Talk:Creation science/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Lacks Empirical support?

So does evolution, and it would seem to me that it's either evolution or creation, and considering the miniscule chances that macroevolution ever actually happened and the lack of any conclusive evidence that it did, this seems the more likely theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.242.184 (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Note to other editors - I've posted a messgae on anon's talk page referring them to Talk:Evolution/FAQ and asking that they review before posting more comments. So let's not bother debating this one. WLU (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me why viewing all of creation in it's complexity is not good enough for empirical evidence (by just observation alone) as proof of a creator? And if, as an experiment, I created new life, wouldn't this be proof of intelligent design in the first place? And doesn't the 1st law of thermodynamics show us that it is impossible to create or destroy matter, which means you can't get something from nothing? Petrafan007 (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't cross-post. This is also posted to Talk:Intelligent design. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That would constitute original research ;-) Anyway, we have references that are beyond reproach, such as an official publication of the United States National Academy of Sciences, that Creation science lacks empirical support. And the NAS carries much more WP:WEIGHT on Wikipedia than User:Petrafan007 does. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for the subtle condescending attitude. Just because they say it lacks empirical evidence doesn't mean it does if they can't answer the fundamental questions that I asked "beyond reproach". They can give answers but they are all theories...especially the origins of life and the big bang (which many forget are theories), yet so many people blindly accept it as truth. The real problem I have? Definitions. If you can change the definition of something, you can make it fit whatever answer you want. Good example? Evolution. The problem with creationists is that they blindly think that all evolution has been disproved (when micro evolution has been proven). The problem with evolutionists is they blindly think that all evolution has been proved. Such is a recipe for disaster and confusion, which is what is currently at hand. Petrafan007 (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they're both POVs -- and while Petrafan's POV probably can't be cited for the contrary opinion, there are scores of creationist scientists who could be. But of course WP has decided that the CS POV is wrong, and that the NAS POV is right, and that's the end of the story. Ungtss (talk) 20:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The NAS is a much more reliable source for ascertaining the scientific consensus than "scores of creation scientists" that you could cite. But, whatever. Maybe we should just agree with the score or so scientists that think the Earth is hollow or other such nonsense. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The thing about NPOV is that all we need to do is say what's been said, and by whom it has been said. The reader can judge for themselves whether the NAS or the CRS/ICR/BSG is more credible, based on the facts and arguments made by both. Ungtss (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an absurd conclusion. Fringe groups like the ICR are not suitable sources for determining the scientific consensus. NPOV demands that we present all significant viewpoints in proportion to their weight. It specifically does not say that sources should be given equal validity. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 21:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The policy you're citing says "we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers;" This article is taking a stand on the issue. That is why the article violates NPOV. I'm not talking about equal weight. I'm talking about the article assuming a POV. Ungtss (talk) 21:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The article should indicate that the scientific consensus is against creation science. This is not "taking a stand" but is presenting the material with a neutral point of view, in full compliance with policy. Perhaps you have a more specific example of how you believe this article "takes a stand"? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

1 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.

The citation, though, says this: "Most creationists are simply people who choose to believe that God created the world-either as described in Scripture or through evolution. Creation scientists, by contrast, strive to use legitimate scientific means both to disprove evolutionary theory and to prove the creation account as described in Scripture." If the article actually reflected the quote from the cite, it would be accurate. Instead, however, it puts its own spin on the topic -- that the purpose of CS is to "disprove accepted theories." Who said that? Not CS, certainly. Not even the cited ref. Only us.

2 Its most vocal proponents are fundamentalist and conservative Christians in the United States who seek to prove Biblical inerrancy and mount a challenge against the scientifically accepted theory of evolution.[2]

This states the POV of the cite as truth.

3 While creation science purports to be a true scientific challenge to the theory of evolution, often referred to by creation science proponents as Darwinism or as Darwinian evolution, it has never been recognized by or accepted within the scientific community as a valid scientific method of inquiry.

This statement is uncited OR. It's also not true, as a number (albeit a small number) of scientists do recognize it as a valid method of inquiry. But they don't count, of course.

4 Until the 1970s, creation science drew little notice beyond the schools and congregations of conservative fundamental and evangelical Christians.

Again with the uncited, untrue original research. There have been scientists who interpretted physical evidence in the context of creationism since the days of Aristotle. Ungtss (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Another response:

"This states the POV of the cite as truth." Hmmmm... You could make that statement about every statement of fact that provides a citation used to back up the statement. In other words the phrase "This states the POV of the cite as truth" is merely an empty rhetorical trick.

"This statement is uncited OR." Okay, if you really think that's the real problem, then it should be fixed by providing an appropriate citation. Here's one, for example: Voices for Evolution, 3rd Ed. (edited by Carrie Sager, National Center for Science Education, 2008), which lists dozens of professional science organizations and professional science educations organizations official statements about "scientific creationism".

"It's also not true, as a number (albeit a small number) of scientists do recognize it as a valid method of inquiry. But they don't count, of course." While there certainly are scientists (people who conduct genuine and professional scientific research), the fact of the matter of is that while they "recognize" (i.e., advocate) that "creation science" is a "valid method of inquiry", when it comes to such "creation science" they themselves abandon the methods of genuine scientific research. In regard to their genuine scientific research - i.e., scientific work they have conducted that they have formally prepared and published in professional peer-reviewed science journals which meets the basic standards of science - they are scientists, but unfortunately for them this research, which really is scientific research, is not relevant to their beliefs in young earth creationism. (For example, I know of a young earth creationist in, if I remember correctly, Singapore, who is promoted as a scientist who is a young earth creationist. Of course, he is a scientist because of his medical research on cancer.) This 'people who are scientists believe in young earth creationism, therefore young earth creationism is scientific' is thus seen as nothing more than another rhetorical shell game. That they "recognize [young earth creationism] as [scientific]" doesn't count, precisely because of the fact that they are not producing genuine scientific research meeting the basic standards of science. Saying it's scientific is one thing, while demonstrating it's scientific is another. The wikipedia article is pointing out the fact that "scientific creationism" does not meet the latter standard. Pointing out that it meets the former and pretending that that's the same thing as the latter isn't going to fly.

Greeneto (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Responses:

1. I take issue with the correctness of the citation, and think that the article's version is actually a more accurate reflection of creation science. In particular, creation science does not just involve the life sciences, but also geology (as in flood geology), cosmology, and nuclear physics. If the issue with the sentence is that evolution, etc., are not "accepted scientific theories", then see the above thread and below: I'm not going to rehash it all here.

2. This is an assertion of a matter of fact, and it is sourced to a book written by a Pulitzer Prize winning historian of science, who is an expert in the history of the creation-evolution controversy. This is a reliable and authoritative source on the history of creation science. Other sources can also be given, including the amicus curiae brief to Edwards v. Aguillard.

3. As already indicated in this thread and elsewhere, there is a truly overwhelming number of high quality sources for this.

4. True. But the modern movement of "creation science/scientific creationism" started in the 60s and 70s. This is at least discussed in the historical portion of the article, and as such does not need a cite in the lead. The sentence should probably be clarified and made into a more reasonable summary of the relevant section of the article.

--siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Responses:

1. Your stated opinion is WP:OR.

2. It is an opinion about the motives of others, and as such is not verifiable. Such a statement would not be admissible at a trial -- the objection would be "calls for speculation." It's amazing to me how willingly "fact" and "opinion from a source I find credible" are used interchangeably.

