Talk:Creation Research Society

Statement of belief

1. Inserting claims, that are not traceable to Numbers, into a statement cited to him is WP:OR.
2. That "YECs considers YEs and OECs to be Evolutionists" is (1) unsourced WP:OR and (2) a blatantly WP:POV characterisation of OECs, that should not be presented as anything other than a YEC view.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Numbers does a 'chop shop' job on Creationists and Creationism. While the information he provides may be historically accurate, he dwells extensively and exclusively on everything negative that has ever happened among creationists. Thus Numbers' extreme negative bias makes his work nearly useless, but for basic facts that might be sifted from it's gloomy pages.
2. Numbers' "mandatory for all members" statement is an example of his extreme negativity. First off, only Creationists would even want to join. Second, evolutionists would have no interest in joining. "mandatory" is blatant yellow journalism. "mandatory" implies forcing people against their will. No one is forced to join CRS. No one would want to join who does not agree with the beliefs. Your insistence on keeping that phrase in the article shows your POV sympathy with Numbers' yellow journalism. My paraphrase "to repel skeptics and attract fellow believers' better reflects the real purpose of the statement of beliefs and skims over Numbers' yellow journalism.
3. "YECs consider TEs and OECs to be Evolutionists" was not a part of the article and so not subject to OR or POV. But that position is a fact that can be easily confirmed by reading articles on the AiG and ICR web sites. If it were to become part of the article, sources could easily be found. And besides, the original sentence of the first paragraph states that CRS wished to keep out evolutionists. I simply rearranged the sentence to make it read easier.

Christian Skeptic (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

CS: as I said your repeated slanders of a respected academic only make you look like a tendentious extremist. That the "statement of beliefs" was part of an effort to eject membership (including OECs) who disagreed with Morris is well documented, so your "only [YE] Creationists would even want to join" claim is patently false. Can you substantiate that the SoB is voluntary? Unlikely, given the CRS purges. If not, then to characterise it as "mandatory" would appear to be justified, and to call it "yellow journalism" would appear to be just a baseless smear campaign from an extremist partisan. Your usage of "evolutionists" to include OECs was part of your edits to this article, and so was impermissible OR & POV. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Numbers' book reads as yellow journalism--"loosely defined as not quite libel"--from cover to cover. Numbers takes great pains to slip in words every chance he gets that give a negative spin to everything that has happened. He is a master at his deceptive craft. He can lie without technically lying. I wouldn't trust him if he told me the sun rose in the east.

During the first couple years of CRS there was controversy over the statements of beliefs that were being formulated and some left on their own accord and some were pressured. However, nothing like that has happened in the 40 years since. If it had, you can be sure that Numbers would have sniffed it out and blown it way out of proportion. Numbers' account of internal CRS controversy narrowly focuses on just a few years at it formation and ignores the happenings of 40 years of its existence since. And so he gives an utterly false and dirty impression of what CRS is and does.

YECs consider OECs to be evolutionists. That you do not know this shows your massive ignorance. [1]

Comments on the "edit summary" line are not part of the article. They are simply explanations for and comments on what action had been taken.

Christian Skeptic (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys as to your (or anybody else's) personal opinion of Numbers. What matters is the academic consensus on Numbers -- which is that he is highly regarded, even by many creationists. If you want to contest his reliability as a source, then call an RfC on the matter.
2. Nothing you have said about events in the CRS is substantiated, nor does it raise any substantial questions with the version that Numbers gives. You have admitted that those of differing views of what "creation" entailed were "pressured" to leave. These purges and the imposition of the SoB would make it clear to anybody that didn't hold identical views that they were not welcome, so it is hardly surprising that the effort did not need to be repeated.
3. If YECs are allowed to edit articles to reflect their view that OECs are "evolutionists", are evolution-supporters likewise allowed to edit articles to reflect their (far better substantiated) viewpoint that YECs are "delusional religious fanatics" and that Ken Ham is a "lying charlatan"? NPOV would appear to suggest that none of these are acceptable, and thus that you are not permitted to phrase a statement that implicitly states that OECs are evolutionists (as your edit summary admitted that it did).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As you quoted from Numbers: "The issue of a statement of belief caused considerable controversy within the CRS during its formation, with considerable wrangling over wording, and little consensus beyond keeping out evolutionists."

As I edited it to read better: "The issue of a statement of belief, whose main goal was to keep out evolutionists, caused considerable controversy within the CRS during its formation, with little consensus and considerable wrangling over wording."

