Talk:Creation science/Archive 10

Religion/Science

.. , Coke/Pepsi, Democrat/Republican, Sean Connery/Roger Moore, etc.

I would like to propose that some debates cannot be resolved. Clearly, this is one of them. The scientific community is not going to accept Creation Science as even a valid title, as it has science in it. And they shouldn't. It's not science. The religious community is not going to accept reams and reams of scientific flaws with it, the Bible, or any other component of their particular flavor of mythology. And they shouldn't -- their belief isn't based on science, and those of us who believe in science, despite our higher I.Q.'s and better haircuts, need to respect their right to believe that. I am biased against religious mythology. I am a scientist. I might burn in Hell -- it's a directional bet I've placed, and if I'm wrong, I've erred badly. So be it. But the people who sincerely believe I'm Hellbound believe so with equal fervor to my belief that they've been brainwashed, and in a forum that is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal nor a religious text, both viewpoints have equal right to be present, and equal right to be criticized and ridiculed by opponents. In fact, I'm sticking my tongue out at the Jesus freaks right now, because I haven't yet learned that this medium doesn't convey facial expressions. But, I digress. I'm sure I had a point. Oh, right, freedom of expression and all that.

I would argue that we should take articles such as this and either separate them into two articles, or section them into multiple sections. Where there are clearly such polar opposites, let both present their side, unfettered by revisions from the other side, who are free to say what they want in their section. In the Miltonian marketplace of ideas, sometimes consensus is unattainable, and it is most fair to the reader -- a concept lost in these debates -- to present both ideas as persuasively as possible and let the reader decide for himself. If the reader is too stupid to make a decision on his or her own, I'm sure his or her minister will be happy to tell him or her exactly how to think on the matter. The current system is unfair to both sides, but more importantly, it is patently unfair to the critical reader, who would like to hear both sides. But it all out there and let people think. Anyone who thinks this is a forum for suppressing ideas as either unscientific or unholy is in the wrong place. Preczewski 16:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Preczewski, whose eternal fate, should such exist, is certainly sealed.

Clearly some boundries have been crossed here, not to mention the obvious incindiary references and tones that compromise the purpose of this site. "I.Q'"s, "haircuts", "brainwashing", and "Jesus Freaks",are undoubtedly the sophomoric fighting words of someone "religiously" over-committed to their "bias". Having two seperate discussion platforms for those with opposing beliefs would kill the challenge and the spirit of this site's purpose. These forums offer you the opportunity to expound upon what you know, discover what you don't, and engage in reasonable debate for all the shades of gray in between. "Freedom of Speech", as you so referenced, in life, and regulated by the rules of this site, allows you substantial room to fuel your comments with the very passion that every subscriber here possesses, but any gutterals of demeaning and childish banter, as in life, immediately expose not only your lack of commitment to the integrity of the site and its rules, but drastically deters your credibility. If you're not brave enough, sound enough, or centered enough to play nice, and are resigned to demanding a forum that comforts your views exclusively, I'm sure there are other sites to stunt the one element that Wiki offers you,...the ability to have beliefs and reasonably coexist with others who don't share them. Emotion without the benefit of logic spoils everyone's efforts here,...and it's not very "scientific".69.76.178.127 20:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

An apology

I apologize to anyone offended by my attempts at improving what I saw to be an abuse of fair play. It was furthest from my intent to ruffle the feathers of those who must defend science on a daily basis in the pursuit of their careers. I'm relatively new here, and I saw this article listed on the "third opinion" page. When I came to it, with the NPOV policy fresh in my memory, it seemed very much to run counter to the sections on Pseudoscience and Writing for the enemy. Perhaps I was too bold, made too many changes too quickly. I assure you that I have had, from the beginning, only the desire to see fairness and reason prevail. I realize that, whatever the outcome of the current debate, this will be, by no means, the end of troubles for this article. I hope that, regardless, subsequent editors will be able to, eventually, come to consensus whenever duty calls for it. I'm proud to be associated with such a dedicated, intelligent, and dilligent group of folks as are on this project, and am glad to see that the process, for the most part, works.

Yours, respectfully, Parker Whittle 00:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox

A new editor, going only by IP (138.130.203.177), has suggested that Eastern Orthodox traditions oppose evolution. The article had previously mentioned that the Eastern Orthodox church has either rejected creation science outright or are ambivalent to it. While both statements could be true (note that the first statement refers to historical traditions) we should be able to find a source for either suggestion. If the Eastern Orthodox church either does not oppose, or does still oppose, evolution, we should be able to find a source. And I do suggest we only make note of a religion's current stance. -- Ec5618 11:39, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

The EO church values the teachings of the Church Fathers very highly, and a 20th century Orthodox Priest, Fr Seraphim Rose, wrote Genesis, Creation and Early Man which documented their YEC teachings with approval. See review.138.130.203.177 13:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

(Introduction) disputes

This is an attempt to refractor this Talk page (and alleviate tension). See the intact version here or in /Archive 9. A lot of discussion has been going on regarding the introduction, and several points were made. Below are most (some) of the listed. Some of these viewpoints were opposed, but for brevity, I ( Ec5618) have left the opposing argument out when they were just an inversion of the argument.

1. The introduction of evolution does not contain critisism by creationists, why should the introduction of this article contain critisism by 'evolutionists'.
2. The introduction should be NPOV, and, according to WP:NPOV policy, should contain either no point of view, or all notable points of view.
3. Creation science is not science, and this should be made clear in the intro.
4. If creation science is critised, the critique should be attributed. (To the US NAS, for example).
5. The opinions of scientists is irrelevant. Only the view of science should count.
6. There is no single Scientific POV.
7. Dismissing evolution (disproving or discrediting evolutionary theory) seems to be the most popular goal of creation science.
8. Creation science is meets the definition of pseudoscience. This point seems to have been removed from the intro after arduous discussion, and would be highly controversial if re-inserted.
9. Offending creationists in the introduction does not encourage them to read on to the actual argumentation.
10. The term creation scientist does not, should not, and cannot exist. Scientist implies scientific credibility in a particular field. No-one is trained to be a 'creation scientist'.
11. People who oppose creation science are (communally) a herd of lemmings.
12. The title, while containing the term 'science' is not POV, as this is simply the name of the phenomenon.
13. We should all write for the enemy, and anticipate (defuse) accusations of POV.

I have also copied a short list of quotes, supplied by Dan Watts. It is my hope that this will clarify the stance of proponents of creation science, as it feels to me that even among our editors, many inconsistent notions persist:

"Using these opposing ideas, Initial Complexity vs. Initial Disorganization, we can make predictions about what sort of evidence we should find in many areas of science (biology, paleontology, genetics, physics, astronomy, biochemistry, geology, etc.) if one or the other is true. We can then apply the scientific method to test our predictions and see which set fits better with what we actually observe." [[1]]

"With this in mind, next time we'll start looking at both theories to see which fits better with the evidence that we do have." [[2]]

"As we learn more about the biology of living organisms, including ourselves, it is readily apparent which theory fits the data. [[3]]

"As can be readily seen above, a young universe model fits the data of the low number of observed SNRs." [[4]]

"Rather than insist that everything must be interpreted so as to make it fit into a naturalistic world view, why not investigate each piece of evidence to see if it fits better in the creation or the evolution model?" [[5]]

"Also, even though Morris claims that science can't answer the question of whether the Bible's creation story is literally and historically true, he has written several books about scientific evidence that he believes fits better into a creation framework than the mainstream science framework." [[6]]

Ec5618 12:30, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

1. The introduction of evolution does not contain criticism by creationists, why should the introduction of this article contain criticism by scientists. More generally stated: Criticism should not be used in place of a definition or description. Bensaccount 13:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

because "Creation Science" is not considered a "science" by many. If it had been called "Genesism" or something that didn't attempt to present itself as science, then there would be no confusion because "genesism" wouldn't be trying to redefine a word to mean something other than what it usually means. But because it is called Creation Science, then the fact that the definition of the word is disputed needs mention. FuelWagon 14:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you can say that CS proponents are redefining the word science. My point was that criticism should not replace a description. Bensaccount 15:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Bensaccount, I have asked you before. Could you please try to formulate a full comment, before hitting 'Save page'? Yes, we all saw that that was your point. You said the exact same thing before. FuelWagon actually responded to your comment. He does not disagree with your comment, but chooses to make another point. While you, Bensaccount, would prefer that there be no criticism in the intro, Fuelwagon feels that that's not the point. He feels that there should be clarificaton in the intro as to the actual scientific status of creation science. That is his point. Please, respond to it. -- Ec5618 15:34, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes clarification as to the scientific status of CS belongs in the intro, but scientific status is entirely different from the opinion of scientists. Bensaccount 16:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This is another way of saying you want the intro to simply state as fact that CS is unscientific based on some objective, indisputable, source of information that you have, rather than reporting that different groups of human beings have different definitions for the word "science". NPOV requires reporting the different views of humans. You're approach basically says "the people who wrote the webster dictionary definition of science are right, and we can refer to that definition as fact". That ain't NPOV. The only way you can clarify the scientific status of CS AND still follow NPOV is to report the different groups and their definition of science. FuelWagon 17:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I said that science is different from the opinion of scientists. You are saying that the two are interchangeable. Bensaccount 00:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, how many times are we gonna beat this horse? I say they are different. Your version of "Science" is "fact" and cannot be presented as fact in an article in which your version of science is disputed. The opinions of scientists, such as those behind NAS, can be reported as fact. And just to beat this one more time, that is the point of NPOV. FuelWagon 02:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

So you admit that science is different from the opinion of scientists? Bensaccount 02:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Creationists would certainly agree that "science is different from the opinion of scientists." --Parker Whittle 22:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Right. But do you agree that the scientific status should be clarified? If so, how do you propose we do that. And please keep in mind that simply stating what you believe the scientific status is, is not an option. Obviously.

In my mind, the only way to state that the scientific status of creation science is disputed (which it is, obviously, as evidenced by the history of this article) is to bring up the quite well informed scientific opinion of scientists. Ec5618 16:14, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Once again, the well informed scientific opinion of scientists, is not a measure of what is or is not science, so you can give this opinion, but it does not clarify the scientific status of CS. How do we clarify the scientific status of CS? The same way we clarify anything. Ask yourself, "how do we know that the sun is a star"? We find the most widely understood conventional definition of "star" and see if it applies to the sun. Which leads nicely into the next section. Bensaccount 00:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, once again, the "measure of what is science" IS DISPUTED BY CREATION SCIENCE. You cannot "clarify" your definition of science in this article by forwarding it as fact. WEBSTER'S DEFINTIION IS A POINT OF VIEW here. Your "most widely understood definition" DOES NOT APPLY in this article because CREATION SCIENCE SPECIFICALLY DISPUTES IT. NPOV says report he mainstream point of view as the mainstream point of view rather than as fact. FuelWagon 02:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Conventional definitions are not POV. If everyone used different definitions of words there would not be any communication. Bensaccount 02:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

A definition is POV if the topic of the article is about a group that disputes that definition. If you're talking about something unrelated to science, you can use the mainstream definition of science in the article as a fact. If you're talking about "Mary Poppins", you don't have to say "the mainstream view of science" if you wanted to use the word "science" in teh article. You could just say "Mary' Poppin's ability to fly with her umbrella is unscientific" or whatever, because the definition of science is not in dispute on that article. THE DEFINITION IS IN DISPUTE HERE. Creation Science disputes the mainstream definitino of science, which means you cannot refer to the mainstream definition of science as undisputed fact, but as the mainstream view of science. FuelWagon 02:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

No we avoid neologisms and use the same widely understoond meanings regardless of the article. Bensaccount 13:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view" "(some editors) believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy" (from NPOV policy). You can call it neologisms. You can hide behind webster. You can keep playing all these word games. But NPOV policy is clear. represent the scientific view as the scientific view. FuelWagon 14:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Cutting and pasting long irrelevant rants into multiple threads is called trolling. Bensaccount 14:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Definitions

There have been quite a few references to the definition of science and pseudoscience, in support of the argument that the position of the scientific community should be stated as facts, and does not constitute a POV. For reference, I would like to include the definitions we're talking about. It seems to me that these definitions do not exactly settle the dispute.

In particular: the definition given of science seems to be somewhat broader than that used by the scientific community (and, IMO, the definition of pseudoscience should be taken in that context).

Main Entry: sci·ence   
Function: noun
3 a : accumulated and accepted knowledge that has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws : knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth : comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge; especially : knowledge obtained and tested through use of the scientific method b : such knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
synonym see KNOWLEDGE

"science." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (9 Aug. 2005).

Main Entry: pseu·do·science   
Function: noun
: a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific

"pseudoscience." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (10 Aug. 2005).

Main Entry: scientific method   
Function: noun
: the principles and procedures used in the systematic pursuit of intersubjectively accessible knowledge and involving as necessary conditions the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and if possible experiment, the formulation of hypotheses, and the testing and confirmation of the hypotheses formulated

"scientific method." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (10 Aug. 2005).
(added Parker Whittle 18:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC))

--Parker Whittle 14:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Main Entry: natural science Function: noun

any of the sciences (as physics, chemistry, or biology) that deal with matter, energy, and their interrelations and transformations or with objectively measurable phenomena

[7]

CS does not fit any definition of science that involves the scientific method, since there is no systematic method for gaining knowledge about Creation. CS does not fit any definition of science that uses the words experimenation, or observation, since it is not possible to observe Creation. CS does not fit the definition of natural science, given that Creation is not objectively measurable. Bensaccount 15:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. It is also POV. You are holding the dictionary definition of "science" as the true definition of science. But science is a human endeavor and it is defined by humans. In fact, it has changed over time. There is no single definition of science, there is only the different views of what is and is not scientific. In this case, Creation Science holds one definition and NAS holds another. Those views must be presented as such to adhere to NPOV. Webster's definition is not fact, and is directly disputed by CS. FuelWagon 17:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually if you look into the philosophy of science you will see that modern science relies on the popperian definition of falsifiability. This strange relativism of the knowledge is, in my opinion, just irrational. --Nova77 17:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Not only irrational but also harmful, since the job of the encyclopedia editor is to define subjects in conventional terms. Bensaccount 01:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that the definitions, above, do not exclude definitions of science that are opposed, or a modification of, the definitions used in the scientific community. Qualified statements such as "...especially...through use of the scientific method...", "...interrelations and transformations or with objectively measurable phenomena..."; the definition of scientific method which does not assert the same degree of formalism as that used among the majority of scientists, all indicate that we are talking about language games with different rules. Neither side should be granted the privilege of declaring their game and rules as absolutely authoritative. Position of the majority, stated as such, and position of the minority, stated as such, seems exactly what the WP:NPOV policy calls for. --Parker Whittle 18:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll agree with the words you chose: 'gaining knowledge about Creation'. -- Ec5618 15:34, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

O.K. I'll dispute your'fact' (see article edit history). Where do you get this idea that CS is intent on observing creation? CS is about investigating and promulgating EVIDENCE consistent with a recent creation of the earth. Dan Watts 18:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Any science to CS?