3. If there are so many sources, then why isn't the statement sourced? Perhaps because it's not demonstrably untrue. Mendel, the father of creationism, was a monk and a creationist. Even Darwin wrote that life was originally breathed by its creator into one or several forms. Francis Crick, who discovered the structure of DNA, advocated directed panspermia, a form of intelligent design.

4. Thanks. Ungtss (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Responses to Ungtss:

1. So by your definition, flood geology and Robert Gentry's radiohalos are not forms of creation science? Interesting point of view. My suggestion is that we should find a better definition in the literature which at least includes the subjects it ought to. This isn't original research, but rather pointing out deficiencies in the cited source. Most sources on creation science (regardless of the POV of the source) consider flood geology and radiohalos to be part of creation science. I see that another source to Ronald Numbers has been added to the statement in question (it's about time!), but I don't have access to the source. If you would like to develop consensus for removing these things from the definition, then I suggest that you start a new thread detailing the reasons for it. Nothing productive is going to come of this mish-mash style of debating.

2. Since it is obviously verifiable whether someone is a fundamentalist Christian, I can only assume you are taking issue with the latter half of the statement "...seek to prove Biblical inerrancy and mount a challenge against the scientifically accepted theory of evolution." As you say, this is an opinion about the motives of others. But I fail to see how the motivations of others are not verifiable: Courts make such decisions on a daily basis, and what they do is more than opinion and guesswork. The current statement, sourced to an eminent historian of science (whose expertise in the history of creation science is not under question), is also one of the two chief points of the Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court judicial decision. Are there other sources of a similarly high quality (Pulitzer Winning historian of science and a Supreme Court decision) that assert that the agenda of creation science is not religious?

3. See Hrafn's reply below, and the discussion all over this page. References aplenty have already been given, but obviously you didn't notice at the time.

--siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Since you did not state what definition of mine would exclude those aspects of CS, I have no idea what you're talking about. The problem with the article's lead sentence is that it defines CS as trying 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." Who says they're trying to disprove accepted facts? Which facts? The cite doesn't say. CS advocates would disagree. That's WP:OR.

2. You are confusing fact and POV. Just because a person you find credible states a POV does not make the POV fact. It makes it a POV that must be attributed to a particular person, so the reader can determine whether the source is credible. Anything that includes a value judgment or an interpretation of verifiable facts is by definition POV.

3. Maybe it's not a case of "I didn't hear that" but a case of "His arguments are no good, and here's why." Ungtss (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Responses:

1. Well, I said "In particular, creation science does not just involve the life sciences, but also geology (as in flood geology), cosmology, and nuclear physics," to which you replied, without further elaboration, "Your stated opinion is WP:OR." I was pointing out the absurdity of this charge. But it turns out that what you meant was that it is OR to say that evolution and so forth are accepted scientific theories. It may surprise you to hear that this is actually not OR, but is supported by many extremely high quality sources, and there is no serious objection to this characterization in the literature. (See the rest of this talk page.)

2. No, it is a fact that creation science was developed to further a religious agenda. What is a fact? According to WP:NPOV: By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." Since there is no serious dispute (outside of a few fringe sources), we can assert the ruling of Edwards v. Aguillard as a fact. If you wish to contest this further, reliable sources will be required.

3. No. It's pretty much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You have consistently maintained outlandish positions, such as that the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis are just as good sources for gauging the scientific consensus as the National Academy of Sciences. This position amounts to completely chucking policies like WP:DUE out the window and instead give equal validity to the extreme scientific fringes. If you feel the consensus here is an inaccurate reflection of policy, then you can take it up at the Neutral point of view noticeboard.

--siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Ungtss:

1. [Got mixed up as to which statement this is referring to.] "...it has never been recognized by or accepted within the scientific community..."/"If there are so many sources..." See #"The scientific community has overwhelmingly rejected ... creation science" & related issues below. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
2. To call Gregor Mendel a "creationists" is
   1. unsubstantiated and
   2. most probably misleading, in that (i) the synthesis of Darwin's and Mendel's work didn't occur until after both their deaths (making Mendel's opinion of evolution largely irrelevant) and (ii) Mendel ceased his scientific work to concentrate on ecclesiastical administration within a decade of the publication of On the Origin of Species , so would have had little opportunity to evaluate the scientific discourse on the subject.
3. You are conflating 'evolution by natural selection' with abiogenesis -- it is perfectly reasonable to accept the former without accepting the latter. The former deals with how life developed the latter with how it started.
4. Directed panspermia is not a form of Intelligent design, it is merely an alternate hypothesis to abiogenesis as to how life started.

You continue to make tendentious claims with no basis in fact. It is getting more than a little tiresome.

I have also strengthened up the "Creation science or scientific creationism is the movement..." statement's citation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn:

1. Here are two sources showing that Mendel was a creationist, opposed to Darwin. Bishop, B. E. (1996). "Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin," Journal of Heredity 87: 205-213.[1], and Callender, L. A. (1988). "Gregor Mendel: an opponent of descent with modification," History of Science 26: 41-75.[2]

2. I am not conflating anything. Contemporary creationism is the idea that life was originally created in several forms, and subsequently varied by variation and natural selection. The only difference between creationism and evolutionism is whether those original forms contained less genetic information (and got more via mutation), or more genetic information than contemporary species (and speciated through recombination and inbreeding after a population bottleneck).

3. So the idea that life was sent to Earth by an advanced, alien civilization is not intelligent design. Right-o. Ungtss (talk) 07:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Your statement "Even Darwin wrote that life was originally breathed by its creator into one or several forms" is about the origin of life. It in no way undermines the Theory of Evolution's explanation, which is purely about how life developed thereafter.
2. Your definition of "Contemporary creationism" is idiosyncratic to the point of irrelevance.
3. Directed panspermia may be considered to be (little i) 'intelligent design', but it is not part of Intelligent design as employed by the intelligent design movement, nor is it in any way [[creation science. So even if true, it is irrelevant.

None of the individuals you are citing have any relevance to the modern Creation Science movment, so this whole argument would appear to be pure WP:FORUM. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

1. This article is about creation science, not evolution. Creation science holds that life was created in several forms and varied thereafter. Those basic premises were held by Darwin.

2. My definition of creationism merely reflects the definition of creationism -- creation and subsequent variation. Find me a counterexample.

3. I did not say directed panspermia was part of the ID movement. I said it was a form of intelligent design. And it is. And of course, the intelligent design (not intelligent design movement) article says that it is a form of the teleological argument, and was formulated by creationists.

4. Those old creationists (including the father of genetics and the father of taxonomy) are presented as evidence to falsify the article's claim that creation science appeared in the 70s. Except of course in the 1860s, when one particular creationist (named Mendel) was discovering genetics and falsifying Darwinism. Ungtss (talk) 08:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

---

1. I believe this to be false (in that Darwin hypothesised 'one or a few'). If you can cite a source stating he believed that there were definitely "several", then please provide it.
2. What is your source for a definitive ("the") definition of creationism? As far as I know, no such definitive definition exists.
3. Then it is irrelevant for this article, as I stated.
4. You provide no linkage between your so-called "old creationists" and the Creation Science movement. Your claims are contradicted by the evidence, e.g. that documented in The Creationists.
   • You have presented no evidence whatsoever that Mendel in any way "falsify[ed] Darwinism", only that he rejected it. This is the century-old opinion of a single abbot and former-scientist. It hardly holds any weight today. Many famous scientists believed many odd things. It doesn't make their every beliefs scientific fact. For that matter, a number of prominent scientists in the 19th century rejected Darwin's thesis. Radical scientific ideas often meet early resistance, which is overcome over time as the evidence for them mounts. This early rejection is however in no way 'falsification'.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

1. You're quibbling. He hypothesized that the Creator breathed life into "several forms, or one." That's creationism in a nutshell. Evolutionary creationism posits one; biblical creationism posits many.

