Talk:Creation science

REMINDER

This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Creation Science. See WP:NOT

Lack of science in Creation Science

While there are branches of science called (for example) biological science, environmental science and physical science (chemistry and physics), there is no such branch called 'creation science'. One cannot attend a university and achieve a BSc in Creation Science. This is primarily because the scientific method cannot be applied to the idea that God created the earth. Creationists believe their god to be inerrant. There's no room for empirical experimentation - it all must lead toward God having created everything. I have thus altered the first sentence to dismiss any illusions that 'Creation Science" is a branch of science. --Menswear 15:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

43% of scientists, polled anonymously, believe in Creation, according to ICR

According to a 2005 poll by the Creation Research Institute, 43% of scientists believe in Creation. More than half of astronomers believe in Creation. Creation science cannot be grouped with hollow-earth theory, ufology, or other such theories, which very few if any scientists support.

Creation science, indeed, is not a branch of science. Rather, it is an approach to science, just as evolution is an approach to science. Creation scientists do not get their research published in peer-reviewed journals only because the journals will not accept the research. It is a circulus in probando to say that "Creation science is not scientific because it does not receive press in peer-reviewed journals, and it does not receive press in peer-reviewed journals because it is not scientific."

Some creationists consider the entire origins debate to be outside the realm of science proper, and being better described as philosophy. No one alive today saw God create everything, and no one alive today saw everything evolve. Someone has to decide what interpretation of the evidence to believe. Although the pure scientific method cannot be applied to the idea that God created the earth, neither can it be applied to the idea that the earth came about as a process of planetary evolution, 4 to 5 billion years ago.

Furthermore, creation science does have branches that are based on empirical research and experimentation. These include baraminology. Baraminology research has even been published in a peer-reviewed journal a few years ago (I forget which one). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.19.229.29 (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Do you have a link to the ICR poll? I would like to see more info, thanks. ^rossnixon 00:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be unwise to regard this organisation as a reliable source of such data. Jefffire 16:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

All we need is the date, the sample size, the selection method and the exact question. ^rossnixon 00:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Some more telling stats: From a PRO creationism site "Surveys of scientists found 5 % believe that ‘humans were created in their current form less than 10,000 years ago." Answers in Genesis Confirmation - Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not confuse Creation with Creation Science. I can believe perfectly well that 43% of scientists believe in Creation, the broad definition that is used by the mainstream churches i.e. the idea that God created the world. I do not believe for a moment that this proportion of Church leaders, let alone scientists, believe in Creation Science. Trishm 00:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Most scientists who are also religious are quite capable of grasping the concept of theistic evolution. It would naturally be the most compelling and desirable solution to a scientific mind, seeing as how there is no inherent dichotomy or contradiction between creationism and evolution. Cheers, Kasreyn 23:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Article cannot call Creation science scientific.

There is no problem with describing the creation science position until you get to the point where CS is described as a science, where CS does not meet the current definition of a science.

The moment CS is described as a science, the ["policy on reliable sources"] kicks in.

"Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community" applies directly here.

CS may be perfectly true, but no matter how much discussion takes place on these pages, we are precluded from asserting CS is a science. Trishm 01:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is CS described as a science? It is not a branch of science. However, Creationist scientists do use the scientific method; e.g. to find evidence that radiometric dating methods are flawed; as in the RATE Project[1]. ^rossnixon 06:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

.. to use the methods and empirical practices of science to support their side of the creation-evolution controversy.

Ross, when you replace the statement saying there is no controversy in the scientific community, to creationists "supporting their side of the controversy", together with creationists using the scientific method, you have called Creation Science a science by association with evolution. You have also implied that there is a controversy about evolution within science, which there is not.

There is a conflict between creationists and evolution, and this conflict is not scientific. Calling it a controversy is actually misleading, but its out there in the public domain, so there isn't much a Wikipedian can do about the name. We can probably find common ground by restoring the line about the scientific consensus.Trishm 07:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

When I started editing, I realised that a better way was to leave most of the paragraph alone, not to indroduce evolution at the start (it is quite separate anyway), and just make sure that the impression of creation science being a valid science was corrected. If I am wrong, and the attempts are not unsuccessful, I would be delighted to discuss them. I just want the article to be correct, I'm not trying to beat Creationists into the ground. Trishm 07:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Trishm, the article already begins that this is an attempt to use the scientific method... This is a NPOV statement, and neither implies that the attempt is successful or not so far successful. This criticism from the majority of the scientific community can come later in the article, after the definition. ^rossnixon 00:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

RossNixon, the article you referenced above is not a verifiable source. The article was never pee-reviewed. There is no problem with radiometric dating according to 99.99999999% of all articles that have studied the procedure. If you're going to make a case that Creationists use "scientific" methods, you've got a long way to go. Please read [scientific method], so that you might present a more accurate discussion of what makes science. Orangemarlin 00:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article appears to lead towards one side instead of simply talking about the model itself. We don't find arguments from Creationists against Evolution in articles talking about Evolution and so such things should not be occurring here either.

Furthermore, the classification of Evolution and the Big Bang as science has been thoroughly disputed and one cannot simply choose what is fact and what isn't based on the presuppositions of the secular scientific community because theory cannot be defended with theory.

I call for a neutrality dispute header to be placed at the top of this article until it is cleaned up to present a non-biased view of the creation science movement. The header that is there now is entirely insufficient.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.182.192 (talk • contribs)

Some advice:

• Log in with an account
• Sign your posts
• Add new topics to the bottom of the page.
• There are indeed arguments by creationists in evolution
• Theory is not defended with theory. Theories like evolution and the big bang are supported by data.
• Discuss what you dislike about neutrality here or else your objections will not be taken very seriously--Filll 02:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at some of the editors and their comments. The user "ScienceApologist" as well as such edit comments as "edit to ensure that Creation science is not presented as a valid science." This entire article is a biased attack on creation science and doesn't simply talk about what it is.

You talk about creationism being mentioned in the Evolution article, however its spot is all the way at the bottom and only serves to make creation science out to be nonsense. And this "data" you speak should instead be referred to as the "Evolutionary meaning of the data" as it is completely interpretation based and that interpretation is a theory, or more correctly labeled, an hypothesis.

Certainly any person reading this article cannot claim that it is neutral. Changing the entire tone of the article is the only way it is going to be added back to the good article list.

Jrtman 09:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jrtman, individual editors are allowed to have opinions. You certainly seem to have an opinion. As you'll note, the edit you seem to object to was reverted.

You are mistaken in suggesting that evolution is little more than a hypothesis. Just as all objects fall, all organisms evolve. Testably. To be frank, this sort of argument makes you seem ignorant. I don't know who told you that evolution is 'just a theory', but remember that gravity is just a theory, as are antennae and atoms.

