Talk:Creation science/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Science?

No consensus to merge this article into Creationism. But likewise no acceptance of Creation Science as science
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I propose this article shall be merged to the Creationism article. How is this science? Science works with the evidence and draws a conclusion from it. Creation "science" works with a conclusion and tries desperately to find evidence for it. --Czop10 (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Creation science is the name given to a certain kind of creationism. Think of it like Donkey Kong-a name for a video game. It may or may not have been intended as "Monkey Kong" at one time, but has never featured a donkey or a monkey--it features an ape. But encyclopedias use the names for things that are used in real life. They don't edit or improve them. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC) A lot of this article could be merged into creationism, as it describes generic creationism rather than the specific subset which its proponents called "creation science". We don't seem to have used Lenny Flank's article as a source: as it neatly states, "In response to this ruling and the earlier Epperson Supreme Court decision, the creationist movement made the tactical decision to downplay the religious aspects of creationism, and began to argue that creationism could be supported solely through scientific evidence, without any reference to God or the Bible. Thus was born "creation science" -- it is nothing more than an attempt by the fundamentalists to sneak their religious views into the classroom by pretending that they are really a "science"." . . . dave souza, talk 09:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Czop10, You are completely and utterly wrong. Just because Creation science doesn't obey your narrow-minded Materialist-Secular worldview does not mean that Creation science is not valid. Anyway, nobody proposes that we merge Atheism with Evolution, so why do it here. Dave souza is also mistaken in claiming that fundamentalists "sneak" their religious views into the classroom. The issue of creation vs evolution is two-sided, and neither side is more or less scientific. Also, Creationism and Creation science are not synonymous, the former is the philosophical justification for the validity of the latter.--Axiomtalk 15:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Let me just be blunt. The issue of creation vs evolution is two-sided, but one side - evolution - is more scientific. creationism, for the simple fact that it invokes the supernatural, is by definition, NOT scientific. Anything and everything that invokes the supernatural is, by definition, not scientific because science is the study of the natural world. No supernatural or no science. Period. There's no way around it. In addition, creation scientists do not conduct experiments, create hypotheses, test those hypotheses, or any other sort of activity that represents the scientific method in any way, shape, or form. to claim that creation science is in any way scientific is simply delusional.Farsight001 (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC) AFAIK, Creation Science doesn't use the scientific method and doesn't fit the description of a Science as that WP article describes it. It would be a Psuedoscience, as that WP article describes such things. However, what is under discussion here is not whether or not Creation Science is a bona fide scientific discipline alongside such scientific disciplines as Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, etc. What is being discussed here is whether this article should be merged into the Creationism article. Axiom makes a good point that Creationism and Creation Science are not synonymous, describing the former as the philosophical justification for the validity of the latter. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Please tell the people at the Creation Research Society this news. Their reports: "Experimental Results of Crowding on the Rate of Asexual Reproduction of the Planarian Dugesia Dorotocephala", "Rapid Deposition of Thin Laminae Sediments", "Seed Germination, Sea Water, And Plant Survival In The Great Flood", "A Demonstration of Marked Species Stability in Enterobacteriaceae", "Deposition of Calcium Carbonate in a Laboratory Situation", "Experiments On Precipitation Brought About By Mixing Brines", "Rapid Growth Of Dripstone Observed", "Surtsey: A Micro-Laboratory For Flood Geology", "A Report Of Activity On The Grasslands Experiment Station For 1983" and "What is the Upward Limit for the Rate of Speleothem Formation?" to name ten, appear to discuss experiments conducted. Perhaps truth trumps bluntness. Dan Watts (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC) A thumbnail sketch of scientific method is provided in the article thereon, as follows: 1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2. 2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook. 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow? 4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent. That does not appear to describe the approach used by the Creation Research Society, who describe themselves on their website as "firmly committed to scientific special creation." Their History and Aims page say that their members "... are committed to full belief in the Biblical record of creation and early history. Thus, they advocate the concept of special creation (as opposed to evolution), both of the universe and of the earth with its complexity of living forms. All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief: ..." (see the aforementioned web page for the details of the statement of belief to which all members are required to subscribe). Also see Scientific method#Certainty and myth; which begins by saying, "A scientific theory hinges on empirical findings, and remains subject to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered certain." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC) An example "Solution and Deposition of Calcium Carbonate in a Laboratory Situation (IV)" as weighed against the stated scientific method: 1. Use your experience: "Consider the problem .... Look for previous explanations. " Long times are generally associated with large stalactite/stalagmite structures. Is this assumption true? 2. Form a conjecture: Are measurable rates of CaCO3 precipitation consistent with the above assumption? 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: "A tentative model for the formation of limestone, cavern development, and sudden precipitation of stalactites, stalagmites, and dripstones ...." [Emphasis added] 4. Test: "Table I. Precipitation of CaCO3 on Strings by Pressure Decrease - Run 1" - 0.40 g/liter H2O/Year "Table III. Precipitation of CaCO3 on Strings by Pressure Decrease - Run 2" - 0.03 g/liter H2O/Year "Table IV. Precipitation of CaCO3 on Strings by Pressure Decrease - Run 3" - 0.33 g/liter H2O/Year "Table V. Precipitation of CaCO3 on Strings by Pressure Decrease - Run 4" - 0.98 g/liter H2O/Year Appendix II Rapid Growing Structures in Caves "Three new stalactites had grown and the longest was some longer than 12 [inches]. The time since the last photo was taken ... was just over 3 months ago so the growth rate ... would be approximately 4 [inches] per month ...." Does this appear unscientific, unempirical, unfalsifiable? Dan Watts (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC) It does indeed appear to be very scientific, the reason being that the part you showed us is real science, it's the real science of growing stalactites in a lab. Unfortunately, as any scientist could tell you, this is insufficient evidence to confirm anything beyond the time it takes a stalactite to grow... in a lab. This has no connection to how caves are actually formed, nor does it invalidate any other preexisting geological evidence of how caves are formed. Scientists use evidence to prove or support claims, claims that are always subject to being refined or outright disregarded, this organization is supposedly dedicated to "science" but is formed of only people who are stated to have beliefs that are in direct conflict with scientific evidence, while some of their research may be valid(like the stalactite thing), their conclusions(that the earth is <10,000 years old) are utterly ridiculous from a scientific perspective. There's only one real scientific community because there's only one universe to make observations of, these people are observing the real world to find evidence to prove that the biblical world that only exists in their heads is the one we live in. Basically, I could write a page about "Wizard Science" and describe where dementors (which are invisible to us muggles) are by analyzing the number of depressed people in an area- the research on the density of people suffering from depression in a population could be useful, but as a dementor finder, it's not. If the fact that only a ridiculously small number of scientists believe in creation "science" does not make creation science any less valid, then wizard science is no less valid if I can get a few other scientists to support it. Just as the Flying Spaghetti Monster is equally valid as a candidate for the "designer" from that ridiculous thing called intelligent design as any other imaginary god is.Hoyt596 (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Ah! So the report: "Three new stalactites had grown and the longest was some longer than 12 [inches]. The time since the last photo was taken ... was just over 3 months ago so the growth rate ... would be approximately 4 [inches] per month ...." has "no connection to how caves are actually formed" or how stalactites grow outside a lab. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya Dan Watts (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC) May I suggest that the question of 'whether creationism is science' is not to be decided on the basis of WP:OR, such as the above -- but one the basis of WP:RS. I would therefore suggest we accept the opinion of 72 NOBEL LAUREATES, 17 STATE ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE, AND 7 OTHER SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS. I would further suggest that this thread be closed. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

