Talk:Creation science/Archive 16

Biology is just science

I agree completely with this edit: [1]. Any suggestion that evolution is philosophical or sociological or some sort of political or religious movement is just ludicrous propaganda pushed by creationists. There is no truth in it.--Filll (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, any "philosophical" aspect that can conceivably be ascribed to the "theory of evolution" is part of the philosophy of science that underlies all scientific endeavour. One might as well talk about the "philosophical aspects" of electrochemistry. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What about those aspects of evolutionary theory that are not subject to observation, repetition or falsification? It's not all science, not by a long shot. Removing the word scientific makes it more NPOV. ^rossnixon 01:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Science does not require "observation" or "repetition". To pretend that it does is a well-known and widely repeated piece of creationist dishonesty (i.e. "bearing false witness" or "lying for Jesus"). Historic sciences typically do not allow direct observation or replication. They are rendered falsifiable by making novel predictions that can be falsified by new observations. An example of this was the Big Bang, which cannot be replicated and could not be directly observed. However its theory predicted the existence of Cosmic microwave background radiation, which was later observed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

We can't use the Baconian method or Mill's Methods to show causation concerning the Big Bang and instead uses the weaker Hypothetico-deductive model for such theories. It is a philosophical differentiation to allow (or not) Popper's method as a part of science. Dan Watts (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thus proving why real scientists do not pay any attention to philosophers, who are content to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.--Filll (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah! Who would pay attention to "Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge" by Neils Bohr, or "The World as I See It" by Albert Einstein, or "Physics and Philosophy" by Werner Heisenberg, or "Physical Science and Philosophy" by P.A.M. Dirac in the publication Nature? Let's focus on what real scientists have to say! Dan Watts (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You are free to believe that philosophy is of crucial importance for science. However, I will note that if you want a PhD in physics at Princeton University or MIT or Caltech, or many other places you dont need a single course in philosophy at the undergraduate or graduate levels. So it is clearly of great importance...--Filll (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Um the philosophical part of biology is that magic is not allowed. But that is true in all of chemistry and all of physics and all of any science. What parts of biology are not subject to observation? Repetition? Falsification? Speciation has been observed over and over, repetitively. Even fossil evidence for speciation has been repeated multiple times for various species. Hundreds of millions of observations in the laboratory, in the field, in fossils and in the DNA code. You are free to believe whatever you like and to reject knowledge and live in ignorance, but you are not allowed to use force to impose your ignorance on others. Particularly for what are highly suspect purposes. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I assure you that I am not being forceful. But it appears to me that you are. Evolution is not usually qualified by being called "scientific evolution". Why not stick with the more common "evolution"? How would that express any of my views? ^rossnixon 01:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What really throws me is that all but 1 sector of evolution (micro-evolution/variations/etc) can be backed up by the scientific method. I am still waiting for someone to put proof for empirical evidence, and also evidence that can be tested today, as proof for cosmological (big bang, stellar evolution), chemical (how did we get the heavier elements from evolution?), and macro-evolution (how can mutations make an organism better instead of worse?). Petrafan007 (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I do not stick my nose into religious articles or religious discussions or churches or mosques and tabernacles and rant and rave about how Christianity caused the Holocaust, or claim that fundamental Christianity is one of the most evil concepts ever created and how all evangelical Christians are damned and essentially filthy demons who deserve to be killed on sight, hopefully in the most painful manner possible. I do not hold huge rallies and decry the dirty Pentecostals or Baptists or other evangelicals and say they are not real Americans and should be stripped of their citizenship. I do not lobby my state legislature to tax churches so that I can use the proceeds to visit churches and then lecture the congregations that they are filth and headed to hell, at regular intervals. I do not parade around on the streets telling everyone that they are not allowed to disagree with me since every word out of my mouth is the word of God himself. THAT is forceful, and comparable and equivalent to what the "anti-evolution" groups engage in, in my experience. You see how it creates a bad impression?

Evolution is a polyseme. And the only reason that scientists oppose creationism, creation science and intelligent design is that they target biological evolution. No one in science worries if creation scientists do not like social Darwinism, or some other nonsense that has adopted the rubric of "evolution", even though its provenance is doubtful. It is when creation scientists etc target the science that problems arise.--Filll (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow Filll, you do have some problems. I do feel sorry for you - and I mean this in the 'nicest possible way'. I didn't realise that biological evolution was exempt from criticism, I thought it was meant to be like the other sciences. ^rossnixon 00:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you expound on this statement Ross? I looked all over and didn't find anyone questioning the existence of gravity and instead advocating that an invisible syrup exists that causes us to stick to the ground. Or anyone claiming that chemistry is completely bunk and there are actually just 4 elements. Could you help me a little on this one? Baegis (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think most fields would express a legitimate desire not to have to endure dishonest, repetitive, long-since-debunked criticisms. I'm sure if geologists are any less unhappy about enduring the "criticisms" of Flood Geologists, it is simply because said Flood Geologists are less vocal. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Any "dishonest, repetitive, long-since-debunked" ideas in evolution? Anyone teaching that old 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' canard? Surely not Evolution: Raven & Johnson (2002). besides:

1. Haeckel’s drawings are fake, but they’re not used in recent textbooks.

2. They’re used in recent textbooks, but not as evidence for Darwinian evolution.

3. They’re used as evidence for Darwinian evolution, but it doesn’t matter because there’s lots of other evidence.

4. The drawings aren’t fake.

(Apologies to the original cracked pot defense) Dan Watts (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow how profound. You really have demonstrated that several million scientists and 150 years of work and hundreds of millions of pieces of evidence and several Nobel Prizewinners are completely wrong:[2]. And you did it by looking at some high school textbook written by some hacks. It sure shows those scientists!--Filll (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes the oft-repeated, dishonest, long-since-debunked Haeckel criticism -- exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. You can find a thorough rebuttal of this piece of Creationist trash here. Thanks for proving my point. Oh, and (1)-(4) is (i) putting words into our mouths & (ii) assuming all sorts of unproven (and for the most part fallacious) assertions. They have all the evidentiary value of a fart. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Biological evolution is criticized all the time, for scientific reasons, not for nonsense made-up fake controversies. For example, the mechanisms and the rate of evolution are controversial. I have no problem with these kinds of controversies and they are appropriate.

