Talk:Institute for Creation Research/Archive 1

Archive 1

Criticism from Creationists

This section is misleading. This section should be kept to actual specific criticisms of scientific undertaking, results, ideologies, theology by qualified people with the same creationist perspective.

It includes criticism from Gary North about the fact ICR accepts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. This is as ridiculous as if the Stanford University page had a 'Criticism from other Engineers' section where it was mentioned that an unqualified person criticised their acceptance of Newton's 2nd Law or somesuch.

It also includes Criticism from Hugh Ross. There is no specific criticism mentioned, merely that he has different beliefs. So what? Are we going to see mentions of Hugh Ross's criticism in every Wikipedia article that covers something he disagrees with? This is as absurd as having a random Communist mentioned as a critic on every page dealing with an aspect of capitalism when obviously he is not a capitalist.

Answers in Creation are an anti-creationist organisation. I have no idea what they are doing in this section. I moved them into their own section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lti (talk • contribs) 02:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

History of 24 hr days belief

An anon deleted info that the 24hr genesis view is the only pre-geology view and I reverted. Augustine didn't believe it [1]. I can find more support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephilei (talk • contribs)

who's your friend Augustine anyway?The K (talk) 05:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Research?

Since this is the Institute for Creation Research perhaps some information on research should be included. Arbusto 06:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Some Modifications

I deleted one sentence because it was taken verbatim from an NCSE publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osnova (talk • contribs)

A majority of the early church leaders saw the days of creation being 24 hour periods.

A majority of the early church leaders saw the days of creation being 24 hour periods. [2] I don't think ICR's stance is very radicial regarding the controversies and criticism section. ken 05:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Possibly true. However I have removed it. Personal webpages are not reliable sources. We have gone over this before. JoshuaZ 06:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is a radical position. Early Christians were not chosing to believe scripture over science. They would also have been geocentrists and probably flat-earthers, had they chosen to think about it, but modern geocentrists and flat earthers are remarkable. Likewise here. Guettarda 12:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That's an awefully strong claim to make, considering that most people in Roman times considered the Earth to be round, not flat. 147.240.236.8 (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Penn and Teller

More geared to Duane Gish and says little about ICR itself. 66.75.8.138 18:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Mmm. So Gish was representing the ICR, and they were at the ICR museum, examining the ICR's creation "science" exhibits, and yet this has nothing to do with the ICR and is inappropriate for the organization's article. Yes? — coelacan talk — 23:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears we may have been duped. I believe I found the episode, but it seems the only input by Duane Gish is clips that are shown of him speaking, probably from promotional videos. It is actually a small part of the overall episode. There is no personal interaction with Gish himself. (I had pictured, perhaps, some form of panel discussion.) It appears there never was any trip made to ICR as they say that Gish is the President of ICR, a mistake that would be difficult to make if there was any live interaction with ICR staff. The first quote attributed to Gish on wikipedia is correct, but the second quote is wrong. I'm not sure this has as much to do with ICR as originally envisioned. At least those are my thoughts. 66.75.8.138 03:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You wrote the and P & T episode has nothing to do with the ICR. Well, you are flat out wrong. In fact, the ICR tried to sue Penn and Teller. Nothing ever came of it, and Penn and Teller have joked about the barely literate threat they were mailed. PatriotBible 02:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

So it was a spoof of ICR and did not involve any discourse or discussion with ICR itself. It belongs on Penn & Teller's page, not ICR's. 66.75.8.138 01:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A "spoof," what are you talking about? ICR are mad at P & T for being proven wrong. Gish was a representative of the ICR and was filmed at their facilities. PatriotBible 19:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Source? I noticed you removed my citation. If it was cooperative effort between Penn & Teller and ICR to come and film him, don't you think they might have known he wasn't the President of ICR? 66.75.8.138 19:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits like this aren't going to fly. Don't remove someone's citations from scientific books. PatriotBible 19:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I condensed your edits. The book that you used is still there and still sourced. 66.75.8.138 19:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You removed whole sections, and the detailed history. For example you removed:

For example, a 1986 thesis titled "A Classical Field theory for the Propagation of Light" was approved by Duane Gish and Thomas Barnes, but not by the third committee member Gerald Aarsdma because the thesis was based on pre-Einsteinian physics and "invoked the long dismissed existence of ether". Furthermore, creationists like Arleton Murray was denied a position for his belief that dinosaurs existed before humans. Pigliucci explained that much of the material put by the ICR is based on false claims and incorrect data.

PatriotBible 19:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing your concern. How is this noteworthy? All universities have a board that approves or disapproves disertations. It's already stated in the article that ICR adheres to a starting point of a Biblical world view. How does this particular example add to the ICR page? 66.75.8.138 20:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No respectable science institution use pre-Modern science. That makes it notable. PatriotBible 23:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The limits that ICR puts on scientific inquiry are already discussed, and noted. Bbagot 03:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you will see that the following addresses those issues: "Massimo Pigliucci has criticized ICR for conducting research while requiring students and faculty to sign a promise that their published material will correspond to a literal interepretation of the Bible, thereby excluding any perspectives that don't match a predetermined religious doctorine.[8] He claims this viewpoint led to denying creationist Arleton Murray a position on staff for his belief that dinosaurs existed before humans.[9] and also believes that ICR makes false scientific claims and uses inaccurate data. [10]" 66.75.8.138 20:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You preverted the meaning. No mainstream scientists believes what ICR does is "conducting research." You have removed numerous other details as well. Are you using sock puppets[3]? PatriotBible 23:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I felt the meaning was still accurate. Scientists may believe the results ICR arrives at are ludicrous or that their starting conditions are unscientific, but there is no universal understanding that they don't conduct research. I worked with your edits. If you don't want anyone to touch anything you write, then you don't understand the concept of wikipedia. You, on the other hand, blatantly reverted all of my work without comment, even the areas that didn't touch on your additions. This may be a touchy subject for you, but we are still part of a group effort. Your methods are out of bounds. Bbagot 03:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"Blatantly reverted all of my work without comment" means only one person using sock puppets disagrees with my edits. I did not remove the publications, but I reverted your reinsertation.