In the end, creation science has a disputed right to the title of science. It claims to be science, while most scientists and most definitions of science exclude the supernatural. Can you understand why people might object to the concept of creation 'science'? Can you alsoo understand why certain religious people agree with the concept, regardless of scientific merit? -- Ec5618 10:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Creationism is not science. That's a fact and it's not in dispute. To present pseudoscience as science definitely violates NPOV. Orangemarlin 00:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As noted earlier it has a disputed right as a sience, thus you can not at all say it is fact without dispute that it isn't a science. Mathmo ^Talk 05:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes you can. It has to abide by scientific method to be a science, and "creation science" does not do that. --Michael Johnson 05:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Jrtman, take a look at Evolution as theory and fact.--Filll 00:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This article's sole-purpose is to define creation science, not criticize it. By injecting criticism into the main article you are removing the neutrality that a proper encyclopedic article requires. Name calling is not acceptable. Jrtman 22:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, what? Discussing criticism of a topic is a perfectly normal, neutral matter. Look at almost any biography article on Wikipedia of highly notable person and it will have a criticism section at minimum. JoshuaZ 22:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The article's sole purpose isn't to "define creation science", it's to produce an accurate definition of what it is. Since creation science purports to be science, the opinion of the scientific community is highly relevant. Guettarda 02:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely incorrect. Adding a section explaining criticism and filling the entire article with criticism are two different things. Would you edit President George W. Bush's article so that it's sole purpose was to make him out to be a imbecilic dolt just because the general consensus says he is? If you can't allow this encyclopedic article to be neutral in it's definition and explanation of the purpose of creation science you are not being neutral and should not be editing this article. It is clear that every single person who has taken part in writing this article has a biased Evolutionary agenda and that is why this article is so terribly biased. If I have to take this issue up with an unbiased admin I will do so. Jrtman 05:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Your analogy doesn't hold water. Obviously it would never be ok to describe someone as an "imbecilic dolt". It would, of course, be ok to describe someone as having a subnormal IQ if there was a reliable diagnosis, even if the person kept insisting they were a genius. Of course, NPOV would require us to document both claims, but if they had been diagnosed by several independent psychiatrists there would be no reason to give equal weight to the person's claims. Guettarda 13:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Creation science hasn't been proven to be wrong, so your entire example fails; what we're talking about here is opinion. The opinions of Big Bang, molecules-to-man Evolutionists do not apply to creation science because creation science says they're wrong. Sure, criticism deserves its place in any article, but it should have its own section instead of filling the entire article. I will state it again: theory (hypothesis) cannot be defended with theory (hypothesis). You refer to psychiatrists, however the validity of psychology is disputed. A psychiatrist can't say his diagnosis is true "because he said so" or "because the majority of psychiatrists say the same thing." His entire method and belief system is being called into question. That is why the arguments of the aforementioned scientists have no place being in the main article. Jrtman 18:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Creation science is SO bad it does not even deserve to be called "wrong". It fails to explain literally millions of pieces of evidence. That is why it is rejected by the vast majority of scientists. If you knew any science at all, you would realize what a fraud and a sham and how dishonest these "creation scientists" are: they are little better than hucksters and liars and crooks. It is just pure nonsense, like astrology and spiritualism and ESP and any number of other pseudoscientific beliefs.--Filll 18:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Creation science hasn't been proven to be wrong

Actually yes, overall it has been proven wrong.

The opinions of Big Bang, molecules-to-man Evolutionists do not apply to creation science because creation science says they're wrong.

That's the most ridiculous assertion I have heard all week (and I have heard some ridiculous ones). I suppose it's like Hovind saying the courts can't say he has to pay taxes, because he says that they're wrong.

Sure, criticism deserves its place in any article, but it should have its own section instead of filling the entire article

No. Separate criticism sections are strongly discouraged, and there is an "undue weight" provision in our neutral point of view policy. Creation science claims to be science, so the opinion of its proponents should not be given undue weight relative to those of "other" scientists.

I will state it again: theory (hypothesis) cannot be defended with theory (hypothesis)

A theory is a well-supported hypothesis. A hypothesis can be rejected (or not rejected) on the basis on experimental evidence. To the extent that they have come up with testable hypotheses, the hypotheses presented by creation scientists have been disproven; most of them are trivial to reject with data. Guettarda 20:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, the use of "creation" and "science" in tandem strikes me as being akin to a feline dog. •Jim62sch• 00:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Creation Science is not science, and cannot reasonably be considered to be science. No standard Encyclopedia article can present Creations Science as science - that would be misleading. Do not mistake the opposition against Creation Science to be opposition against Creation - that is a different ball game. Do not mistake scientists' insistence on adhering to the definition of science when engaging in science to be faith in the current state of knowledge. If the science community thought our knowledge was complete, it would be time to pack up and go home. Trishm 00:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC) I've done some searching, looking for something solid about creationist claims among creation science papers, claims and court records, and found that several creationists, including Gish, reject the science claims made for creation science. I have included his quote in the article.Trishm 01:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Actually yes, overall it has been proven wrong.

Another ignorant statement akin to saying "You're wrong because I said you're wrong."

How many million pages of documents proving you are wrong do you need? Of course, I am sure you will reject any evidence, so this is a moot point.--Filll 03:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the most ridiculous assertion I have heard all week (and I have heard some ridiculous ones). I suppose it's like Hovind saying the courts can't say he has to pay taxes, because he says that they're wrong.

Terrible example. For one, income tax on private individuals in the United States is unconstitutional; secondly, if something is law it can be readily looked up and proven as such.

Oh brother...Brilliant. It sounds like you are a deep legal scholar.--Filll 03:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A theory is a well-supported hypothesis. A hypothesis can be rejected (or not rejected) on the basis on experimental evidence. To the extent that they have come up with testable hypotheses, the hypotheses presented by creation scientists have been disproven; most of them are trivial to reject with data.

Experimental evidence says that molecules-to-man evolution doesn't occur; mutations in microscopic organisms not generating more complex organisms is a testament to this. Any other evidence used to "prove" evolution is based purely on presuppositions which are assumed to be correct. In any case, this isn't an argument on what theory is true, this is an argument on neutrality and the lack thereof.

YOu could be shown to be wrong, but it is pointless since you will never accept any of it. So what is the point?--Filll 03:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Separate criticism sections are strongly discouraged, and there is an "undue weight" provision in our neutral point of view policy. Creation science claims to be science, so the opinion of its proponents should not be given undue weight relative to those of "other" scientists.

This article is not an argument about whether creation science is what it claims to be, it is the definition and explantion of it and its proponents. How hard is this concept to understand? Jrtman 03:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What creation science is...is some ranting and raving by a bunch of fringe kooks. It is a load of crap. How hard is that concept to understand?--Filll 03:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that new scientific ideas are incorrect because they are not widely believed at the time of their conception? Have you informed the history books about this? Jrtman 04:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please focus onthe article. Jrtman, I suggest that you read the policies more closely. Neutrality does not mean presenting views equally. Neturality means taking a dispassionate look, including dissenting positions. Where a claim is not true, it must be presented as not true. Creation science is not a science. There is no definition of science where this is true. Look for court statements by proponents of Creation scientists to see the truth of this: a Christian under oath should be a pretty reliable source. You will find claims of Creation Science being science start to fall away in court.Trishm 04:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Trish)( While I would not state things as strongly as Fill does, I will point out that your comparison of creation sicence to "new scientific ideas." Most of these claims have been around for hundreds of years. They aren't new, they are old, wrong claims. JoshuaZ 04:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My view of the situation

The creation science crowd (and the creationist crowd before it) have taken a very narrow religious view, and then tried to claim they have a huge following, when they are just a handful of radical extremists. They want to define Christianity, and religion for everyone else. And interpret the bible for everyone else. And define science for everyone else. And their real agenda, is attacking evolution, in some sort of vague idea that is stopping people from believing or causing social ills. But the evidence is not there. And when this is pointed out to them, they are unhappy, with all kinds of charges of unfairness. They are really not much different than Scientology.--Filll 00:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What irritates me most is they want to dictate to God how he did his work. And then if anyone disagrees, they throw a fit.--Filll 00:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the agenda, as with most such impractical disputes, is to distract attention from ongoing economic disparities, fiscal irresponsibility, widespread ethical lapses, and military blunders abroad. Enjoy the circus, folks... Kasreyn 00:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that creation science is a minority view among scientists. Look at level of support for evolution.--Filll 00:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

How can something which is not science be a minority view among scientists? I suppose it can be a "view of self-described scientists". That's about as far as verbiage can stretch the truth, though. You're being too lenient in your phrasing.  ;) Kasreyn 00:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Less than 0.1% of US biologists think creationism is reasonable. Less than 0.15% of US biologists and earth scientist think it is reasonable. About 5% overall of US scientists subscribe to creationist ideas. Not sure how many of that 0.1%, 0.15% or 5% think creation science is science however; presumably a far smaller percentage. This is clearly an upper bound. See the article level of support for evolution--Filll 01:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(Assuming you were replying to me) - I think you misunderstood. I meant to say that "creation science" cannot be a "minority" view among scientists because it cannot even be a view among scientists at all, being unscientific in nature. Ie., I'm basically saying "creation science"'s level of support among scientists is precisely zero, and that those who support it are, at least on that issue, not scientists. Cheers, Kasreyn 04:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I understand your desire, I believe that this is maybe a bit too much of a hard line. There are numerous people who are trained in the sciences, even with multiple PhDs from major schools, who work in science as scientists, who nonetheless subscribe to creation science ideas. Most do not work on "creation science" professionally however, but in some area which does not involve interacting with creationist claims or using them. Those scientists that do work in creation science are in most cases doing pseudoscience, not science, although there are a couple of notable exceptions. Do we excommunicate these scientists doing pseudoscience from science? I am not sure. But this sort of extreme view would probably run into big NPOV trouble here on WP.--Filll 14:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oxymoron