Both sentences say the same thing and I said nothing about TE or OEC. You are the one who brought them up when you said. "the "main goal" was to keep out everybody, TEs, OECs, etc, whose views didn't perfectly mesh with theirs." (This statement is itself unsourced WP:OR and also a blatant characterization of YECs)

I was merely agreeing with you when I pointed out: "YECs consider TEs and OECs to be Evolutionists." And thus, as you said, it was to "keep out everybody" who does not agree with them.

Then you get all steamed and talking nonsense about "(1) unsourced WP:OR and (2) a blatantly WP:POV characterisation of OECs," What YECs think about OECs is irrelevant to what OECs (or others) think about OECs. What YECs think about OECs is a fact of life. What OECs think about YECs is a fact of life. These POVs exist. Talking about these POVs is not the same as supporting them. And pretending they don't exist is silly.

Those endorsements by some creationists appeared on the first edition of Numbers' book. I'm certain that those creationists regret they ever said anything by now. The endorsements were simply carried over to the second edition to give a false impression. All reviews of Numbers' book in creationary literature have been very, very negative. Since "academia" is nearly all anti-theistic and pro-evolution it is not surprising that Numbers is 'highly regarded.' YECs disagree with "academia" on most things that impact creationism and evolutionism. Christian Skeptic (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

CS: from the fact that the SoB specifically includes specifically YE terms like "the Creation Week" and "the Noachian Flood", it can be inferred that the "main goal" went well beyond keeping "evolutionists" (taking that to mean its NPOV meaning of those who accept theistic evolution or naturalistic evolution]]) out, to encompass exclusion of OECs. Your original edit is therefore prima facie fallacious (regardless of acceptance of Numbers). Beyond that, you have not cited a single alternate reliable source, so any edit that cannot be founded in Numbers is pure unsubstantiated WP:OR. Likewise your assertion about the creationists' endorsement of is completely unsubstantiated. As far as you "academia hates us" whine, I direct your attention to WP:REDFLAG (part of WP:V), bulletpoint 4: "Be particularly careful when proponents of such claims say there is a conspiracy to silence them." In fact you have not made a single point that has any basis whatsoever in wikipedia policy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say or whine "academia hates us" That is your typical, biased misinterpretation. I said that YECs disagree with 'academia' on philosophical grounds. And it's no wonder they praise Numbers for they agree with his biased, yellow journalistic approach to creationism. Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Numbers' book is published by Harvard University Press, making it, on wikipedia, one of the most reliable sources available. There's no real justification for challenging the book or its contents. As long as the text accurately summarizes and does not misrepresent the meaning of the book's contents, it's near ideal as a source, you couldn't really ask for better - per the third paragraph in this section. WLU (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Because I have access to many references which cover the cs movement, I was asked take a look at them to see what they've written that may pertain here. The two issues of contention which were raised here recently appear to be surrounding the crafting of the statement of belief, and over who is expected to sign it. Both Nelkin and Numbers agree that the intention to "keep out evolutionists" was key to the organisation pulling away, from splitting with the ASA, but the subsequent internal skirmishes were over what kind of anti-evolutionism the society was to limit itself to. Nelkin did not identify the statement of belief negotiations in particular, but describes differences in the early days as doctrinal, not over evolutionism. Numbers sources for his account were early CRS documents and writings of Lammerts, available through a CRS library, and a published history written by Morris. The statement of belief is described also in Scott and Petto/Godfrey's book as well as Numbers. It's consistently reported in each that all voting members must sign to it. Numbers is a very sound source. Any claim made that contradicts claims sourced to Numbers would have to be defended with solid sources, and even then it would be an uphill climb. Numbers is as close to being the definitive source that currently exists. Nobody with any serious scholarship in this area ignores Numbers; he's easily the most often cited independent reference outside perhaps the primary sources. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Numbers is "the definitive source" because is is basically the ONLY source that 'academia' would accept, no matter how biased and yellow journalistic. Of course anyone wanting membership in CRS must sign the SoB, because if you want to join a group that holds some set of beliefs you are expected to demonstrate that you also hold those beliefs. If you want to join ANY special interest group you do so because you agree with their special interests. Sheesh..... No one is forced to join. And if you demonstrate that you disagree with the SoB, you should be expected to step down or be removed from the group. Duh!! Same thing applies to Wikipedia!!! If you don't follow the rules and beliefs, out you go.