'History and organization' section

The start of this section (everything before the 2nd paragraph of 'Twentieth century creationism') appears to be on the history of creationism (which already has its own article), rather than the history of Creation Science. A more relevant history should cover scriptural geologists, George McCready Price (who gets only a bare mention, and possibly Harry Rimmer) -- i.e. CS's antecedents in making purportedly-scientific claims in support of creationism, before moving onto the birth of modern CS/Flood Geology with Morris & Whitcoomb. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I would further note that most of 'Modern religious affiliations' (in fact everything after the first paragraph) has little (and in most cases nothing) to do with that subject. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have just tagged this section, for spending too much space talking about the history of creationism generally, and not enough space talking about the history of Creation Science specifically. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to add there should be a structure or maybe a concept map for Creation Science, since not all models are equivalent. Does theistic evolution classify? What about the Gap theory model, or Deistic evolution? These are all "creation science" models of certain degrees, but what of scientific creationism? Is scientific creationism a model, or a means? Are fundamental creationists scientific creationists, or are they religious zealots? Creationism is the widest classification, Creation Science includes the various models which use some degree of scientific methodology, and scientific creationism uses pure science to provide evidence for creation, just like scientific naturalism uses pure science to provide evidence for evolution (Ariel A. Roth. (1998). Origins - Linking Science and Scripture. Review and Herald Publishing Association. Hagerstown, MD. pp.339-351)

Gwilenius (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"Does theistic evolution classify?" No -- TE scientists have a long record of opposing Creationism, including Creation Science. "What about the Gap theory model..." -- probably not as, AFAIK, no purportedly scientific claims were made to promote GT at the expense of orthodox geology. GT was an attempt to accommodate geological knowledge within a framework of Biblical Inerrancy. As far as a definition of CS, I offer Numbers(2006) p269: "By the mid-1970s the advocates of flood geology, such as Morris and Moore, had securely attached the synonymous tags 'creation science' and 'scientific creationism' to the Bible-based views of George McCready Price. This relabeling reflected more than euphemistic preference; it signified a major tactical shift among strict six-day creationists." It is clear from this that Creation Science = Scientific Creationism = Flood Geology = a subset of YEC. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

OED defines 'Creation Science' as "chiefly U.S., science teaching based on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Book of Genesis, incorporating a creation of the universe, the individual creation of plant and animal species, and a catastrophic theory of geology." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all convinced that this wholesale removal is a good idea. Dylan Flaherty 14:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Please point to how the material was relevant to this article (as it discussed a period before Creation Science came into existence, and made no mention of CS). After a month, I got no negative response (or even a relevant response) to my suggestion, so I observed WP:SILENCE and went ahead. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that Creation Science is just a more recent relabeling for Creationism, so the history of the former must include the history of the latter. Dylan Flaherty 15:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Creation science is not just a relabeling of creationism-it's a subset within creationism. Creation science purports to be a naturalistic, scientific discipline whose results are consistent with special creation. Since virtually all creation scientists are creationists working from set precepts that they either cannot or will not allow to be falsified empirically, the discipline doesn't succeed as being a true scientific discipline--but it's the "science" angle characterizes this strain of creationism.

I wrote much of the history section but might agree with Hrafn's point. It was intended to present the history in terms of those chief religious figures who tried to apply scientific or naturalistic evidence of creation with Biblical interpretation of creation, and vice versa. These historical antecedents were identified in the texts I cited. But Price was overshadowed too much-he's clearly the most significant as the "founding father" of 20th century creation science. Where to draw lines is handled differently by different sources. Many consider "strains" like evolving branches of thought in creationism, fuzzy sets that some ways intersect (e.g. intelligent design intersects creation science, and creation science intersects YEC) and other ways don't (e.g. ID's foremost scientist, biochemist Behe, overlaps with creation science but does not overlap with YEC). Others consider them more as separate box-like categories (e.g. creation science stems from Henry Morris, a fundamentalist/evangelical YEC movement, with ID an independent movement, led DI, having its own box.) Similarly, sources differ to what degree they associate today's creation science with historical attempts to interpret or verify creation doctrine naturalistically or empirically. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

New section needed?

"Creation Science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism, which attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis "

If this is so, shouldn't the article have, somewhere near the top, a brief summary of that narrative, and maybe an overview of current thinking regarding its origins? (By the way, it seems a little tautological to repeat the word Genesis like that). PiCo (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that, not only are you correct, but the article needs to be overhauled. It would be a big job, but the place to start is the lead. I would prefer that the article spoke more bluntly, so that it was clear from the very start that "creation science" is not a branch of science, or in any way scientific, but rather an attempt to force science to bend to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Had a quick google. Nice definition of CS here; and it seems Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research has a book out, but it gets poor reviews. And Walt Brown of the Centre for Scientific Creation also has a book - I have no idea who's important in creationist circles, unfortunately.PiCo (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

They're not so much circles as triangles. There are only a few organizations, and they're all very well known. In other words, the notion of "scientific creationism" or "creation science" is the creation of a small number of motivated individuals. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to the idea of a section on the biblical basis for it, how about this:

Creation science is based on the opening chapters of the book of Genesis. These describe how God calls the world into existence through the power of speech ("God said, 'Let there be light'," etc), calls all the animals and plants into existence, and molds the first man from clay and the first woman from a rib taken from the man's side; a world-wide flood destroys all life except for Noah and his family and representatives of the animals, and Noah becomes the ancestor of the 70 "nations" of the world; the nations live together and speak one language until God disperses them and gives them their different languages. Creation science rarely goes beyond these stories, but the bible also contains a complex internal chronology which places the initial act of creation some six thousand years ago, and creation science therefore frequently attempts to explain history and science within this timeframe.

Just for discussion. PiCo (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

How about:

Creation science is based on the opening chapters of the book of Genesis. These describe how God called the world into existence ("God said, 'Let there be light'," etc), calls all the animals and plants into existence, and molds the first man from clay and the first woman from a rib taken from the man's side; a world-wide flood destroys all non-marine life except for Noah and his family and representatives of the animals, and Noah becomes the ancestor of the 70 "nations" of the world; the nations live together and speak one language until God disperses them by giving them their different languages. Creation science rarely goes beyond these stories, but the bible also contains a complex internal chronology which places the initial act of creation some six thousand years ago, and creation science therefore frequently attempts to explain history and science within this timeframe.

