Talk:Creation science/Archive 15

Walt Brown (creationist)

I've had this article tagged for notability and lack of 3rd party sources for some time now. He's a guy that we, as people interested in Creationism/Evolution, have all heard about. But I cannot for the life of me find any reference to him of any substance from reliable sources. He seems to fly pretty much completely below the radar of the mainstream media, who tend to go to AiG or ICR if they want a Creation Science perspective. Can anybody help out? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I just came here having read some interesting points about the creation of the universe and the anthropic principle in Roger Penrose's book, The Road to Reality which I was thinking of citing here. It's sad to find that this article is so lacking in NPOV that I'm thinking of putting an attack page tag on it. For example, I read in the article, "Sudden creation "from nothing" is not science", which is clearly biased nonsense when modern science currently supposes that the universe was created in exactly this way. Can we not have a more intelligent design for this article? Colonel Warden (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The author you cite has no relevance to the Creation Science movement, as documented in chapter 12, 'Creation Science and Scientific Creationism', of Ronald Numbers' authoritative history of Creationism, The Creationists. There is nothing in the Big Bang theory that states that the universe was created "from nothing." In any case the statement in question is simply stating what the judgement in Epperson v. Arkansas said. This is a WP:V issue not a WP:NPOV one. If the judgement did not say this, then correct it. If it did, then this is the law of the land, unless and until this decision is reversed by a later SCOTUS decision. If you have further specific complaints to make as to the neutrality of this article, then please make them and substantiate them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have an overly narrow and parochial view of the subject. As for the Big Bang, please see Cosmic_inflation#Initial_conditions which similarly refers to ex nihilo theories of the creation of our universe. Penrose's work is relevant in that he specifically makes reference to a creator and assigns probabilities to various scenarios. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It is narrow and parochial to quote a ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States with regards to a science that is mainly relevant in the United States? I guess I am confused. How is it narrow and parochial?

I do not believe that the Big Bang states that everything came from nothing. Do you have a peer-reviewed reference for that in a mainstream scientific journal? Thanks.--Filll (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(time-out called) -It is wrong to imply the court made anything at all "the law of the land" in this court decision except that they ruled creation science cannot be taught in public schools. The court determined that creation science was religious, also that it is not science. And since it is not science, the court ruled there was no secular purpose to teaching it, and thus it cannot be taught in the public schools. The context for the ex nihilo discussion disputed above is clearly taken from the section about what the court said about ex nihilo theory in this particular court case. The current discussion here over ex nihilo needs to confine itself only to what was said by the court. We are not to re-debate the case or ex nihilo theory here, and we are unlikely to find significant sources examining what the court said by looking at mainstream scientific journals. So let's keep the focus on the ball. In other words, in order to accurately describe what the court said, it is necessary to source the court decision, not ex nihilo theory itself. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologise. On re-reading I see that the judgement being paraphrased was the District Court McLean v. Arkansas not one of the SCOTUS judgements -- highly influential, but not setting binding precedent. The rest of my points are however unaffected. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Some input on style and content needed here:

1. The McLean v Ark numbered bullet points almost completely quoted from the decision itself, without clearly attributed as such.
2. Should it be paraphrased or quoted (according to MoS)?
3. These points are already covered almost word for word in McLean v. Arkansas. Is there better use to make of space here than a purely redundant cut/paste of section from main article?

Welcoming thoughts on this, Professor marginalia (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The wording is a paraphrase of the judgment, and is cited as such. Perhaps it should be made clearer in some way that the citation applies to the whole section and not just the last paragraph. One option might be to look at tightening up the paraphrasing here, and quote it verbatim in the McL v A article. The judgment is significant, according to historians inc. Flank and Forrest, because it sets out the reasoning in detail and was highly influential, while Edwards v Aguilard referred to and confirmed the decisions of the lower courts without repeating the arguments. It's therefore an uncommonly good description of creation science at its peak. If another source such as Ron Numbers could be used to make an equally clear description, that would be an option .. dave souza, talk 21:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Going from original source "Such a concept is not science because it depends upon a supernatural intervention which is not guided by natural law. It is not explanatory by reference to natural law, is not testable and is not falsifiable" to wp copy "Sudden creation 'from nothing' is not science because it depends upon a supernatural intervention which is not guided by natural law, is not explanatory by reference to natural law, is not testable and is not falsifiable" is a little too darn close for a paraphrase. The rest of the list, same problem, as in "'insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism,' is an incomplete negative generalization directed at the theory of evolution" to "'insufficiency of mutation and natural selection' is an incomplete negative generalization". I have a lot of secondary sources-I'll see how they've attempted it. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientific or no

Starting a new section, because the above is mostly irrelevant and slows down my preview. So, what are the arguments for and against?

1. Arguments to keep the sentence "Creation science or scientific creationism is a movement within creationism which attempts to provide scientific evidence for divine intervention in the creation of the world and against the scientific theory of biological evolution"

2. Arguments to keep the sentence "Creation science or scientific creationism is a movement within creationism which attempts to provide scientific evidence for divine intervention in the creation of the world and against the theory of biological evolution."

To me, the first seems to imply that there's a 'scientific' theory of evolution, and some other theory of evolution that doesn't involve science. The second, to me, seems to say that the TOE is a single theory with no sub-parts (beyond the specifics of the theory like punctuated equilibrium, natural selection, mutation, etc.). What do others thing about this topic and not the above debate? What are the reasons to include or exclude the word science? WLU (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would favour retaining "scientific theory" as the Theory of Evolution" is a theory in the scientific (as opposed to colloquial) sense of the word. And there is more than one "Theory of Evolution" -- there's also the half-baked strawman Creationist "talk radio" version. Also eliminating it might create an undue weight problem in that we use the word "scientific" twice in connection with Creationism, to not use it likewise in connection with evolution gives the subtle implication that evolution is less scientific than Creationism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a third possibility. We could drop both of the "scientific"s. i.e. also change "which attempts to provide scientific evidence" to "which attempts to provide evidence". Or would that make the definition too loose? ^rossnixon 03:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It would -- it would tend to make people wonder why it is called "creation science". Also, It would not solve my first point -- that the Theory of Evolution" is a theory in the scientific (as opposed to colloquial) sense of the word. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep "scientific theory of biological evolution". Consensus science has a theory, and it is characterized theory of "biological evolution". Without confirming there is one, there should be a wl to "scientific theory", or its equivalent. "Theory" in the context of science is defined much more strictly than it is in the pop culture, as in "theory of who Jason Bourne really is", so delineating it is not only proper but specific. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Undermine

There needs to be a NPOV word in the intro there. Attempt to "Provide" isn't working, for some reason. But "undermine" is too loaded, nobody goes that far from the get-go except in blogs or activist talking points. "Supply"? "Develop"? "Furnish?" "Explain?" The "effort" is fair, and npov; both creation scientist lit and independent historical references of the subject can be found easily verifying this. The creation scientists' success at this effort is what is at controversy here, and in terms of the article, it's at one level misleading to cast this as an attack against evolution-more accurately, it's an effort to confirm or substantiate Genesis creation with scientific'y evidence. If Genesis creation aligned well with evolution theory, then would there be any effort by creationist scientists to "undermine" it? Professor marginalia (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it "misleading to cast this as an attack against evolution"? My impression, based on my reading of Numbers' The Creationists, is that anti-evolutionism is at the very core of creation-science. After all, Geology's overturning of large elements of the Genesis account didn't spark a major Creationist backlash until after evolution came along. In asking whether "undermining" is appropriate, I think it is worth looking at the origins of the word: from sappers digging tunnels to undermine the foundations of an opponent's defences during siege warfare. The metaphor couldn't be more apt in my opinion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

How is it not misleading to say that the effort is attempting to undermine scientific evidence? Where are the published attempts to show "This measurement has standard deviations larger than its mean value" or "That data set was measured while the operator was drunk" or any such undermining? Dan Watts (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As one example, you have the RATE Project attempting to "undermine scientific evidence" as to the age of the Earth. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason that scientists of all types are concerned with creation science, creationism, intelligent design, etc is that it is attempting to undermine science, with considerable success. Otherwise, no one would give a damn. After all, does anyone care about astrology? Astrology does not really attack astronomy particularly, and even though a large fraction of the public believe in astrology, it is not undermining science by waging war on science in court rooms and classrooms, trying to get research funding for astronomy cut, trying to force presidential candidates to proclaim astrology is superior to astronomy, trying to redefine science so that astrology is defined as a science and/or astronomy is not defined as science. The only reason that anyone cares about creationism and creation science and their ilk is that they are trying to undermine real science, and threatening to destroy support for science and replace it with magical thinking and other assorted nonsense. That is the only reason that we have so many articles about it here on Wikipedia. How many articles do we have on astrology and how well maintained are they? How many new ones are being written? I say, what is wrong with undermine? It is accurate in it? My only complaint would be that it is not strong enough.--Filll (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Hrafn-I don't disagree that's a large part of their message, "debunking" evolution. But really they're working to corroborate young earth creationism with scientific evidence--they take on old earth creationists (and IDers) too, and following Morris's lead, their feeling is that since the Bible is a literal and accurate historical account, there will certainly be scientific trails of evidence pointing to it. But rather than speculate, I'll dig back into the sources, and lay their wording out here with quotes. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Wdanwatts-Those are false tests to use in resolving this issue. We aren't to position ourselves as the pontificators on the subject; we're simply the editors restricted to look only to what other authoritative pontificators have concluded. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Filll-A whole lot of people care about this for a very different reason: the challenge to science interests today's defenders of science, while the historicity of genesis has interested far, far more, for centuries, including a very sizable number of people even today. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The current version, after my muddying attempts to clarify, is:

Creation science or scientific creationism is a movement within creationism which attempts to re-interpret the scientific evidence and explanations for the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution with an explicit goal of promoting the mythology of the Bible and the accompanying divine intervention which were responsible for the creation of the world and the living things which inhabit it.

