Talk:Creation science/Archive 14

"Intro" - Non-NPOV edits by Filll, Infophile, ConfuciusOrnis

The edits that I made to the Intro were completely NPOV. To say that the "scientific community" -- which the Wikipedia link defines as "the total body of scientists, its relationships and interactions" -- "regards the term 'creation science' as a misnomer" is very POV, so I made a minor change to read "Many in the scientific community regards the term "creation science" as a misnomer." Yes, I forgot to remove that "s" -- so Filll undid my revision for "bad grammar" (instead of just doing a minor edit and removing the "s" like he should have). I didn't see that "s" and reposted it, then did another minor edit to another POV statement: "Scientists criticize creation science as a pseudoscience that does not conform to the scientific method since creation science does not attempt to propose or test any mechanisms by which creation could occur." I simply changed that to "Some scientists criticize" (very true, and NPOV), and added "Other scientists, though, claim that the scientific method simply cannot be applied to the study of origins in the same manner as other scientific pursuits." I included references from other scientists, which were very similar to the previous references used for the above POV statement.

So then Infophile came along and undid my revisions, for the VERY POV reason that "AiG is not an appropriate source for what scientists think." I undid his POV reversal (removing that dang "s" so no one could make another fake "bad grammar" claim), noting that "I have specifically quoted TWO scientists, regardless of the fact that they're quoted at AIG" -- again, maintaining NPOV for this revision.

Surprisingly, ConfuciusOrnis reverted my edits with a completely unsupported reason of "Ugh... POV pushing."

Look, I realize that this article is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. I made sure I supplied full citations when adding information like this. Filll, Infophile, and ConfuciusOrnis, however, did NOT follow the guidelines, and simply allowed their POV to guide their actions.

I believe my edits should be re-inserted, and would like to see that done. -profg 03:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

AiG is not a reliable source. They never have been and probably never will be. ornis (t) 03:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Gee, Ornis, that's not POV at all, is it? Certainly a reason for you, Filll, and Infophile to delete my edits - not a violation of WP:NPOV at all, right?

"In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views" -- and AiG is both for this "significant-minority" view. Despite what your POV leads you to believe, AiG has a well-established "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." --profg 03:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, since you seem to have missed it, I'll say it again, AiG is not a reliable source. Also NPOV doesn't require us to mention tiny minority view points at all, let alone give them equal time. I suggest you go back and re-read WP:NPOV, this time the whole thing, particularly the sections about pseudoscience, giving equal validity, and undue weight. All in all, your edits were poorly written, poorly sourced, completely POV and will never fly. ornis (t) 03:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't miss anything. You claim that AiG is not a reliable source. That is a totally POV statement, which many would disagree with.. You claim that we're discussing a "tiny" minority point of view. That is also a totally POV statement, which many would disagree with. I have read the "whole thing," and none of it applied to my edits, despite your best efforts to claim otherwise. (And you thing my edits "where" [sic] poorly written? Pot, kettle. They were well-sourced, you just didn't like the source. --profg 03:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me add, that according to WP:RS#Claims_of_consensus, "Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources." That whole "total body of scientists" thing - obviously an unsourced claim of consensus. --profg 03:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes they were poorly written, poorly sourced POV pushing, protesting otherwise won't change that. ornis (t) 03:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I am sorry you do not make much sense. If I understood I might be able to respond.--Filll 03:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Myers, PZ (2006-06-18). "Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution?". Pharyngula. scienceblogs.com. Retrieved 2006-11-18.
• The National Science Teachers Association's position statement on the teaching of evolution.
• IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society (PDF file)
• From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society: 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (PDF file), AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws
• Fact, Fancy, and Myth on Human Evolution, Alan J. Almquist, John E. Cronin, Current Anthropology, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Jun., 1988), pp. 520-522
• As reported by Newsweek: "By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'."(# Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (29 June 1987), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek CIX(26): 23-24, ISSN 0028-9604)
• Finding the Evolution in Medicine, Cynthia Delgado, NIH Record, July 28, 2006.
• Public beliefs about evolution and creation, Robinson, B. A. 1995.
• Many scientists see God's hand in evolution, Witham, Larry, Reports of the National Center for Science Education 17(6): 33, 1997
• List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design
• Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83.
• A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition begun in 2001 has about 800 signatures. A four day A Scientific Support For Darwinism petition gained 7733 signatories from scientists opposing ID.
• The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID.
• More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes.
• List of statements from scientific professional organisations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism.

I could go on, but I won't. It's a tiny minority viewpoint among scientists, particularly those actually qualified to make such a judgement. ornis (t) 04:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There are definite standards for what qualifies as a reliable source. Particularly, I'd like to call your attention to lines such as, "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight," and "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." AiG is a far cry from meeting these standards, and is thus not a reliable source. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 04:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that Level of support for evolution#Scientific support covers all this already. A wiki-link to this section, in the sentence in question, would probably help to avoid repeats of this pointless argument. I would suggest that Profg read the links at the top of the page on Undue Weight & Making Necessary Assumptions. Hrafn42 04:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's where I got them from, I just wanted to hammer the point home, so there was absolutely no possible room for confusion. A link would probably be helpful yes. ornis (t) 04:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I note that the very first line there states, "The vast majority of the scientific community..." OK, how about we replace "The scientific community regards the term "creation science" as a misnomer" with "The vast majority of the scientific community regards the term "creation science" as a misnomer" to satisfy, since it's obviously NOT the entire scientific community here? --profg 04:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Not going to fly either. That's a problem with that article not this one. Creation science is a minority position amongst creationists, whereas that article deals with all stripes of creationism, this one deals with one very specific fringe position. ornis (t) 04:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"The vast majority" underestimates the level of support, particularly as the scientific consensus is always weighted towards those with particular expertise with the issue at hand, who tend to be even more skpetical of Creation Science than scientists generally. To properly express it with a qualifier would probably take unencyclopedically hybperbolic language. "The scientific community..." (unqualified) would thus appear to be a good first and second order approximation to the truth and qualifying it would appear to be giving undue weight to the vanishingly small minority opposing this view. Hrafn42 06:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Remarkable. The two of you agree that Level of support for evolution#Scientific support "covers all this already", so when I say "great, let's use that article then," you suddenly change your tune to say the article has "a problem" and it "underestimates the level of support". You are obviously modifying each iteration of your statements based on biased POV. Let's go ahead and change it to what we should all agree on, or else go to arbitration. --profg 12:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

