Talk:International Conference on Creationism

Relevant?

Why is somebody stating in the Newsletter of the North Texas Skeptics that he "looked forward to attending … the Second International Conference on Creationism" remotely relevant? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This is probably skeptic John Hasing's only chance for his 15 minutes of fame. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hardly a good reason -- and I hardly think that he would have written the account in the hopes that some yet-to-be-invented online encyclopaedia on the yet-to-be-invented worldwide web would 19 years hence make a brief mention of him. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Article issues

I have restored the following 'Article issues', none of which apply to "individual sentences".Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability

The article cites only four third-party sources -- two of which for the bare existence of the conference, two of which are to blogs (which, even where RS, do not add much to notability). Not "significant coverage". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Quotefarm

The article is currently at least half quotes. This is clearly excessive.Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"this article contains one quotation"

At the time that that edit summary was made, the article contained the following:

1. "science, education, history, sociology, medicine, mathematics, etc."
2. "The ICCs are the most ambitious of creation conferences. ... Total attendance was probably around 400 (in 1998)."
3. "Unlike the revival tent atmosphere that prevails at Ken Ham's ubiquitous gatherings, the ICC's represent an attempt at a serious scientific conference on creationism. If you flip through the conference proceedings and just give it a quick skim, you could easily be impressed by the professionalism of the volume and the level of technical detail in the papers. It's a side of creationism we rarely see, and serves as a reminder that these folks honestly believe what they are saying, and at least attempt to do science with their idiosyncratic interpretaion of the Bible as their starting point."

Over half the article was quotation at the time that Y removed the quotefarm template. I have since removed the second, and replaced the third with a one that is shorter and more representative of Rosenhouse's viewpoint. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Bias

The article bends over backwards to present the conference positively, including using the made-up creationist self-description "creationary" (an attempt to present it as of equal validity to "evolutionary") and using the current vaguely-positive PT quote in preference to (e.g.) the one listed in the Discover blog:

Sadly, while I have generally been impressed with the personality and temperament of many of the people I have met at these conferences, the fact remains that they are hopelessly ignorant of science. This ignorance is exacerbated by the annoying fact that so many of them fancy themselves highly knowledgeable indeed.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources

Another problem with the article is the lack of of distance and/or analysis from sources:

• Both Rosenhouse's (full version:[1][2]) and the RNCSE accounts are WP:PRIMARY source accounts of attendance at these conferences.
• We have the conference's website itself
• And the Discover blog, which appears to be simply cribbed from Rosenhouse's description & the conference's own website.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Dude - you should definitely edit this thing. Nobody's arguing with you - so please stop overheating. -- Y not? 16:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Edit it" using what as a source "dude"? There's virtually nothing that has been written about these conferences that is not a WP:PRIMARY account or written from within the WP:FRINGE. Which means that I'm limited to trimming out the WP:SYNTH & other such superficial changes. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Dude - lol at the drama. There's the Philadelphia Inquirer, August 3, 1990. I am sure there are other honorable mentions in mainstream press. Finally, it's ok to use that FRINGE PRIMARY stuff sparingly, if it's informational. No overheating! -- Y not? 19:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL back at you at the talking-out-your-hat. The Philadelphia Inquirer article is behind a paywall -- that's why its currently only cited for the bare existence of of the conference -- a fact so heatedly controversial that it requires two (of the article's only four) citations to back it up. Your certainty would be far more reassuring with some substance behind it (nobody other than creationists and anticreationists care too much about creationist conferences). The article is already close to 100% "FRINGE PRIMARY stuff" -- hardly 'sparing'. But please do continue expounding on the subject -- it helps make my life a bit more surreal. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"the preeminent meeting of its kind in the world"

Is a a journalist qualified to assess whether this conference is globally "preeminent", or his merely repeating the ICC's own spin? I would suspect the latter. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well. The book reviews describe Witham as "a veteran Washington D.C. journalist," who has "written widely on science and religion topics, including as a former reporter with The Washington Times." He doesn't sound or write like a naive hick. Given the topic and the amount of research he had to do to write the book and various article, I hardly think he would be ignorant of creationists and the meetings they have. Trabucogold (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC) (Originally it was quoted with refs)

By "kind" does he mean "Baramin"? dave souza, talk 17:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A quick on-line search shows that the main Creation organizations--ICR, AiG, CRS and CM (Australia)--all have many lecturers scheduled to speak at an assortment of public venues across the US, Great Britain and Australia on a nearly daily or weekly basis throughout the year. The ICC, however, is not for the public, but rather it is a convention where creation scientists present papers to other creation scientists which are then followed by discussion. This is similar in format to conventions like GSA (Geological Society of America) and JVP (Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology), etc. To attend the lectures one must be registered and pay a fee (like the GSA and JVP). They do provide a few free lectures for the public, but those are just sidelines. The media may attend free, I believe, as long as they can provide press credentials. Thus, the ICC is a different kind of meeting from typical creation lectures.

Digging deeper will show that there have been a few other similar scientific creation conventions over the past 10 to 20 years, but none of them have lasted as long as ICC, so it is the primary convention type meeting in creationism. So that explains what kind of meetings they are and why they have become the "preeminent" creation convention meetings. Trabucogold (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

PS The Baramin society has had a few of its own conventions. Trabucogold (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Relevance

What is the relevance of the fact that the NCSE sent a rep to observe these conferences? They probably send reps to most such events. And this anonymous rep's quote on how "ambitious" they are have any significance? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

using ICC web page

In looking over this article, reading discussion and viewing the history, I saw where some info had been deleted for not having a proper source. According to WP:SPS, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves." I believe that the info added qualifies under this policy. Wallawallaonion (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)