However, "fake" controversies like trying to introduce magic into science, or telling falsehoods about the science are annoying, particularly when they are part of an agenda to create a theocracy, and to push one particular religion over others, or to introduce religion into science. That is a totally different kettle of fish. And if you think this is reasonable, then me promoting my own agenda by force in all churches, mosques and synagogues and forcing congregations to pay for it is reasonable too.--Filll (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just read the whole section and I can't see what changes to the page are being disputed, made or suggested. Is there any comment here that has any bearing on the page itself? Otherwise we're just just chatting. WLU (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The disputed change was (back in the dark and distant past) this one. We've wandered off the topic since then. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at [3] to see what the "Creation Science" folks are doing; also I dug up their reference 6 [4]. It is a Pyrrhic victory if one dissects the two pieces of work and shows that the creationists missed the point of the Science article, failed to follow further developments (it has been cited by 45 articles on the Web of Science to date) and shows that the Creationists took the material on lungs out of context, and also ignored the millions of years of evolution that allowed the Archaeopteryx to lead to the modern bird. You can't keep up with them. On their same page, the creationists cite a discredited article on feathered dinosaurs (to scoff at) while ignoring more recent work such as in Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences Vol. 33: 277-299 (Volume publication date May 2005)(doi:10.1146/annurev.earth.33.092203.122511). They could cite the Piltdown Man hoax, too - who can keep up with it all? The problem is that while, as has been said above, Astrology has not invaded school astronomy courses, creationists are assailing science curricula. Keep up the good work, everyone, but I would just repeat that since these people only believe the Bible, they are wasting everyone's time trying to prove the Bible is right, or science is wrong. And they are dishonest if they say that science has evidence supporting the Bible. On nearby pages at [5] one sees that Adam never saw a child grow up, and the trees around him in Eden has not sprouted from seeds. (This is reader opinion, but is typical). Some trees were descendants of other trees but the ones in Eden were not. Maybe we should leave it to the courts to handle stuff like that. Carrionluggage (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam would see a child grow up... I don't know what they are talking about... Also, there is science that supports the Bible, but not all the arguments people make are correct. That is one of the problems, if one creationist makes an incorrect statement, creationism's reliability goes down. But, if an evolutionist makes an incorrect statement, then the scientific community will challenge it, and the scientist will lose reliability, but not evolution itself. If people would just start using correct arguments... RJRocket53 (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly right. When any creationist starts throwing in false and illogical arguements, all creationists become ignoramuses. But I will say that it seems like no scientists will even study creationist material or even seriously consider it. Much work has been done but no one wants to acknowledge it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.76.228 (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect in stating "no scientists will even study creationist material", as a number of scientists, from David Starr Jordan through to Russell F. Doolittle and Jeffrey Shallit (and many others) have studied creationist material, and critiqued it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

My creation theory

I dont consider myself any form of an expert but I feel my idea is agreeable and maybe some of you could prove it for me. I believe that the universe exists to prove its own existence , more to the point nothing cant exist without something to prove it. With further thought i believe in equal amounts and then that would also mean the universe is ever expanding in matter and lack of matter. Or im crazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enmc (talk • contribs) 00:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to discuss ideas or publish original research. Please do not post on the talk page unless you have a concern about the extant version of Creation science. WLU (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is completely unprofessional. It is purely a rant by non creationists. It is totally one sided, argumentative and far, FAR from a Neutral Point of View. It should be straightened up or thrown out. As it stands, it's ridiculous. Sorry, I don't have time to do it, but a lot of work has gone into nothing useful. Sky~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantrenner (talk • contribs) 05:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. This is ridiculous, and any attempt I've made to put (to the best of my ability) and unbiased view, someone cries "edit war" and reverts it back, even when my edit is completely by the rules and legitimate. If that's not conspiring, then what is? If I post something legitimate, give a good reason as to why it should be removed, or if I cite "fact", give us facts! Petrafan007 (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:DUE, WP:NPOVFAQ & WP:FRINGE. The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that Creationism lacks any scientific merit, so the article is required to give due weight to this viewpoint. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

And, talking of theories of your creation, there is a place for teaching strengths and weaknesses of such theories, but wikipedia is not the place for such novel or fringe ideas. . dave souza, talk 15:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Further, the spamming of {{fact}} tags does a disservice to the occasions where they are legitimately used. Many (most?) cases are found to be either totally unwarranted (see Hrafn's comment above) or downright mischievous and used with the intention of pursuing non-NPOV opinions. Once such a tag has been explained (often elsewhere in the same article) & removed. It is nonsensical to replace it or moan about it. TheresaWilson (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Community

This article seems to oppose creationist scientists to the scientific community in several places. Creationism, however, is part of the scientific community, even though it is not a well-accepted or mainstream part of the scientific community. Perhaps those spots should be changed to "the mainstream scientific community," just to seem less biased. ---G.T.N. (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Creationism is not a science, therefore not a part of the scientific community. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Seconding that creationism is not science, mainstream or fringe. It's an attempt to shoehorn scientific data to hypotheses which are justified by the creation myth. Any scientist in biology who is mainstream in science and publishes, does not support creationism. Physicists and medical doctors don't count. WLU (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You have to differentiate "Creationism" (religious) and "Creation Science" (science with a fundamentalist starting point). ^rossnixon 23:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither is science in my opinion, starting with a 100% unchangeable, non-empirical, non-disprovable set of assumptions is not a science by any definition I know of. So changing it to 'the mainstream scientific community' is inappropriate since it is the entire scientific community within the disciplines that matter. WLU (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, nothing much if anything can be found in "Creation Science" that shows the spirit and method of scientific inquiry. Scientists are always ready to modify or drop their assumptions or entire theories, such as the Phlogiston theory of combustion. The Creationists, under any name, are not. Look at "Answers in Genesis" to see that nothing more is done than to take (often out-of-date) scientific papers and re-interpret or misinterpret them. Carrionluggage (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Creation science is rejected by the scientific community. We have many sources making this clear, although not all are directly in this article and maybe some should be moved over here. The situation is similar to that for a variety of other fringe topics. Wikipedia makes clear what the consensus and majority opinions are per WP:NPOV's undue weight clause among other issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A scientist is one who studies science. Many people look at the world and are led to the conclusion that God created it. That is science as much as evolution is. The scientific method can not be used and is not used with either assumption. Both have to do with historical events. The data we have can be interpreted many different ways. Nobody can do an experiment to test whether evolution or creation took place or could have taken place. If science were to be strictly defined as the following the scientific method to come to conclusions about how the universe works, then neither could be considered science. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you completely ignore millions of articles, tons of observations, years of academic work, lectures out of the ying yang, then yes, there has never been an "experiment" to test evolution. This is not a forum (and neither is the C-E controversey article) for you to air your general grievences with evolution. May I suggest a different venue for that? If you want to contribute to the article, great. If not, there's the door. Baegis (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Is a biologist proclaiming on physics still a scientist? Yes. Should we give a crap what they're saying about physics? No. Would you let a geologist remove your appendix because they're a scientist? No. Relevant expertise is the point, not just 'being a scientist'. WLU (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Section Creation science#Creation science partially renamed as intelligent design