Dan Watts (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dan. I've been away for a few days, so no reply till now. Well, it's true that Genesis 6 doesn't list fish among those about to be obliterated for their sins, but I sort of feel we can accept this as a given - I'd let the reader mentally fill in the blank space after "everything" (...except the fish"). PiCo (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello PiCo. In fact, Genesis 6 doesn't list any sin problem of the birds or the beasts either. They just inhabited the same ecosphere as mankind. Dan Watts (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe it to be good science to give a description or quote from Genesis 1-6 at the top of of the "Creation Science" article for the simple reason that it would be a manipulation of the readers understanding of what follows. "Creation Science" is just that, Science. The scientific study of the possibility of a creator or ID. It is not a religious or philisophical study but a scientific study. The fact that the results of this study might open the door for a theological or philosophical belief should not be a deciding factor in it's value as science. If we accept that Creation Science is religious then "Evolution Science" has the same problem in that it also opens the door for a philosophical or theological belief. Just because the results of one scientific study may result in a door being opened for a theological belief different that what one believes does not mean it's not science. If a synopsis of Genisis 1-6 was to be place before the scientific content of the article it would manipulate the reader's response to the science. For this article to stay true to scientific models the science needs to speak for itself. The argument that "Creation Science is not science at all" is a totally different issue. If the content of what is written within the Creation Science article is not science then it should be reviewed and dealt with accordingly. Placing the Gen 1-6 story at the top of the article would make no more sense than placing all the atheist agenda at the top of the "Evolution Science" article. In a scientific article, science should speak, without the emotion we so often see in the creation vs. evolution debate.TSB178 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

(i) 'Creation Science' is not science, it is religious apologetics (generally Christian apologetics). (ii) It is not "the scientific study of the possibility of a creator or ID", it is the cherry picking of scientific evidence to fit those presuppositions. (iv) What you term "Evolution Science" is just science pure and simple -- science is performed without any theological presuppositions, just with the pragmatic presupposition of methodological naturalism. (v) Science does not have an "atheist agenda" -- and many scientists, including evolutionary biologists, are religious. (vi) Creation Science has no valid science to "speak". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Templates

Could somebody tell me why this article needs the {{creationism}} in addition to the {{creationism2}}? The former has much the same information as the latter, but is somewhat out of date (in that a number of articles have been renamed and/or redirected since it was last updated). As it is infrequently used, I was looking at seeing if it was really necessary to have this duplication, before updating it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it doesn't; How do you delete an entire article? Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I just fixed it; the template "creationism2" is now "creationism". Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Revision of "Facts" stated in Article

In this article, it is stated as a "fact" as something in the lines of that Creation Science is not science and that this "fact" has been provided in a court of law. If the articles are to remain neutral. It is unconstitutional to force teaching Creationism in science, but it is constitutional to be able to teach it by choice. Also, if the article is to remain neutral, then the statements/opinions regarding the "fact" that Creationism is based solely on religion and not science should be taken out. This article should not have been written with somebody who is not writing in a neutral perspective towards whether or not Creationism is indeed scientific or not.174.39.228.36 (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you are on the right website? I can find nothing like this in the Wikimedia Foundation's constitution, which, by the way, is officially called its bylaws. [1] Also, it is not Wikipedia's policy to be 'neutral' about fringe. See WP:FRINGE. Altogether, I am not sure if you are mistaking us for the US government or an outfit of the US corporate media. We are neither, so fortunately we don't have to appease politically or economically powerful tiny fringe groups. Hans Adler 17:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

They are probably referring to the court decision in the US that it's not science. In reality it's not science because it does not propose scientific theories and is pseudoscience. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Since when do courts of law decide weather something is science or not? Didn't the same thing happen in the scopes trial?Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Since fundamentalists began reframing their religious views as science to evade the Establishment Clause. Read the article. The same thing didn't happen in the Scopes trial, which implemented the Butler Act with the effect of damaging science education until such bans on teaching evolution were ruled to be breaching the Establishment Clause. . . dave souza, talk 08:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

According to Talk Origins "Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent." Creationists are a minority. However, I will point out that the author didn't list the fields considered "relative", nor the source from which he (Mark Isaak) got the statement about the U.S.A. having the most creationist scientists.[2] According to This article, -[3] Turkey has at least more creationists (therefore maybe even creationist scientists) than the U.S., and less than 10% of the world's official countries (currently 192 + Kosovo and Vatican) are listed, and yet Luxembourg and Iceland (Iceland's population is currently still under 500, 000) [4]. They didn't list China, Australia, Russia, or India (although I'm almost certain that China is largely evolutionist and India is largely creationist, and in Russia, Creation is taught in most schools at least for religious class (vjeronauk))[5] Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Scientific Description

This article gives a description of what is "scientific" yet evolution fails the description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.121.150 (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Need section about use of the word science

In other fields not sciences, the word is appended nonetheless. In other true scienecss the term is appended also. Natural and biology science. Library science is not a science but usage of the term science is not a controversy as much as it is in the verbal construction Creation Science.

Perhaps it is the attempt to treat an unscientific campaign with a coat of scientific paint or primer.Lingust (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(i) Such a section would require WP:RSs that address the use of the word "Science" in "Creation Science directly. (ii) I think the point would be better made by including a more prominent and more forceful statement of the scientific community's view in the lead. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

@Linguist: You hit the nail right on the head. The reason for the controversy is that creationists are usurping the word "science" to create the impression that their field is a valid natural science like biology or physics, and not a science like library science. The word is ambiguous, and they are exploiting the tendency of the public, judges, politicians and school board members to interpret the word in the former sense, and not the latter. I think you will have a difficult time finding reliable sources that, when creationists use the word "science", they mean it in the general sense like library science, except when they are clearly back-pedaling and being evasive. There are PLENTY of reliable sources, on the other hand, that they intend the word to be interpreted as "natural science", at least, as I said, by the public, judges, politicians and school board members, so that their POV can be presented in natural science courses. Librarians are not trying to decieve anyone. There is nothing deceptive about calling library science a science sensu lato, but not sensu strictu. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's just stick with 'Creation Science'. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If we renamed it, 'Creation Pseudo-Science' or 'Creation Not-Science', no one would recognize it. An encyclopedia defines words/terms people use. Then again, we could merge this with 'Creationism'.Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I take the second part back. We already have a link for Creationism on the Creation Science page. Merging would be a disaster anyway. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

@Dominus Vobisdu: Please cite your sources! Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Capitals

Shouldn't this be moved to Creation science? I suppose if it's a religion, it can keep the caps, but if it's a science, then 'S' should be changed to 's'. Rothorpe (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever it is it certainly ain't science.--Charles (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Beware of 'Science' with a capital 'S'... Rothorpe (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a title; thus making 's' a capital letter. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses its own style for article titles. Most generally, only the first word in a multi-word title is capitalized. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well then, why is this one capitalized? 93.138.208.35 (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Some may consider it a proper name. Others may consider it a buzzword, not to be given improperly featured status by capitalization. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way to edit the title? Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that can be done after we reach consensus here. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Science is not a proper noun, so lets make it lower case. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You might want to read about consensus on Wikipedia before unilaterally declaring what the voting parameters will be. It isn't exactly about voting, you see. In this particular case, I am sure someone can support, in good faith, the idea that "Creation Science" is a proper name for a particular body of belief, or pseudoscience. The real issue, IMO, is whether there is a preponderance of reliable secondary sources mentioning it in that style. That said, my vote might go something like "some arguments are not worth having." __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Bill, you're right! I suppose it isn't worth having. I'll change my vote. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A capital S is generally used by the people promoting this specific body of pseudoscience, making it the common name. It is a proper name and the S should remain.--Charles (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Per WP:TITLEFORMAT & WP:CAPS, the convention is to use lower case for subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun. "Creation Science" is a term of art, not a proper noun, so does not get capitalised. The exact same convention was applied to Intelligent Design → Intelligent design, for the exact same reason. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. "Science" isn't normally capitalised in such a phrase: domestic science, rocket science, bad science... Rothorpe (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Over-Used Terms