2. If no such definition exists, then what privileges the one in the article?

3. It is relevant insofar as it falsifies that idea that no one in "the scientific community" has ever held that the creation/design of life is a "legitimate form of scientific inquiry" as claimed (without citation) by the article.

4. You can redefine "creationism" all you like, but I see no problem defining "Creationists" as those who believe life was originally "Created," and "Creation Scientists" as those who use the tools of science to examine that hypothesis.

5. Maybe you should read the articles I linked to before you make those claims. Particularly the end of the articles, where the author wraps things up. Ungtss (talk) 10:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

---

1. You're being dishonest: "several forms, or one" is not inconsistent with Universal Common Descent, Creationism's 'several forms not one' is inconsistent.
2. While we do not have a definition of "creationism", we do have a definition of "creation science" from the creationist-written 1981 Arkansas 'equal treatment' law, described by Numbers as "One of the most precise explications of creation science".
3. It proves no such thing! You have established no linkage whatsoever between directed panspermia and creationism. 'Intelligent Design' (big I) in the Intelligent design article, is a 'term of art' created by the IDM, not (little i) 'intelligent design' as a simple juxtaposition of the two words with each's simple dictionary meaning. It is only the latter, not the former, that relates to directed panspermia, as I was trying to tell you above. And it is only the former, not the latter, that relates to the teleological argument and to Creationism.
4. Your definition is defective. Historically, 'Creationism' is a rebranding of 'Antievolutionism'. 'Creation Science' is the mistaken belief that science can be used to support this anti-evolution prejudice. The latter traces back to George McCready Price (who in fact had only rudimentary scientific training), but only received any widespread attention when The Genesis Flood popularised it.
5. In order to falsify a hypothesis you need to present evidence that directly contradicts it, not merely argue against it. I could find no indication that Mendel presented such evidence -- if he had it would certainly have raised a stir, both at the time and even at the present. If you want to argue to the contrary, then you are welcome to quote the passage that says what this directly contradictory evidence was.

I await your further instalment of unsubstantiated assertions, and tendentious misrepresentations, with bated breath. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Is Creation Science Actually Pseudoscience?

Based on arbitration and clarification on same, the Pseudoscience category, which has been applied to this page, and to the Creation Science category in general, requires a reliable source indicating that it is in fact pseudoscience to sustain its application. Can you point out some reliable source that will settle the matter? If not, we'll need to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from this page and also from the Creation Science category. Thank you.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please take the time to read the article before you post your mass messages...The last paragraph of the lead clearly cites two sources that represent the scientific field's general consensus that Creation science is completely pseudoscientific. — Scientizzle 00:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This article could use a slight modification. The pertinent note here seems to be #45, whose source is the National Academy of Sciences. Here is the data: the actual quote: "These observations lead to two fundamental conclusions: the teaching of evolution should be an integral part of science instruction, and creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes."The actual source is "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition (1999), p. 2; National Academy of Sciences (NAS)". Arguably, here, the quote is taken out of context and being used in a wider sense ("...should not be presented as such") than was intended ("...should not be presented as such in science classes."). The other quote seems to be just what was presented and comes immediately prior to the quote above in the same text: "The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested." Ibid., pp. 1-2.

This seems convincing to me. It both purports to be scientific and is evaluated by reputable authorities as flatly not scientific in its methodologies. Conceded, thank you.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems as if folks are trying to come up with their own definitions for things around here (e.g. psuedoscience), or rewrite definitions, when it's no one's place. I wish people would care just about facts, not opinion. I wish people would not pick and choose which articles/facts/etc that policies apply to (or don't apply to). It is quite irrefutable that more than one person has accused some moderators of bias. I'm sad to see that ungsst (sp?) got "chased" away from this discussion. I hope he comes back. I'm not going anywhere. I do not believe I am WP:DE whatsoever. I am (somewhat) new to Wikipedia editing but I am learning the rules fast (unfortunately). What I learned right away is that I need to write unbiased facts and back them up with references/sources. I have, and EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM HAS BEEN REVERTED. This is unacceptable as I've done a lot of research, and everything I've put down can't be wrong (especially since they've been referenced). Just because it happens to agree or favor "creation science", it is automatically unworthy. Petrafan007 (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see you have made exactly one "referenced edit" to Creation Science which was to an irrelevant poll about USA public beliefs. Teapotgeorge^Talk 14:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to second Teapotgeorge on this. I've yet to see Petrafan007 make any claim that has a basis in solid "facts". As to the definition of pseudoscience, it can be found in that article -- which definition is applied here per WP:NPOVFAQ#Making necessary assumptions. WP:ARB/PS gives further guidance. Ungsst has a long history of POV-pushing, and his comments here amounted to nothing but argumentum ad nauseam. Petrafan007 have offered nothing supported by relevant, unbiased facts, so it is not surprising that their edits have been reverted. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Facts in Creation Science

(a copy of what I posted on User_talk:Teapotgeorge after he reverted my change of facts to axioms in the first sentence of this article)

When reverting my change from "facts" to "axioms" you wrote "they may be changing but they are still facts!"

But most people seeing the word "fact" would take the dictionary definition "thing certainly known to have occurred or be true" (which definitely couldn't change) rather than the definition "thing assumed as basis for inference" which is roughly what axiom means (both occur in the Concise Oxford Dictionary under "fact").

Note that further down the article Creation Science says that a scientific theory must be "correctable and dynamic (changing to fit with newly discovered data)". This is not what a fact is in non-technical terms. An ordinary person should not have to read the article Evolution_as_theory_and_fact in order to understand the reasoning behind the apparentl inflammatory first sentence of the article Creation Science.

Why make an encyclopaedia article unnecessarily controversial when it could be merely a statement of facts? ;-) --PeterR (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Axioms" cannot be disproven and so is clearly incorrect for the context. Creationists quite frequently attempt to deny/disprove facts -- e.g. the existence of a number of excellent series of transitional fossils. And facts are subject to change, as measurement improves, as corrupted data is weeded out, etc, etc. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

PeterR, if it is your intention to make unilateral edits without discussion, you will often be opposed. Please use this talk page to discuss any change that may be controversial. -- Ec5618 16:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If Evolution_as_theory_and_fact is not a suitable link, please suggest a better one. The current wording without any link appears to the casual observer to be a calculated insult, as if followers of creation science (a good number of whom are well-educated people with doctorates from reputable universities in scientific disciplines, although some would dispute whether they are relevant ones) were denying the obvious, e.g. that the sun is hot. If the word "fact" is still to be used it is essential that a link to a suitable article on the word "fact" is given to show that it is being used in a specialised sense. --PeterR (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Already done. Scientific fact redirects to Fact#Fact in science which gives a reasonable explanation. Followers of creation science are pseudoscientists, regardless of where they got their doctorates. They are engaged in denying well-established science, and so have very little credibility. Read Amicus Curiae Brief Of 72 Nobel Laureates, 17 State Academies Of Science, And 7 Other Scientific Organizations (cited in the article) for a sense of the scientific community's opinion of it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Cosmologies section - a couple of observations.