One question: can you read? Reinis^talk 13:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem with the original article, merely with your recent POV-pushing attempts. There appears to be a consensus forming behind the original wording, buttressed by a wikilink to Level of support for evolution#Scientific support. Last I heard, arbitration wasn't required simply for a single editor who disagrees with the consensus. Hrafn42 14:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I am still mystified as to the source of the problem here. What is this editor disputing? That creationism is a minority belief? That creation science is a minority belief? What is he claiming? That the level of acceptance of evolution among scientists is over estimated? That the characterization of the science community is inaccurate? And now wants to go to arbitration???--Filll 14:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am merely trying to apply WP:NPOV to this one small sentence. I'm amazed at the heated and vitriolic response to this attempt. --profg 15:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As you should know, things work by consensus here, and you do not appear to have it, I am afraid.--Filll 15:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I can now see how things work here: by POV consensus, instead of encyclopedic NPOV. And you're right, I don't have that. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. I'm done now. --profg 15:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a good compromise would be to change wording of the form "the scientific community says X" or "scientists say X" to "the scientific consensus is X". This would reduce the temptation for editors of a certain motivation to propose edits of the form, "but scientist Y disagrees!"

The IAP statement on evolution is a great resource in this area. It is signed by multiple scientific societies around the world, and as such, it represents a consensus of consensus of scientific opinion. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 15:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I would support such a wording, though would prefer to add an adjective such as "overwhelming scientific consensus". Hrafn42 16:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet these guys would be unreceptive to your suggestion, Sheffield, but what the heck, let's give it a shot, shall we? --profg 17:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the problem is the shorthand linguistic device of stating that "the scientific community believes/states/says/claims/supports/etc X". Of course, this is just a shorthand expression. The "scientific community" is not a being or creature. And what statements like this mean is "the vast majority/consensus of the people belonging to this group that we call the 'scientific community' subscribe to X". So this is more of a confusion and disagreement about language and terms, rather than anything else, as near as i can determine. Comments?--Filll 16:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It is, I think, like saying "the population of country X elected John Smith as president". It is a valid setence for Wikipedia policies?

And remember, in most democratic nations, the consensus for electing someone is simple majority - 50% plus one. Scientific consensus is different - and more complex. wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 17:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think anyone with half a brain is going to realize that in any significant population of people, no belief is going to be completely unanimous, no matter how obvious it is. Even among people considered scientists, a number are simply nuts. Then there are also the uncertainties in polling, where human error on the part of the pollster of pollee could result in a mistake, or just statistical variability due to measuring only a sample. All these factors considered, 99.84% of biologists is about as close to unanimity as you're ever going to get.

So the question is, how should we properly state this in a simply way? At this high level, I don't think there's really any problem saying (or implying) that everyone in the community believes this, as your average reader is going to realize that there are always going to be exceptions. Other ways of stating this all seem to understate how close to unanimity it is and muddle the message. The only options I can think of that accurately reflect this don't sound very encyclopedic: "Virtually all," "Essentially all," etc. The way we had it, "The scientific community believes," doesn't even say absolutely everyone in it, so there's really no problem there in my opinion. All that might be worth doing is wikilinking to either Level of support for evolution#Scientific support or Scientific consensus. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Radionuclides

What is this supposed to mean and where is a reference "the radionuclides in question need not have been the initial conditions of the rocks?" I have throughly studied polonium halos and have not once heard this objection.EMSPhydeaux 23:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The reference is in the see-also-ed article: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Robert V Gentry/Thomas A. Baillieul

I made some changes to radiohalos. Before it seemed that the subject was only mentioned to refuted it. I balanced it a little bit, and included some more information. I also wanted to suggest the inclusion of Robert V. Gentry's reply to Thomas A. Bailieul's report. To simply present Gentry's thoughts.EMSPhydeaux 15:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Only four words on the scientific consensus view of this + a reference only to Gentry's viewpoint = WP:UNDUE Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There is already the a full part about Thomas A. Bailieul's objections. There needs to be a part with Gentry's view as well as the "scientific consensus." Before there was only the "scientific consensus."EMSPhydeaux 18:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The part that I wrote with Gentry's view and the part with Thomas' views are pretty much the same length, also every single scientists would agree with everything I said. Scientist agree that the half life of polonium halos is 3.1 minutes. Scientists agree that "if polonium halos where present in granite at it's formation, the granite which contains polonium halos must have formed almost instantly." Scientists agree that Gentry has done over 10 years of research. Would it help if you placed a reference for the objections of scientists?EMSPhydeaux 18:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Find one legitimate scientist who agrees with the radiohaloes. Sorry, but there are none. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Gentry is a legitimate scientists, and anyway I did not claim that they agree that polonium halos prove that the earth was created instantly, but that "if polonium halos where present in granite at it's formation, the granite which contains polonium halos must have formed almost instantly." That statement is not challenged. Scientist challenge the fact that polonium halos where in fact present in granite at it's formation. If you don't agree with this then burden of proof is on you to show scientists who say they don't agree with that statement. That polonium halos are refuted is your personal opinion, if you want to debate that I'd be happy to on myspace /nothingwilldie (check out my blog), but this is not a place for that debate. I did not even claim that polonium halos where unrefuted, I simply stated Gentry's opinion within quotation marks. If we don't give creationist's opinions the article turns into simply "scientists don't agree with anything creationists say" rather than explaining what they don't agree with. What I'm suggesting is not unreasonable.EMSPhydeaux 21:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This does not belong in this article in any case, especially a long drawn-out discussion. And Gentry's "work" has not been confirmed by other scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals, which is what begins to give credence to a "scientist's" findings. All that we have in peer-reviewed work are (1) a lack of confirmation and (2) scientists who claim Gentry badly misinterpreted his observations because of a lack of knowledge of the relevant fields. And we are of course allowed and even expected to state clearly that scientists do not agree with anything that creationists say, because of WP:UNDUE.--Filll 21:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You know well that Gentry has published in peer-reviewed journals. Also, others have confirmed that polonium halos are in Granites. Do I really have to prove that to you, or did you mean something else? Anyway, I'm not debating that he did not "badly misinterpreted his observations." I am simply placing his point of view. After which you may put reference to anyone who thinks he "badly misinterpreted his observations."EMSPhydeaux 21:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Show me some other reputable scientists publishing in mainstream peer-reviewed journals confirming Gentry's interpretation. As for people disagreeing with Gentry, you could start with:

• S.R. Hashemi-Nezhad, J.H. Fremlin, and S.A. Durrani (October 1979). "Polonium Haloes in Mica". Nature. 278: 333–335.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

• Schnier,C (August 2002). "Indications for the existence of superheavy elements in radioactive halos". Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry. 253: 209–216.

