| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Creation science article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
 | Creation science was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. Review: April 27, 2006. (Reviewed version). |
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
"Creation vs. mainstream science in cosmology" listed at Redirects for discussion edit
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Creation vs. mainstream science in cosmology. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 3#Creation vs. mainstream science in cosmology until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. jps (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Is the Institute of Creation Research a reliable source? edit
It's a reliable primary source about its views on creation science, but should it be used as an independent secondary source? WorldQuestioneer (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- It is only a source for what creationists of that sort believe. Never for scientific claims. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
The lead section is too long edit
I feel like the lead section should be broken up. It's way too long, and can be split up into headings describing the history, the fact that modern science proves it false, etc. What information should we move "down below" or omit from the lead section? The first paragraph seems like a keeper for sure. Félix An (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Metaphysical Assumptions section edit
Someone removed enough text from the second paragraph of the Metaphysical assumptions section to drastically alter the meaning of the paragraph. I reverted that edit, and added some refs, citing publications already used as sources in other parts of the article. I didn't review the entire list of references, and may have missed some good ones, though. Any help will be appreciated! Cheers! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 17:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Fallacy edit
"The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community"
Appeal to consensus, followed by other claims about empiricism, which at basic level is mislabeled given the positions counter point also has no observable evolution.
More of why I no longer donate. 98.4.89.168 (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- See Fallacy fallacy. Evolution has notably been observed in Lenski's E. coli long-term experiment, and earlier, in peppered moth coloration during (and after) the Industrial Revolution. I expect this section will soon be deleted as inappropriate forum-style argumentation; I am entirely OK with such deletion. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Not a fallacy, except within the motivated reasoning of pseudoscience fans. By your reasoning, we would also have to dismiss the round Earth and the Periodic System of the elements, because both are consensus. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not in need of your sad allowance. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. 47.44.49.171 (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Explained at WP:VERECUNDIAM: for Wikipedia it's not a fallacy to appeal to authority. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Which of these six categories does creation science belong to? edit
Extended content
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Which does creation science belong to? WorldQuestioneer (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- That's not a list of six categories. Maybe read the article lede; creation science is pseudoscience. PepperBeast (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)