I think this section is confused. It reads like two sections were merged. The quotes given from Pandas and People don't contribute to the point that there was a "renaming", and I'm interested in what the aim was there. There's a big windup but no pitch. I propose the focus on something like "Shift to Big Tent". Describe the textbook wording changes, describe the shying away from ICR-style literalism and young earth creation science and shift to ID curriculum and how it resulted from Edwards. If quotes from Pandas and People are helpful, then can we get better examples to illustrate the renaming? I'm not sure I understand how the point taken from Matzke contributes much here, or the final paragraph in the section which seems to belong somewhere else. Is it talking about ID's big tent, or the literalist, YEC creation scientists or who? Professor marginalia (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's ugly, I agree. But the previous title gave the completely false impression that the entirety of the Creation Science movement renamed themselves ID, when in fact it was a fairly small minority of the pre-existing CS movement at the time (mainly Kenyon & some like minded Creation biologists, as far as I can tell), with a large influx that was not previously associated with Creationism. I think any title needs to convey that this was only a minority (and quite likely not a very large one). I therefore don't think that "shift" is accurate either. Would 'defection' be a better characterisation? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's my impression as well, that individuals involved in PoP made changes to their book but most creation scientists stayed put. The relationship between creation science and intelligent design is frequently overstated I think. In a purely definitional sense there's a connection. But the CS movement is highly doctrinal, for example. No big tent there. Figures such as Johnson, Dembski and Behe don't fit within the literalist/YEC/flood geology mold intricately delineated in the CS movement. More accurate to say maybe that IDers such as Johnson adopted strategic plans from lessons learned studying CS courtroom failures, same with PoP publishers when they tweaked their product to attempt to keep it marketable. (It's not unusual for textbook publishers to come to heel like this to satisfy public education regulators-education policy drives textbook content.) It would be good to describe the connections and differences between them more clearly and accurately. I'll delve into the sources I have to see how they frame the relationship. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How about titling the section 'Intelligent design splits off'? We can start off by mentioning those that were originally CS but moved on post-Edwards, and particularly Kenyon's renaming in Pandas. We then move onto the non-CS reinforcements from Johnson and the 'Ad Hoc Origins Committee' that formed to support him, which formed the basis of the 'Wedge movement'. And at some (which?) stage a number of YECs joining the movement (Paul Nelson being the most notable). However, everything after the CSers "move on" isn't directly about CS any more, so should be covered as briefly as possible. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The focus in relating ID and CS should probably concentrate on Kenyon and Thaxton. I came across this written by Numbers: "The contemporary incarnation [of ID] dates from the mid-1980s. In 1984 three Protestant scientists, Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, brought out The Mystery of Life's Origin, in which they attributed the complex process of originating life to a divine Creator. The most striking feature of their book was not its text but its foreword, contributed by Dean H. Kenyon, a Roman Catholic professor of biology at San Francisco State University and the coauthor of a major text on the chemical origins of life. Confessing that he no longer held to naturalistic evolution, Kenyon joined the authors of the book in identifying 'a fundamental flaw' in current theories about the origins of life." The "fundamental flaw" described by Kenyon was his problem with the idea of a chemically triggered primordial "origin of life" leading to the vast complexity of systems found in organisms today. Numbers goes on to say that ID coalesced into a movement proper in the mid 1990s, so maybe we can cover some of the story in the period where they (ID and CS) overlap some. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Radiometric dating

I think the whole galactic chronometer calibration [6] is a distraction, and doubt very much the article spoke to creation science - but am I wrong about that? If it doesn't, it's off topic or original research. I don't see any relevance. The difference in scale between the dates accepted by creation science (10k years) and geologists (approx 5 billion years) is so vast. Does any of the scientific tinkering to calibrate decay rate produce hypothetical values that put us within the proximity of 10K years? Of course not. So what does this research article contribute to this topic? Professor marginalia (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Electron capture can change decay rates by factors large enough (10⁹ for ¹⁸⁷Re and change Dysprosium (I think) from unstable to stable) to cover a 5 order of magnitude difference. While there has not been any similar variation seen for other decay modes, the magnitude of change measured is relevant. Dan Watts (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you present a WP:RS attesting to this happening outside a stellar interior? If not, it is largely irrelevant to the question at hand. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you posted the reference yourself. Read it. The scientists created the electronless ¹⁸⁷Re, and it was not created in a stellar interior. Dan Watts (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

We should not argue over the question of whether something is scientifically plausible or not, but on whether or not creation scientists claim it to be the case. If so, we can document their claims; if not, not. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"The scientists created the electronless ¹⁸⁷Re" -- this would be an ionised gas, i.e. a plasma, which "typically takes the form of neutral gas-like clouds (e.g. stars)" and thus are not typically observed in nature under planetary conditions (for more than the briefest of moments -- e.g. lightning strikes). They are thus likewise irrelevant for accounting for the age of rocks and fossils found on a planet. With the exception of the TalkOrigins ref, none of these references directly relate alterations of decay rates to creationist claims, and none of them whatsoever give any indication that the necessary conditions might exist for sustained periods under planetary (let alone habitable planetary) conditions -- an absolute necessity for them to be relevant. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wdanwatts-this is your argument, not an argument made in the 187Re research study. Rhenium dating techniques are just one type of radiometric decay being explored to develop age estimates, and a relatively new one on the scene. You've offered an argument, and here's mine which I've concluded from britannica. "[187Re decay] shows promise as a means of studying mantle–crust evolution but has displayed only limited potential for isotopic dating", in other words, [7] is one cherry picked study about one cherry picked radiometric scientists have long acknowledged needs much more study to use for reliable dating, and a scheme not even in wide use yet anyway. That means it just lends distracting background noise in this article about creation science. But WP:SYNTH applies here--neither your understanding of the significance to this one research study nor mine matters. Does this study directly address some claim about creation science? If not we can't use it to source a claim here. If you have sources that directly associate this study to claims made in creation science we should use those. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Such as [Creation Matters Vol 6 No.2 page 8] "They discovered that radioactive Dysprosium and Rhenium do decay up to one billion times faster" ? Would that be sufficient? Dan Watts (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that a reference to the same study? Bosh is Bosch?? Hmmm, okay. Anyway, none of it is used properly in the article. What's happened is that a claim taken from Isaak has been stretched by inserting commentary or caveat that doesn't come from Isaak and adding WP:SYNTH to Bosch. That isn't describing a controversy or making a claim, it is cobbling an argument over it. Not allowed. I'll edit appropriately. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The Answers in Genesis web page references the ¹⁸⁷Re papers as background for the RATE research. What is WP:SYNTH about this?

AiG is not a reliable source for interpretation of scientific findings. Specifically, it is not a WP:RS for claims that the cited results could render radiometric dating inaccurate. The speeding up of radioactive decay is only in terms of ionised plasmas, whereas from what I've read even the temperatures and pressures involved in the creation metamorphic rocks 'resets' the radiometric clock (as does melting the rock as magma) -- therefore these conditions would quite simply not apply to any rock being measured. Because of this, I would expect a solid scientific source linking the cited effect to radiometric dating before I would consider it something that could be added to the article. And by a member of the RATE team's own admission there are no YEC Experimental Geochronologists. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

AiG is a reliable source for the establishment of the fact that the referenced papers, which show that decay rates can change, form a basis for investigation into other possible modes of decay rate change, e.g. that radioactive decay rates are not immutable, and study of the energy/pressure parameters which define how much the decay rates can change is a (possibly) fruitful avenue of investigation. Q.E.D. Dan Watts (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a reliable source for the young earth creationist theological position on the matter, and that's it. . . dave souza, talk 17:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(bing!)Indeed, AiG is only a reliable source for what AiG believes, they're not a reliable source for anything else. The sources they cite are hard to track down, it'd be nice to see the original research they spring from. AiG is certainly not a reliable source for an accurate representation of scientific data. This should be portrayed only as AiG believes, not as a serious challenge to radiometric dating. AiG is a fringe source on a fringe topic; something as upsetting as a valid challenge to the use of radiometric dating must surely be discussed in a peer reviewed physics journal somewhere. WLU (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if one would read the references (which have been rendered invisible) the FACTS concerning ¹⁸⁷Re could be discussed. Or one could look at the on-line article referenced by Talk-Origins (always acknowledged as RS) (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/decay_rates.html) which states: "Also, a recent paper measures a 0.8% reduction in half-life for Be-7 atoms enclosed within C60 cages." (no extremes of temperature or ionization needed). Dan Watts (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