• Ellenberger, C.L., with reply by Gentry. R.V. 1984. "Polonium Halos Redux," Physics Today. December 1984. p. 91-92

• Osmon, P., 1986, "Gentry’s pleochroic halos: Creation/Evolution," Newsletter, Feser, Karl D., Editor, v. 6, no. 1, Concord College, Athens, West Virginia

• Schadewald, R., 1987. "Gentry’s tiny mystery, Creation/Evolution" Newsletter, Fezer, Karl D, Editor, v. 4, no. 2 & 3. Concord College. Athens. West Virginia, p 20.

• Wakefield, J. R., 1987-88, "Gentry’s Tiny Mystery - unsupported by geology," Creation/Evolution, v. 22, p. 13-33.

• Wakefield, J. R., 1988, "The geology of 'Gentry’s Tiny Mystery,'" Journal of Geological Education, v. 36, p. 161-175.

• Moazed, Cyrus; Richard M. Spector; Richard F. Ward, 1973, Polonium Radiohalos: An Alternate Interpretation, Science, Vol. 180, pp. 1272-1274.

• Odom, L.A., and Rink, W.J., 1989, "Giant Radiation-Induced Color Halos in Quartz: Solution to a Riddle," Science, v. 246, pp. 107-109.

--Filll 21:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"And we are of course allowed and even expected to state clearly that scientists do not agree with anything that creationists say" I didn't say you couldn't. To simply do so without explaining what they don't agree with makes for a pore wikipedia page.EMSPhydeaux 21:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

None of these scientist disagree with this statement, "if polonium halos where present in granite at it's formation, the granite which contains polonium halos must have formed almost instantly." "confirming Gentry's interpretation" I didn't say that they agree with his interpretation, but that polonium halos are in granite. Do you really need evidence of this, or did you read your sources?EMSPhydeaux 22:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:UNDUE. Also, as I said before, this material is not suitable for this page because it is too detailed and specific.--Filll 21:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I added like one or two sentences. Come on!EMSPhydeaux 22:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically, you are asking me to prove that Gentry is right before I say that he is right in the paper. I'm not trying to say that he is right. Let the facts speak for themselves.

Add two sentences to an essentially debunked theory???? Come on!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This is your personal opinion again. Why shouldn't we? This makes the paper more clear, and gives the reader a further understanding of the argument. You don't really want to keep people from learning about this do you? It's not like I'm saying Gentry is right. I am simply explaining the theory. What piece of information do you think made it to detailed anyway?EMSPhydeaux 22:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can add a sentence or two if it clarifies a position. IMHO creationist statements are subjected to a higher (almost paranoid) level of scrutiny by non-creationists. I'm fairly sure that OrangeMarlin tries to be objective, but there are few if any editors who have a neutral POV. ^rossnixon 02:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You should assume good faith about me. I am absolutely neutral. Bring me verfiable and reliable sources, and I'm going to support anything. In addition, I am very supportive of any number of articles about Creationism, but they should stick with the article's title. For example, this article should be about Creation science (not using science in the sense that scientific method implies). I am trouble with regards to radiohaloes because then it moves from describing the science of Creationism and actually attacks science itself. So, please don't criticize my motives, because I have very supportive of a huge number of your edits rossnixon. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

<undent>This material does not belong in this article.--Filll 04:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well. If none agrees with me then I suppose I will suggest something else. I propose that we change the name "radiohaloes" in this selection "In the 1970s, young Earth creationist Robert V. Gentry proposed that radiohaloes in certain granites..." to polonium halos as that is more specific, and thus contains more information. I also propose that we add something about ICR and Answers in Genesis's work with polonium halos. Maybe something about how they are working on a flood model that could work around the problems Gentry points out. To try to point this selection back in the right direction, what do you suggest we do about Gentry's response to Thomas? Should we simply exempt this information? I think we should at least put some type of note linking to Gentry's rebuttal.EMSPhydeaux 00:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

At a quick glance, the section is also here [1] which seems too much duplication. One of these should be shortened, and the other one possibly expanded. I suggest the creation science one be larger as it is a minority/fringe view. ^rossnixon 02:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The RATE radiohalo work should only be mentioned if due weight is given to the scientists who refuted their claims. See also Creation-evolution controversy#Nuclear physics for problems with RATE in terms of methodology, lack of qualified researchers, etc. As far as expansion goes, I think that it makes more sense to first expand this section (and retitle it) to briefly cover all Creationist geophysical claims (radiohalos, geochronology, and anything else), then look at expanding coverage of each of these claims to the extent that it can be spun out as a subsidiary Creationist Geophysics article analogous to the one on Creation biology. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That they are polonium halos is disputed in the radiohalo article. There is also the possibility that they might be radon halos. Therefore it is POV to call them the former. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think of that, but as I stated before, this idea has already been refuted in peer-reviewed journals. Gentry, R.V. 1974. "Radiohalos in Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Science 184, 62 Besides that, this was in fact what Gentry claimed. This is all the page is stating, that Gentry "proposed." After this you then explained that someone found that they could be Radon-222 halos (even though science says they are not).EMSPhydeaux 17:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me further explain that it is no longer questioned by actual scientists that these halos are polonium halos. Instead some scientists think the polonium was dropped off after radon-222 decayed. If this was true the halos would still be polonium halos because of the absence of a radon ring.EMSPhydeaux 18:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the document that EMSPhydeaux mischaracterises as "Robert V. Gentry's reply to Thomas A. Bailieul's report" should more accurately be characterised as a "restatement of Gentry's prior position", as it fails to address the issues that Bailieul raises. I think it is worth while to quote Bailieul's conclusions at this stage:

Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory? This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise is itself an act of faith, not science.

In the end, Gentry's young Earth proposal, based on years of measuring discoloration haloes, is nothing more than a high-tech version of the Creationist "Omphalos" argument. This is the late nineteenth century proposition that while God created the Earth just 6,000 years ago according to the Genesis account, He made everything appear old. Unfortunately, because Gentry has published his original work on haloes in reputable scientific journals, a number of basic geology and mineralogy text books still state that microscopic discoloration haloes in mica are the result of polonium decay.