Orangemarlin, introducing criticism into a definition is not encyclopedic. This is a major faux pas. Criticism should come after the definition or explanation of a position by it's proponents. There already is such criticism in the last few paragraphs of the introductory section. Please remove the criticism from the first sentence. I note that you have not sought consensus for the introduction of this material. ^rossnixon 01:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

OM just asked to discuss it first.--Filll 01:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ross, Creation Science is a Fringe Theory, and therefore needs special handling to make sure that unintentional endorsement does not occur. Before you dispute that, it is even used as an example in the Fringe theory guidelines. Don't get me wrong. This has nothing to do with religious beliefs. The "fringe" label doesn't come about as an attack on Creation, it is because as a science, it has no legs to stand on.Trishm 05:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of the bias I 've seen here (and take this as a comment from someone with a neutral stance here not particularly adhering to any proponent) comes from the "scientists" propre who are always too quick and fervent to dismiss anything that would take their religion, science propre, off its pedastal even momemntarily. That's the biggest oxymoron here, science taken and adhered to as some sort of higher law and infallible religion. Because as history has shown religion sure enough it does require more than a fair share of fath, but so does science and over the course of humanity this faith on science, has time and again been proven wrong, as witnessed in the plethora of scientific blunders and the countless "scientific" theories once held as true, irrefutable and universal that turned out to be claptrap or absolute nonsense, not mere "miscalculations. The history of scientific enquiry in medicine alone would make a very good case for what I am saying...

That said, the fact of the matter is, as another user pointed out that it's not in an encyclopedia's etiquette to include criticism in the definition. Anyway you cut it, this is wrong and should be revmoved. I 've been using and commenting on several articles over the years and have not, as far as I remember, have across something like that.

And btw, last time I checked stephen jay gould was an etremely tedious author of pop science, sure he was a scientistic too, and a published one, but there are thousands like him, and his inclusion here comes solely out of his statous as a sleep inducing (pov) author. And excuse my french, but Dirty Harry said it best when he said that opinions, and I don't mean to be vulgar here or offend anyone - but this analogy really is the best I ve come across, he said opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. Steven's got one too, an opinion, so what?

On a side note, labelling with fringe theories is completely uncalled for. 213.170.207.96 02:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

See Fringe Theory Guidelines. Trishm 09:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Baiting people to try to engage in debates is not helpful. And why do you not have an account? Log in. And I would say that a view held by less than 0.01% of scientists in the area is definitely a fringe theory.--Filll 03:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

213.*, saying something is fringe is not a negative by itself. And as to your quote from Dirty Harry - I suggest you read Wikipedia's relevant policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:V. While everyone has an opinion what matters here is that among the relevant experts this is a verifiably a fringe idea. As to your comment about science being a religion- the claim is fascinating; I can't wait to get tours of the churches where they have services- maybe they pray at the particle accelerators and have alters of PCR machines? Oh, and all those scientists who are religious Christians or Jews or other religions would be most annoyed to be told that science is somehow a religion to them. JoshuaZ 03:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I also have a proposal: Let's make science tax free, so the public will have to subsidize it even more than they already do. Since it is a religion, it deserves to be treated like one, tax-wise right? So 213, you are basically volunteering to give science more money then? Thanks, I really appreciate your generosity.--Filll 04:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it could be treated as a faith-based initiative. Beaucoup bucks in that piss-hole. •Jim62sch• 00:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal and Redirection of "Creation Science"

If creation science cannot be treated with the same respect as other disputed concepts on the origin of life and the universe (such as that which the GTE is granted) I am forced to move that this entire article be removed and its title redirected to the article on general Creationism.

It is clear that the editors which are currently dedicated to writing this encyclopedic article are dogmatic promoters of Evolutionary-science whose attempts are solely aimed at combating any series of thought which are contrary to their beliefs and the beliefs of those scientists they respect. -Jrtman 00:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What???Orangemarlin 02:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A large number of editors have worked on this article and have created what seems to be an NPOV article. Instead of making threats and ultimatums please explain in detail what specific issues you think in the article is not NPOV. (And what the heck incidentally is GTE?). JoshuaZ 03:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm supposed to assume Good Faith, but could this guy be a troll. Orangemarlin 04:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume GTE = The Grand Theory of Evolution (as opposed to other uses of the word evolution such as micro-evolution / natural selection). We really need several different words. ^rossnixon 04:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering what GTE meant. Of course, since the author of the above didn't make any sense, I guess I didn't care. Orangemarlin 04:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

GTE = general theory of evolution. Look it up. As for what I find POV about this article, the first 3/4 of it are nothing but criticism. Please explain how an article that amounts to nothing more than theory bashing can call itself encyclopedic? There is a reason it was removed from the good article list. Jrtman 19:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, do you mean as used by creationists such as here? Not to be too blunt or condescending, but scientists don't use that term. There is no "general theory of evolution" that explains the life, universe and everything. There are a variety of different theories and hypotheses which creationists object to. The most prominent of these seem to be biological evolution and the Big Bang, but these don't make up some grand or general theory. I suggest you read a bit more on these topics especially from mainstream sources before you continue arguing over the neutrality and other issues with these topics since it seems that you know very little about it except as creationist strawmen. JoshuaZ 00:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never been to that site. I use GTE because it removes the need to define which type of evolution I'm referring to. After all, evolution is used in a number ways not even relating to Darwinian Evolution (and even that term could be disputed). General Theory of Evolution is a container term to refer to the theory of how life began from non-life and evolved from single-celled organisms to all the higher life we see today. Disputing the usage is nonsense.

As for your "mainstream" statement, my answer is "Who cares?" By definition a person is only mainstream in the scientific community if he believes everything his peers believe. How wide a belief is held doesn't turn non-truth into truth, something you should know. Jrtman 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't listen to a word I said did you? There isn't any "theory of how life began from non-life and evolved from single-celled organisms to all the higher life we see today." Abiogenesis and evolution are independent issues whose truth or falsity are not connected to each other. Using terms like "GTE" just conflates matters together and doesn't do anything useful. I will re[eat my request that you read more about what mainstream sources say so at minimum you will have the basic background and vocabularly to discuss these issues in a minimally productive fashion. JoshuaZ 01:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And how am I a troll? Is it because I'm trying to make this article into something it should be rather than something you want it to be? Jrtman 19:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Because a lot of smart people contributed to making this article NPOV. You come in here and threaten people, and not assuming good faith. That qualifies high on the troll scale. Orangemarlin 23:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter how "smart" the people are who contributed to the article, their efforts are still aimed at making a mockery out of any theory that opposes the one they believe to be true. Jrtman 00:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right, it doesn't actually matter how smart we are. That is the joy of an open source wikipedia. What is important is to contribute productively.Trishm 01:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a webpage with some "smart" creationist arguments: "Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution, ignorance is", John Stear, No Answers in Genesis Yes it sure does not matter how "smart" anyone is, does it?--Filll 00:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A) All I see in that article are emails sent from the general public. B) Not when it comes to biased agendas. Jrtman 01:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I am sure they just look like typical arguments to you. And I am sure those emails by the public are unbiased.--Filll 01:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course you forget all about the "ohemgee!! evolution has ben prooven you retardz!!11 u ar hindring scintifc progres!!!111oen ur godz can kiss mah ass" comments evolutionists send to creation science institutes. Jrtman 18:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Having read some of the feedback at AIG and ICR, I have to say most of it seems more informed than that. Furthermore, if you look at the feedback the Talk Origins Archive gets one gets similar junk from creationists(and dare I say it, generally more uninformed). Having people make stupid remarks doesn't really show anything one way or another. JoshuaZ 18:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be strange for a self-respecting organization to respond to such comments, and stranger still if they were to post them for the general public to view. In any case, I agree with you: stupid comments prove nothing one way or another. Filll must just like using strawman arguments. Now, when are we going to get this article cleaned up? Jrtman 05:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Third paragraph criticism

Part of the 3rd paragraph criticism is repeated further down (section 2.3 I think). The whole introduction is rather long - too much content before the section index (or whatever it's called). ^rossnixon 05:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and make an improvement. If we don't like, we'll revert it and leave you nasty messages.  :) Orangemarlin 05:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Just be sure to bash the subject or your change will be reverted. Jrtman 19:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep going Jrtman. I don't usually threaten RfC's and the such, but you're pushing it. Orangemarlin 20:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just stating my experience. I didn't start a name-calling argument, everyone else here did a nice job of that. Jrtman 00:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What??? Are you inventing things? Orangemarlin 19:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I am. Well, at least according to your just so beliefs. Jrtman 05:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Banner.