All this fuss over membership and statement of beliefs is utter stupidity. Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your feelings for Numbers aside, the relationship to statement of beliefs and membership issue is confirmed on the CRS website, and the emphasis upon religious doctrinal issues in the statement of beliefs is self evident. There is no reason to attack Numbers scholarship over these two points because the information is confirmed several ways. These articles tend to turn into soap boxes unless a strong stand is taken against digressing into personal opinions rather than content. The talk page isn't for blogging or opinionating, so without directing this warning to anyone in particular, I'm reminding everyone here to keep to the point. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What I object to is the implications of the phrase "mandatory for all members". Numbers subtlety and underhandedly uses it to imply that there are people out there who desperately want to join CRS but cannot because they disagree with the statement of beliefs (SoB). OR that there are some who have "agreed" to the SoB but secretly chaff at the horrible restrictions of the SoB. This completely opposite of reality.

The SoB define CRS. Someone who already agrees with the SoB would most likely be interested enough to join if they wish. Someone who disagrees with the SoB would have little desire to associate with those who do. The way the article reads it sounds like people are being excluded against their will. You have to believe or else there will be terrible consequence..... The reality is that someone who disagrees wouldn't bother to join in the first place. Or, if a member experiences a change of mind, they wouldn't want to remain a member anyway. CRS does not have a membership review committee to enforce 'agreement' with the SoB.

I tried to correct this articles extremely biased and misleading statement, which got this discussion started. And it still needs to be corrected. Christian Skeptic (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are reading too much into the word "mandatory". I understand it to mean the same as "All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief", the wording chosen by the CRS itself. But you seem to want to eliminate the information, not just change the wording. Don't you think that the "must" is an important piece of information that helps a reader judge the importance of the SoB within the CRS? --Art Carlson (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

CS, this required assent to the statement of belief is given great prominence by the CRS itself, (that agreement with it is "required" is prominently disclosed at CRS website on numerous pages ([2], [3], [4] ). It's also been a focal point in the controversy over mainstream science and creation science, and has had major repercussions in the courts too, most important of which was when the federal court was forced to judge whether creation science was a science or a religion. The requirement of members to adopt the CSR statement of belief was one of the factors the judge relied upon in his ruling in McLean v Arkansas (CSR furnished five expert witnesses in the McLean trial). This isn't just about Numbers; most others watching the issue as well, not to mention the CSR itself, considers this requirement significant. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source trumps opinion. Case closed. In this case, there appears to be multiple sources saying the same thing. Complaining about yellow journalism is not a source. WLU (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Schisms

Trying to nip this before it gets crazy: Let's gather up sources on this and see what they say exactly. Nothing is resolved by replacing one unsourced claim with a new unsourced claim. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

A creationist publication's view of peer-review is not a conventional use of the term. If CRS claims they are scientific and their journal is peer-reviewed then their conclusions should match mainstream science, but they don't.

It is removed because 1) It's not sourced and 2) Creationist ideas are not peer-reviewed in the conventional sense of the word. If I am wrong provide a WP:RS that "Peer review is exactly the same in CRSQ all others." We66er (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Completely WRONG! All scientists who publish in a journal are members of that journal's organization and they are reviewed by scientists who are also members of that journal's organization. GSA geologists are reviewed by other GSA geologists, not by geologists who are NOT members of GSA. The same goes for all other journals. Peer review for CRSQ means that a creationary geologist who is a member of CRS has his paper reviewed by his peers who are also CRS creationary geologists.

The WP peer review page says this; "Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review." Only creationists are qualified to review other creationary work. CRS follows precisely what the WP peer review page says should be done. Peer Review does not mean that it must match evolutionary dogma. Evolutionists haven't a clue what creationism is about, period.

The reason why creationary interpretation of the data differs from evolutionary interpretation has nothing to do with the scientific method. It has everything to do with which philosophy one chooses to do their science within. The scientific method must be done within a philosophy because it supplies the assumptions required in order to do science. Most scientists work within the philosophy of Naturalism, whether they realize it or not. Creationary scientists reject the philosophy of naturalism and do their science within the philosophy of Biblical creationism because it also supplies the assumptions required to do science. The philosophy is what makes the difference between evolutionists and creationists.

The source for peer reviewed is any CRSQ and the CRSQ web site (which is where the original article here came from). These are the only possible reliable sources because who else would really know; certanly not Evolutionary sources because most evolutionists are deliberately ignorant and others simply lie.... Christian Skeptic (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

1) It was not sourced, which means it can be pulled out at any time.

2) Creationist peer-review is not considered true peer review. That is explained here and noted by Massimo Pigliucci here.