Gentry addresses none of this.Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That is true. What Gentry is doing is issuing a direct challenge to Baillieul. This challenge is for him to publish his "work" in a reputable scientific journal. Baillieul, of course, has not published his paper. I wonder why... It is really funny that Baillieul thinks it's unfortunate that text books rely on reputable scientific journals rather than his ideas which have not been published, or have been rebutted in scientific journals.EMSPhydeaux 18:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly because Gentry's own work diverged with "reputable scientific journals" some thirty years back. Thus critiques of it are likely to no longer be particularly relevant to the mainstream scientific community. Like any other creationist "challenge", it is nothing more than meaningless self-aggrandising hot air. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 00:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Gentry stopped publishing in peer-reviewed journals because there was none left to rebut.EMSPhydeaux 01:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

And I'm pretty sure that this claim is prima facie fallacious, as Fill's list of articles by "people disagreeing with Gentry" above demonstrates. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No, not really.

• S.R. Hashemi-Nezhad, J.H. Fremlin, and S.A. Durrani (October 1979). "Polonium Haloes in Mica". Nature. 278: 333–335.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Refuted http://www.halos.com/reports/aaas-1984-perspective.htm

• Schnier,C (August 2002). "Indications for the existence of superheavy elements in radioactive halos". Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry. 253: 209–216.

• Odom, L.A., and Rink, W.J., 1989, "Giant Radiation-Induced Color Halos in Quartz: Solution to a Riddle," Science, v. 246, pp. 107-109.

Ok... these are about giant radio halos?

Gentry agrees that the geology doesn't support his model. That is probably why he stopped replying to the geological objections.

• Osmon, P., 1986, "Gentry’s pleochroic halos: Creation/Evolution," Newsletter, Feser, Karl D., Editor, v. 6, no. 1, Concord College, Athens, West Virginia

Peer-reviewed? Gentry replies to it anyway. http://www.halos.com/book/ctm-app-19.htm

• Schadewald, R., 1987. "Gentry’s tiny mystery, Creation/Evolution" Newsletter, Fezer, Karl D, Editor, v. 4, no. 2 & 3. Concord College. Athens. West Virginia, p 20.

This is a "Newsletter?"...

• Moazed, Cyrus; Richard M. Spector; Richard F. Ward, 1973, Polonium Radiohalos: An Alternate Interpretation, Science, Vol. 180, pp. 1272-1274.

rebutted Gentry, R.V. 1974. "Radiohalos in Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Science 184, 62. Even if Gentry did miss one or two publications in some small paper somewhere, the major articles have been rebutted, and there should be room for Bailieul's paper if it really does show Gentry is wrong.EMSPhydeaux 13:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Notice that none of Gentry's "rebuttals" has featured in a peer-reviewed journal since the early to mid 1970s -- proving my point that mainstream science has long since passed this obscure debate by, and Gentry with it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

None of the evolutionist's rebuttals has featured in a major peer-reviewed journal either. Evolutionist's instead go to websites, as Gentry said.EMSPhydeaux 17:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. WP:FRINGE#Parity of sources. Asking a scientist to publish a rebuttal of pseudoscience in a peer-reviewed journal is like asking a professional movie critic to publish a review of a home video in a periodical. ScienceApologist 17:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Except Gentry's work has been published in peer-reviewed journals.EMSPhydeaux 18:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Not the bits about a young earth! ScienceApologist 18:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about rebutting the claim that polonium halos are a problem in light of mainstream geology in a peer-reviewed journal. I for one would love to see Tom do that. I would love to see him in a peer-reviewed debate against Gentry.EMSPhydeaux 18:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed debate? What the high holy hell are you talking about? When was the last time you saw a "peer-reviewed debate"? For that matter, when was the last time Gentry was allowed to publish in a peer-reviewed journal? ScienceApologist 19:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean an actual debate. Basically what would happen is Tom would publish in a journal and gentry would write explaining why Tom is wrong. "allowed"? Anyone who has new research to present can publish. This is the reason why whether or not the papers have been rebutted yet is important, because Tom must publish new information.EMSPhydeaux 19:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

When was Gentry's last peer-reviewed paper published again? ScienceApologist 19:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Last I know of was 2003. That was the CERN Preprint, Ext-2003-021.EMSPhydeaux 20:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That was his writing was it? Tell me, when did he become first author? *Snicker* ScienceApologist 22:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... I have no idea what your talking about, but whatever.EMSPhydeaux 15:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nature isn't a "major peer-reviewed journal"? Don't make me laugh! Gentry's in a position to talk -- he's been a self-published crank for decades. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

True. That one paper does support your point.EMSPhydeaux 18:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Geophysics section

The field of geophysics includes the branches of:

• Seismology (earthquakes and elastic waves)
• Gravity and geodesy (the Earth's gravitational field and the size and form of the earth)
• Atmospheric science, which includes:

• Atmospheric electricity and terrestrial magnetism (including ionosphere, Van Allen belts, telluric currents, Radiant energy, etc.)
• Meteorology and Climatology, which both involve studies of the weather.
• Aeronomy, the study of the physical structure and chemistry of the atmosphere.

• Geothermometry (heating of the Earth, heat flow, volcanology, and hot springs)
• Hydrology (ground and surface water, sometimes including glaciology)
• Physical oceanography
• Tectonophysics (geological processes in the Earth)
• Geodynamics (numerical study of the inner Earth)
• Exploration and engineering geophysics
• Geophysical Engineering
• Glaciology
• Petrophysics
• Applied geophysics
• Mineral Physics
• Engineering geology
  — Geophysics

Further candidates for this article's Geophysics section include Hydroplates (Tectonophysics), Vapor canopy (Atmospheric science) & Rapid-decay theory (Terrestrial magnetism). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it, given that all three of the above articles are fairly short, it would not be unreasonable to roll them together, with expanded treatments of RATE & radiohalos, into a Creation Geophysics article, with each being a major section of that article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've put together a quick prototype of what a 'Creation geophysics' article would look like at User:Hrafn/Creation geophysics. It's basically a merger of the three articles above + the pieces from Radiohalo#Controversy & Creation-evolution controversy#Nuclear physics. What do you think? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A quick note, to date I've only edited this article for structure, not content. I'm assuming that the latter will occur after it has gone 'live' (assuming that this proposal wins acceptance). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It needs more of the opposing, scientific ideas, e.g. an explanation of continental drift, etc. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. My intention was to to work on the restructuring aspect until the merger is live, and then concentrate on the content issues when there is be a permanent talkpage & article history to document the process. The lack of opposing scientific views is in the proposed-to-be-merged articles themselves, so simple merger of them doesn't worsen this, and provides us with a centralised place in which to correct it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've explicitly tagged the three sections as having neutrality problems. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