I understand this is a touchy subject for your, but don't remove cited work to white wash this groups history. You have not explained a single removal. PatriotBible 06:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Your math is off and I think you will find that ICR being outside the scientific mainstream is boldly presented, but more importantly you are keeping out a publications section that has been in the article since it was first being formed in April 2005. Editors for 21 months, or 20 more months than you have been posting, have kept that section's inclusion as noteworthy. There is something to be said for respecting those who have come before you and their contributions. Removal of time honored information should especially be reached by concensus. Like it or not, a large part of ICR is its publication history. Working with editors is a skill you may wish to employ. Bbagot 20:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You and your sock puppets are the only ones who want to keep it. Demonstrate it is notable. As of now, I fail to see how an internet archive on a fringe group's webpage is worth listing in the middle of the page. PatriotBible 22:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional Changes

Ok group, I've tried to make changes and additions while maintaining the integrity of the article and a neutral viewpoint. If you have any concerns let's talk about them. Thanks 66.75.8.138 23:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There is at least one contradiction I picked up in a quick skim:

"there is no collaboration in research between these groups" and "findings of ICR's recent RATE project, a multi-year collaboration with other YEC organizations to test for evidences of a young earth"

Clearly there is collaboration in research and the prior argument is ill-informed and/or misleading. I won't edit this myself as I have limited knowledge of ICR itself. The background section does not come across as particularly neutral to me.

The collaboration was with other Young Earth Creationist organizations, not mainstream science. Bbagot 03:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to cite it. PatriotBible 06:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesnt the scientific method involve making some prediction, gathering observable evidence, evaluating it and coming to a determination as to the accuracy of your prediction? and doesn ICR "research" involve starting with an absolute belief, filtering out all of the evidence that contradicts that belief and then fabricating some prediction that still fits the remaining evidence? wouldnt it be accurate to say that what they do is antiscience? 66.158.169.70 06:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Creationist white wash

Earsed his talk pages. PatriotBible 18:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And how do you feel this relates to the article? Bbagot 20:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Deceit to POV push. PatriotBible 22:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you may find that discussing content is better suited for these areas than what you are doing. Articles come together much better based upon cooperative civility and a wish to understand or at least hear different perspectives than they do from personal attacks. Bbagot 00:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Publications

I noticed that there seems to be an edit war going on over the publication section. I feel it would be imprudent for me to recommend for or against the section's inclusion, since I was the one who added it originally[4], but I feel I should say at least this much: in the event that the wikipedia consensus removes the section for good, at least one sentence should be inserted to mention Acts & Facts (their monthly newsletter which may well be the only thing many of their followers regularly read by them) and a section describing the Impact articles, which I believe may be the most notable aspect of the entire organization. These Impact articles could also easily be used to create and reference a Positions section, which would balance and expand the already existing Criticism section. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 04:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe as the orginal editor of a section that stood in the article for 2 years, that your input is especially valued. I tried to streamline the section as it was a bit wordy, but, as you know, that was deemed to be unsatisfactory. Bbagot 21:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A long list of publications is not needed for an article. In a separate issue, I would ask for the editor who keeps removing material about two housewives founding the ICR to stop it. FGT2 04:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The housewives information was a recent addition and it pushed out information that was already there, and sourced material entered since that time as well. I have put back all sourced material including the housewife claim that you value. Bbagot 21:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't recent, you removed it. It's worded poorly, and your addition gives the same information only in broad, vague terms stating it was started in 1970, when it was started under another name with other people, and later led by just Morris and renamed two years later. If other people are fine with the sentence structure and the repetition then its okay with me. As long as the longer history is included. FGT2 05:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The housewives addition was put in a month ago and removed the information that had been there. I have attempted to be true to all 4 sources on the origins of ICR allowing each to give its view, and that includes the full version that you requested. I can't make them say information that isn't there, so the views of the origins are not going to be uniform, but will be accurate to the positions that each source states. Bbagot 05:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Redirect from Creation Research Society

The Creation Research Society appears to be a different organization. [[5]] Am I missing something or that redirect in error? Radosh 22:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Early in its history that name was applied to ICR. However, that was over 30 years ago. Since CRS is a separate organization, it would appear that redirect is currently unwarranted. Bbagot 06:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the other organization is that notable. I think what would make the most sense is to have a disambig page that notes that term used to refer to the ICR and can also refer to the current organization (anyone have any evidence they are notable?). JoshuaZ 06:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your solution, although it also appears that the editor below has information that implies CRS is notable in its own right. Bbagot 09:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This article says that ICR was begun in 1970. History of creationism says that CRS began in 1963. It would therefore not appear likely that ICR ever used the CRS name. Although the CRS is not as prominent as other organisations, this is due to them being more of a research organisation, rather than a ministry or outreach organisation. They may be the first American creationist organisation (at least one earlier one was the Evolution Protest Movement in Britain) and may be the first if not the only one to require voting members to hold scientific qualifications ("earned postgraduate degree in a recognized area of science"). Philip J. Rayment 10:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are seeing the shortcomings in having a charged topic with an unbalanced number of editors in favor of one viewpoint. And so, we have no choice but to keep information claiming that there was an unnamed Supreme Court case in 1962 that outlawed the teaching of Creationism and led to Henry Morris and 2 housewives forming CRS/ICR in 1970, etc. etc. Bbagot 09:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you've gone slightly OT. The schism story refers to an organization called the Creation Science Research Center (CSRC), which is not the same as the Creation Research Society (CRS). Frankly I'm not sure why POV should enter into this particular discussion at all. I agree with Rayment that CRS should have its own entry, but if it doesn't meet notability standards, it should redirect to the Henry Morris entry instead of this one. Radosh 16:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Motto?