What is your definition of what the Creation Research Society does? (See [[8]] e.g.) Are they not reporting research, or are they not studying what they think that they are researching? Dan Watts 16:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyone can do scientific experiments, and if the scientific method is properly followed, the activity is called science. When someone claims to be doing scientific experiments on Creation, they are claiming to be doing Creation science and since Creation is unobservable, this activity is unscientific. Bensaccount 00:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

So by your definition any study of paleobiology, archaeology, or any other study of long-ago things; since the long-ago action is unobservable, it is also not science. Please elucidate. Dan Watts 02:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Paleobiology: fossils of animals and plants are observable. Archaeology: architecture, artefacts, biofacts, human remains, and landscapes are observable. Bensaccount 04:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The earth is observable. Studying the earth for evidence of creation is to Creation Science as studying fossils for evidence of how the (unobservable) plants or animals lived is to paleobiology. Q.E.D. Dan Watts 14:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Thats a non-sequitur. We can use fossils to make observations about ancient animals because we can observe that fossils are the remnants of ancient animals based on the fact that we can observe the formation of fossils and we can see the shape of the animals. We can not use "the earth" to make observations of creation in any way. Unless you have found God's signature on it somewhere. Bensaccount 14:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Where can we "observe the formation of fossils?" Does that mean that you agree with the idea that fossils do not necessarily take a long time to fossilize, someone can watch the formation process? The fossils are NOT the dead animals, but rather mineralized replacements (it is assumed, since (unless your statement of observing fossil formation is correct) no has SEEN the dead animal convert to stone). How is that observation of fossil rock to learn about the dead animal not analogous to observing the earth for (possible) evidence of recent creation? Dan Watts 14:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

An observation of a long time-frame process is not something done in a laboratory for obvious reasons. This type of argumentation is about as ludicrous as claiming that we don't know that evolution occured because no one was there to observe it. Joshuaschroeder 14:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you (Joshuaschroeder) agreeing with me? I definitely agree that the claim in your last sentence is not the reason that one should not believe evolution. Dan Watts 14:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I am only saying that one does not observe long-range processes in a laboratory, but it seemed implicit in your comments that this is what you were claiming Bensaccount was trying to do. Observation need not be confined to personal witness, and we do observe fossilization. Joshuaschroeder 14:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

To say "observe fossilization" implies observing the PROCESS. Was that your intent? We usually only observe the RESULTS of long-term processes (pitch drop experiment, etc.) Dan Watts 15:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

We do observe the process. We observe various stages of fossilization for a wide variety of paleontological artifacts. Joshuaschroeder 19:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The society is not one that encourages or discourages research or study. They are simply a frateral group of creation science advocates that anyone (that is to say, all levels of scientific training) is allowed to join. Joshuaschroeder 16:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see how the CRS does not encourage research. Perhaps you could look at the link provided above. Dan Watts 19:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

CRS encourages its members who believe in CS. That is what their mission statement states explicitly. CRS does not endorse basic science research, peer review research, research institutions, etc. Joshuaschroeder 20:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

If you will peruse [9] you will see:

"The primary functions of the Society are:

Publication of a quarterly peer-reviewed journal.

Conducting research to develop and test creation models.

The provision of research grants and facilities to creation scientists for approved research projects.

Providing qualified scientists to speak to groups or churches."

The first three points appear to be in disagreement with your statement. ("You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means" - Inigo) Dan Watts 21:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The "peer-reviewed journal" is not a peer-reviewed journal in the sense that there is a requirement external to science for the peer-review itself. The "research" that they promote is of any kind including bible study, etc. And the provision of research grants includes gaining non-profit status according to the literature on their website. The lot of them are pseudoscientific hoodwinks. Joshuaschroeder 03:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Peer review is not REALLY peer review, CS research includes subjects that YOU find unacceptable, research grants have stipulations. Horrors! Tar and feather the whole lot and run them out of town on a rail! (You could simply state that you don't care for them without using untrue, or at least very misleading, statements.) Dan Watts 14:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

What is misleading or untrue about the characterizations? The "peer review" process and the "research grants" supported by the group explicitly forbids competent scientists in fields who are not Christians. The issue is whether they endorse basic scientific research, peer review, or scientific institutions. That they do not since they have added stipulations above and beyond science. It has nothing to do with the "subject", it has to do with how they operate. I have no personal agenda against the group, but claiming that they represent some sort of counterexample as a CS group that is scientific is a claim unsubstantiated by evidence they themselves provide in their own literature. Joshuaschroeder 14:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Added stipulations on research grants is enough to label it "unscientific?" Does a Ford or Rockeffeller foundation restriction on a research grant mean that it cannot be "scientific" [10]? How about the restrictions on grants from the Royal Society of Britain [11]? : "The research must fall within the remit of the Royal Society, i.e. the natural sciences. Applicants must be UK residents...." Is this last, un-scientific, restriction enough to taint any results as "unscientific?" Dan Watts 18:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The issue is whether this group sponsors basic scientific research. It does not. The fact is that the CS society you mention makes requirements on the outcomes of research -- something which grant institutions that are actually scientific do not. Joshuaschroeder 19:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a reference to such requirements would be appropriate. Dan Watts 20:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Already included in the article. Joshuaschroeder 16:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

While this has been entertaining, what are you talking about? The ONLY reference to the CRS in 'the article' is a link to the CRS web site. Where is this requirement 'on the outcomes of research'? Dan Watts 04:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Obviously you didn't read the Skeptic Magazine article. Joshuaschroeder 14:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Is that an article at www.skeptic.com? The reference I found was [12] and it does not seem to address the current issue at all. Dan Watts 17:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Should we stop trying to define CS?

My point, of course, being that the definitions, themselves, do not settle the issue. As demonstrated by the response, the definitions lead to further clarifications and arguments regarding what does and doesn't satisfy the definition. I think we can safely say at this point that stating the definition as fact is simply another way of referring to the standing debate. --Parker Whittle 15:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The definitions show that CS doesn't fit any definition of science that involves the scientific method, experiment, or observation. To avoid any trace of ambiguity one can use more conventional definitions, such as "natural science" or "social science". Bensaccount 00:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

CReation SCience defines itself as scientific. Your continued appeal to the dictionary is moot here. Their view is that they are scientific. And so you must report opposing views that have different definitions as opposing views, not as fact. You can keep hiding behind the word "definition" all you want, but it doesn't apply here because CS specifically disputes your definition of the word. FuelWagon 02:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I like to use the dictionary to define words. What do you use? Bensaccount 02:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Why yes, I have stopped beating my wife. Thank you for noticing. FuelWagon 02:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

What I'm about to describe is, IMO, extremely bad science, if at all. I include it here merely for the purpose of illustration: CS advocates can interpret existing observations under the assumption that they must not contradict the young earth/divine creation hypothesis. They can propose theories to explain how these observations could indicate a false positive, supporting an old earth/naturalistic origin in appearance, only. They can then predict a number of observations that could confirm their theories, in exclusion to others, and they can conduct experiments to test those predictions. If their experiments fail, they can revise their theories, and predict new observations. Again, this is, IMO, a perversion of the scientific method, I call it pseudoscience, because it meets almost none of the criteria of science listed by the NAS. However, it does seem to satisfy the dictionary definitions of science, as stated above. If you are arguing for definitions different than these, then it is either original research, which is disallowed, or the point of view of the NAS (or some other body), which must be cited. --Parker Whittle 03:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

In order to stop you from continuing to spread obfuscation, rhetoric and lies I ask that you state at least one "observation" of Creation. Otherwise it does not meet any definition that uses the words "observation" "experimentation" or "scientific method". Bensaccount 04:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

There is horse meat splattered all over, but we just keep beating the same carcass. Any question by you demanding someone show how CS meets the definition of Science is irrelevant, because the definition of science is disputed by Creation Science. Report the different definitions from the different sources, neither definition can be reported as fact. CS says it is scientific because blah. NAS says CS is not science. NPOV policy cannot be anymore clear. FuelWagon 04:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

You can not force people to stop trying to use words that best fit the subject. It is harmful to the writing. Bensaccount 13:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

A) Drop the ad hominem attacks, right now. I am civil to you, and stick to the arguments. I expect the same from you. B) I have said nothing about theories or observations of divine creation -- you did, and you won't drop them. I mentioned theories and observations that don't contradict the young earth/divine creation hypothesis, followed by experiments that would support their theories and observations. In other words, a creationist can go through the mental gymnastics required to propose contorted but naturalistic theories that don't contradict the Biblical account, put those theories to the test using the scientific method, and there you would have Creation Science. Much like the epicycles Ptolemy used to describe the orbits in a geocentric universe, it's a gross distortion of reality in order to fit observed reality into a flawed prior assumption, but it satisfies the definitions of science listed above. Very, very bad science, pseudoscience as the NAS describes it, but within the broader dictionary definition of science. --Parker Whittle 04:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"Creation science" is demarcated from science in that it deals with Creation. If it is science but doesn't deal with creation, it is not Creation science. Once again, you can not claim CS fits any definition of science that involves the scientific method, observation, or experimentation, since Creation is unobservable. Bensaccount 13:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view" "(some editors) believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy" (from NPOV policy). You can call it neologisms. You can hide behind webster. You can keep playing all these word games. But NPOV policy is clear. represent the scientific view as the scientific view. FuelWagon 14:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

So you're back to claiming that the status of CS as science equals the opinion of scientists. Bensaccount 14:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Please, read the comment. Fuelwagon clearly said represent the scientific view as the scientific view. Ec5618 14:15, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

And I said that CS didn't fit certain definitions of science. I am trying to clarify the scientific status of CS. He is trying to say that the status of CS as science equals the opinion of scientists. (Or worse, the opinion of CS proponents). Bensaccount 14:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Please, read the comment. Fuelwagon clearly said represent the scientific view as the scientific view. View being the operative word. Please, just look at it -> view. As in, not necessarily fact. The scientific status of creation science is disputed. You might not believe it, but there are actually people who look at the same evidence you have, and still believe that creation science is science, is some form. They disagree with you. They do not agree that creation science is not science.

However, luckaly, the scientific community agrees with you. Most scientists feel (view) creation science as unscientific. And thankfully, most people will agree with scientists, in matters of science. Please, read the comment. Fuelwagon clearly said represent the scientific view as the scientific view. Ec5618 14:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Fuelwagon says we should represent views as views. I said we shouldn't represent facts as views. The status of something as science depends on facts, not views. Bensaccount 14:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I have always stood for NPOV policy to be followed. Report the majority view as the majority view. You seem so wrapped up in some concern that if you represent it as a view, then people with think its just an opinion, and then maybe their entire capacity for logic sense will fail them, and they won't be able to tell for themselves if CS is scientific or not. That's what this all comes down to. You want to tell everyone in the article that CS is not science and you don't care that it's completely against NPOV policy. Oh no! it a neologism! Webster says so! an opinion of science isn't the same as science! ACK! I have done nothing but push NPOV policy here. Report the scientific view as the scientific view. You can twist and flail around all you want. But policy is clear. Report it as a view. FuelWagon 14:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"You seem so wrapped up in some concern that if you represent it as a view, then people with think its just an opinion" -- Facts are different from opinions. If you represent facts as opinions then yes. People will think they are opinions. Bensaccount 14:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

OMG. From NPOV policy "The task is not to describe disputes as though, pseudoscience is on par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view" [13]. Policy directly addresses your concern and clearly states "REPORT THE VIEWS". FuelWagon 14:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Facts are not views. Bensaccount 14:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the policy does not directly address this concern. The policy addresses whether or not psuedoscience should be established as !credible or false, _not_ whether it should be established as pseudoscience. In other words, it deals with the VIEW on pseudoscience, not the establishment of a subject as psuedoscience. These are very different. Bear in mind that I'm not pushing any particular article version or wording, I'm just trying to explain that there may be a difference of opinion because you're interpreting the NPOV policy differently. SVI 14:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course, creation science advocates redefine the terms "scientific method", "observation", and "experimentation" all to fit their own ends in order to argue with those who oppose them. Which is simply more evidence for why it is objectively a pseudoscience since it sets itself up oppositionally to the endeavor of science as a whole. Joshuaschroeder 14:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps examples of redefined "observation" and "experimentation" would shed light (and reduce heat?) on this discussion. Dan Watts 14:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

When Henry Morris claims that no evidence for evolution has ever been observed, that is redefining what "observation" means. When an unpublished report claiming that dead animals settle out in a flooded tank in an order that mimics the fossil record that is redefining what "experimentation" means. These are, of course, all within the bounds of somebody creating their own means for making claims, but we're talking about the difference between CS and science. Here they are. Joshuaschroeder 16:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This action which redefines "experimentation", while incomplete in description (being unpublished, I have seen such references in other fine journals) has me puzzled. Are you inferring that the "experiment" didn't happen, or that such an activity cannot possibly be reasonably described as an "experiment?" Maybe I'm just too dense. COuld you try to explain it again? Dan Watts 21:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm telling you that the "experiment" did not conform to the standards of scientific methodology. Joshuaschroeder 01:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

And do you know this concerning an UNPUBLISHED study because you have personal knowledge of it? How can you state with certainty anything other than "There is no evidence available to determine if the 'experiment' was executed according to 'standards of scientific methodology'"? Let's attempt resolve this faster than last time. Dan Watts 14:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

If you wish to put this in the article, the easy answer is to find a URL that describes the experiment from the CS point of view, and find another URL that describes the viewpoint of the experiment from someone in the mainstream science camp. Whether we think it fit the scientific methodology or not is irrelevant as editors. FuelWagon 01:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not asking to include anything in the article. This is simply a demonstration to a user as to how CS does the things he claims it doesn't do. Joshuaschroeder 16:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

So SHOW how this "experiment" doesn't measure up. Your sentences are not 'demonstration.' Dan Watts 14:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The experiment has been used from time to time by editors of these pages as evidence that fossil layers are accounted for by creation science. Of course, there is nothing in the way of properly stating how the eximperiment took place, what error analysis was done, what the controlled variables were, etc. Aside from being unpublished, the statement that such is evidence is a demonstration of how separated the advocates for CS are from the scientific method as practiced by scientists. Joshuaschroeder 15:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The question is "Why does the 'experiment' not measure up to 'standards of scientific methodology'"? Your response concerning what information is not available (and the poor quality of evidence used) shows that there is INSUFFICIENT evidence supplied to judge the 'experiment.' That is NOT equivalent to "[T]he "experiment" did not conform to the standards of scientific methodology." Am I misreading the information? Dan Watts 15:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Going in circles

(posted by FuelWagon 15:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC))

OK, I'm done going in circles. Bensaccount has several approaches, but they boil down to two basic arguments: (1) the methodology of what is "science" is fact by its very definition and (2) definitions are not POV. All the different variations of these two arguments are posted below.

Argument: Essentially, his chain of argument goes like this:

(a) Facts are not "views" and are not subject to NPOV policy (which I agree with)

(b) definitions are facts (which I completely disagree with)

(c) since definitions are facts, we don't have to express them as views

The problem is that (b) doesn't apply here. There is nothing in NPOV policy about pseudoscience that says "report the definition of science as fact and report anything that disagrees with that definition to be factually pseudoscientific". NPOV policy says "report the view as a view. His logic contains a fundamental flaw at step (b) because definitions can be treated as fact only if they are not disputed. CS disputes the definition. Therefore the definition of science must be reported as a view.

My counter to all this is NPOV policy. It clearly states represent the scientific view as a view. And it clearly states that reporting something as a view does not automatically put it on par with every other view.

(I) science is fact by its definition

(these quotes also show Bensaccount to refer to mainstream science when expressed as a point of view to be an "opinion" and attempts to establish that the mainstream definition of science can be used as "fact".)

"science is different from the opinion of scientists"[14]

"you can give this opinion, but it does not clarify the scientific status of CS"[15]

"Criticism should not be used in place of a definition or description"[16]

"the status of CS as science equals the opinion of scientists"[17]

"If you represent facts as opinions then yes."[18]

(II) Definitions are not POV

"Conventional definitions are not POV"[19]

"we avoid neologisms and use the same widely understoond meanings regardless of the article"[20]

"CS does not fit any definition of science that involves the scientific method" [21]

"the job of the encyclopedia editor is to define subjects in conventional terms" [22]

"Anyone can do scientific experiments, and if the scientific method is properly followed, the activity is called science." [23]

"The definitions show that CS doesn't fit any definition of science that involves the scientific method, experiment, or observation. To avoid any trace of ambiguity one can use more conventional definitions, such as "natural science" or "social science". [24]

"I ask that you state at least one "observation" of Creation. Otherwise it does not meet any definition that uses the words..." followed by a list of mainstream science terms [25] (can't find the diff in the history. you can click on the link there and do a search and you'll find it. Bensaccount must have posted something and then changed it later or something weird happened. The signature/timestamp doesn't line up with the diff in the history, but I can see the text in the rev provided.)

