Talk:Creationism

IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of creationism please do so at talk.origins or Debatepedia. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

Christian myth?

Why does this article refer on more than one occasion to 'the Christian myth..'? The author may believe creation as described in Genesis is a myth, but that's entirely subjective...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.247.125 (talk)

From Mythology : "In the study of folklore, a myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form."--LexCorp (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, except that the Bible isn't folklore and in modern usage, the term myth always implies something which is in no way true. I'm aware that this has been discussed in much more detail on other discussion pages, but my point is that other words could be used here - myth is incorrect and is used, I suspect, primarily by non-Christians in order to offend... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.247.125 (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

From Folklore: "Folklore culture, including stories, music, dance, legends, oral history, proverbs, jokes, popular beliefs, customs, and so forth within a particular population comprising the traditions (including oral traditions) of that culture, subculture, or group." Emphasis is mine. The Bible is the single most important piece of folklore in the Christian culture (particularly the parables section). Myth as used in the article is exactly correct. The only correct alternative that comes to mind is Creation Myths so maybe change 'the Christian myth..' to 'the Christian creation myth..' is a good edit. Your suspicions are groundless and as an addendum, me thinks some Christians will find it very offensive if you demote their sacred narrative from the myth status to simply a narrative. Your failure to assign the correct meaning of a word given its contexts and, further more, substitute its meaning with the one that gives most offence to a Christian subset group should not be the basis for editorial changes to this article. The average Christian's intelligence is greater than what you seem to credit them with and I think most, if not all of them, will clearly understand and assign the correct meaning of the word "myth".--LexCorp (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

'Myth' does sound offensive to Christians in this context, however most Wikipedia editors have decided to use this to cover the less commonly understood 'scholarly' use of the term, which does not necessarily imply that the text is not true. ^rossnixon 01:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Something I feel worth pointing out is that Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms. Basically, it's best to keep it simple yet formal. For example, "wall" is prefered over "bulkhead" as most people will recognize wall whereas many people will get confused over bulkhead. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The use of the words "Christian myth" do not portray a neutral standpoint. It should be changes to "biblical scripture", as this is not offensive to any user, and is not portraying Christian nor non-Christian standpoints. Francisoh7 (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The use of the words "Christian myth" does portray a neutral standpoint. I go to Georgetown University, a Catholic university, and in my theology class we refer to biblical stories as "myths." Every text we have read for the class does likewise. It is not about offending anyone, for it is simply the academic way of referring to such stories. If a reader extracts negative connotations from these words then that is their logical fallacy and Wikipedia has no business using euphemisms to appease their qualms. I move to archive this discussion now as it has no potential for improving the encyclopedia. from hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 02:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It never stops to amaze me as an atheist how uninformed are the majority of theists about their own faith. For something so central to their lives, and may I dare say eternal salvation, they seem to dedicate very little time to reflect and study on their own religion. It is understandable that some theist have problems with the dual meaning of the word "theory" and try to use it pejoratively when referring to evolution (I am referring to SOME theist) but for them to misrepresent the word "myth" is just plain astounding to me. One of the main staples of any group of people that share a culture is precisely a rich mythology and folklore that culturally binds them even when they are separated in geographical space and/or time. I agree that we should close this discussion but also suggest we left it in here for everyone to read and hope some of it stick to their minds.--LexCorp (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The term "myth" should be changed to "story" to remain neutral. There has been much debate here on the meaning of the term "myth" and that is the point. Why make it confusing or misleading to the reader? Debate or not the definition in Merriam-Webster uses terms such as ostensible, imaginary, and unverifiable. Clearly this definition is the source of the debate. Just change it to "story" to avoid unnecessary argumentation. This is not the forum for that - the page should be neutral and the word "myth" is not neutral. Toneron2 (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Story has no formal definition and is commonly used to describe fiction or lies (check the definitions). "myth" when used in a formal term has only one definition and by no means does it imply falsehood. Because some people might not understand that does not mean that we shouldn't use it per WP:RNPOV and WP:WTA#Myth and Legend. Nefariousski (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is a good example of why wikipedia is not used as a source. There is so much biased information here ,where as, if you went the evolution page it is much less biased. Evolution has no critism on the page and even the Charles Darwin won't mention that he married his first cousin as far as I can see. Remember, it is your wikireality just because it is or is not on here does not make it so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.166.224.192 (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that this is not a discussion forum on the topic of Creationism (per WP:TALK and WP:NOTAFORUM), do you have any constructive suggestions for improvement of this article which you would like to discuss? Gabbe (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that we have implemented an in-article note and a FAQ question both explaining the meaning of "myth" and why it is used in the article as a way to mitigate confusion from uniformed readers as to the meaning of "myth".--LexCorp (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a suggestion that may be a reasonable compromise. Could the in-article note be moved up to the lead section, instead of sitting down low in a footnote? Or at least put a brief parenthesis when the word myth is first used (it's currently on the second instance of the word, which is a mistake), suggesting that the reader see the footnote for an explanation of the term as it is used in this article. Something like: "(for an explanation of myth, see [footnote])".


An article as well-documented as this one is has such an abundance of footnotes that I don't normally read them as I'm reading the article. I'm not a creationist by any means, nor am I ignorant of non-pejorative definitions of the word myth, but when I started reading the article I was immediately put off by the word, and I didn't notice until quite a lot later that there was a footnote explaining its use.