It's been two weeks since anyone edited the talk page, and the {{ActiveDiscuss}} banner was added by an anonymous anyway. I've removed it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

New opening sentence?

Personally I think that a good elegant first sentence is the key to improving any article - particularly one where contention is been prevalent, and the intro may be bogged down in legalese. So, I thought I'd throw this out there for comment:

"'Creation Science' refers to the belief of Young Earth Creationists that the scientific method can be used to support a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation."

Since I'm not very link-savvy, I left it in plain text. What d'you say, folks? SheffieldSteel 23:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Or, "'Creation Science' refers to the use of scientific methods by Creationists to support a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation." Note: There is not one scientific method. ^rossnixon 00:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, I don't see how either of these are improvements. Both of them are less precise and contain less information than the current opening sentence. JoshuaZ 00:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Lead Section

I just came back to this article, and I realized that the Lead section has really gotten away from us. It is long, and really has become uninteresting, given the subject matter. In addition, lot's of POV has crept in over the past few days (maybe weeks).

If you read Wikipedia's guide to layout, it suggests that lead sections be one or a few paragraphs long, and avoids wikilinks. The guide says: "Normally, the first paragraph summarizes the most important points of the article. It should clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail and the qualifications and nuances that follow."

Right now the lead section is doing a lot more than that, making a case for Creation Science (which is fine, but could be done in a few sentences), is filled with wikilinks (which makes it hard to read, and doesn't draw anyone into the article), and doesn't summarize the key points of the article.

I suggest the Lead Section read as below:

Creation science, refers to the campaign by creationists (especially those who believe in a "young" Earth) to use the methods and empirical practices of science to demonstrate that scientific evidence supports a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation. Believers in creation science primarily include members of evangelical Christian denominations that subscribe to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy; however there are examples of Islamic supporters of creation science as well.

The claim that Creation science is a valid science is disputed. The scientific community overwhelmingly supports the fact that creation science is not a valid science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated "the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested. These observations lead to two fundamental conclusions: the teaching of evolution should be an integral part of science instruction, and creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes." and "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." It is viewed as a pseudoscience that does not conform to the scientific method, as well as admissions by its proponents that the means of creation cannot be proven. Creation science literature generally consists of compilations of alleged weaknesses in current models of evolution and geology.

Advocates of creation science dispute the uniformitarian model of geology in favor of flood geology, arguing for the historical accuracy of the Biblical deluge as described in Genesis. They disagree with the scientific theory of common descent of all life via evolution, claiming that evolution is itself pseudoscientific and argue in favor of creation biology. They reject scientific theories on the age of the universe, arguing for creationist cosmologies based on an age of less than ten thousand years.

Some advocates have spent many years arguing for the inclusion of creation science in the science curriculum of U.S. public schools. In 1987 in Edwards v. Aguillard the Supreme Court of the United States held that a requirement that public schools teach creation science alongside evolution as an alternative theory violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

We shouldn't engage in an edit war here, so unless there are strong objections, I'm going to replace the current lead with this one, and let's fine-tune it there. I cut out the whole Arkansas thing, because it really belongs in another section, and frankly, I'm not so sure why the Arkansas law has real merit, especially if we want to take a global view of this discussion. Not to insult Arkansas, but it's not like it's England, Sweden or even a leading educational system in the United States. OK, I insulted Arkansas. Orangemarlin 17:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I like that version, though I note that the lack of wikilinks is suggested for biographical summaries, not summaries in general, so we could, with advantage, wikilink a bit more. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't like the 2.6 billion wikilinks in the original version. OK, I might have exaggerated a bit.  :) Orangemarlin 23:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with OrangeMarlin's version, with the proviso that the removed material be incorporated elsewhere in the body of the article.--Filll 00:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

the word espouse, rather than use better expresses the reputation of "creation science" among scientists, and the utter lack of publication "creationist hypotheses" in refereed scientific journals.JStripes 00:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There continues to be a serious problem in logic here: "The United States National Academy of Sciences has stated 'the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested. These observations lead to two fundamental conclusions: the teaching of evolution should be an integral part of science instruction, ...'" This statement appears to suggest that evolution is taught, or should be taught, because creation science fails. Nothing could be further from the truth. Evolutionary theory developed and established itself with no reference to "creation science." "Creation science" arose in reaction against the theory of evolution. Cause and effect are reversed in the lead section as it stands, distorting the processes and nature of scientific inquiry, as well as the resulting classroom content.

This problem stems from having sliced the beginning off the quotation from the source, viz, "The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims ..." It is the first observation that leads to the first conclusion. It sould be quoted in full, or summarized more accurately. JStripes 04:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Stripes--I missed your comments here. I think you're right. Orangemarlin 17:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

In order to create an NPOV, this needs removed from the category of "Pseudoscience." There are serious scientists who look into this, there is serious scientific evidence that hints at it. Further more, I am not waiting for a consensus, this does not have an NPOV and needs removed from "Pseudoscience." --Jorbian 02:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No, per NPOV is needs to be in the article. This is well supported by references. As for "serious scientists who look into this" - please do tell who they are and where their science in published. Not in any real peer reviewed scientific journals. Guettarda 03:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience--a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific. Creation Science is a misnomer, because it is not, in fact, a science. There are no serious published scientists who espouse Creation Science. There are no peer-reviewed journals that cover Creation Science. It does not even fit even a marginal definition of science. Orangemarlin 06:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

To fellow creationists - I used to be offended by the pseudoscience tag, but now I almost regard it as flattering. It means we do not use a narrow-minded scientific method (only) that can never find out that life must have been designed by a creator.

To non-creationists - there are serious published scientists who espouse Creation Science. There are peer-reviewed journals that cover Creation Science. Find these yourselves. And evolution is pseudoscience also, due to the a priori assumptions used, and the obvious religious fervour of many of it's followers. ^rossnixon 01:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Name one. But let's make sure we define who's a scientist and who's not. Some bozo on the internet, who has a degree from Bob Jones University in Computer Science, is NOT a scientist by any stretch of the imagination. I'd prefer someone with credentials from the NAS or other legitimate governing body. And when we define peer-reviewed journals, let's make sure that they're peer-reviewed by other worthy scientists. Lastly, don't be flattered by the pseudoscience tag. It includes Astrology, Homeopathy, Alchemy, and other worthy subjects. In other words, hooey. Orangemarlin 17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This is blatant nonsense. There are essentially no peer-reviewed creationist publications in major journals. Show me an example of a creationist publication in Science or Nature or Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Academy or a National Academy of Sciences journal and I might change my mind. There are a few extremists who might subscribe to creationist views, but there are a teeny tiny minority; much less than 0.1% in the relevant fields. After all, it makes no sense to find a lawyer or a sanitation engineer who claims that the world was created in 6000 years. My response to that is, "so what?". It is essentially meaningless. It is about the same as finding a bus driver who believes that apricot pits will cure cancer. If you get cancer, will you go to your bus driver for treatment, or an oncologist? --Filll 02:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Ross Nixon is flattered by the pseudoscience tag, let me guess that he'd choose the bus driver. With some laying on of hands. Orangemarlin 17:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Science or just scientific?

