Talk:Clergy Letter Project

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Clergy Letter Project article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Creationism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion: Interfaith Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Criticism section[edit]

The existence of a Criticism section is acceptable for this article, but it constitutes more than 50% of the article. Don't use the article as a scribble board for adding yet another critic, instead try to make themes: these guys try denial: "they don't really mean what they say"/these guys denies the importance of the stmt/these guys claim those other ones are not really christians etc... Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Creationist" Discovery Institute[edit]

No wonder professors consistently tell students never to use Wikipedia as a valid source. I realize that if I try to corerct the record, someone will be here within a matter of minutes or hours to edit it back, so I won't bother editing, but it's absurd bias and dishonesty to claim the Discovery Institute is a "creationist" organization. The leading names in the organization are emphatically NOT creationists. It's an intelligent design group. You can't possibly believe in common descent and also be a creationist, so can we please stop it with this nonsense? 216.135.32.226 (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design IS creationism -- specifically 'don't mention God and maybe the courts will let us teach it in public schools' Neo-creationism. This has been determined by both courts (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) and a number of prominent scholars (most prominently Ronald L. Numbers expanding his landmark The Creationists to include ID in its latest edition). But this particular cat is long-since out-of-the-bag, so its the DI's continued pretence that is "absurd" -- and can be ignored per WP:ABOUTSELF as "unduly self-serving". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the DI has funded some other projects, their fame and focus is on promoting intelligent design creationism, as is evident from their statements in the cited source. The source also showed Zimmerman countering their argument, so I've supplemented this to give due weight to showing how this creationist claim has been received. . dave souza, talk 07:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]