For us to review the references and say they support, or don't support the creationist argument would be original research and including them can give the impression that they do. To include the commented references is up for discussion (I'm inclined to believe they should be left out for the former reason and that they're somewhat irrelevant to the page unless they specifically and explicitly refer to creationism). The T-O reference is out - a 0.8% reduction in half-life is a far cry from a 10-fold order of magnitude change. Much like medical sources and pages, we can't use primary sources to debunk secondary. WLU (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not talking about editors being judge or jury on the merits of arguments. I am discussing adding references, used by AiG (and CRS) as background for their research, which clearly show that nuclear decay rates can change (necessary conditions and amounts variable). The references are mentioned in AiG (and CRS) papers/websites. The referenced papers are true, properly referenced, actual papers whose contents discuss measured decay rates and their constancy (or lack thereof). Perhaps I misunderstand the basis for the article. I thought that it was to clearly state/display Creation science, both as advertised by its proponents and as reviewed/deconstructed by its detractors. Where there is evidence, for either camp, show it. Please describe what in this approach is non-aligned with the policy of Wikipedia. Dan Watts (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Which makes them suitable for the radio decay page, but only in AiG's opinion does this prove or provide any evidence for young earth creationism. They aren't evidence for the creationist position, only that in certain circumstances does a radio decay rate change. Do they mention creationism? If so, they might be added. The policy they'd be out of keeping with is WP:OR, more specifically, WP:SYNTH - "AiG has claimed radio decay rates can changes AND some of the research has been discussed in reliable sources THEREFORE AiG has a point." AiG only has a point in its own opinion; we referenced that in the citation to the page. The references are in that citation, where readers can refer to them (if they can find them, they seem pretty obscure). WLU (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the basis of the "unreliable source?" tag? I looked at at least of one of the references, and the statement is an accurate representation of that source. WLU and Dan Watts (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

John Woodmorappe is a school teacher not a scientist, and his masters is in Geology, not Physics. His claims on radiometric dating has be branded as "highly inflammatory rhetoric," and "superficial treatment of data." He is not a WP:RS on this subject and his inexpert opinions should not be given WP:UNDUE weight. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I'm appended in that unreliable source comment - I could possibly see a heavily qualified statement possibly going in the article but I'm not exactly jumping all over the idea. Bosch et al. discusses reactions that are either a) going on in the heart of a star (and makes a special qualification about when Bb decay actually occurs ("The situation changes, when going from terrestrial conditions to a high temperature regime in stellar interiors where atoms are highly ionized and bb decay into deeply bound orbits becomes possible") or b) using specialized equipment to mimic these conditions (specifically, the synchrotron used in the experiment). Bosch's paper isn't support for Young Earch Creationism cosmologies. If Woodmorappe's discussion goes in the page (that's a big if, since it's giving play to the idea that a high school teacher's misinterpretation of a physics publication can somehow discredit radioactive dating), it would need to be qualified with a statement that his source material of Bosch's Physical Review Letters only discusses heavily specialized reactions which do not naturally occur on Earth. And I am inclined to agree that it is undue weight to give an unqualified misinterpretation by a high school teacher the appearance of somehow destroying the scientific basis of dating Earth and the universe. WLU (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>The confusions over how best to handle this discussion result from problems that we're having in viewing the thesis of this section, and discussion is going in circles. When a problem with a claim is labeled (ie synth or fringe), a source is found that addresses the problem but creates new ones (Undue weight or rebutting secondary sources with primary). And some of the objections raised don't matter. For example, it doesn't matter what Woodmorappe's qualifications are except in terms of his qualifications within creation science. For example, Morris's influence is such that what he said and did is relevant to creation science as a whole. If Woodmorappe is a very influential figure in the area of radiometric dating in creation science, then what he has to say on the subject may be significant to describe here. But especially since his prominence in the field is being disputed here, we need the opinions of secondary sources -- it's not getting us anywhere debating what he's argued if what he's argued isn't significant to this aspect of creation science. The sources or commentary about him I've read so far -well, it's largely self-published blog war miscellany, texts these creationism related articles rely way too much on already in my opinion. There are far superior published sources writing about creation science, and it's my feeling that unless he's mentioned somewhere in the best resources we can find on the subject of creation science then his ideas are not worth mentioning here. The section opening as it reads now is ok but thin because the source used for a general claim is a single example of a story of a single round of experiments. What would be better is to provide an overview of the kind of work is done in radiometric dating and how it is received. They do experiments as in this RATE project but there are suggestions they also engage in a lot of secondary analysis looking for anomalous findings such as the shorter half-life of certain isotopes in temperatures akin to those of star plasma (library research).Professor marginalia (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

How does one evaluate "influence" or "qualifications within creation science" objectively? Woodmorappe does not rate a mention in The Creationists and was not a member of the RATE team. That would tend to imply that he isn't a major voice. But then again, some might claim that simply having an article on the AiG website makes him an "influential figure". How do you measure 'reputation' among a bunch of often idiosyncratic, iconoclastic, fratricidal and back-biting cranks? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could ask User:Hrafn what his method is. Dan Watts (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Woodmorappe is cited as a reference in Pennock's Tower of Babel but for his feasibility analysis of depositing two of each kind of animal on the Ark, not for his analysis of radiometric dating. He's cited for three works in Isaak's The Counter-Creationism Handbook, one of them a 1979 paper on radiometrics. At least some of his work is significant to evolution supporters and critics both, it seems. I can't say much about the subject yet since I have to read up. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Tower of Babel is focused more on ideas than on people -- so would tend to cite whoever gives the clearest expression of an idea, even if they aren't particularly prominent. The Counter-Creationism Handbook cites Woodmorappe for "CD020: Consistency of radiometric dating comes from selective reporting" but not "CF210: Radiometric dating falsely assumes that rates are constant" -- which is the applicable claim. Again, this book is focused on ideas, so would tend to cite whoever gives the clearest expression of an idea. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but I think I just added to the confusion. Since Pennock doesn't discuss Woodmorappe's ideas on radiometric dating, it isn't getting us where we need to be anyway.Professor marginalia (talk) 04:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we can make something of the pattern here:

• The Creationists does not give him non-trivial (or any) mention, so he isn't a generally prominent creationist;
• Tower of Babel (our next most prominent source) does not mention him in connection with radiometric dating, so he isn't prominent on radiometric dating generally.
• The Counter-Creationism Handbook (our least prominent, but arguably most detailed, source) does not mention him with regard to "Radiometric dating falsely assumes that rates are constant" -- so he is most probably not a prominent advocate of this specific claim either.