• Scientific community = 6x
• Genesis creation narrative = 8x
• Scientific theory/ies = 9x

Can someone please fix this? I'd do it myself, but the original author might reverse the edit. Note: 'scientific community' can be easily changed to a term like 'scientists' or 'most mainstream scientists'...Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 08:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

'Creation Science' is the topic of where belief in the Biblical inerrancy of the creation narrative of the Book of Genesis comes into conflict with the scientific community's scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and evolutionary biology (among other scientific theories). It is therefore unsurprising that such terms therefore receive frequent mention. "a term like 'scientists' or 'most mainstream scientists'" seriously inderstates that side of the conflict. If you want a shortened version, then I would suggest "science" -- because it is science itself (being the scientific community, the scientific consensus and the scientific method) that creation science is in conflict with. Watering this down is both WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL -- so against WP:NPOV. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Hrafn. I'll edit the list to:

• Genesis creation narrative = 8x

Could we substitute 'genesis creation' (in some places) for 'creation'? Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No, because we're talking explicitly about the narrative written in Genesis. "Creation" doesn't convey that meaning, except perhaps in a POV sense. BTW, if you have a specific change in mind, pointing it out directly might be helpful. How many times a word appears in an article isn't particularly relevant to article improvement, unless there's a specific sentence in which it could be changed to be more descriptive.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple specific sentences 'in which it could be changed to be more descriptive.' I'll expound on this later. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No introduction

One of the topics stated: Earth sciences and geophysics Main article: Creation geophysics. That's all. Someone should either write an introductory paragraph or place this in the internal links section (which doesn't make much sense). Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

An introductory paragraph isn't always necessary for a section whose subsection-structure is reasonably self-explanatory. If you think that one is necessary, then the sentence "Young Earth creationists have made a number of claims in the field of geophysics, mostly related to the age of the Earth and flood geology." from the lead of Creation geophysics would probably serve. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Hrafn. I'll begin writing one right away. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Outdated Material

"One young earth creationist concept proposed by D. Russell Humphreys, called "white hole cosmology", proposes that while the Earth has been in existence for only several thousand years, the universe has been in existence for billions of years even while God created them at the same time. The difference in time frames is explained as being due to the effects of relativity within a short span of time on Earth after the Earth's creation. This model places the Earth at or near the center of the Universe and inside a kind of white hole at the time it was created. This idea has been endorsed by the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis, but has been criticised by the scientific community for: failing to explain why that white hole no longer exists; badly mangling the standard general relativity treatment of gravitational time dilation (which would require a black hole, not a white hole for time to pass more rapidly far away from the Earth)."Evidence for the Big Bang, Björn Feuerbacher and Ryan Scranton, TalkOrigins Archive

According to the cited article (by Talk Origins), "There are also creationists who tried to replace the BBT with their own models, the most prominent among them being Dr. Russell Humphreys. His model, contained in his book Starlight and Time, is endorsed by several creationist organizations, including the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis - despite the fact that it was widely disputed even among creationists and that the editors of the conference proceedings for the International Conference on Creationism in 1994 concluded that it apparently is faulty (see the article The current state of creation astronomy published by the ICR, towards the end)."

Doesn't this mean neither AiG nor ICR has endorsed this theory in over 15 years? In their conference, apparently, it was 'widely disputed even among creationists'? How come the article states that "idea has been endorsed by the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis" if it was 'widely disputed'. This may be true, but shouldn't we write down when the hypothesis was rejected by the organizations with members who accepted it (1994; the year Starlight and Time was published).

Also, after this paragraph, the article mentions that 'the foundational premises underlying scientific creationism disqualify it as a science'. Well, apparently, the white hole thin-gummy isn't a 'foundational premise' anymore.

Besides, where does Starlight and Time imply that the white hole doesn't exhist anymore? Doesn't John G. Hartnett (Ph.D.)'s book (Dismantling the Big Bang) explains that the main reason the hypothesis doesn't work is because "it fails to account for the hundreds of thousands of years that have passed within our own galaxy and those nearby. It predicts large blueshifts in light from nearby galaxies, which are not observed. It therefore needs some modification." (page 180, sentences 2-4). The first sentence was stated citing Hartnett's own book, "Look-back Time in Our Galactic Neighborhood Leads to a New Cosmology," TJ 17(1):73-79 (2003). So, Hartnett came up with a system where basically the solar system is surrounded by the "waters above", replacing the white hole and billions of years, and placing stars and galaxies outside the waters above (which take the form of ice crystals, which could have 'supplied impacting objects to precipitate the Flood' (Page 180 again), proposing that 'light from all parts of the universe reached earth on creation day 4'...

Here are links to some publications supported by AiG and ICR on the book after the 1994 conference:

ICR: -[6] (2001), which says, "Even if you like my theory, please try to keep open to the possibility that a better one may come along. I myself remain open, and anticipate my tenure at ICR, with increased attention and time focused on this vital question, to bear much fruit."

AiG: -[7] A non- supportive modified theory by Jason P. Lisle -[8] (1996) It concludes that, "Even if Humphreys is wrong in his biblical interpretation, he has contributed significantly to cosmological studies." -[9] (2003) By Robert Newton, astrophysicist. -[10] A review that backs Humphrey's young creation theory. Using the white hole hypothesis as an example against currently accepted creationist ideas is comparable with arguing against Darwinism's ideas and claiming that 'the foundational premises underlying' evolution (in the broad sense of the word) 'disqualify it as a science'.

I propose we be honest about this and leave out the affiliation of AiG and ICR with white hole cosmology or at least state when it was rejected and leave out the 'foundational' from "the foundational premises underlying scientific creationism disqualify it as a science"., or move that paragraph to the one before it, or leave out the 'white hole' altogether. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You have provided no direct evidence contradicting the claim that ICR & AiG support, let alone at some time supported, this claim. None of your links appear to have them explicitly disavowing it, so none of them contradict it.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Hrafn. I'll be sure not to indent paragraphs next time. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way Hrafn, how did you manage to read my entire statement +4 internet articles word-for-word in only 9 minutes??? Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:TLDNR, I skimmed it. Also I would point out that the AiG website contains numerous, mostly positive, discussions of Humphreys' hypothesis. Given this & a WP:SECONDARY source, I think it isn't unreasonable to mention their support for it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I've collected some more links from AiG:-[11]-[12] An explanation of parts of the modified