You may correct just my english, for if we do an internet search on "creation science" we get huge amount of results, although if so it on "evolution science" (with no connectors) we get very few. On the other hand, if we do the same with "creationism" and "evolutionism" then we get quite the inverse, what comes to be a better expecting proportion. That is because, like evolutionism, creationism should be considered just a scientific trend inside the science of biology, or maybe also some others, like archeology and astronomy. Please, creationism is not A science. I'm a creationist myself but I see calling its still raising scientific arm as "Creation Science" is inappropriate and shows out as infantile and pretentious, what we are NOT. I understand even the term "creationist science" is not suitable, because we want to be (and will be) more and more side by side with evolutionism, as a strong alternative second trend, close to them, and reviewing THEM to begin with. I suggest to change this article title to "Scientific Creationism", or have a new one and calling attention to this issue. Also, the lable "pseudoscience" is much more easily appliable, for this same reason - however much less with "pseudoscientific" for then it would be labeling a simply new scientific trend. Or, in the contrary, it should be also applied to any other trends (inside any sciences) just because of claiming new approaches while being not fully tested yet. --Lacerda 16:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"creationism should be considered just a scientific trend inside the science of biology"? No, not really. OK, no not at all. Creationism is religion, period. There's more science involved in making a pencil than will ever exist in creationism.

BTW, it's really cosmology to which you refer, not astronomy, and paleontology would be more appropriate than archaeology (at least concerning creationism). Now, for the study of why creation myths exist archaeology would be the correct term.

In any case, your post reminds me of Kruschev's boastful "Kitchen Speech" -- when the time came to meet at the crossroads the Soviet Union crumbled. •Jim62sch• 16:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, great reversion (kind of an olympic one)! But be not afraid - just prepared though... I'm not a scientist myself, but even a cook may help here. Unfortunately (to all skeptics) the scientific method does not provide to avoid scientists to take inspiration from whatever they want. If observing some data, one of them see he can use, lets say, the ouroboros to erect some new and consistent explanatory model, then no one and nothing will hinder him - of course given he will not confess it. The difference is that creationists do confess and the scientific method has nothing against if their models are scientifically consistent. Or you may tell just one of their claims that is not corroborated by clear scientific evidence. Or (quite possibly) IF you see the evidence as not already peer reviwed... THEN the label is ready. :-) --Lacerda 17:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Believers in creationism are not scientists, because they do not seek simple rational explanations for their observations; rather, they seek observations that confirm their beliefs. Creationism is not a scientific theory; it will not be altered in the light of any evidence that comes to light. I could go on but those who understand don't need to be told and those who don't won't.

SheffieldSteel 03:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Believers in evolutionism are not scientists, because they do not seek simple rational explanations for their observations; rather, they seek observations that confirm their beliefs. Evolutionism is not a scientific theory; it will not be altered in the light of any evidence that comes to light. I could go on but those who understand don't need to be told and those who don't won't. ^rossnixon 01:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is pap, or prejudiced and prejudicial nonsense, to be only too polite, horsefeathers to be more accurate (compared to dinosaur feathers discussed below). For example, see the article on the evolution of feathers in late dinosaurs (evolved into birds) in the 2005 Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Vol. 33, pp. 277-299, by Mark A. Norell and Xing Xu. This international research collaboration excavated, cleaned and studied numerous fossils of the late Mesozoic era. The link from dinosaurs to birds is now on more solid ground, but geologists and paleontologists are always ready to accept new evidence, for or against any evolutionary link. Suggest folks read the scientific literature! Research papers in reliable journals are refereed by peers, and Annual Reviews seeks out the best reviewers. There are lots of photos of specimens in the above-cited paper. Carrionluggage 16:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that old chestnut about science being a religion. Frankly, science is somewhat more convincing as a religion than God is as a scientific theory. SheffieldSteel 21:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel:"...rather, they seek observations that confirm their beliefs." <- When evolutionists read creationist scientific explanations, they also do the same, of course, arguing against exactly in order to confirm their belief (that evolution is correct). Nothing wrong with that, as any human activity is founded in beliefs that are naturally self defensive. Materialist scientists should not qualify creationist scientists as just believers, if not wanting to respond about scientific basic and unfounded beliefs. Religious have the right to get in science if they want, given to stay strictly scientifical, WHAT does not concern their motivations, or please tell where in science there is anything formalizing what a scientist can or cannot get as his epistemological motivation, like expecting to demonstrate consciousness is just about nervous activity.

"Creationism is not a scientific theory" <- Well, maybe not for now, but might be in time, as creationist scientists are working on it. Please see if you can find a single one scientific creationist work in the internet that is not signed by a scientist. But do they try to scientifically prove their religious beliefs? Yes, of course, just like the scientific police tries to prove what they believe to be an evident crime. They are not "pseudoscientific" just because of their police motivation, even not for their work being not A science, and still not even if they find no proof. Scientific creationism IS scientific. If it will become a whole theory, we don´t know, but surely they have the right to try. And without getting apriori labels just for that.

"I could go on but those who understand don't need to be told and those who don't won't." <- Sorry, but just bare believers (not scientific ones) are excusable to use this argument ignoring it can be applied to themselves. --Lacerda 01:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Carrionluggage:"Research papers in reliable journals are refereed by peers, and Annual Reviews seeks out the best reviewers." <- Please, do you really believe materialist scientists would make honest reviews on creationist works? Could it be possible that absolutely none of the arguments presented by creationists scientists have anything correct? Or could be them all insane? Have you in good will studied some of their works? --Lacerda 02:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry, but anyone who disregards evidence because it does not confirm their prior beliefs is being unscientific. And there are plenty of documented examples (some even on wikipedia) of creationists discounting evidence after evaluating it, because it did not agree with their beliefs.

This is the fundamental difference between science and religion: Scientific theories can change, have changed, and will change in the light of discoveries. Scientists pride themselves on that. Religous beliefs, on the other hand, tend not to have changed historically very much, and believers remain extremely resistant to changing their beliefs in the light of evidence. They pride themselves on that, too, calling it faith. And you know what? They are right to do so. It's a mistake to try to claim that religion is science, or that science is a religion. An iPod is a wonderful device, but you wouldn't use it to tighten a wheel nut when your car gets a puncture. SheffieldSteel 02:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"No, sorry, but anyone who disregards evidence because it does not confirm their prior beliefs is being unscientific." <- This is correct and should be ever observed, but, unfortunately, the scientific method provides no means to keep a scientist intellectually honest, so leaving him on his own. But this is normal in science. The simple desire of a scientist to be spotted can easily deviate his attention from others promissing works. Then you see new raising trends in place of better developed ones. Of course materialist scientists also disregard creationist scientific evidences - and there are lots - but none of them is minimally recognized to be slightly correct. If you reply they disregarded first, that indeed couldn't be avoided because materialist science came first. So the real problem here is about politics - for how possibly could we expect a materialist to recognize a single bit of what could consequently destruct all his world view and leave him with nothing to scientifically explain why he does not believe in God? For him, thinking this is a waking nightmare, the worse that could happen to his life and to his children, and so he will fight (like now) against any remote threat to avoid it. No gods or priests over him: period!

"Scientific theories can change, have changed, and will change in the light of discoveries." <- Surprise: this is exactly what will happen with creationism. They will change their theories, but given they will be just new ways to prove what they previously believe in: that matter is animated by spirit. Likewise you will ever see materialist scientists changing theories, but just if they do NOT threaten what they previously believe in: that only matter exists.