"I said that CS didn't fit certain definitions of science. I am trying to clarify the scientific status of CS." [26]

"Facts are not views" [27]

---

Would you mind if I fixed these misquotations or would that ruin your charade? Bensaccount 15:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll get diffs for each. give me a minute...FuelWagon 15:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Would you like me to correct this or just leave it? Bensaccount 15:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

What are you trying to prove still Bensaccount, he's just quotd you, and cited irrefutable sources for these quotes. And I agree with his post. Ec5618 15:30, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think most of these quotations speak for themselves, if you disregard the inappropriate headings. My only request is that you get them right. For example: "the status of CS as science equals the opinion of scientists" Is me paraphrasing FuelWagon. I disagree with this so don't attribute it to me. Bensaccount 15:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I figured that. Anything else? Could you please address the (a), (b), (c)-issue? And please, call people by their names. -- Ec5618 15:39, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

You didn't paraphrase me, Bensaccount, you countered with your own argument. I've done nothing but try to get NPOV policy followed in this article, by quoting it, explaining it, and pointing out where the article doesn't meet it. Your "paraphrase" has nothing to do with NPOV policy. That's your version of what I said, not what I said. FuelWagon 15:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

What you did is called a misquotation. Bensaccount 15:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I actually did paraphrase you, because I cut and pasted your words, rather than giving my interpretation of what you said. You can argue about the proper place to end the cut/paste, but that is not a matter of misquoting, its a matter of whether it is takes too much out that it is out of context. What I left out was a piece that said "that uses the words" and then listed mainstream scientific terms. In my opinion, that part is irrelevant because the basis for that sentence is that you're arguing that CS doesn't meet the definition of science, and the definition is fact, so the article can simply say CS is not science. It is the (a),(b),(c) argument again, with (b) being the logical fallacy. FuelWagon 17:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

My mistake, my only request is that user:Fuelwagon get them right. "I ask that you state at least one "observation" of Creation. Otherwise it does not meet any definition" -- The correct version: "I ask that you state at least one "observation" of Creation. Otherwise it does not meet any definition that uses the words "observation" "experimentation" or "scientific method"." Bensaccount 15:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

You miss the point. your definitions using the words "observation", "experimentation", or "scientific method" are mainstream science definitions. You demand that CS meet those definitions or you will "disqualify" them as science. That is completely counter to NPOV policy. Report the view as a view. And the definition of science is a view in this case. FuelWagon 15:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I am merely trying to fix your misquotations!!!Bensaccount 15:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Facts are different from opinions. If you represent facts as opinions then yes. People will think they are opinions. Bensaccount 15:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

As for the rest of Fuelwagons essay: I have never been more thoroughly misunderstood. Bensaccount 15:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The exact quotation does not matter. Please, make yourself clear. I'm havinf trouble understanding what it is you actually have a problem with, become it seems to me that you have a problem with the basic premise of the article, and of creation science, and that you are fighting any possibility that the viewpoint of creation science advocates be represented positively. I'm trying to help, I'm trying to see your point, I'm trying to improve the article. That is all FuelWagon tried to do, I'm sure. He tried to capture your intent. -- Ec5618 21:37, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Please exp1ain your position then. Succinctly and in one place. Synaptidude 16:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Ill do it later. Right now the quotations (the correct versions) give a good indication of my position, if you disregard the headings. Bensaccount 16:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Bensaccount position

My current position, succinctly stated, is that we should clarify the scientific status of CS but without appealing to the opinion of scientists. We can summarize the opinion of scientists afterwords. As for FuelWagons ridiculous summary: a) Facts are not POV. b) definitions are different from facts, & c) since definitions are the basis for communication, we don't have to express them as views. Bensaccount 21:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Except for some minor word shuffles, you basically say exactly what I said above. The "scientific status" is nothing but your attempt to present mainstream science's viewpoint as "fact". There is no objective place you can go to get the "scientific status" of something. You cannot dig it up from teh ground. You cannot pluck it from the air. You have to go to people and ask them "do you think this is science?" and they'll say yes or no. "Scientific status" is yet another word game to hide mainstream viewpoint and try to call it a fact. It is nothing more than the viewpoints of people. And you're "basis for communication" thing is just another way of saying "definitions are facts, so they're not views". What is a "basis for communication"? How do you know what a word means but by asking people? You can claim a dictionary is the objective true defintion, but it was written by people. "science" is fundamentally a human process, you cannot define it without humans. THere is no place you can go that will give you a "basis for communication" as to what "science" means except by going to people. That 9.999% of the people you go to say "science is this" doesn't somehow erase the fact that it is still defined by people. FuelWagon 21:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Minor word shuffles like the difference between POV and NPOV (see my point a and your point a). Bensaccount 20:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must have missed something. Did you post an (a), (b), (c) style list at one point? And, your (a) was different from FuelWagon's (a) because your version used POV instead of NPOV? FuelWagon had stated that: "Facts are not NPOV". Please clarify. Please clarify. Please. -- Ec5618 21:37, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I posted above that Bensaccount's position seems to be "(a) Facts are not NPOV (which I agree with)". I can see now it can be read a way other than how I intended. To clarify, that should say "Facts are not views". Facts are not a point of view, they're a fact. You dont' have to present both sides of a fact because no one disputes it, so there are no "sides" to present. I'll clarify that above as well. In any event, (a) is not the problem, the problem is (b), which says "definitions are facts", which then leads to (c) "definitions don't have to follow npov policy". Whether Bensaccount argues that definitions are a fact because they are a "basis for a communication" or because "the moon is made of cheese" is irrelevant. The result is (b) "definitions are facts". In the case of CS, the definition of science itself is disputed, so the "fact" of the definition is disputed, so the fall-back position is NPOV policy which says "present each view as a view". To which Bensaccount argues that it isn't science, it doesn't meet the definition, show me how it meets any definition, it's a basis for communication, and so on and so forth. All of which is a lot of hoopla for saying (b) "definitions are facts". FuelWagon 21:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Definitions are very different from facts. Bensaccount 21:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

For purposes of the Creation Science article on wikipedia: If the definition of science is not fact, then what is it? Is the "standard" definition of science the factual definition? Does webster have teh "right" definition? Can we simply declare "CS is not science" in this article? FuelWagon 01:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Always use the most common, most conventional definitions. This will allow people to understand your meaning. As for declaring that statement, see archive 8. Bensaccount 13:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate Bensaccount's attempts to clearly define Cs as unscientific, but I basically have the same problem as does Fuelwagon. Science is not an absolute entity. Science and scientific method are essentally philosophies that has been worked out over the years to best apply objective criteria to understanding the world around us. Even in an area of endevor that no one would dispute as being scientific, it is very difficult to applyl the scientific method absolutely strictly (we can't even agree completely on what consittutes "scientific method". One needs to take extreme care to keep one's personal bias out of experimental results (blind experiments, etc), but 90% of science is not done that way. The point? Even "SCIENCE" is subject to scientist's opinions of whether it is "objective enough" to be considered a reliable result (this is one of the reasons it is so important to have independent scientists working on the same problem. If you cut a corner and screw up or introduce your own bias, there is someone out there who will be happy to call you on it). There is no practical way that you can dissociate scientist's opinion from a definition of what is science and what is not. The scientific method is a philosophy, in other words a well considered opinion of how things should be done. The only way this article can be made NPOV is to say (essentially) "scientists think it is hooey".Synaptidude 00:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you succinctly state your position? Bensaccount 20:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

As I recall, and can in fact read just above here, you, Bensaccount, had promised to 'do it later.' yourself, it referring to Synaptidude's request of you to "Please exp1ain your position then. Succinctly and in one place."

Please, by all means. Do so. As you are a regular editor of this article, I wouldn't mind seeing your position explained. I feel it would certainly make a lot of these long and rather repetitive discussions unnecesessary. -- Ec5618 21:35, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Is Wikipeida giving you errors too? This section is titled "Bensaccount's position" and begins with my succinct position and refutation of Fuelwagons "a, b, c" charade. Bensaccount 21:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I must have missed that, I'm sorry. Please don't call something you don't agree with a charade. -- Ec5618 22:00, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I can. My postition is that the introductory paragraph of this piece should be free of a sniff of POV. Or it that turns out to be impossible, then "write for the enemy". Let the "definition" of CS what its adherents think it is. It needs a definition of what it purports to be, not what it isn't. That is for later paragraphs. Rip it as being unscientific as much as you wish, but state those rips as opinions not facts: "scientists think it's unscientific" than than "it's unscientific". I think it's counter productive to be so afraid of CS ideology that one cannot even allow it a definition before ripping it. If you want the article itself to be "scientific", then put the idea of CS right out there in all its ignomy. Let people see it for what it purports to be. And THEN proceed to show how it is ridiculous. How can you disprove a hypothesis if you don't state the hypothesis? To dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't match one's particular world view is just as bad as Creation "scientists" tell you what the outcome of their experiment is before they do it (which is the basic scientific problem with CS; it is biased toward a predisposed answer). Synaptidude 21:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we don't clarify the scientific status of CS? Bensaccount 21:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've reread my position, and I don't see where that question is coming from. I am against defining the scientific status of CS as part of its original description in the first paragraph. Scientist's view of CS can and should be well covered. But as a view, not a fact. While we are at it, we should include a link to the flying spaghetti monster view of creationist thinking.

Here is, in principal, what I think we should do:

1st paragraph: This is what CS purports to be.

2nd paragraph: This is why CS advocates want to think this

3rd Paragraph: This is why scientists view this as a bunch of BS.

Synaptidude 22:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

So you are proposing that we do not clarify the scientific status of CS in the lead in? 13:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Bowing out for a while

Running through this entire debate, I sense that there is a rather different issue at stake than the NPOV content of an encyclopedia article. It seems to me that among the parties embroiled in the larger conflict between scientific and religious views of the origins of the universe, this article is seen as one of the latest battlegrounds.

I cannot stress emphatically enough how inappropriate I feel it is for either side of the conflict to attempt to wield this project as a weapon of mass distraction, if you will, in their struggle.

If truth is the territory we seek to defend, then I think it behooves us to help our opponents formulate the strongest possible arguments against our entrenched position, enabling us to escape the complacency afforded by an easy argument, and break free onto the higher ground of elevated dialogue. As Popper argued, while truth is the proper aim of science, we cannot know for sure whether or not we are approaching or retreating from our goal. But we can do our best to ensure that, at the very least, we are engaging in the most interesting problems available. If we engage our opponents only on their weakest arguments, then we ignore the their most sophisticated thinkers, and enclose ourselves in a static provincial enclave of our own design. We claim victory on a small plot of turf, while the homeland goes up in flames around us.

The spirit of the Wikipedia, IMO, is to remain aloof from this conflict, and to present the absolute best that all sides have to offer, in the interest of fostering a meaningful and ongoing quest for the truth.

That being said, I'm going to bow out for a while, in the hope that the pathos attached to this debate will subside, and that cooler heads will prevail.

Respectfully, Parker Whittle 17:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Bravo Parker Whittle! I couldn't have put it half as well myself. Synaptidude 19:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

If I thought it'd help, I'd post this section at the top, and refer people to it. Well said. -- Ec5618 21:35, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Content of Ronald Numbers' The Creationists

The description of Numbers' book claims that it does not discuss creationism outside of the U.S. While the primary focus of the book is U.S. creationism, chapter 8 is titled "Evangelicals and Evolution in Great Britain" and discusses the Victoria Institute, The Acworth Circle, the Evolution Protest Movement, and Robert E. D. Clark. Chapter 16, "Creation Science Floods the World," discusses creationism in Great Britain again, and the Evolution Protest Movement's forays into Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, as well as the ICR's inroads into Korea, Europe, and Turkey. The description in the current article is thus factually inaccurate. Lippard 04:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Fixed, via removal of offending part. Not exactly an elegant fix, but if the book does indeed cover other groups (I'll take your word for it, the original writer of that section probably had a POV to push, as they also called it biased), there's no need to do anything other than remove the whole sentence. Thanks. SVI 05:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Creation science category & template

IP User:152.163.100.5 has just unilaterally created [[Category:Creation Science|category 'creation science']], added this article to it, removed this article from [[Category:Creationism|category 'creationism']]. He's also created a new {{Creation Science2}} (note, that there is no {{Creation Science}}). The category consists of this article, and the template. Ec5618 07:19, August 12, 2005 (UTC) My point ofcourse being that the template, and the category are silly. Shall I nominate them for deletion? -- Ec5618 21:35, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Controversy

The wording of the last paragraph of the controversy section, especially the reference to methodological naturalism without mentioning uniformitarianism, leaves the reference to chemistry, meteorology and medicine without any reference to those areas of science not having much (if any) dependence upon the theory of uniformitarianism, i.e. setting up a straw-man to argue against. Have I misunderstood the paragraph? Dan Watts 21:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Science doesn't assume naturalism -- I deleted the paragraph. Bensaccount 21:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you FuelWagon for reinserting the paragraph that I am complaining about. Would you care to discuss how to make it better? Dan Watts 21:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Find a source for scientific criticism of CS that mentions uniformitarianism, quote it and cite it. That would be some good advice for everyone on this article. quote the views and source them, instead of doing all this original research. FuelWagon 00:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparently FuelWagon, being unable to define exactly what he disagrees with, has decided to avoid informing the readers in favour of bombarding them with irrelevant quotations. Bensaccount 13:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see how the rate of things happening a few billion years ago has ANYTHING to do with the practice of medicine, Joshua. Could you tell me how uniformitarianism is apropos? Dan Watts 23:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Within scientific philosophy, uniformitarianism is the principle in which one assumes that the same processes that shaped the Universe occurred then as they do now, unless there is good evidence otherwise.