I reverted this edit since there was POV issue and I couldn't find the motto on the website. I suspect it is a joke but since I don't know what language it is in, I'm not sure. JoshuaZ 02:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

This has been added after the second reference in the Controversy section:

(As a counterpoint, the same things happen within "mainstream science", when Creationists are excluded or fired for their views on Creationism or Evolution, yet in these cases the organizations are not upfront about their bias.)

Should it be left in? There are no references, and may be hearsay. Mei 11:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearly not. I will remove it.

Even if he had evidence that Creationists had been fired, I'm not at all sure that it deserves mention here. Now, if he had a source that mentions the firing of Creationists in relation to Piggliuci's comments, that would be different. Phiwum 19:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Christian Identity

Can someone please tell me why the opinion of the racist Christian Identity movement is relevant to this topic? We're talking about an extreme fringe group that espouses White supremacy. Their only connection to the creation/evolution controversy seems to be the belief of some of their adherents that Adam and Eve were preceded by "lesser races," and that Cain was the son of Satan and ancestor to "evil Jews." These are views shared by no other creationists, and indeed would be considered heresy of the highest order. I don't see how their opinion of ICR is in any way relevant. This mention on the ICR page seems to give legitimacy to this group, particularly as they are the first opponents mentioned in the paragraph in question. Unless someone can provide some reason for their inclusion, I would vote to eliminate them from the article altogether. Yeshuamyking7 02:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

In all the recent changes associated with the move and controversy, reference 13 was nuked.--Filll (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. My fault, didn't see it. I'll find it. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Accreditation in CA

The text has been tweaked to remove possible implication that TRACS is acceptable accreditation in CA. That wasn't the claim, the claim is that the organization's move from CA to TX meant ICR needed to find another accrediting agency. This is not a correlation that I am making, this is a correlation the source is making. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

More: The new content added here (italics) "TRACS accreditation was not accepted by the state of California, and is not accepted by the state of Texas, where the ICR moved in 2007" needs a source on the CA assertion, since the reference attached to the sentence does not make that claim. Besides, this new emphasis on the unsourced claim about CA obviously makes readers scratch their heads and ask why then does ICR need to drop TRACS now in TX if it didn't get in the way also in CA? Professor marginalia (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it does need a source. However, it is important to point out that the California Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education lists the ICR school as being "Exempt from State Approval," which is true only of religious or accredited institutions. Where that database lists accreditation for the ICR, it is blank.[6] If California accepts TRACS accreditation, why were they exempt. C56C (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. The claim was removed anyway. And thanks for digging up the source for the discontinuance of TRACS accreditation. The sources I can find are sketchy relating to this transfer. One source indicates the ICR has "offices" in both TX and CA, but have any come out and said whether or not the school will be continued in both states? Professor marginalia (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Influence - Numbers, Larson, others

I have added a second cite to a recent edit where the introduction describes the scope of ICR influence, this one to Numbers because that source describes in some detail the provocative nature and larger outreach via ICR's public debates. Neither source limits their influence to creationists. Yes, they are (largely as an "institutionalized" extension of Morris's work) credited with resurrecting Price's creation science and were very influential in pulling creationists towards creation science in particular. But they are also credited for a shift in the overall public towards the "just a theory" concept applied to evolution, and to a majority public opinion in favor of having creation science offered as an alternative theory, (the "balanced treatment" concept), which many authors in addition to Larson have elaborated as resonating with the American public because it appealed to their sense of "fair play" rather than their religious beliefs. As numerous sources confirm, there were in the late 70s and 80s two faces presented of creation science-one a religious one, the other a "secularized" (or "sanitized" as I think Larson put it) version presented to public educators, etc. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Numbers also mentions them selling over a million books by 1981, which is likewise indicative of mainstream influence (unless a small number of creationists were buying hundreds of books each). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if it is being based on numbers from three decades ago, which was before the Supreme Court ruled against creationism and other changes, "has been significant" should be changed to "was significant in the 1970s and 1980s." C56C (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the "has been" is less committal, something less than "is" and something more than "used to be". We can't use pure conjecture here to form specific statements, nor to reshape the claim apart from how sources frame it. The sentence is NPOV and necessarily vague-nobody is keeping a precise census on this. The ICR still has a significant influence, though probably to a considerably smaller degree outside religious venues than it once did. But this sentence doesn't commit who they're influential with either, though as the sources document, it is incorrect to conclude their influence was confined to other creationists.Professor marginalia (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Also, as we look for language here about how to frame the creationist/mainstream boundary lines, there's a risk of inadvertently obscuring the main point made in Larson, which is to describe how much "credit/blame" (somebody give me a NPOV word that fits here) goes to the ICR in the co-opting the general public's view of evolutionary theory, despite the fact the scientific community has never validated or accepted any of their claims. This isn't to say that the ICR turned so many in the mainstream into leather saddled dinosaur, diluvian-soaked creationists, but they played a big part in the erosion of acceptance for evolutionary theory in the mainstream. The ICR kind of wedged the mainstream and science apart, the sources point out. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