One suggestion would be to reference a peer-reviewed journal rather than to talk origins. Although my personal opinion is that it has been shown that there is no radon in polonium halos( Gentry, R.V. 1974. "Radiohalos in Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Science 184, 62 ).EMSPhydeaux 13:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just added Catastrophic plate tectonics (a subject/article I'd never even heard of previously) to the list of articles I'm proposing to merge into 'Creation geophysics'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been WP:BOLD and gone ahead and merged the articles, initially as a WP:MERGE#Full-content paste merger, so that (1) content issues can be separated from the structure issue to merge& (2) the changes that are necessary to comply with WP:NPOV & WP:UNDUE are documented on mainspace histories. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC) It's called Creation geophysics incidentally. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Creation science isn't an attempt to find scientific evidence

I think the first sentence in our article is wrong. Creation science isn't an attempt to find scientific evidence. Rather it is a repackaged version of creationism made to accommodate various court rulings that barred the introduction of religion into the science classroom. By repackaging creationism as "creation science", the religious advocates hoped to be able to continue to push their academic agenda. Since they were thwarted in that attempt, they repositioned themselves as "intelligent design". It's only a matter of time now before they come up with a new angle.

The lead doesn't address this point properly, and I think it should.

ScienceApologist 19:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Lenny Flank's short history might give a source for that. However, it's not the primary definition or the origin, in my opinion: trying to rival the post-Sputnik popularity of science was another motive at first. Here's my suggestion:

"Creation science is the attempt to present scientific evidence in a way that supports a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation."

Most of the time proponents draw on scientific literature and rethink the interpretation to support their preconceived view.. dave souza, talk 21:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Close, but it seems problematic because creationism, in principle, also tries to do that. Creation science simply excises a certain appeal to religion from creationism in order to get around wording of particular court rulings. In effect, the point of creation science is to "do science" that concords with the theological suppositions of its adherents inasmuch as "doing science" avoids an explicit appeal to religious instruction. They claim (rather disingenuously, in my opinion) that the fact that creation science concords with their interpretation of the Bible is a coincidence that proves their religion is true. ScienceApologist 21:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Creation science was around before any court rulings. It started when Christians realised that 19th & 20th century science was based on many unsubstantiated conjectures; so they no longer needed to re-interpret the scriptures to fit into an old-age earth timeline. They now do two things: 1. Critique mainstream science. 2. Do some science themselves (e.g. The RATE Project). ^rossnixon 01:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Really? You have a citation for someone calling it "creation science" before the court rulings banning creationism? ScienceApologist 15:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this Washington Post article Henry Morris; Intellectual Father of 'Creation Science'] helpful? WAS 4.250 11:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This article has Morris' Scientific Creationism published in 1974, the year before Daniel v. Waters forced the change of 'creationism' into 'creation science'. Whether this is sufficient evidence of the existence of a significant movement interested in this is another matter. Incidentally, I doubt if anybody outside the Creationist movement would consider RATE to be "doing science" (as it involves the wild extrapolation of anomalous results of flawed experiments by people lacking expertise in experimental geochronology -- making it about as "scientific" as a voodoo ceremony). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

In the 60's there was great enthusiasm among many evangelical/fundamentalist types for the fact there was scientific evidence that supported their beliefs. Christian bookstores had sections selling the stuff and preachers in pulpits preached how science supported the literal accuracy of the Bible from gold being found where the Bible said it could be found to buried cities found where the Bible said there was one to laws of physics applied to the flood to show it could have happened just like the Bible said. I was there. I saw it and heard it. Creation science is about finding scientific claims that can be used to justify/rationalize belief in the Bible as literal truth. Any science claim. Any verse. Any interpretation that becomes a stumbling block for the devil and allows one to be a servant of God in harvesting the souls. Creation science has never meant accepting the Bible as possibly false and investigating to evaluate it. The foundation axiom of Creation science is that the Bible is true in a literal sense. Evidence to the contrary is assumed flawed in some way, known or unknown. Interpreting evidence so that it does not contradict the Bible is as much a part of Creation "science" as interpreting a physics experiment so that it does not contradict the known laws of physics is a part of real science. Creation "scientists" act as if the Bible was an a priori truth. "Christian science" is a misnomer that would be more accurately called "Christian fundamentalist apologetics". WAS 4.250 13:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

While its fine for Creationists to use scientific evidence to support creationism, Creationism isn't about just scientific evidence. Creation Science, on the other hand, actively tries to be based on Science. The idea that the sole reason for Creation Sciences existance is to sneak around court rulings is a total oversimplification, Creation Science can also be used to bolster someone's support for Creationism, and Creation Evangelism relies on Creation Science. There's probably other things Creation Science is used for as well, certainly not just "simply excise[ing] a certain appeal....in order to get around wording of particular court rulings". Homestarmy 02:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You have to distinguish between the substance of creation science and the term itself. I argue that the term was invented to get around court rulings and distilled certain concepts out of creationism in order to present them in public schools. I don't think that is an oversimplification at all and there are at least three different citations offered for this including Flank, Numbers, and the court rulings themselves. Yes, evangelists use "creation science" to argue their case (that's why AiG calls itself an "apologetics" site in part). However, just because Creation Science is used for different things doesn't mean it wasn't invented for the purpose I outline. ScienceApologist 15:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent> As a historical note, there's a claim that the Creation Sceince Movement was established in the 1930s in the UK on this website[2] "the oldest creationist movement in the world; founded in 1932 as the Evolution Protest Movement by leading members of the Victoria Institute". Obviously a reliable secondary source is needed. .. dave souza, talk 08:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Numbers' The Creationists provides considerable WP:RS documentation of both the Victoria Institute and the Evolution Protest Movement:

• The VI was founded in 1865, with the alternate name of "Philosophic Society of Great Britain", with the stated objective of defending "the great truths revealed in Holy Scripture ... against the oppositions of Science, falsely so called."
• It was not officially anti-evolution, but did contain a number of anti-evolutionists.
• It grew throughout the late 19th century, and attracted a number of members of the Royal Society.
• However by the 1920s it was only 1/3 of its peak membership and was described as being in a "rut".
• Around this time George McCready Price was a member, but received little respect for his creationist views from the VI (though he did win an award from them for an essay he wrote on the subject).
• In 1927, John Ambrose Fleming, an aging (78 year old) and distinguished electrical engineer, and moderate creationist became its president.
• In 1932, Fleming, Bernard Acworth (a RN submariner, turned freelance journalist) and Douglas Dewar (a barrister and amateur ornithologist, also a VI member, and later VP of it), formed the EPM on paper, but it was not launched publicly until 1935.
• The EPM's leadership rejected American creationists views on Flood Geology.