These are self-published personal opinion pieces and not reputable sources. CRSQ is peer reviewed just as the WP peer review article describes that peer review should be. Anyone who can read can see so. Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

3) If you include a claim that the journal says its peer-reviewed, WP:NPOV requires giving WP:DUE that scientific creationist "peer review" is an oxymoron (religion isn't science, science isn't religion).

By exactly the same token: Evoution isn't science and science isn't evolution. Peer-review is a methodology, nothing more. CRSQ does not peer review the same as the on-line AiG journal. Yet, suggesting reviewers is not atypical in peer-review. It is the editor who chooses whom to be reviewer from a list of reviewers. Suggesting reviewers increases the list. The reviewers are still anonymous. Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

4) Even creationists admit their "peer review" isn't regarded as legitimate.[5] (Note how Creation Research Society is mentioned there.) Furthermore, Answers in Genesis explains "... there is very little data about the practice or effectiveness of creationist peer review."

Talk about quote MINING. You take the cake.... and take it out of context. The article is about peer review in the general world and how most philosophers of science agree that peer review is not perfect. And it isn't. The article calls for creationists to be more critical and above board than anyone else... Sheesh!!!! What a joke!

Here is the important part of the article: The irony of this conflict over peer review is that peer review is poorly understood and criticized even in conventional journals. Over the past 25 years, the process of peer review has come under increasing scrutiny, especially in the biomedical community . The efficacy of peer review to improve the quality of manuscripts and to minimize bias has been questioned. Some studies show benefits, while others show no benefits or negative influences from peer review. For every one of these studies, however, there are enthusiastic editorials defending the value of peer review. What seems certain at this stage is that peer review is no guarantor of the accuracy or scientific quality of a published paper. .... These new perspectives on the process of peer review have led to strong calls for changes to the peer-review system. For example, Rennie listed eight criticisms of peer review, including the lack of standardization, the stifling of innovation, and the introduction of malice by reviewer anonymity. He calls for open peer review, in which the identity of the author and reviewers are known to each other. Others, fearing biased reviewers, advocate a double-blind system, wherein the identity of the author and reviewers are withheld from each other during the editorial process. These peer review problems are not a Creationist problem alone. Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but did you misunderstand: "The status of peer review in the creationist community is largely unknown. Other than personal experiences, there is very little data about the practice or effectiveness of creationist peer review"[6]? Because you certainly didn't seem to argue against that part but brought up a red herring. This is yet another example why people don't debate creationist silliness. Further

Critics of creationism and Intelligent Design (ID) often note that creationist or ID research does not appear in peer-reviewed literature (e.g., Crawford 1982; Scott and Branch 2003; Max 2004; Bottaro et al. 2006). Creationists complain that we are excluded from the peer-reviewed literature (Anderson 2002; Kulikovsky 2008; see also Tipler 2004) and are therefore required to publish in our own peer reviewed-literature (Morris 2003). Critics view creationist peer review as not “real” peer review. For example, recent attempts to launch new creationist peer-reviewed journals have been met with scorn or dismissal (Sparks et al. 2007; Brumfiel 2008)[7].

Clearly the creationists know scientists do not accept creation peer review as a legitimate form of the practice. Get over it!We66er (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Boy, you clearly don't understand what the authors were saying at all. They are not saying that peer-review is not practiced in creationary journals, but that people outside of Creationism are clueless because the creationary peer-review process has not been studied as an entity in itself and so not much is known about it. And it is those outside creationism, who don't understand creationism, who mock the idea of peer-reviewed creationary journals. The peer-review process is done in Creationary journals, I know because I have published a few articles in two of them, and have been through the peer-review process.

Oh, FFS. First you offer a red herring, now a strawman. I never said, "They are not saying that peer-review is not practiced in creationary journals." Of course, they want "peer review," but the article recognizes: "The status of peer review in the creationist community is largely unknown. Other than personal experiences, there is very little data about the practice or effectiveness of creationist peer review"[8]. Please have someone help you with reading the article. I tried being nice, but your unearned arrogance and rudeness have exhausted my patience. See your talk. We66er (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Naturalists call creationism pseudoscience because naturalism and creationism are incommensurate. I.e., Naturalists are incapable of understanding creationism because creationism and naturalism are mutually incompatible and mutually exclusive. So, when creationists hear naturalists calling creationism 'pseudoscience' in merely confirms the point of incommensurate paradigms. It simply shows the utter ignorance of naturalist about creationism. The only thing wrong with 'biology' is when naturalists interpret scientific data as proving evolution. Biology has nothing to do with evolutionism. Christian Skeptic (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