The 2nd paragraph of the cosmologies section mentions Humphreys' time dilation model, but calls the age of the universe "apparent". This is innaccurate as according to Humphreys' model the earth is about 6k years old while the distant universe is vastly older (in reality, not in appearance). There are (or have been) creationist cosmologies that include the concept of "apparent age" but the Humphreys model isn't one of them. Also, should Hartnett's model not also be mentioned? It is similar to Humphreys' but also distinctive.

The 3rd paragraph says that there are those who believe that Genesis is only about creation of the earth, and not about the greater universe. Who? What is the source for that? I have heard a number of interpretations of Genesis, but I have never come across that one and it seems quite odd, especially as Genesis says "the heavens and the earth". A literal interpration would include both, and therefore need to account for both but an interpretation that excludes the heavens would be non-literal to some degree at least. I am not saying this belief doesn't exist but I would like to know the source and I would also suggest that it not be lumped with a literal interpretation of Genesis.LowKey (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

From memory, this section was merged in from another article, so may well contain content of less than the highest standard. Can you provide an (accessible) source for what Humphreys actually said? The cited source is inaccessible, and provides no page numbers. Do we have any reliable secondary sources demonstrating the prominence of Hartnett's model? I'll rewrite & recite the third para to Numbers. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if there is an online reference, but failing that I'll find a page number in Starlight & Time. I actually don't know how prominent Hartnett's model is outside of those specifically interested in Creationist Cosmologies (either pro or con). As it also involves time dilation, it may simply be conflated with the Humphreys model. I'll see what I can find out.LowKey (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

How about Seven Years of Starlight & Time where Humphreys says "While one ordinary day was elapsing on earth, billions of years worth of physical processes were taking place in distant parts of the universe" ? I'm not about to put it into the article, because the wording also needs fixing, but I want to see if this is a suitable cite for at least that claim. It may even do as an additional source for his model in general. I have never found an online version of the book, or technical paper. LowKey (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In general terms, it's at least as reliable & prominent a source as the one it would be replacing. The main problem I see is that it doesn't mention 'white hole cosmology' at all, which would mean the passage would have to be completely rewritten. The other problem I see is that it may not give a sufficiently complete articulation of Humphrey's theory to allow a coherent coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. It still addresses the "apparent" issue that I raised, but I guess it's back to hardcopy page numbers for the rest. It's old enough; you'd think someone would just publish the thing online and save us a lot of trouble. Now that he's with CMI maybe they'll push it online. Their website is much more accessable (ible?) and comprehensive than ICR's. LowKey (talk) 09:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Scientific evidence for Creationism

I want to move this article to "Scientific Evidence for Creationism". "Creation Science" makes it sound like its a view only taught by Creationists, which isn't true. If you don't want the moving of the article to that name I would like to create a article with that name. A article which explains the evidence for Creationsim without the religious ties entwined all the time. Refreshments (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"Scientific Evidence for Creationism" is essentially an oxymoron, as the scientific consensus is that the evidence refutes rather than supports creationism. Also it is "a view only taught by Creationists". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Not according to my sources it isn't. Many respectable scientific persons have published journals which support the idea of a Creator. Take the 'religion' out of the debate for a moment and we have logical, scientific evidence. Refreshments (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Only for a very low threshold of "scientific persons" & "journals". No reputable peer reviewed scientific journals have published such 'evidence'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Against There are scientists in working in creation science. Noteworthy claims of theirs can be discussed here. An article split isn't justified at this point. The idea that this title "makes it sound" a certain way is irrelevant. Scientific creationism is a bona fide area of study, it's not a term invented at wikipedia; creation science/scientific creationism is the legitimate name given to it. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Against as well (in case anybody had failed to reliase it ;) ). PM is correct that 'Creation Science'/'Scientific Creationism' has a lengthy and well-documented history as a field of creationist endeavour, including copious mention in The Creationists, the main chronicle of the field. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• I would further point out that such an article would be a clear WP:POVFORK of Objections to evolution, which places the purported 'evidence' in the proper context of the scientific community's refutation of it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• For. 'Creation Science' does not half acknowledge the 'general science' (you know, the one that you seem has already agreed on what is fact and what isn't when we haven't even found life on other planets yet) that gives credence to a Creator. Refreshments (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please cite reliable sources, from reputable peer reviewed scientific journals, for this "'general science' ... that gives credence to a Creator." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• I've already gone through this, if feels like months ago. I got the go ahead then to create the article so I'm creating it. You all welcome though. Refreshments (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Where have you "already gone through this"? Was it "reliable sources, from reputable peer reviewed scientific journals"? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Against suggested rename or split of "evidence" into obvious WP:POVFORK. All science gives credence to a Creator to those who already believe in said creator, "creation science" is a renaming of anti-evolution creationism as demonstrated at McLean v. Arkansas. . dave souza, talk 17:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I would take Refreshments' request to "take the 'religion' out of the debate" more seriously if they weren't WP:CANVASing for help on this split-discussion at Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church#I need your help. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm asking for help from the scientific orientated religious people as well as those who don't have a religion to help me on this. Collaborative effort. Refreshments (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• For: In response to the statement by User:Dave souza, I must state that the only reason that Creationism is "anti-evolution" is that creation and the theory of evolution cannot coincide. Only one can exist, although many may disagree-Whatinthewampa April 23, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatinthewampa (talk • contribs) 17:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Your "response" is factually incorrect. 'Creationism' was originally known (including by its own membership) as 'Anti-Evolutionism' -- as can be seen from the fact that the oldest creationist group, the Creation Science Movement, was originally known as the 'Evolution Protest Movement', and as documented in great detail in The Creationists. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Against It's a POV fork, and Creation Science does appear to be only coming from creationists. In response to Whatinthewampa, creation need not conflict with evolution; creationism, a Biblical literalist interpretation of the Creation myths in Genesis 1 and 2, does. Most Catholic and mainstream protestant theologians acknowledge the validity of evolution, and find it compatible with a theology of creation. Agathman (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Against What a silly notion. There is no credible science for creationism. Quite literally, zero, while there is ample scientific evidence for evolutionary theory. This is just silly, I actually kind of chuckled. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Lead

They are so many problems in this article I don't know where to start. Take the first sentence:

"Creation science or scientific creationism is the movement within creationism which attempts to use scientific means to disprove the accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms on the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution and prove the religious Genesis account of creation."

This isn't true at all. Would the opening sentence to Mormonism say:

"Mormonism is a religious belief which attempts to use added and dubious ancient texts to disprove the accepted religious facts...

No. "Creation science" (which is a very bad term), is about using Scientific Evidence already present to come to a better knowledge of what is recorded in the Bible. Archaeology which proves certain things took place in the Bible isn't called Archaeological Creation Science, neither should this. The theory of evolution is a theory which will remain that way until the thousands - millions of missing links are filled. Refreshments (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The intro describes it as "an attempt to use scientific means to disprove the accepted" scientific view. This is well sourced. The established sciences have one view; creation scientists attempt with scientific means to put forth a contrary view. This is undeniable. You're reading more in the statement than it says. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Creation Science is its name, creationists themselves came up with it, and have been using it for a number of decades, so live with it. It is widely regarded as pseudoscience and outside the realm of legitimate science.
2. Your analogy is inapt. There are no " accepted religious facts" -- every religion believes something different.
3. Archaeology has generally failed to confirm much of the early parts of the Bible.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

So just because Archaeologists are still digging, does that mean we should neglect all the the parts of the Bible archaelogy has proved? No. Refreshments (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to create a article on Scientific Evidence for Creationsim which will show how Scientific facts coincide with a Creator Refreshments (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