"An iPod is a wonderful device, but you wouldn't use it to tighten a wheel nut when your car gets a puncture." <- Nor would you use the wheel spanner to set the iPod. And that is what materialist scientists do when they strive to prove consciousness is not spiritual but just some nervous chemical processes. Well, you can set the iPod with the spanner if you really try, but don´t tell me this proves the iPod to be not necessarily designed for the fingers. --Lacerda 19:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that wasn't the point I was trying to make at all. Science and religion are very different things; they are tools suited to fundamentally different purposes. If science is religion, and religion is science, then God is a theory and gravity should be worshipped. Good luck with that world view. SheffieldSteel 21:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read some of the parapsychological literature in college - the quietest place to study was that section of Widener Library, because no one else ever came there. So I read some of the articles. I fear that none of you who complain about scientists have gone to a library to look at the Annual Review I cited. It is in most University libraries. If you disbelieve what is written and displayed in photos there, the onus is on you to find some way to disprove it. Carrionluggage 05:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Creation scientists by and large do no laboratory or field research; rather they re-interpret existing laboratory and field data." Are you saying doing that is not legitimate research or science? 68.109.232.53 20:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No. It indicates that they are not interested in primary research, because I would assume it would all disprove their belief sets. Whatever the reason, true science must eventually produce primary data that can be interpreted. Real science, for example, establishes a hypothesis, and then tests that hypothesis. Creationists hypothesize that some supernatural being, aliens from Mars, or the Rolling Stones created the world, all of its organisms, etc. Then they fail to produce the experiments to test that hypothesis, since how do you test for the presence of supernatural beings. Interpreting other peoples data is fine, but it's not real science. Orangemarlin 20:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Meta-analysis and Meta-studies are not real science? And what experiment has been done to show that martians did not influence life here on earth? 68.109.232.53 20:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel:"Actually, that wasn't the point I was trying to make at all." <- If you don't mind I'll leave this up to all and future readers. "Science and religion are very different things; they are tools suited to fundamentally different purposes." <- Ideally I do agree, but in the real world different things mix as convenient, generally for political need. Religion was quite homy when materialist science began to gain much souls, telling there is no need of God. So now religious are using sciences own prestige to strike back. In my opinion, this will bring scientific materialism to fall, because #1 its method does not rule motivations, #2 it made too deep ontological assumptions, so digging its own grave, and #3 science in fact cannot tell what phenomena are, but just how phenomena behave. --Lacerda 21:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Carrionluggage:"Yes, I read some of the parapsychological literature in college - the quietest place to study was that section of Widener Library, because no one else ever came there. So I read some of the articles." <- Ok, but this quite makes you seeming to don't know that parapsychology is not a creationist scientific subject, although I personaly would like to include it. It is tricky but very important, specially concerning buncodebunkers who mislead the public about the actual scientific meaning of their challenges.

"I fear that none of you who complain about scientists have gone to a library to look at the Annual Review I cited. It is in most University libraries." <- Fortunately I live deep inside the brazilian jungle but I don't think I will find this work at the local sequoia. I did search the internet for it and found just its abstract, having to spend 20 bucks for the whole pdf. I have this much just to feed my crocodile. Of course, in case you can lend me the file, then I can try to comment. Anyway see below.

"If you disbelieve what is written and displayed in photos there, the onus is on you to find some way to disprove it." <- In fact I have found several articles on the feathered dinossaurs, even about these 2005 ones, but found also that then creationist scientists promptly presented their reviews, and I cannot say I would do better. If you will want to endure the readings there are some at ICR and TrueOrigin under "There are No Transitional Fossils", but all the paper is very enlightening for who are still wanting to form a balanced opinion. I would just like to suggest you all to check how these articles (as others mainly at ICR) are eminently scientific and signed by scientists, no matter what they want to demonstrate. --Lacerda 21:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin:"Whatever the reason, true science must eventually produce primary data that can be interpreted." <- Please see that scientific creationism is not A science, but just new scientific trends inside several already existing sciences. So creationist scientists would be unethical and naive to start not considering all existing scientific works and theories. That is why they must begin mainly adressing and reviewing. --Lacerda 21:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see my mistake now. Orangemarlin, you've worked pretty tirelessly to improve these articles and have also done a good job of being civil to people who dispute the content of the article. I'd like to apologise for f*****g the t***l contributing to the large quantity of relatively unproductive text on this page. I'll see if I can improve the article instead. SheffieldSteel 22:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is Written from an evolutionists point of view!!!

I think both points of view should be explained after all it is an article on creation....

Plese consider this request...

does any1 agree with me?

I definitely agree! One of the first things that struck me while reading this was its obvious pro-evolution stance. It strongly criticizes the idea of creationism being scientific and constantly points to the "scientific consensus" against creationism. It definitely needs major editing, in fact it should probably be entirely redone. Anyone who belives that creationism is not supported by science should read a copy of the Book "It couldn't just happen" which does an excellent job of explaining a scientific view of creationism. User: Fusionbomb

Llama scim 20:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)llama scimLlama scim 20:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. And the same with ID, evolution, just about antying in this general subject. For instance look at the articl about Rush Limbaugh. It does not say he is a drug addict in the first line. or say that Bill Clinton was impeached in the first line or say the Richard Nixon was a crook in the first line. The first lines or even paragraphs should be very neutral and just state fact. Wiki is very good except in these evolution articles. 68.109.234.155 20:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree the that wikipedia should cover "both points of view", assuming that there are only two, that they are given due weight, and that such views are expressed via attribution to reliable sources. I don't see that it being "an article on creation" is relevant. SheffieldSteel 20:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. It conforms to WP:NPOV, in that it describes Creation Science, then shows why it is a pseudoscience. It is fair and balanced. And the reason that the Rush Limbaugh articles does not start off with his drug addiction, Bill Clinton with his impeachment or Richard Nixon as a crook, is because in each case, the negative attribute is a minor part of their overall biography. Orangemarlin 20:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well Nixon is most notable for being a crooked president and Clinton is notable for his illicit relationships and Rush is very noted for his drug addiction. No, I think in any case the first paragraph should bend over backwards to present only facts. Look at nambla, hitler. And in the astrology, homeopathy article it does not state it is pseudoscience till the second paragraph. Phrenology is called a 'theory'. I think the whole evolution related articles are written from POV. 68.109.234.155 20:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Your definition of notable is notably lacking. If I were a historian, Nixon would be more notable for creating relations with China, ending the Vietnam war, and other activities. He is also notable for resigning the presidency, which would be a result of the Watergate affair. As for being "crooked" that's a highly POV term. With regards to this article, the lead is exceedingly neutral. Thanks Raspor for your comments. Orangemarlin 21:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Swap paras 2 & 3?

I think it might be better to swap paragraphs 2 & 3 in the intro, so that the proponents' position is described before that of the critics. What does everyone else think? SheffieldSteel 20:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be more balanced. 68.109.234.155 20:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to put forth, in fairly glowing, uncritical terms, a position that is almost entirely rejected by scientists before mentioning that it's widely criticised. I don't think all the criticism needs to come first, and this lead is pretty awful anyway, but we need some hint of the majority position before the advocate's position. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it needs work - even after my attempts (or perhaps more so :-/ )... but I think we must say what creation scientists believe before we document criticism of those beliefs. SheffieldSteel 02:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

To some extent, yes, but it needs to be clear it's a fringe view, and not generally considered science quite early on. Whether this is done with criticism first, or just by adding a sentence about the criticism to the first paragraph, it doesn't matter, but it shouldn't take 5 paragraphs to discover it's a fringe view, nor to learn that the advocates' claim of it being a science is not accepted by scientists, and does not even fit into most definitions of science. Also, the first sentence and the first paragraph are both supposed to be able to stand on their own (WP:LEAD) - a suggestion I support, as there's no guarantee people will read further - but taken on their own, only present one POV, which is bad (though probably not intentional). If we can get the lead paragraph sorted, it'll probably be alright to then begin the advocate's position, but I think this arrangement is necessary until the opening paragraph is balanced out. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to restructure the intro, taking into account that the first paragraph should form a mini-intro in its own right. I'm still unhappy with what is now the second paragraph: I think it goes into too much detail about geology. I'm also removing two uses of the word "claimed" from the same sentence (!) SheffieldSteel 17:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

About (Undid revision 119524781 by Lacerda (talk) last edit made nonsense out of the point), please explain. --Lacerda 18:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have posted an explanation earlier. The introductory paragraph is following a format established by consensus as the best way to introduce the topic. As such, it goes:

• One sentence defining the subject matter
• One sentence outlining the proponents' position
• One sentence outlining the critics' position

For your convenience, here's a copy of the first paragraph to compare with this pattern:-

Advocates of Creation science lay claim to the methods and empirical practices of science, that is, the scientific method, to assert that scientific evidence supports a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation (see Creation according to Genesis). Creation scientists primarily include Young Earth Creationists, especially members of evangelical Christian denominations that subscribe to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy; however, there are examples of Islamic supporters of creation science as well. The worldwide scientific community views creation science as a pseudoscience that does not conform to the scientific method; there are admissions by its proponents that the means of creation cannot be proven.