I like it because a) they try to shoehorn evidence to justify their theories - they use and distort the evidence to this end, they don't reject or ignore the evidence (though there is some ignoring, it's mostly it's quote mining and use of discredited scientific theories). I think using the words 'shoe-horn' and 'distort' are valid descriptors, but we could probably come up with some synonyms which are slightly less 'bashy'. b) It doesn't use the word 'undermine'. The idea needs to be there - they do not treat the evidence and science honestly, but I think it's more of a mis-use than an attempt to discredit. c) It goes beyond evolution to include the history of the earth (geology) and cosmology (age of the universe, arguably radiation and radiometric dating). I dislike it because it's very wordy and not particularly clear. I like the ideas I'm trying to express, but I don't like how it's written.

I'm also assuming that my previous edits to the lead here were acceptable. WLU (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not displeased with that version. It does not charge creationists with undermining data such as: "The reported value '5' is really '2'" (which Hrafn, and perhaps Filll, appear to believe). Dan Watts (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I like that version, but I agree that it is a little wordy. Perhaps if we split it into two (or even three) sentences, it will become more clear. This is my idea, borrowing heavily from yours:

Creation science or scientific creationism is a movement within creationism which attempts to re-interpret the scientific evidence and explanation for the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution. Through these re-interpretations, the scientific evidence is altered in order to promote the mythology of the Bible and the accompanying divine intervention which were responsible for the creation of the world and all living things.

I basically took your idea, WLU, and split it into two sentences with a little trimming here and there. It keeps with all the points you mentioned, but it brings the idea of undermining into the sentence. I tried to use the least loaded of the synonyms in order to be as neutral as possible. Baegis (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

WLU-With the "explicit goal of promoting the mythology of the Bible and the accompanying divine intervention which were responsible for the creation of the world and the living things which inhabit it" is highly unlikely to be a verifiable claim. What creation scientists anywhere could we find explicitly characterizing the bible as "mythology"? And thanks, let's stop pretending to ourselves that there is anything NPOV in language and phrasing which has the purpose of "bashing" the subject. Talkoriginspeak is great in the blogosphere, but not in an encyclopedia. By the same token, preaching from scriptures is fine in a church, but not in an encyclopedia. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The stories of the bible can't be called truth, since there's no evidence for them - I'd say mythology is the best characterization of the contents of the bible (particularly Genesis). The goal of creation science is to 'prove' that Genesis is accurate. We could replace 'mythology' with creation according to Genesis, that's possibly more neutral. How about this - not too wordy, but has the guts of previous work. It needs a sentence saying that their efforts are rejected and considered distortion of the acutal evidence however.

Creation science, or scientific creationism is a movement within creationism which attempts to use scientific evidence to show that creation according to Genesis is an accurate depiction of the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.

I'd say that the following sentence from the third paragraph, "Though creation science purports to be a true scientific challenge to Darwinian evolution, it has never been recognized by or accepted within been rejected by the scientific community as a valid scientific method of inquiry. " could be moved to the second sentence and the remainder left alone. The major points of CS are a) uses science to try to prove Genesis, and b) it's considered bunk by most actual scientists. I'd say these ideas should be in the first paragraph, with the remainder providing more context on the history and sides of the conflict. Note - I've tweaked it from the original now. WLU (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The problem I have with this version is that "use scientific evidence" gives an air of scientific legitimacy to the whole enterprise. "Undermine" is a more accurate verb, but I'm not certain if "undermining the evidence" is the right conjunction of verb + object. I thought perhaps a return to the original verb "provide" would fix this issue, but it was not accepted [1], though for the good reason that it does not bring in the cosmological and geological dimensions of the subject. (Although, this latter issue is easily addressed.) Silly rabbit (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the second sentence could include some of the reasons CS is rejected - quote mining, distortion of evidence, selective citation, old theories, etc. It avoids placing the statement in the first stenence, give reasons for why it's rejected, and convey the specific distortions that we alluded to in previous incarnations, but never said. It's a more accurate portrayal of their mis-use of evidence as well. Thus:

Though portraying itself as a legitemate challenge to the modern synthesis, it is rejected by the scientific community as an invalid scientific method of inquiry, being criticized for unscientific a priori and the deliberate mis-representation of evidence.

I was more hesitant about the use of mis-representation, but the citation to Skeptic Magazine in scientific criticism uses the words, so that justifies it in my mind. WLU (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Everyone, let's remember, this isn't a public service billboard, it's an article about creation science. It's not our job to discredit or credit the subject, it's our job to describe it. And please try not to speak here from personal opinion. The opinions tend to creep in, I understand that and I'm guilty of it myself. But the opinions are no more relevant here than they would be in decisions editing Communism, Terrorism, or Witchcraft and simply invite more of same from those with opposing opinions. Talk deteriorates quickly, and the article turns into a mud pit where editors exchange jabs, each trying to show off how smug, clever and self-righteous they can be while pretending to be an encyclopedia editor. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, civility is warranted and soapboxing is not, but the fact that CS has been overwhelmingly rejected by 99.9% of mainstream scientists and all major relevant bodies is nearly as important to this page as is a description of the subject iself. We don't credit or discredit, but we report it as having been discredited, and very thoroughly, by both scientists and courts. I'm trying to convey this with my suggestions for the lead, and I think it's vital to do so. WLU (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Evolution is supported by numbers close to that, but it's not quite accurate to claim 99.9% of scientists have overwhelmingly rejected creation science. Far fewer scientists would have even been asked to give an opinion about creation science-they're ignoring it, I think it's safe to say, and would be very uninformed authorities on creation science. There are good, authoritative, NPOV sources which describe that they're irreconcilable theories (evol and cs)-and here we defer to those sources in order to describe the conflict between the two. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but while evolution and opposition to CS has behind it real, honest science, numerous very big name scientists, governing bodies, the United States Supreme court, a huge body of evidence and numerous criticisms that address and dispose of the Creationist objections, CS has just the bible and some very creative shoe-horning. There is no evidentiary reason to believe the creationist account. Portraying the overwhelming objections by the scientific mainstream is vital to the page. Quibbling over 99.9 versus 99.5% is less important than the fact that CS has no real credibility. WLU (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quibbling, I'm emphasizing accuracy. This has to be accurate. There is overwhelming scientific opposition; it's just important to characterize it accurately. What I think you're referring to is the case when scientists were surveyed about their support of evolution--I've never heard of such a survey taken regarding their support of creation science. And we can't simply interchange the two. Do you see what I mean?Professor marginalia (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

CS as described from quick survey of various sources:

1. "Creation scientists ... strive to use legitimate scientific means both to disprove evolutionary theory and to prove the creation account as described in Scripture". J Michael Plavcan
2. "The Genesis Flood would become the cornerstone of young-earth creationism, eventually selling over 200,000 copies. The book is not just an attack on evolutionism: because it endorses flood geology it presents an alternative to the whole orthodox of scientific view of earth history. It thus rejects the established theoretical positions of geology, paleontology, and prehistoric archaeology." Peter J. Bowler
3. [describing this as stemming from a 1970s "tactical shift" among strict six-day creationists, the term creation science was "securely attached" to Price's biblically based geological model] "Instead of denying evolution its scientific credentials, as biblical creationists had done for a century, the scientific creationists granted creation and evolution equal scientific standing. Instead of trying to bar evolution from the classroom, as their predecessors had done in the 1920s, they fought to bring creation into the schoolhouse and repudiated the epithet 'antievolutionist'. Instead of appealing to the authority of the Bible ...they downplayed the Genesis story in favor of emphasizing the scientific aspects of creationism. " Numbers
4. (From the Ark Act #590, language reportedly very close to words of CS's Wendell Bird) "'Creation-science' means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:
   1. "Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing;
   2. "The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism;
   3. "Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals;
   4. "Separate ancestry for man and apes;
   5. "Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and
   6. "A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds."
5. Speaking of Morris and ICR, as the forefathers of cs: [They] opened a second front against the theory of evolution. Fundamentalists no longer merely denounced Darwinism as false; they offered a scientific-sounding alternative of their own, which they called either 'scientific creationism' (as distinct from religious creationism) or 'creation science' (as opposed to evolutionary science)." Quoting from ICR text, "The vast complex of godless movements spawned by the pervasive and powerful system of evolutionary uniformitarianism can only be turned back if their foundations can be destroyed, and that requires the re-establishment of special creation on a Biblical and scientific basis." Larson
6. "Creation science” advocates claim to be able to support with scientific data a Biblical literalist view of creation. Supposedly, scientific data can be found to support a six day, sudden creation of everything, relatively recently (within the last 10,000 years.) When creation science came on the scene in a major way in the late 1970's and early 1980's, dozens of books and hundreds of articles were written by scientists analyzing these allegedly scientific claims. It was demonstrated that creation science was not science at all. Creation science organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis remain the major providers of information for the antievolution movement, and their literature is the most widespread." Eugenie Scott representing the NCSE

---Professor marginalia (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the 1987 Newsweek article says that 700 out of 480,000 earth scientists and biologists accept creation science and not evolution, in more or less those words, so 99.85% accept evolution and about 0.15% accept creation science, at least according to that estimate, for whatever it is worth. But whether it is 99% or 99.9% or 99.99% or 99.999% at some point is sort of just irrelevant.--Filll (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you lookup the text? Again, to be clear I'm not quibbling about percents, I'm quibbling about what the figures pertain to. To simplify the widely referenced number is "pro evolution", not "anti-creation science". If scientists were asked about what they thought of creation science, then fine, we could report it that way. Outside of that, we need other sources to make the connection, to form that conclusion--that the survey would imply these "pro-evolution" scientists would also be, vis-à-vis, "anti-creation science"--and attribute it that way. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I like WLU's idea about using the second sentence to say why it's rejected. As of now, the opening looks something like this:

Creation science, or scientific creationism is a movement within creationism which attempts to use scientific evidence to show that creation according to Genesis is an accurate depiction of the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution. Though portraying itself as a legitimate challenge to the modern synthesis, it is rejected by the scientific community as an invalid scientific method of inquiry, being criticized for unscientific a priori assumptions and the deliberate mis-representation of evidence.

