To the Editors or Whom It May Concern at Wikipedia:
(Note: My Spell-Check is refusing to work. I will do my best without it.)
There is a quote inside Wikipedia that Wikipedia articles must have an NPOV: Neutral Point of View. This policy is not in force as to the Wikipedia article on (Scientific) Creationism. When the Wikipedia both establishes and follows the NPOV rule, I will be glad to continue using Wikipedia as a source. Below are examples of the humanism/evolutionism bias of the article.
I have not read the whole article, but have read the key sections listed below, which provide an abundance of indicators of the theological (humanist) bias of the article:
1 - Intro para, 2 - Overview, 3 - "Scientific Critique of Creationism (last text section)"
Part of the way of clearly expressing bias is the consistent use of the word "belief" in relation to creationism, but not in relation to evolutionism/old-earthism. Ex.:
"Creationism in current usage is the belief ...."
The article insists "mainstream" churches/denominations reject biblically literal scientific creationism:
"It therefore conflicts with the more allegorical theological interpretations of the mainstream churches"...." mainstream churches, such as Roman Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran,"
No mention is made of major, theologically conservative, Christian denominations such as Southern Baptist. According to a NOVA installment on PBS, eighty-four percent of Americans are creationist and not evolutionist. According to an article in Scientific American, this figure is fifty percent or greater, Your definition of "mainstream" is lacking credibility.
"In fact, both Jews and Christians have been considering the idea of the creation history as an allegory (instead of an historical description) long before the development of Darwin's theory of evolution"
Again, making a sweeping reference to Jews and Christians, as you have done so in the above quote, relates to your use of the term "mainstream." The implication is that by-and-large, Jews and Christians have been considering creation history as an allegory. If so, then fifty to eighty four percent of Americans would have no difference with the humanism motivated, majority within the scientific community. Also, here is something else that had been going on a long time before the development of Darwin's theory of evolution: pagan/classical/renaissance/humanistic-theology-motivated creation stories. Evolutionism is simply an updated verstion of ancient, pagan creation myth.
"However, many believers in a literal interpretation argue that once a poetic view of the creation account in Genesis is adopted, one begins to question the historicity of other central topics of that book"
You got that one thing right! When the U.S. government preaches that the religion and God of millions of (biblical literalist) Americans are false, as it does in the science classroom, it has overstepped its Constitutional authority and has caused the current problem. Unless evolutionism and old-earthism are indisputable scientific fact. But, while they are the minority within the scientific community, there are literally hundreds of fully qualified scientists who disagree with the "indisputability" of Darwinism/Evolutionism/Old-Earthism.
"This literal interpretation requires the harmonisation of the two creation stories, Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25, which require interpretation to be consistent"
This is a standard argument of creationism opponents, not of those with an NPOV or who are informed on the subject. The two accounts are consistent and are shown as such in the concordance/analysis provided in such places as the "Defender's Study Bible," by the Institute for Creation Research. I have already read this passage and commentary in the Study Bible; you have not. So here is a link so that you can read it:
http://icr.org/index.php?module=home&action=submitsearch&f_context_any=any&f_search_type=all&f_keyword_any=genesis+2%3A4-25&f_submit=+Go+
(read the last section on Genesis 2:4 Do other further readings in the Defeder's Study Bible, about other points you may be confused about)
"They seek to ensure that what is taught in science classes in schools is compatible with what they believe"
This implies they want to toss evolutionism, as a censor would. I believe you are fully aware that leading Creationist orgnizations want BOTH sides of the controversy presented. not to reshape science education so it is "compatible with what they believe." The censors are the humanism-motivated evolutionists.
"Opponents reject the claim that the literalistic Biblical view meets the criteria required to be considered scientific."
Ah! But fully qualified scientists who are opponents of evolutionism reject the claim that evolutionism meets the criteria required to be scientific. There are hundreds of these scientists.
"Those who hold strict creationist views reject scientific theories that contradict their understanding of their religious texts."
You are calling evolutionism "science," implying rejection of it is rejection of scientific truth. But hundreds of scientists say the vice versa: evolutionism is unscientific and rejection of scholarly, scientific creationism is done because scientific creationism contradicts the mystical dogma taught as science in the public schools and universities. If you want more info on how evolutionism is mystical, unscientific dogma, read a book by a non-creationist, evolutionist-in-general-principle, molecular biologist and medical physician, Dr. Michael Denton. This book is called, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis."