theory/hypothesis/idea/whatever.-[13] (2001) Robert Newton explains a problem with the White hole and the Biblical perspective.-[14] An introductory level basic paper (not too scientific, unlike Dr. Lisle's other papers) explaining another concept of the young earth model; not worth too much from a scientific perspective, but gives more weight to the new model vs. Humphrey's.-[15] Humphreys' article is a case study in an article titled; 'Can Creation Models Be Wrong?' It takes a 1/2 negative view on Humphrey's hypothesis-[16] Backs up the young earth model, but not Humphrey's hypothesis.-[17] The article (by Wayne Spencer) mentions 'six literal creation days' as the material the article supports and then mentions R. Humphreys, but is inconclusive about wether his or Hartnett's view is supported. They may not explicitly disavow it, but they sure don't seem to endorse it either. According to [18], "The claim that this is a biblically-based cosmology must also be addressed. Does the biblical history really provide this framework for cosmology? Christians should be cautious about the reception and use of these ideas until scholarly debate has taken place. Even if Humphreys is wrong in his biblical interpretation, he has contributed significantly to cosmological studies." David J. Tyler (Ph.D.) wrote the article. He is a member of the Biblical Creation Society [19]. Considering his article contains explicit disavowing of Humphrey's ideas (at least the billions-of years part), and AiG has posted this in their article section, I'd be careful about keeping that statement in the article (at least for AiG), although I can't say the organization itself has disavows it yet. I'm just trying to sort out which arguments are good against Creationism and which ones aren't. Thank you Hrafn. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn. I propose we (for now) move the 'foundational premises underlying scientific creationism disqualify it as a science' sentence to before the White Hole paragraph. Any ideas as to how? Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn. You said that, 'the AiG website contains numerous, mostly positive, discussions of Humphreys' hypothesis.' Nearly all of the articles (I didn't skim them) basically state that his work was a good start, but had some mistakes, and needed to be fixed, and then someone fixed it and it wasn't the same hypothesis anymore (in 2 of the resources in states that it is a hypothesis, including Humphreys himself). How come the article calls it a theory: 'More recently, creationist physicist Russell Humphreys has proposed a theory called "white hole cosmology"'??? And it was obviously written by someone who didn't think of it as such. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a WP:SECONDARY source that gives a more up-to-date/nuanced characterisation of AiG's (and/or ICR's) engagement with this theory, then feel free. However, lacking a secondary source, the prohibition against WP:Synthesis may severely limit what you can actually say. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Looking more closely, (i) the White Hole paragraph is too detailed to fit particularly well in the (general) 'Views on science' section; is largely duplicative of the 'Creationist cosmologies' section & (iii) the latter section doesn't really need further expansion as we already have a Creationist cosmologies article. I have therefore deleted the paragraph & added its reference to the 'Creationist cosmologies' section. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, Hrafn! Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I just changed 'theory' into 'hypothesis', as it is 'a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.'[20] Sorry about citing numerous sources, Hrafn, but I like to be precise. Since I've come up with 15 sources from AiG mostly backing my claim that the organization doesn't acknowledge the WHH (White Hole Hypothesis), it's time to find some from ICR. Again, my goal by doing this is to remove the idea that AiG and ICR have accepted the WHH since the year of its publication:-[21]-[22]-[23]-[24] All these articles (in my opinion, the same article written in a different format 4 times) show how Humphreys provided an adequate defense against Hugh Ross's accusations. The articles were inconclusive as to whether or not they supported WHH (each written in 1999). The first one (at the top of the topic in my original statement; published 2 years later), however, it does mention that Humphreys could have been wrong. From this, we can't conclude anything about ICR's stance. I suggest taking out the part about AiG, but leaving in ICR's involvement in publishing defenses for the WHH. Thank you. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Another thing; according to [25], the problem of the white hole has been resolved (at least in theory): 'Most people have heard of black holes: regions of space where matter and light are falling inward and cannot escape. Most people are not aware that the same theory predicts the possibility of white holes, regions of space very similar to black holes except matter and light are streaming outward. Such a condition is unstable, and so unlike black holes which may exist forever once they form, white holes exist for a relatively short time before ceasing to exist. That is one reason why white holes largely have been largely ignored. Another reason they have been ignored is that we have a theory of how black holes can form naturally at this time in the universe, but not white holes. Any primordial white holes should have ceased to exist by now.' I found the article at ICR. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

According to these 2 sources, the Creation Research Society has rejected Humphreys' idea as a whole as well:

11. Byl, J. On Time Dilation in Cosmology, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 34 (1997) 13. Connor, S. R. and Page, D. N., Light-travel Time in Starlight and Time, Bible-Science News, 33:7 (1995) Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as hypothesis vs theory goes, what does the source refer to it as? Wikipedia should reflect the exact wording of the source, even if it is incorrect in an editor's eye. Noformation (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what Humphreys calls it in his book, but here he says "My theory proposes ...". Also, here he writes about rejection of his theory by creationists, but creationists of a different stripe than himself.

The digging around sparked by this article popping up on my watchlist led to my adding some material to Creationist cosmologies#White hole cosmology. Some editors here might want to take a look at that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

@Noformation: see response to Wtmitchell. @Wtmitchell: The creationists of a different stripe than himself are typically mainstream creationists (young earth creationists) with more followers than old/young-mix earth creationists such as himself. In the same article, he mentions (at the end) his theory only fitting the criteria for a hypothesis. I believe he was using the word 'theory' to mean an idea that (at the time) had no strong evidence against it (or so he thought) at the time (2001). Now, evidence has downgraded it to a hypothesis or idea, which can be modified. Thank you. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Flood hydrology: unbalanced statements?

Sorry about the changes without discussing, I noticed that the arguement ends off with the naturalistic point of view as the "last word," which seems to give an unneutral advantage to the latter. For instance, the sentence stating that geologists have found no evidence in the rock strata of such a flood makes an assertive counterarguement to the flood hydrologists' claim that there was a flood. So shouldn't there be a chance for flood hydrologists to respond? But then again, it would turn into some sort of debate...anyways thanks for the input! 1Thess5v16 (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Thess5v16 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

In a word: no. We do not give equal validity to WP:FRINGE claims. The "last word" belongs to the scientific consensus. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi 1Thess5v16, you might like to take a look at WP:NPOV. Some people mistakenly understand the concept of neutral point of view to mean that Wikipedia discusses "all sides" of an argument and allows the reader to make their own decision. In fact, NPOV simply means that we don't insert our own point of view as editors, and we merely report what the reliable sources have already established. In the case of topics that fall under WP:Fringe, the guidelines state that we report the scientific consensus, as Hrafn has pointed out. If you can find secondary sources that meet the criteria, you are welcome to bring them to the talk page for discussion. Thanks! N^oformation ^Talk 04:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

More Outdated Material

An older creationist idea, proposed by creationist astronomer Barry Setterfield, is that the speed of light has decayed in the history of the universe.

This sentence is talking about c-decay. That idea lost its popularity with mainstream creationists in the early 1990s. If anyone objects to my proposal, I will: a) Further exposit on my reasons, citing many sources. b) Change my idea because whoever objects has given reasonable evidence for the idea's positive reception among modern creationists. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Although the sentence mentions that the idea is older, it does not mention how old it is.