I guess that the phrase "mythology of the Bible" can be taken out, since it might become a source of vandalism, since I would gather most people would not appreciate having their belief systems discussed as such. So how does that quote look to everyone? Baegis (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Should it be "a priori assumptions"? And I think that Creation according to Genesis is much more acceptable, and superior to 'mythology'. Otherwise, looks fine. WLU (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, assumptions should be placed in there, in order to make it as clear as possible for those unfamiliar with the term. I edited it to reflect the change. Let's sit on it for a day to let Fill, Prof, and Dan comment if they so choose. Baegis (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of quibbling, here goes:

• "attempts to use scientific evidence to show that creation according to Genesis is an accurate depiction of the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution"-goes awry by confusingly conflating the genesis with the three terms as wikilinked. It isn't an attempt to "depict" anything as "earth history", "cosmology", and "biological evolution" are defined in the wikilinks. Wasn't it better as "Creation science or scientific creationism is a movement within creationism which attempts to provide scientific evidence {snip} against the scientific theory of biological evolution"? It was once "Creation science or scientific creationism is a movement within creationism which attempts to provide scientific evidence for divine intervention in the creation of the world and against the scientific theory of biological evolution", but it's probably better as "Creation science or scientific creationism is a movement within creationism which attempts to provide scientific evidence for special creation of the world and against the scientific theory of biological evolution" though better yet would be to say that cs is almost completely YEC style "special creation".
• "being criticized for unscientific a priori and the deliberate mis-representation of evidence. I'd argue the latter is among the most insignificant of its criticisms, and not a significant factor in why science doesn't consider cs a science. Misrepresented evidence doesn't necessarily render an entire discipline "not a science", as we know in the case of fudged data in studies. So the language has to be cleaner. Creation scientists are criticized for misrepresenting science-true and verifiable. But consider this explanation for why scientists don't consider it a science (NAS): "Special creation or supernatural intervention is not subjectable to meaningful tests, which require predicting plausible results and then checking these results through observation and experimentation. Indeed, claims of "special creation" reverse the scientific process. The explanation is seen as unalterable, and evidence is sought only to support a particular conclusion by whatever means possible." Also "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge." As codified in the court ruling, creation science is rejected as a science because it isn't bounded by or explainable through natural law, it is not testable empirically, it isn't tentative, and it isn't falsifiable. Neither the court, nor the NAS, explain the rejection of creation science as a response to misrepresented evidence. The a priori part is defendable, in terms of 'starting with a given, unfalsifiable, conclusion', but saying it as "unscientific a priori assumption" can almost imply to readers there is an acceptable alternative in science qualified as a "scientific a priori assumption"--and of course, there isn't. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed 'mythology'. Sentence is still unwieldy though. ^rossnixon 00:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If creationists "do not offer hypotheses subject to change", then there should be no discussion of "This revised theory..." in the Gap creationism article. Dan Watts (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The "revised theory" described in Gap creationism is more akin to a schism than to the type of change in hypotheses in light of new data that Professor marginalia was talking about, so I don't see any substantive contradiction. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I think that "being criticized for unscientific a priori and the deliberate mis-representation of evidence." is a major part of the criticism of them. It is not as though the misrepresentation is isolated or occasional -- it is ubiquitous, and arguably very close to being their sole form of "research". I think this sentence needs to be strengthened to make this point. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. What I think needs sorting out more carefully is the running together of this criticism from the (paraphrased) idea that "creation science is not considered a science because". It's just a wording and attribution thing. In terms of what makes something "science", creation science doesn't qualify according to majority of scientists for much more fundamental reasons, about "what is science?" as it's been defined in the 20th century. Most of the key pro-science spokespersons involved in the dispute I've seen are even reluctant to get into answering the misrepresentations, the "gish gallop" conundrum, in large part because it's a distraction into defending evolution even while knowing full well attacking evolution "does not a science make". In other words, creation science is not a science period, independently, because of this and this and this, irrespective of alternative theories, and certainly not simply "because evolution is wrong". Professor marginalia (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be very careful about the demarcation problem, which is essentially intractable according to most philosophers of science. Creation science does change, although extremely slowly, and not in the same way that regular science does; it is more akin to adding epicycles. I will get the exact wording of the Newsweek article, but I have to warn you that it is not as specific or detailed as you hope.--Filll (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've always suspected that the demarcation problem is a red herring when looking at Creationism. The 'problem' is that no demarcation schema is perfect -- but I've yet to hear of a schema, that received serious consideration, that is sufficiently imperfect that it would have any problem distinguishing creationism from science. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting questions to ponder-but the fact is that NAS, the AAAS, the Academy of Science in the RSC, the judge in the creation science court case, and so forth have iterated these points as reasons for rejecting "creation science" as any kind of science. These sorts of references are most authoritative in this context, since they're as good as we'll find which can be said have the "authority" to speak on behalf of the scientific establishment. It's important to stick with they said as opposed to what some might argue they should have said instead. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hoping I'm not stepping on toes, but I've done a bit more editing thus. I've made a couple changes that seemed acceptable by my reading of the above comments by replacing 'mythology' with 'creation according to genesis' and moving the first sentence from the third paragraph to second sentence in the first. I think the above disagreements are more about the wording of why science discounts CS, which is now the first sentence in the third paragraph.

Right now, the body text for Issues (which should really be re-titled in my opinion) states the following problems with CS - concern with moral rather than scientific questions, failures regards duplication by other scientists, special creation is not scientific, a priori assumption of God, inerrency of the Bible, faith rather than method as a starting point for the theory, selective acceptance of specific disiplines based on whether or not they conflict with beliefs about creation and evolution, and the big momma of criticism for science is in the Scientific criticism section. Here, there is lack of evidentiary support, distortion and misrepresentation of evidence, 'scientifically unethical' conduct, failure to meet the criteria of a scientific theory, then an unreferenced (but 100% accurate in my mind) list of how CS fails to be a scientific theory (not falsifiable, parsimonious, testable, repeatable/based on replicable experiments and not progressive/adaptive/correctable/tentative). So in my mind, the lead should capture these criticisms with the shortest wording possible, which allows for the broadest capture. I think it's defensible to even say 'fails to be a scientific theory' or something similar. The proof and discussion is below, the lead doesn't have to say 'why' in my mind. WLU (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think those were good edits. In terms of the discussion of the third paragraph, the criticisms, your point is well taken. Unfortunately, the way the argument is laid now, with the "why it is not a science" followed by the "courts have agreed, result being it is now not allowed in public school science class", the paragraph finishes neatly a complete thought. To introduce more of the criticisms in the intro requires a suitable segue so they don't just hang there like they were slapped on with a post-it. And I think the "Issues" section needs work myself. It's a bit thin, but it's all fixable. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

So, right now the paragraph reads "Critics emphasize that creation science fails to meet the key criteria of any true science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural events. The teaching of creation science in public schools in the United States effectively ended in 1987 when the United States Supreme Court determined the creation science taught in Louisiana public schools was not a legitimate scientific theory, and ruled its teaching unconstitutional in Edwards v. Aguillard because its true purpose was to advance a particular religious belief." How about instead, the following:

Creation science has been rejected as unscientific for not being falsifiable, parsimonious, testable, replicable, predictive and failing to adjust the theory in the face of contradictory evidence, the basic requirements of the philosophy of science. The teaching of creation science in public schools in the United States effectively ended in 1987 when the United States Supreme Court determined the creation science taught in Louisiana public schools was not a legitimate scientific theory, and ruled its teaching unconstitutional in Edwards v. Aguillard because its true purpose was to advance a particular religious belief.