But that is the issue, "this sentence doesn't commit who they're influential with either." If it was with the mainstream 30 years ago, it should say it. If it is just creationists now, it should say it. People who read the article should not get a false impression of the ICR's current importance, considering they have 30 students in their program. C56C (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, neither you nor readers should conclude that their influence has anything to do with their school. Again, Larson and Numbers describe this influence coming from their books, broadcasts, and debates--the pr side of things, not their college's impact, and even less so any original cs research they've produced. That's actually an important next step in this article--to better delineate the various enterprises they have going. The school is just one, and it has never been very big. It wasn't even started until at least 10 years; they'd already made huge inroads in public school classrooms with secularized versions of textbooks, etc. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No actually, ICR has always been tied to a school. First it was part of Christian Heritage College then it became its own organization with a "school" in the early 1980s. The figure I gave of 30 was not to imply that is the school is the "be all end all" nor was it to ignore their publications and museum-- which I am well aware of. Rather, it was to show that this "institute" for "research" is small. Had I numbers for musuem attendees or circulation numbers I would have gave that to.

Thus, my point was the ambiguity of calling it "influential" when citing numbers from 3 decades is misleading. If you say its "significant" you must say to who and when. As it stands, calling it "significant in shaping anti-evolutionist thought in the United States" with the implication that this is true of their on-going efforts is wrong. Just look at the DI's efforts/publications or the AIG musuem compared to the ICR. If you want to cite numbers from 3 decades ago to say they were significant then it should read "was significant through the 1970s and 1980s in shaping anti-evolutionist thought in the United States" or something like that. Right now, it seems to inflate their importance, which as much as I'm sure the ICR would like, it just isn't true. C56C (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

<unident>The ICR may have been 'always been tied to a school', but its own tertiary-educational/scholarly efforts were very thin in its initial years. It did not establish its graduate school until 1981, and that school's early years were rocky. Numbers states:

When the ICR sought reapproval for its school in 1988, a five-man visiting team, including two partisans of flood geology discovered that the graduate school faculty comprised only five full-time professors, that students sometimes relied on videotaped courses, that laboratory instruction and facilities were inadequate, and that academic freedom existed only within the limits of the school's doctrinal tenets. -- The Creationists, p318

This is part of why its reasonable to claim that the ICR's main impact was in popularising Creation Science, not in researching it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't disagree. In fact, your statement "ICR's main impact was in popularising Creation Science, not in researching it" is exactly what I want in the article. Its impact, per the sources, in the past tense. C56C (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Further on this:

Despite its name, the institute for years conducted little research outside the confines of its modest library. -- The Creationists, p315

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Hrafn. Beginning with CSRC, co-founders the Segraves pushed for the "grass roots activist" angle (to Morris's chagrin), lobbying policy makers, filing court cases, and print activism. When it pulled apart into two agencies, Morris wanted to concentrate on cs research, aiming to conduct empirical and field research. (Based on accounts of the ICR a few years later, the ICR doesn't seem to have made much headway there). ICR was a "research arm" in the college CHC. So for the first years, the enrollment numbers are co-mingled with CHC - and the science faculty at CHC (all of them members of ICR) numbered about 10. (Nelkin) It wasn't until 10 years later (1981) that the ICR even had a graduate program, and even after this, quoting again from Numbers, "the graduate school barely survived its first decade of life".

Returning to the nature and scope of ICR's influence: I'll quote some from E Scott writing in 2004, (certainly no apologist for creation science or the ICR), because it illustrates well how it can be that the influence extends beyond creationists circles.

• {sense of "fairness" and the "balanced treatment"} "The perceived incompatibility of evolution with religion (especially conservative Christian theology) is the most powerful motivator of antievolutionism for individuals. However, the 'fairness' concept, because of its cultural appeal, may be even more effective, for it appeals broadly across many diverse religious orientations. Even those who are not creationists may see value in being 'fair' to all sides, whether or not they believe that there is scientific validity to creationist views."
• {"evolution is just a theory"} "Through constant reiteration in creationist literature and in letters to the editor in newspapers around the country, the idea that evolution is shaky science is constantly spread to the general public, which by and large is unaware of the theoretical and evidentiary strength of evolution".

Nelkin, Larson, Numbers, Scott--these sources are as solid as any we'll find. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, Numbers is very clear on Morris' viewpoint on this and differences with the Segraves. However, the ICR weren't in a position to do much in the way of research and so the difference between them and the CSRC seems to have been, in practice at least, that the CSRC politicised Creationism, whereas the ICR (especially through Duane Gish) popularised it. Thinking about it, one wonders if there aren't parallels between the CSRC and the Discovery Institute. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent way to put it. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, those are used in the past tense and Larson's evidence is based on figures from three decades ago. While they might have "popularised" it, with the help of Gish who is now retired, the sources don't demonstrate its current role in being "significant in shaping anti-evolutionist thought in the United States."