The last phrase is part of the criticism that CS does not conform to the scientific method. It's not meant to be an accurate or complete summary of the source's position on the subject of CS as a whole, and attempting to make it into such a summary defeats the purpose of the sentence (which is to document criticism of CS). The edit I reverted also (if I remember correctly) took the position that the source "admitted" that scientific evidence proved that creation had occured - which would be more of a bold claim than an admission, even if the source did say just that. SheffieldSteel 19:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. I think anyway, although I didn't put creation was proven but provable, the last phrase suggests there are creation scientists (any of them) who state creation itself cannot be proven because its means cannot be proven. --Lacerda 20:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have rephrased the third sentence to emphasise what the worldwide scientific community is saying, as per the consensus for how the leading paragraph should be structured. SheffieldSteel 22:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but I'm not sure of why you say this as a reply. Maybe it will be useful if you post a link to your rephrasing diff page, or its date. --Lacerda 00:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I edited the third sentence before making that reply. I don't know why it didn't make it to the server. I've made another attempt at getting the point across. SheffieldSteel 01:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Good one, but it seems your use of the verb to concede is strategically graceless and open for negotiation... So, well, what about a pretty nice direct and bold statement, instead? :-) --Lacerda 13:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Strategically graceless? Are points never conceded in your culture? Never mind. I've edited the sentence to make it more neutral and more scientific in tone - after all, what concerns us here is how well creation science stands up to the scientific method. SheffieldSteel 11:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't "mechanism" something necessarily provable, today or someday? --Lacerda 19:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That's part of why mainstream science views CS as pseudoscience - a point which I hope the 3rd sentence now makes clear. SheffieldSteel 19:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

They do not propose any possible existing mechanisms. You may check. :-) --Lacerda 02:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the scientific position is stated in scientific terminology. I look forward to hearing your reasons for reverting again. SheffieldSteel 04:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean last or next reversion? Never mind. It was or would be because you are intellectually honest and would subsequently understand and seek for a better balanced solution. What you succesfully did now - as to avoid me insisting in that spirited term. So, congratulations. Now I tried to edit keeping the scientific tone, but it is not sounding well. --Lacerda 04:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never really understood what "lay claim to the methods of science" is supposed to mean. Could we rewrite that part into clearer terms? Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I never found that clear too, but I'm not a native english speaker. The verb to lay seems to be used as to put, possibly meaning something like "put the methods of science as claimed to assert...". And there are two "to" to phrase it, adding in between a possibly not needed scientific explicitation that repeats science root four times in this first sentence. "Advocates" is also repeated in the beginning of the second sentence. I would like to suggest a general clearing in the whole starting paragraphs, but as to the first sentence I think we could have something like:

"Advocates of Creation science claim that already existing scientific discoveries in fact supports a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation (see Creation according to Genesis)."

As who could allege that in an encyclopedia should be just scientists, and as it is factual that they are, the first paragraph could be like:

"Creation scientists are normally religious biologists and geologists who claim that already existing scientific discoveries in fact support a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation, this way criticising worldwide recognised concept of evolution, which they consider pseudoscientific. By their turn, mainstream biologists, geologists, and general evolutionist scholars react against creation scientists, arguing them to be pseudoscientifical, because of constantly referring to religious sources and not conforming to the scientific method: as stated by creation scientists themselves, they cannot propose an underlying mechanism of creation which can be falsified or investigated by scientific means."

Soon I will try to suggest how this could rearrange the whole first paragraphs, without changing their contents. Waiting to hear from you all. --Lacerda 16:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

New paragraph proposal

Let's have a new section for easy editing.

Here's a copy of Lacerda's proposal:-

“ Creation scientists are normally religious biologists and geologists who claim that already existing scientific discoveries in fact support a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation, this way criticising worldwide recognised concept of evolution, which they consider pseudoscientific. By their turn, mainstream biologists, geologists, and general evolutionist scholars react against creation scientists, arguing them to be pseudoscientifical, because of constantly referring to religious sources and not conforming to the scientific method: as stated by creation scientists themselves, they cannot propose an underlying mechanism of creation which can be falsified or investigated by scientific means. ”

Revising the grammar, and altering the meaning as little as possible, I think produces a version like this:-

“ Creation scientists are mainly religious biologists and geologists who claim that existing scientific discoveries in fact support a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation, a criticism of the worldwide recognised concept of evolution which they consider pseudoscientific. In turn, mainstream biologists, geologists, and general evolutionist scholars respond that creation scientists are pseudoscientific in that they constantly refer to religious sources and do not conform to the scientific method: as stated by creation scientists themselves, they cannot propose an underlying mechanism of creation which can be falsified or investigated by scientific means. ”

Not that I am endorsing this version; I'm just offering this in my capacity as a native English speaker (Brit, not U.S.). Personally I would prefer a different word to "evolutionist" since it implies a believer in evolution rather than a scientist. Perhaps "biologists, geologists, and other scholars/scientists (pick one)" would work. SheffieldSteel 18:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, nice translation :-). About evolutionism as a scientific belief, I understand it is a unavoidable fact, as it is broadly recognised that any human activity does assume some supporting set of beliefs, although scientists claim their set is the most credible one... Anyway I find this first (proposed) paragraph not very NPOV balanced, for we all may discuss it, and easier now as the rest of the edition is posted below. I think to have kept all the contents. Some few evident additions were intentional. Please discuss. The first paragraph is the one already turned into real English.

“ Creation scientists are mainly religious biologists and geologists who claim that existing scientific discoveries in fact support a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation, a criticism of the worldwide recognised concept of evolution which they consider pseudoscientific. In turn, mainstream biologists, geologists, and general evolutionist scholars respond that creation scientists are pseudoscientific in that they constantly refer to religious sources and do not conform to the scientific method: as stated by creation scientists themselves, they cannot propose an underlying mechanism of creation which can be falsified or investigated by scientific means.

Even with the exception of supernatural concernings, there is not full accordance between creation scientists about which material aspects of scriptural accounts are suited for scientific analysis, depending this on their particular creationist denominations, which may be christian (the largest, mostly evangelical), judaic, islamic, hindu, taoist, etc., although there can be found divergences also inside a same denomination. As till now their work have been not laboratorial or field research, rather doing revision and re-interpretation of existing scientific data, the following are some of their most presented positions:

• Rejection of the theory of common descent of all life via evolution (see Evolution as theory and fact).

• Rejection of scientific estimates of the age of the universe, arguing for creationist cosmologies based on an age of less than ten thousand years. Some creationists don't go that far.

• Regarding of the usual scientific theories of geology as being strongly tied to uniformitarianism, the concept that that processes occurring in the present have operated in the past and will continue in the future.

• Discarding of standard explanations of many phenomena through gradual processes, such as mountain building by colliding plates, favoring catastrophism, which postulates that at intervals in the earth’s history cataclysms destroyed (nearly) all living things and formed geological features such as mountains and valleys.[7]

• Inference of the effects of flood geology as based on the the presumed historical accuracy of the Biblical deluge account in Genesis.

Creation science literature generally consists of compilations of these kind of alleged weaknesses in current models of evolution and geology.[8]

Concerned about the growing diffusion of creation science, a specially convoqued meeting of scientists at the The United States National Academy of Sciences have unitely stated:

• "the theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines . . . [whereas] the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested. These observations lead to two fundamental conclusions: the teaching of evolution should be an integral part of science instruction, and creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes."[9] and
• "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[10]

Some advocates have spent many years arguing for the inclusion of creation science in the science curriculum of U.S. public schools; however, in 1987 in the case Edwards v. Aguillard the Supreme Court of the United States held that a requirement that public schools teach creation science alongside evolution as an alternative theory violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[11] (See also Intelligent Design movement.)