5) If you want to talk about naturalism and science, I suggest you take a intro. to science class at your local college. Your opinion does not matter to me. Wikipedia states scientific consensus on subjects like this and shows creationism for what it is regarded by scientists. To call CRS "peer reviewed" is misleading, as scientists define it and even as AiG says.We66er (talk) 02:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I happen to a 4th year student of paleontology at a local State University, soon to be a grad student. I know science. I know philosophy of science. Most evolutionists, including you, don't have a clue when it comes to creationism and the philosophy behind science. CRSQ is "peer reviewed" just as all other journals are peer reviewed -- by specialist in their fields. Scientific consensus is just that consensus, Stephen Gould went against consensus all his life! It doesn't prove anything. The scientific method cannot prove anything true. It can only falsify hypotheses. So a consensus about what is true is mostly opinion. And evolution is just an adult fairy tale. Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's sad to hear you're about to get a BA and don't even have a basic understanding of science ("Evoution isn't science"). That aside, as scientists have noted, creationist peer review is a joke. You can't just assert the oppposite and call everyone else wrong. Is an "evolutionist" like a gravitationist? I hope you talk with your professors about your misunderstandings. Until you win a Nobel Prize for proving the last 150 years of biology wrong, read WP:DUE on how we treat creationist anti-science. Creationism is pseudoscience so its "peer review" is not considered the same level of scientific journals.

PS on your claim that scientists know little about the "philosophy behind science," read Massimo Pigliucci, who has two PhDs in science and one PhD in philosophy. He takes objection to creationist "peer review". Again, stop with the baseless, over-generalized rants. You are a creationist undergrad claiming all these groups are wrong. Ever stop to think, it's your knowledge and not the experts that is limited? I won't be responding to your misunderstandings, that is for your professsors to deal with. Focus on WP:DUE and WP:RS. We66er (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I will be getting a BS. I may be an undergrad, but at 58 I'm not a newbie to the creation/evolution debate. I have been studying the issues for about 3 decades but am now finally getting a degree. For all his degrees, Massimo is still clueless about the relationship between philosophy and science. If you are taught nonsense, you teach nonsense. GIGO. All science finds its required assumptions in philosophy. And the philosophy you choose determines how one understands the results of science. It's that simple. There are two competing, and mutually exclusive philosophies--Naturalism and Creationism.

Evolution is a belief coming from Naturalism. It is not a scientific hypothesis, but a fact of naturalism. The only thing that evolutionary scientists hypothesize about is HOW evolution happened, never IF it happened. Evolution does not come from science but from naturalism. And so evolution is not science and science it not evolution. Gravity is real. Evolution is a naturalist's belief. Christian Skeptic (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but age doesn't equate with knowledge, and no matter how much pseudoscience you believe, it doesn't make it science. Again, your misunderstandings and desire to argue science should be something it's not as well as attack a respected expert on the subject don't interest me. You, not the entire scientific community, are wrong. We66er (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

CS should probably consider calming down a bit. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My interested in posting here is strictly to counter the patently obvious bald faced lies, and blatant falsehoods and spins of evolutionists especially as illustrated in this very article and throughout WP in general. Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Your interest is noted, but information on Wikipedia has to conform with policies. Assertions must be verified from reliable secondary sources, and self-published claims by the organisation concerned don't cut it. See in particular WP:NPOV/FAQ#Giving "equal validity" and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Making necessary assumptions. The CRS claim to "peer review" is compromised by their precondition of taking Genesis as "scientifically" valid, a point which was noted in the Edwards v. Aguillard decision.[9] This is an aspect which needs to be examined in more detail in the article. . . dave souza, talk 20:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Seems skeptic might best be recast as apologist. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As noted above there is no such thing as a reliable, neutral second or third hand sources in this case because one is either a naturalist or a creationists. Creationary sources are automatically censored so that leaves the biased naturalist sources, and these should not be allowed because of their POV. Naturalists are blind to their own biases, so their view is falsely called NPOV. We66er's source for "explained here" (see above) is an self-published, personal opinion piece which does not qualify according to WP as a reliable source, besides the fact that it is blatantly false. And he completely misreads and misrepresents the creationary article on peer-review. And I've explained the incommensurate nature of the conflict between naturalism and Creationism as Kuhn talks about between paradigms. Naturalists simply do not comprehend creationism. However, most Creationists do comprehend Naturalism for many of them were once evolutionists, but found that they could not in good faith remain a Christian and be an naturalist. So they stopped from schizophrenically trying to believe two conflicting religions and became psychologically sound. This article is so far from NPOV that it is laughable, yet naturalists/evolutionists are completely blind to it. You guys complain about the piece of dust in my eye, but are completely blinded by the plank in your own eye. Christian Skeptic (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Christian Skeptic, you either don't know what a WP:RS is or didn't read any of the links. Slate (magazine) isn't a "self-published source."[10] Massimo Pigliucci's article in the Skeptical Inquirer isn't a "self published source."[11] Both articles dismiss creationist "peer review." We66er (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll take back that the thing in 'slate' is not self-published, but it is just an declaration of opinion and therefore POV and so useless. Skeptical Inquirer is just about as good as the National Enquirer for truth. Christian Skeptic (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As Hrafn wrote above to you: "I don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys as to your (or anybody else's) personal opinion." No one here cares about your opinions. Wikipedia is concerned about facts that can be supported by evidence. We66er (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Former CRS author

