This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Progressive creationism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"it rejects much of modern biology or looks to it for evidence that evolution by natural selection is incorrect."
It is not my experience that this is the case. With the exception of the special creation of humanity, most progressive creationsits, including Erickson and Ramm, would not disagree with modern evolutionary science.
The intro statas:
I don't see the difference between:
Wouldn't any "guidance" by God be a direct intervention? Can God perform a miracle without performing a supernatural act? -- Uncle Ed 16:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Cut from intro:
Quoting from Theistic evolution:
It's not clear whether theistic evolution is (1) a particular theory or belief, or (2) an argument that two different beliefs or ideas are compatible.
Are we defining theistic evolution as any idea which asserts that God created forms of life progressively or that God set everything in motion and "used" the natural forces of evolution which He set in motion but otherwise left alone?
Or is theistic evolution the viewpoint that there is no contradiction between the naturalistic theory of evolution and many popular religious ideas about origins?
I'd like to nail down the terminology here. -- Uncle Ed 00:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) ..
dave souza,
talk 09:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)It's foul creationist manipulation to make a redirect from Christian Evolutionism to this faulty "progressive creationism" invented stuff. Let's say Christians like me for real believe that if evolution wasn't in effect in biology and in human culture, then the whole message and truth of the Holy Bible is in serious jeopardy, because if the cultural evolution has no say, then there's nothing that says that the Bible is more valid than f.ex. the otherwise extinct Manichaeism or f.ex. Asatru. I'm going to undo this redirect done by people of infinitely foreign faith to mine. ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 07:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
It's already noted in the article that Hugh Ross is a significant exponent of progressive creationism, the following contribution gives some explanation of his views but is marred by excessive inline external links:
It seems to me that there's useful information in this, but the inline links need to be removed, in most cases being replaced by links to articles on Bible chapters or sections, such as Books of Kings, rather than trying to spell out the whole argument in excessive detail here. Some trimming could also be in order, but a simple indication of Ross's views would be welcome. . . dave souza, talk 11:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed all the external links. I'm confused about the referencing. I heavily referenced it, because it was communicated every thought had to be sourced and not primary from my own thoughts. So I did that with two different sources across three different books. I have more sources available to me, if you would like me to find other authors who say the same thing as Ross and Hayward do. It won't change the content of my rather minor paragraph, as most of the progressive creationists essentially say the same thing on this particular matter. It just seems odd that every time there is some issue with the paragraph, the first response is to delete the whole thing. Seems a rather baby/bathwater solution to something that simply requires minor edits, which was to delete off the Bible verses (I made those changes for you and resubmitted it). Hopefully, without the helpful links, this will pass muster. I did cite Alan Hayward in addition to Hugh Ross. That was three books of referencing for one paragraph. I am concerned that the article will look a little silly, if I need to reference a new author for every sentence, but it is possible, if that is the expectation. I just wanted this page to be a little more comprehensive - as that is what makes Wikipedia something more than just a dictionary. Please advise. Also, I didn't know how to post a discussion at the bottom of the page, which is why I had been sending e-mails. Sorry about the misplacement.
Sblankman (
talk) 16:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Stephen Blank
Thank you. I will try, in the upcoming week to find other sources to add. Please know that it is difficult to find any third-party author, who would choose to write a book on a subject on which they were neutral and without opinion. Since this is just one paragraph where Ross and Hayward are used as references, and not an entire thesis, hopefully people can take their views on Genesis 1 and 2 and add to them with similar or divergent viewpoints in the future. Sblankman ( talk) 18:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Stephen Blank
In an effort to begin to bring a more balanced view, I added two more short paragraphs that touch on problems arising from the PC model. I hope others will feel free to add more to the article to show either side, pro or con, of the PC model.