Dr. Humphrey's idea = 1994 Barry Setterfield's idea = 1987 Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: 'Be concise: Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood.' unless you have to make a detailed, point-by-point discussion. Then I'll understand. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If no one answers w/in 3 days, I'll assume it's o.k. to make the edit. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any reason to exclude properly sourced material just because it is older. We do not throw out those aspects of Isaac Newton's work that have been superceeded by modern relativity theory. Doing so may be contrary to WP:Recentism. I would leave it at least ten days as interested editors may be busy or on vacation.--Charles (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Wekn, your suggestions often end up being rather long and hard to parse, which I imagine is a roadblock for some editors reading through them and providing feedback. If you could cut down on the amount of text you're quoting from the article, that might help. For instance, this proposal quotes the entire paragraph, when you're only actually discussing one sentence. Just quoting that one sentence would be ok. Also, using <blockquote> tags would help differentiate the sections you're quoting and your own words. Either that or italics. (You've recently edited your initial comment. Thanks.)

As far as content goes, Charles is correct that we don't exclude content simply because it's 20+ years old. The article explicitly mentions that it is an older idea. If you'd like to expand that mention to include a date, that would be fine. However, this article is about the entire topic, which includes stuff from the 80s (and indeed, ideas much older).   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I think an accurate history of the ideas proposed in creation science is important because, as a pseudoscience that generally attempts to reconcile itself with real science, it's inevitable that old ideas will be dismissed and new ones created on a fairly regular basis. Some of the ideas proposed by creation science over the years may sound plausible to an uneducated reader and it's important to note the history that shows that to date all ideas proposed have been soundly rejected by the scientific community and many within the creation science community as well. Noformation (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

@Charles: I'm so sorry that I miscommunicated the kind of edit I was going to make; I meant exactly when the theory was believed (late 80s and early 90s). You are very correct; the matterial is' properly sourced' and I will move the date up to 10 days (from the date of the first comment. As for the graviton theory (Isaac Newton), it is still accepted by some quantum physicists (although at a slightly higher percentage than c-decay for nearly all 'creation scientists' who can at least claim a Ph.D. in a related field), making it a great comparison to the c-decay "hypothesis". You see, if in a wikipedia article about Isaac Newton (although his theory is a theory and is over 200 years older than Setterfield's), assuming it hadn't stood through the test of time+science but was believed by some group of pseudoscientists, it stated that it was an 'older idea' w/out mentioning how old, one might assume it was still being believed by pseudoscientists today. @Jess: You're right about me needing to cut down on the words. I'll consider the suggestion and try a better format+more time editing. As for the 2nd paragraph, that's what I was planning to do. This is an introduction to the topic, but I think in the long run we might just have to open up briefly with the most accepted creationist idea and move the less-accepted ones to the article covering the topic (it isn't necessary to cover the entire thing in one or two paragraphs). @Noformation: explained in my reply for Jess. Also, the date of the idea doesn't matter nearly as much as the reception.

Thank all for the feedback. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, your initial comment indicated you would delete the sentence. If, as you've indicated above, your intention is to clarify the sentence by adding a date, I don't see any opposition here. WP:BOLD; Go ahead and try it. If you get reverted, then come back and discuss. (If I've misunderstood you, and you still wish to delete the content, then I'm still opposed to that, however). Thanks for editing your initial comment, BTW.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this, clarification is never a bad thing! However, this info should not be deleted N^oformation ^Talk 22:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the deleting miscommunication. I should have phrased it differently. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I had absolutely no intention of deleting the content, just adding a date. Just incase any editors have any good objections to making this edit, I won't make a move towards adding a date until 09:31, 7 June 2011. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Creation Science thumbnail picture

Off-topic: please take to Template talk:Creationism2 if you wish to discuss. Wekn reven i susej eht has created a thread there, and copied the content of this thread to it -- so you may wish to participate there
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The painting of God creating Adam poses some issues with Christianity (which is the main foundation of Creation Science), primarily the inapproriate picture and a human interpretation of what God looks like. 1Thess5v16 (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC) That picture is part of {{Creationism2}}, and discussion belongs on Template talk:Creationism2. (But you may wish to work on making your argument clearer before you go there.) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC) There is God the Father and God the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit, God the Father is not incarnate (not in human form), therefore since God the Father created the heavens and the earth, a painting of God the Father as a human is incorrect, not to mention there is no way of knowing what Adam or God looked like. (Note most of these Renaissance paintings portray all the Biblical characters as Caucasian). Furthermore, the inappropriate nature of the image would negatively affect younger viewers. An image of say the first page of Genesis would probably fit the main page well. (File:Genesis1.jpg)1Thess5v16 (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC) As Hrafn pointed out, that image is part of {{Creationism2}} and you would have to discuss it on their talk page. As Hrafn also pointed out, you will likely need better reasoning. That image has been part of the template for a long, long time, and it is doubtful it will be changed due to your personal take on the bible and the concept of offense. Noformation Talk 04:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC) All three of you have very good points. However, it probably isn't necessary to change the picture itself (considering this article isn't only on theology). If someone wishes to cut out the bottom half of the picture, it would be fine with me (It could be considered pornographic in its present state). Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC) It could NOT be considered pornographic by any stretch of the imagination!!TeapotgeorgeTalk 10:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Displaying the private areas of a man is, by my reckoning pornography. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Your reckoning is incorrect Pornography or porn is the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction. The painting comes no where close.TeapotgeorgeTalk 11:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC) The way I see it, we both have different definitions. By your definition, the painting may not have been 'for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction,' but it could be used that way. Just don't look. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Any photos can be used for sexual gratification it doesn't make them pornographic. Are you suggesting we delete photographs of horses because some people get sexual excitement from looking at them?TeapotgeorgeTalk 14:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Oh, brother! Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC) We are dealing with humans, here. Weknreven i susej eht Talk• Contributions 08:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No evidence of planetary flood too assertive?

I agree the documentary I had posted is not a good citation, but it is generally accepted in the understanding of geologic time (based on my textbook of biogeography) that the Archean period of the Precambrian was a period of vast oceans, and of course before the creation of continental granite cratons, a "water world" earth is very likely. 1Thess5v16 (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Using that information to conclude there is any sort of evidence for creation science/creationism would be WP:SYNTHESIS N^oformation ^Talk 04:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Precambrian was not a period of vast oceans. Water probably built up on earth over 2-3 billion years. Moreover, the fact that the Precambrian is defined as a period from 4.5 billion years ago until about 542 million years ago, I'm rather amused that someone would use anything from that period of time to support Creationism or a global flood. In fact, since the flood myth is pervasive across a number of cultures, it would be much better to point out the various Holocene floods like glacial lake outbursts, the flooding of the Black Sea, and others as the support of the myth of a global flood. If you think that the Archean Eon (it's not a period) was an earth covered by oceans, the evidence clearly doesn't support that. Well into the Archean there was a lot of land, as evidenced by sedimentary processes. I'm just going to point out that you've had like 5 9 edits, and you know too much about Wikipedia procedures. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Creation Science Edit/Add Links

Man Jess, Can you explain why the links you deleted didn't seem appropriate? If your reason/s are adequate, where do you suggest I put them? I will be happy to listen. By the way, this article used to have 5 external links to some of the same websites back in 2005. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