Wikipedia (as I understand it—please correct me if I'm wrong) is intended for use by the general public, not only by people who happen to know that the word myth has a single "formal definition" (whatever that means) that includes no negative connotations whatsoever. Clearly I don't know what all English speakers think, but I and everybody I know ordinarily read myth as if it were a synonym for fable, but slightly more pejorative than fable is. If I were a creationist (and as I said, I'm not) I would be offended by the word. We don't want to offend people if we can avoid it, do we? The people most likely to be offended by the word until they understand how it is being used in this article are the very ones who have the most to gain by reading it, which they may not do if the introduction uses a term they misinterpret.


Regardless of what its formal definition is, I'm pretty sure the word myth is most widely understood by ordinary English speakers to mean a story made up by relatively ignorant people to explain natural phenomena, a story that may have some element of moral or psychological truth in it, but little if any fact. That's how I learned it in elementary school, and what you learn that young is hard to unlearn: that definition still fuels my initial gut reaction to the word, as I discovered today. A TV show called MythBusters (the title alone should tell us something) reflects what surely is a very widespread if not universal popular understanding of what a myth is; the show's web site has a quiz called "Myth or Fact", in which we guess whether a commonly accepted story is true or not. Do we want people to assume we have that attitude toward their religious beliefs if we can avoid it?


I understand now why the term is used here, and I no longer have any problem with it personally, but it is naive to assume that everybody who reads this article will also read the footnote. I missed out on the consensus discussion, and if somebody already suggested this solution and it was rejected, I apologize for resurrecting it. But it seems as if a very small modification like the one I've suggested could help ameliorate the problem (and let's be honest: there is a problem, or this discussion never would have happened).


It's fine to expect the reader to accept the formal definition, but would it hurt to make it just a little bit easier for him or her to find the definition? Leaving the article as it is invites controversy, and surely nobody really wants that. We're here to inform, aren't we—to help people?—not see how far we can go before somebody gets offended. I believe we can defuse the issue significantly without compromising the article's integrity at all.

--Jim10701 (talk) 05:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree that the term "myth" is very misleading, not to mention highly objectionable to the majority of those who would consider their self to be creationists. If this page is suppose to be an unbiased page rather than coming across as naturalistic propaganda, it should be amended. Quintessential1 (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)JPD

Unfortunately per WP:WTA#Myth and Legend, WP:RNPOV, WP:NOT#CENSORED we don't consider feelings and objections based on appeal to emotion when considering whether to use the word or not. As long as it's being used in its formal sense and due diligence is made to establish formal use and formal context it's perfectly acceptable (per policy and multiple debates that all thus far have turned out to support formal usage). Nefariousski (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Misleading how? Did you read the FAQ at the top of this page? The note referred in the article?--LexCorp (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Seeking consensus to change "myth" to "story"