The first sentence is basically taken from the second bulleted list in the scientific criticism section; the second sentence is the same. I'm not a big fan of citations in the lead - they should be in the body text, and the lead should uncontroversially summarize what is below, therefore not require referencing. I've removed the NAS citation, which is a pity, but I'm sure it could be fruitfully inserted into the body text and used to either cite, or expand some of the extant points. If anyone wants to tweak the wording in the quoted section directly, go ahead. WLU (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't like cites [2] in the intro[3] either, never mind on every fifth[4] word, or five per word[5][6][7] [8][9] as is increasingly the norm[10] these days.[11] I wish they'd all become invisible, materializing magically with hovering cursor or an alt-click pop-up or something slick and clean like that. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

It's good to describe it as Darwinism-that's the cs terminology. Quotes shouldn't be inferred as "scare quotes", so best to remove them there. Also I removed modern synthesis since it introduces irrelevant complexities to the picture, and it has no relevance to their opposition to evolution. I moved one sentence to the end of the paragraph, which emphasizes science doesn't accept it as a science, and it didn't make sense before to say it was rejected before saying what it is. Back to the problem with "scare quoting". Has someone a better suggestion for handling the "kinds" passage? Would italics be better? I don't even have a problem with quoting "kinds" once, but it's "kinds" "kinds" "kinds" in a single sentence, which is not encyclopedic. (Even though I think I'm the one that put them there, they aren't working for me.) Professor marginalia (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a wikilink, so on reflection I didn't see a need for it to be mentioned three times via discussion and definition. I took two out and wikilinked the remaining one. If people want a more extensive discussion of kinds, they can use the link. The link could still be tweaked - remove the italics, perhaps farm out barminological or kinds. WLU (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Third paragraph

"Critics emphasize that creation science fails to meet the key criteria of any true science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses...." For refuation, how about Humphrey's prediction of planetary magnetic strength which has both points or Mastropaolo's work on muscle growth to stop at two? Dan Watts (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Humphreys paper appears to be garbage, even citing Barnes' nonsensical claim that the Earth's magnetic field is decaying exponentially (on the basis of just 130 years of data -- a mere eye-blink geologically). I am extremely skeptical as to self-serving claims of "accurate" "predictions" from such an unreliable source. I would, at minimum, demand that these claims be verified by a reliable source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I glanced at the Humphreys paper. Pure nonsense. I have one statement. Vine and Mathews. Where is the explanation? It just is nonsense. Then his discussion about how an steady exponential decay is not at odds with several sudden reversals during the Flood. It is just random spew. I would not trust the arithmetic. I would not trust anything about it. The nonsense about "evolutionists" just is dizzying and pure rabid attacks by a crank. The Humphreys paper is just flaky; what is accounting for the loss of magnetization? Some sort of disorganization of the magentic moments over 6000 years? What the heck? I have a piece of magnetite here. Are the moments bumping into each other and getting disordered in this solid rock? It is a classic God of the Gaps argument. Because we do not understand the Geomagentics perfectly, this is an excuse to claim "God Did It!" What hogwash.--Filll (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I look at the Matropaolo paper as well. It looks like a paper about strength training with a few paragraphs of a tantrum about evolution at the end that are completely disconnected from the strength training part of the paper. I do not think the author even knows what evolution is. It is just ranting.--Filll (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Humphreys paper is not about "loss of magnetization" in rocks, it is about decrease in total field strength (e.g. electrical resistance losses in the earth's core). What is up with the strawman concerning magnetite? The claims are published. You can do the verification yourself. So, the points of no empirical support and tentative hypotheses, perhaps these can be discussed? Dan Watts (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• All this is off the mark here. Who is making the claim that these works "refute" the scientists' criticism? An editor, not a reference source. And who is rejecting these works in this discussion? Editors!! Not reference sources. And who gets to assert such refutations, as well as reject them? Reference sources, not editors. We describe what sources claim, we do not judge the claims. So no, we can't discuss. That's what blogs and coffee houses can offer us, a world of free and unfettered opinionations. But not wikipedia. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Claim CD701: The earth's magnetic field is decaying at a rate indicating that the earth must be young. -- TalkOrigins archive Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Also Creation geophysics#Rapid-decay theory Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, the claim made in the opening here is those studies demonstrate they are performing science. Your link compares contradictory conclusions of studies which compete with these, and does not apply to the claim asserted at the start of this thread. The claim is "these studies refute the accusation that creation scientists do not do science". That's an editor's assertion/judgment, not a reference source's assertion. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's probably the closest that we're going to get. Does a prediction based on nonsensical physics have any scientific validity? I suppose that's a question for a philosopher of science. This brings us back to my original statement: "I would, at minimum, demand that these claims be verified by a reliable source." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well we can get multiple sources that back up those statements, including the judgement of several courts including the US supreme court, and many many many scientists.--Filll (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I read the second one on muscle training, which is one area I was educated in. It's not a scientific paper, it's a literature review, of sometimes rather suspect literature. Studies from the 20's, National Geographic, an unpublished Master's thesis, self-citation of dubious symposia? Meh. If he actually did a test of this, it's not replicable by any means I can think of. Of course, I'm initially turned off by the fact that it's published CRS Quarterly, which is not a reliable source. In any case, it's not a paper about evolution and creation, it's an exercise physiology paper with one section pasted on at the end. That section is itself an extension of the argument from personal incredulity, which is not backed up by data or even citations - 'muscles are made from protein, which are synthesized by DNA, and when this happens it doesn't make mistakes. Must be God!' Were it published in an actual reliable source, it might be suitable for the strength training page. As is, it's a hypothesis about strength training; I see no citation of God or Creation Science (or even Intelligent Design) in the body of the text. If it were published in a real scientific journal, they might accept the body text, but would trim the last section out as irrelevant.

In summary, not a reliable source, and there is no link I can see between creation science and exercise physiology. Mastropaolo's assertion that evolution could not have produced ... batteries? Muscles? is, as the author himself puts it, "crass superstitious propaganda" and an unsupported opinion.

Incidentally, his assertions about batteries and televisions are also in error - both pass through intelligent design and evolutionary iterations. The intelligence being human engineers. There's no link between the guts of this paper and support for creation science, and numerous flaws in reasoning in the sole 'creation science' section. Supporters of creation science can get published in mainstream journals, but only when they produce work that is scientifically defensible. This is not. WLU (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> Why over-complicate this? We have sources up the whazzooo that scientists and courts have made the claim that creation science is not a science for those specific reasons. It's in the article, it's amply sourced, not a problem. What's been introduced here is the idea that somehow that determination can be refuted because "these two published creation science studies formed an hypothesis and tested it." Irrelevant. Because it's not our task to investigate, argue, or prove whether or not scientists and the courts may have been wrong or unfair in their judgment. Courts, scientists, science philosophers, etcetera..they judge creation science and their studies, not wikipedia. So exactly so, Hrafn. Instead of getting sidetracked into rebuttal, the real issue is here that the claim made opening this thread needs to be accompanied with suitable verification and attribution. Furnishing two references as examples to support a claim is a resort to original research (not allowed), and is not a verification about what is or isn't really science. I'm going to repeat-this isn't the place for our opinions about science or creation science (or their respective studies). This is the place to weigh content decisions purely as editors consulting other authorities' published opinions. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we have said "sources up the whazzooo" -- so any claim to overturn them would have to be exceptionally sourced. The discussion above gives every indication that the sources are in fact decidedly sub-standard. Case closed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So, if I'm reading this correctly, there's four editors saying there's no reason to change the page, and one saying there is, based on the assertion that two apparently fundamentally flawed pieces of research published in a sympathetic, unreliable source, trumps numerous statements by courts and governing bodies. I'd say that's indeed a WP:SYNTH and therefore should not be on the page. Agreed. WLU (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Would the statement "The empirical data that Creation Scientists collect are generally sound." from http://csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/higgins2.html (acknowledging that this author believes that there are serious flaws in depth of analyses) be less WP:SYNTH and more of a reliable source concerning the idea that the first sentence may need to be modified? Dan Watts (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You missed a bit: "But their data sets are small and the conclusions drawn overreach what other Scientists would consider reasonable." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I would not put csicop claim in intro. I think the csicop claim pushes things into a different direction, so the intro isn't the place to introduce bits of bits. Perhaps in the "scientific criticism" section there can be further discussion about how something can contain "empirically sound data" and yet also be characterized as "lacking empirical support" for conclusions. Personally, I don't see any point to it, because it is well understood in science that the two do not directly correlate. For example, I can gather up empirically each of our phone numbers, average them, and form a conclusion that "the typical wikipedian's phone number is xxx-xxxx". Good empirical data in the front end, nonsense conclusion "lacking empirical support" at the back end. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I'd say the only thing the CSICOP paper does is further demonstrate that creation science shoehorns the data and theories to fit their pre-conceived notions. It's another example of how they're not doing science. That CS sometimes will undertake one, or another aspect of science on occasion does not mean they are doing science, I'd say it's more an example of them abusing science to gain credibility. Plus, that's not really a reliable source, it falls into the 'some guy's opinion' vat of information, even if it is a professional geologist's opinion. I'd hesitate to use it on a long, well-referenced page like this one. At best, I'd say the most it could justify is that CS sometimes co-opts real science to further their political agenda, and the article already has that in spades. WLU (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Criticism

Would the statement: "Creation science was described as an oxymoron by Stephen Jay Gould" be SGO? Dan Watts (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be an opinion indeed. However, Stephen Jay Gould is no really just some guy. He has his own wikipedia page and is very notable as an excellent populizer (sp?) of science, a well-respected researcher, and critic of creationism and creation science for several decades. He is a very recognized expert with world-wide recognition for a variety of accomplishments. His opinions on areas within his own field of expertise are quite valid. WLU (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

He was quoted in the CSICOP which may or may not be a reliable source (see last statement under Third Paragraph). I cannot tell due to the sentence construction. Dan Watts (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make the CSICOP any more reliable. Quote mining is the process of talking about reliable sources in an unreliable manner. Anything Gould said in CSICOP can probably be found in a more reliable place. WLU (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case, should the Gould remark be removed, or referenced from another source? Perhaps from "Bully for Brontosaurus" p 450? Dan Watts (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Link of convenience. Allowed per some policy. If you're really curious, I could track it down. WLU (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What does SGO mean, please? All I find is some society of gynecologists. Carrionluggage (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Some guy's opinion. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead again