The book goes into far greater detail than this, but these seem to be the highlights. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

justify

"Justify" has several meanings. I changed "justify" in the first sentence to "justify or rationalize" to clarify the meaning. Either can apply depending on the person or situation. "and" or "and/or" might be better than "or" but superficially the two are defined as necessarily distinct so I chose "or". But someone can desire to find science data (that for him provides rationalization; i.e. he already believes it for other reasons) in order to evangelize another for whom it would be justification (i.e. it would be one of the reasons he actually accepts a belief). WAS 4.250 11:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Those terms are pushing it. They imply or presume to the adherents specific psychological motives and need a source.Professor marginalia 00:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"Creation Scientists"

I replaced several instances of the term "creation scientists" with "creationists." There is no article for "creation scientist" on WP, and using such a loaded term without providing a definition muddies up the article. I know there's been some discussion in the archives regarding a "creation scientist" article, but I couldn't find any kind of consensus. (I think there may have actually been an entry at one time, but I couldn't find any discussion getting rid of it.)

In any case, maybe there doesn't need to be an article for "creation scientist." (Although, it does bother me that Conservapedia uses the term everywhere as part of some imaginary "creation scientist" vs. "evolutionary scientist" dichotomy. I could easily see a student reading CP and coming to WP to try to figure out what on earth a "creation scientist" is and going away confused.) Lowell33 21:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I understand what you are saying, I am not sure this is a helpful change.--Filll 22:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that. Reverted. But I agree that if the definition is missing, it should be in this article near the top. ^rossnixon 01:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think a participant in Creation Science is called a Creation Scientist, just like a participant in Christian Science is called a Christian Scientist. That does not mean that either belief is science, nor that either participant is a scientist, it is merely a matter of linguistic simplicity. A note to clarify this point may be useful, but any attempt to torture the English language to make a narrow (if valid) philosophical point is counter-productive. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I tried to clarify in the first paragraph with this sentence: "Advocates of creation science are often referred to as 'creation scientists.'" Lowell33 16:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Orangemarlin is correct that Creation Science participants called themselves "Creation Scientists" (probably at the same time they called their field "Creation Science" -- and I suspect the same thing would have happened with Christian Science/Christian Scientist), it's just that nobody else could think of a better description to give, so it gained mainstream usage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I modified it to reflect the self-referential nature of the term: "Advocates of creation science often refer to themselves as 'creation scientists.'" Isn't the general rule that editors should modify text rather than completely revert it if possible? Lowell33 17:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

`Of course, some creation scientists call themselves "design theorists". ;) .... dave souza, talk 17:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes but they all deny that ID is creationism, so they can hardly call themselves "Creation Scientists" now can they? ;P Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

WAS4.250 changed to the following: "The term 'creation scientists' refers to scientists who believe in some form of creationism . . . ." That can't be right. Is a scientist who believes in Buddhism a "Buddhist scientist" or a scientist who believes in unicorns a "unicorn scientist"? I agree with the editors above that the only meaningful definition is an adherent of creation science, just as Christian Scientists are adherents to Christian Science. I'll wait a little while for comments before I revert. Lowell33 19:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I wrote: The term "creation scientists" refers to scientists who believe in some form of creationism and does not refer to scientists professionally engaged in doing science on the subject of creationism (which by definition would be metascience and not science).

Per your comment I suggest: The term "creation scientists" is used by creationists to refer to scientists who believe in some form of creationism and does not refer to scientists professionally engaged in doing science on the subject of creationism (which by definition would be metascience and not science).

which adds "is used by creationists".

ScienceApologist has changed that to: The term "creation scientists" refers to creationists who describe their research into their belief as scientific research.

but the source says: 4. Isn't "Creation Scientist" an oxymoron? No. This simply means a scientist who believes in creation. These partial lists give irrefutable evidence that these two words can go together.

and gives lists of people who believe in some form of creation (even that includes directed evolution over billions of years) and are or were scientists even when their work has nothing to do with creationism

so the definition provided by ScienceApologist makes these lists to be more than they are and this term to mean more than it does. The term as used by creationists means very little by their own admission. WAS 4.250 20:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

But it cannot mean simply "a scientist who believes in creation." If that were the case, then, for example, a chemist who develops heartburn medications for a pharmaceutical company who also happens to believe that the universe was created by God would be a "creation scientist." That's clearly not right. Lowell33 20:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the point of saying "is used by creationists". That you believe "That's clearly not right" is WP:OR. They do in fact use that term to mean that almost meaningless concept. The article should point out how meaningless using an appropriate source rather than our own analysis. WAS 4.250 20:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. I guess my problem is that the article doesn't use the term to mean "a scientist who happens to have a religious belief in divine creation." It uses it to refer to people who advocate creation science. Lowell33 20:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

---

This was recently added: "The term 'creation scientists' refers to creationists who describe their research into their belief as scientific research." As far as I can tell, that means pretty much the same thing as my original edit: "Advocates of creation science often refer to themselves as 'creation scientists.'" It's just not as concise. I suggest we go back to my original version. Lowell33 20:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The source I supplied provides a different definition. WAS 4.250 20:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ron Numbers uses "creation scientists" to refer to the original proponents,[3] having noted that at least one fraudulently claimed credentials. McLean v. Arkansas consistently refers to creation science proponents as creationists.[4] The above definition as recently added fits well with Ron Numbers' statement, and I support it. ... dave souza, talk 20:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say that Ron Numbers is a more accurate and reliable source than the link we currently use. I'm removing it and replacing it with Dave's link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) 01:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

---

The article now says:

"The term "creation scientists" refers to creationists who describe their research into their belief as scientific research."