First you would have to demonstrate with reliable sources, from reputable peer reviewed scientific journals, that "Scientific Evidence for Creationism"/"Scientific facts [that] coincide with a Creator" actually exist. 16:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• The reasonable view [during the two centuries before Louis Pasteur] was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 190, August 1954, p. 46.
• One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. Ibid. etc etc Refreshments (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you may have a mistaken idea what wikipedia is. It isn't a forum for arguments; it's an encyclopedia covering established topics. Editors cannot submit evidence or arguments toward a certain point of view, they simply describe topics that are already established in reliable sources. We begin with a topic, find sources writing about that topic, and incorporate the claims written about in those sources. That's all. What you've offered thus far is unqualified for any article as per the no original research policy. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not original research. The quotes speak for themselves. Refreshments (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the very brief quotes do not "speak for themselves". We would require quite a bit more context than that to discern what Wald is actually saying. I would also note that this article is more than half a century old -- and that science has progressed in leaps and bounds since then. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also note that George Wald was an expert on "pigments in the retina", a field completely unrelated to evolutionary biology. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Further investigation indicates these are widely quote mined phrases of Wald (including the interpolation of "during the two centuries before Louis Pasteur"). Refreshments: have you in fact read Wald's article in its entirety? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Every part of the human body is relelvant to the theory of evolution, especially the human eye. Refreshments (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The full context can be found here, and does not support Refreshments' interpretation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The full context supports the fact more clearly, we're talking Vol. 199. I just checked out the article Scientific Evidence", it says:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis"

Thus my article is acceptable. Refreshments (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and without such verification your proposal fails WP:NOTE. If it were shown to be sufficiently notable, WP:NPOV requires due weight to majority views – so if the subject's science, the scientific consensus comes into play. A long way from acceptable. . dave souza, talk 17:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Scientific evidence is notable regardless of what it is for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Refreshments (talk • contribs) 17:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Creationism is not a "scientific theory or hypothesis"
2. Wald's article appears to offer no evidence, merely opinions and arguments (it is an opinion piece, not a report of scientific results)

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wald's article (not the ridiculous quote mined version) is an interesting analysis of the history of evolutionary ideas, with specific reference to pre-Darwinian ideas of spontaneous generation of life forming multiple lineages of transmutation or transformism, as in Lamarck's ideas. Darwin rejected that in proposing one or a few forms first having life breathed into them, whether by a Creator as he wrote in the 2nd edition of OtOoS onwards, or in a warm little pond as he discussed with a friend. Either works with evolution. Except, of course, in the minds of anti-evolution creationists. . . dave souza, talk 17:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Not interested in Creationism as much as I am the evidence for Creationism. And Creationism is a early scientific theory.
2. The talkorigins folk are looking at the wrong source. Refreshments (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Creationism covers a wide spectrum of religious views, none of which are modern science, or are testable as science. Early science predates the "creation science" of the 1960s onwards, which is the subject of this article. ToA is a reliable source, you're not. . . dave souza, talk 17:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If nothing Creationism teaches is testable, you won't have anything to worry about will you? As a matter of fact, I wouldn't even be suggesting this article be created in the first place. If you think ToA is a reliable source, then no wonder wikipedia is suffering. What are you guys scared of? If there is NO evidence, you have NOthing to worry about Refreshments (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've nothing to worry about, but if creation could be tested and disproved, creationists would have something else to be in denial about. For Wikipedia, it comes down to WP:V and WP:RS. For science subjects, that does not include the Bible or, for that matter, ID publications. Per WP:TALK, provide sourced suggestions for improvements to the article or this section may be archived as offtopic. . . dave souza, talk 18:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

To help you out, "Any explanation that involves God as a direct actor (“God makes the planets go around the Sun”) cannot be tested: any result of an experiment is compatible with the hypothesis that an omnipotent God was responsible. So scientists restrict themselves to explanation through natural causes regardless of whether or not they are people of faith."[3] . . dave souza, talk 18:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about fear, this is about actual and legitimate science. I know this is old, but what is so hard to grasp that science is knowledge gained from using the scientific method and the scientific method has never once pointed towards the existence of a "creator"? Not once. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

A New Leaf

Thank you for the guidance everyone. I think I've heard enough. Make sure it can be verifyed etc. Try not to mention god too much (even though, due to this being both a religious and scientific subject I may use the term). Refreshments (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

1st sentence

"Creation science or scientific creationism is the movement within creationism which attempts to use scientific means to disprove the accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms on the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution and prove the religious Genesis account of creation."

I know many people have hacked at this, and I apologize for reading only enough of the discussions to make my head ache, but is this sentence trying to say that the CS people are actually trying to use scientific means to do all of the stuff in the rest of the sentence, including "prove the religious...". For one, you cannot prove the religious Genesis account of creation with scientific means as it invokes the supernatural. I would change it by just leaving out "to use scientific means". Alternatively the sentence could be ended after biological evolution and another sentence added that they want to also prove the religious...Desoto10 (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Your assumption that "you cannot prove the religious Genesis account of creation with scientific means as it invokes the supernatural" is correct and automatic from a scientific viewpoint, but the anti-evolution creationist frame of mind starts from the belief that the Creator has left emirical scientifically testable evidence of creation. Thus, in creation science relabelled as ID, "we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology."[4] The ruling at McLean v. Arkansas was specifically about creation science, and included the judge's statement that "The creationists' methods do not take data, weigh it against the opposing scientific data, and thereafter reach the conclusions stated in [the Act] Instead, they take the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempt to find scientific support for it." . . dave souza, talk 10:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks, dave. It still sounds to me as if we are claiming that the CS folks are "attempting to use scientific means to ... prove the religious Genesis account of creation." I may be confusing my fringe groups, but I thought that the idea was to change the definition of scientfic means to include supernatural evidence (whatever that means) and then use this new "science" to prove the Genesis account of creation. I may be overly sensitive to any claims by creationist groups that they are "using scientific methods" when they are not.Desoto10 (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That "idea" is the modus operandi of the Intelligent design movement, a related creationist movement. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, get the point – the opening sentence was framed entirely in the creationist worldview, and failed to give due weight to the majority view of science. I've tweaked the lead a bit to clarify that.[5] . . dave souza, talk 08:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It now reads:

Creation science or scientific creationism is the movement within creationism which attempts to use means, which its proponents describe as scientific, to disprove the accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms on the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution and support their literal religious belief in Genesis account of creation, without adhering to the essential requirements that science should refer to natural law, be testable and be falsifiable.

This is more than a little long-winded and meandering for a single sentence. I'll put some thought into how it can be split up a bit. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

How about:

Creation science or scientific creationism is the movement within creationism which uses purportedly scientific means to attempt to overturn those aspects of the scientific consensus that conflicts with their belief in a supernatural creation. This involves attempts to disprove accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms on the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution. The aim is to support their literal religious belief in Genesis account of creation. These efforts fail to adhere to the essential requirements that science should refer to natural law, be testable and be falsifiable.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably an improvement, I was avoiding "purported" because it appears later in the paragraph. . dave souza, talk 14:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the paragraph as a whole, I'd suggest breaking out the 'key concepts' into its own paragraph & merging the "While creation science purports..." in with "These efforts fail..." to form a single discussion of its scientific shortcomings. The first paragraph should be one reasonably brief and comprehensible sentence stating what CS is, then the expansion/clarification of what this means. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification, from WP:LEDE: "The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: 'What (or who) is the subject?' and 'Why is this subject notable?' ", and "The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered, by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, give the location and time context. Also, establish the boundaries of the content of the article (for example List of environmental issues is only about the effects of human activity)." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I reoffer:

"Creation science or scientific creationism is the movement within creationism which attempts to disprove the accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms on the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution and prove the religious Genesis account of creation."