Glenn R. Morton, author of 20 CRS articles, wrote his "Why I left Young-earth Creationism," stating:

I worked hard over the next few years to solve these problems. I published 20+ items in the Creation Research Society Quarterly. I would listen to ICR, have discussions with people like Slusher, Gish, Austin, Barnes and also discuss things with some of their graduates that I had hired.

...

By 1986, the growing doubts about the ability of the widely accepted creationist viewpoints to explain the geologic data led to a nearly 10 year withdrawal from publication. My last young-earth paper was entitled Geologic Challenges to a Young-earth, which I presented as the first paper in the First International Conference on Creationism. It was not well received. Young-earth creationists don't like being told they are wrong. The reaction to the pictures, seismic data, the logic disgusted me. They were more interested in what I sounded like than in the data!

...

It appeared that the more I questions I raised, the more they questioned my theological purity. When telling one friend of my difficulties with young-earth creationism and geology, he told me that I had obviously been brain-washed by my geology professors. When I told him that I had never taken a geology course, he then said I must be saying this in order to hold my job. Never would he consider that I might really believe the data. Since then this type of treatment has become expected from young-earthers. I have been called nearly everything under the sun but they don't deal with the data I present to them. Here is a list of what young-earthers have called me in response to my data: 'an apostate,'(Humphreys) 'a heretic'(Jim Bell although he later apologised like the gentleman he is) 'a compromiser'(Henry Morris) "absurd", "naive", "compromising", "abysmally ignorant", "sloppy", "reckless disregard", "extremely inaccurate", "misleading", "tomfoolery" and "intentionally deceitful"(John Woodmorappe) 'like your father, Satan' (Carl R. Froede--I am proud to have this one because Jesus was once said to have been of satan also.) 'your loyality and commitment to Jesus Christ is shaky or just not truly genuine' (John Baumgardner 12-24-99 [Merry Christmas]) "[I] have secretly entertained suspicions of a Trojan horse roaming behind the lines..." Royal Truman 12-28-99[12]

Some of this might be relevant to the article. We66er (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously this guy has an axe to grind, which will make his statements POV. Christian Skeptic (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's very clear you dismiss everyone who disagrees with you. In fact, as Morton noted his critics are "more interested in" him "than in the data." You just demonstrated his point since attacked him and not his points. Alas, your opinion doesn't matter to wikipedia, the issues is WP:V and WP:RS. We66er (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As is typical of Morton, "it's all about him." The reality is that he was promoting theistic evolutionism and no Flood among a group which accepted only Creationism and Flood Catastrophism. What He has always missed was that he was uncritically accepting interpretation of data as fact rather than recognizing the difference between data and interpretation. I have discussed this at length with him, and he simply does not see the distinction. Flood geologists have no problem with actual data, but differ greatly with interpretation of the data within Naturalism and so interpret the data within Creationism.