I had thought this was settled, but I guess not 'cause there's a slow revert war over the lead. So, does creation science attempt to 're-interpret' scientific evidence, or does it 'mis-represent' it? Obviously the latter is far more pejorative than the former - are we sufficiently certain that CS's proponents are actively lying? WLU (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course we're not sufficiently certain. Scott and Larson, both good sources here- and Scott can be thought of as a direct opponent of CS- both specifically used the term "honest" to describe some of them, especially Morris. Re-interpret is fair and npov, since much of what they do is to claim scientists aren't interpreting the data properly. "Misinterpret" makes it a nonsensical statement in the phrase, "creation science is an attempt to misinterpret scientific evidence", as if creation scientists put their lab coats on and say to themselves, "what's critical in my study findings is that I misinterpret all my data." Professor marginalia (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm torn - reluctant to say that CSists are fundamentally dishonest, but they're not in the business of generating new research and do a lot of shoe-horning to get 'support' for their theories. Perhaps some sort of thesaurus is required. WLU (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It is necessary to combat use of "re-interpret" because it is often a weasel-word used to disguise pseudoscience. If you will kindly look at this page [12] you will see that Bernard Haisch (at one time a respectable solar physicist, now an editor of our competitor Citizendium) (see [13] claims that the Universe does not contain any mass at all. Read [14]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrionluggage (talk • contribs) 20:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Combat"?? You know, we're trying to reflect the common knowledge in this encyclopedia here, not shape it. The Haisch reference is a little too subtle for me. So why don't we all just remember we've agreed to be good little editors here, and let good reference sources determine what we say in articles here? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Definition per references

(Copied from above-this is CS as described from quick survey of various sources:)

1. "Creation scientists ... strive to use legitimate scientific means both to disprove evolutionary theory and to prove the creation account as described in Scripture". J Michael Plavcan

2. "The Genesis Flood would become the cornerstone of young-earth creationism, eventually selling over 200,000 copies. The book is not just an attack on evolutionism: because it endorses flood geology it presents an alternative to the whole orthodox of scientific view of earth history. It thus rejects the established theoretical positions of geology, paleontology, and prehistoric archaeology." Peter J. Bowler

3. [describing this as stemming from a 1970s "tactical shift" among strict six-day creationists, the term creation science was "securely attached" to Price's biblically based geological model] "Instead of denying evolution its scientific credentials, as biblical creationists had done for a century, the scientific creationists granted creation and evolution equal scientific standing. Instead of trying to bar evolution from the classroom, as their predecessors had done in the 1920s, they fought to bring creation into the schoolhouse and repudiated the epithet 'antievolutionist'. Instead of appealing to the authority of the Bible ...they downplayed the Genesis story in favor of emphasizing the scientific aspects of creationism. " Numbers

4. (From the Ark Act #590, language reportedly very close to words of CS's Wendell Bird) "'Creation-science' means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:

1. "Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing;

2. "The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism;

3. "Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals;

4. "Separate ancestry for man and apes;

5. "Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and

6. "A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds."

5. Speaking of Morris and ICR, as the forefathers of cs: [They] opened a second front against the theory of evolution. Fundamentalists no longer merely denounced Darwinism as false; they offered a scientific-sounding alternative of their own, which they called either 'scientific creationism' (as distinct from religious creationism) or 'creation science' (as opposed to evolutionary science)." Quoting from ICR text, "The vast complex of godless movements spawned by the pervasive and powerful system of evolutionary uniformitarianism can only be turned back if their foundations can be destroyed, and that requires the re-establishment of special creation on a Biblical and scientific basis." Larson

6. "Creation science” advocates claim to be able to support with scientific data a Biblical literalist view of creation. Supposedly, scientific data can be found to support a six day, sudden creation of everything, relatively recently (within the last 10,000 years.) When creation science came on the scene in a major way in the late 1970's and early 1980's, dozens of books and hundreds of articles were written by scientists analyzing these allegedly scientific claims. It was demonstrated that creation science was not science at all. Creation science organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis remain the major providers of information for the antievolution movement, and their literature is the most widespread." Eugenie Scott representing the NCSE

Professor marginalia (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Another,

7."a doctrine holding that the biblical account of creation is supported by scientific evidence" Mirriam Webster's Online.Professor marginalia (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced original source (doesn't match well anymore anyway after 3 dozen edits to it). I have followed very closely this source, except in terms of allowing for the cosmological and geological as well as strictly "evolution" dimensions. The author is, once again, no apologist for creation science, but an anthropologist writing as an opponent of it. Irked editors who keep pushing hard here are too often offering far less NPOV language than is found in works written by opposing scientists involved in the dispute.Professor marginalia (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see that there is a problem here: while "mis-represent" sounds perjorative (indeed it implies outright lying), "re-interpret" lends too much credence to the creationist claim that they are using the same data and "interpreting it differently". Whereas their own writings indicate that this is not the case: for instance, when they attempt to use "no transitional forms" as an actual argument, rather than admitting that they interpret the fossil record differently (to put it politely), they are (falsely) claiming that the actual data does not support common descent. Similarly with "mutations cannot create information", an entirely false claim about the data (mutations can and do create information). I think we need to find some other alternative.--Robert Stevens (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the offending phrase completely - why not? I can't see a reason to keep reference to scientific evidence in the first sentence and think it still reads OK. The relationship to science is expanded upon more later in the lead. What do people think? WLU (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

...fine by me. --Robert Stevens (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to be upfront about the relationship with science. Creation science attempts to use "scientificy" arguments to substantiate the creationist line. This should be in the first sentence, in my opinion. I think "reinterpret scientific evidence" is fine, and an accurate NPOV description of what creation scientists do (regardless of anyone's opinion about what sort of reinterpretations are taking place). The other choices advanced so far are either non-NPOV (e.g., "misrepresent") or incomplete (like WLU's suggestion). Silly rabbit (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete? You wound me! Mulling it a bit further, if we do re-include "re-interpret", we should probably include all ways that CS treats scientific evidence. This includes reinterpreting, ignoring, citing discredited theories and other stuff I probably can't think of (which requires a far more intense search and inclusion of sources than just leaving it out - not a bad thing, but time and space consuming). The lead is already quite long, and has a whole paragraph on its relation to science so arguably that kind of thing could be better placed in the body (certainly more room for discussion and the necessary references could go there). Can you live with just leaving it out SR, or do you wish to keep discussing? WLU (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What creation scientists do, is start with one preconceived theory or notion that cannot be abandoned. Then, increasingly tortuous stories are constructed, epicycle-like, to fit the evidence in with the notion that cannot be abandoned. Creation scientists also include the supernatural in as an explanation for natural evidence, which science does not do, or has not for a few centuries (since Bacon or so?).

However, philosophers of science who fool around with the demarcation problem note that it is very difficult to come up with a demarcation method to separate pseudoscience from science, or science from nonscience, 100% of the time; some even have abandoned it as an intractable problem. For example, between paradigm shifts, regular scientists also construct tortuous epicycle-like structures to try to fit the evidence to the theories. The big difference is that these paradigm shifts can and do occurr in real science eventually, whereas they do not in creation science, or at least they are less obvious.

Creation science does show some revisability, where dinosaur bones that were previously thought to be the bones of giants were then reinterpreted as being from dinosaurs who lived together with men and went on the Ark. Creation scientists used to reject evolution, but then some said they accepted microevolution but not macroevolution. However now many advocate superevolution just after the flood to repopulate the earth. So creation science theories do change, as more evidence comes in.

The core thing that does not change or at least very slowly if at all is a literal interpretation of the bible. However, even there, if you look to see what constitutes a "literal interpretation", hundreds if not thousands of literal interpretations differ from each other, accept different things as allegorical etc. For example, inconsistent things like the two creation accounts in Genesis are sometimes ignored, or one is just claimed to be a restatement of the other, or sometimes it is claimed that there really were two creations, just as Genesis says. All of these interpretations and more are given by people who claim to interpret the bible literally.

So as you see, if you want to write down a set of rules that help you decide what is science and what is pseudoscience, and you want to put evolution in the science category and creation science in the pseudoscience category, it is not particularly easy. -_Filll (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

While some editors are edit warring over the "message this article needs to send", I'd like to see more care and attention paid to what's on the printed page in the source(s). The opening sentence has been toyed with endlessly with little care paid to the source that goes with it, and no effort made to substitute an appropriate source in its place. This is what the source, Smouts, writes:

• "In this book Whitcomb and Morris argued that the scientific evidence cited by evolutionists could be interpreted more cogently as proof of the details described in Genesis. The authors admitted outright that they had first believed literally in the Genesis account and then had begun to assemble evidence from science to support it; their first phrase asserts that they had labored '[i]n harmony with our conviction that the Bible is the infallible word of God.' The book thus did not claim to create a new science that coincidentally matched their religious beliefs, but it did found a new creationist approach: the assembling of scientific evidence for creation and against evolution. In 1974 this evidence was summarized and the movement was renamed by a book entitled Scientific Creationism and written by the same Henry M. Morris. Within the next few years, contemporary American creationism was renamed again—creation-science—so as to emphasize its claim to scientific status; this is the term that appeared in the 1981 Arkansas act that was overturned by Judge Overton."

So Smouts (a source I found and used for a prior edit) does says "interpret", not "disprove". Plavcan (a source I also found, but was pushed back out in a particularly silly revert, restoring Smouts to source an all new third statement not actually said in either Smouts or Plavcan, or anyone else offered so far)-The now removed source Plavcan does say "prove creation" and "disprove evolution". When editors don't defer to any of the most noteworthy published sources, preferring their own wording because they feel the sources are not using strong enough language to "send the message", that's not NPOV. The cites are also getting messed up, and the content is getting muddied down (creation scientists believe science supports the Genesis account, which the intro no longer makes clear). Professor marginalia (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit late to comment, but really this should be addressed in the body and the lead should summarize below; sources in the lead should not be necessary because they are cited more appropriately in the body. So really our first act should be to refer to what the body says, and ajust the lead accordingly; if the body is in error, then it should be fixed first, then the lead adjusted appropriately. WLU (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

POV

I just added a POV template to this article. Take the first sentence, for example.