There is a lot more to uniformitarianism than what appears on its wikipedia page. It deals with a basic assumption of science that the laws of the universe always work the same no matter where or when you are. It is not confined to looking at billions of years of past history, nor is it confined simply to looking at differences in time, but also differences in location. In particular, the uniformitarian assumption of the universality of physical laws and biological forms is assumed every time a medicine is developed using scientific methodology. It is assumed the laws of science will be the same from one point in time to another, from one human body to another. Once a drug is developed, it is assumed it words the same way for all time and for all patients -- unless there is good evidence otherwise. Joshuaschroeder 13:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

James Hutton's formulation of uniformitarianism was instrumental to geology but is manifestly not used in evolutionary biology or cosmology. It is totally within the context of the study of geologic features. Joshuaschroeder 19:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Weasel word

Please review wikipedia's comment on Weasel words. FuelWagon 21:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines suggest editors Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms FuelWagon 21:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I recently removed a sentence from the intro that said CS "tries to use what appears to be" scientific arguments, which I'd argue qualify as weasel words. FuelWagon 21:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

And Bensaccount has tried to reinsert them here. FuelWagon 21:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I swear that edit wasn't me. I was trying to remove the last paragraph of the controversy section and it must have attributed someone else's edit to me (weird). I haven't even looked at that edit. Sorry for the confusion -- Wikipedia is giving me some errors. Bensaccount 21:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

There have been a lot of people editing this page recently, haven't there. Errors are bound to sneak in. - Ec5618 22:00, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

'Creation science is not science'; Fact or View

Anyone? Let's tty to limit the debate to a single section at a time. -- Ec5618 22:00, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Can we wait for Synaptidude to clarify his position, and for Fuelwagon to finish misrepresenting my words? Bensaccount 22:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

As editors, we can't really be expected to prove "creation science is not science", since it depends on your interpretations of the definitions. Such semantic arguments are pointless. A more useful statement would be "most scientists consider creation science to be a pseudoscience" - assuming that can be backed up with references. MickWest 22:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

We had decided that this statement was disputed. The current undisputed statement is: CS makes the fallacious assumption that Creation is observable. Fact or view? Bensaccount 22:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

"CS makes the fallacious assumption that Creation is observable" does not even make sense. As already pointed out, "Creation" happened a long time ago. Creationists make no more claim to have observed it than physcists do the Big Bang. Where's the dispute? MickWest 22:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The big bang theory is based on observations -- just follow that link if you don't uderstand. Bensaccount 12:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, if we're gonna have a vote, we ought to have a place to tally them. FuelWagon 22:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

If we have more than two alternatives, there will be no consensus. Robert McClenon 18:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

"Creation science is not science" is a fact

• fact, If I go by the definition given in the article on science (Reasoned investigation or study of nature, aimed at finding out the truth.) CS tries to prove a truth its followers seem to have undying faith in, and will find fault with anything that does not point to its predefined conclusion. That does not sound like an attempt to find the answers to me, but like an attempt to convert or confuse non-believers. Ec5618 23:00, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• fact. Not just CS is non science, but not even bogus science. In the best case CS is pseudoscience. Here were not even talking about an old fashion idea of "knowledge pot" (like the science of shamanism in ancient times), because the proposer of CS try to make it looks like modern science, which have a well estabilished definition and set of rules. Nova77 04:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• fact, but, if it's going to cause edit wars, this statement can be avoided. Perhaps it's better to say "creation science does not follow the scientific method". Friday (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• fact, of course. Bensaccount 13:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• fact doesn't follow the scientific method.Geni 09:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Fact. CS clearly doesn't follow the scientific method. The existence of an opposing view doesn't make the fact itself a view. Fredrik | talk 17:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• fact. It doesn't follow the scientific method, so it isn't a science. Jll 22:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• fact. CS is a pseudoscience. Plain simple fact, already established in the archive -- still undisputed. Joshuaschroeder 22:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Fact There is no question about this at all. It is a fact, and this is easily proven. In order to be scientific, it has to adhere totally and unequivocally to the scientific method. Seeing as it doesn't even come close, it cannot be considered a science. This is a matter of objective fact, and opinion doesn't even need to come into it. Aaarrrggh 11:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• fact, it directly follows from just about every fundamental definition of science I have ever come across. StuartH 06:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

"Creation science is not science" is a view

• view. FuelWagon 22:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• view. But a pointless view either way. Irrelevant. MickWest 22:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a view Synaptidude 22:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• view. There is no single, true definition of anything. Not science, not truth. People make their own truths. ("Truth - Something somehow discreditable to someone." — H.L. Mencken.) All we can do in this case is report views. Some of which are truer than others. If one truth is more universally true than another, our readers will come to accept it, if we present all sides fairly, and equally. Ec5618 23:00, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• view. CS tries to back up their view scientifically and largely succeeds. In contrast; naturalistic scientists try to back up their own (non-scientific) view of the grand theory of evolution and an ancient earth - and largely fail. RossNixon 02:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• view - it maight even be my view - but its a view --Doc (?) 19:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• View. The way to end this rather silly discussion is simply to provide citations for the view that CS is not science - which it isn't. See Demarcation problem Banno 10:28, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• View. some people are just too insecure to allow articles to describe views that differ from their own, and they'll never go away. Ungtss 17:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• View. My own view, but a view. What science is is subject to dispute. It is a fact that mainstream scientists and the HAS consider CS not to be science. Robert McClenon 18:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• View. Definitions are not independent facts or universal statements of truth. They are attempts to reach a reasonable consensus. The strongest evidence of this point is the "fact" that definitions change as the consensus changes. Case in point: there was a time when sociology, psychology, and even biology were not considered science by a majority of scientists. That being said, it is the definition of science as used by scientists that we're talking about. The definition presented in Webster's (as cited above) is rather looser. --Parker Whittle 15:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

"Scientists define creation science as pseudoscience"

I'd like to offer a third choice to the above poll. I'm hoping we can all agree with this statement. Scientists are both people and 'the office'. While a scientist might feel (the person) that there is a God, as a scientist (the office) he/she should never allow for that hypothesis, unless there is aneed to do so. He/she should always exclude all other possibilities first.

Not only do scientists view CS to be pseudoscience as private individuals, they define (and are certainly allowed to define) CS as pseudoscience. They consider creation science to be one of the best examples of creation science, along with homeopathy. And if there were convincing proof of homeopathy (proof that would convince non-believers), I'm sure such evidence would be published.

So, my suggestion:

Not only do scientists view CS to be pseudoscience as private individuals, they define CS as pseudoscience.

If we can agree on this basic premise, we can continue work. No-one need feel insulted, and the scientific status of CS is clear, is it not? Ec5618 17:53, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

No, this is still an appeal to scientists. Bensaccount 18:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I frequently find myself knowing that CS is not science.

Let me ask you, why do you believe many people still contend that creation science is science? Are they

• misinformed about the nature of science?
• misinformed about the nature of Creation Science?
• deliberately trying to deceive others?
• using a different definition of science?
• unable or unwilling to acknowledge the truth?
• joking?
• right?

-- Ec5618 19:19, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Some (STATEMENT OF THE POSITION OF THE IOWA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE ON PSEUDOSCIENCE (1986)) [28] appear to want to do away with those pesky definitions. From their statement:

"One main concern is public confusion over what science is and what it is not. This cannot be resolved merely by contriving tighter definitions of science or its methods. In fact, authoritative definitions inadvertently provide a model that counterfeiters need in order to better fashion their "cloaks of scientific credibility"."

They seem to be concerned with 'writing for the enemy'. (Bensaccount, you may find that interesting.) Dan Watts 21:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

All of the above EC (except for "joking" or "right"). Bensaccount 21:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

You left one out. Some are misinformed about the nature of science and/or Creation science; some are deceptive; some are using a different definition of science; some are unwilling to acknowledge the "truth" (whatever that is); and some are striving, however futilely, in good faith, to conduct good science without coming into conflict with their deeply held religious beliefs. --Parker Whittle 15:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with this, and it seems to be the best way to include the information in the article while maintaining a nuetral point of view. Mainstream scientists define creation science as a psuedoscience. However, the opposite is also true - many creation scientists assert that the Evolutionary Theory is based on psuedoscience. Yet I know there would be an uproar if I or another editor added that type of comment to Evolution. Please remember that we are maintaining an encyclopedia here. This isn't a vehicle to promote religious (or non-religious) viewpoints. NPoV is a must. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 11:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Please consider what has already been said

Facts are not decided by voting. We don't even need to decide here whether or not something is a fact. All we need to determine is whether something should be stated as a fact on Wikipedia. We already did this in archive 8. WP:NPOV says we can state as fact "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute". People who think it is POV to say "creation science is not science" need to show that there is serious dispute about this statement. We decided not to state it as a fact because it was disputed. [29] Bensaccount 13:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The "'Creation science is not science'; Fact or View" section above shows sufficient dispute in the debate that the different sides need to be presented as views, not facts, at least when it comes to definitions of terms and anything else that might be sourced by human interpretation. "Science" as a term is defined by people, and people have different views as to whether CS is science or not. Therefore follow NPOV and present the views as views. FuelWagon 05:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

No this false dichotomy between facts and views shows nothing at all. The previous discussion on archive 8 shows it was disputed but that doesn't mean we pretend it is an opinion. Bensaccount 15:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

No pretense about it. It is an opinion. How could it otherwise? Science is not a trival fact derived from simple observation. It is a process with rules defined by human beings. Different human beings accept or reject these rules in different ways. This calls to mind those physicists who have derided psychology and sociology as being non-scientific. —Parker Whittle 06:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Archive 8 resolves nothing. There is no false dichotomy between facts and views. There are facts, and views about facts. It is not a fact that CS is not science. It is a matter of the definition of science. That definition is, among most professional scientists and philosophers of science, a normative prescription of methodology that continues to evolve as the consensus evolves; it is not a universal statement of static truth. Professional scientists and philosophers of science do not own the definition of science. In fact, it is not uncommon to hear (among scientists!) that scientists, themselves, are not the most qualified to enter into discourse on the epistemological and ontological foundations that underly the methods of science. As actually used, the term science covers a broad spectrum of activity. I suppose at this point this whole mess will now descend into a debate about linguistic/semiotic/semantic theory. The only facts, it seems, that would have no serious dispute are trivial facts, such as "snow is white." The existence of a potent movement such as creation science indicates that the dispute is, indeed, rather serious. --Parker Whittle 18:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It is a false dichotomy :If its not a fact, that doesn't make it a view. Bensaccount 21:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, grasshopper. And if it's not a view, that doesn't make it a fact. You have unlocked the secret of the universe. Now that we've had our lesson in Zen philosophy for the day, what's your point? --Parker Whittle 21:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

That you're wrong. Bensaccount 22:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Terrific. Now take your simple assertion, make a case for it, and turn it into an argument. Otherwise, you're just wasting everyone's time with "yes it is, no it isn't" banter. --Parker Whittle 22:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Refrain from your blatantly wrong assertions for a second and take a look at the title of this section PW. Bensaccount 23:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I responded, immediately above, in accordance with your precious section title. I develop arguments, support them, and post them, only to have you bleat out terse, unsupported, assertions bordering on the unintelligible. Make an effort and respond to the detailed arguments of other editors, why don't you? --Parker Whittle 04:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

You said archive 8 resolves nothing, and that there is no false dichotomy between facts and views. You later admitted to being wrong. No more response is required.. Bensaccount 22:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

These dumb "see talk" templates

This is an encyclopaedia, not a forum. Get these statements referenced (and if that's not possible, remove them) ASAP. Dan100 (Talk) 21:08, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

If that many individual entries are disputed, we need to just slap a disputed tag at the top and be done with it. Otherwise it just looks like clutter. Peyna 18:56:01, 2005-08-15 (UTC)

CS assumes Creation is observable

O.K. I'll dispute your'fact' (see article edit history). Where do you get this idea that CS is intent on observing creation? CS is about investigating and promulgating EVIDENCE consistent with a recent creation of the earth. Dan Watts 18:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The statement is not "CS is intent on observing creation" it is "CS assumes Creation is observable". Bensaccount 18:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

When I removed the statement, Bensaccount put it back, claiming that I would need to prove that the statement is false, suggesting that:

"Until anyone does this, this fact remains undisputed."

Which is of course rediculous. I'm removing the comment again, on the ground that:

• I disagree with the statement, and I'm not alone.
• I would like to see proof (a reference) of the suggestion that CS makes the aforementioned assumption at all. As far as I know, CS doesn't asume Creation can be observed. Duh.
• I disagree with refering to Creation without explaining what is mens by the word. I can observe creation. I'm creating tension right now. -- Ec5618 18:47, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Don't misquote me: I said you need to show disagreement, not prove it is false. It means Creation according to Genesis of course. Is there anything else you disagree with? Bensaccount 18:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• I would like to see proof (a reference) of the suggestion that CS makes the aforementioned assumption at all. As far as I know, CS doesn't asume that Creation (according to Genesis) can be observed. -- Ec5618 19:06, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

What you don't know does not concern me. I am only interested in people with anything of value to add to this discussion. I await any disagreement. Bensaccount 19:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

For the love of god, could you please use your editing privileges for anything other that trying to offend people? Jesus F*ing Christ. Please provide a reference for the 'undisputed fact' you're trying to insert into the article. For the record, I'm disputing it. And I don't need to prove anything, you do. -- Ec5618 19:17, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Now you are disputing it -- until now you claimed not to know. Fair enough -- since it is disputed, I will remove this. The other part of the statement remains. Bensaccount 19:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean besides my disagreement? (Is this a version of "The Sixth Sense"?) I state that CS does NOT "assume that creation is observable." CS assumes that

"Creaton according to Genesis" will have discriminable observables left in/on the earth. CS adherents assume that, by using standard investigative techniques, (a.k.a. scientific method) these observables; rock formations, unlithified T.Rex bones, etc. can be shown to be EVIDENCE for CS. Dan Watts 19:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Thats almost exactly the same satement I made Dan, (CS assumes there is observable evidence for Creation). Ec5618 disputes this, so I will think of a more precise and less disputable statement. Bensaccount 19:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Please re-read your statement. I'll paste them below, for easy reference:

You : "CS assumes Creation is observable"

Dan : "CS assumes there is evidence for Creation"

Spot the difference, would you. These statements are in almost no way alike. Your statement is simply incorrect. No-one in their right mind believes that they can observe a part event directly. -- Ec5618 19:57, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ok...so you agree with the statement that "CS assumes there is evidence for creation"? Bensaccount 20:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Please stop making your actual point only in the edit summary. You said: "It seems to me that you are just disagreeing with me and agreeing with Dan out of spite (both statements are fine by me, since they have the same meaning". Let the record show you said that. Let the record show there is no truth to your statement, though I admit it is getting quite hard for me to see the merit (when there is some) in your posts, when so many of your posts are offensive and rude.

Both statements .. have the same meaning Really? I cannot observe individual atoms, nor can I directly observe you. I can observe the physical evidence your existence has left behind. All I can do is analyse the evidence, which makes a rather nice case for the existence of atoms, and suggests you exist.

Now, yes, I do agree that CS assumes this. For some odd reason, adherents of CS seem to believe that a world created by a creator would show evidence of that creation. They seem to believe that the psysical evidence for the formation of this planet shouldn't point to a natural creation over billions of years. Ec5618 23:04, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I apologise for my language earlier, but you seem to be trolling. Be careful, if you honestly want to engage in discussion and improve this article. Please read my actual words, and not what you would like to read. I clearly said that I would like to see proof (a reference) of the suggestion that CS makes the aforementioned assumption at all. What I know or not is not relevant. Adding anything to the article requires a reference. And if you had just accepted that, we could have avoided this silly discussion. -- Ec5618 19:38, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I refuse to cite what is obvious to me. I will work out an undisputed statement, not appeal to authority. Bensaccount 19:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Do not try to contribute to the article unless you are willing to follow the wiki-method. -- Ec5618 23:04, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Don't tell me not to contribute -- that is the wiki method. Bensaccount 15:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

How about CS is demarcated from general science in that it deals with Creation according to Genesis? Bensaccount 19:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

How's this?

Creation science (also known as scientific creationism or CS) is a subset of the creationist movement that claims to offer scientific proof of creationism. CS is often demarcated from general science in that it assumes Creation according to Genesis is a fact. Creation Science is deemed unscientific by they vast majority of scientists. The United States' National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such." [30]

Advocates of the idea tend to be heavily involved in the creation-evolution controversy and had spent many years arguing for inclusion of creation science in the U.S. public schools science curriculum. After a number of court decisions in the U.S. that deemed teaching the idea unconstitutional, the intelligent design movement has become a popular alternative to Creation Science for those who want to dispute evolution in the science classroom.