These unfortunate statements are going to plague CRS and make this site as juicy as the National Enquirer. Christian Skeptic (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

STOP POSTING YOUR OPINION, wikipedia is not a forum for opinions. No one cares about your opinion about Morton or your unfounded, unsupported, POV comparisons. We66er (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

My opinion??? You posted his biased opinion.... Whats the difference? I simply posted my experience with and understanding of Morton and made a simple observation of where this web page is headed. Apparently, my experience is trumped by your ignorance. You make WP lie about CRS by your twisting of WP policy to favor your bigoted religious beliefs and blind opinions. Christian Skeptic (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You have some serious misunderstandings about wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on sources, which includes expert opinion from published sources. If you want your opinion on wikipedia get it published first. I've tried to be nice to you, but this is tiresome: You need to learn what the difference between a published sourced is and a wikipedia editor's opinion is. One is welcome, the other is not. We66er (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Difference between Glenn Morton's opinion and Christian Skeptic's is notability. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Absolutedly right, Auntie. Morton's notability in relation to this specific issue is shown in TalkOrigins Archive Claim CA325, and he's cited numerous times, such as Claim CH541 and Claim CD101. It's a notable viewpoint which should be shown in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. . . dave souza, talk 08:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Morton may be notable, but he's a liar (along with Talk.Origins). And nobody cares. Which makes WP culpable and a disseminator of lies. This lack of care about truth and biased selective choice of what makes a source "reliable" makes WP into just another National Enquirer. There are a lot of us who'd like to see WP be improved above the yellow journalism sheet that it is on this and similar topics. Christian Skeptic (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Christian Skeptic, you've been told already that this talk page is not a forum for you to post your opinion, statements should be about improving the article on the basis of verifiable information supported by citations. Vague accusations of "lies" and "bias" are uncivil and unhelpful. . dave souza, talk 16:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Go back up and read this section. First, I merely pointed out the Morton has a biased POV and is not, therefore, a third-party neutral Reliable Source. Then I get attacked for "attacking Morton" which is a lie. Then I explain what Morton's bias is, and I get attacked again for giving my "opinion", which is a lie. Anyone who is remotely knowledgeable about Morton and CRS would know this. Why am I attacked for pointing out Morton's bias? I can only think of one reason, it's because I cross the opinion of the editor. Then, I am the only one censored for defending myself from attack. What does that mean? Has anyone here ever heard of the word conspiracy?

When sources are intimately involved in a controversy with the subject of the article they are not NPOV nor RS. Therefore, both Morton and Talk.Origins are not RS and cannot be used in this article. Go find RS with NPOV. Christian Skeptic (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

By that flawed reasoning, you've just eliminated all creationist sources as well as they too are "involved in the controversy". Are you sure you really want to go there? *Sources* can of course have a point of view. Please -- you're misunderstanding the NPOV/RS guidelines as badly as you're misunderstanding science in general and the field of evolutionary biology in particular. I'm sure you mean well, but as the old saying goes, "the first rule of dog training is to know more than the dog." There are a number of sites where you can go to hash out these issues until you have a better grasp of them, but a WP talk page is not the place for it, especially if you're going to resort to making the kind of rash accusations you've made repeatedly here already, including "conspiracy", "liar", "just another National Enquirer" "lack of care about truth", "yellow journalism", and many many more. You aren't helping your case at all with this kind of behavior. I too have been engaged in this issue for over three decades, as well as being familiar with how things on Wikipedia are and are not done and why. If you need some help in this regard just ask me on my WP homepage. -- Ichneumon (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

These guys will never, ever allow any quote from a Creationary or ID site anyway, I have repeatedly had such quotes censored by these zealots. Just go back and read through the history of this WP page! The mantra reasoning given over and over is that ANY AND ALL creationist or ID sites, books or other sources are automatically POV, not reliable, not notable, giving Undue Weight, etc., etc., etc. (you name the excuse). What these source may actually say is completely irrelevant!. The only things allowed are quotes that denigrate creationism or ID. Anything positive or even neutral is POV, Not Notable, giving Undue Weight, not reliable. So that the otherwise good WP policies are twisted to coerce conformity to political correctness and Naturalistic Dogma. This is unadulterated censorship by ignorant fundamentalists.

There are NO neutral sources in the creation-ID/Evolution controversy. Therefore, this site ought to provide quotes from both sides to give a balanced NPOV, but ALL CREATIONARY SOURCES ARE AUTOMATICALLY ELIMINATED by twisting WP policies. That is privileged censorship. Christian Skeptic (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you calm down please? There are serious issues at work here, including Wikipedia's UNDUE weight policy (see WP:UNDUE) and the additional problem that mainstream science much more naturally creates reliable sources via peer-reviewed journals and such. Claims that creationist journals are peer-reviewed in a similar fashion are generally accepted only by their partisans and no one else. Moreover the claim that there are "NO neutral sources in the creation-ID/Evolution controversy" is simply false; major newspapers and multiple legal decisions write with minimal axes to grind. The fact that you don't like their conclusions does not make not neutral". All of that said, I'd feel more comfortable discussing Morton if we had additional more independent sources about him rather than his own essays. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The newspapers are very, very far from Neutral on this matter, as is all the media. And the statements I've read by the judges are not neutral either. They show a typical lack of knowledge of science and creationism and naturalism. The are judges after all, not scientists nor philosophers. There are NO neutral sources on this topic.