I fail to see where the "source" makes the claim that is being attributed. WAS 4.250 02:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That page uses the term "creation scientists" only once and without much context. Maybe we should cite this other page in Numbers's book, which gives more historical context. [5] Lowell33 14:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Creationism vs Creation Science

I think the article is confusing and contradictory about the differences. Are they terminologies identifying two clearly distinct movements? Two terms with overlap or differences depending on the context? The article distinguishes the two at some points, and interchanges the two at others, without really explaining the reason in either case.Professor marginalia 20:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Creation Science is a subset of Creationism, generally distinguished by more sophisticatedly pseudoscientific apologetics and by practitioners who have some degree of scientific or quasi-scientific qualification. The boundary is however a rather ambiguous one. The term 'Creation Science' is also more closely associated with Young Earth Creationism, as that faction has a wider need to discredit mainstream Science (particularly Geology) than other forms of Creationism. You may note that most of 'areas of study' mentioned in this article are on issues that only have significance to YEC. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation.Professor marginalia 20:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Creation Science vs Intelligent Design

Professor marginalia's question has got me thinking. Would I be correct in thinking that the only 'Creation Scientists' who changed the name of their field from 'Creation Science' to 'Intelligent Design' were those working in the field of Creation biology (Dean H. Kenyon being the most famous example that comes to mind) and that the Flood Geologists and 'Creation Astrophysicists' around at that time stuck with 'Creation Science' (typically remaining with YEC organisations such as the Institute for Creation Research)? Can anybody think of any Creation Scientists other than Creation Biologists who decamped? For that matter were there any Creation Biologists of any significance that stayed behind? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Guillermo Gonzalez comes immediately to mind. Generally those who advocate for Fine tuning and Rare Earth ideas proving the existence of divinity have intentionally tried to distance themselves from creationists. Weirdly enough, I'm not sure whether Hugh Ross considers himself an advocate of intelligent design. I'd venture to say that he doesn't. ScienceApologist 17:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The sentence in the introduction is misleading summary of the pages of Dover case court record identified as the source of the claim. The court record shows Dover schools used the Pandas and People book, that the term "creation science" and "creationism" were originally used in the first drafts of the book, and that those terms were changed shortly after the Edwards ruling to read "intelligent design". The term, and the ID doctrine itself, may have been born from the failure of "creation science" in schools. That doesn't mean, necessarily, that creation science itself just took a new name. It may have done, but we can't know from this source. That conclusion would be an illogical fallacy. But the wording currently in the intro implies to me this is exactly the case, that creation science simply changed its name.Professor marginalia 15:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Gonzalez didn't get involved until well after ID split off. He only got his PhD in 1993, and I've seen no indication that he was involved in ID before he finished his post-docs and took up a position at Iowa State some years later. Ross is a OEC, started his Apologetics Ministry in 1987 (about the same time as Edwards) and apparently rejects ID. Thus neither would appear to falsify my hypothesis. Was anybody using Fine-Tuning as a Creation Science argument prior to ID splitting off? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

References

The choice of sources in the article is poor many places. For example, Lenny Flank is a self-published writer. Supreme Court decisions aren't obscure historical events, and WP editors should never need to resort to self-published authors and single focus internet forums for sourcing such major national events like creation/evolution in schools. Better sources can be found, I'm sure. Reference to Popper in footnote 12 is totally WP:SYN. Footnotes 13 and 14 sourcing definitions of "uniformitarianism" and "catastrophism" are unnecessary-the WL is sufficient. What's required is a source demonstrating the creation science "rejects geology" due to uniformitarianism. If the editor hear is trying to show "creation science rejects uniformitarianism, geology means uniformitarianism, therefore creation science rejects geology" that interpretation needs to be sourced, not the definition of uniformitarianism--otherwise it too is guilty of WP:SYN.Professor marginalia 20:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've cited Edwards v. Aguillard directly to the court decision itself -- it states (near the top): "The Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose." -- which should be clear enough & authoritative enough for anybody. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't find any of the other problems you mentioned. Can I take it that they were all fixed in your recent flurry of activity? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I fixed a few more of the Lenny Flanks today. I fact tagged where the one creation scientist used the Popper to say evolution isn't science. That source doesn't work because it is clearly written as a persuasive essay from the point of view of one particular author who does not assert that it is a position true of creation science as a whole. Some references I have found to use in its place are problematic because the claim as used here is a sweeping generalization of the field while the sources found speak much more narrowly of specific cases. I think restructuring the article would be good - especially to separate discussion into the different "phases" so to speak that creation science appears, allowing more focus on the most prominent arguments or positions evident in that particular era.Professor marginalia 18:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole popper thing is a bit of a red herring also, [6]. WLU 00:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The Popper argument made against evolution may miss its mark, but let's please not go to those dry wells anymore to source claims. Editors have to resist pulling in sources from usenet and other self-publish websites to pull this article together. We need more solid, standard issue published sources only.Professor marginalia 16:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Creationist cosmologies has been tagged as unreferenced for a year (since November 2006) and has only two references -- each only supporting a single bullet point in lists of criticisms. I am therefore recommending that it be merged into this article which already has a short section on the topic, after purging unreferenced material (i.e. virtually the whole of that article). Any comments? Any brave soul willing to make the attempt at rescuing it by finding a sufficient number of citations to make it worth keeping? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Creation science is already very long, the creationism cosmologies is decently written and though unreferenced, I recognize both the arguments and counter-arguments. If you remove the unreferenced stuff, it is indeed a very short article that could be merged. But surely it wouldn't be hard to find some sources, Talk.Origins must have both the counters, but also the original arguments in at least some cases, correct? I'd love to give it a try were I to have the time, though I can't dedicate myself now. The history will always be there if we want to try recovering it later. WLU (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that getting the article referenced is the best option, but it quite simply isn't happening. And as I have neither a strong interest nor strong background in the subject and numerous other articles where I could be more usefully employed, I am loathe to attempt it myself. I therefore merge-tagged it to see if anybody wanted to step up, or if nobody does to remove this rather egregious violation of WP:RS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I've added a couple links to the talk page at CC, and asked our old friend Inspectre if he'd like to help contribute usefully. I'll try to get to it within the next week or so if possible, and start hammering out references and citations (but no promises, my contributions have been spotty for the past while). If you still feel strongly or there's consensus for the merge, go ahead and I'll try drafting something on a sub-page with info pulled from the edit history. WLU (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I left it for another month (on top of the year it'd already had) to see if anything would happen -- nothing did, so I've merged it (which, as it was wholly unsourced, was just a redirect, as there was no wp:v-compliant material to merge). The original material is still there in the history if anybody wants to make an attempt to source it & restore it at some later stage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Darwin and natural theology