Archived
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is so much debate here about using the word "myth". This ends up being a debate about Creationism itself which is clearly outside the stated scope of talk: pages. The definition in Merriam-Webster uses terms such as ostensible, imaginary, and unverifiable. Clearly this definition is the source of the debate. Why can't we change it to the neutral term "story"? Toneron2 (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Oppose: The use of the word "myth" is appropriate because it is the correct term, not because anyone is pushing an anti-Christian agenda. I go to Georgetown University, a Catholic university, and in my theology classes we refer to biblical stories, and the stories of every other religion, as "myths." Every text we have read for the class does likewise. It is not about offending anyone or making any statement of truth or untruth, for it is simply the academic way of referring to such stories. If a reader extracts negative connotations from these words then that is their logical fallacy and Wikipedia has no business using euphemisms to appease their qualms. Changing the word to "story" would detract from the encyclopedic quality of Wikipedia as it is not the word that a theologist would use. Imagine going to the article on temperature and finding that someone had switched every instance of the word "molecule" to "little thingy" because they thought some readers wouldn't know what a molecule was. The article would be less encyclopedic because "little thingy" is not the terminology that a chemist would use. It does not matter, really, what Merriam-Webster says because the "industry standard," you could say, in theology is to call such texts myths. Just as it is inappropriate to cater to those who do not know the word "molecule" by using a different word, it is inappropriate to cater to the Christians who will get offended at first glance by the word "myth." from hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 08:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Also, if you look at the REFERENCES of the article, they as well refer to all such texts as myths. It would be biased to change the word. from hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 08:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Oppose: For the same reason we shouldn't avoid the word theory in scientific articles - after all, it has negative connotations too. Myth is the correct and neutral term. Ben (talk) 08:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Oppose: As per Hajatvrc and Ben. Although, come to think of it, replacing "myth" (with its subtle definition that doesn't preclude factual) with "story" (with its connotation of fiction or subjective history) does have certain attractions when it comes to creationism. --PLUMBAGO 08:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Oppose Hjatvrc makes excellent points - myth is the correct word. The arguments against it would lead to us getting rid of the word from most articles, which would be, in my opinion, ridculous. As for 'stories', didn't anyone else have their mother tell them not to tell stories? I don't see how story is a better word given that it also has such negative connotations. Dougweller (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Oppose: Agree with Hajatvrc. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not an "Encyclopaedia for Dummies". Why dumb down an article so that the uninformed remains uninformed is beyond me. Much better to try to disseminate knowledge. As an aside there is also a version of Wikipedia for Simple English.--LexCorp (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC) You are right - looking at the Merriam-Webster for "story" it may be even more biased. Thank you. Toneron2 (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Oppose: the definition for myth given above is only one definition, there are others. And scholars of religion do not use myth to mean false. This is an encyclopedia, if we use scholarly words in ways people may be unfamiliar with, well, just explain what we mean or provide a link to the article on myth, and make sure that it explains how historians of religion, anthropologists, and others use the word myth. And has been pointed out "story" is at least as controversial if not more. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Disagree with you there. Wikipedia is definitely not an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles are written by subject matter experts. This article, for example, is not written by experts in Creationism. My point is moot anyway. Toneron2 (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Actually, here on the Wiki it is not the administrators who hold positions of respect, it is those who own the intellectual capital in their respective fields. In general, articles are written by people who have degrees in the subject. They are then copy-edited and wikified by those editors with more general skills. But people who do not have degrees in history will typically not write an article on, say, Ancient Egypt. It would require far too much time and effort for someone to come in without prior knowledge and do all the research for such a topic. Therefore, experts on these subjects are regularly sought out and recruited to add the bulk of the content. from hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 07:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Oppose: Story and Myth are both negative terms. Myth is considered a negative word because Myths are taught to be of ill informed people trying to explain the Impossible. Where as a story is considered a made up or imaginative telling of an Incredible event (Bedtime story) And, since theory is not allowed. (Because then it might be considered truth). Then how about hypothesis? No? How about belief? The Creation Belief? No, that might be construed as fact also. Then keep "myth" if it makes the people happy. Just because some people say "myth" doesn't affect my belief that God created the Earth and the Heavens. This argument just amplifies the tensions and is really a POV. Some people just use it to bring chaos to the Wiki. Wait; is Chaos a theory or Hypothesis? Anyway both are negative. Big Roger (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Oppose, but...: this will probably come up again and again. As I see it, part of the problem is that myth has two meanings and it's not clear from the article if the word is used in the colloquial or the academic sence. Wikilinking myth doesn't really help because it redirects to Mythology which mentions both uses: "The term "myth" is often used colloquially to refer to a false story; however, the academic use of the term generally does not refer to truth or falsity." I suggest adding a short explanation about how "myth" is used in this article.Sjö (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC) We can't possibly (nor should we if we could) do that for every article that uses the term myth, and I can't imagine why someone would assume that an encyclopedia would be using colloquial language. Still, maybe the mythology article could be improved a little to help out all those articles nevertheless, but I think that is a discussion for the mythology article. Ben (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC) I see no problem in adding an explanation as to what myth means to the FAQ at the top of this page. It is a bit OT given that the article is about creationism, and as a precedent it could open the floodgates to ever increasing clarification of why any given word is used in the article, but it may also stop the over-reaction of the uninformed readers.--LexCorp (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Agreed with LexCorp. A note on the FAQ of this page is a good move. from hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 17:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC) I'm also agreed. Ben (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC) That seems like a good solution LexCorp. It should be assumed that readers are uninformed. Toneron2 (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Myth = popular narrative? Toneron2 (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC) No; from Mythology: "a myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form." from hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 05:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC) My request to revise this article appears to be founded by this article. Toneron2 (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure what you mean by that. After reading what you linked to I see it says exactly what we've been saying: "Formal use of the word is commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia is no exception. However, except in rare cases (e.g., urban myth), informal use of the word should be avoided, and should not be assumed." This supports our use of the word with its formal meaning (Wikipedia is no exception) and counters those who would assume it was being used informally. Our use of the word myth is quite obviously formal, usually being accompanied by the word "creation." "Creation myth" is a formal use of the word myth. from hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 05:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Just by the simple fact that it appears on a list of words to avoid. Toneron2 (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Anthropologists and historians use the word "myth" to refer to stories that are located in the past but used to explain or justify something about the present world, social relations, or moral order. The bulk of critical scholarship on Genesis 1 an 2 view it in just this way, so it is not a casual use of the term. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Ugh, I am so tired of this idiotic debate. let me sum things up so that everyone can see the level that wikipedia has sunk to. some editors note that the term myth has well-defined pejorative connotations in common use (a fact almost everyone agrees to), and suggest that the term be replaced by an equivalent term without such negative usages. other editors note that the esoteric academic use of the word has no such connotations, and that wikipedia only needs to respect the academic usage, regardless of any hurt feelings that the word might engender for those who don't know the academic use. the first group begins to suspect (with a certain acuity) that the second group is intentionally wikilawyering in order to preserve a deeply entrenched disdain for the hard-core christian perspective. I say that there's a certain acuity in that because there's really no reason not to change the word 'myth' to the word 'story' (the terms are used interchangeably in academic research) except to rub a few christian noses in it. and FYI, no, I'm not a creationist - I'm not even a Christian in the way most people mean the word, and I think creationism as a whole is a misguided effort. but even I can see the pettiness of this. But no one is going to make any headway on this issue, ever. scientific zealots (definition of zealot: a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in the pursuit of their ideals) are just as intractable as religious zealots, and a good deal more smug about it. and they have certain advantages on wikipedia in terms of policy. sad, but true. so long as they want to be petty, they can continue to be petty, and there's nothing to do but deal with it. --Ludwigs2 22:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Ludwigs, perhaps instead of "summing up" your perception of this discussion for others you should sum up Wikipedia's rules regarding no personal attacks and assume good faith for your own enlightenment. Your attacks on "scientific zealots" are inappropriate and uniformed, for how can you ever know the intentions or thought processes behind someone else's actions? Are you psychic? Our arguments for using the word myth go way beyond what you so kindly "summed up" for us, and your inclusion of only the observations that satisfy your argument is clear. It is simply not true that "story" serves the same purpose as "myth," and the article would suffer if we changed it. You countered this by saying "the terms are used interchangeably in academic research." In this case you are saying the exact opposite of what we have been saying, and yet you provide us with no support for this assertion. Do you really think that saying the two terms are the same after all that has already been said to the contrary is going to serve any purpose without you actually citing some sources? While I do not mean to be impolite, I wish to provide you with some insight regarding your image right now (for your benefit, not my gratification). Following the comments that you just made you appear to others as a judgmental, immature child. I do not think that this perception of you is correct, and I'm sure you are a jolly fine person in real life. But when you come into a conversation and claim to have some intelligent, universal perspective of a situation and then fail to make a coherent argument that actually counters the points that the opposition is making, you do not create a favorable image for yourself. You have no informed reason to suspect that our intentions are to "rub a few christian noses in it" or that anyone, say me, is a Christian or not. "But no one is going to make any headway on this issue, ever", until you either provide facts or leave the discussion. The no personal attacks rule exists for this very reason. The only thing you need to do to further your cause is to provide and argument and cite sources that support it. Making an attack on the other editor does not "make any headway, ever." from hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 23:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Hajatvrc: thanks for your thoughtful reply. However, let's be clear with each other: I am not particularly concerned with images, for myself or for others. Wikipedia is about the article, not the editors, in my view. if you personally worry about such things, then I will try to be more circumspect when speaking with you in the future. I was not attacking anyone. 'Zealot' (like 'myth') is denotatively a perfectly adequate word to describe someone who is thoroughly dedicated to an ideal. There are any number of editors on this site (and involved in arguments like this) who are in fact thoroughly and completely dedicated to promoting and preserving the ideals of scientific reasoning on Wikipedia. I salute them, though I think they may take it a bit too far at times. Any negative connotations the word 'zealot' has in your mind, however, are irrelevant to the discussion. I have never met and cannot imagine an academic who would pause for even a moment to object to the use of 'creation story' in place of 'creation myth'. 'creation myth' is part of the academic jargon in anthropology and a couple of related fields, true, but academics are primarily concerned with communicating abstract ideas clearly. if a phrase does that, academics will use it; if a phrase starts to muddy the waters (as is happening here) academics will abandon it. Of course, I cannot cite academics who point out that people should use common sense in language-use problems like this. I am, however, confused as to why you would need me to do that. I am not indulging in suspicions or evaluating anyone's intentions. I'm merely observing that a number of people do insist quite strongly on the use of words like 'myth' (even while acknowledging the derogatory aspects of the word) without providing anything that resembles a proper reason for insisting on it. In the absence of rational explanations, emotional explanations have to suffice. I'm willing to be proven wrong, of course, but if in fact it is an example of emotional reasoning, then I am well within my rights to suggest that it will not change: emotional reasoning does not lend itself productive discussion. To date, the only argument I've seen in favor of the term 'myth' is that academics use it. that is an excellent argument for using the word 'myth' in direct quotations from academic sources. extending it to our word use, however, is specious, since it rests on the (currently groundless and unproven) assumption that academics would for some reason reject the term 'story' as an alternate. Is that your argument, and can you flesh it out with some evidence that scholarly sources would object to such alternate terms? --Ludwigs2 00:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Everyone cool down for a moment. @Ludwigs2: Your opinion is noted. The clear consensus as seen above is to use the word "myth". Please abide by consensus and drop this issue.--LexCorp (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC) I'm happy to abide by the consensus (you'll note that I've made no effort to make any changes to this article) but if you're asking me to accept the consensus as somehow 'correct' then I'm going to have to respectfully decline. I believe the consensus (such as it is) is misguided, I've explained why I believe it's misguided, and I'm awaiting a rational explanation why my belief is wrong. I think I'm being quite reasonable about this, though I understand how it might seem otherwise. Using the word 'myth' is an editorial choice, and when an editorial choice is contested on Wikipedia there ought to be (a) an attempt at compromise or (b) a reasonable explanation of why no compromise is possible. (a) has never been offered and the (b) given is not exactly satisfactory. I'm waiting for someone to do better, on either count. When that happens I'll drop the issue. fair enough? --Ludwigs2 01:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC) You said it best yourself: To date, the only argument I've seen in favor of the term 'myth' is that academics use it. Wikipedia is not the place to right what you perceive to be some wrong in the literature. Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Well, that argument would work if it were actually consistent with what I said. But since it's not, I see no reason to do anything except discount it. do you have any non-rhetorical arguments available? --Ludwigs2 02:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC) sorry, for clarification: there's no issue that academics use the term. the issue is the presumption that academics would insist on using the term exclusive of all others, which seems highly doubtful. --Ludwigs2 02:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC) At this point in the thread there is nothing to gain by engaging with you, and nothing to lose by not. I'll simply share LexCorp's sentiment and note your opinion, and then watch this thread die, or in the case something substantial is brought to the table later, rejoin at that point in time. Ben (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC) That is exactly the response I expected to get; clear indication that you're collectively relying on an emotional reasoning to win the argument. thank you for making it explicit. --Ludwigs2 02:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Ok I am going to be concise. (a) I suggested substituting "myth" for "creation myth". As of now all but one instance of the word "myth" is preceded by the word "creation". How much more explicit you want the context to be?. Other editors suggested changing to "story" instead. This was clearly rejected. I count these as trying to compromise. (b) The main objection to the use of "myth" seem to be that it is offensive to some. This is not failure of the article but of those readers that fail to assign correct meaning of "myth" in the given context. Amazing, if you think about it, given that only in one instance it is not preceded by "creation". We should not dumb down the article to accommodate said readers. There is also a Simple English Wikipedia version of this article for those readers with poor command of English. All these is made clear in the discussion above. Again it is noted that you do not agree with these reasons. Further discussion without bringing something fresh to the table is really pointless at this point.