"Most notable is the rejection of the scientific consensus )evolution, age and formation process of earth and universe]"
"Consensus" is a good word to use to obscure the issue. There is a scientific minority at odds with a "scientific" majority. "Consensus" sounds monolithic, authoritative and irresistable. Good job, NPOV.org!
"Scientific Critique of Creationism" Woops! And Heeeeeere's Johnny! :
"Creationism, as religion, is not within the scope of scholarly scientific comment. Scientists, by consensus, reject the claim that creationism meets the criteria to be taught as a science[43]. For a discussion of the conflict between the beliefs of Creationists and the consensus of the scientific community see creation-evolution controversy."
"creationism as religion:" humanism is religion: "Man and his self-generated thoughts, theories and beliefs, is the measure of all things." As opposed to God is the measure of all things, an opposing religious belief.
"is not within the scope of scientific comment" If you, at Wikipedia, as good evolutionist/humanists, use the evolutionist/humanist definition of science: "Science is the attempt to show that nature and the cosmos explain themselves, with no need for, nor evidence of, a supernatural creator, which attempt must be kept up at all costs, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, if necessary,"...then your statement using the word "scientific" is certainly consistent with Wikipedia's beliefs.
"scientists by consensus" "consensus of the scientific commnity" Well, "consensus": is certainly authoritative-sounding and intimidating. But in fact, you are intentionally obscuring the fact that a sizable number (over one thousand) scientists, comprising a fully-informed and rational minority of the scientific community, are embroiled in a controversy with the majority of that community. By replacing the concept of "controversy within the scientific community" with the concept of "consensus," you are playing the role of advocate of one side. The majority side, yes, but still, one side.
As a final note, I would like to appeal to logic as well as a sense of fairness. To say that God created the earth in six days is a religious assertion. But to say that God did NOT create the world in six days is also a religious assertion. Both are significant theological statements. The one side is saying that God had the power and the will to create a perfect, death-free world. quickly, without trial-and-error. The other side is saying that God or the gods did NOT have the power, and/or did NOT have the desire, to create the world that way. The one side is saying that the God of biblical literalists is real and their religion is true. The other side is saying that the God of the literalists is FALSE and their religion is FALSE.
Therefore, the federal government is asserting that the God of millions of Americans is a false god. The government is saying that the religion of millions of Americans is a false religion. It is not the federal government's job to be declaring religions and gods false. UNLESS: this is simply reasonably irrefutable, scientific truth. Such as: if a religion inisists that the earth is the back of a giant turtle. If scientists have irrefutably shown the turtle-view to be false, then it can be taught as science, regardless of whose religious toes might be stepped on. But this undeniability of a "scientific" viewpoint does not apply to evolutionism or even to old-earthism. There are hundreds of fully qualified scientists who say and explain why the theory of evolution is reasonably refutable on scientific grouds, alone.
If the Wikipedia editors would like to examine scholarly critiques of evolutionism, they have many possible sources to go to. One current, popular work that is accessible to the lay reader is Ann Coulter's book, "Godless." While some of this book is about politics and scientific controversies other than creation/evolution/intelligent design, several chapters are devoted to devastating scientific analyses of evolutionism, as well as to the oppressive censorship techniques used by the scientific community's majority against its own minority. There is also a book by a neutral (non-creationist) scientist, which I mentioned above: "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis," by Michael Denton. There are also many publications by the Institute for Creation Research, and other organizations. The validity of what the ICR is saying is a separate matter from its motives. Don't be afraid of the fact that the ICR is "a Christ-Centered Ministry." Not if you are unmoved by the scientific community's majority's commitment to "Science Is The Attempt To Show That The Universe Needs No God."
I recommed that you really investigate both (or, rather, all) sides in the creation/evolution/intelligent design controversy. Then, step back and REALLY think about it. Then decide what a commitment to a "Neutral Point of View" would actually require you to write about this controversy.
Please let me know when Wikipedia decides to establish a Neutral Point of View. As I said above, when it does so, I will gladly return to using Wikipedia as a source.