We can say later how it has nothing to do with "science".66.120.181.218 (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Desoto10 (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this lead needs to be cleaned up. I don't think it needs a fundamental rewrite, but the grammar is atrocious right now and the sentence is way too long. the sub clauses also make reading it a chore, and probably contribute in a sublte way to the endless stream of POV debates over it. How about a consensus on cleaning up the grammar, while keeping the basic content intact? Shadowjams (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I took a shot at it. The first part of the sentence is restored to how I found it, without the "scientific means" part.Desoto10 (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

IP cleanup edit

Is the unexplained addition of {{cleanup}} by an IP reasonable, or should it be reverted? TheresaWilson (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

A note on endnotes

Some recent battles have been taking place within claims that already had clearly cited sources attributed to them..!! Remember those?! We can't piggy-back new material or embellish claims in such a way as to make statements that differ from what the author cited actually wrote. There is also a new citation (maybe more) that doesn't verify the claim attributed to it. Put the sharp sticks down kids, and remember there are key rules about citing. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Too High a Standard

According to the article: "For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

   * consistent (internally and externally)
   * parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
   * useful (describing and explaining observed phenomena)
   * empirically testable and falsifiable
   * based upon controlled, repeatable experiments
   * correctable and dynamic (changing to fit with newly discovered data)
   * progressive (achieving all that previous theories have and more)
   * tentative (admitting that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)"

This criteria for determining if something is scientific is completely ridiculous. Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are not consistent with each other. String Theory is not empirically testable and falsifiable. Therefore, according to the list from the article, physics is not a science. Astronomy isn't based on controlled repeatable experiments, so according to the list, it is also not a science. Any list that if applied would exclude physics and astronomy from being science is BS. --Jayson Virissimo (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

After taking a quick look at the Science, Scientific method and Theory articles, I suggest that the portion of this article at issue here be modified to read something like the following:

A theory is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two things:

1. identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be based on scientific method, and on observations conducted through such research.

References

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

@ Jayson Virissimo - What does this have to do with the creation science page? Please dedicate talk page comments to the subject of the article itself.

@ Boracay Bill - sources that apply directly to creation science are important, applying generic sources to the page in order to reach a conclusion is original research WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The ref source of this criticism isn't given, while most of the items listed (parsimony, empirical, tentative, etc) are the "standard" repeated in many critical sources, I haven't yet come across several of the criteria listed in the sources I've seen-they do go beyond what's most typically repeated in the sources writing about this topic. It matters not if the list is "completely ridiculous"- but should be sourced and verified. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

How was I not addressing the article itself? The list I was commenting on was copied straight from the body of the article. It can be found in the "scientific criticism" section. --Jayson Virissimo (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The quality of this as an encyclopaedic article is minimal

Please would somebody look at the Wikipedia definition of weasel words. I accept that creation science is not accepted by many people, but please would people maintain journalistic integrity when writing articles like these. An article like this should avoid word combinations along the lines of "most scientists". If people think creation science lacks scientific integrity, then fine, but if people want to make argumentum ad populum arguments by saying that most scientists believe something, please would they point to a piece of evidence backing up their view e.g. the weblink for the results of a poll conducted on the subject. If I put in links, please would people stop reverting my edits if it is blatantly obvious I have put the links in place in response to a completely unsubstantiated claim.

As for the validity of creation science, I am personally undecided. Creation scientists have a tendency to cherry-pick when it comes to evidence, whereas those opposed to creation science are also not completely forthright in their presentation of evidence supporting the opposite line. However, if I read articles on a controversial subject like this, I want to see content that is not biased towards either side. I would also like to see articles that do not contain formal fallacies: - the argumentum ad populum fallacy is annoyingly common in this article.

Creation science is controversial, but please would the contributors to this article maintain the encyclopaedic integrity thereof, so that someone who is undecided on this issue can enjoy finding out about the subject without having to wade through endless weasel words.

Hi. First of all, it is not inappropriate for an encyclopedia to point to the fact that most scientists agree about something. This article is not meant to be persuasive one way or the other, it is meant to be a statement of fact, and the fact that most scientists agree that creation science is bunk is well documented here. What I mean is that this article doesn't say "most scientists agree" in order to persuade readers that most scientists are correct, it simply states the fact that most scientists agree, therefore there is no argumentum ad populum. Secondly, you added the tags to sourced statements, which was why I was one of the editors who reverted your edits. For example, you added it to "The proponents of creation science often say that they are concerned with religious and moral questions as well as natural observations and predictive hypotheses.", but at the end of that sentence there were 2 citations - [6], and [7]. The same thing with "The overwhelming majority of scientists are in agreement that the claims of science are necessarily limited to those that develop from natural observations and experiments which can be replicated and substantiated by other scientists, and that claims made by creation science do not meet those criteria.", which was supported by a citation from the National Academy of Sciences - [8]. The question "who?" is answered in the citations. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree here. Given that this article states that science is supposed to be progressive i.e. it might later be disproven and should therefore never be considered to be absolute truth, an encyclopaedic article should simply state the two positions about a controversial issue and avoid weasel words. Scientific articles should stay well clear of argumentum ad populum lines. Rather than saying "most scientists", one should say something along the lines of, "a publication named ... carried out a poll of scientists, their sample space was ... and ...% of respondents said they did/didn't agree with the points put forward by creation science". It is possible that a majority of scientists disagree with creation science and also the reverse may be true, but I want to know who "most scientists" are and I want evidence detailing how the conclusion was derived and figures detailing what percentage of scientists they asked. Without this evidence, statements saying "most scientists" are just someone's opinion. It is true that the relevant parts were referenced, but one should not say, "most scientists". It is acceptable to say, "such-and-such a source claims that most scientists believe creation science to be bunk", because it can be proven that the source has made such a claim. It is also ok for an author to say, "I considered a sample of ... scientists chosen completely at random and ...% of them said they believed creation science to be bunk". However, it is not acceptable to say, "most scientists believe creation science to be bunk", because such a claim has not yet been proven. Until one has carried out a poll across the scientific community as a whole that has resulted in over 50% of all of the world's scientists (as opposed to 50% of respondents), a claim that most scientists believe something is an unproven claim and should therefore not be included in an encylopaedia. This is the only circumstance under which I would accept a claim concerning most scientists to be a proven fact. Regardless of whether or not something has been sourced, an encyclopaedic article should never state something to be a proven fact if it isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.60.98.134 (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Creationist weaseling. Try "the overwhelming majority of the scientific community", as found in court. Proof is for courts and whisky, not science. . dave souza, talk 09:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey. WP isn't about truth. It's about who has the greatest number of editors that support a POV. Christian Skeptic (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources, dear boy. See WP:V and WP:WEIGHT. . . dave souza, talk 16:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It's not about the greatest number of editors--it's about the greatest number of qualified experts. The simple fact is that no more than a tiny handful of qualified experts have ever come out in support of Creationism. Even Creationist sources (and one would presume that such sources make a concerted effort to track down like-minded scientists) produce, at most, a few hundred names. Out of the total number of earth and life scientists practicing, that's a drop in the bucket.

Is it possible that there are vast numbers of Creation-minded scientists lurking silently in the background? It's possible. It's also possible that there are aliens controlling the White House (and, yes, there are people who believe that.) We don't present it as a "competing viewpoint" because there's no credible evidence for it, and all of the available evidence is against it.