His views, either generally, or with specificity relevant to this issue, are not given any prominence in the WP:RSs we have available, so we should not give them WP:UNDUE weight. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Woodmorappe is given somewhat more prominence on the subject in Scott's Evolution vs Creationism. Again, just digging up sources at this point but I need to read them more carefully before I judge.Professor marginalia (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Only slightly more, at least from what I could see on the Google Books/Amazon versions -- which show Scott citing Woodmorappe via an except from The Revised and Expnded Answers Book, again on the subject of consistency of radiometric dates, not variability of radioactive decay rates. The latter subject is mentioned (on p156) as being "discussed under the section 'Doubters Still Try,' above" -- but I couldn't find that section. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh -- this was another excerpt, and the 'Doubters Still Try' section wasn't included. Here is the relevant part of it from the original (Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective, Dr. Roger C. Wiens):

Doubters Still Try

Some doubters have tried to dismiss geologic dating with a sleight of hand by saying that no rocks are completely closed systems (that is, that no rocks are so isolated from their surroundings that they have not lost or gained some of the isotopes used for dating). Speaking from an extreme technical viewpoint this might be true--perhaps 1 atom out of 1,000,000,000,000 of a certain isotope has leaked out of nearly all rocks, but such a change would make an immeasurably small change in the result. The real question to ask is, "is the rock sufficiently close to a closed system that the results will be same as a really closed system?" Since the early 1960s many books have been written on this subject. These books detail experiments showing, for a given dating system, which minerals work all of the time, which minerals work under some certain conditions, and which minerals are likely to lose atoms and give incorrect results. Understanding these conditions is part of the science of geology. Geologists are careful to use the most reliable methods whenever possible, and as discussed above, to test for agreement between different methods.

Some people have tried to defend a young Earth position by saying that the half-lives of radionuclides can in fact be changed, and that this can be done by certain little-understood particles such as neutrinos, muons, or cosmic rays. This is stretching it. While certain particles can cause nuclear changes, they do not change the half-lives. The nuclear changes are well understood and are nearly always very minor in rocks. In fact the main nuclear changes in rocks are the very radioactive decays we are talking about.

There are only three quite technical instances where a half-life changes, and these do not affect the dating methods we have discussed.

1. Only one technical exception occurs under terrestrial conditions, and this is not for an isotope used for dating. According to theory, electron-capture is the most likely type of decay to show changes with pressure or chemical combination, and this should be most pronounced for very light elements. The artificially-produced isotope, beryllium-7 has been shown to change by up to 1.5%, depending on its chemical environment (Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 171, 325-328, 1999; see also Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 195, 131-139, 2002). In another experiment, a half-life change of a small fraction of a percent was detected when beryllium-7 was subjected to 270,000 atmospheres of pressure, equivalent to depths greater than 450 miles inside the Earth (Science 181, 1163-1164, 1973). All known rocks, with the possible exception of diamonds, are from much shallower depths. In fact, beryllium-7 is not used for dating rocks, as it has a half-life of only 54 days, and heavier atoms are even less subject to these minute changes, so the dates of rocks made by electron-capture decays would only be off by at most a few hundredths of a percent.

2. Physical conditions at the center of stars or for cosmic rays differ very greatly from anything experienced in rocks on or in the Earth. Yet, self-proclaimed "experts" often confuse these conditions. Cosmic rays are very, very high-energy atomic nuclei flying through space. The electron-capture decay mentioned above does not take place in cosmic rays until they slow down. This is because the fast-moving cosmic ray nuclei do not have electrons surrounding them, which are necessary for this form of decay. Another case is material inside of stars, which is in a plasma state where electrons are not bound to atoms. In the extremely hot stellar environment, a completely different kind of decay can occur. ' Bound-state beta decay' occurs when the nucleus emits an electron into a bound electronic state close to the nucleus. This has been observed for dysprosium-163 and rhenium-187 under very specialized conditions simulating the interior of stars (Phys. Rev. Lett., 69, 2164-2167; Phys. Rev. Lett., 77, 5190-5193, 1996). All normal matter, such as everything on Earth, the Moon, meteorites, etc. has electrons in normal positions, so these instances never apply to rocks, or anything colder than several hundred thousand degrees.

As an example of incorrect application of these conditions to dating, one young-Earth proponent suggested that God used plasma conditions when He created the Earth a few thousand years ago. This writer suggested that the rapid decay rate of rhenium under extreme plasma conditions might explain why rocks give very old ages instead of a young-Earth age. This writer neglected a number of things, including: a) plasmas only affect a few of the dating methods. More importantly, b) rocks and hot gaseous plasmas are completely incompatible forms of matter! The material would have to revert back from the plasma state before it could form rocks. In such a scenario, as the rocks cooled and hardened, their ages would be completely reset to zero as described in previous sections. If this person's scenario were correct, instead of showing old ages, all the rocks should show a uniform ~4,000 year age of creation. That is obviously not what is observed.

3. The last case also involves very fast-moving matter. It has been demonstrated by atomic clocks in very fast spacecraft. These atomic clocks slow down very slightly (only a second or so per year) as predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity. No rocks in our solar system are going fast enough to make a noticeable change in their dates.

These cases are very specialized, and all are well understood. None of these cases alter the dates of rocks either on Earth or other planets in the solar system. The conclusion once again is that half-lives are completely reliable in every context for the dating of rocks on Earth and even on other planets. The Earth and all creation appears to be very ancient.

I think this is spot-on relevant, and should be mentioned in the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The Evolution Creationism handbook selects certain key passages from creationist works as exemplars of the issues to be examined. In both works cited about the radiometric dating (one by Morris and the other apparently a compendium edited by Don Batten, Ken Ham and others) Woodmorappe's work is described. I don't think the Re isotopes warrant special mention--it seems most of his work fits the pattern of taking scientific research and drawing his own conclusions from the findings, and arguing that scientists are biased against their own results if they don't fit the old-earth paradigm. The section in its present state is a little overeager. First say what they do and say, then describe the challenges against it, and their experiments are just one approach. The Morris text used in E vs C gives a good outline maybe. To boil it down, there is no radiometric dating method in creation science. The work they do is dedicated to debunking radiometric dating by trying to demonstrate the assumptions required in estimating dates through the radiometric measurements are invalid, "None are provable, testable, or even reasonable" in Morris's words. The work they do seems designed to bolster that one claim, that the assumptions aren't valid. The assumption Woodmorappe apparently thought debunked by the ¹⁸⁷Re study was that the isotope decay rates can be assumed to be constant.Professor marginalia (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Anti-radiometric dating arguments seem to come in two flavours:

1. The 'fast radioactive decay' argument which is what RATE (including Humphreys), the Woodmorappe AiG article and the Wiens article are about. This argument is covered fairly well by the article (though could probably do with some copy-editing for cohesion). Given that the article already has a RATE team member cited, I don't think this issue needs Woodmorappe's testimony on the issue.
2. The 'radiometric dating is unreliable/gives conflicting results' argument, which isn't covered as yet -- and thus could do with some work.

