Jump to content

Talk:Creation Evidence Museum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger to Carl Baugh

[edit]

On 18:27, August 14, 2008, User:We66er merged Creation Evidence Museum to Carl Baugh with the comment: (not separable from Baughn and much of this is redundant).

I would like to revert that merge, at least temporarily. I had only been writing this article for a few hours when it was merged, and would like the opportunity to see if it really can stand on its own. We66er, you may turn out right in the end, and in that case I won't object to a merge, but I would like the opportunity to see. Give the article a reasonable chance, a week or so, OK? Thanks, GRuban (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, you have improved it. I might make some tweeks. We66er (talk) 07:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship. :-) --GRuban (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV demands

[edit]

A naive young person, reading this article, would find in it no material questioning 'creationism' as a valid field of scientific activity. But 'creationists' are not looking for evidence capable of disproving their theories, they are only looking for evidence supporting them. Real scientific investigation is different. A real scientist looks at evidence that seems to contradict his previous view of the world and attempts to form a theory that expands previous theory so as to accomodate the new evidence. Or, (very rarely) as an alternative, the old theory is completely replaced. After that, for the real scientist, comes the difficult and elaborate effort to verify or disprove the new theory, which, of couse, leads to new theories, etc.

After Isaac Newton rvelutionized scientific thought, several centuries were spent in working out detailed explanations of the world around us. As time went on, it became evident that, in some areas, Newton's explanations came up short. In the twentieth century relativity and quantom mechanics filled in the holes in Newton's theories, but did not disprove them in general. Engineers, to this day, use Newton's 'Laws' to design such things as bridges and aircraft, even though other ideas are necessary in the design of modern computers, radios, television, etc.

For creationists (in contrast) no evidence would ever be sufficient to modify their convictions about the age of the universe, or the history of organic life. For a scientist, something in apparent contradiction to accepted theory usually becomes the basis for new research, with a view of expanding or modifying the theory. By contrast, creationists view contradictory evidence as fraudulent.

We have an obligation, in Wikipedia. of ensuring that conflicting ideas be represented at every level. That has not been done here.