Why is this such a struggle? The sources cite its importance with figures from three decades ago, so one would think it would be worded in the past tense. One can tell that intelligent design, and the DI, are the ones popularizing pseudoscience. Not the ICR. C56C (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, referring back to E Scott, head of the NCSE - an organization which has been watching the issue probably as closely, if not more, than anyone else, has publicly said, many times I've heard her say it in interviews, that creation science movement remains a huge movement. Writing in 2004, "now grown to an institution with a staff of over 40, the ICR began as and remains the flagship antievolution ministry". Speaking in 2007, she said, "YEC continues to thrive and in fact is even growing despite its weak science." I don't understand why this is framed as some sort of a competition for a single "popularizer", which the article here doesn't claim, and why there is a need to somehow limit their influence to 3 decades ago. I saw one reference somewhere, written several years ago (I will try to find it), which hypothesized that the ICR might lose its luster when Morris senior left, with neocreationism eclipsing YEC, but the author didn't claim this guess was realized, and neither should we say it here without a solid source. Returning to Scott, this is her speaking in 2007, verbatim (note her self-correction), "Creation science was--has become, I should say--through the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and even today, a very, very active movement. Henry Morris himself is, in my opinion, the most important creationists in the twentieth century, much more important than William Jennings Bryan, and he founded, and ran until his retirement and death last year, the Institute for Creation Research in Santee California...[speaking of ICR as well of the even bigger Answers in Genesis together]...Both of these organizations are quite large, they have multi-million dollar budgets, they have mailing lists in the hundreds of thousands, they produce slick magazines and other material. " I wonder, too, why this is such a struggle? Compared to "remains a flagship" and other descriptions in the sources, this "but has been significant in shaping anti-evolutionist thought" is a pretty muted statement. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My (admittedly jaundiced) impression is that of the three current 'flagship' creationist organisations, Answers in Genesis is the most populist, the ICR places the greatest emphasis on pretensions to scholarship, and the Discovery Institute on politics and finding formulations that will stand up in court. All are significant within current-day creationism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Pulling all this together into a quick thumbnail sketch:

• the ICR split off due to Morris' desire to do research not politics;
• an initial lack of research opportunities/resources, combined with Gish's public speaking skills, meant that their main initial impact was in popularising creationism not researching it;
• Gish's retirement, probably combined with Morris' original desire and better funding, has meant that the ICR has moved back towards its original stated goal of "creation research", with the popularisation role increasingly being taken up by Ken Ham and AiG.

Does that sound like a good summary, that might provide the skeleton (for appropriate fleshing out and sourcing) of characterising ICR for the article? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That could work well (presuming there are sources on it), but since this is the ICR article it would require care not to wander off too far and turn this into a WP:Coatrack of the unICR elements. There are lots of other related (creationist) forks so there could well be a suitable home at wp for a fuller discussion in one of them side-by-side. Two months ago I knew next to nothing in this area but have since read as many good references as I could find, dozens altogether, but definitely these provide the most solid and balanced information-Numbers, Nelkin (unfortunately pub 1982 so no current info there), Scott and Larson. I will look at them again from these angles. I know your first point is very well substantiated in the sources, the desire to do scientific research. Your second point may be verifiable, I just don't recall the details that well off the top of my head. The research wasn't very fruitful, and I know Morris was criticized by one of his former creation science colleagues for misplacing the emphasis at ICR on the evangelism instead of the science. There were several figures within the ICR that can be credited with a role in ICR's influence. Definitely Ken Ham, while he was with ICR, helped make the "Back to Genesis" program hugely popular, to the point of burdening ICR staff away from other ongoing efforts. Ham had no science background, and the Back to Genesis apparently had more evangelical overtones than scientific. Also perhaps Wendell Bird, who wasn't a popularizer but more a strategizer, perhaps more in the mold of Phillip Johnson. That one side of the ICR's influence may probably be taking a backseat now to the DI, although since the DI struck out too maybe the wait is on for a new heir apparent to make its bid.

On your last point, is it true to say that the institute is restoring the goal to have a research emphasis? I need to look through refs again but my sense was that they were emphasizing now to spread cs through educators. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Another source found: "Morris...went on to found the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), which remains the largest and most influential creationist organization" Robert Pennock writing in 2000. That was 7 years ago, which isn't today but isn't 30 years ago either. It's especially important in articles about controversial subjects not to make statements in the article mainspace based on conjecture or guesswork, but keep to claims which are verified in the sources. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Voluntary ban

I'm removing this article from my watchlist, and will only revert the usual nonsense if it's brought to my attention. Enough of the references saying this organization has some significance are properly sourced, even though there's no truth to anything they say or do, that the article must remain. Someone else will have to monitor the article for vandalism and "information" implying that there is some truth to their arguments, in addition to false claims of accredidation or significance. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's safe to assume there are many sets of eyes on the article now capable enough to handle vandalism or bogus edits. Except for the newbies maybe, most any editor will take care of these problems themselves whenever they see them. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect citation, perhaps

The article which reference 25 links to on the last line in the section "Critisism of awarding degrees" says only, I believe, that Texan courts have ruled it unlawful to include creationist material alongside evolution teachings, as opposed to it being illegal throughout the entire U.S., as the line claims. So it needs either a source that actually says what the line says, or delete the line all together; incorporating creationism into school curriculum hasn't been outlawed nationwide yet, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.39.60.46 (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You raise a good point. The source I found describing it best was Larson, who if I recall properly characterized it was "effectively outlawed" everywhere in the US (See here: McLean v. Arkansas). But if the point emphasized in the source was the TX court decision, that should probably be the way it's described here. Though technically it's teaching "creation science" that was found unconstitutional in that McLean decision, (and that's what ICR's work is in, creation science), it's probably unnecessarily wordy and a digression of sorts to go into all the specifics just to make a suitable claim here. Referring to TX court decision is good enough in that context, and that's clearly what the ICRs opponents are all worked up about in TX, the prospect of ICR's students teaching science in their public school system. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I looked at the source and it doesn't specify TX courts, does it? What would lead you to think it was a TX decision that was an issue? The key cases such as McLean and some others are taken to apply nationwide.Professor marginalia (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure its a Texas case, because in the first line it says "Science teachers are not allowed to teach creationism alongside evolution in Texas public schools, the courts have ruled." (emphasis mine, of course) And throughout the article it only seems to refer to Texas. Also, while the McLean case does seem to have had a lot of impact in the country, it still didn't outlaw nationwide, as the article (the source article, I mean) notes the the ICR sued for the same thing in California and won. However, I found that the Edwards v. Aguillard case may be more appropriate, as it was a case in the Supreme Court, although I'm not quite sure if it outrightly banned creationism form public schools.