--LexCorp (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC) (e/c)I will return the favor and respond as concisely as possible. Bullet points are the same as yours. a-1) The troubling word is 'myth'; prefixing it with 'creation' may be an improvement, but hardly resolves the original complaint. a-2) I'm well aware that users rejected use of the word 'story'. I'm still waiting for a decent explanation of why they did that. Please remember that consensus is not the same as simple majority rule on wikipedia. b) The vast majority of English speakers in the world understand 'myth' to imply falsehood. The people who understand myth in the way you are expressing it constitute a small percentage of the already tiny population of professional English-speaking academics. Your 'dumbing down' seems to mean 'understood correctly by people who aren't graduate students or better in Anthropology'. Setting aside the unbridled intellectual elitism of that (mostly because I'm frequently guilty of it myself), the purpose of an encyclopedia is to explain things for non-professionals, not for professional scholars. The only reason this discussion is (and likely will continue to be) pointless is because you refuse or are unable to answer the fairly straight-forward question I asked above. What makes you assume that scholars would reject the use of the word 'story' (or equivalent) in place of 'myth'? As I see it you have (on one hand) a notable number of WP editors who find the term 'myth' distasteful, and (on the other hand)... nothing. a blind insistence on the use of the word, it seems, without any basis for that insistence in scholarly work or analytical reason. One of us has to face facts, here: if you can give me a decent scholarly rationale to mandate use of an offensive term I'll accept it; if you can't, then you're going to have to accept a change you won't much like. Or we can just stare each other down for eternity like angry mules. It's up to you. --Ludwigs2 03:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Great. I think there was consensus to add an entry in the FAQ for this article that says something like "Myth, in this context, means a sacred narrative" (per Hajatvrc's note above). Or better yet I like the whole definition the Hajatvrc provided which to me sums up a perfect definition of Creationism: "a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be." Toneron2 (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC) OK I added myth into the FAQ. Feel free to improve.--LexCorp (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Ludwigs, I have to say I like your style and enjoy reading your writing :). I agree that the thread is dead as far as changing the article, but I still believe there is knowledge to be gained from a continued discussion so I will post my reply. I never quibbled over your use of the word "zealot." I quibbled over your implications that WE are "taking it too far" and acting based on "emotional" motivation. This IS "indulging in suspicions or evaluating...intentions." What you are implying is that I am being an irrational person, which is a conclusion that would usually be saved for AFTER a discussion has occurred between us through which you can actually make such a judgment. You stated, "the only argument I've seen in favor of the term 'myth' is that academics use it." But the discussion above was LESS about that point than it was about the more important issue at hand. As an encyclopedia our mission is to educate people. LexCorp said it best: "Much better to try to disseminate knowledge" than to change a word that so many agree is simply the better word. You could suspect that this is motivated only by a will to "rub Christian noses in it," but, as I said, you have no informed basis for your accusation that I give a flying damn about offending Christians. The use of the word shouldn't be offending to anyone anyway, as I have already explained. Here's the point: You are right: this debate is GETTING REALLY, REALLY OLD. But where we disagree is not so much about the attitudes of the academic community regarding the use of the word myth (side note: which we still disagree about but it's kind of beside the point as so many would agree that myth SOUNDS better and is more encyclopedic than "story" and they would not really care about whether "story" was a PROPER word to use or not. They would still use myth because they LIKE IT better as a word, DISCOUNTING ALL CONNOTATIONS, which is why we are in this discussion) but about how we suggest the Wikipedian community FIX the problem. You suggest that we simply give in to the demands of the uninformed masses and change the word as myth is NOT "better" than story. We suggest that we fix the situation by spreading the knowledge about the proper use of the word "myth." This, as I said, is more about it being perceived to be better AS A WORD by the editing community than it is about "rubbing Christian noses" in anything. We intend to inform those who become offended by linking to the information that will explain how to properly use the word myth. This is the best way to SOLVE the problem. The method that you suggest will simply MASK the problem, and then this discussion will arise again and again and again and again as editors on other pages will instinctively use the word "myth" at first because they like it the best, and then the cycle you described above will be perpetuated forever. So I replied to your first edit so harshly because you did not touch on this issue, which was discussed already. Your exclusion of this issue in the midst of your attacking other editors as thinkers led to your bad image. I comment on your image not because I assume you give a flying damn about it but because in a debate image is very important as it affects how legitimate other debatees find your arguments and how long they are willing to debate with you. from hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 03:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC) (e/c) I'll admit, I've been enjoying this debate (after a brief moment at the beginning of being miffed that this argument was still ongoing). and you have to forgive me if I get under the skin a bit - I'm a political psychologist by training, and I can get aggressively Socratic if I don't watch myself. the real problem I see here (if I can be frank) is that I personally don't like offending people without reason. I have no problem offending people if I have call to, mind you, but if I'm going to say something that offends someone I want some value added that makes the offense worthwhile. for instance, I've been consciously pushing people's buttons throughout this debate, but I've been doing it because I've been trying to force a certain type of reflection on the problem. the whole thing about zealots, for instance, was intended to use a word I knew you wouldn't like but couldn't actually object to on technical grounds (and pardon me if I'm still smirking over the irony of you complaining that I "attacked you as thinkers" three lines after you discounted the opinion of "the uninformed masses"). with respect to the word 'myth', though, I can see people are offended by it. I might question whether they have reason to be offended by it, but I can see that they are (and emotions like that aren't really subject to rational analysis). I can't at the moment see what value is added by using the word that justifies that offense, and that's what's bothering me. Sure, myth is a better word, but is stylistic umpf sufficient grounds to say something that likely angers tens of thousands of people? that's the kind of issue that I'm wrestling with. No worries about being harsh; I didn't take it personally. If you want my opinion, the way to resolve this problem is to reach a real consensus with the people that object to the term, rather than deciding what the consensus should be from a policy perspective and trying to impose it. I mean, ideally, this article should neither be used to support creationism nor to attack it, and I can see how an excessive insistence on the work 'myth' could easily translate into a back-door attack on the subject. it's a matter of judgement whether that's happening, of course, but we can' really judge that issue correctly if a large portion of the other side is more-or-less excluded from the discussion. --Ludwigs2 04:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC) But what would you suggest we do about the rest of the articles on WP that use the word "myth?" The reason I never saw it as a viable option to "reach a real consensus" in the way that you describe it is that it is comical to suggest that this would even be possible. My suggestion was based upon working within the consensus that already exists to diminish (and over time destroy completely) the misinformed objection to the use of an academic word. I felt annoyed by your comments because in reality I am completely separated emotionally from the issue. My objections are purely intellectual. You