"Creation science or scientific creationism is a movement within creationism which attempts to disprove scientific explanations for the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution and prove the Genesis account of creation using scientific means."

This statement presupposes that creation science is not science. It further states that creation science goes against science rather than offering an alternative scientific viewpoint. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortuately by about 10 federal court cases including 2 supreme court cases and the opinions of over 99.9% of scientists in relevant fields, it is not science. Find me a reliable source that says it is science and we will talk.--Filll (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobel prize winner Raymond Vahan Damadian is a creationist. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if true, so what?--Filll (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I just added the correct POV template. Please don't remove it until dispute is resolved, per wiki policy. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

At some point, doing that constitutes disruptive editing. Are you sure you want to go there?--Filll (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Not familiar with Damadian, but noted that the article here says he didn't win the Nobel prize-but it's beside the point, really. JBFrenchhorn, the definition given in that particular sentence is consistent with virtually every good source you'll find. It's one of the most thoroughly covered, there is no debate there. It's not even particularly controversial to creation scientists--they understand very well that they're "attempting to disprove scientific explanations....and prove Genesis using scientific means", and say so openly. Sometimes when people are very close to a subject they read more into the sentence than it really says. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What is your POV complaint precisely? That the first sentence needs to be changed? What is your proposal? This article is the product of many editors' labors, and the first sentences have recently undergone extensive revisions with participations from multiple involved editors. So, do you actually have a legitimate issue to raise here, or is this a "drive-by tagging"? In the latter case, we can simply remove the template since there is no actual "neutrality dispute," just someone whose POV is not that of the article. Hardly surprising, really, since Wikipedia policies WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE require that we give the mainstream scientific views concerning fringe subjects which may or may not be able to claim scientificity. Hence, by adhering to policy, the article is bound to upset the True Believers. Silly rabbit (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

JBFrenchhorn, creationism starts with the 'a priori' axiom of supernaturalism. This aspect of their (our?) beliefs is not subject to scientific investigation. That is why, strictly speaking, "creation science" is not completely scientific. (Actually neither is evolutionism because of their 'a priori' assumptions - but that is another story...). Years ago I was offended when creation science was described as pseudoscience, but now I accept that as valid. ^rossnixon 01:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I know this is off topic, but please go into further detail about how "evolutionism" is not completely science. I am intrigued. Baegis (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"[T]hat creation science is not science" has been established by the overwhelming and unequivocal consensus of the scientific community and by SCOTUS decisions (based upon that consensus). It is therefore not a WP:NPOV violation, and any templating on this basis is purely spurious. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Beliefs and Activities

"When the ideas encompassed by creation science are subjected to the scrutiny of scientific criticism or peer-review, they are found to be lacking in scientific foundation, objective criticism of evidence, and scientific reasoning and method. The science community does not take creation science seriously for these and other reasons."

This paragraph needs to be removed. It is far too general and expresses a strong bias against Creation Science. Wikipedia is a neutral establishment. 208.188.2.101 (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it is perfectly legitimately "general", as the overwhelming scientific consensus is that Creation Science lacks any validity. The article thus gives WP:DUE weight to this viewpoint. If you want wikipedia to say nice things about Creation Science, then you first have to get at least a significant minority of the scientific community to say such things. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to comments by other editors on this topic. Note, however, that there are a variety of policies, most notably WP:NPOV, that apply. Creation science is pseudoscientific, has been called this by many reliable sources, and is considered such on wikipedia. It is not a bias to express the scientific mainstream opinion on creation science, it is appropriate. Further, please see WP:LEAD - information in the lead is a summary of the contents below. In order for it to be removed from the lead, the text in the body must be changed. Review the evidence there, and discuss its removal before modifying the lead. WLU (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Wikipedia is neutral, which means that it needs to state facts. The paragraph is entirely factual: that creation science is not taken seriously by the scientific community. This is amply supported by the references in the text. As for the charge of bias, yes, often facts are biased. For example, since we know that the Earth is not flat, but instead spherical, the facts are biased against those who subscribe to flat Earth theory. So much so, in fact, that it is entirely reasonable to say that the scientific community does not take flat earth theorists seriously. You are encouraged to read up on the neutral point of view policy, specifically how it relates to fringe beliefs, and the relative weight that each point of view should be given. Silly rabbit (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not arguing with a general disagreement by the scientific community at large. The first sentence makes creation science devoid of any logical approach or rationale. This goes against references sited, like Answers in Genesis, which have papers published by PhDs. I am not advocating correctness, but instead we should not say that CS crumbles under objectivity so dismissively. The first sentence should be changed. 208.188.2.101 (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis is not a reliable source, and it is devoid of a logical approach since it is a faith-based approach to research, which is at odds with the scientific approach, which takes nothing on faith. WLU (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Faith-based does not necessarily mean "devoid of a logical approach." I was merely saying that they have people of credentials, and it gives more evidence for, rather than against, modification of the first sentence. Furthermore, the only "faith" aspect that AiG takes is from starting assumptions. They bind themselves to the same laws of science that everyone else does. 208.188.2.101 (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The scientific community generally considers Creation Science to be "devoid of any logical approach or rationale", beyond a purely religious rationale. Answers in Genesis is involved in Christian apologetics, not scientific research. Its members' PhDs are frequently in fields unrelated to their publications and their publications are never in peer-reviewed scientific journals. That Creation Sceince has no objective basis is both the opinion of the scientific community, and has been proved to a legal certainty acceptable to the Supreme Court of the United States. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Logic doesn't make a science, evidence does, and there's no evidence to support creation science. They do not change their assumptions based on new evidence (or even old evidence), and base their research and conclusions on a pre-conception. This is not science. Which is why it is a see also in Pseudoscience, which you have also been warned for removing. WLU (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Regardless of any scientific qualifications AiG members may have, they abandon science when they promote creationism: because creationism is contradicted by the available scientific evidence. A belief or activity doesn't become "scientific" just because some of its believers or practitioners have scientific qualifications. --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, these broad-sweeping statements undermine any credibility present in creationism. "They abandon science... contradicted by the available scientific evidence." "No evidence to support creation science." All science has underlying assumptions, don't forget. In the end, I suppose this issue is resolved by weight. For, quoting from the article:

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." 208.188.2.101 (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you quoting WP:UNDUE? There are a large number of creationists, their political actions are very notable, and the number of scientists who oppose them on epistemological and ontological grounds is massive, more than 99.9999999% by some counts. You aren't really making a point here, and I'm guessing this will be moved to your talk page in the near future. WLU (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Creation Science has no credibility within the scientific community (so wikipedia has no warrant to bestow unearned credibility upon it), and is the "ancillary article" on an "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No credibility within the majority of the scientific community. Therefore, I quoted what I did. Regardless of whether or not it is true. 208.188.2.101 (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

People (such as those in Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, the Creation Research Society, etc) who subordinate their 'research' to a statement of belief, do not practice the scientific method and so are not part of the scientific community. It doesn't matter whether Creation Science is "true" or not, it is not science. That a Shakespearean sonnet is beautiful is true, but its beauty cannot be established by science. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we will have to dismiss this as a semantic argument, then. 208.188.2.101 (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Looking at the sentence or two you objected to, I cannot understand why. These are correct statements. What evidence is there that they are wrong? I would not classify Answers in Genesis as more of an authority on science than the National Academy of Sciences for example.--Filll (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the first sentence strips CS of all credibility, and it does not give it a fair hearing. It is so broad and dismissive that it is unbreakable. We could reword and state that many in the scientific community espouse these claims, but to state them as fact is not honest. 208.188.2.101 (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that CS has any scientific credibility to be "stripped"? It is not for wikipedia to give it "a fair hearing", its role is to report the hearing that it has received -- which resulted in it being unequivocally rejected by both the scientific community and the courts. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If the scientific endowment bestowed upon some of CS's advocates (i.e. PhDs) by name-worthy universities is not enough for you, I don't know what is. 208.188.2.101 (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You are using a pretty classic argument from authority, which proves nothing. Science stands on evidence, not on opinions. The page will not change based on your arguments, please become more familiar with wikipedia policies before posting more comments. WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:NPOVFAQ, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:5P, WP:REDFLAG all apply. Also look through the archives, this has been dealt with many times before. WP:SHUN. WLU (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Creationists are notorious for getting their PhDs from unaccredited diploma-mills and making claims well outside the fields they received their PhDs in. In any case the history of science is rife with people, with serious scientific credentials, who have supported absurdly cranky ideas. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Since their ideas go against mainstream science, are you saying that there is no possible way to apply any merit to their work? 208.188.2.101 (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Merit isn't "applied", it must be earned. And Creation Science has earned none -- due to its lack of scientific rigour, lack of original research and lack of useful results. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Since Creationists are setting up their own "peer review" system [15] it is going to be harder to critique them. It is worth noting, however, that while in "real" science theories and conclusions can change (as in when the Luminiferous Aether gave way to relativity, or the Piltdown man was debunked, or the germ theory of disease became accepted over causes due to the "night air" or evil spirits), no conclusion in "Creation Science" can ever change, because all conclusions must support the literal interpretation of the Bible.Carrionluggage (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The impact factor of those journals is going to be 0, and they're never going to be reviewed by mainstream scientists, so they'll still be virtually worthless for anything except the opinion of the various agencies. WLU (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This really is nothing new. There have been "peer-reviewed" science journals in creation science for at least 45 years or more. They have zero impact, because the quality is just awful. They are basically trash.--Filll (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

One Persons Trash Is Another Person’s Treasure - Someone observant. ^rossnixon 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

'Peer review' from within a small group of closely-associated creationists, all of whom have signed very similar statements of belief, is essentially worthless in terms of quality-control. It probably amounts to little more than a check for doctrinal orthodoxy and obvious errors. It would be interesting to see what scientific peer-review makes of an article that has already passed "creationist peer-review". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with people who want to believe it or engage in this sort of study. I only have a problem when they want to claim it is science, or force it on others. Then we have a problem...-Filll (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, a semantic argument on what is really science. Different starting assumptions. Evolution, in a broad sense, is implicitly considered correct and will not even be considered wrong, though transitory pieces of it may be reevaluated. 75.110.179.229 (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC) (208.188.2.101)

Answers in Genesis' "peer review" process

The following criteria will be used in judging papers:

1. Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?

2. Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?

3. Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?

4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?

5. If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins debate?

6. Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture? If necessary, refer to: R. E. Walsh, 1986. Biblical hermeneutics and creation. Proceedings First International Conference on Creationism, vol. 1, pp. 121–127. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship.

Remark: The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or it conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of faith. The editors play a very important initial role in preserving a high level of quality in the ARJ, as well as

protecting AiG from unnecessary controversy and review of clearly inappropriate papers.[16]

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Compare to the peer-review process for Science and Nature magazines (hat-tip to Discover for all this). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We should archive this or spam it over to WP:RS as a textbook case of how peer review does not automatically ensure a reliable source. I'm certain this will come up again on this page, and this is really the only rebuttal we need. WLU (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is unfair to call the AiG process peer review, except in quotation-marks. In any case, peer review has long been known to be an imperfect filter, and one that is easy to subvert if those involved in the editorial/peer-review process don't act in good faith. However, I've yet to hear of a better filtering process for academic articles. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The main problem here is that the journal assumes its conclusion right from the start. Excluding the possibility that the evidence could turn up differently than expected makes all its results completely worthless. Rather than the papers being reviewed based on quality of the research, they're just being spot-checked to see if they have the right conclusion. Completely worthless. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Creationist studies and publishings will never appear in a mainstream scientific publication, not because they are explicitly condemned, but rather because they are immediately considered backwards and unscientific. This does not mean their claims are invalid, but rather that they go against what is already considered true by the majority. So, just because one side is upfront about their foundational assumptions (keep in mind the overall assumption of molecules-to-man evolution will NEVER be taken into consideration for overall falsehood, even if it is considered "proven"), does not demote any of their research before it has a chance to be examined. 75.110.179.229 (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC) (208.188.2.101)

Well let's take a look at a single claim; that the earth is young. Now there are well over 100 independent tests of the earth's age, relying on different physics and chemistry, that agree with each other. Of course, the earth could just appear to be old (see omphalos hypothesis) but then anything could be true and we would not know it. That is fine; you can believe that the earth is young if you want. However, it requires discarding so much established science that it is really a stretch; it is no longer science by any reasonable definition. I have no problem if you want to believe the earth is young, however. Where the problem arises is when young earth creationists want to impose illogical and unscientific beliefs on others by force. THEN we have a problem. --Filll (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I do argue that they use logic and science. I believe their theory just isn't taken seriously. Please cf my post below. Thanks, 75.110.179.229 (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it's in fact quite possible for papers to get published in scientific journals whose results go against modern wisdom, or even flatly contradict what was believed to be true. The catch is, they have a huge burden of evidence to overcome. Take the hypothesis that it was a meteorite which wiped out the dinosaurs. Initially, it was thought to be ridiculous. No one believed it was necessary to appeal to celestial causes, or that they could even have these grand effects. After all, we'd never seen anything like this happen. But the evidence was there. A spike in iridium levels at just the right strata, a crater of just the right age, it all added up. The reason this hypothesis was given a chance at all in the first place was because it followed all the rules of science. It didn't assume that which it was trying to prove. It simply presented all the evidence and showed how this hypothesis explained it better than the current paradigm.

Now imagine Walter Alvarez had gone about this differently. Let's say he simply tried to poke holes in the current best theories, without offering any alternative of his own. Even if the flaws he pointed out were valid, he would have at best gotten a shrug in response, and requests to show something better. So he comes up with the impact hypothesis, but he doesn't present any evidence for it or even mention how it might be falsifiable. He tries to get papers which lack these key points published, and he fails. So then he starts his own journal, which says up front "Will only accept papers which support impact or find flaws in other theories." Papers get submitted to it, but instead of the research in them being performed scientifically, they're all presented simply as possible confirming evidence. Due to the guidelines of the journal, no one risks attempting to falsify the hypothesis, for fear that they might get the wrong results. Without this key check, there's no incentive to truly discover reality. Any paper submitted simply garners a "So what?" reaction from real scientists. Of course a paper published there could come up with some justification for it. The only thing that would raise their eyebrows is if someone went out with an experiment that could potentially disprove impact and didn't. But of course, this would never happen in this journal, as it's biased against the scientific method.

Okay, that was a lot of info, so let me sum it up. What we have here is the difference between two methods: 1. This is what we know, how do we show that it's true? and 2. This is a question about reality, how do we find the answer to it? Attempts to follow the first method are worthless as you can always predict the results ahead of time, so why bother looking at them afterwards? The second method (science), however, gives you the chance to learn something new. You change your mind to meet reality, rather than trying to shoehorn reality to match your beliefs. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Infophile, I appreciate your thorough, polite method of discussion. Thank you.

I do, however, think your line of reasoning misses a couple of key points. Evolution has reached the point where it is a "this is what we know" level of study. All data will henceforth be put into it's broad category, leaving room for slight modifications to the overall theory. Creationists too have a broad category, obviously the global flood and six day creation of the universe. You might counter that the known evidence validates evolution, and that it's beyond any point of return for finding a better theory. No one is looking for a better theory. Obviously that's a question left to the scientists to debate over the evidence, and I will immediately claim I am not well-versed enough in known scientific data to present any arguments for discussion. However, I have heard various arguments, and I find the evidence to be in line with creationists (obviously you knew that). That only leaves me saying that there is bias on both sides, and that one side has just been progressing longer in the scientific community than the other.

What, then? If creationists can, as you mentioned, not just poke holes in the established theories, but instead show why evidence should support their point of view, let them. It gets back to my primary point of removing/modifying the first sentence in the article's paragraph. And, I would argue, they don't just poke holes. They also attempt to fulfill the obligation of substantiating theory core beliefs, trying to make it the established ground work of origins. 75.110.179.229 (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we might be getting a bit far from the article here, so I won't spend much time belaboring this point. I'll just say that if creationists can find evidence that goes against evolution, there's nothing stopping them from publishing it in a scientific journal beyond how well they've performed their research. If they've uncovered some evidence that there's a big problem with evolution, they will be able to at the very least get this published. The problem is that the cases they've pointed out so far are all solved problems: Evolution has answers for irreducible complexity. Only when they can point out a serious problem that evolution can't adequately answer will any scientific progress be possible. A single problem found with a theory can lead to a complete revolution of scientific knowledge. The problem of the speed of light being constant in all observer frames led eventually to us admitting that Newton's laws weren't perfect for extremely fast cases, whereas previously we would have categorized them under "This is what we know." Maybe something like that will happen with evolution, but no one's going to take seriously any problems proposed under the framework of trying to support a religious hypothesis. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Change to introduction

I changed the introduction, which was illogical. It began 'Creation science or scientific creationism is a movement within creationism which attempts to disprove the scientific evidence for the history of the Earth, [...] and prove the Genesis account of creation using scientific means.' Wrong. You can't 'disprove evidence', since evidence is evidence, i.e. is something agreed on both sides to be a fact, and which supports certain statements or hypotheses or beliefs. Presumably creation scientists wouldn't regard the currently accepted 'evidence' as being evidence of anything at all.

Far better is the definition given in the footnote: creation science aims to use legitimate scientific means both to disprove evolutionary theory. Someone warn me if there is a particular minefield that angels would fear to tread in. Probably. The Rationalist (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence has a long and bloody history. I hear what you are saying about scientific evidence, but that has already been discussed here at some point or another. I will give it another shot now. Anyway, I also reverted your edit because it was unclear, and was even further removed from the reference that you liked. Hopefully we can converge on a version of the lead that all (or most) parties find acceptable. Silly rabbit (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think many/most in the scientific community would dispute that creation science uses "legitimate scientific means". Plus it is attempting to disprove far more than "evolutionary theory" -- it is also attempting to disprove large chunks of Geology (particularly Geochronology and Palaeontology) and Astrophysics. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I also think that Creation Science projects like RATE probably cross over the line between attempting to disprove theory and trying to discredit evidence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I could sort of see there was going to be some history of bloodshed. Agree on 'legitimate'. on the other two reverts away from my edit.

1. I don't like 'movement within creationism' as it is ungrammatical. 'Creationism' is an abstract noun referring to a methodology or worldview or whatever. A 'movement' is a human phenomenon which cannot be 'within' any abstract entity such as a methodology. Understand this is purely a grammatical or stylistic point.

2. The point of my removing 'Genesis account of creation' and replacing it with something on the lines of 'revealed truth' was to make it more general. Could there not in theory be Creation scientists who did not believe in the Biblical account, but in some other account of the origin of the world, given by some other authorative text, or by divine revelation &c?

In any case, the opening sentence as now is is better. Progress.The Rationalist (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Re grammar: I don't see why a "movement" can't be a subset of (people subscribing to) a worldview.