I have no problem with Undue Weight, but with how it is being twisted by editors when dealing with this topic. It is illogical to have an article about what creationists say and automatically block out anything that creationists actually say. The proper thing to do is quote what creationists actually say in context, and then quote and/or note where it is wrong. If you don't quote what they actually say you run the risk of setting up strawman arguments which greatly weaken WP, giving it a strong POV. Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth. Thus, if we have a variety of court cases and major newspapers such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal all saying one thing, there's not much we can do about that. Whether or not those sources are truly neutral they are close to it from a Wikipedia perspective. It might turn out that they were all wrong, but in the meantime our hands are tied. And with good reason. If we allowed "well, the normally reliable sources are biased" sort of argument in then every fringe group, be it, people who claim that we never landed on the moon or claim that vaccine's cause autism or that Atlantis was a real city or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real or that there was a shooter on the grassy knoll or that Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated by aliens (I'm not making that last one up; I'm reading a book now where the author seems to consider that to be a serious possibility) would have the same problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyone knows that newspapers are biased, just consider politics. Some papers are blatantly liberal some blatantly conservative. That anyone would expect them to suddenly be "close" to neutral about creationism is insane. Fox TV and conservative. Most of the others are liberal. You won't find anyone neutral in any media. Christian Skeptic (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. First of all, just because some papers are are "blatantly" "liberal" or "conservative" (whatever the heck those terms mean) doesn't make them not reliable source. The most common form of bias in news coverage is omission. It is very rare that a respectable newspaper's biases lead to a truly wrong statement. Thus, both NYT and WSJ are very reliable sources and their coverage of most topics are similar even as their interpretations on the editorial page differ. Second, this ignores the general issue of how Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy works anyways. Finally, this sort of claim does nothing to address the point about general fringe beliefs nor does it back up the claim about the judiciary at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Since he can't argue against the scientific consensus with evidence he tries to cast down on the reporting of science. Christian Skeptic your opinions have NO place here. If you want to change the how wikipedia sources things go to WP:RS and pled your case. Your inability to understand basic scientific concepts and wikipedia sourcing policy because of your fundamentalist view is tiresome and doesn't belong on this talk page. We66er (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable Research

This addition lacked reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as required by WP:SOURCES. If it's "Notable Research" then it should have been noted by a reliable third party in a source we can use, not just published by the CRS. So, I've removed the list until a suitably published third party evaluation is provided. . . dave souza, talk 11:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• A single self-citation in a single journal article is not "third party" and does not make research "notable", especially as the topic of neither article nor cited research is in an area central to CRS's creationist research. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Speaking of self-citation, the journal article in question, according to Google Scholar, is only ever cited by its own author (RA Herrmann) -- who does so nine times. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

So, a reference in another refereed journal isn't good enough and the articles in CRSQ aren't allowed. Do you punish all that have anything to do with the society and give awards to those who have no affiliation next? Dan Watts (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No it is not, particularly not when it is a self-citation. Most institutions have articles published by their employees cited on a daily basis -- it is the sort of trivial & "indiscriminate" WP:IINFO that Wikipedia is meant to avoid. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

CRS revert

[Removed from User talk:Hrafn ]

If cites are all that are missing, I can (and would) supply all their article links. Perhaps that is not what you meant by "uncited." What DID you mean? Dan Watts (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Discussion of an article belongs on article talk.
2. The act of classifying them is WP:OR.
3. Lacking third party sources, the relevance/noteworthiness of this material is unclear.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Creation Research Society. 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/20070927021651/http://www.creationresearch.org/belief_wndw.htm to http://www.creationresearch.org/belief_wndw.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927021547/http://www.creationresearch.org/hisaims.htm to http://www.creationresearch.org/hisaims.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020034012/http://www.creationresearch.org/vacrc/vacrc.html to http://www.creationresearch.org/vacrc/vacrc.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140403190349/http://www.creationresearch.org/past_boards.html to http://www.creationresearch.org/past_boards.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) 08:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Creation Research Society. 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://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20070621033807/http://www.hup.harvard.edu/pdf/NUMCRX_excerpt.pdf to http://www.hup.harvard.edu/pdf/NUMCRX_excerpt.pdf

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) 01:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)