppositions--it is ultimately a worldview debate, in the conception of YCE folk. The take of Old Earth Creationists is that YCE folks err in their Biblical hermeneutics--again, a presupposition debate--pointing out the take of YCE folk on the Hebrew word "yom" ("day") and their take on the Hebrew word "waw" ("and") is erroneous, saying that "yom" can mean numerous things longer than a 24 hour day, indeed even an eon or simply "event" (e.g., "The Day of the Lord"), and the Hebrew word "waw" can denote a large gap in time when used conjunctively to join the six creation events as they do in Genesis 1 ("The Gap Theory"). And most of the folk that really argue these things are Christian scientists, with PhDs from real universities. So yes, this is clearly not just a "religious" article. It is religion, every science, philosophy, and even literature in so far as hermeneutics are concerned. It's obviously political, too--everything is political--and history--everything is in that purvey, too. Stephen Ewen 03:47, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

The question of workgroup really has to do with which workgroup has the editors with expertise to review a subject. I absolutely agree with you, Stephen, a subject itself is rarely "just" any one "thing". But when it comes to which workgroup or workgroups are qualified to nominate an article for approval, it is really a different issue. Unless there are editors in a workgroup, such as philosophy, who have some special interest (and qualifictions) that would allow them to vet this article, then religion is apparently the default workgroup here. Nancy Sculerati 10:30, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

I agree that this is a religious topic, and that non-religious workgroups shouldn't be handling it unless somebody there has special qualifications to do so. Louis F. Sander 10:44, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

The issue here is young earth creationism, not Darwinism. All the assertions about the young age of the earth and the timing (six days of creation, flood) derive from their reading of Genesis (and their assumption that Genesis has TRUTH), not from their research work. That makes it religion. Richard Jensen 14:59, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

YEC folk would say that assertions about the old age of the earth and the timing thereof derive from Darwin (and assumptions that Darwin has TRUTH), not from their research. That makes Darwinism religion in their view. This sort of thing needs to be included in this article. Stephen Ewen 15:45, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

No, they are propounding a religious theory of what actually happened 6000 years ago and that is what the article should focus on. The article on Darwin should cover his main critics. As for Darwin and TRUTH--he is rarely read or cited these days except by historians. Biology citations tend to be very recent (last few years). Richard Jensen 15:50, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

YEC folk would agree that Darwin is not read widely today but would argue that the "religion" he founded has, well, taken on a life of its own, and that Darwinian presuppositions and a Darwinian worldview is the core thing they contend with. It will be impossible to treat YEC adequately without also treating their views of Darwinism. They view Darwinists are their opponents, after all. Stephen Ewen 05:36, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

good point, so I added a line about their hostility toward biology. Oddly, they seem less interested in astronomy and geology, fields that are more relevant to their concerns. Richard Jensen 20:26, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

You'd think so. Old Earth Creationists are more interested in those fields, e.g., Hugh Ross. ---Stephen Ewen 21:21, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

"Scientific community"

I have a larger-than-minor but smaller-than-major objection to the use of this term. Scientists are people who specialize in narrow fields, some of them extremely narrow. As a general principle, the specialization and focus of individual scientists makes them notoriously unaware of activities outside their field. They are known for quirkiness and individualism, not for acting in concert with their fellows. The "scientific community" doesn't exist any more than does the "religious community," and I think that encyclopedias should be very careful about referring to it or making claims about its beliefs. Louis F. Sander 06:47, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

There is a scientific community that is inter-related in a real world way- grants, positions at univerities, publications, attendence at meetings sponsored by organizations that require demonstration of expertise for membership- that's a meaning of the phrase. I agree with you that the idea that there is a community of scientists that have general social opinions, that is a community in the same way as that term is used for some other groups, does not apply here. Nancy Sculerati 07:19, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

GMTA ! ! !

I was ready to post some suggestions here, when an interruption led me away for no more than five minutes. When I got back, someone else had already implemented my unuttered suggestions: suppress the Table of Contents; move the Northwest Creation stuff to External links; and find a better verb for what Bishop Ussher did. Are we good, or what?? Next thing you know, the articles will be editing themselves. ;-) Louis F. Sander 16:17, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

I like all these ideas, but what's the reason to do away with table of contents? Yi Zhe Wu 16:30, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

It was in the way, all it listed were references and the like, etc. Louis F. Sander 17:05, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

The Good: This article identifies its subject as a religious belief, states the nature of the belief, presents the long history of the belief, and mentions a 21st century manifestation (the park). These things are supported by notes, a bibliography, and external links for those who want to know more. IMHO, these constitute a good exposition of the topic.