On the side, PC does not take exception to any Laws of nature. It does take issue, of course, with certain theories. But, PC do hold to the biology Cell Theory, in which one of the tenets is that cells arise from cells. That would be a theory on which the evolutionsist school of thought has yet to observe otherwise in nature or in a controlled lab experiment, and yet that first cell step is the first, and biggest obstacle for the evolutionary theory to overcome before any of the rest of the theory can progress its course toward developing mankind. True, scientists can produce carbon containing acids in a lab, but that is a reach from the complex dynamic of a functioning, reproducable cell. So, to address your final line in the above paragraph, in effect, both sides accept only parts of modern biological science - in this case, Cell Theory. One can argue monkey to man using an unobserved punctuated equilibrium model - and again, even the science theories are reduced to faith on something that has yet to be observed (that is, a quantum leap of speciation due to duress that would explain gaps in the fossil record). I don't fault evolutionists for their faith in what they don't observe in nature, only the lack of admission that they are indeed employing a sort of faith - which is the accusation they assert against all other positions.
Sblankman (
talk) 19:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Stephen Blank
PS: If I may put my own Primanry Source thoughts out there on this discussion page, as frowned upon by the NPOV standards, might I add something that I wonder about with this Cells come from Cells arguement. DNA has a sugar/phosphorous backbone. Sugar comes through a process made possible by living creatures. Which came first, the Sugar or the DNA?
Sblankman (
talk) 17:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Stephen Blank
Hrafn Talk Stalk 17:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Hrafn Talk Stalk 17:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
References
The article should maybe try to show how close or how far progressive creationism is from Roman Catholic doctrine on the topic. The Church's teaching is that the Holy Spirit creates every human person at the moment of their conception, which is in some ways similar to progressive creationism, since it suggests that everyone is created at a given time according to a given purpose, a view that seems to reconcile traditional theology with certain trends in modern scientific thought. ADM ( talk) 18:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The self-published material of Ulrich Utiger is not a WP:Reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines. It is therefore not suitable for citation in this article. If anybody wishes to disagree, then they can always take it up on WP:RSN. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I did not cite the page of Ulrich Utiger at historycycles.org/genesis2.html because I consider this person an expert in any field but because his page represents modern progressive creationism, which is the subject of this section. This falls under WP:ABOUTSELF, which does not need to be a reliable source. The subject in this section is not to debate whether progressive creationism is right or wrong but about what progressive creationist believe. Therefore, to cite one page representing this belief in order to show an example of it is legitimate in my opinion. User:Huldreich 2 Dec. 2010. —Preceding undated comment added 18:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC).
I will not remove "Ulrich Utiger claims..." but it's something you can read everywhere in articles about creationism on Wikipedia... Huldreich ( talk) 20:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The Criticism section simply links to Introduction to evolution and Objections to evolution without bringing up any specific criticism of Progressive creationism. The section also implies that criticism of progressive creationism is already covered by criticism of creationism in general. Unless someone knows of any particular objections against progressive creationism, then I don't see why the section should stay. Abodos ( talk) 07:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The first paragraph under the Historical development section says "these [geologic time scale] ideas were not popular with strict Christians". What does 'strict' mean in this context?
I thought strict Christians were the ones who interpreted the book of Genesis literally (i.e. like Hugh Ross, meaning billions of years) and therefore liberal Christians would interpret it loosely (i.e. six days). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.40.108.97 ( talk) 09:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I have noticed this recent edit which removed criticism that may have satisfied WP:PSCI. On the other hand, it indeed appears to have been centered on "creation science" creationism (which like its offshoot ID, has received a lot of press coverage). In progressive creationism macroevolution is denied, thus much of biology must be discarded with pseudoscientific justifications. Although not a peer reviewed scientific journal, per WP:PARITY possibly that this could be used (borrowed from the Hugh Ross article):
{{
cite magazine}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link)Recent edits of this article have encouraged me to look at it more closely than I have to date. One issue that now stands out to me is the blurring of the distinction between progressive creationism and creation science, particularly in Section 4 ('Relationship to science') where all references are to creation science and don't distinctly address the particular relationship between science and progressive creationism.
I feel that Section 4 needs explicitly to address the specific aspects of progressive creationism that characterise its distinct relationship to science and am interested in the comments of other editors before making my own suggestions.