While an edit war of sorts rages over whether or not Darwin should be identified as an "eminent scientist", has anyone read the sentence? When Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859 this work of natural theology won over the scientific establishment, and by the 1900s evolution through descent with modification was widely accepted as the unifying principle of biological development. I've never heard OoS characterized as a "work of natural theology" and don't believe the source says this either. Also the source given seems to present a very different claim, that Darwin's mechanism (presumably natural selection) won favor for about 10 years and then seemed to slip away from favor by 1900 until its resurrection through the modern synthesis of around 1930. I can't find a discussion of claim about "descent through modification" via search string, and doubt that the particular distinction would salvage the claim here.Professor marginalia (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Would agree with your characterisation of this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The section needs to be rewritten, but it's going to require rethinking what should be said as well. The term "natural theology" doesn't apply at all to Darwin, but there are other problems with the discussion there. The "background history" as written currently co-mingles different ideas together, and the section needs to be either expanded to be more accurate, or pruned to highlight just a key point or two. The concept that became "widely accepted" by 1900 was not Darwinian evolution but neo-Lamarckian evolution. "Fixity of species" was no longer accepted in the scientific community, and Darwin's book was certainly influential to the acceptance of the idea of common ancestry in evolution, but Darwin's explanation (natural selection) was not widely accepted yet. Since historians of the evolution debates frequently characterize creation science as a reaction against social and theological implications of Darwinian "survival of the fittest" (creation scientists persist in addressing their criticisms toward "Darwinian evolution")- it's probably essential to sort out better the various post-OoS theoretical metamorphoses that have come in and out of favor within the scientific community. For example social Darwinism played a major part in the reactionary anti-Darwinian creation science movement. Meanwhile, I'll edit the OeS "natural theology" passage because it's clearly wrong.Professor marginalia (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica is less POV

“ Biblical creationists believe that the story told in Genesis of God's six-day creation of all things is literally correct. Scientific creationists believe that a creator made all that exists, but they may not hold that the Genesis story is a literal history of that creation. Both types of creationists, however, believe that changes in organisms may involve changes within a species or downward changes (negative mutations), but they do not believe that any of these changes can lead to the evolution of a lower or simpler species into a higher or more-complex species. Thus, the theory of biological evolution is disputed by all creationists. ”

I am not sure that Encyclopedia Britannica's article supports the wikipedia article statement:

“ Creation science is a movement which attempts to provide scientific corroboration for divine intervention in the creation of the world. ”

It would be nice to see the article take the more NPOV stance of Encyclopedia Britannica. Ra2007 (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that the statement we make is accurate - it's possible that Brittanica revised their article since it wass used as a source. I'm sure other RSes could be found that support it better. (Also, "Scientific creationists"? Did Brittanica just make that term up, as an adjective form of creation science or what?) Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That is weird. Obviously the britannica source doesn't say anything like that now, though either it used to or it was confused with another source or some other edit. I've been assembling sources on this article for several weeks with the intention of bringing better focus and broader context to the article. The opening sentence is very close to the description used by many good sources, and I'm not sure that it is not NPOV. The problem with britannica is that it is not giving much information at all about creation science--it's about creationism, and creationism has its own article here. Creation science is a subset of creationism, and one of the features that sets it apart from the others is the obviously the "science" part. In the meantime, we already have one source for claim, and need to remove the second one to britannica or else add a claim from it to go with the source. There's just not much else to include from britannica. BTW, "scientific creationism" and "creation science" are exactly the same thing. I emphasize this only because there was suspicion expressed by another editor earlier over the use of the term. But they are the same--it's just "scientific creationism" is the less often heard phraseology now. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Numbers' The Creationists has a chapter entitled "Scientific Creationists in the Age of [William Jennings] Bryan", and Henry M. Morris wrote a book called Scientific Creationism, so it would appear to have been a reasonably widely used synonym for "Creation Scientists"/"Creation Science". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the Britannica definition. Ours is backed up by sources, and gives a more accurate and succinct definition. The taxonomy is far more complicated than the Britannica definition lets on. Some creationists accept evolution, some do not. Some creationists accept some parts of evolution and not others. The term "biblical creationist" is not one that is used in the peer-reviewed literature, as near as I have been able to tell, but not everyone who follows the bible account agrees with each other, or takes all parts of the bible account as literal, or agrees which parts of the bible account are allegorical and which are not, or agrees on how to interpret the biblical account. So "biblical creationist" is sort of a meaningless catchall phrase. Also, given Ra2007's past history, his claim that we are more POV than EB is groundless and just an attempt to be disruptive, something he apparently has been blocked for repeatedly in the past.--Filll (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

We're working with a more sophisticated "spectrum of creationist beliefs" which doesn't use the term "biblical creationism". It's a fair point that most "creationists", except those holding evolutionary creationism, hold an anti-evolution position, and while that may be implicit in divine intervention in the creation of the world, it's good to make it more explicit at the outset. Morris seems to have been focussed on geology at the start, but the "creation science" position became associated with anti-evolution, including Kenyon's position which stated that biblical literalism wasn't a necessary part of it. Have tidied the start of the history section in line with History of creationism, will try to look over the rest of that part. .. dave souza, talk 15:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Skeptic Magazine

Skeptic Magazine shouldn't be listed under scientific criticism, because, by nature, it is skeptic. Its goal is to obliterate Creation and other beliefs. It is not a neutral point of view. It could go in another section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RJRocket53 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 26 December 2007

Eh, the scientific viewpoint is essentially skeptical, though no doubt Creation proponents would prefer scientists to be credulous, or perhaps aseptic. .. dave souza, talk 22:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, over 99.9% of the scientists in the relevant fields think that creationism and creation science are horse manure. I would say that is pretty skeptical, wouldn't you?--Filll (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I fixed some abominable typos above (with some assumption about what "asceptic" was intended to mean. Perhaps "lacking a sceptre" - unkingly?) Anyway, while I have a neutral view as to whether the magazine citation is appropriate, I do not have a neutral view on "Creation Science." Why the devil do these people bother with science as it has usually been understood? All the truth (Truth!) being in the Bible, there is no point to nit-pick at current or recent scientific research. Creationists can just cite the biblical passages they consider relevant, on any issue, worldly or beyond. Their world came into being approximately 6000 years ago, with all the fossils, DNA, galaxies, and so on. One cannot argue with that belief system. It has been debated whether the fossils were put there by God or by the Devil, to fool us, which may be worth further debate by interested parties. But whether the difference in Carbon-14 dating between two scientific researchers is within expected error bounds or "proves" that they are both entirely wrong - who cares - just open your Bible and there you go. Carrionluggage (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why they want to have some sort of scientific "proof". There are some important issues here I think:

• Anyone is allowed to believe whatever they want. However, trying to force others to believe your own personal nonsense is frowned on
• Radioactive dating is not the only method of dating things. There are also methods that depend on counting yearly layers, such as tree rings, layers in lakes, river deltas, oceans, snow layers in greenland and antarctica, and even growth layers in coral. Some of these methods let you go back way over 100 million years. And guess what? The methods all agree with each other! Hundreds of independent methods, and they all agree!

There is something very bizarre going on. I think that these are evangelicals who want to borrow the authority of science to jam nonsense down the throats of others. So rational...--Filll (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)