Re Genesis, the Creation Science movement is purely Judeo-Christian, and in fact Ronald Numbers uses the terms 'Christian Science' and Flood Geology interchangeably at times. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Re Judeo-Christian, fine. Re grammar, yes a movement can be a subset of people subscribing to a worldview. But the movement can't be a subset of the worldview itself. I.e. creation scientists can be a subset of creationists (but not creationism). Creation scientism (the worldview of creation scientists) can be a subset of creationism (but not of creationists). Minor point. The Rationalist (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC) PS also if I go to Creationism it is not characterised as essentially Judeo-Christian. So shouldn't creation science then be characterised as a movement among Judeo-Christian Creationists? Perhaps this is taking nit-picking too far. The Rationalist (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No "speculative" descriptions can be used here. Even a replacement with "Judeo-Christian" is problematic, because creation science has been suffused with schismatic Christian doctrinal sectarianism from day one. Before any edits are made which would generalize "creation science" to encompass "revealed truths" rather than the Biblical account, good sources must be found to develop these diverging sectors further. There may be exceptions at the fringes, but if there are notable non-Christian sectors, or even non-fundamentalist/non-evangelical Christian sectors in Creation Science, then it would be a relatively recent development worthy of elaboration in the article. At its inception in the USA, and throughout the thirty years since, it's been an overwhelmingly sectarian Christian movement. Other points raised are minor tweaks: isms are cultural belief systems, radicalism, fundamentalism, aestheticism - movements try to advance isms. If "disproving" evidence is a grammatical problem (and I don't think it is), then replace it with "dispel". Professor marginalia (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally prefer "discrediting" evidence -- a phrase already used in legal circles, so hardly a grammatical innovation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The broad-brushstroke (and completely WP:OR -- so don't include any of this in the article without finding good citations for it) hierarchy is that Creation Science generally lies within Young Earth Creationism which in turn lies within Creationism. YEC appears to be exclusively Judeo-Christian, as (as far as I know) neither Islamic nor Hindu (the other two main religions with Creationist movements) scriptures are widely interpreted to require a Young Earth. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that is is indeed 'a sectarian Christian movement', moreover an American one (we Europeans view it all with complete bemusement). It would be useful to include this in the opening, though I agree original research has to be avoided. The Rationalist (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The opening says, "Its most vocal proponents are fundamentalist and conservative Christians in the United States". Professor marginalia (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite. To say a particular group is a vocal proponent of X is not the same as saying that X originated with the particular group, or that X belongs to the group in some special or unique sense. The Rationalist (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

More thoughts

I read through this article with great interest. On what constitutes a genuinely scientific theory, I think some things have been left out.

1. A scientific theory should be contrived to get round some particular difficulty. E.g. Russell (?)once objected against Zermelo set theory that it would not have occurred naturally to someone who had not heard of Russell's paradox. Similarly, the idea that the world was greated in 4000 BC woulod not occur to anyone except one who was determined to adhere to the literal truth of sacred texts.

2. Scientific theory should be culture-independent. Religious belief depends mostly on which culture you grew up in. This is not true of genuinely scientific belief.

I liked the bits at the end about the theories creation scientists have come up with. The Rationalist (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussions contrasting creation science with "genuinely scientific theory" come primarily from the US agency representing the scientific community, National Academy of Sciences, and the federal court ruling in McLean v Ark. What you've outlined here seem to be some personal opinions of science in general. Do you have any reference sources directly relating these issues you raise to the conflict science vs creation science? Professor marginalia (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Your second point seems to be closely related to Intersubjective verifiability, which is described as "a core principle of empirical, scientific investigation", and contrasted to "belief based on faith". Your first point is expressed somewhat incoherently, so I'm not sure what it is arguing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

References: Dawkins on point 2 (I can't locate it right now). On point 1, why incoherent? I wrote 'A scientific theory should be contrived to get round some particular difficulty' Ah, I see the problem. I meant 'A scientific theory should NOT be contrived to get round some particular difficulty' - is that better. You could view it as a corollary of parsimony. The example about Zermelo set theory is well known - again, I can't locate a reference right now. Anyway, it goes right back to Aristotle's point that genuine science is universal, and the more universal the better. Any theory constructed purely in order to get round some particular difficulty, is not truly universal. Hope that explains things. The Rationalist (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Better, but I think you're wrong (or at least inaccurate) -- the Theory of Relativity was developed to get around a few "particular difficulties" (a few observations that Newtonian mechanics couldn't explain). It is not "particularly difficulties" per se that are the problem, but "particular culturally-specific difficulties" -- which takes us right back to the question of culturally-specific versus intersubjective. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I thought you might say that. But the example about Zermelo's set theory is real. There were a lot of objections to his version of set theory on the grounds that it was merely subverting a difficulty in an arbitrary way. Perhaps the key is to think about 'arbitrary'. The Rationalist (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that the history of Russell's paradox and its relationship to Zermelo set theory isn't common knowledge, using it as an example isn't particularly helpful. Also, I see from Russell's paradox that "Zermelo's axioms ... evolved into the now-canonical ZFC set theory" -- which seems to somewhat undercut your argument. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you recall which work of Dawkins goes in to this? Both points are interesting, but do they have a direct and notable specific relationship to mainstream science's rejection of creation science as a science? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of stuff like "Flood geology is a concept based on the belief that most of Earth's geological record was formed by the Great Flood described in the story of Noah's ark. Fossils and fossil fuels are believed to have formed from animal and plant matter which was buried rapidly during this flood, while submarine canyons are explained as having formed during a rapid runoff from the continents at the end of the flood." Now it might be possible to construct a theory in which all the available evidence was explained in a way consistent with Genesis. But it fails the 'too arbitrary' criterion: constructing a theory which is specifically designed to accomodate any evidence that is apparently to the contrary. This criterion really is, as I suggested above, an application of parsimony. Any arbitrarily-constructed theory requires entities and states of affairs that are superfluous to any general universal theory of everything. The Rationalist (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Further thought (suggested by arguments given by philosopher friends who are sympathetic to creationism). The distinction between 'natural' and 'supernatural' is a difficult one. Why shouldn't God be as natural as anything else? The Rationalist (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

On the set-theory bit ("Zermelo's axioms ... evolved into the now-canonical ZFC set theory") that begs the question. The fact it says so in Wikipedia does not guarantee its truth! Let me see if I can dig up the relevant sources. Also worth adding that the controversy is an old one: the Zermeloists successfully argued that the theory was 'natural'. But there was no evolution. There was considerable resistance to the theory at the beginning, universally accepted thought it is now. The Rationalist (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The distinction between 'natural' and 'supernatural' is a difficult one. Why shouldn't God be as natural as anything else?: We're just editing the encyclopedia in here. Editors don't participate in controversies, we simply assemble articles on a variety of topics. This one is about creation science. We need sources, about creation science, and we put together from those sources about creation science article content describing the important issues. If you can find reliable sources describing how difficulty with the distinction between 'natural' and 'supernatural' notably relates to creation science-describe them and what they say, not what your friends say. If you can find reliable sources describing the relationship between Zermelo's axioms, set theory, and creation science, then describe those sources and the content in them. This isn't a blog where we share views and opinions about the subject, the focus needs to begin and end with content drawn directly from reliable sources. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

1. I have already said I will dig up the relevant sources. In any case the difficulty of establishing criteria for the science / non science distinction is well known (and, obviously, notable. 2. This isn't a blog where we share views and opinions about the subject it is WP policy to discuss substantial changes to controversial articles on the talk page. With every kind wish. The Rationalist (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There can't be changes without sources, so speculating here with other editors about making "substantial changes" is premature until the sources are shared for discussion. What you seem to be leaning towards are creationist thinkers working to uncouple "science" from methodological naturalism. If so, we'd need here to focus on references which discuss the efforts made by those actively working in creation science who are working towards this. The idea that God is a "natural" rather than a "supernatural" agent is not an idea I've come across at all in my reading about creation science, but if it is the case, I'm anxious myself to look into this further. But we need references to go further.Professor marginalia (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right. Where I have done some reading is in the basic list of criteria which demarcate science from non-science. The list in the article seemed incomplete, but let's leave it there until I have time to locate sources. Very busy with real life things right now. All the best. The Rationalist (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What this article needs. . .

Hello everyone. I have been looking the article over, and here's what I think shold be done to it:

1) A lot less of its disagreements with "accepted scientific theory" and a LOT more of the actual explanation and evidence for the theory.

2) If you even begin to compare it with any article on evolution. . . well, you see major differences. I don't just mean saying that more people believe evolution than creation (which technically isn't true, but that isn't the issue), I mean the general tone of the article. Reading the article, it is obvious that most people writing it are evolutionists who think it is silly and really know nothing about the evidence and explanation behind it. In other words, it isn't neutral, not that it expressly says things that aren't true, but it says most of the right sort of true things (and not most of the other sort)in order to sway people away from "creation science."

3) I am going to try to do some fixing on these problems. . .

4) anyone else agrees with me, please leave a message on my talk page.

Zantaggerung (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I mean, just look at it! The article is atrociously bigoted. . . trash it and start over. . . (not that I will, I'm to lazy for that)

The difference between this article & Evolution, Zantaggerung, is that the latter topic is a thoroughly substantiated and widely accepted scientific theory, based on the work of thousands of well-qualified experts, whereas the former is the thoroughly debunked, and often contradictory, claims of a bunch of religious zealots, very few of which have any qualifications in the fields in which they pontificate, and even fewer who have done anything that could, at a stretch, be regarded as genuine research. It is hardly surprising that they get very different treatment (the policy reason for this can be found in WP:UNDUE). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A priori/A posteriori

Under the section "Issues," and the subheading "Scientific Criticism", I replaced an incorrect usage of "a posteriori" with "a priori." This seems to be a minor correction, but I thought I should cite it anyway. Threepenpals (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)