So, too, with the notion that Creation Science has more than a small number of qualified advocates. --BRPierce (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Archetypical projection. ;) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC) (stricken as the comment it was response to, unaccountable vanished. NB: you strike something with <s>…</s>, not by deleting it. Doing the latter renders talkpages increasingly confusing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC) )

(Unindent) I'd be glad to post some links to the various surveys that support the notion that very, very few biologists and geneticists are Creationists. I'm sure the response will be "But you didn't ask every single scientist!" Well, no. Of course, by that standard, we have no idea how many people there are in the world (we haven't counted every single one.) We don't know what percentage of those people subscribe to a given religion (again, we haven't asked them all.) Thus (by that standard) we can't state that Christianity is a larger religion with more devotees than Pastafarianism.

Which is, of course, why we don't use that standard, and why most people with any kind of background in statistics understand what "sampling" is and why it's valid. --BRPierce (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Fact vs theory

You don't know the difference between a fact and a theory.

According to the "scientific fact" page: "In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts."

You said: "fact: the earth is 4.3 billion years old." This is not a fact. It is not a verifiable observation. No rock has stamped on it 4.3 billion.... This is an interpretation of real facts such as ratios between isotope of elements. Those ratios are theorized to mean time differences. Creationists have no problem with the ratios of isotopes, but a big problem with the theory that they represent real time.

Another example of flawed thinking: "humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor" Fact, humans and chimps have similar morphology. Fact, humans and chimps have similar DNA. Theory: Humans and chimps are evolved from a common ancestor. Creationists have no problem with the similarity facts between humans and chimps, but a big problem with the theory that they are evolved from a common ancestor.

Data just is. Theory explains and interprets facts. 4.3 billion and evolution are not facts, but theories. Therefore, the first sentence as is is blatant falsehood. Christian Skeptic (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, creation science seeks to disprove facts. Guettarda (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. How profound. Not a shread of evidence and yet it must be true. Sheesh!!! It would sure help if evolutionists knew the difference between observable data/facts and interpretation of that data by theories and hypothesis. Christian Skeptic (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

See Evolution as theory and fact if you are not just trolling. --Cubbi (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Evolutionist's use of evolution and fact is so slippery (as mentioned in that article) that they mean anything you want, anywhere you want! The most basic meaning of evolution is simply change. Creationists have no problem with that meaning for evolution. In biology, creationists recognize that there is genetic variation (change) all the time, so using the very basic definition then there certainly is evolution (change) in biology.

If that were the only way the word evolution were used, there would be no problems. However, the evolution is also used to mean the idea/theory/paradigm that all life forms are derived from a common ancestor. This is where creationists part company with evolutionists.

Evolutionists deliberately deceive the public and themselves with the old bait-and-switch tactic. They will point to common genetic variation that everybody sees and call it biological evolution (simply meaning biological change) and then say, see that shows that evolution (meaning that all life forms are derived from a common ancestor) is true. BS!

So, when I above talked about "common descent of humans and chimps" as a theory of evolution, I was not confused about fact or theory. That is not an observable fact but a theory of origins. Creationists have no problem with observable, repeatable data and facts. But we do have a problem with interpretation of that data within naturalism and evolutionism. And we have a problem with people who can't seem to grasp the difference. Christian Skeptic (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's one for you: creationists think speciation hasn't been observed, yet it is a fact. (Even though according to YEC logic, speciation had to happen at an astounding rate since the "global flood" to create all the diversity we see today from each "kind.") And you may disagree that the age of the earth is factual, but it is a FACT that it isn't under 10,000 years old. Auntie E (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

species is a very slippery term. just look what WP has to say: There are many definitions of what kind of unit a species is (or should be). A common definition is that of a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not (normally) happen. Other definitions may focus on similarity of DNA or morphology. Some species are further subdivided into subspecies, and here also there is no close agreement on the criteria to be used.

The computed ages of the earth are all theory not fact. isotope ratios are fact. ages are theory. Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It is likewise a fact that experimental geochronology regularly produces results of greater than 10,000 years. It is also likewise a fact that geology and biogeography finds no evidence of a global flood. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

All geochronolgy is theoretical interpretation of data, go take some geology classes above the 100s as I have. The Flood is not a theory to be found in the strata. It is a paradigm, like evolution, which the data is interpreted. I'll stop for now because trying to explain the actual position of creationist rather than allow falsehoods to be continually propogated is called soapboxing. Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

ONLY to the exact same extent that use of ANY electronic equipment requires "theoretical interpretation" of basic electronic theory. Your definition of "fact" is thus so narrow as to be meaningless (other than being a dishonest 'self-blindfold' allowing creationists to fail to see any facts they don't like). In any case, as RATE has admitted that there are no YEC experimental geochronologists, there is nobody even remotely qualified to come up with an alternate "theoretical interpretation of data" (let alone one that was consistent with ALL the data, not just a small, cherry-picked subset). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Creationists are precise in their use of language. Evolutionists are sloppy.

ROFLMAO -- creationists frequently call people working in fields that have NOTHING to do with evolutionary biology (e.g. geochronology) "evolutionists" -- which is sloppy in the extreme. Further, creationist quote mining is purposefully sloppy in its misuse of language. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

For YECs there is no such thing as evolutionary biology, so there are no YEC evolutionary biologists to quote. But, there are YEC paleontologists with degrees from public Us. There was a time when there were few Creationary geologist and such. However, there are many young YECs who have recently received or are working on degrees in biology and earthsciences. The "old guard" creationists are being supplemented with many new recruits. Just keep watch over the next few months and years. Take a look at all the new names now publishing in Creationary publications. Christian Skeptic (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(i) I never said that there were "YEC evolutionary biologists" -- so whatever this rant is in response to, it sure as hell isn't me. (ii) "For YECs there is no such thing as evolutionary biology" = 'if it doesn't fit our nice, comfortable religious delusions, pretend it doesn't exist'. (iii) Until your 'new guard' gains either (a) scientific acceptance or (b) prominence, wikipedia policy does not allow their WP:FRINGE views to be given WP:UNDUE weight. (iv) All of which is of course a complete non sequitor to my original point of the lack of linguistic precision of creationists -- which has gone unanswered. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[CS's comment removed per WP:NPA as a personal attack, and because it flies in the fact of the history of Geology, which is that a global flood was originally rejected by (late 18th/early 19th) century geologists who were mainly devout Christians. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC) ]

There are no YEC geochronologists simply because dating by isotopes is completely irrelevant to YECism. Christian Skeptic (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

ROFLMAO -- if "dating by isotopes is completely irrelevant to YECism" then RATE wouldn't exist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

RATE concluded that half life rates have not been constant over time therefore dating methods based on them are irrelevant. Christian Skeptic (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(i) RATE disproves the purported 'complete irrelevance' of geochronology to YECism. (ii) As it contained no trained experimental geochronologists, its aberrant results can (and has been, by the scientific community) been attributed to experimental error, rather than "that half life rates have not been constant over time". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

