Talk:Progressive creationism

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:

Progressive Creationist and Astrophysicist Hugh Ross (creationist) adheres to a literal translation of Genesis 1 and 2 and holds to the principle that "Scripture interprets Scripture” to shed light on the context of the Creation account.^[1] Using this principle, Progressive Creationist Alan Hayward cites Hebrews 4, which discusses in the context of the creation story, a continued Seventh Day of creation. ^[2] Ross ties this literal view of a lengthy seventh day to the Creation account in which he describes the Hebrew word "yom" to have multiple translation possibilities, ranging from 24 hours, year , time , age , or eternity/always . ^[3] Ross contends that at the end of each Genesis “day”, with the exception of the seventh “day”, the phrase, “…and there was evening and there was morning,” is used to put a terminus to each event. ^[4] The omission of that phrase on the Seventh Day, is in harmony with the literal translation of Hebrews 4’s continuing Seventh Day. ^[5] Ross argues that this continued creative rest of God is further supported by the physics laws of Conservation of Mass and Conservation of Energy, which state that matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed.^[6] According to Ross’ position, these physics laws would not have been in effect during the creation account, nor would they be in effect when the Seventh Day ends, as detailed in the apocalyptical Book of Revelation ^[7]. By extension, when the events of Revelation come to pass, Ross would expect an end to God’s creative rest and encounter an 8th day with the destruction of all matter and energy, followed by a genesis of a new Heaven and Earth^[8] .

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

The main problem in the original was the over-abundance of biblegateway links. The Bible is a primary source, and per WP:PSTS should only be used with care. I have concerns about the extent to which the section cites Ross & Hayward. Third-party sourcing is always preferred (i.e neutral commentators/scholars rather than the creationists themselves) -- hence the template. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Thanks, all, that's getting onto the right course. The section really does need to draw on third party reliable sources, using the search box for "hugh ross" on the NCSE site may show up some suitable descriptions of Ross's views, and of course there are other options though there are a limited number of scholarly sources about Creationism – I'm sure the regulars will be glad to comment on any sources Sblankman wants to suggest. Note that for us "neutrality" means giving due weight to the majority or mainstream views, using third party sources rather than relying on sources produced by the subject of the article. As an aside, the linked version of Genie Scott's continuum doesn't seem to mention Ross, but the Google cache of the older version states "Progressive Creationism (PC) -- Although some modern activist antievolutionists may still hold to Day- Age and Gap views, the view held by the majority of today´s Old Earth Creationists is some form of Progressive Creationism. The PC view blends Special Creationism with a fair amount of modern science. Progressive Creationists such as Dr. Hugh Ross, of Reasons to Believe ministries, have no problems with scientific data concerning the age of the earth, or the long period of time it has taken for the earth to come to its current form. Astronomer Ross, a University of Toronto Ph.D., cites the Big Bang as evidence of the creative power of God. Although modern physical science is accepted, only parts of modern biological science are incorporated into PC." . . dave souza, talk 18:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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

1. To claim that "PC does not take exception to any Laws of nature. It does take issue, of course, with certain theories." is meaningless. Science doesn't differentiate between "laws of nature" and scientific theories.
2. This talkpage is WP:NOTAFORUM for discussing an argument from personal incredulity against abiogenesis and/or evolution. Even if this were not WP:OR (and thus impermissible), it is a logical fallacy, and so does not support your conclusions that "both sides accept only parts of modern biological science" or that "even the science theories are reduced to faith".
3. Even if you can find a source for this view, this argument belongs in Objections to evolution (where we would have to give WP:DUE weight to the scietnific rebuttal), as it is not an argument that is in any way intrinsic to Progressive creationism.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

WP:RS for this? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:05, 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).

(edit conflict)Please read that policy more carefully: it states: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities" (emphasis in original) -- this is not information about Utiger, nor is it in an article specifically about him or his activities. It is you using Utiger to speak for all modern progressive creationists -- which he is in no position to do. You should also read WP:UNDUE -- as your addition gives undue weight to the views of an obscure figure. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Its clearly beging used to claim that his viewss represent a wider view. This is a breach of policy. Also opinions have to be attributed in text, not represented in a way that implies that are not just one persons view. Even if this is retained (and I doubt that it passes undue} it needs heavy re-wording.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then remove just the link to the page or add "citation needed". Huldreich —Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

Not how it works. If there is no RS its OR and so can be removed. We do not include uncited material on wikipedia knowing its uncited. We also do not use sources we beleive to be suspect.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I give up, I will not waste my time further with agnostic morons like you. Your real motivation is not to give to much weight to creationism. Go to China, you will feel better there under this censoring governement Huldreich —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

AGF. May I aks are you the author of this work?Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 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)

Then you should have no trouble finding better sources that no one will dispute. Rather then using a source that four users have said fails RS.Slatersteven (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Source fails RS criteria and should be removed Noticeboard#Progressive_creationism_ate_my_hamster.Slatersteven (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd be remiss if I didn't point out the fact that Santa isn't real. Creationism deserves as much weight as Xenu's space-going DC-9s or Nyx's role in the beginning of the universe; religion only "proves" what you believe and is completely unverifiable anyway. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 20:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If an RS says Santa is real then on the page on Satan we could say that according to (Sir Kevin Loonwomble) Sata is real (well St Nicholas was). So if the user can find an RS that says it we can include it.Slatersteven (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The likelihood that Santa (or Satan) is real is too great to ignore. My search for that source begins now.... Erikeltic ^(Talk) 20:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect you will find sources. But will they meet RS criteria?Slatersteven (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Francis Pharcellus Church claimed there is a Santa Claus... that seems par for the course to me. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 20:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think what you are saying is that anything can be proved using dodgey sources. But thaqt is not hte issue here, its whether or not the source provided is acceptable. I thinhk there is a consensus that it is not. As to undue, there is a case here that it may also represent a fringe view unsupported by accademic sources. If there are oterh sources supprotingthe text now would be the time for the texts suporters to produce them.Slatersteven (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That is correct.  ;) Erikeltic ^(Talk) 21:18, 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)

Agreed. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The criticism section was really just a few points and references, I agree. Instead, I integrated the details into the text.-Tesseract²(talk) 20:18, 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):

• Bolton, Brian (May–June 2018). "Sorry, 'Theistic Science' Is Not Science". Skeptical Inquirer. Vol. 42, no. 3.{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)

—PaleoNeonate – 18:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

Yes, I noticed that, originally I had the exact same idea. The entire thing is an eye-sore bringing the quality of the article down a lot. It looks like a relic from many ages ago perhaps when wikipedia defined "Creation science" in a way much differently than now? Even the name is bizarre. However I'm skeptical that progressive creationism has much of an actual relationship to science at all if any. Say it does well I'm doubtful there is many sources out there for it, especially ones that are valid enough to be used in the mainstream for scholarship. Whereas there is many people proposing scientific theories about theistic evolution that are easy sources to find. But by all means feel free and go ahead to completely restructure it here, would definitely approve. If you can't find much though I would suggest just chopping it out entirely since it's a wasted space distracting from legitimate article content about progressive creation. Maybe a "scientific debate and criticism" section or something along those lines is more suitable. 184.71.97.170 (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I've not been able to locate any RS that specifically addresses the particular relationship between science and progressive creationism as distinct from creation science. Given that, and absent any RS located by other editors, I propose to remove that section and in my edit summary, link back to this section of the Talk page. -- Jmc (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Nemine contradicente I've removed the section. -- Jmc (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)