The Bad: The article covers contentious matters only peripherally connected to its subject, and all or mostly unsupported by citations: a seemingly unimportant lawsuit; opposition to the religious belief by those who are not religious; implied criticism of the belief because those who hold it lack the training possessed by the opposing nonbelievers.

The Ugly, (and PLEASE don't take personal offense--beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I'm only expressing an opinion): Unsupported, less-than-scholarly, less-than-encyclopedic "fighting words" like "bitterly," "ridicule," "attack at every opportunity," "rejects," "allege," and "suppressed."

I think I can improve on The Bad and The Ugly, but I've learned at Wikipedia not to make changes to articles on controversial articles. How can one propose some changes to this one? Louis F. Sander 23:27, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Ugly? well I think the terms are exactly proper, and all are derived from scholarly sources like Bratt and Numbers. The YEC are highly contentious folk and this is underscored by their own rhetoric and excommunications of doubters. Take a look at the huge fights inside the Southern Baptist Convention for example. Richard Jensen 23:58, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

I respect what you think about the subject of this article. The "ugly" words themselves remain (IMHO) unnecessarily contentious and less-than-scholarly. Couldn't some skillful editing fix that? Louis F. Sander 08:24, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Without doubt, I think. Stephen Ewen 18:07, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Hitting home

I just did a Lexus-nexus news search for Young Earth Creationism and came accross this: "WIKIPEDIA (On Conservapedia): Conservapedia is a wiki-based encyclopedia project whose articles are pro-U.S., socially and economically conservative, and supportive of conservative Christianity and Young Earth creationism. The project was founded in part as a response to the alleged liberal, anti-Christian, and anti-American bias in the articles of Wikipedia." The quote is taken from "BATTLE OF THE ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIAS, The Boston Herald, May 13, 2007 Sunday, ALL EDITIONS, NEWS; Pg. 009, 1275 words, By JOHN BRENEMAN" An article about Wikipedia and Conservapedia. I did not realize how politically charged this subject was. Let's keep it encyclopedic folks. I'm trying to find out actual information about this topic and owe my admiration to those who can come with facts. When did it start? How many people are in the movement? Names of leaders? Quotes? In other words, even though it's harder-can we keep to the high road here as scholars? Nancy Sculerati 14:32, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

References-with notes

news sources: Europe:

Apparently, In England, there have been reports of local schools teaching Young Earth Creationism

---

Creation invasion, New Scientist, April 13, 2002, Letters; Letters; Pg. 52, 406 words, Robert Stevens, Frome, Somerset "Creationism is a multimillion-dollar industry in the US, but the First Amendment has thus far thwarted creationist ambitions. British schools have no equivalent protection, and the Americans have taken a great interest in current events. Those now prepared to invest heavily in British education include people who believe that UFOs are magical vehicles in which Satan's lieutenants (presumably including our own Professor Dawkins) travel to spread "evilutionism"; that the US embassy bombing in Africa was staged by Bill Clinton to divert attention from the Lewinsky affair; that the attacks on the World Trade Center were plotted by the US government to manipulate the stock market (and carried out by atheistic Jews), and that God allowed this to happen to punish Americans for their tolerance of homosexuality and multiculturalism.

There are some very peculiar people out there. With Tony Blair's blessing, these people will be coming soon to British schools near you. This is "diversity within education".

---

Long live the evolution, The Times (London), March 19, 2002, Tuesday, Features, 136 words YOUNG Earth Creationism, which appears to be the view being promoted to children in the Gateshead school, holds that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old and was created in six 24-hour days, as Genesis says. This is a matter of faith not evidence. Many mainstream theologians (including the Pope) disagree profoundly with them. Creationists are entitled to their beliefs, but not to teach them as science in a publicly funded school. The God of the Scientific Creationists is like a dodgy antiques dealer, a cosmic Lovejoy, who deliberately distressed and faked recently created works to look ancient, using trickery, lotions and potions. Scientists try to work it out by observation and experiment.

Mike Dworetsky,Stanmore

---

The creation-evolution debate: carving creationism in the public mind Author: Park H-J. Source: Public Understanding of Science, 2001, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 173-186(14) Publisher: IOP, 76 Portland Place, London, W1B 1NT, UK

Redirect?