On top of that, what is POV wording? Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wekn. If the links were removed since 2005, then it was probably for a reason, and it was potentially discussed and in agreement with consensus. If so, I would support that consensus. WP:EL details some info regarding external links; Not all links are appropriate, particularly those to forums, sites meant only to push an agenda, and those with little to no notability. Furthermore, the external links section shouldn't be written in "debate-style", as it was. The article should appropriately sum up all notable views on the topic, and the external links are intended for providing further info on those views, not, for instance, as a platform to "respond to the article". POV wording, generally, is wording which presents an editor's point of view disproportionate to what is warranted in the topic. In this case, phrases like "answering problems in this article", "evolutionist website", "a site that takes the evolutionary perspective", and so forth, fall into this category. All in all, this should be discussed on the article talk page, as with any content-related disagreements. If you have any other questions, feel free to post them there. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The only forum I cited was published from the evolutionary (by most people's reasoning, scientific) perspective, and even then the forum is only part of their website. You may have a point, however, about the reason the past edits were made (I'll look into that). I'm sorry for using POV wording (although it wasn't intentional, which is only visible if you could read my thoughts). I think the best place for this discussion is on the article's talk page. I'll go through editing which external links to post (w/out any wording) next time. Before posting them, I'll paste a list of various prominent links for editors to discuss adding. I will consider adding other links to the list at request. Thank you. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 10:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Aftre doing a little research, I found the last time the article had more than 2 links/groups (the ones still here today) was 18:54, 18 July 2010. The edit was made by JonHarder, a school teacher in Minnesota. His formal education related to the topic is in math and physics. [26] The reason was:Move list of groups out of ELs section into main article body to address link farm tag and because we have our own article on almost every group mentioned (one link dead, one duplication). The change was not discussed in the article's talk page. In addition to the 2 we kept, the links deleted were (the links added by me & deleted by Jess Italicized):\

• Answers In Creation Old earth creationism
• National Association of Biology Teachers Evolution
• [27] Young earth creationism

Weknreven i susej eht ^{Talk• Contributions} 10:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Most of those would be covered by a convention (I don't know if it's a rule) to provide internal links to a Wikipedia article on the subject, in preference to an external link to the their own website. Most of these are in the list of internal links in the 'Groups' section. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Right. I'll delete the links with nothing but information already covered in wikipedia articles. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Another thing, Jess: I wasn't using the links as a platform to "respond to" the article. Sorry if it appeared that way. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Wekn reven i susej eht:

1. Please do not add arbitrary and excessive formatting to my comments.
2. Please do not make substantial changes to a comment I have replied to without providing some indication (e.g. square-brackets around additions, striking rather than deletion of withdrawn comments) of what has been altered. It makes it very difficult to keep track of whether a comment is still relevant (so I rather quickly end up striking my own comments rather than trying).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Hrafn. I won't do it again. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

My comment about 'responding to the article' was in reference to your first link, described as "A creationist website devoted to answering problems such as those addressed in this article". Links which can be described in this way are not appropriate for the article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Jess. You'll also notice the other descriptions which I acknowledge weren't appropriate for the article:

An evolutionist website devoted to answering Answers in Genesis. A creationist website devoted to answering evolutionist websites such as No Answers in Genesis Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have stated it this way:

A website devoted to answering Answers in Genesis. A creationist website opposint Talk Origins. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

"A website devoted to answering Answers in Genesis" belongs in Answers in Genesis not here (and lo and behold there is an EL to www.noanswersingenesis.org.au there). "A creationist website opposint [sic] Talk Origins" would belong on TalkOrigins Archive, assuming that such a website did not fail WP:ELNO #2 (which most would agree that www.trueorigin.org does fail). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

@Hrafn

Point#1= Correct. Thanks for feedback. Point#2= Correct. Thanks for feedback. It belongs to the Talk origins article. Weknreven i susej eht ^{Talk• Contributions} 11:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait; if trueorigins fails, what does noanswers do (It isn't even big enough to have an archive), flunk? Weknreven i susej eht ^{Talk• Contributions} 11:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

For failing, trueorigins is considered by many to break this rule: 'Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.' However, all their research is verifiable and the article (talk origins) is about an organization dealing w/that viewpoint. The organization is not a personal webpage, blog, or (certainly not) a fansite. Thank you once again, Hrafn! Weknreven i susej eht ^{Talk• Contributions} 11:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No, little or none of the claims that www.trueorigin.org presents are "verifiable" (they present, by and large, claims that the scientific community has rejected and refuted), and TalkOrigins Archive is not an article "about the viewpoints that the site is presenting", it is about the viewpoints that the site is opposing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Very well, it is a website about the viewpoints the site is opposing. It contains many subjects on creation science not addressed in the creation science article or talk origins website. Would it belong in the external links section of the creation science article? When I said verifiable, I was talking about their habit of citing sources for all their claims. As for the accusation in the second part of your retort, cite your sources and your claim might 'hold water'. Weknreven i susej eht ^{Talk• Contributions} 12:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not the place of Wikipedia (either in its articles, or by external links) to document every creationist claim or argument, no matter how obscure and/or out-there. It's place is to document (with WP:DUE weight to the scientific viewpoint) the views of prominent creationists and creationist organisations. www.trueorigin.org quite simply has no prominence. It's not clear what you mean by "the accusation in the second part of your retort" -- as this "second part" would appear to be the obvious point that TalkOrigins Archive & www.trueorigin.org are opposed to each other. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No, of course it isn't! That's why the links should exist. Sorry, I meant to say the first part, but answered out of order and got it all mixed up. I meant where you said, "No, little or none of the claims that www.trueorigin.org presents are 'verifiable' (they present, by and large, claims that the scientific community has rejected and refuted)." Weknreven i susej eht ^{Talk• Contributions} 13:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(i) See WP:LINKFARM(ii) See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html, Young, Matt (2006). Why Intelligent Design Fails. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. ISBN 9780813538723., Pennock, Robert (2000). Tower of Babel. Cambridge: MIT Press. ISBN 0262661659., the journal Reports of the National Center for Science Education, and other publications too numerous to mention (including no doubt just about every textbook or journal on Geology, Evolutionary Biology, Geochronology and Nuclear Physics, Population genetics, etc, etc). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Hrafn. Weknreven i susej eht ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead Link

In the notes, link #5 is dead Weknreven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 19:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Link #16 as well. Weknreven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 19:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Link #41 is dead, too. Weknreven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 19:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Tagging them with {{deadlink}} would be helpful.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here but it looks like link #5 is fine, you can read the entire thing here

1. 16 I will update in a sec, the page moved from /about.htm to the root directory.
2. 41 is actually dead, but I think this might be available in print.

N^oformation ^Talk 01:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• I {{wayback}}ed #41. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant link #6. Thank you so much for fixing the others, though. How do you tag it w/? Weknreven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 07:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I figured it out. Weknreven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 07:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I just fixed links 91 and 105. All the links are functional, now! Weknreven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 07:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Weasels

1) The scientific community doesn't have a view. Individual members of the scientific community have views. I would certainly agree that very few real scientists take creation science seriously, but I think it's better to attribute views to the scientists who express them rather than to the scientific community as a whole.

2) I recognise that there are sources for these things, but I think sentences like "Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts" need in-text attribution as well as a source.