Too Old (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would have to be a naive young person who doesn't read half the article; the amount of criticism here is quite large. --GRuban (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Too Old. The articles gives WP:UNDUE to Baugh's false claims. For example, he can't conduct a paleontological and archaeological excavation in Israel because the government requires that the people involved have at least a BA in the subject (see: Holy Relics Or Revelation By Russell R Standish, Lowell Scarbrough, Colin D Standish, page 88). Baugh doesn't have that. He might offer "tours" and charge money, but its not a real dig that academics conduct. Each far out claim presented much be matched with scientific consensus to avoid giving the reader the fale impression (see WP:UNDUE). We66er (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Source says [1] "Over the past two years Dr. Carl Baugh of the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose has led several archeological expeditions to Israel as a guest of Mosche Bronstein, the head of the Israeli Department of Antiquities." - that's pretty direct. --GRuban (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. It wouldn't be the first time the Cleburne Times-Review uncritically reported Baugh's claims. ([2] foonote 13).
If you type "Mosche Bronstein" in google you get one hit, this article. The Israeli Department of Antiquities website has no listing for anyone with the name Bronstein.[3] The head listed now is Shuka Dorfman.[4]
Is there another WP:RS that claims it? Because Cleburne Times-Review, a paper with the circulation of 5,000, is the only mention of a person named "Mosche Bronstein."
That article is written by a local resident ("John Watson is a Cleburne resident who may be reached..."[5]) Not a reporter or anyone listed with credentials.
A google search for "Israeli Department of Antiquities" and "Carl Baugh" turns up 9 hits (including this article) including a blog that reads: " 'Carl Baugh's team directed the excavation and were responsible for discovering the Pool of Siloam' (they weren't - the Israeli Department of Antiquities has no record of there involvement in a professional capacity - there were nothing more than glorified volunteers; the actual discoverers of the Pool of Siloam were not mentioned in the original articles, even in their capacity as the actual directors of the excavation." We66er (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very serious claim and needs to be source better than a Cleburne Times-Review written by a local resident. I am very skeptical the Israeli Department of Antiquities would give Baugh any permission for a professional search. We66er (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very well done! However, I suspect what you have there is called Wikipedia:Original research. If you can find a source that says that Bronstein is a fraud, or Baugh lied or this or that, we can change the article. Until then, a published newspaper with a circulation of 5000 trumps one anonymous Wikipedia researcher, I'm afraid. There are lots of possibilities, including (as you imply) that Baugh lied to the paper and they believed it, or that the Israeli policy isn't enforced as strictly as it should be, or that Baugh told the Israelis he had a degree and they believed it (I'm tending to believe that's the most likely possibility, considering that Baugh claims several doctorates, much less one BA), or even that one footnote of Standish Scarborough and Standish is being misunderstood (does every researcher on an expedition need a degree? Surely not, otherwise no Israeli undergrad would ever be able to join an expedition, which seems unlikely), or a dozen other possibilities. But we aren't here to evaluate possibilities, we're here to report what reliable sources report, which this is. --GRuban (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am disputing the Cleburne Times-Review piece written by a local resident. It is not a WP:RS. RS reads: "their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. [emphasis in original]"
As for your claim about undergrads and degrees, being involved in a dig and "Dr. Carl Baugh of the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose has led several archeological expeditions..."[6] is quite different. If it is true find a WP:RS that asserts this, it should be easy if he really has done "several."
Until you provide a WP:RS ("a credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" [my emphasis]), I will remove the claim. We66er (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Looks like Baugh did, in fact go to Israel for archaelogical expeditions several times. Here is someone who really doesn't like Baugh, and other "self proclaimed archaeologists" being really upset about it. [7] [8] Just a blog, but as long as you're worried about whether the paper was deceived, it looks like they weren't. --GRuban (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, read it. I cited that blog and quoted it to you above ("the Israeli Department of Antiquities has no record of there involvement in a professional capacity"). It's critical of his claims. Nonetheless, if the claim is going to be in there it must be from a WP:RS. We66er (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. :-) It's critical of his credentials, not of whether or not he was there at all. "When several residents from my home town here in Susanville accompanied Carl Baugh and members from the Creation Evidence Museum to excavate at the Pool of Siloam in 2004, the local paper practically wet itself over the opportunity to extol the virtues of Baugh as an archaeologist who was “proving the Bible correct” by his important archaeological work in Jerusalem. But Baugh is not an archaeologist..." But it's not worth warring over. I can say "claims to". --GRuban (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The blog is critical of the capacity for which he claimed to be there, on top of his credentials. It's misleading, and at worst wrong, to claim he sponsors archaeological expeditions. He has no education for it to get permission. That's why the blog calls him a volunteer. He has tricked and mislead people before. This article will not feed into that misinformation. We66er (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - from the edit summary - is the objection to the word "archaelogical"? If you like we can leave it at "sponsors expeditions to Israel", then without "claims", if you don't object to the fact that he does, in fact, pay for trips there at times. Good enough? --GRuban (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is fine. I think we should use past tense because that article is two years old and Baugh's website offers "excavations at other sites in the United States."[9] Nothing about any other country. This type of stuff is typical of people like Baugh, Bob Cornuke, Ron Wyatt etc who make their money by giving tours with extraordinary claims. We66er (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a horse in this race (I came here from a mention in the Economist[10]), but I am really surprised no one has gone for WP:COATRACK in this discussion. The article seems to be designed to combat the pseudoscience of creationism instead of explaining the Creation Evidence Museum. Sure, the "Evidence" part of the name is dubious at best and laughable at worst, but that's what the myriad Creationism and Objections to evolution articles are for. Fighting that battle on every single page that remotely relates to that sideshow, like this one, is both overkill and argued against in WP:FRINGE. Like I said, I don't have a stake in this (I usually only comment on MOS and grammar items), but this might be a bit over the top. Kevin/Last1in (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MOS Issues

[edit]

I am not advocating for or against evolution or creationism -- personally, I believe the theory of evolution is as solid as the theory of gravity and the theory of large numbers, but my beliefs have no place in an encyclopedia. My issues are with with MOS problems in the article, especially some Words to Watch falling under Expressions of Doubt along with several rhetorical fallacies.