Creationism redirects here, but how about old earth creationism? Yi Zhe Wu 20:04, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

This needs to re-direct to creationism and OEC treated there. ---Stephen Ewen 20:32, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Article rewrite, 8th August 2007

As noted previously on the discussion page, this article was seriously in need of a tune up. I opted to do that myself rather than state the obvious again on the talk page and then wait for someone else to do it. :-)

The rationale for my edits to the article are as follows:

• It needed a proper structure with appropriate headings and titles. I've now done that.

• Large parts of it were extremely non-neutral and so I have simply deleted those parts I feel cannot be "neutralised". Please all read the article on Citizendium's Neutrality Policy before making any further changes or additions to this article—this is very important, particularly for this article.

• There were a few statements that were not properly sourced and I could see no immediate way of sourcing them or proving their accuracy. If anyone wants to check the previous revision and re-add some of the neutral information along with sources please feel free to do so, or discuss them here before adding.

There are a few places in the current article where sources are still required. I have marked this in the wiki markup with the comment:

<!-- citation needed -->

It was too late in the evening when I edited the article and I need to sleep so I will seek out some sources for these parts tomorrow or the next few days; I thought it good to just make the changes anyway so people can say what they think about the changes now. Meanwhile, if anyone else can find a source for these parts, please go ahead and add them.

I hope nobody feels that I have trodden on their toes by going ahead and making these changes. Please feel free to make known your feelings to me here or my talk page. Thanks. Mark Jones 23:09, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

"Supporting scientists" rephrasing

(Copied over from User talk:Richard Jensen)

Hi Richard, I note your changes to the article heading "Supporting scientists" in the Young earth creationism which raised some issues for me:

• As a result of your change I perused the list on the website at more length and found that while some, indeed, only had technical training in some area of science, others are, or were for a significant length of time, practising professional scientists in every acceptable sense of the word. I don't see an adequate reason for eliding this fact in the article.

• The title "Supporters" on its own does not convey the original purpose of the sub-topic—which was to note persons with established scientific credentials who believe in Biblical creation—"supporters" would include everyone regardless and so adds no value to the article. I have changed it to "Notable supporters" which I believe should satisfy all shades of opinion and adds further scope to the subtopic to include notable non-scientists (e.g. public figures).

• The list in question is, in fact, not a list of people who "support Answers in Genesis' position" (which would cover numerous other topics besides Biblical creationism) but those who "support Biblical creationism" (another name for young Earth creationism); I believe this was intentional so as to acknowledge that people on the list may not necessarily support all Answers in Genesis positions but, at the very least, support some form of Biblical creationism (that may itself not necessarily coincide with Answers in Genesis on every point). I have, therefore, reverted to the original statement in the article to reflect this fact.

I admit there is a need to convey in the CZ article that not every person on the list is a scientist by profession but it is proper for this article to draw attention to those (regardless of their beliefs) on this list that are. As our purpose on Citizendium is not to advocate or denigrate a topic but remain neutral, any objections to the use of the word "scientist" simply because a person is thought to believe in an unscientific theory is not appropriate.

If, consequent to the comments above and subsequent amendments to the article, you still feel a better phrasing could be achieved, please let me know. Many thanks. Mark Jones 01:27, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

I went through all the names and bios too, and the great majority gave religious and non-scientific reasons for their beliefs. Very few seem to have published scientific papers about creation. Ther promoters are implictly claiming that science supports their views, and this is an extreme interpretation that CZ should not appear to support. Richard Jensen 10:50, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

See Edit to "Notable supporters" section for my response. Thanks. Mark Jones 08:24, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Edit to "Notable supporters" section

I thought long and hard about this edit and although I see what the author's concerns are I just felt it sounded too much like a subtle "put down" of the people in question.

I agree that Citizendium should not be seen to be supporting extreme positions but, in fact, according to this part of the Neutrality Policy it should also not be seen to be critical of those opinions either.

Asserting that a group of people support Biblical creationism is a statement of fact; making a statement about the quality of their scientific abilities/credentials or their rationale for supporting Biblical creationism is an opinion which cannot be properly or accurately verified and is not encyclopedic.

I tried to think of a better way to rephrase neutrally but, in the end, it still sound too much like opinion and biased against the topic (which is out of place in a neutral encyclopedia). As a result I have deleted the statement.