I actually don't think that the major way to demarcate CS from general science is because it deals with creation according to Genesis. I think the major way to demarcate it is that it is a pseudoscience trying to offer scientific proof of creationism. There are legitimate scientific investigations into Creation according to Genesis -- for example anthropology and archaeology can use the Genesis narrative as a starting point for their investigations into the thought processes of a particular Semetic nation in the Levant at a certain period of time. Social scientists can use the account to study the social patterns of evangelical Christians for example. Joshuaschroeder 20:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

You're quite right. I've added a few words to the line. It now reads: "CS is demarcated from general science in that it assumes Creation according to Genesis is a fact, and works to prove this preconceived notion." The next line then goes on to refer to its pseudoscientific nature. -- Ec5618 10:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

This is a decent statement Ec, and since there is no disagreement, I will add it to the intro (at least the first part up to "and works to"). Bensaccount

As I have pointed out, below, CS is not attempting to offer scientific proof of creationism. I have provided clear citations supporting my point. This assertion in the introduction is unsourced, and not supported by the facts. --Parker Whittle 15:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Bensaccount, if you MUST put stuff in that has been shown (with references) to be incorrect, how about letting us know? Dan Watts 01:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I created a section if you actually disagree and think that science doesn't involve observation. Bensaccount 03:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV NOR Cite Reliable Sources

The policy violations happening on this article are rampant.FuelWagon 05:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Robert McClenon 18:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Policy is very simple. saying "CS is pseudoscience" violates NPOV. Saying "NAS says CS is pseudoscience" satifies NPOV policy. Very simple. Anything else is a complication meant to act as a smoke screen to cover the NPOV violation. Report views. FuelWagon 05:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes a neutral point of view, not a scientific point of view. CS/SC defines what is science differently than mainstream scientists do. Stating that CS is pseudoscience is taking a scientific point of view. CS is entitled to be presented on its own terms as a viewpoint without being dumped. I agree with FuelWagon. Robert McClenon 18:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

the amount of original research on this article is attrocious. No Original Research. The definition of creation science needs to be sourced, so does the criticism. If the definition needs to be defined by both sides of the debate, fine, but source your definitions, stop making this stuff up. This topic is controversial enought that the entire article may need to consist of almost nothing but quotes from the different sides. FuelWagon 05:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

So and so defines CS to be blah blah.(link) However this other side defines CS to be blah blah.(link)

this person says CS claims fossil records show problems with evolution(link). This other person says thats crap(link).

The policy violations on this article are rampant from POV pushers on both sides. The clear evidence is the number of rewrites that have occurred since I was last on this page a day or two ago. Subjective interpretations can be easily disputed, reverted, and rewritten by the opposing side. Reporting the views of each side with URL's or sources is indisputable. FuelWagon 05:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Many editors on this article seem to want to do ZERO work, want to invest zero effort to read webpages, to google topics, to find sources, to get quotes, to sumarize, rather they want to sit around and "make up" what is and is not CS, what is and is not arguments for and criticisms of CS, in a transparent effort to push their personal POV into a wikipedia article. knock it off. follow wikipedia policy. Yeah, that means you're going to have to do some work. You're going ot have to find some outside, reliable sources that you can quote and source. it means you're going to have to report the different sides as views, rather than through the filter that is your own personal point of view that CS is crap or CS is more scientific than science. FuelWagon 05:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Next policy violation is going to dispute resolution. I'm done with POV pushing from both sides. If the only way to bring this article within policy is to block or ban several editors from each camp, so be it. Wikipedia is not your personal soapbox to forward your personal point of view on the topic. we report the different sides of topics, we don't advocate either way. If you are not willing to follow wikipedia policy, get your own webpage and advocate away. If you continue to edit wikipedia in violation of policy, then we're taking this to dispute resolution. The choice is yours. I'll start dealing with this tomorrow. FuelWagon 05:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon is right. The policy violations are too numerous. If editors want to disregard policy, they can go to talk.origins. Wikipedia is not Usenet. Creation science is a viewpoint. It is a viewpoint with which I strongly disagree, but it is a viewpoint that is held by a large enough minority of Americans and other human beings that it should be presented on its own terms. The purpose of this article should be primarily to enable the reading Wikipedian to know what Scientific Creationists believe, and then let the reader form their own judgment, not to pre-empt the ability of the reader to decide. Robert McClenon 18:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

No he is wrong. NPOV does not equal citations. FuelWagon has a lot of empty rhetoric, and a lot of anger directed towards me, but until he figures out exactly what he disagrees with I recommend he cease to clutter this page. Bensaccount 15:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

"until he figures out exactly what he disagrees with" Oh, I've made that abundantly clear. You report the views of mainstream science as if it were fact, in complete violation of NPOV policy. NPOV says "report the mainstream views as views". NPOV policy cannot be anymore clear. There is no "figuring out" to be done. FuelWagon 19:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that is clear enough, and is hardly empty rhetoric. I happen to think that mainstream science is the best way of determining what are the facts. I happen to think that Darwinian evolution is a proven fact. However, creationists disagree. They are entitled to have their views presented as views, and to have the opposing views presented as the opposing views of mainstream science (and of the religious critics of creationism). Presenting the views of mainstream science as fact is not appropriate in this context. In this case, a scientific POV is not the same as a neutral POV. 155.104.239.16 20:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

What specific statement does he disagree with? Bensaccount 21:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The last week or so should give you an inkling of some of the stuff that doesn't follow policy. If you need a refresher, check the history. FuelWagon 21:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but it does not. Perhaps you could state what you specifically disagree with? Bensaccount 21:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry, but I'm not playing an endless game of "broken record" with you. I've reverted a bunch of stuff in the article that was blatant NPOV violations, I've explained NPOV policy here and why the stuff broke that policy, I've tried to address your responses somewhere above and pointed to the problems in your argument (disputed definitions must be reported as points of view), and after all that, you keep asking, "what?". Whatever, man. It's gotten boring. Make a productive contribution to the topic that meets NPOV policy and call it a day. I'm just letting you know that if you keep inserting the scientific view as fact, then I'll take it to dispute resolution. A couple of other editors ahve said they'll back me up on this. That's pretty much it in a nutshell. I've spent more time on this talk page than on the article going in circles with you. Just follow NPOV policy. read NPOV policy if you have any questions. FuelWagon 22:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

State your disagreement or stop spamming! Bensaccount 23:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Order of Categories

Even on such a controversial topic as this, I think that the controversy discussion should be the last category listed. Present the best NPOV article on the actual subject of CS first, then talk about the controversy surrounding it. Otherwise, presenting the controversy first is almost an NPOV violation in itself, as it is suggesting that the controversy outweighs the subject matter. Peyna 14:14:32, 2005-08-15 (UTC)

The subject was invented as a means to combat science in the creation-evolution controversy. Joshuaschroeder 14:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Even the seemingly simple task of saying what CS is is disputed, and so needs to be reported from the differing points of view. This means the intro might have to say "So and so describes CS as blah. This other group says it is bleh." Why the CS proponent's definition of CS hasn't been quoted in the intro is beyond me. No one has a URL to a pro-CS website to give their definiton of CS? Suffice it to say, the only way to bring this article within policy is to have each topic reported from all the points of view involved. FuelWagon 14:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm tempted to agree with Peyna. While the intro need definately include reference to the criticism, the second section of the article needn't be about criticism.

On the other hand, I've always been partial to the 'history' section being last, as most people care about what something is before they care about what it was.

Does anyone have a problem with moving the sections?

• Organized movement
• Subjects within creation science
• Controversy
• History

I'm not at all sure about where the Organised movement section should go. Ec5618 15:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

The point is not to present criticism. The point is to present the different points of view. One view might be that CS attempts to scientifically prove a literal interpretation of gensis. Another view might be that CS is pseudoscience. Another view might be that CS focuses on finding weaknesses in the theory of evolution. Another view might be that CS is little more than a conspiracy theory. You must separate the concept of criticism from the concept of point of view. The point is not to turn the articles into a pro-versus-con debate, but to report the different points of view. FuelWagon 16:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon - You're still focusing on the controversy instead of what the subject matter "is". Certainly that controversy is part of what it is, but for the moment visting this page does not tell us what CS is, it only tells us that some people think it is pseudoscience and some people think it isn't. What it IS should be NPOV, front and center. What other people think about it, should be more of a footnote. For example, an article about nuclear reactors should tell us what they are and how they work. There can be footnotes regarding the point of view that some people don't like them for X reason, but that should not be the main focus of the article. Peyna 18:51:02, 2005-08-15 (UTC)

No, I'm not focusing on the controversy, I'm focusing on NPOV policy. NPOV says to report what a subject "is" if the subject is undisputed. No one disputes what a nuclear reactor "is". The dispute around nuclear power is whether it's safe, whether it's worth the risk, etc. What a nuclear reactor "is" is not something that either side disputes, so that article can simply report as fact what it is. What CS "is" is disuted. One side says it is scientific, one side doesn't. I read a magazine article this weekend that lumped Creationism, Intelligent Design, Teach the Controversy all under the same label of "Creation Science". Some folks would dispute that definition. So, given this dispute about what CS "is", we must report what the different sources say CS "is", rather than simply reporting what it "is" as undisputed fact. People are making NPOV policy very complicated when it is actually very simple.

Report undisputed stuff as simple fact. Anything that is disputed must be reported from the various sources.

CS has no undisputed "is" definition. proponents call it one thing. critics call it something else. Varying levels of proponents will throw different numbers of things under the CS umbrella. The only way to write this NPOV is to report what the different sources say CS "is". FuelWagon 19:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I agree that there is no good sourced definition for what CS proponents say CS "is". FuelWagon 19:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

So why not divide into sections regarding what its proponents say it is and what categories those might fall into and then have a latter section deal with what other people have to say about it? None of its proponents say it "is" pseudoscience, so to include that as part of the "is" definition is misleading. I actually think I am just convincing myself that this article might be better merged with another or deleted. Especially since I don't think it is appropriate to call it a science, because it isn't the search for the truth about nature; it's the search for evidence to backup an already decided conclusion. Where as "science" is supposed to look at the world at say "how does that work?" "Creation science" says "I know how it works, how do I prove I am right?" Peyna 19:21:31, 2005-08-15 (UTC)

I'm saying that what CS "is" is not defined by the proponents point of view, but by all the points of view that say CS is one thing or another. There is no definition that I know of that undisputably defines what CS is. By it's very name, Creation Science uses the term "science" that many dispute, so both views of whether CS qualifies as "science" should be in the intro. The rest of the article can be broken into one section that say "CS claims this" followed by another section that say "mainstream science responds thusly". As for whether or not it should be deleted, I don't know. It seems that the topics sure are multiplying. I'm assuming it's because people want to push their POV in a bunch of different articles and spreading it out makes it harder to police. I haven't taken a good look at all the topics relating to creation science on wikipedia to see if there is some redundancy that could be removed. next job maybe. FuelWagon 20:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

No, this will not become a "views compared" article. Bensaccount 21:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV says report the mainstream views as mainstream views. It's really simple. I suggest you re-read NPOV policy, especially the section about pseudoscientific articles, and note the consistent use of the word "views" throughout the policy page. FuelWagon 21:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't just quote policy every time you disagree with anything. This is not a NPOV issue. Bensaccount 22:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Then stop arguing for a wording that is blatantly against what policy says. FuelWagon 22:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

This section is titled "order of catagories". This is not an issue of wording or NPOV. Bensaccount 23:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

facts

currently, the article does not describe the philosophy and/or theology of creation science. it provides a dictionary definition, and then an extensive criticism section. a section [31] describing a creationist philosophy of science, with criticisms, was deleted without discussion. the section addresses the major issues of creation science, including, "is it science? can science allow for supernatural phenomena? is it parsimonious? can religion and science meet?" these were all deleted without explanation. i'm told it's redundant, but i see absolutely nothing in that section that's redundant. please justify the deletion. Ungtss 20:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

There was a discussion. Read the archives. Joshuaschroeder 20:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

i searched and found no substantive discussion. i found you announcing your deletion, and doing it. so please back up your claim. secondly, even if there was a discussion i haven't seen, i'm reopening it. please waste my precious time with endless nonsense, sir. i enjoy it. why do you think this article shouldn't describe what the topic is, but should instead describe why you think it's wrong? Ungtss 21:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

ah yes, schroeder, bensaccount, and brian -- truly a page consensus. consider the discussion reopened. why do you think this article needs no cited, sourced discussion of a creationist philosophy of science? Ungtss 21:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It was consensus because nobody disagreed. Bensaccount 21:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

reverted Ungtss

(edit conflict, trying again) Ungtss just inserted a block of text that nearly doubled the article size. It was reverted by one editor. reinserted by ungtss. And I just took it out again. Ungtss's reasoning for reinserting it was "(the section was removed without any discussion. perhaps you'd like to justify your unilateral removal of all substantive description of CS from the article?)". My reason for removing it was it more than doubles teh article and it seems to be redundant to me. Creation science has three main topics: flood geology, explaining how life started on earth, and cosmology stuff. These are already mentioned in the article. I'd rather see the existing sections improved, rather than see them become redundant because new sections were created from scratch with the same information plus additional information. Also, Ungtss's edit for all it's information, was thin on sources. I'd like to see a lot of this article rewritten using lots of sources rather than have everyone's personal version of CS creep into the article. I'd recommend that we start by getting some quotes from different sources that define what CS is so we can get an intro that is indisputably following NPOV policy. FuelWagon 20:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

the sections in question address specific issues general to all CS, which are not covered elsewhere? where else does the article already address the issue of "origins vs. operational science" or "whether science can allow for supernatural events?" nowhere. those sections are essential to understanding the philosophy underlying CS, to prevent the usual "religious nut" strawman. i see huge benefit, no harm, and no redundancy. as to sourcing, take another look. there are extensive direct quotes, and i can provide more if that's what you're after. Ungtss 20:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps there is animus due to a perceived unilateral insertion. I saw no response to your posting in this talk until your insertion of text. There may be some thought that the insertion was hasty. (You didn't get a reply to "Mother, may I?") Dan Watts 20:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

perhaps. the insertion was no more unilateral than the deletion, however:). archives show that it just disappeared, as far as i can tell:). do you think this section is valuable, or do you also see it as redundant? Ungtss 20:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

That is a rather callous view. You chose to re-insert a very large piece of text, without bothering to ask for the reasoning behind its deletion. In fact, you used the Edit summary to ask other editors "perhaps you'd like to justify your unilateral removal of all substantive description of CS from the article?" You, Ungtss, must have known that your insertion would be criticised.

You chose to disrupt this article, by inserting this block of text. You must have known that it contained several redundant sections (I see you have removed several sections since your first insertion). Again, you chose to do this. I'm not saying that you need anyone's approval, and I'm reasonably sure that none of us here is your mother. Unilateral, indeed. Nevertheless, I'm guessing you found the deletion, and got pissed at someone. Don't take it out on the article. As for your statement that the deleted section was lynched, perhaps you could provide a link to said lynching.

About the sections themselves: 'Issues in creation science' is redundant, with the 'Subjects within creation science' section, though the reference to "operational science" and "origins science" is new. If a reference can be provided we can keep it in.

'Science and religion' and 'Science and the supernatural' seem worthy section topics, if a bit outside the range of this article. A reference to more general articles would be preferable.