Summarized the cited source

This edit more correctly sumarizes my reading of the source http://www.icr.org/home/faq/.

The Bible consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological."

I hope this clarifies things.

Also, I could not find anything in the FAQ to support the article's "...which it views as a corrupting moral and social influence and threat to religious belief." so I added a {{cn}}, and moved the faq reference to the first part of the sentence. If I am wrong on this second part, please remove the {{cn}}, and move the FAQ reference to the end of the sentence. TableManners^C·U·T 03:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

RATE project and ICR's anti-science

Should we mention the ICR's RATE project and serious errors about it.[7] We66er (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

RATE is a "a joint project by the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society" -- it currently sits in the Creation geophysics article. Mention of it here as well would probably be appropriate. Creation-evolution controversy#Nuclear physics also has information on this issue from a more general perspective. Also the American Scientific Affiliation has some articles on its website critiquing RATE's efforts. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hugh Ross criticisms

I removed Hugh Ross's criticisms entirely. Ross's views are fringe from whichever angle they are approached. He accepts almost all of secular sciences conclusions, but rejects biological evolution. He accepts long ages, but rejects an allegorical interpretation of the hexaemeron. In other words, he supports a "literal" reading of the Genesis creation account, and accepts it as historically true, but rejects 6 normal days in favour of long ages. He apparently "accepts" the great flood account as literal and historical (i.e. not allegorical, and not untrue), but rejects a global flood. This puts his views on the fringe of Biblical Literalism, the fringe of Old Earth Creationism, the fringe of secular archeology, geology and paleontolgy, the fringe of Biblical Scholarship. He manages to promote a position rejected by the mainstream of; secular science, creation science, theology, biblical scholarship, paleontogy and anthropology (at least). YEC's are generally being disallowed as RS's to explain their own views on articles about them on the grounds that they are fringe views. Ross's views about YEC's shouldn't even rate a mention, except maybe in the Ross article.LowKey (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

JZ just reverted me, so I have re-cast the Ross bit. I moved it to the end and removed the longer explanation of his view. I added a brief statement clarifying that he particularly goes after ICRs cosmological models. It needs sources and wiki-links, but I think a brief mention without all the details of his view is better. How does that look?LowKey (talk) 04:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. The point about sourcing is valid. I'm also slightly concerned that the comment about going after cosmology issues is OR (it is IMO certainly true but still...). JoshuaZ (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, would [8][9] be good enough sourcing? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

They will certainly do for now. You've got me concerned that it actually is OR or at the very least SYNTH (like you said certainly true, but still). A brief look at his actual criticisms (rather than his explanations etc of his own position/view) holds up, but is that OR or just stating what would become obvious to anyone looking into it? I think I'll just drop the "particularly" for now.LowKey (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversy & Criticism

Regarding the paragraph which reads: "A 2004 episode of Penn and Teller's television program Bullshit! broadcast video taken of the ICR spokesperson, Duane Gish, stating "neither creation nor evolution are scientific theories. Evolution is no more scientific than creation", and that the Grand Canyon was created in as little as a few days due to the Biblical flood in Genesis.[40] Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education responded, "the Grand Canyon consists of granite and shale and really hard stuff - about 5,000 feet of it. You're not going to cut this very hard rock with just a bunch of water flowing through it at one time."

Well ... the Grand Canyon has relatively little granite ... it is sedimentary rock and not hard at all by geologic standards. Further ... relying on a program entitled Bullshit by Penn & Teller as the basis for legitimate criticism is pretty weak. I don't see how this whole paragraph relates to valid scientific criticisms ... of which there are many ... which are better prepresnted in the other parts of this section on scientific criticism.

Tiggbo (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC) TJ

The Grand Canyon has a layer of granite in the lowest level Vishnu group, in the next group of sediments, the Grand Canyon supergroup, there is a layer of shale, then one of quartzite, then yes, a layer of sandstone, but with ripple marks showing it was near a body of water, then a layer of lava. None of those layers were put down in one flood. There are more layers of shale above that, with different orders of fossils in each layer following the order of common descent. There are no valid scientific criticisms by creationists regarding the scientific view of the formation of the Grand Canyon. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There are much better sources to use, I agree. There will have to be more solid criticisms of the ICR's Grand Canyon research out there. The quotes don't convey the real meat of that segment of the episode anyway. Scott's remark was along the lines of 'scientists hearing these claims have a hard time actually believing the ICR really means any of this stuff because what the ICR is saying is so absurd'. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

True Origins EL

This link violates WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided:

• #2 "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." (i) Creation science generally is regarded as "inaccurate material" by the scientific community, and (ii) even in the context of CS, the maintainer of this website has no particular standing.
• #11 "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)." This link is to a personal website of an individual who is not any sort of "recognized authority". Contrary to Lowkey's assertion, TalkOrigins Archive is both not a personal website (it is maintained by a foundation) and is widely recognised (see TalkOrigins Archive#Awards, as well as being described by Michael Shermer in Science Friction: Where the Known Meets the Unknown as one of "the two best resources on the Internet on the evolution/creation topic").
• #13 "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." True Origin's main focus is rebutting Talk Origins, making it only indirectly about rebutting Talk Origin's rebuttal of ICR's claims.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You point re:#13 that it is primarily related to Talk Origins and thus only indirectly related to ICR is valid, so I am happy to leave the ref out.