I actually moved the statement (after making it neutral) into the criticism section which, I feel, is a more appropriate place for it.Mark Jones 06:41, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

I am determined to keep this article completely neutral and neither in favour of, or in opposition to the topic. I know there are going to be a lot of strong opinions about it and a lot of people claiming over time, rightly or wrongly, that the article is supporting young Earth creationism by not criticizing or simply just by being here (as happened endlessly on Wikipedia) but I believe it is possible to keep the article totally neutral if we keep the above Neutrality policy statement at the forefront of our minds. Mark Jones 06:38, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Deletion of section without explanation

In Citizendium, it is a policy and in the spirit of collaborative wiki editing to give an explanation for deletions and major edits, and preferably, to allow others to discuss them on the talk page before deleting/editing significant amounts (particularly, if that section is already under dispute). Consequently, I have reverted the deletion of this section pending an explanation on this page and the opportunity given to others to discuss it BEFORE it is deleted again. I have also invited a Religion Workgroup editor to contribute to the discussion and, if necessary, make a final decision. Thank you. Mark Jones 16:26, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Arguments for/against keeping section

I would like to argue the following in favour of keeping this section:

• It is a matter of significance if a public or notable figure believes in a controversial idea (as, conversely, it is not a matter of significance if a notable or public figure believes in things widely accepted in the mainstream such as evolution).
• Without inferring any similarity other than the existence of controversy, the same heading occurs in the Wikipedia article for Holocaust denial (which, in my opinion, is much more controversial; but does the inclusion of that section lend credibility to the arguments for Holocaust denial?
• It asserts only neutral facts about the topic—any perception that it is biased in favour of creationism is only inferred by the reader.
• It is relevant to the topic of creationism and quite proper to mention in an article about creationism.
• It answers a question people coming to the article might ask, i.e. "Who believes in this stuff?". Therefore, it adds to their knowledge about the subject.
• It addresses a common argument made by opponents that only backward or uneducated people believe in it. Therefore, it increases knowledge about the subject.

Mark Jones 20:31, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Replies

I think the practice of including "Notable adherents" sections in articles is a very poor approach. I hope CZ will abandon that WP practice, which stems from WP's notability policy (sort of a policy, anyway) and the need to endlessly war over the "notability" of such things, neither which applies here.

There is a much more professional way. One thing you might consider is including a more through history of the movement. That will naturally cover all of the important figures without having to make a list under the heading "Notable young earth creationists", and it will also add greater background to this article. This reprint of a 1993 Contra Mundum journal article gives some history of the movement, naming many names.

I'd suggest what I am saying as the superior approach.

 —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 22:10, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Regarding the section. I wrote most of the history part and I think it's long enough. There really is very little "history" here. (Numbers has a najor book covering the history). The problem is that astronomy and geology deal with the history of the universe/earth, and the creationists have minimal or no interest in thatc9THEIR GELOLOGY SCOMES FROM pRICE'S TGHEORY ABOUT nOAH'S FLOOD!). They really have the goal of bashing Darwin. Richard Jensen 01:04, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

I am not sure why you say "creationists have minimal or no interest" in geology and astronomy—this may have been truer 10 or 20 years ago but not now; as an examination of major creationist organisations would demonstrate (see [1] [2] [3] [4]). Numbers may give a good historical perspective but it might not be the best source for understanding where the creationist movement is now and what they currently believe. Mark Jones 10:30, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for sharing your perspective, Stephen, and I see where you are coming from. I will leave this out as a separate section out for the reason you stated (although I, personally, found it an interesting addition to the article). Mark Jones 10:37, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

I added a quote lamenting the lack of astronomers -- which after is is the main field of relevance to the creation question. Richard Jensen 10:39, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

Omphalism

There doesn't seem to be any mention of Dr Gosse's idea that, just as God created Adam with a navel, as if he'd been born, so he created the earth complete with fossils, as if it had evolved. It's mentioned in the Wikipedia article (or was). Peter Jackson 18:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware this is not a common view but, regardless, it seems to be rejected by all the major creationist institutes. I'm not entirely sure how significant a view it was in the past but I am wary of making the article cover every viewpoint ever held by a young earth creationist as it could get too long—it should probably stick to the views espoused by the current major figures/institutions of the movement or those with historical or current significance. Sub-articles can then cover other viewpoints. (See this article, for example, where a creationist explains why it is not an argument creationists should use.) Mark Jones 17:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed paragraph from "Criticism" section for original observations

I took this paragraph out as I think it constitutes too much original observation. It can perhaps be put back in once we have a citation where the criticism is made independently of Citizendium.

The list of supporters of young Earth creationism show they came to creationism from religion, and that those who claim scientific expertise on other topics have not published papers on creationism in mainstream, refereed science journals.

Please see the CZ:Original Research Policy page for more on this topic. Thanks. Mark Jones 18:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)