-- Ec5618 23:38, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Umbrella article: 'the supernatural in science'

(more edit conflicts) I suddenly see a much bigger problem here. These arguments about "whether science can allow for supernatural events" and a number of other topics are common to all the topics in the sidebar, which means they'll be replicated in Intelligent Design, Creationism, Teach the Controversy, Evolution v. Creationism, etc. It also means they'll be the same battle being fought on multiple different articles. Is Creation Science the one place to hold this for all the other articles and have them refer to CS? CS seems to be a bit of an umbrella topic for all the various attempts to define science to allow for supernatural causes. Can we agree on that? or do we need a separate topic for this? I want to centralize this into one article and point to it in all the other articles, rather than cut and paste and and up with forks and diffs and multiple debates over multiple articles. Can we agree on this before we go and put this in the article? FuelWagon 20:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent design is generally thought to be different than CS, though there are critics and proponents who would disagree. CS has been roughly defined as a means to provide a reference to pseudoscience claims made by creationists, as a means to keeping the creationism page shorter. Conceivably this page could be merged with creationism, but the two are disparate enough topics to warrant separation. Joshuaschroeder 20:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

(yet more edit conflicts. it takes a full minute to do a "save" only to find out I have conflicts. Argh)OK, but that doesn't solve the problem. I do not want to have the same blocks of text in a bunch of different highly controversial articles. I want one block of text in a single spot, and all the other articles can reference it. How about an article titled "methodological/philosophical naturalism/supernaturalism"? I was readin an article saying that there are four different concepts at work here

methodological naturalism (gaining working knowledge about the natural world assuming only natural influences at work)

methodological supernaturalism (gaining working knowledge about the natural world assuming natural and supernatural influences at work)

philosophical naturalism (a priori knowlege about nature assuming only natural influences at work)

philosophical supernaturalism (a priori knowledge about nature assuming natural and supernatural influences at work)

Can we put these four topics under a single umbrella article? I need to do some more reading tonight. FuelWagon 21:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I found a good link here that discusses several variations of methodological naturalism. It also holds it separate from philosophical naturalism (the article calls it "ontological" naturalism). There is a small article for MN and PN, but they're pretty thin. is there a single article name we can use to put all four of these under one umbrella to give an overview of teh four distinctions? FuelWagon 22:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

i'm with you, fuelwagon -- i think we need a cited, sourced discussion of the issues underlying CS, and i think it would be best to consolidate it here as best as possible. ID has some issues of its own, but those can be addressed there. Ungtss 21:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Ungtss, you have violated the 3RR rule. Please tone down the rhetoric and join the discussion. Joshuaschroeder 22:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This talk page would have been the obvious venue for discussion on the removal and subsequent reinsertion of the block of text. The removal was brought up on this page, I gather, but the reinsertion was not. Sadly. -- Ec5618 23:38, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

MONS

I just created the Methodological ontological naturalism supernaturalism article and gave it a go. It describes what I think ungtss is talking about with regard to the different flavors of science and religion. The title sucks, but it does give what I think is a good overview of the four terms, how they combine, and the three resulting worldviews that people can have. Any possibility we can agree on some version of this article and reference all the creation/ID/teachthecontroversy articles to point to it? Any chance we could talk about it before someone goes in and wipes the entire article out with a complete rewrite? FuelWagon 23:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

How about adding this stuff to the supernatural page? Joshuaschroeder 02:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

rename: Ontology and methodology of evolutionary alternatives

I've renamed the MONS article to Ontology and methodology of evolutionary alternatives. It seems to succinctly describe the scope of the article, and explain why it isn't part of some other page. The point of the article is that this is where the differernt philosophies on the different sides of the evolution debate are reported. FuelWagon 12:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

CS does not argue that Creation is observable

Okay, apparently it didn't calm things down one bit for me to leave the discussion for a while....

Most of Creation Science simply does not argue that divine creation is observable. In fact, CS proponents typically argue that the only reliable evidence for Creation is derived from faith. See the following (emphasis added):

"The most significant implication of this fact, for modern philosophers, is that it is therefore quite impossible to determine anything about certain creation through a study of present processes, because present processes are not creative in character. If man wishes to know anything at all about creation time of creation, the duration of creation, the order of creation, the methods of creation, or anything else his sole source of true information is that of divine revelation." [32]

"So this leaves both evolutionists and creationists in same the boat. No absolute way to objectivity test their assertions (sic)." [33]

"The difference is that creation scientists have a "world-view", or "model" for their science which is based on the belief that an intelligent designer ("God") exists who created our universe and the natural things in it." [34]

CS advocates argue quite clearly that both Creation and naturalism are base assumptions, and as such, neither is observable. IMO, this bears a striking resemblance to debates over Realism and Idealism. Neither is demonstrable nor refutable. Science cannot observe Realism, but it still proceeds from that assumption.

And while CS advocates also claim that the physical evidence lies in their favor, this is in the context that neither naturalism nor creationism can be empirically refuted. Popper claims, along similar lines, that neither Realism nor Idealism can be observed, but they can be argued, and the arguments lie far in the favor of Realism. Clearly Popper is not arguing that Realism is observable!

One can certainly derive arguments from the evidence without meeting or claiming falsifiability. For example, the so-called strong atheists argue that the overwhelming success of science's methodological naturalism provides strong evidence that there is no God. I agree with them, but even they generally don't go so far as to fall into the trap by claiming that the non-existence of God is observable. Sheesh.

The statements I've quoted from CS advocates directly refute Bensaccount's repeated and unsourced assertion that CS proponents claim that Creation is observable. I have provided reasonable sources.

Has it come to this? The "page consensus" is to settle on an unsupported, unreferenced, undocumented claim of one particularly belligerent editor, when there is an appropriately sourced and viable counter-argument? If this is a compromise, what's being compromised is basic scholarship.

--Parker Whittle 00:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Parker, I agree it's a difference of worldview. See the Methodological ontological naturalism supernaturalism] article I tried to start. It's already marked for deletion though, so you better hurry. FuelWagon 01:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you're article is a noble effort that should not die, FuelWagon. How about just adding the relevant missing categories to the naturalism disambiguation page? --Parker Whittle 01:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

While we are at it, I would like to point out another thing I have to disagree with about bensaccount arguments. He has repeatedly brought the argument back to the point where he has demanded that someone prove to him that there "is serious dispute" in the " Cs = pseudoscience" argument. He is referring to the statement in Wikipedia policy that a fact is something "about which there is no serious dispute". I assert that given the way the policy is worded, it is contingent on him to prove that there is serious dispute, not on everyone else to prove that no serious dispute exists. This is important because it has become his last stand in this argument over and over again. When you, in the end, have to resort to disputing what is and is not a fact in order to save your argument, then maybe it's time to get another argument. I would also like to say, that dispite the fact that I personally fully support science over CS, and agree that CS is (at best) pseudoscience, I don't understand this dogmatic insistence that CS cannot even be defined apart from critisism and POV. Let the position of CS's be stated. Let the definition stand untainted. Define it, for Newton's sake, as what it purports to be. Critisize it later in the article. Sheesh! This shouldn't be so hard! Synaptidude 01:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Bensaccount can't bring himself to support a statement of fact, while statements of fact—when they are facts—are about the easiest things there are to support. Definitions are not facts. They are inherently imprecise, and particularly problematic when it comes to the grander concepts, such as science, religion, etc. And as for pseudoscience, it is a valuative label, applied by human beings to activities (usually correctly, IMO) that they believe are masquerading as science. It has no universal definition. It's a moniker, a judgement, not a fact. --Parker Whittle 01:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I would go farther (and have) to say that the term "pseudoscience" is pejorative and therefore POV. Synaptidude 02:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

That the "pseudoscience" term is disputed by CS proponents is sufficient to kick in NPOV policy requirements to report it as a point of view, perjorative or not. The algorithm is quite simple:

If (dispute) then {report views}

And yes, Bensaccount's approach demanding we prove there is dispute is an interesting exercise in what "dispute" means. No, mainstream scientists don't dispute that CS is pseudoscience. But CS proponents dispute it, and since this is a CS article, that's enough dispute to warrant reporting viewpoints only. FuelWagon 02:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Just want to point out that it is probably a bad idea to assume that something is fact unless it can be proven that there is a dispute; it is safer to assume that something is in dispute unless it can be proven otherwise. (in reference to statements above). In other words, the burden of proof should be on the person stating something is a fact, and not the person stating that something is in dispute. If you can't prove it (or prove that it is not in serious dispute), don't assume it is true until proven otherwise. --posted 12:58, 16 August 2005 by Peyna

This is not a forum for your abstract philosophy. If it doesn't address a specific statement or section of the article, it merely more useless clutter on this page. Bensaccount 21:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Just follow NPOV policy. FuelWagon 22:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Problems with this discussion page (16/8/5)

Do not create long sections regarding your vague, angry interpretations of NPOV. Do not state your irrelevant philosophy here. Do not discuss other articles here.

In order to keep this discussion on track I suggest that every user devotes a couple of sentences (no more) to succinctly state their position, without any rhetoric or abstraction. I have already done so but Ill repeat it since people tend to make up statements and attribute them to me. Bensaccount 21:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• We should clarify the scientific status of CS but without appealing to the opinion of scientists. We can summarize the opinion of scientists afterwords. Bensaccount 21:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• (If you wish to request input from the Wikipedia community, do not insult us all by referring to "vague, angry interpretations of NPOV.) We should state in the introduction what the CS view is, without reference to the scientific view. The scientific view can be stated in the body of the article as the majority POV. Robert McClenon 00:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Robert, the only problem is when you say "view" to Bensaccount, he hears "opinion". When he uses the code phrase "scientific status", he isn't talking about a "view", he's talking about presenting mainstream science's view as a fact. i.e. He wants to say "CS is pseudoscience", rather than "NAS says CS is pseudoscience". NPOV policy clearly states to report views from their sources. It also says do NOT report from the "scientific point of view", with the assumption that mainstream science is factually true. FuelWagon 04:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that FuelWagon and I are saying the same thing, and not being understood by one other editor. 11:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

You both think that science is a point of view? Bensaccount 02:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

No. Science is not a point of view. Science is a method of trying to determine truth. However, whether scientists have found the truth correctly, or whether their method is correct, is a point of view. Robert McClenon 03:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

But whether or not CS is science has nothing to do with views or opinion.Bensaccount 22:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparently there are only two positions, and they are entirely compatible. We clarify the scientific status of CS and state what the CS view is, without reference to view of scientists. Bensaccount 22:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Yet another vague interpretation of NPOV?

Yes, all that, and NPOV policy too. FuelWagon 22:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

State your position FuelWagon. Bensaccount 22:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

my position is stated here: NPOV If you have any questions, please read NPOV. If that fails, try NPOV talk. FuelWagon 22:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I mean anything specific to this article. We all know what NPOV says. Bensaccount 23:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry, but that just made me laugh. Have you finally read WP:NPOV then, Bensaccount? Not too long ago you were arguing that NPOV meant never mentioning viewpoints. -- Ec5618 23:40, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

All insults and misquotations aside, I am probably far more familiar with NPOV than you are. I have been editing very controversial articles for a very long time. Bensaccount 23:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you've been "editing very controversial articles for a very long time" only proves that you are familiar with controversial articles, not that you are an "NPOV Expert". My own history (and I'm sure many other long-time editors as well) shows that learning the WP NPOV (and other) policies is really never "complete". There is always something to learn anew, and to be humbled by, especially when one thinks one is doing the right thing, and are shown to be incorrect in one's approach (hopefully with kind words ;) ). --NightMonkey 00:25, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

It is considered "good form" and editing in "good faith" to list the specific sections of an article that merit a NPOV tag, rather than just applying it withouit comment or guidance for other editors. For those who agree with the addition of the NPOV tag: What are the specific objections here? And are there any ideas for reducing the problems as you see them? If these aren't forthcoming in a timely manner (say 24 hours from now), I'm going to remove the NPOV tags, as they were applied in "bad faith" by an unhelpful contributor. Your substative and constructive comments are quite welcome! --NightMonkey 00:25, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Leave the tags until we reach consensus on this discussion page. Bensaccount 02:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems that since so many people disagree with the scientific 'fact' that CS is not science (citing, among many other things that psychology doesn't fit thedefinition of science either) our only choice is to refer to different points of view. People who understand science see it as silly bordering on dangerous, people with a religious agenda call it science.

There is no single definition of science. To quote another editor.

"Don't mix up scientific absolutism with religious absolutism. The former is an oxymoron, while the latter is not. Bensaccount 05:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)" Talk:Creation_science/Archive_4#Fundamental_meaninglessness -- Ec5618 07:51, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Just so that I make myself perfectly clear, I did not suggest that psychology doesn't fit the definition of science; but rather, I pointed out that it has been a topic of "serious dispute" within the scientific community from time to time. Beyond that, prior to the discovery of DNA, even the falsifiability of as august a theory as evolution was a topic of dispute. The point being that, the criteria of science are not an absolute universal truth. They are rules established by the scientific community, and as such, are subject to revision.

That being said (and pardon me if this has already been considered), perhaps it would sound less like a "view" if we identified the scientific method as a set of rules established by the scientific community; and that, clearly, CS does not satisfy those rules. At a bare minimum, methodological naturalism is a criteria of science, and CS clearly rejects that. If it is to be considered science, then it is only under a definition of the term that disregards the very foundation of science as practiced across the globe. Just searching for some middle ground.... —Parker Whittle 15:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, methodological naturalism is used as an insult by CS folks against science, and it's a pretty obtuse term, and as it happens, I've been recently informed of a view that believes in a natural god, so some varioations of CS could concievably argue that they follow methodlogical naturalism. There are multiple ways to implement a methodology that is naturalistic, and the concepts of falsifiability, repeatability, occam's razor, etc, are only one version of a naturalistic methodology. It would be better to represent the specific POV of mainstream science, and report what they say. FuelWagon 15:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It has been long understood among epistemologists and philosophers of science that Spinoza's God, and the non-theistic views of some strains of Buddhism (or even Hinduism)—in short, most variations of pantheism or deism—do not challenge the naturalistic position of science, since God is considered equivalent to the universe, or fundamental existence, itself. As a side note, Buddhism's primary critique of science would seem to be that it perpetuates the world illusion of suffering and rebirth, but that's an entirely different discussion.... :-) —Parker Whittle 15:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

With respect to this line of inquiry, one thing must be made clear: science itself is a point of view. That's why debates over SPOV happened here on Wikipedia. As with any view, it is subject to the whims of humanity, but the methodology and philosophical assumptions of science are some of the best studied and investigated of all academic disciplines. With that in mind, it is clear that claiming creation science is unscientific is a fact, not a view, even while science itself is a view. It's much like stating that dianetics is not science. Though the people who work with dianetics believe it is a science, they differ significantly from the scientific point of view to the point that it is indisputible that they are not participating in a scientific enterprise in their practice of their discipline. While scientologists will vigorously dispute this fact, it is still indisputible with respect to how science itself is defined. The only thing that will cause this to change is an overhaul and redefinition of science itself. I grant that creation science advocates want to do this, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion since it hasn't yet occured as defined by those people who actually do science. Joshuaschroeder 15:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Science is a process, and it is a body of knowedge but it certainly is not a point of view. Bensaccount 02:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

"CS is not scientific" is a view, because teh very definition of science is disputed here. "CS allows for supernatural causes to natural events" can be presented as fact because neither side disputes it. FuelWagon 15:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

If the dispute is real, then why isn't it mentioned on the science page? Joshuaschroeder 01:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't tell whether you're agreeing that the criteria of science should be stated as the view of scientists, or otherwise.—Parker Whittle 15:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Science isn't the "view of the scientists" but rather based on a basic set of assumptions and philosophies agreed to by people who are scientists. Joshuaschroeder 01:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

as a view. "CS is not scientific" is disputed, therefore it cannot be stated as fact, it must have a source as to who says it. it cannot be a view from nowhere ("CS is not scientific" is a view from nowhere because no one is reported to say it). The NPOV way to report this would be to say "so-and-so says CS is not scientific". FuelWagon 17:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you find a citation to someone who explicitly says that "CS is not scientific" as quoted is disputed? Other than on this talkpage? Joshuaschroeder 01:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Now, really. You mean I have to find someone saying that exact sentence, and then find someone who disputes that person's statement to qualify this as "disputed"??? Spare me. FuelWagon 17:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You mean like this? "Creation by a superior intelligence is a valid scientific and philosophical concept." [35] What does that prove? 68.62.201.131 04:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't you consider the various state laws regarding science education and the attending court cases (Kansas, Texas, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Ohio, etc.) as evidence that whether or not Creation Science is science is topic of some dispute? —Parker Whittle 16:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

as for "criteria of science", it would depend if it is disputed or not. CS doesn't dispute that mainstream science uses "methodological naturalism" and mainstream science doesn't dispute it, so that could be reported as fact. CS allows for supernatural explanations of natural phenomenon, that doesn't seem to be disputed eiter. If the criterion of science is not disputed by CS, then the article can simply say that CS violates that specific criteria. I think Behe admited that ID can't be proven by experimentation, which is a criteria of science, so that can be reported as fact. It always helps to have a source to back up that both sides agree on something too, though. FuelWagon 18:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

You and I are pretty much on the same page, FuelWagon. I was posing my question to Joshuaschroeder ;-). Sorry I didn't make that explicit. —Parker Whittle 18:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Article is very biased

Some of what I say here may be repetition from other posts, but anyway, here I go.