The current phrasing of the other ref that Talk Origins examines ICR claims in detail is both imprecise and inaccurate, though. It rebuts, with the aim to refute. Often it simply states the claim and lists counter-claims (or counter-axample if you see it that way). That is not a detailed examination of the claim. True, there is often a detailed examination of the counter-claim but that is not the same thing. I'm leaving it as is because it is not worth the aggravation involved in making it precise.LowKey (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A Critique of ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project, for example, would appear to be very detailed. And while the site does not cover every claim in detail, it contains far more detail about the ICR's claims than would be found elsewhere. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Except maybe ICR? :) LowKey (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Good Point (Bias on this article is astronomical)!--Gniniv (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was speedy deletion, rendering further discussion moot. -- Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

---

I am proposing that Steve Austin (creationist) be merged here as a simple redirect for the following reasons:

1. It contains no reliably-sourced information (beyond for bare existence).
2. It fails WP:PROF.
3. WP:MERGE#Rationales #3, #4.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any content to merge. He's not addressed in the ICR article. And ICR isn't addressed in the Steve Austin article.  ??? Professor marginalia (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User:Professor marginalia per reasons given above. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 11:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a slight mention of ICR in the infobox. Steve Austin works for ICR. Phiwum (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• He is in fact mentioned in the 'History' section of this article:

...with Geologist Stephen A. Austin, working as an "off and on" visiting scientist until taking a full staff position in 1979, single-handedly conducting most of its non-literary research.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't decide what would do me the most good lately--reading glasses, or memory pills.[10] My first choice would be to delete the bio, but a redirect is the next best. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, will try speedying it then. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article does not present a neutral point of view, and is mainly focused on the criticisms.

This article should be reexamined and rewritten to take into account both sides. As it stands right now it is highly biased and contained many weasel phases such as "so-called" and "espoused", as well as sections dedicated to many criticisms without any counter arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.42.60 (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE. "Both sides" don't get equal billing when it comes to science. For example, the article on the Earth, doesn't give "equal" representation to the Flat Earth model. The duty of the article is to accurately present a subject, not to white wash facts and add a marginal view because Flat Earth Society wants to push its views in schools. VLARKer7 (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

In light of your criticism, I reviewed the article. I have to disagree with your summary and agree with VLARKer7. It seems like a reasonable presentation of the subject. The criticisms seem well sourced and presented in an encyclopedia type manner. I question if many "counter arguments" are missing that could be presented in the same manner but I'm open to any examples that you might have. Zugman (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Institute for Creation Research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080511210411/http://www.tracs.org/DOE_Nov07.pdf to http://www.tracs.org/DOE_Nov07.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080827181645/http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/humphreys_debate_statement.shtml to http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/humphreys_debate_statement.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources tag

The article contains 10 citations to the organisation itself; I thus tagged it as "Original research". K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe that a more appropriate description would be WP:SELFSOURCE. The guideline is that such self-sourced citations are permissible as long as the statements are not unduly self-serving, doubtful, or controversial. It would help if you could tag those self-sourced statements that you believe violate this guideline. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I updated the tag to "Primary sources". Here's an example of the statement that appears self-promotional, sourced to ICR and Vision Forum, and may be non-notable, if third party sources have not covered this:

• ICR launched the Jonathan Park radio drama series based on a book of the same title. Production of the radio program was transferred to Vision Forum Ministries in 2004.

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Institute for Creation Research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080126220711/http://www.icr.org:80/discover/index/discover_museum/ to http://www.icr.org/discover/index/discover_museum/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cpec.ca.gov/collegeguide/Institution.asp?ID=E0380A&bhcp=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Institute for Creation Research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://icr.org/home/faq/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icr.org/discover/index/discover_museum/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140307163155/http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2Fta07%2FERES1580.htm to http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?link=%2Fdocuments%2Fadoptedtext%2Fta07%2Feres1580.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Institute for Creation Research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/12/15/1215creationism.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080120114834/http://www.texscience.org/reviews/icr-thecb-certification.htm to http://www.texscience.org/reviews/icr-thecb-certification.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080207185419/http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA121907.01A.Creationism.2951a43.html to http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA121907.01A.Creationism.2951a43.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080119224010/http://www.texscience.org/reviews/icr-duality-science.htm to http://www.texscience.org/reviews/icr-duality-science.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080608050448/http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/highereducation/entries/2008/04/23/panel_rejects_creation_institu.html to http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/highereducation/entries/2008/04/23/panel_rejects_creation_institu.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Pseudoscience, non-science, and philosophy of science

An edit of mine was reverted, and I here will argue for why I will revert that back to my version unless someone can substantiate a better compromise.
My concern here is not for any squabbles between worldviews of prehistory or origins of the universe. It is that the word “pseudoscience” is a so–called buzzword, as such has been claimed by a few persons notable enough to be mentioned on the linked article.
What pertinence does it have in the first paragraph of this page? If the name “creation science” irks some editors or readers as to the mention of the word ‘science’ in the name, then I suggest you review that page for suitable places to use the phrase “pseudoscience” or the like. The first paragraph here is concerns an organization, not an avenue of research thereof. Who or what is being served by all this? Not critical thought, as I see it.

It seems to me that the field of published opinion on the demarcation between scientific inquiry and nonscientific information, vis–à–vis beliefs in the supernatural or things out of reach of science, is severely polarized. It is unlikely that you will see any assessments on the state of either which are not denounced by the one of the sides: Need a scientist actively deny the existence of things beyond science, or should they simply refrain from couching their theories in a “god of the gaps”? Most people probably don't think like that — but, I digress.