hit the nail on the head when you pointed out what I see now is the major difference between our points of view: I do not care if others choose to be offended by something I say. You say "emotions like that aren't really subject to rational analysis," but I disagree. I believe that someone can always choose to not be offended through the use of Reason (I do not wish to enter a debate regarding this difference in view as it would never end, though it would be interesting. I think we can just accept this difference in each other). Now, for the most part I find it against my best interest for others to be offended as that usually results in emotional debates devoid of any Reason, hence my assertion that it is necessary to inform those who get offended at first as to why their taking offense is irrational. from hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 04:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC) re: "hence my assertion that it is necessary to inform those who get offended at first as to why their taking offense is irrational"... I take it you're not married? I understand your position (it's a very common one, at least in the last 300/400 years: rationality as a panacea for social ills). unfortunately, I don't think it works as expected. basically it means that whoever is in power gets to decide what is and what is not a valid emotion, and you end up with some unsavory "rich=eccentric/poor=crazy" dichotomies. so, these people happen to believe in creationism. you think their belief is irrational (which I'd probably agree with), and so you think that heir offense at having their beliefs mocked is irrational (which I would probably not agree with), and your attitude towards them becomes, basically, "suck it up" (which I can't agree with at all). they have a right to their beliefs, no mater what we think of those beliefs. they do not have a right to promulgate those beliefs on wikipedia, obviously, but then neither to you and I. it is not wikipedia's place to destroy their misinformation; wikipedia should only concern itself with informing, and leave people to do with the information what they choose. That's my take, anyway. --Ludwigs2 05:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC) "so, these people happen to believe in creationism. you think their belief is irrational (which I'd probably agree with), and so you think that heir offense at having their beliefs mocked is irrational (which I would probably not agree with), and your attitude towards them becomes, basically, "suck it up" (which I can't agree with at all)." I don't understand where this is coming from. I thought we were past any discussion about the rationality of Creationism and were solely talking about the rationality of being offended by a word that in no way calls their belief fictitious. I am very distraught by this response from you as it is not founded in anything that I said. When I was talking about Reason I was not referring to the rationality of a creation myth itself, and I thought I made it quite clear in this discussion that I don't give a damn whether Christians believe the Bible is literal or not. It is immaterial to my argument. Therefore, with regard to your statement of the person in power unfairly choosing what belief is correct, I heartily agree with you and never said anything to the contrary. My argument was about the misinformation regarding the meaning of the word "myth" (which is not something that is subjective, for while it has an academic meaning and a colloquial meaning it should be assumed that on Wiki it is being used in the academic sense) and nothing else. It can be said that it is irrational to be offended by the word myth because the basis for that offense, that it calls the belief false, does not exist. from hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 05:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC) And no, marriage is not for me, as you have observed. I subscribe to polyamory. :) from hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 05:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC) I had an ex who was polyamorous. not my cup of tea (hence the 'ex' part), but an interesting lifestyle if you are mature enough to handle it. She is, but I have my doubts about some of her later partners. people, I swear... at any rate, I don't see how you can separate the act of being offended from the thing they are offended about. these people are not offended by the word 'myth' in some kind of abstract linguistic sense. they are offended (some of them, anyway) by the word because they feel it degrades one of their deeply held beliefs. If someone calls you a bad name and you get offended by it, you're not offended by the word itself, really, but by the violation of your self image that is implied by the word, yah? you're taking a dominant position here, and asserting (ab initio) that no one should be offended by the word 'myth', because from a scientific-minded perspective 'myth' is not an offensive word. so when someone says they are offended by it, you automatically assume they are irrational? that, my friend, is a power-play, an attempt to dictate what are and are not valid emotional states, and through that, to dictate what are and are not valid statements. telling someone they should not be offended by that word is basically telling them that they have lost the right to defend their beliefs (because if they have no right to be offended that you called their belief a myth then they must accept that their belief can be categorized as a myth, and they might as well give it up). Is that your goal? --Ludwigs2 07:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC) :Only one statement you made there was a logical follow-through to anything I've said: "they must accept that their belief can be categorized as a myth." A myth "is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form." Genesis "is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form." Thus, the story behind their beliefs is a myth. It is a very simple, factual concept. Again, it has nothing to do with the legitimacy or illegitimacy of their beliefs. My arguement goes no further than this, and the connections you made, claiming that they are ideas that necessarily follow my argument, are not logical. "I don't see how you can separate the act of being offended from the thing they are offended about." I have already explained why this connection does not exist. No offense to their beliefs is necessitated by the use of the word myth. They take offense because they perceive that it claims their ideas are false, and yet it does not. Again, from here the only argument that can be made (which we WERE discussing and yet somehow you found it necessary to claim I am trying to dictate that a Christian is wrong to take Genesis literally) is whether or not we should consent to the using of a sub-par word in order to protect people from their own misconception that the better word claims falsity in their ideology. From your perspective, it is not worth people misunderstanding our proper usage. From mine, we should provide them with the proper usage, explain to them why it is proper, and then allow them to choose whether or not to still be offended. Again, if someone still chooses to be offended by a word on grounds that are false (i.e. the grounds that the word claims falsity in their beliefs), then that is their choice. There is no reason why an encyclopedia should do anything but provide the fact (which is that mythology does not claim falsity), because that is what an encyclopedia exists for: to provide facts. Notice I did not make any claim here about the Genesis creation myth being fact or fiction. There is no reason to bring that into the argument. This will be my last post in this discussion. If you look at my talk page I already have people warning me that you are just trolling (i.e. arguing for the sake of being an ass) and to ignore you. While I can't make any judgment about your intentions, this discussion has run out of all use. I'll see you around, I'm sure. from hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 07:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC) here's the problem right here. you say "No offense to their beliefs is necessitated by the use of the word myth. They take offense because they perceive that it claims their ideas are false, and yet it does not." This is simply a ludicrous statement. We've already establish that 'myth' implies falsehood for the vast majority of English speakers on the planet, and the fact that you seem to be getting progressively more irate over a simple discussion about the meaning of words should put rest to any beliefs you have that people can rationally control what offends them. I suggest you go back to your talk page and continue the discussion with people who already agree with you, because at the moment you don't seem to know what to do with a discussion where there is an honest and earnest opposite point of view. when you are done with ad hominems, come back and we can continue. --Ludwigs2 08:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC) 'Still beating the dead horse' How about Legend instead of Myth. according to Meriam Webster Dictionary and Wikitionarythis is an acceptable synonym of the word myth without the negative connotation.Big Roger (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC) I don't think using the word "legend" will solve the problem. from hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 04:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Ludwig, please let it go. Consensus has been determined. Auntie E. 07:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The second sentence is awkward and imprecise