  1. The use of 'purported' in the lede, "...researching and displaying purported evidence for creationism," could be phrased as "...researching and displaying exhibits supporting creationism," without losing the meaning and without using judgmental wording. Purported is actually one of the prime examples used in WP:ALLEGED.
  2. "The prints have been examined by scientists who concluded they are a combination of admitted hoaxes and misidentified tracks." This is covered quite thoroughly in the lede and the Criticism section (and about every other section). Including it here seems like argumentum ad nauseam' without really adding to the reader's understanding. I suggest striking this sentence.
  3. "Baugh does not have any accredited degrees." I recommend combining this (even though it's arguably POV) with the surviving sentence of the next paragraph to read, "Baugh, who does not have an accredited degree, remains the director and main speaker for CEM."
  4. "...the museum has been housed in a doublewide trailer" feels like a Trojan for argumentum ad crumenam (in US English, 'trailer' and 'doublewide' are often seen as pejorative and indicative of poverty and/or ignorance). It's also non-notable; what possible additional understanding of the museum would the reader gain by knowing the construction method of the building that houses it? I suggest that the sentence (including the greenhouse-like clause thereafter) be struck and the trailing sentence combined (above).
  5. "A Creation Evidence Museum poster is displayed in the Tehran museum of natural history" seem both non-notable and an ad hominem attempt to conflate the subject with a widely-vilified theocratic regime. I suggest that the sentence be struck.
  6. "One of the museum's research projects is a "hyperbaric biosphere", a sealed chamber designed to reproduce the ostensible atmosphere of the Earth before the Flood, which will allegedly allow extended lifespans, and larger physical sizes." In addition to the comma problem, 'ostensibly' and 'allegedly' are W2W. Rephrasing to the following would help to alleviate the bias without sacrificing integrity: "One of the museum's research projects is a "hyperbaric biosphere", a chamber designed to reproduce atmospheric conditions that the researchers postulate for Earth before the Great Flood. This allows experiments designed to test the effect of such conditions on lifespan and physical size."

I'll leave this posted for a week or so for comment before making any changes. If you object to the suggestions above, please either explain why the existing wording really does fit within the MOS or recommend an alternative. Cheers & Thanks, Kevin/Last1in (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow will have been a week without comment, so I will make the changes discussed above at that time. PLEASE comment here if you oppose. Cheers & Thanks Kevin/Last1in (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all your points. Sorry - must have missed your original post last week. Ckruschke (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
  • Made changes today. PLEASE DISCUSS here before reverting the changes or re-adding the information. I made similar wording adjustments to de-allege-ify the Exhibits section as well. As with the changes above, the fact that the interpretations of the exhibits are in dispute or completely debunked is still clear without using dismissive words to watch.Kevin/Last1in (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Kuban

[edit]

His work is discussed in this Cambridge University Press book:Tracking Dinosaurs: A New Look at an Ancient World[11]. Another university press book pointing to his website.[12] National Center for Science Education[13]. Another Oxford book.[14]. There are of course more, but I can't see a good reason not to use Kuban. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Creation Evidence Museum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article bias

[edit]

I made a chance removing the statement that the director doesn't have a degree from an accredited university. That is misleading and prejudicial because several Christian universities are refused accreditation. That statement should be removed LordFluffington454 (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting: are refused accreditation: there must be reasons. Wikipedia must rely on reliable sources (WP:RS) representing the academic view (WP:ABIAS), then summarize those. Also relevant are WP:PSCI and WP:YESPOV. —PaleoNeonate – 02:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creation_Evidence_Museum&oldid=1206748567"