Incidentally, this (and the Creation-evolution controversy article) should probably have a summarised version of this, with the more detailed version going in Creation geophysics. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Issues

Requested quote page 352 upper left column:

Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper¹⁹ described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside of empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more scepticism about many of its tenets. In population biology, more work is needed in elucidating the general properties of populations ... without reference to dogmas or guesses about how these may have evolved. First we need answers to questions such as (1) How frequently do populations become extinct in nature? (2) ...? Then we can see how the answers fit into the modern synthesis.

¹⁹ Popper, K. R., Fed. Proc., 22, 661 (1963)

Dan Watts (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

This does not support the statement that Birch also promulgated the position "that on the subject of origins, scientific evolution is a religious theory which cannot be validated by science". "Dogma" can mean "something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet" as well as " a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church", and there is no indication that Birch was using it in the religious sense -- in fact the phrase "dogmas or guesses" seems to contraindicate this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, a Google search for this quote shows up mainly on Creationist websites ... and lo and behold it also turns up in the Quote Mine Project here. Your quotation leaves out less of the context than most of the creationist sites do, but it is clear from the QMP listing that they are only talking about some "very specific assertions about specific animals in specific locations" -- not the theory of evolution as a whole. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Birch and Ehrich's words from the same article:

Some biologists claim that an understanding of the evolutionary history of organisms is a prerequisite to any comprehension of ecology. We believe that this notion is having the effect of sheltering large areas of population biology from the benefits of rigorous thought. It is clear that the phylogenic origins of an organism ... may be of great interest, and that the elucidation of such origins is a legitimate subject for investigation and speculation. We contend, however that such ... speculation is not required for many studies of ecology and taxonomy. Indeed, since the level of speculation (rather than investigation) is inevitably high in phylogenetics ... a preoccupation with the largely unknown past can be shown to be a positive hindrance to progress.

This doesn't sound like they are limiting their words to specific animals in specific locations. Would you expect those commited to the viewpoint of evolution to propose scuttling the whole thing? Dan Watts (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A rebuttal to the creationists' interpretation of Ehrich and Birch, which expounds on what Hrafn just said, can be found here:

• Hutcheson, Peter (1986), "Evolution and Testability", Creation/Evolution, 6 (2)

Cheers, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no, I do not have access to the full article. However, I do have access to the summary of the article [8]:

While accepting evolutionary theory, should ecologists be more sceptical about hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past ? The authors put forward the view that many ecologists underestimate the efficacy of natural selection and fail to distinguish between phylogenetic and ecological questions.

This completely contradicts the conclusion you are trying to twist out of the above quotes. Specifically that Birch and Ehrlich "[maintain] that on the subject of origins, scientific evolution is a religious theory which cannot be validated by science." On the contrary, this misinterpretation seems completely to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I suggest removing the sentence completely from the article. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunate. Perhaps my latest edit is more in line with their statements. Dan Watts (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I would argue also that Hutcheson addresses both paragraphs that you cite. He quotes the first one specifically. He does not quote the second one, but he does address the overall context of all of these quotes:

What are these untestable historical hypotheses? They are very specific assertions about specific animals in specific locations. One example is about the ancestral habitat of the British great tit, Parus major. Another is about competition in the past between two species of birds on the Canary Islands, Fringella coelebs and Fringella coerulea (p. 350). The point is that these hypotheses are about specific details of evolutionary history. These hypotheses are quite peripheral. They are not fundamental propositions in the theory of evolution. They are not even relatively important to the theory as a whole but represent only some sloppy work on the part of some ecologists. The untestability of these speculations about very specific details, therefore, does not imply that fundamental or relatively important propositions of evolutionary theory are untestable. In fact, such propositions as "More complex lifeforms have developed out of simpler ones" and "Dinosaurs existed and became extinct long before modern humans came into existence" are testable. The evidence could disconfirm them, but it simply does not. No doubt Ehrlich and Birch recognize this, which is why they recommend that evolutionary theory be retained.

--Hutcheson, p. 7. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also suggest a closer examination of the paragraph that Wdanwatts is basing his argument upon. It states:

Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper¹⁹ described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside of empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.

I have emphasised "part of an", because the author is clearly distinguishing between criticising a part versus the whole of the accepted body of evolutionary knowledge ("part of") and between "an" alternative formulations of it rather than anything fundamental to it (which would have been expressed with the definitive article "the"). This supports the TO/QMP assertion that Birch was only criticising specific parts (the "hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past"), rather than the body of evolutionary knowledge as a whole. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, "hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past" is another way they (Birch and Ehrlich) describe "evolutionary dogma." Is their use of the latter phrase ambiguous? It appears (to me) to be on-topic concerning Gish's position

[O]n the subject of origins, scientific evolution is a religious theory ....

and is a similar position, being "a positive hindrance to progress". It is curious that Hutcheson did not directly address the first paragraph in Birch and Ehrlich's paper (the second quote that I posted). Dan Watts (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Birch and Ehrlich do not "describe 'evolutionary dogma'" -- they describe a specific evolutionary dogma (an evolutionary dogma") -- one that includes specific "hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past" (as listed below).

Does Gish discuss:

• the ancestral habitat of the British great tit, Parus major
• competition in the past between two species of birds on the Canary Islands, Fringella coelebs and Fringella coerulea
• or any of the other specific examples Birch & Ehrlich are discussing?

If not, then Gish is not describing the same thing.

In any case, your conclusion that they are similar (or even my more accurate one that they are dissimilar -- so I'll remove it) is WP:SYNTH, lacking a WP:RS stating the similarity. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Creation Science

The article says; "Creation science or scientific creationism is the movement within creationism which attempts to use scientific means to disprove the accepted scientific facts and theories on the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution and prove the Genesis account of creation.[1] " However, I'm not happy with the lead. If scientific evidence exists which disproves the theory of evolution (or hinders it), would it be classed as Creation science? I mean, Creation science is quite a new term for me. There is either science that supports creationism, or science that doesn't. Perhaps we shpuld think about creating a new article called "Scientific evidence for Creationism". Whadya say? Refreshments (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Creation science is a specific term used by its proponents in various creationist laws which have been overturned in the courts, and as such is a significant part of modern "creationism". Note that it's associated with YEC rather than OEC. . dave souza, talk 18:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's a proper name of sorts, in real use. The wording in the lead sentence above is sourced, and it was agreed upon for use for the lead after considerable thought and input from many editors. When you ask, "If scientific evidence exists which disproves the theory of evolution (or hinders it), would it be classed as Creation science," it's important to remember the encyclopedia doesn't decide these questions. We just report the views and claims made by authoritative published sources. So the answer to this hypothetical "would it be classed as creation science?" would be, yes only if or when solid authoritative sources class it this way, and no if or when they don't.Professor marginalia (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I disagree. Scientific evidence that supports Creationism to some extent, exists in all scientific fields, and that's the sort that I want to bring to the attention of this encyclopedia Refreshments (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you disagree with me about, but it's important to know that the wikipedia isn't a place to publish new arguments for or against topics; it's a core policy here that all the claims made in the articles are already put forth by authorities of a sort on the subject and published in reliable sources. It's very likely the subject of scientific defense of creationism is already covered on the wikipedia. Take a look at the topics listed here Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy#Creationism under Young earth creationism for some of the topics already explored in some depth. And this article has an overview Creation_science#Areas_of_study where the notable science topics covered by creation scientists would belong.Professor marginalia (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no verifiable evidence in reliable sources that "Scientific evidence that supports Creationism" exists. As such, the question of what title it should go under is entirely moot. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