This article is obviously very strongly biased against creation science. I don't care if it is supportive of creation science, but I must insist that creationism be presented fairly, accurately, and honestly, and that creationists be allowed a chance to answer their critics.

For example, take the following qoute: "Skeptic Magazine reports: the "creation 'science' movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics" and "seriously misrepresents the theory of evolution"." This wild assertion is given without any supporting evidence or examples whatsoever. "Unethical" how? "Seriously misinterprets the theory of evolution?" How? Distortion how? This statement is both biased and unsubstantiated.

"Its lack of adherence to the standards of the scientific method mean that Creationism, and specifically Creation Science, cannot be said to be scientific, at least not in the way that science is conventionally understood and utilized. As a result, scientists characterize Creationism as a pseudoscience." Point in case. Pseudoscience seems to indicate that creationism is not supported by any scientific evidence, which is clearly not the case. The author of this article clearly has not seriously examined creationist arguments. Alchemy is pseudoscience; creationism is not pseudoscientific in the same sense as alchemy is. In particular, intelligent design is a very scientific theory.

"Scientists note that Creation Science differs from mainstream science in that it begins with an assumption, then attempts to find evidence to support that assumption. Conversely, science sets out to learn about the world through the collection of empirical evidence and the use of the scientific method." And science starts from the assumption that creation science and intelligent design is false. One of the premises of some scientists, and the viewpoint of this article, is that all non-naturalistic explanations of anything are inherently not allowable. How is it "scientific" to exclude a particular explanation a priori? The point is debatable anyway - scientists certainly start with an assumption and then try to prove it correct - that's what a hypothesis is! Scientists don't go around randomnly doing experiments and collecting data - they start with a hypothesis and try to prove the hypothesis true (technically, they simply don't prove it false; science can never really "prove" anything true, simply prove that it is unlikely to be false).

The author of this article clearly shows a strong bias throughout the article, even going as far as to compare creationism to a "cult." Frankly, the author would do well to read a dictionary in this case. In conclusion, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for people to rant; please let's keep it that way. (unsigned- 68.62.201.131)

Science does not try to prove its hypotheses are right. It tries to prove them right only when they are right, because that furthers scientific knowledge.

Assuming a truth is not scientific. Assuming tons of earlier scientific evidence must all be false to validate your hypothesis is not scientific.

Science doesn't neccesarily exclude the supernatural, but does not assume it exists and will always try to find a natural explanation. A physical phenomenon (thermodynamics, for example) has yet to found in which a deity is a necessary factor.

A quote from a magazine does not show the opinion of Wikipedia, or the truth. It merely is. It needn't be substantiated. It represents a view of creation science.

You suggest that there is clearly scientific evidence for creation science. Clearly. Why then are so many people unwilling to believe? Could it be that this evidence is simply unconvincing and dubious?

There is no author of this article. It was written by many editors of Wikipedia, Creationist and otherwise. 'The author' does not compare creation science to a cult, but states that there are people who do so. -- Ec5618 06:29, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

"The point is debatable anyway - scientists certainly start with an assumption and then try to prove it correct - that's what a hypothesis is!"

Wrong. A Hypothesis is only formed based on a solid foundation of evidence and observation.

"And science starts from the assumption that creation science and intelligent design is false."

Science works by creating theories based on evidence, and then attempting to demonstrate the validity of those theories through experimentation and logic. Seeing as there is no evidence anywhere for anything even remotely similar to what creationists believe, there is no reason for scientists to suppose that creationism might be true. Science does not 'start with the assumption that creation science and intelligent design is false', it simply doesn't need to address such questions because the evidence does not point in that direction. There is nothing a priori about it - it's all about facts, logic, evidence, and HONESTY - all things that work against creation 'science'. Aaarrrggh 11:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

You made an interesting statement. CS proponents try to prove CS hypotheses right because they are convinced that "they are right." Quite similar to the anthropomorphic "Science" of your statement. Dan Watts 18:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. They try to prove a presumption. Which is not science. -- Ec5618 19:39, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Your (Ec5618's) lead statements: "Science does not try to prove its hypotheses are right. It tries to prove them right only when they are right, because [something deemed good]" SOUNDS as if there is an EXTERNAL judge of what is RIGHT. While I applaud the statement, did you MEAN to say that? Dan Watts 02:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I think he meant that science tries to prove its hypotheses are right only in the sense that it tries to determine their truth-- that is, it will determine that they are right if they are right, but it will determine they are wrong otherwise. Rephrased, science tries (or at least the scientific approach states) to determine the truth of its hypotheses rather than accepting them as truth then searching for supporting evidence. I think that's what he meant, at any rate. SVI 08:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

SVI is right. The 'external judge' are the laws of physics, and the truth. "Science does not try to prove its hypotheses are right." An experiment to test a hypothesis will either confirm or disprove it. Either way, the truth is served, and scientific knowledge is furthered, which is deemed good. -- Ec5618 10:38, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Guys, science and scientists do not try to prove their hypotheses "right", they try to prove them wrong. Logically, one can never confirm a hypothesis, one can only add to support for the hypothesis or prove it wrong. The best, most unbiased and most courageous experiments are the ones that seek to disprove a cherished hypothesis. Among it's other faults, CS is aimed at proving it's hypothesis "right" and it's most basic assumption is that it's hypothesis is a priori correct and thus, cannot be disproved. Synaptidude 18:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

appeal to authority

Wdanwatts, regarding your edit here, NPOV policy says report views of "experts on the subject". Listing credentials that qualifies someone as an "expert" is not an "appeal to authority", it is following NPOV policy. FuelWagon 19:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Please explain how "influential science historian" and "such prestigous followers" are credentials. Dan Watts 21:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You can remove those as being biased. Someone's university degree is fact. FuelWagon 14:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Creation Science advocates disagree whether CS is science

Curious thing I ran into while perusing the notes and transcripts of the 1981 McLean v. Arkansas case, in which the judge ruled as unconstitutional the Arkansas law requiring that evolutionary biology be balanced with CS.

In a description of the trial in Science magazine, Roger Lewin observed:

Witnesses for the plaintiffs and the defendants agreed on one point: that science must be explanatory, tentative, and falsifiable (testable).... In their pretrial depositions many creation scientists admitted that what they practiced was not scientific. "No," said Harold Coffin, of the Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda University, California, "creation science is not testable scientifically." Asked if creation science was a science, Ariel Roth, of the same institute, replied, "If you want to define 'science' as testable, predictable, I would say no.

In burdening themselves with these admissions, Coffin and Roth were merely following the example of creation science's leading intellectual figures, Henry Morris and Duane Gish, director and associate director of the Institute for Creation Research. "Creation ... is inaccessible to the scientific method," asserts Morris in his book Scientific Creationism. "It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe the creation process, or even to ascertain whether such a process can take place. The Creator does not create at the whim of a scientist."

Gish is equally emphatic in his book Evolution: the Fossils Say No! "We do not know how the creator (sic) created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator."

In admitting that creation science is not a science, Gish and his colleagues are quick to point out that, in their opinion, neither is evolutionary theory scientific. "Stephen Jay Gould states that creationists claim creation is a scientific theory," wrote Gish in a letter to Discover magazine (July 1981). "This is a false accusation. Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious)."

In contrast, in the notes of the deposition of Robert V. Gentry, I found the following (among others):

Q. Do you ever consult the Bible in your capacity as a physicist or nuclear physicist?

A. I will refer to information which I have published in the open literature which I have given copies to you today. Specifically, I refer to a publication in the transactions of the American Geophysical Union, "EOS," dated May 29, 1979, the paragraph beginning with the word, "and," the third one down. It says, "And as far as a new comprehensive theory is concerned, I would replace the one singularity of the Big Bang with two major cosmos-related singularities, (in which I exclude any implications about extraterrestrial life-related phenomena) derived from the historic Judeo-Christian ethic, namely, the events associated with, (1) the galaxies (including the Milky Way) being created ex nihilo by Fiat nearly 6 millennia ago and (2) a later catastrophe which resulted in a solar system-wide disturbance that was manifested on earth primarily as a worldwide flood, with subsequent crustal adjustments. I later say, "I propose that this new framework has a scientific basis because there are certain predictions which, in principle, can be confirmed and others which can be falsified by suitable counter examples."

Fascinating implications, IMO, for the current discussions.—Parker Whittle 23:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? --Ian Pitchford 14:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Good material for sourced quotes in the article. I love sourced quotes. FuelWagon 14:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

More specifically

Well, for one, I think it indicates that many of the editors commenting on what CS is and isn't, or what it claims to be, are operating largely on hearsay, or primarily on skeptical literature, and aren't particularly interested in stepping back to take a non-prejudiced view. For another, I think it's clear that a rather complex picture of CS begins to emerge, in which (much like any other social movement) individuals with different agendas identify themselves with the concept, with their own particular slant.

If I may quote the definition of CS as stated in the Arkansas "Balanced Treatment" Act 590 of 1981:

(a) "Creation-science" means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate: (1) Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing; (2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism; (3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals; (4) Separate ancestry for man and apes; (5) Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and (6) A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds.

Note that there is no mention of scientific proof or refutation that creation was caused by God. What it implies are a set of hypotheses of YEC, etc., in strictly physical, natural terms, that do not prove the literal reading of Genesis, but rather, merely comport with it. To borrow some recent work by FuelWagon, it seems like we're looking at a praxis derived from methodological naturalism and a model derived from ontological supernaturalism.

The other factor I find interesting is in the character of Robert V. Gentry, who appears to be operating quite diligently and in extremely good faith. It is much easier, it seems, to criticize his work as bad science than it is to call it pseudoscience. The critiques I have seen of his "halo" hypothesis are all on strictly scientific terms, and resemble the critiques of any other dispute between scientists in regard to their research. To me, this looks like science, very similar to the cold fusion episode. The most one can say, IMO, is that he allows his presuppositions to distort his science -- an affliction which certainly befalls mainstream scientists on occasion (Remember Sagan's nuclear winter scenario?). Would anyone argue that Einstein's stubborn refusal to accept Quantum Theory qualified as pseudoscience?

As a social institution, science has been engaged in a fairly garden-variety struggle for political power against religious authority at least since the days that certain "enlightened" individuals slandered the Catholic church by ascribing to it the belief that the Earth was flat. In truth, the Church fathers were highly critical of Columbus's globe because it was too small—and they were right. It was a fortuitous coincidence that the American continent just happened to be situated where Columbus's crudely distorted map of the Earth said that India should be. The history of the modern West is littered with similar mischaracterizations of the religious world view—consider the gross inaccuracies of the film Inherit the Wind. These are representative cases of scientistic propaganda in the service of a sociopolitical agenda.

As one who cherishes the scientific method, and especially the epistemological foundations of it, I argue (once again) that this article should remain entirely aloof of the sociopolitical dimensions of this conflict, and simply accurately report on the parties involved in the controversy, and their positions.

—Parker Whittle 16:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Bravo! (Is it legal to look at a praxis in the Bible Belt?) Dan Watts 17:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent point Parker. I think you are right, much of Creation science is (very) "bad science" rather than "pseudo-science". This does seems like a more accurate and less charged way of referring to it - but still suffers from similar problems, since the proponents of CS will simply say it's "good science". Currently the wikipedia bad science redirects to junk science, which is mostly therein characterized as perjorative term used by spin doctors, especially for large corporations. The references on global warming there seem disturbingly similar to the ID wedge movement.MickWest 19:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not 'bad science' - it is not a science at all. By any definition of a science, creation 'science' fails. It does not seek out to determine the truth whatever the truth may be, it seeks out to twist and bend evidence to fit in with a pre-determined agenda. This is not 'bad science' - it is total intellectual dishonesty. Aaarrrggh 11:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

That would qualify as a non-encyclopedic, ad hominem attack against CS. I have provided sources showing that there appears to be good faith efforts on a number of duly credentialed scientists to apply scientific methods to verify or refute certain YEC hypotheses that would comport with the Bible account. The point being, simply, that the question as to whether or not CS qualifies as science is a matter of judgment, rather than a matter of fact.—Parker Whittle 17:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Its proponents don't see it (officially in any case) as intellectual dishonesty, and they are wondering why creation science is met with hostility, while archeology and psychology are 'allowed' to be called science. Can we answer that question? -- Ec5618 11:51, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Is this a serious question, or are you just trying to stir things up? In either case the answer is "yes". We can answer this question. In a nutshell, because psychology and archeology meet the criteria of what constitutes "science" while CS doesn't. Shall we dance?Synaptidude 18:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not certain "soft" sciences qualify as science has been, from time to time, a matter of dispute among scientists themselves. Whether or not something is or is not science, is a matter of judgment, evaluation, and debate. Now, I agree that CS does not qualify as science under the NAS evaluation, but it does seem to satisfy broader, non-technical, uses of the term (as defined in, say, Webster's Unabridged).—Parker Whittle 17:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It makes one wonder why they call it Creation Science then. Why not just call it creationism if even it's advocates don't think it's science? Synaptidude 18:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Because "creationism" is taken. On a more serious note, most of its advocates DO think it's science-- that's why its advocates call it such instead of, say, young-earth creationism. SVI 01:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Dan's unexplained reversions

Refactored. See Talk:Creation science#CS assumes Creation is observable and Talk:Creation science#CS does not argue that Creation is observable. Please limit the same discussion to a single section. And please, stop rehashing arguments after they have been disproven. -- Ec5618 12:35, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Don't delete other people's discussion Ec. Bensaccount 13:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Refactoring, though I'll admit I have had little practice with it, means removing superfluous comments, while leaving the meaning intact. There are currently several kilobytes on this page, objecting to this addition. You have yet to say anything new. You have yet to show any evidence for your claim that CS suggests Creation is observable. Your addition makes it sound as though 1) The origins of life cannot be scientifically examined 2) Creation Science claims to be attempting to observe an unobservable event. Neither is true, and neither suggestion can be adequately adressed in the intro. So I removed it. Again. -- Ec5618 13:51, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Restore the discussion of this new topic Ec, which has not been discussed by anyone other than Clair de Lune and myself. Also, read the banners at the top of this page. Deleting huge sections of other's people's new discussion is very bad form. Bensaccount 14:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a line. When you cross it, you are considered a troll. Can you see the line? This is in no way a new topic. It has been discussed to death.

• You say: "CS claims to be able to observe creation."
• Everyone else says: "No it doesn't. And no-one in their right minds thinks anyone can directly observe past events."
• You say "CS claims to be able to observe creation."
• Everyone else says: "No it doesn't. And no-one in their right minds thinks anyone can directly observe past events. Please prove your assertion"
• You say: "I will not prove what is obvious to me. CS claims to be able to observe creation."
• Everyone else says: "You should prove it, as everything should be referenced. And no-one in their right minds thinks anyone can directly observe past events."
• And you begin anew.
• And when finally, no-one is bothering to object any more, you insert your claim, claim it isn't disputed, and wait for revertion, at which point, you start calling for heads to roll because of the 'unexplained reversion'.

The talk which was removed for pith can be read here:[36]. Feel free. Feel free to read the exact same argumentation here, [37] and here. There are probably several more similar discussions in the archives, as well.

-- Ec5618 14:43, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Replace the new discussion you deleted. Do you expect me to allow you to delete my precise statements and then argue against your own make-believe version of them? Replace them or I will have to take other measures to get to to comply with basic rules of discussion. Bensaccount 19:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you want to go over the huge differences between saying science involves observation and my previous statements which were aimed at demarcating CS not at clarifying whether it is science? Bensaccount 19:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I am quite happy discussing the dos and don'ts of Wikipedia ettiquette, if it means a short break from having to explain Wikipedia policy to you. -- Ec5618 19:25, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Ok Ec, tell me, wouldn't it seem more reasonable to delete the second section with the exact same title rather than this section which was about an entirely different issue? Are you capable of differentiating one thing from another? Bensaccount 19:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

This section deals with the socalled 'unexplained reversions'. The other sections deal with the stuff you keep trying to insert into the article. The reversions were not explained explicitly, because the other sections had already established that your enserts shouldn't be inserted. Why do you insist on inserting it, still, after so many people have tried to explain to you that it's abad idea? Why do you not try to convince anyone of the necessity of inserting your comment?

