Talk:Creation science

The lead section is too long

I feel like the lead section should be broken up. It's way too long, and can be split up into headings describing the history, the fact that modern science proves it false, etc. What information should we move "down below" or omit from the lead section? The first paragraph seems like a keeper for sure. Félix An (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I moved the other paragraphs down to history which now probably means that section needs to be cleaned up as there is a little bit of redundancy there. jps (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Metaphysical Assumptions section

Someone removed enough text from the second paragraph of the Metaphysical assumptions section to drastically alter the meaning of the paragraph. I reverted that edit, and added some refs, citing publications already used as sources in other parts of the article. I didn't review the entire list of references, and may have missed some good ones, though. Any help will be appreciated! Cheers! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 17:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Fallacy

"The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community"

Appeal to consensus, followed by other claims about empiricism, which at basic level is mislabeled given the positions counter point also has no observable evolution.

More of why I no longer donate. 98.4.89.168 (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

See Fallacy fallacy. Evolution has notably been observed in Lenski's E. coli long-term experiment, and earlier, in peppered moth coloration during (and after) the Industrial Revolution. I expect this section will soon be deleted as inappropriate forum-style argumentation; I am entirely OK with such deletion. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Not a fallacy, except within the motivated reasoning of pseudoscience fans. By your reasoning, we would also have to dismiss the round Earth and the Periodic System of the elements, because both are consensus. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in need of your sad allowance. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. 47.44.49.171 (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Explained at WP:VERECUNDIAM: for Wikipedia it's not a fallacy to appeal to authority. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Which of these six categories does creation science belong to?

Extended content

Which does creation science belong to? WorldQuestioneer (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not a list of six categories. Maybe read the article lede; creation science is pseudoscience. PepperBeast (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Changing the word "claims" in the lede to "endeavors"

The current opening sentence states: "Creation science or scientific creationism is a pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible." I argue that the word "claims" should be replaced with "endeavors". Reasons:

1. . Its not precisely accurate. It implies that those who practice Creation Science have already completed what they set out to do. Creation Science practitioners are working towards that goal. As an analogy, the wikipedia page for Science also uses the word "endeavor".
2. . "Claim" is a word to use with extreme care because of the dismissive insinuations that come along with it(see MOS:CLAIM). We should avoid even the appearance of POV on Wikipedia.
3. . The word "endeavor" in no way gives Creation Science a sense that it is correct. Nobody is going to come away reading the sentence with the word "endeavor" and think "wow, this might actually be real science"! But with "claim" they might be more likely to come away thinking, "Wow, this was written by a bunch of atheists with a grudge." Epachamo (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

MOS:CLAIM doesn't say that we disregard what sources say. If the Creation scientists are CLAIMING that their arguments are scientific when those arguments are not, than the word claim is appropriate. If they are trying to find real scientific arguments that support their beliefs, than you would be correct. We should use what the sources describe this as. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I want to be clear that my contention has ZERO to do with whether creation science is a valid field of study (its not). Can you point to a source that uses the word "claim"? I'm dubious that's what the sources actually say. Epachamo (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the sources in this article; but if you want to change this, you should find what the sources say. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

you wrote: "We should use what the sources describe this." That's what I was referring to Epachamo (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

We do not even know whether they really endeavor to do that. We do know that they claim to do it. For all we know, they are fully aware that all their reasoning is bogus.

MOS:CLAIM does not say we should not use the word "claim". It says, To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question. And that is exactly what we should be doing because the consensus in science is that all creationist reasoning is crap. Every reason they give is easy to refute for those who know what they are talking about. See An Index to Creationist Claims. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not stating that creationist reasoning is good, that is truly not my point. My #1 point, is that the sentence as it currently stands is inaccurate. Creation Science itself is not a claim. Creationism is a claim. Creation Science is an activity trying to prove the claim with pseudoscience. Creation Science is more accurately worded as an endeavor. Epachamo (talk) 05:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I see your point, but to change to "endeavor" would also then require rewording the rest of the sentence. They don't endeavor to offer SCIENTIFIC arguments, they endeavor to create and offer scientific SOUNDING or scientific APPEARING arguments.

I think that there is sometimes a balance between explicit, 100% accurate statements and concise statements, and for the first sentence of the lead, is is better to lean toward concision. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Insufficient information

The article says that certain theories are rejected by mainstream science, but doesn’t explain why. It’s simply states that Whitehole cosmology doesn’t correspond to observed evidence. I’d like to know what the observed evidence is And how Whitehole cosmology would be different if it were true. Just simply stating that you disagree with a theory is not doing your homework in a scientific investigation. I want to know why the theory is wrong. I want a theory that explains how the universe should look if the theory were true And why that evidence is contraindicated from a proper peer reviewed reference, journal if possible. If this is attempting to be scientific and not just arguing back-and-forth. “No, you’re wrong.” The information in this article does an insufficient job of explaining why current theory is accepted by Science are right and the other theory is wrong. Peer reviewed sources Should be included, please

elrondaragorn (talk) elrondaragorn elrondaragorn (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you read this about White hole cosmology? Have you read the sources in the article where White hole is mentioned? We can't do your work for you. As a fringe theory, it doesn't have enough due weight for anything but short mention. Those are the rules here. Our content is based on reliable sources, not on fringe and unreliable sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)