And now a new editor (Petrafan007) has added a fact tag[9] to the sentence in the lead stating that CS is not scientific (last sentence of para 1). I suggest that the relevant sources are to be primarily found in the section Creation_science#Scientific_criticism, and that Petrafan007 is possibly unaware of the summary aspect of the leads of articles. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If a citation is needed for this point somewhere in the article, I'd suggest this Amicus Curiae brief from Edwards v. Aguillard. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Understood. --Petrafan007 (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. See #"The scientific community has overwhelmingly rejected ... creation science" & related issues below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'd caution all new editors to this page to actually read the policies being cited in support of this ridiculously biased article. You'll find they don't say what people claim they say. There is nothing in WP:NPOV that permits us to call something pseudoscience as fact because a particular "reliable source" says it is so. WP policy permits us to call something pseudoscience only if it has no following within the scientific community. CS, of course, has a following among scientists, and therefore may not be called pseudoscience according to WP policy. Unfortunately, there are a large number of editors willing to flagrantly violate the rules in this case, for some as-yet-unexplained reason. Ungtss (talk) 06:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC) WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience: "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." You can likewise find "a following among scientists" for alien abductions and that Elvis lives -- that does not make either claim scientific. Now kindly stop these WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT repetitions. Ample ironclad sourcing has been provided that CS isn't science. Unless and until sources of similar weight can be provided for the contention that CS is science, further assertions of this viewpoint will be archived, userfied and/or deleted, per WP:TALK#Others' comments "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article". HrafnTalkStalk 09:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC) First, your quote says pseudoscience may have a "following" but does not say that pseudoscience may have a "following among the scientific community." In fact, any idea that has a "following among the scientific community" is an alternate theoretical formulation by definition. It's right there in the policy. Second, I'd like evidence supporting your claim that there's a following among scientists for alien abductions and elvis sighting. Third, that "ironclad sourcing" you reference is simply POV from sources you find particularly credible. But of course, WP does not take credible POV as fact -- it reports POV as POV. So no, you're wrong on all counts. Not that that matters -- this article is a testament to ignorance and I don't see that changing anytime soon. I just don't want new users to be fooled into believing that you're telling the truth about NPOV policy. People need to know the problem lies not with WP policy, but with failure to enforce WP policy on creationism articles. Ungtss (talk) 12:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC) You have not established that CS has a "following among the scientific community" in any meaningful way. By stating "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" the bar is clearly set below unanimity. The "alien abductions and that Elvis lives" were merely chosen as semi-random examples. Statistically, the chances are high that you'll find at least one scientist who believes something, no matter how absurd. I have not known any Elvis lives scientists, I will admit -- but I did have an Information Science lecturer who believed in alien visitations. Just because a scientist believes it does not make it science -- it only becomes (at least provisionally) science if a a scientist can put together sufficient evidence to satisfy a respectable peer-reviewed scientific journal. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has a "following among the scientific community" -- but that does not make it "an alternate theoretical formulation". Per "ironclad sourcing" -- read WP:RS, WP:FRINGE & stop making tendentious arguments. As I have stated above, I have had enough of your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This thread has become unproductive, so I am archiving it per WP:TALK. Please do not reopen this subject unless and until you can come up with acceptable WP:RS to back up your claims. Per your demand, here are reliable sources documenting the existence of scientists who ascribe to CS, which means that there is a "following within the scientific community," and that according to WP:NPOV, it is an alternate theoretical construct, not pseudoscience. [10] [11] Your claim that "statistically" there must be scientists who believe Elvis is alive or that alien abductions occur is wp:OR which you have not backed up with reliable sources. The flying spaghetti monster has a following as a parody -- no scientist honestly believes. You are just playing games. Over and over and over again, your claims are patently false. Ungtss (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC) There is no serious contention that the acceptance of evolution and rejection of YEC are nearly universal in the scientific community. The United States National Academy of Sciences has written a book detailing its rejection of creationism, numerous national scientific bodies in the United States have joined the AAAS, Project Steve has already overwhelmed the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism and so on. Please see Level of support for evolution. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Those facts are irrelevant to the NPOV rules. Under the pseudoscience rules, CS is not pseudoscience -- it is an alternate theoretical formulation, because it has a following within the scientific community. Beyond that, NPOV requires that POVs be attributed, not stated as fact. Something this article doesn't even try to do. Ungtss (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC) No, it really, really does not have a following in the scientific community. At all. No serious scientist actually has attempted to present any version of "God Did It" as science. Yet it has "science" in the very name - hence, pseudoscience. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Majority of Scientists

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. See #"The scientific community has overwhelmingly rejected ... creation science" & related issues below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is a statement under beliefs and activities, which is completely out of context from the title, that says, "The scientific community has overwhelmingly rejected the ideas put forth in creation science as lying outside the boundaries of a legitimate science.". The reference leads to publication that is clearly evolution-biased, and does not mention with a reference to an actual poll or study neither does it qualify as an authority of consensus as to what the "majority" of scientists believe. Someone, please either add references or remove this statement. Petrafan007 (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC) See my post above. (Why DID you start a new section?) KillerChihuahua?!? 21:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

"The scientific community has overwhelmingly rejected ... creation science" & related issues

To say that I am heartily sick of this is an understatement.

1. The article was already referenced to a reliable, authoritative source on this point.
2. I have just added a further weighty source on this (from the SCOTUS case where CS was determined unconstitutional to be taught in public schools no less). I have also added a see-also to a list of rejections of ID (that also frequently include rejections of Creationism more generally).
3. As stated in a thread above, this will not be reopened without WP:RSes establishing some degree of substantive acceptance for CS from the scientific community. For the avoidance of doubt (and for the illumination of Ungtss):
   1. Blogs are seldom RSes, per WP:RS#Self-published sources
   2. Creationist organisations are never RSes for the scientific consensus, per WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources
   3. Creationist blogs are never RSes, except for the views and opinions (which need to be weighted per WP:UNDUE) of their writers.