I find the second sentence--in particular, its first clause--terribly awkward and slightly misleading:

However the term is more commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of certain biological processes

The use of 'however' and the comparative 'more' imply that common usage contradicts the meaning given in the previous sentence. It would be more accurate to regard common usage as being more restrictive (that is, limiting the range possible meanings) or particular.

Also, doesn't "used to refer to religiously motivated rejection" read a bit awkwardly? Every time I read it, I expect "religiously motivated rejection" to be preceded by the definite article ("the religiously motivated rejection") or be pluralized ("religiously motivated rejections"), but perhaps this is idiosyncratic.

I also think that it is not particularly encyclopedic to impute motives. Better to say that creationism has religious grounds.

Finally, I think it slightly imprecise to say that creationism rejects biological processes. It doesn't reject the processes so much as it denies they exist. 'Rejection' is ambiguous, because one could conceivably reject evolution without rejecting it exists. (For example, someone might labor to counteract the effects of natural selection on ethical grounds.) It would therefore be more appropriate, in my opinion, to say that creationism is the rejection of biological explanations.

This article has undergone quite a bit of scrutiny, so I decided against making any edits myself before consulting other editors. If I were to edit the article, I would rephrase the second sentence as follows:

Most commonly, the term is used to refer to the denial, on religious grounds, that biological processes (most commonly, evolution) could^† provide an adequate account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth.