And all such claims of experimental error have been shown to be utter nonsense by RATE. look it up. Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would I even possibly be interested in a defence of their own incompetence by a bunch of ill-qualified religious fanatics? The nature of the internet is such that I can find any position there defended by some crank. Therefore I generally ignore all such, and tend to bother with only bona fide experts (which leaves out almost all of the Creationist Christian apologetics community, I'm afraid). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, how dare you let "facts" and "logic" interfere with the truthiness of Christian Skeptic's claim. Raul654 (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously my reliance on such flawed foundations as facts and logic is a result of my evolutionismisticness. I should replace it with the thoroughly more concrete foundation of Epistomilogical Truthiness^TM ('if it fits your preconceptions, it must be right regardless of the evidence'). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, much as I sypathise with your urge to educate CS, remember WP:MNA, WP:GEVAL and WP:SOAP. This section evidently contrvenes WP:TALK – time for a hat? . . dave souza, talk 16:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Creation Science - Planetology

What is original about the fact that an effect on the moon should be stronger on a planet with higher surface gravity and higher crustal temperature? "[T]here is no new thing under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9 (KJV) Dan Watts (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Discussion specific to an article goes on article talk.
2. Viscosity is a function of rock composition as well as temperature -- and the former is unlikely to be consistent across all planets.
3. Venus has higher ghravity, but lower temperature than Mercury, so the order Venus > Mercury is non-obvious.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Check surface temperature estimates. It appears that Venus trumps Mercury. Dan Watts (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed #2. Nor is there any indication that your source supports your contention without resorting to WP:SYNTH. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Mercury is a small, Fe-rich, heavily cratered body with an ancient crust that appears to have a composition and age more similar to the lunar highland than any other planetary surface....

The size and composition of Venus is similar to the Earth .... [T]he planet was resurfaced by basaltic magmatism at about 1 Ga. This young crust is enriched in incompatible elements, with K ranging from 0.1% to 4.0%, suggesting alkaline-rich basaltic components. However, low levels of 40Ar in the atmosphere indicates ... a smaller fraction (about factor of three) of incompatible elements being removed from the mantle, compared to Earth.

Perfect it ain't (or aresent, if one learned from Brother Dave Gardener), but basalt appears to be a common theme of the terrestrial planets and the moon. Dan Watts (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(i) As this makes no reference to the original "assertion", it's clear WP:SYNTH. (ii) Even if this wasn't true, there is no analysis as to how Mercury/Moon composition relates to Venus/Earth, so the relative viscosity is still uncertain. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that inserting material that is cited to any source that does not explicitly address Ackerman and/or his "rock flow" claims is clear WP:SYNTH and thus impermissible. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that an article that discusses viscous relaxation of craters IS discussing rock flow. Dan Watts (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wdanwatts: "I would suggest that" you need to provide quotations demonstrating that Viscous Relaxation of Impact Basin Topography on Venus (NOT some other source) states:

1. "Venus has higher gravity and crustal temperature" (presumably than the Moon -- but your badly written addition doesn't state this)
2. "that anomalous impact basin topography on Venus modeled using 'conservative upper bound' viscosities discuss viscous relaxation of craters although the modeled viscosity is 10⁶ higher than what Ackerman used."
3. That these results "should not be surprising"

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I would further point out that the passage on Ackerman provides no direct evaluation from the scientific community of his claims, only those of fellow creationists, meaning that it violates WP:WEIGHT & WP:FRINGE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"Because of its high surface temperature and gravitational acceleration, Venus should experience a rate of topographic relaxation that is larger than for the other terrestrial planets." #1

"At the temperatures of the Venus crust, an effective viscosity of 10²⁵ poise is a conservative upper bound...." #2

"Assuming that an atmospheric greenhouse has operated over most of the history of Venus, viscous relaxation should have erased any topographic signature of ancient impact basins." #3

Dan Watts (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

None of the three passages from the article are equivalent/paraphrases of the quotes you provide. They are your own interpretations (i.e. 'original synthesis') of this material. I am therefore eliminating it from the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

So additions are to be (verbatim) quoted material? I find that a novel approach. Dan Watts (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." I do not see how a "reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" would get the article material from the quoted material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Further, I've seen no indication that any reliable third-party source has noticed Ackerman's claim at all, and that it therefore should not be given WP:UNDUE weight. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Prominence of Ackerman

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

— WP:DUE

What indication have we that Ackerman's views are "significant" and have "prominence"? As far as I can ascertain, he has been largely ignored by the scientific community. I would also note that the two AiG pieces cited for a contrary view don't even mention him by name. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

True. Ackerman reported the work of others. Dan Watts (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Then you need to demonstrate that these "others" are prominent, or WP:DUE (and WP:FRINGE) would indicate that his shouldn't be included. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Ackerman yet but given that you have determined the scientific and CS communities to be at odds, and given that this article is on CS and not "scientific origins of the universe" why does acceptance by scientific community become a relevant criterion, any more than if you were doing an article on astrology or poetry? A "reliable source" on the beliefs of astrologers would likely have no use for an article in Nature but so what? I don't know whath AiG is but presumably notability within the CS community would be the most relevant criterion here. CS may be a fringe concept within the realm of "scientific origin" theories but a specific CS notion for this article is only fringe with regards to competing CS theories AFAIK. Or, do articles on alchemy and astrology confine themselves to theories accepted by modern science? This is not a debate on merit and certainly not a debate based on an arbitrarily chosen group of (court determined ) unrelated people called "scientists" , but the reliability of a source for substantiating a given claim. Presumably the claim would be somehting like " Ackerman believes foo" not " the universe was created as per Ackerman" Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If he's insignificant, we don't report his views. Regarding showing mainstream views of the minority or fringe view, see WP:UNDUE and WP:PSCI. In relation to this subject, AiG is notable but unreliable. . . dave souza, talk 22:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm not arguing for or against as I am ignorant here but trying to clarify application of wikipedia and encyclopedia notions to this aricle. AiG, apparently Answers in Genesis, has its own article so I assume we can agree on notability. Are they notable for being unreliable or are they notable for presenting views discussed by other CS folks? Again, in the case of astrology,alchemy, or poetry, you aren't using "reliable" in terms of "reliable guide for living" or "reliable guide for turning lead into gold" or "reliable for navigating a plane" but reliable for whatever claims it is used to substantiate. A notable blog ( blog being the worst "source" by most criteria ) may be a reliable source of information about itself. I have looked at the undue/pseudo stuff as well as mainstream issue. I can find no recent MTV coverage of various IEEE activities and I would presume MTV to be more mainstream than IEEE- as a practical matter you need to define a reasonable stream. I guess I'm still trying to get some idea of what criteria are being applied to article content. An enclcyopedia, while not a soapbox, is supposed to make obscure topics that may only have limited notability available. Probably more people know about God than, say, virtual states so you have to make some judgement about the population from which you make your popularity measure. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You've been referred to the relevant policies, which you evidently need to study with care, and this isn't the place to discuss the general problems you have with getting the hang of policies. See also WP:TALK: discussion here is to be focussed on improving the article, and offtopic digressions can be removed. . . dave souza, talk 12:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The overall theme and objective here seems to be documenting human thought and making it as accessible to the reader as possible without promoting or disparaging ideas due to merit or moralizing. I think improving the article consists of understanding overall objectives and policies and this particular issue seems to be a good test case. You are simply dismssing my concerns with ad hominen, essentially " you don't know what you are talking about" etc. I was hoping for a few more details related to this issue to get clarity through specifics if you will. I am concerned that a source which is reliable for the claim made is being dismissed as it may not be "reliable" in a more colloquial sense. I often express ( disclose ) personal opinion for the sake of discussion but this has to be the only page that I've been accused of soapboxing so I'm trying to understand how policies are being applied here and see if more article improvements can not be made. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis

As a general rule, employment of any source that does not mention Ackerman and/or his specific claims (not just discussion of 'viscous relaxation' generally) will be WP:Synthesis, and thus unacceptable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)