There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
"Creationism is a teleological explanation of existence, specifically, that all was created by God, and that there is a purpose to all creation. Underpinnings of creationism rest in Fundamentalist Christian theology."
Why is a belief in purpose and creation here reduced to some arbitrary Christian mythology? What is interesting is that both biblical fundamentalists and many rationalists appear to accept this insane confound. "Creationism" should either be explicitly identified as such (a religious proposition), or taken in its independent, literal, and generalised form (a philosophical proposition). It really doesn't matter how it is used, as long as it is used consistently.
Suggest changing: "Underpinnings of creationism rest in Fundamentalist Christian theology." -> "While underpinnings of a more general creationism exist in all monotheistic religions, fundamentalist Christian theology often claims divine intervention in nature based on literal interpretations of Judaic creation mythology."