^† I wrote could provide because creationism is not merely unsatisfied with biology as it stands, but is rather in principle opposed to the notion that biology could adequately account for the origin of life, etc.

I realize my proposed edit may come across as somehow soft on creationism. For the record, I'm a militant atheist. My points are motivated purely by concerns over style and precision. Comments are very welcome. Ori.livneh (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, let me commend you on taking your issue to the article talk page first, in a civil fashion. Quite a rarity regarding these articles. Secondly, having read through your comment I find your argument very persuasive and I agree completely with your suggestion. My suggestion is waiting a day or two to see if some objections pop up, and then do they alteration you propose. Gabbe (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ori, well explained. I don't think anyone would argue with your proposed edit. Go for it. And regarding the 'militant atheism', if I may offer a gentle poke... "get well soon!" ;-) ^rossnixon 02:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both your logic and proposed solution, with one caveat--I would propose changing "could" to "are able to", so as not to give the impression that biological processes are a speculative explanation of life. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Have put in the proposed sentence, with only minor grammar changes. ^rossnixon 01:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The flow is a little off: "most commonly" is used twice in the sentence. Perhaps the second (parenthetical) use could be changed to "for example" or "especially"? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Changed one 'most commonly' => usually. ^rossnixon 02:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Gallup Poll about Young Earth Creationism

This poll http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm is proving contentious as to whether it should be included in this article and if so how phrased. To summarize the positions as I see it the nays say that the poll questioned people only about what they believed with regard to the creation of humans (10,000 BCE) and not the Earth. Therefore using the poll to justify the line "Young Earth creationist views are held by as many as 44%" is not correct. The other side, and I'm quoting Rossnixon from his/her summary "yes, but you will find there is no group of note than says both that the earth is billions of years old and humans are less than 10,000 years old". I think there are two issues here, not being able to find such a group (and I don't even know how to begin looking) does not justify reinterpreting the original article even if we're convinced the two versions practically mean the same thing -- we should not make those kinds of judgement calls and just use the original wording. The second issue is that it's been over 20 years since I held any religious belief but I'm almost positive that I did, at one point, believe that the Earth/universe was billions of years old but that humans were 6,000 - 10,000 years old (my need to reconcile science and religion). While I might have been unique in this belief as a young teenager I can't help but think I must have gotten it from other people. Yes, that's anecdotal, but I think that's all that's necessary to demonstrate that the possibility exists for groups of people to hold both views (Earth=billions, humans=thousands) which renders the current phrasing misleading. SQGibbon (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I have found one exception to the conflation. Jehovah's Witnesses seem to accept millions+ years for the earth (they have increased it from 50,000) but less than 10,000 years for Adam and Eve. Someone may be able to confirm that. If they were a fringe group, we could ignore that, but it appears there are about 7 million (worldwide) - so I presume they break the poll's usefulness. Comments? ^rossnixon 01:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the poll is a decent source, but that it doesn't substantiate the statement "Young Earth creationist views are held by as many as 44%". Gabbe (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Realistic

This passage here: Since the end of the 19th century, belief in creationism has decreased as scientific theories have been presented that may support more naturalistic explanations for the universe and for life.

Should be changed to: Since the end of the 19th century, belief in creationism has decreased as scientific theories have been presented that may support more realistic explanations for the universe and for life. Jbhf1 (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The word "naturalistic" is more accurate and less-POV as everyone has their own interpretation of "realistic". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree. A fair amount of human evolution happened in the desert, and The Real is a desert! So, it isn't too far off the mark to refer to evolution as "realistic". Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Religious belief

The article opens with the assertion that "Creationism is the religious belief..." The quoted statement is both sourced and true ... a lot of the time, anyway, but not in every instance. Implicit in the opening line is that creationism cannot be anything other than a religious belief. Given this implication, let's say (hypothetically) that I believe that X ("X" being any supernatural entity that feels personally meaningful to me, and--as it turns out--only to me) created all of everything because he/she/it simply wanted to. My belief would match the remainder of the article's definition of creationism. It would not, however, meet several definitions of "religion". If this belief contributes to my "selfhood", then it meets Thomas Luckmann's very broad definition of religion. Such a belief could fit quite nicely with Alfred North Whitehead's summary of religion as that which one does with one's "solitariness". Belief in X might be somewhat consistent with Paul Tillich's description of religion as that which makes one experience a sense of holiness and awe. X could, at least in theory, accomplish this for me. But consider Peter Berger, who stated that this meaningfulness must be of the sort that makes everything seem "humanly significant". Maybe my belief in X doesn't go quite that far. And it doesn't have to go so far as accepting that a God or saviour exists (in contrast to the belief that religion makes such acceptances); my "supernatural entity" could be nothing but a sentient blob of ectoplasm. Or consider Clifford Geertz, who saw religion as a "cultural system". If my belief is idiosyncratic, it's not a "cultural" system. And so on. I would change the line to something like, "Creationism is the belief, often of a religious nature, that..." What do others think about this suggestion? Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to object to this. I don't see how creationism - the belief that everything appeared abruptly by a supernatural creator - can be anything but religious in nature, given its fundamentally supernatural/spiritual premise. This change should be undone. Not to mention that the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest scientific organization in the world, considers it to be a purely religious belief, along with intelligent design. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made this change. Please let me know if there are any problems with the change or with my rationale. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)