All the best—S Marshall T/C 13:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

1) I see where you're coming from, but the way you did it made it seem as if the level of support for the statements was more limited than the sources given indiacte. There is no question that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community considers Creationism as not scientific, as the sources given indicate in full abundance, and they are but a small sampling of the sources out there. It would simply not be possible to enumerate them all in-line, as you suggested.

2) As to the Sarkar and Pfeifer cite, your wording makes it sound like the views expressed by Sarkar and Pfeifer are their personal views, when they are merely the editors of a tertiary source, "The Philosophy of science: an encyclopedia". Ditto for Shermer, who you failed to mention. You also basically shut the door on anyone wanting to add additional citations as they are found.

I've deleted the sentence in the first paragraph because it is redundant. It doesn't need in line sourcing, anyway, because it would be impossible to enumerate all the Creationists who have experssed the sentiment. From McCready Price to Morris to Thaxton to Behe and so on and so on. This is a "Well, duh!" sentence, and it's content is abundantly sourced throughout the body of the text. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think the vast majority of the "scientific community" doesn't say anything about creation science at all. Most scientists don't take creation science seriously enough to bother debating it. They've got more important things to do than debunk this kind of thing, and the creation science community has been known to call into question the credentials of those who disagree with them, which is also offputting. A scientist doesn't want his or her name to yield, on the first page of a google search, a bunch of mudslinging. So most scientists don't have anything to say about creation science at all. I don't think it's necessary to enumerate every single scientist who's expressed a negative view about creation science, but the phrasing should probably be more like "Scientists such as (name), among many others, say ..." rather than "The scientific community..."

Likewise, the views expressed in one or two tertiary sources ought to be attributed to those who express them. My concern with all this is that we're putting words into the mouths of people who didn't actually say them, and using too broad a brush for the job.

I'm glad about the removal of the other sentence, it's a good solution.—S Marshall T/C 15:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Au contraire. The vast majority of scientists in revelant fields do indeed have an negaitive opinion of Creatinism, as testified by the fact that a list of some 7000 biologists named "Steve" was compiled in only four days. The Creationism-Evolution controversy is indeed a very hot topic for biologists and science educators, far too hot for any significant number of them to have not made themselves familiar with the topic and form an opinion, at least in the US, which is basically what this topic is primarily about, as well as elsewhere where this has become a political issue. They may not be actively engaged in debunking themselves, but they certainly do not regard Creatism as science, and clearly say so when asked.

Wikipedia is not "putting words into the mouth" of nayone. The reliable sources are accurately reflecting the opinions of scientists in the US and world wide, as gauged by numerous polls, interviews, books and articles written by God-knows-how-many scientists, as well as statements by numerous scientific organizations. The brush is indeed very broad, and any failure to reflect that on our part would be dishonest. Your wording "Scientists such as (name), among many others, say ..." is blatantly POV, as it gives the false impression that anti-creationist sentiment is limited in scope, when we have numerous sources cited throughout the article that it is is practically unanimous except for a tiny fringe group of Creationists. In other words, all of the best reliable sources we have clearly back up the sentences in question. The ones cited are representative, and merely the tip of the iceberg.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Good Lord, what a reaction. I come in peace! All I want is to tone down an overenthusiastic phrase. What I'm saying is there's probably a more moderate way of putting the same point. How about: "Virtually no secular scientists accept the doctrines of creation science"? Would that pass muster?—S Marshall T/C 16:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's all scientists. Even those very few who believe in the nonexistent being in the sky think creationism is full of shit. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• That quote, taken on its own, gives the appearance of endorsing a "secular" (which has a number of interpretations, and can act as somewhat of a 'dog whistle' among culture warriors, who are likely to take it to mean 'atheist') science versus religion conflict thesis, and as such is misleading. Many of the scientists prominently opposed to creationism are themselves religious. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Virtually all professional biologists regard creation science as a sham -- a dishonest and misguided attempt to promote religious beliefs under the guise of science, with extremely harmful educational consequences." -- Okasha, Samir (2002). Philosophy of science. Oxford u.a: Oxford Univ. Press. p. 127. ISBN 0192802836. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Can we find a reference that doesn't call creation scientists "dishonest"? I mean, I could pull a quote like that out of any of half a dozen books by Gould or Dawkins. I was hoping for something less obviously partisan.—S Marshall T/C 17:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Can you present any evidence that this source materially overstates the antipathy that biologists feel towards this topic? I didn't pick it for this blunt antipathy, but for the fact that it gave an unambiguous articulation of the opposition that did not contain weasel-word qualifiers like "secular". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• I would further note that this source is included in the 'Further reading' lists of both Philosophy of science & Scientific realism -- so presumably somebody considers it a knowledgeable source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The "virtually no secular scientists" was specific to the context of US's Establishment Clause. The author did not intend to imply that there was a division over evolution among scientists along religious lines. Larson was writing specifically in the context of the young ICR when it first proposed that biblical creation be taught in public schools as a scientific theory. As per Supreme Court decisions if such teachings could be shown to have a "secular purpose" (ie if they had "scientific value" as well as religious value) then creation science might be taught without violating the constitution. (I say "might" because this "secular purpose" is a necessary qualification but not always sufficient.)

Any "debate" over the geological or biological links to the biblical creation is long over in science, so there is no need to put names to those who dismiss creation science, just as there is no need to put names to those who dismiss astrology or phrenology. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that it was weaselly in its original context (hence my "taken on its own"), but rather that its usage here would be ambiguous and thus weaselly. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hrafn, I don't think it does "overstate the antipathy", particularly. I was just hoping for a reference that states the mainstream position clearly without calling the fringe position "dishonest" (or any other pejorative term).—S Marshall T/C 17:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The article covers this well already. The mainstream position is that creation science is a religious story, not a scientific theory-clearly spelled out in the second para in the introduction. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Professor, I'm sure your intervention in this case is well-meant, but you're telling me things I already understand very well. My point is that would be better if we didn't attribute a point of view to the scientific community as a whole. I mean, Duane Gish is technically a scientist, isn't he? The basic point we're trying to get across is this one, I just think we can say it more clearly and accurately than ascribing it to "the scientific community".—S Marshall T/C 19:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

S Marshall, Gish is a galloper and in no way a scientist – unless he's currently getting peer reviewed scientific papers published, he doesn't meet that description. However, you may have a grammatical point. My suggestion is "The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that Creation Science is a religious, not a scientific view..." which I've implemented, others may wish to revert and I've no objection to such reversion. . . dave souza, talk 21:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Gish was a scientist-but not for his work in creation science, so let's not get sidetracked.

My remarks are towards the points and issues posed here in the thread, and are not meant to imply anything about what anybody here may or may not know. I "intervened" because Larson's is one of dozens of references I have on the topic, and could see the quote in its proper context. The "scientific community" is a fairly typical usage to ascribe dominant or mainstream views in science. Larson himself uses the phrase this way in several places himself. Are we looking for a reference with this exact usage in the context of creation science? I'm fairly sure I can find several, if it comes to that. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Actually I think Dave souza's version solves the concern I had, so I'm happy to stick with that if everyone else is?—S Marshall T/C 22:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)