Again. No-one in this world is dumb enough to believe that the moment of creation, which by all accounts happened before each of our births, can be observed. And no-one is arguing that CS advocates disagree. Stop this rediculous revert war now, and use the talk page like any editor who doesn't depend on strong arming does.

Explain to me WHY on Earth you want to insert

"Scientific evidence involves observation. Creation of the heaven and the earth by God can not be observed." Who do you imagine doesn't know that? -- Ec5618 19:39, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Because the title of the subject misleads the reader into thinking the opposite (that scientific evidence doesn't involve observation, or that Creation of the Heaven and the earth can be observed). Bensaccount 19:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

No. It doesn't. By calling the scientific status of creation science into question, a few paragraphs later, it is brought to the attention of the readers that the Science part of the name may be an honorary title only. If you want to explain the scientific status, why not include the view of the scientific community? I'm sure we'd be able to find a quote suggesting that the scientific status of CS is dubious at best.

And again, your wording is POV pushing, plain and simple. Though it may be true, it is obvious, and tries to discredit CS, by implying 1) that Creation is fact. 2) that there is clear agreement over what science is -- Ec5618 20:05, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

It was your lobbying, in great part, that caused the removal of the "CS is onsidered unscientific"-quote. How can you now be angry that the article doesn't make it clear that CS isn't considered to be science, by the majority of the scientific community? -- Ec5618 20:07, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

The name Creation science implies that either science does not involve observation, since Creation is science and it can not be observed, or that science does involve observation and Creation can be observed. Both of these outcomes are harmful and misleading to the reader. Stating the opinion of the scientific community resolves neither of these issues. The opinion of the scientific community has nothing to do with whether or not something is science. You are, once again, referring to consensus science. 20:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I never said creation could not be observed. I'd be foolish to. I am aware of you, only because there is evidence of your existence. My screen keeps flashing text. The evidence, like in a good detective novel, can be used to formulate scientific theories about creation.

Creation Science implies science dealing with creation, which suggests both that there was a moment, or a time, of creation, and that this concept can be studied. Both can be contested, sure, in a philosophical debate. Creation Science, outside of the impression the name gives, refers to a specific 'subset of creationism'. The article deals with that specific concept. -- Ec5618 20:19, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Are you finally diputing this statement? Are you suggesting that Creation of the heaven and the earth by God can be observed? Or that it maybe can be observed? Bensaccount 20:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

2

Ooh, you got me. I did say that, didn't I? Finally. I never said creation could not be observed. Through indirect means, yes, creation can be observed. I can logically deduce that the universe exists, even though I neither fully understand it, nor can observe it entirely. The evidence points to a point in the past when the universe was formed, the Earth was formed, life was formed, and you were formed.

And no, I'm not suggesting that the universe was created by a supernatural entity, as you are. I'm not saying that the creation of the heaven and the earth were created by God can not be observed. I'm not suggesting there is a god. -- Ec5618 20:29, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Since we have disagreement we need to specifiy. How exactly might Creation of the heavens and the earth by God be observed? Bensaccount 20:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

You're suggesting that the name 'creation science' suggests that creation can be observed, directly. I'm disputing that. I'm also suggesting that, and I quote: "Creation of the heaven and the earth by God can not be observed", seems to indicate that there is no question that the universe was 'created'. So, your wording is misleading, and as I have no idea what it is you're actually objecting to, I cannot improve the wording. You'll have to do it yourself. -- Ec5618 21:05, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

A better wording is there is no way of observing the creation of the heavens and the earth by God. To dispute this you have to state the way. Bensaccount 04:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Science is Broken

Just in case anyone is interested. Found this page http://nov55.com/ovr.html explaining what is wrong with the current practice of "science". Written by a non-creationist biologist. Does anyone know if there is a Wikipedia article that discusses this? I haven't thought whether or not this is an 'encyclopedic' subject; but it appears that nearly 'anything goes on Wikipedia!' Another reason to have such an article, is that people often say things like "scientists stuff is peer-reviewed" and "scientists are open to criticism" and so on... as if this validates current scientific thinking. RossNixon 11:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Frightening drivel, mostly about non-biological topics that the author doesn't understand. --Ian Pitchford 12:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. Suggesting that evolution would eliminate prions shows a misunderstanding of both prions and evolution.

And why is this biologist (apart from his name, no credentials are supplied) talking as though he is an expert in wind turbine design?

Hah. "Simple and Unquestionable Mathematical Proof Kinetic Energy is not ½mv² but mv". Ok, I've spent too much time on this[38].

-- Ec5618 12:25, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

That's hilarious. Just goes to show that not all the boneheads are creation scientist. Synaptidude 22:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

observed

Bensaccount, regarding this edit, that creation cannot be observed is irrelevant to whether it is scientific. the big bang was not observed. Regardless of your personal view, keep it out of the article and keep it neutral. FuelWagon 15:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The Big Bang has been observed, see Big Bang#Observational evidence. What can't be observed is Divine Creation causing the Big Bang. Also, "observation" does not mean "looking at directly with your eyes". This notion is erroneous anyway, as light does not propagate at infinite speed. An observation necessarily extracts information that was created in the past, be it one microsecond or 13 billion years ago. Fredrik | talk 15:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Problem. The universe edge is thought to be 87 billion miles away. Click Who has been breaking the 'speed limit' then? RossNixon 01:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

No one. The speed of light is the upper speed limit for things moving in spacetime, not an obstruction for the expansion of space. Fredrik | talk 17:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Puleeese! The Big Bang has not been observed. What the linked article refers to are physical sequelae of the Big Bang. It's like saying that you witnessed a car accident when all you saw was the wrecked car a year later.Synaptidude 16:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

How is that any different from saying that you've witnessed a car accident when all you observed was a few photons that had been reflected by the cars, and reached your eyes at first some 10³⁶ Planck times afterwards? Fredrik | talk 17:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Fredrik , if you're making a metaphysical point here, then you're making my point for me. The ontological status of objective reality lies beyond the reach of science because our testing apparatus operates within the same system as the phenomena we're attempting to test. It's the old brain-in-a-vat dilemma. If your point is one of sheer observability, then surely you're not arguing that observing a car accident directly (and its immediate aftermath) provides no more useful data for observation and hypothesis formation than examining the wrecked car months later!—Parker Whittle 21:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The idea that "Creation can't be observed" is a strawman. CS doesn't claim to have observed the moment of creation any more than scientists claim to have observed the Big Bang. This is also an unsourced criticism. If a critic of CS actually argues this, it should be sourced to that critic, and a URL should be given. If no critic actually argues this, then it is "original research" and should be deleted. FuelWagon 17:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I have not claimed CS to make that claim. I have commented your claims that something can being subject to science without being observable and the claim that the Big Bang has not been observed, which are both wrong. Fredrik | talk 19:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The point is, one does not have to observe the original event to make a scientific investigation of that event. One can make predictions about the properties of that event's sequelae, and then objectively test whether those predictions are met by physical evidence or not. CS does not become unscientific in positing creation, and it does not become unscientific in making predictions of the physical properties of the sequelae to creation. It becomes unscientific when it selects only data that support it's hypothesis, rejects data that refute it, and deobjectifies the physical evidence to fit the hypotheisis. Synaptidude 21:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It's very simple. find a source that expresses this view, quote it, and provide a URL. Then put it in the article as "so-and-so argues that blah" (URL). this is NPOV policy, which says report the views. The problem is that Bensaccount cannot follow this policy and continues to report from the scientific point of view (SPOV) as if it were fact. He has said a number of times that he will not report views because they are "opinions", and he instead continues to write teh article stating the scientific "assessment" (whatever that means) of Creationism as if this assessment were true. FuelWagon 15:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

You have absolutely no grasp of science FuelWagon. Science is not a point of view. Do you think that by misquoting me you will advance your cause and have all relevant facts omitted from the intro? Its not going to work. Yes views are opinions, but no I have nothing against them. My problem is with people replacing facts with views and pretending they are the same. Bensaccount 19:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

"You have absolutely no grasp of science FuelWagon" Please be aware of wikipedia's "No personal attack" policy. That statement may qualify as a personal attack. as to it's veracity, you clearly don't know who you're talking to. I know science. But I also know wikipedia policy on NPOV, and am not afraid to edit according to it. "Science is not a point of view." This is in complete opposition to NPOV policy which says "represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view". FuelWagon 04:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Skeptic magazine

Some people keep removing this sourced quote from a legitimate magazine. There is no justification for its removal that has anything to do with wikipedia policy. I've put it back in as reporting the evolutionary point of view. FuelWagon 15:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Bensaccount, further digging shows that you were the one who removed the quotes here. This is in complete opposition to wikipedia policy on NPOV, which states "report the views". Please familiarize yourself with NPOV policy. FuelWagon 15:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV does not allow you to give preference to certain views so unless you plan to include every quotation from every magazine that has ever written anything about CS (and I guarantee there will be more pros than cons) you are going to have to remove your biased quotations. Bensaccount 18:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Bensaccount RFC

I have opened an RFC regarding Bensaccount's editing behaviour on the Creation Science article here. FuelWagon 03:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

uniformitarianism

Is there a single quote anywhere that shows a notable proponent of flood geology dismissing "uniformitarianism"? This word is used a couple times in this article. statements are made regarding what flood-geologists think of it and what mainstream-geologists think of it. However, there isn't a single quote anywhere to support any of these claims. can anyone find some URL's that show what flood-geologists say in response to "uniformitarianism"? Otherwise, I think some of the article will need rewriting to avoid the term. FuelWagon 17:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

"Apart from its theological underpinnings, the assumption of uniformitarianism is wishful thinking, being impossible to demonstrate empirically." [39] Dan Watts 19:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks FuelWagon 19:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Merging controversy with issues

Hopefully I haven't stepped on any toes with my recent reorganization of the issues and controversy sections. There appeared to be much common language between the two.

Additionally, I attempted to improve some of what seems to me to be language bordering on original research. They are unsourced elucidations of various principles of science and reasoning that could be considered making an argument. There's plenty more of it left in that section to be cleaned up, but I figured I'd at least give it a start. I'd rather see it cleaned up than removed, outright.

—Parker Whittle 17:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice URL

Short, simple, to the point. FuelWagon 19:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The distinction between a law and a theory is incorrect on this page. A law is simply a theory that is formulated into a succinct statement. For example the "Laws of Thermodynamics" are based on theory involving thermodynamics but are succinct statements about theoretical inevitabilities. Laws are manifestly NOT more rigorous theories. Joshuaschroeder 02:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Separate Page for Criticisms?

I was just thinking -- each of the main Creationist pages has a section describing the basic problems with Creationist philosophies; would splitting those general critiques out and directing readers to a new page be more efficient than stating general criticisms on each page? Neocapitalist 18:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Not really, each form is subtly different, and articles MUST conform to NPOV policy. I have been thinking of writing an article entitled creationist pseudoscience on all creationist pseudoscience from creation science through intelligent design creationism, and considering their similarities, differences, historical context, and other less prominent forms such as various forms of OECism. It would of course, have to be NPOV. Dunc|☺ 18:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV, though, is about presentation, not content -- after all, the criticisms on each page are NPOV. Also, on a rather irrelevant note, I would contribute to creationist pseudoscience. Neocapitalist 23:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

SPOV and unsourced evaluation of the criteria of science

I removed an SPOV and redundant statement representing the non-scientific status of CS as a fact. The position of science is very well defended in this article. Refer to the long debates on this topic, above.

I also removed a value judgment regarding which criteria of science are the most important. An authority on scientific method should be cited for such an assertion.

—Parker Whittle 15:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

"NAS' vague reassurances" in intro

Before anyone reverts Dan Watts' recent addition to the intro, I'd like to say I like it. It shows that the NAS quote is not just an appeal to authority, but just an opinion, no matter how informed. It also shows what I feel is typical creationist language;

The next line in the article is brilliant:

"What these statements mean is that the realms are separate because science discovers facts and religion indulges fantasy."

To me it is clear that the line tries to suggest that the NAS has no respect for religion, so anyone religious should not put much stock in its opinion. To me, its typical, but any reader can make up his or her own mind. -- Ec5618 12:52, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I must apologize for editing-without-discussion. However, attributed quotes are the current rage. Dan Watts 13:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

O.K. Ian. Will you explain how NAS's editorializing is different from CRS's editorializing? Dan Watts 18:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

There is one topic, "Creation Science", that is represented by two points of view: creationists and groups like NAS. The article reports the creationists' view on CS. And then it reports the NAS view on CS. This recent addition is creationist's views on NAS. That is different than Creationists views on creation science. FuelWagon 20:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

So similarly, the Skeptic Magazine quote is commenting on the proponents of CS, NOT CS itself, correct? So, that quote should be removed. Dan Watts 21:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Except that intro already says "Creation science disputes the theory ... of evolution". With the CS POV of evolution introduced, the mainstream science POV of evolution can be introduced. The "vague reassurances" piece says this:

NAS, according to the Creation Research Society, gives vague reassurances that “religion and science are separate realms,” or that evolutionary science is consistent with unspecified “religious beliefs”,

What topic is that covering? Nothing introduced so far. It's someone's point of view about NAS giving "vague reassurances" about the separation of science and religion, that NAS somewhere says that evolution is consistent with religion.

If you want to give the CS point of view on this, the topic would be science/religion and the CS POV would be that science and religion are in the SAME realm, whereas NAS says they're in SEPARATE realms. If you want to to give the CS poitn of view on the topic of evolution/religion, CS says evolution is INCOMPATIBLE with religion, whereas NAS says evolution is COMPATIBLE with religion.

That's not what this sentence does. Instead, it (1) interrupts the reporting of teh NAS POV that is critical of CS, effectively weakening it. (2) introduces vague topics ((a) science/religion being in the same/different realm (b) evolution/religion being compatible/incompatible) and only reports the CS POV on those topics in the form of criticism of NAS. (3) needs a source/URL to provide context.

To fix this you would need to (1) allow teh article to report the NAS POV uninterupted. (2) justify introducting these vague topics in the intro (or at all), and report both points of view on the topic and (3) provide a URL for these statements

FuelWagon 22:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

My remark apparently was not clear enough. I concede the differing focii of the NAS and CRS quotes and do not oppose the removal that happened. My question was (and is) concerning the Skeptic Magazine quote which attacks CS proponents, NOT CS per se. Is THAT not off topic, and therefore worthy of deletion from the introduction? (Or are some animals more equal than others?) Dan Watts 02:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The intro currently covers the topic of "evolution". The CS point of view is reported "Creation science disputes the theory ... of evolution". The Skeptic quote basically gives the mainstream science point of view on the topic of evolution. I may not have been clear in my prior explanation, but the point is not that criticism isn't allowed, but that the criticism introduced a new topic and interrupted the NAS point of view, both of which biased the intro. On the topic of evolution CS disputes it and mainstream science says CS misrepresents what evolution is. FuelWagon 15:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

So the beginning of the Creationist cosmologies article: "Creationist cosmologies are pseudoscientific arguments by various creationists ..." would be ANOTHER example of 1)not allowing the CS POV to be proposed uninterrupted, and 2) having NO URL for its justification (which btw there was in the NAS interruption). Or am I still in need of re-education? Dan Watts 22:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

No, the Creationist cosmologies article should not declare the topic pseudoscientific. That article is not on my watchlist. It should say what proponents say it is and what opponents say it is. On a side note, and this is just my opinion here, but there are WAY too many articles about this stuff. how many variations of creationist articles do we really need.? FuelWagon 13:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no answer to your question of how many creationist articles do we need. Your point concerning not introducing new topics may have something to do with the proliferation. Dan Watts 02:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)