I am putting both Ungtss & Petrafan007 on formal notice that their WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on this point is WP:DE, and if they continue they will be subject to being blocked. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No evidence of "substantive"/non-tiny-minority acceptance, therefore more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (equivalent phrasing in WP:ARB/PS is "generally considered" -- which does not require unanimity)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Response: 1) Weighty POVs are still POVs, and need to be treated as such. 2) I have linked to a published book written by scientists, and a link to the list of board members of the CRS.[12] [13] No blogs; no CS sources for scientific consensus. So you're speaking irrelevantly. Reliable sources showing a scientific following for creationism, which takes it outside the definition of pseudoscience for purposes of WP. 3) Your "formal notice" is hollow. I have committed no blockable offense. I suppose intimidation like this is what keeps this article in such a state of screed. Ungtss (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC) More blatant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from Ungtss: Re "Weighty POVs are still POVs, and need to be treated as such." -- read WP:DUE. Now read it again. You clearly have no comprehension of it. Re "I have linked to a published book written by scientists" -- see #5 below. Re "No blogs" -- http://worldsareapart.wordpress.com/2007/06/15/creation-vs-evolution-why-50-scientists-choose-to-believe-in-creation/ wordpress=blog Re "no CS sources for scientific consensus" -- you cited a CRS link in reponse to a demand for RSs on the scientific community's acceptance/rejection of CS. Regardless, that a tiny handful of explicitly religiously motivated (see the CRS's statement of belief) individuals, some of whom happen to have scientific degrees, happen to believe something has no bearing whatsoever on what is "generally considered" by the "scientific community". HrafnTalkStalk 07:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC) I would further request that Ungtss cease and desist conflating wikt:consensus with wikt:unanimity by attempting to present evidence of a small handful of creationist scientists as in some way contradicting the existence of a scientific consensus rejecting CS. Their attempts to do so are tendentious in the extreme. HrafnTalkStalk 07:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC) 1. This is not a question relevant to WP:Due. WP:Due applies in cases such as "Article about Earth. Tiny minority believes Earth is flat. Tiny minority should not be mentioned." In this case, the article is about creation science. It is not a question of whether to mention it -- that ship has sailed. It's a question of whether we describe it accurately, or using strawmen. 2. That was a link to a reference for a book.[14] Not blog qua blog. 3. No, I linked to CRS as evidence that creationism has a following within the scientific community. It is entirely relevant toward that end. 4. What is "generally considered by the scientific community" is not fact. Ungtss (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC) Unnumbered. I am not conflating anything. I am not arguing about scientific consensus -- I am arguing that CS has a following within the scientific community. And it does, per the references. QED. Ungtss (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC) "Tiny minority" = Ungtss's 50 Scientists + CRS Directors. WP:DUE clearly applies and we can ignore their opinions. Then cite the book, not the blog entry. See #1. Anyway, their statement of beliefs clearly indicate that CRS is part of the Christian apologetics community, not the scientific community. See #1 AGAIN! It is not stated as fact -- only for the scientific community's expert opinion that "it has never been recognized by or accepted ... as a valid scientific method of inquiry." So please stop this dishonest "not fact" bait and switch. "Unnumbered" -- see #1 AGAIN! I would note that Ungtss's claims ignore my demand for evidence of "substantive acceptance [i.e. NOT that simply of a tiny minority] for CS from the scientific community". I therefore consider his comments to be made in bad faith. HrafnTalkStalk 08:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Peace.

Going from bad to worse. Talk pages are not for ranting.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well at least new users have had the chance to see how policies are being distorted out of recognition to order to support this nonsense. Personally, I don't mind how poor the article is -- any rational person is going to see through it and start looking for answers elsewhere. Just want folks to know that the problem is not WP policy, but certain users who want WP Policy to be something other than it is and will do anything they can to avoid uncomfortable reality. Peace. Ungtss (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC) ROFLMAO -- how hilariously WP:POT of you Ungtss. It is your position that is nonsensical and, to put it bluntly, nothing but a religiously motivated fantasy. Any "rational person" will compare the overwhelming weight of qualified scientific opinion versus the small band of generally unqualified and misqualified charlatans, with an obvious theological axe to grind, and wonder what the hades you're blathering about, and what possible basis in policy you think you have for pushing their POV. You wouldn't know reality if it bit you on the arse. I am glad you have decided to stop your ill-considered disruption here, but will not allow your slander against this article to go unchallenged. HrafnTalkStalk 09:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC) You've got to be kidding me. You are so biased it makes me sick. I don't get how biased people get to be moderators of such a disputed topic. Petrafan007 (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC) The above comment beautifully demonstrates the deepseating feelings motivating User:Hrafn's refusal to apply WP:NPOV to this article. Ungtss (talk) 10:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC) Ungtss, you really don't seem to have grasped Neutral point of view policy which has specific requirements for NPOV: Pseudoscience, avoiding giving it NPOV: Undue weight or NPOV: Giving "equal validity", while NPOV: Making necessary assumptions about the validity of mainstream science. At the same time we must also avoid original research by being careful to provide a verifiable source for facts and for assessments, opinions or analysis of these facts. Questionable sources like those you seem to be advocating have to be treated with care. . dave souza, talk 11:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC) Yes. Now let's apply those rules to the article. 1) The opening sentence is WP:OR, as it defines CS differently than the cite linked. The cite is in fact much more accurate than the original research WP definition, but not anti-creationist enough to be used. 2) The opening paragraphs are a combination of original research and POV, as they selectively choose sources that are anti-creationism. WP:undue weight does not apply, as this is a case where the "minority view" is the subject of the article, and therefore must be discussed. However, the view is not discussed with reference to cites from its proponents. Rather, only views critical of that view are discussed. That is, by definition, POV. 3) The article categorizes CS as pseudoscience, despite the fact that it has a "following in the scientific community," and is therefore an "alternate theoretical formulation" per WP:PS. What you just read is an instance of applying rules to facts, rather than simply throwing rules around without showing how they apply to the facts. Ungtss (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC) On point (1), which was already refuted in an earlier thread several times, the citation for the definition of creation science is not "much more accurate" than the article. It is, in fact, less accurate because it does not include creation geophysics or flood geology, both of which are subsets of creation science. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Definition/tenets of Creation Science

As certain individuals seem intent on re-arguing the definition in the lead, I have quoted the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act" tenets in full later in the article. I would note that the lead definition's citations include the passage from The Creationists quoting these tenets. I believe that this fully supports the (more summarised) definition in the lead, and that WP:OR concerns can be seen to be without any basis whatsoever. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It turns out that this material was already in 'Court determinations', so I've removed my duplication of it. Either way, the lead definition is well-sourced. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

1960s or 1970s?

I think part of the history section is a bit whiggish. Why would there have been a movement to teach scientific creationism in the classroom prior to the 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas decision? According to this timeline (published by the People for the American Way), the movement to teach so-called "creation science" in schools began in 1970 when, in reaction to Epperson, Nell Segraves founded the Creation Science Research Center. Could someone with handy access to Numbers please verify the details?

Specifically, I think the last sentence of the Twentieth century creationism section should be deleted ("Soon after its publication, a movement was underway to have the subject taught in United States' public schools.") The Epperson case needs to be discussed more thoroughly, since this was the pinnacle event which necessitated the introduction of "creation science" into the creationists' polemic. More should also obviously be said about the reaction to Epperson. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

According to Numbers (p 271), creationists anticipated Epperson v. Arkansas before it happened, given the prevailing judicial climate. They could have anticipated it at least since the case started in 1965. Also, as it was only a state law, Evolution could (and was) be taught in other states (especially California, where Segraves was) -- which would have led to a desire to create a creationist alternative to 'balance' the science classes. Numbers isn't too strong on exact chronology, however. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

CS was really out in the open in the 1970s, but its history predates that. The Genesis Flood started the momentum in 1961, and the 1966 Segraves petition could be considered part of this (her co-petitioner had strong CS ties), and E v. A very much pushed things into full-on in 1968. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)