-- Jmc ( talk) 02:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Progressive creationism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"it rejects much of modern biology or looks to it for evidence that evolution by natural selection is incorrect."
It is not my experience that this is the case. With the exception of the special creation of humanity, most progressive creationsits, including Erickson and Ramm, would not disagree with modern evolutionary science.
The intro statas:
I don't see the difference between:
Wouldn't any "guidance" by God be a direct intervention? Can God perform a miracle without performing a supernatural act? -- Uncle Ed 16:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Cut from intro:
Quoting from Theistic evolution:
It's not clear whether theistic evolution is (1) a particular theory or belief, or (2) an argument that two different beliefs or ideas are compatible.
Are we defining theistic evolution as any idea which asserts that God created forms of life progressively or that God set everything in motion and "used" the natural forces of evolution which He set in motion but otherwise left alone?
Or is theistic evolution the viewpoint that there is no contradiction between the naturalistic theory of evolution and many popular religious ideas about origins?
I'd like to nail down the terminology here. -- Uncle Ed 00:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) ..
dave souza,
talk 09:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)It's foul creationist manipulation to make a redirect from Christian Evolutionism to this faulty "progressive creationism" invented stuff. Let's say Christians like me for real believe that if evolution wasn't in effect in biology and in human culture, then the whole message and truth of the Holy Bible is in serious jeopardy, because if the cultural evolution has no say, then there's nothing that says that the Bible is more valid than f.ex. the otherwise extinct Manichaeism or f.ex. Asatru. I'm going to undo this redirect done by people of infinitely foreign faith to mine. ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 07:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
It's already noted in the article that Hugh Ross is a significant exponent of progressive creationism, the following contribution gives some explanation of his views but is marred by excessive inline external links:
It seems to me that there's useful information in this, but the inline links need to be removed, in most cases being replaced by links to articles on Bible chapters or sections, such as Books of Kings, rather than trying to spell out the whole argument in excessive detail here. Some trimming could also be in order, but a simple indication of Ross's views would be welcome. . . dave souza, talk 11:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed all the external links. I'm confused about the referencing. I heavily referenced it, because it was communicated every thought had to be sourced and not primary from my own thoughts. So I did that with two different sources across three different books. I have more sources available to me, if you would like me to find other authors who say the same thing as Ross and Hayward do. It won't change the content of my rather minor paragraph, as most of the progressive creationists essentially say the same thing on this particular matter. It just seems odd that every time there is some issue with the paragraph, the first response is to delete the whole thing. Seems a rather baby/bathwater solution to something that simply requires minor edits, which was to delete off the Bible verses (I made those changes for you and resubmitted it). Hopefully, without the helpful links, this will pass muster. I did cite Alan Hayward in addition to Hugh Ross. That was three books of referencing for one paragraph. I am concerned that the article will look a little silly, if I need to reference a new author for every sentence, but it is possible, if that is the expectation. I just wanted this page to be a little more comprehensive - as that is what makes Wikipedia something more than just a dictionary. Please advise. Also, I didn't know how to post a discussion at the bottom of the page, which is why I had been sending e-mails. Sorry about the misplacement.
Sblankman (
talk) 16:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Stephen Blank
Thank you. I will try, in the upcoming week to find other sources to add. Please know that it is difficult to find any third-party author, who would choose to write a book on a subject on which they were neutral and without opinion. Since this is just one paragraph where Ross and Hayward are used as references, and not an entire thesis, hopefully people can take their views on Genesis 1 and 2 and add to them with similar or divergent viewpoints in the future. Sblankman ( talk) 18:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Stephen Blank
In an effort to begin to bring a more balanced view, I added two more short paragraphs that touch on problems arising from the PC model. I hope others will feel free to add more to the article to show either side, pro or con, of the PC model.