Of course, people who disagree with something are going to describe it in phrases that highlight their claims to its fallacy. Putting such descriptions in the first part of an introduction to a page — especially a small niche page, at that — does nothing more than espouse what is at best an editorial selection bias, and at worst a vendetta, rather than help to describe a topic for the sake of knowledge.
I would like to thank the editor who did revert my edit for not simply hiding theirs as a minor revision— as I've seen done another time on this page. I hope we can continue to be rational about this. — JamesEG (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree with your type of position on most topics, however, ArbCom has ruled that the labelling of pseudoscience as pseudoscience is correct within Wikipedia, and has gone to the trouble of defining pseudoscience, and 'creation science' falls squarely under one of their definitions. Wikipedia, per that decision, is not unbiased on the subject of pseudoscience, as Wikipedia in general, follows an explicitly proscientific agenda.

In this case the Institute for Creation Research has, by definition, a pseudoscientific agenda, and it is correct that this must be defined as early as possible in the article.GliderMaven (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with GliderMaven. ICR makes "scientific claims" which are simply pseudoscientific. Not labeling it as such in the lede would be misleading to readers. Jim1138 (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for replying so soon. I still believe that my edit had better logical arrangement, but I will let the page be as–is for now. Eventually, perhaps, I shall compile enough information to amend the article so as to necessitate a restructuring of the lede paragraph. In the long run, that is a better outcome anyways. Cheers! — JamesEG (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

You need to show that ICR is actually doing real science. This seems far from the case. See Institute for Creation Research#Scientific criticism Jim1138 (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I oppose any removal of the simple statement of fact that ICR is trying to promote pseudoscientific creation 'science'. Creation science is itself a meaningless term. Having read the ICR self described aims and beliefs that are shown in citation 3 it is clear that pseudoscientific is the correct descriptive term. If some readers choose to take offense at this or believe it not to be true then they are the ones at odds with the accepted scientific consensus. Wikipedia cannot and must not pander to the sensibilities of people who believe in fringe theories (although they should be examined, reported and discussed). The sources say the sort of beliefs and aims of ICR are pseudoscientific and that is what it should state in Wikipedia. Robynthehode (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Institute for Creation Research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130205174912/http://www.visionforum.com/news/blogs/doug/2005/05/1107/ to http://www.visionforum.com/news/blogs/doug/2005/05/1107/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

"They claim to use scientific method"

@2600:1012:B12F:DF7F:7C01:8064:545C:F599: This is precisely why it is pseudoscience: claiming to do science while not adhering to the basic requirements of the scientific method, resulting in fringe views, contradicting the scientific consensus. Please also see the above discussion about the topic. Also of interest are WP:PSCI and WP:ARBPS: on Wikipedia we unambiguously specify when a practice is pseudoscience and adjust the weight of articles according to the mainstream and scientific views of relevant experts in the field, supported with reliable sources (WP:RS). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 13:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I have found the entire Wikepedia writeup concerning ICR to be very slanted and weighted against them. As far as charges that they do not follow the "Scientific Method" in research, I dare say that the same can be said against the so called "evolutionary science". I have never seen scientific verifiable proof showing that genetically, new information can be shown to be added to to the human geonome. There are 3 types of mutations known within the genetic world, . . deleterious, neutrals and beneficials, and beneficials (new information) being what would be needed for evolution to be possible, and billions times over for evolution to be a viable thought, yet scientifically we haven't seen that, and probably never will. Where are the scientifically verifiable transitions from one animal to another? T-Rex to birds? It's what is taught as "science", but is not science at all. Feathers on dinosaurs? . . all good in the movies, but it is funny how supposed feathered dinosaur fossils from China haven't been verified by scientist, and fact they are usual proven to be fakes and man made. Only certain kinds of feathers can be used for "flight", and must be in the right place, . . not to mention the amazing lungs of a bird, . . how did that transition happen? . . where are the transitional fossils? I have been watching and reading ICR articles for decades, . . and just because "mainstream" and so called "relevant" experts don't seem to agree does not necessarily mean that ICR science articles are wrong. I am tired of so called "scientist" saying that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not go against evolution, because it does . . .everything degrades, . . living and non-living, and including information. DNA has been proven to be degrading, . . the human genome losing information every generation . . look at all the genetic illnesses and diseases we have that are caused by DNA losing information . . deleterious mutations. Humans 1000 to 5000 years ago were much healthier DNA wise than we are today. Everything I read about evolutionary ideas and in articles is always burdened with words like, maybe, possibly, could have, and that is not science. How do we have soft tissue, blood cells in fossils supposedly 75 to 100 million years old? We know scientifically that can't happen, so it seems that someone's dating system has some serious problems. What we have is the pot calling the kettle black as the old saying goes . . Stebs66 (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Stebs66 it is completely irrelevant what you think. This is not a forum for discussing views on the subject but on how to improve the article. The article is based on reliable sources not on Wikipedia editors personal views. Your best option is to marshal all your information about evolution, write an article and submit it for publication in a peer reviewed journal. I suspect you won't do that. The issue of Wikipedia 'bias' toward established scientific consensus has been discussed many times and support for scientific consensus will remain as the basis for articles such as these. Robynthehode (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Insertion of "young earth" at dubious places

Since October 2017, the article has changed in this way: [11]

• This has given us the weird construction of "young earth creation science", an unusual chimera of young earth creationism and creation science. Young-earth creationism was already mentioned in the lede ("espouses a Young Earth creationist worldview").
• It has changed "Creationism is rejected by nearly all scientists" to "Young-earth creationism is rejected by nearly all scientists". Both are true, but the first is more general.
• It added "including most scientists who hold to Christian faith", which is true but not covered by the sources given.

I think the old version is mostly better. Maybe we could keep the third change but add a source? --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems a bit redundant. I tracked down the edit, that added the first Young Earth Creationist bit-it was added by an anon. I've reverted it.GliderMaven (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)