On the side, PC does not take exception to any Laws of nature. It does take issue, of course, with certain theories. But, PC do hold to the biology Cell Theory, in which one of the tenets is that cells arise from cells. That would be a theory on which the evolutionsist school of thought has yet to observe otherwise in nature or in a controlled lab experiment, and yet that first cell step is the first, and biggest obstacle for the evolutionary theory to overcome before any of the rest of the theory can progress its course toward developing mankind. True, scientists can produce carbon containing acids in a lab, but that is a reach from the complex dynamic of a functioning, reproducable cell. So, to address your final line in the above paragraph, in effect, both sides accept only parts of modern biological science - in this case, Cell Theory. One can argue monkey to man using an unobserved punctuated equilibrium model - and again, even the science theories are reduced to faith on something that has yet to be observed (that is, a quantum leap of speciation due to duress that would explain gaps in the fossil record). I don't fault evolutionists for their faith in what they don't observe in nature, only the lack of admission that they are indeed employing a sort of faith - which is the accusation they assert against all other positions.
Sblankman (
talk) 19:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Stephen Blank
PS: If I may put my own Primanry Source thoughts out there on this discussion page, as frowned upon by the NPOV standards, might I add something that I wonder about with this Cells come from Cells arguement. DNA has a sugar/phosphorous backbone. Sugar comes through a process made possible by living creatures. Which came first, the Sugar or the DNA?
Sblankman (
talk) 17:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Stephen Blank
Hrafn Talk Stalk 17:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Hrafn Talk Stalk 17:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
References
The article should maybe try to show how close or how far progressive creationism is from Roman Catholic doctrine on the topic. The Church's teaching is that the Holy Spirit creates every human person at the moment of their conception, which is in some ways similar to progressive creationism, since it suggests that everyone is created at a given time according to a given purpose, a view that seems to reconcile traditional theology with certain trends in modern scientific thought. ADM ( talk) 18:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The self-published material of Ulrich Utiger is not a WP:Reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines. It is therefore not suitable for citation in this article. If anybody wishes to disagree, then they can always take it up on WP:RSN. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I did not cite the page of Ulrich Utiger at historycycles.org/genesis2.html because I consider this person an expert in any field but because his page represents modern progressive creationism, which is the subject of this section. This falls under WP:ABOUTSELF, which does not need to be a reliable source. The subject in this section is not to debate whether progressive creationism is right or wrong but about what progressive creationist believe. Therefore, to cite one page representing this belief in order to show an example of it is legitimate in my opinion. User:Huldreich 2 Dec. 2010. —Preceding undated comment added 18:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC).
I will not remove "Ulrich Utiger claims..." but it's something you can read everywhere in articles about creationism on Wikipedia... Huldreich ( talk) 20:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The Criticism section simply links to Introduction to evolution and Objections to evolution without bringing up any specific criticism of Progressive creationism. The section also implies that criticism of progressive creationism is already covered by criticism of creationism in general. Unless someone knows of any particular objections against progressive creationism, then I don't see why the section should stay. Abodos ( talk) 07:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The first paragraph under the Historical development section says "these [geologic time scale] ideas were not popular with strict Christians". What does 'strict' mean in this context?
I thought strict Christians were the ones who interpreted the book of Genesis literally (i.e. like Hugh Ross, meaning billions of years) and therefore liberal Christians would interpret it loosely (i.e. six days). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.40.108.97 ( talk) 09:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I have noticed this recent edit which removed criticism that may have satisfied WP:PSCI. On the other hand, it indeed appears to have been centered on "creation science" creationism (which like its offshoot ID, has received a lot of press coverage). In progressive creationism macroevolution is denied, thus much of biology must be discarded with pseudoscientific justifications. Although not a peer reviewed scientific journal, per WP:PARITY possibly that this could be used (borrowed from the Hugh Ross article):
{{
cite magazine}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link)Recent edits of this article have encouraged me to look at it more closely than I have to date. One issue that now stands out to me is the blurring of the distinction between progressive creationism and creation science, particularly in Section 4 ('Relationship to science') where all references are to creation science and don't distinctly address the particular relationship between science and progressive creationism.
I feel that Section 4 needs explicitly to address the specific aspects of progressive creationism that characterise its distinct relationship to science and am interested in the comments of other editors before making my own suggestions.
-- Jmc ( talk) 02:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)