”

--Lacerda 20:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The convoqued meeting at NAS mentioned above seems to be not the one which produced the followed excerpts, which are probably older. So please keep the original paragraph "The United States National Academy of Sciences has stated:"

I would like some help to find official information about the meeting as noticed here, when it did happened, full text, or so. I couldn't find it at NAS site, or elsewhere. --Lacerda 00:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There is the IAP document, which is mentioned in other site, but seeming to be only a conjunct signed statement, having NAS as just one of the endorsers. This is an important document, but I cannot prove it was intended to be an "attack" against creation or creationism, words not even used in the text. Unless any of you will show better evidences. --Lacerda 03:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Creationist don't do their own research?

I suppose someone didn't agree with my suspicion that this was a small change.

Creation scientists are not involved in laboratory or field research; rather they re-interpret existing laboratory and field data.

This incorrect statement should be changed to something like "Contrary to common belief, Creation Scientist do their own field and laboratory research." The reference could be this. Any objections?EMSPhydeaux 01:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but research must use the scientific method. None of the research in that link does. It isn't science, it's religion. Orangemarlin 01:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There isn't one inviolable scientific method. And no it's not religion, it just has a religious presupposition, just like materialism does. ^rossnixon 02:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Care to expand upon this, "There isn't one inviolable scientific method"? It can be read several ways. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not science. If you want to write it NPOV and state that they are engaging in research that has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and that it does not follow scientific methodology, I'm fine with that. Orangemarlin 02:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that that site was not the best to choose for an example. I think you can agree that this one is much better. It was published in Science (A peer-reviewed journal), and it could be used for an example of lab work. I just need to find a real good one for field research now.EMSPhydeaux 02:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How exactly does an early study on a charge-migration phenomenon produced by radioactive decay (which is now understood link) relate to creation science? Stating that model A is wrong as it is inconsistent with other data on the age of the earth does not prove that the age of the earth is wrong, instead it proves model A is wrong. Before citing this research, you might also want to read this testimony of Robert V. Gentry TimVickers 16:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This study was used to proved that ²¹⁸Po halos are not actually ²²²Rn halos. This is very helpful to creationist because it adds to the evidence that ²¹⁸Po did not originate from ²³⁸U. Your second point is beside the issue. We are not discussing wether or not creationist reasoning is correct. We are discussing wether or not creationist do their own research, and as a bonus I add in an example of a creationist publishing in one of the highest respected peer-review Journals. Anyway, the claim is that the earth was created instantly and the fact that time is limited to an instant that proves it. Oh and I've read Gentry's book back to front.EMSPhydeaux 20:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Tim, nice to see you watching this article. This is a frustrating conversation. The first point that Creation Scientists did research. Well they admit to not doing primary research and it's never been peer-reviewed and published. And there will be millions of articles that fine tune science. Fifty years ago, we didn't know a giant meteor or comet hit the earth 65.5 million years ago, causing the K-T Extinction. We didn't know about DNA (or just learned about it, I forgot the exact year). Etc. Etc. Let's stick with facts--do Creationists perform primary research that is published in peer-reviewed journals? No. Orangemarlin 16:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the answer is yes. Anyway, once again, even if creationists did not publish in peer(evolutionist)-reviewed journals it would not change the fact that they do their own research.EMSPhydeaux 20:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that The Creation Research Society Journal is characterized as not being peer reviewed (or is it characterized as not being published.) Let's stick with facts. Creationists perform primary research that is published in at least one journal. Dan Watts 17:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No it's not. Also, bad link. Orangemarlin 17:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Link fixed. Your position is that there is no peer reviewed journal of creationism. I have many copies of the Creation Research Society Quarterly, so the published part is established. They claim that it is peer reviewed, so unless there is presented evidence that they are not telling the truth about that, it seems that the statement attributed to Orangemarlin is inconsistent with reality. Dan Watts 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Scientific societies do not require people to affirm a Statement of belief in God and creation before they can join. This is therefore a religious organisation, not a scientific one. TimVickers 18:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The subject was Peer reviewed journal and publishing, not society qualifications. Dan Watts 18:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the society publishes the journal. So given their statement of principles, their articles will not falsify the existence of a god, which means it isn't science. So, I guess if you want to quote the article in conservapedia, it may work well there. Orangemarlin 18:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the falsification of the existance of some gods does not sound like it would be out of the question at all. But we digress ... the subject discussed was Do Creationists perform primary research that is published in a peer reviewed journal? and the answer is yes. Dan Watts 19:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, let me guess, Shiva and Baal were falsified? ROFL. I really hate it when religion tries to pretend it's science -- it's like professional wrasslin' pretending it's a sport. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

<reducing indent> No, the answer is no. It's not science. It's peer-reviewed by fellow creationists secondary research. And as for falsification, answer me this--can you see an experiment that proves that your Judeo-Christian G_d does not exist? If you can, then I say you're not a Creationist. Orangemarlin 19:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can. If, after death, the judgement doesn't happen, then the existence of God is in serious doubt. Dan Watts 19:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not supposed to interrupt a conversation, but I don't know how else to do this. How you answered isn't falsification because the premise, first requires someone to be killed. Of course, when you're dead, it's kind of hard to publish your experimental findings. So, given that you assume the existence of G_d, which is a matter of faith, science is no longer applicable. That's why we don't buy into your sources. Orangemarlin 20:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Science doesn't do "I hear dead people", that's where that paranormal physcic crap and ghost-busting come in. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since it is strongly supported that the rate of mortality approaches 100%, there is no reason to go to the extremes of killing anyone, and you are now changing the ground-rules by adding publishing. Dan Watts 14:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ground-rules? What are you talking about? You're arguing semantics again. Do we really have to explain the details of falsification one more time? -- 14:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

To use an analogy, if a neo-Nazi organisation published a magazine they claimed to be a scientific journal about "Racial science" would it be wise to uncritically accept their assurances about the journal being a real scientific journal dealing with genuine research about racial groupings? In Wikipedia, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the claim that a religious group dedicated to the proof of literal creation runs a genuine scientific journal is a very extraordinary claim indeed. To settle this argument, is the journal recognised by any genuinely scientific societies? Is it listed in PubMed or ISI? All we have at the moment is a website containing some claims. These claims are extraordinary, so we do need more proof. TimVickers 19:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Dan Watts, we have had this discussion before. You suddenly left in the middle of it. I had assumed you had seen the error of your ways. Please re-read the discussion on my Talk page. -- Ec5618 19:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I realized that ID was the subject of the previous discussion, and I would rather discuss Creation Science. As for evidence, look at the articles published on their website. Dan Watts 19:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The subject of the previous discussion was Creation Science Quarterly specifically, not Creation Science or intelligent design. Please look at our previous discussion. -- Ec5618 08:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, their articles "The model of deposition presented in this paper differs from the conventional model primarily in the rate of deposition, which is asserted to have peaked at an enormous level during and after the biblical Flood and is presumed to have fallen at an exponential rate to the present low level. Because biblical evidence strongly supports a short historical period between the Flood and the present, the shape of the decay curve is very steep." link. That's pretty funny from my perspective and certainly not science by any stretch of the imagination. TimVickers 19:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

From "our" perspective, ID is just another flavor of Creation Science. You probably heard the old adage, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's a duck. Their articles are not science. It's trying to prove that G_d exists and created the world, etc. etc. That's faith, not science. Orangemarlin 20:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What decides wether it is faith or science is not what they try to prove, but how they try to prove it. Before you go off and say "it's not science" first define what you would except as science.EMSPhydeaux 21:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Science is scientific method. They fail on multiple accounts, falsifiability being one of the major points. Orangemarlin 21:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning." Example from the CRSQ article on polystrate fossils. 1) "Observable, empirical, measurable evidence." Polystrate fossils are observable and measurable. 2) "Reasoning." Trees could not have stood up for millions of years thus the layers must not have taken millions of years to form. 3) "Falsifiability." Example, you could find proof that the tree could have stood up for millions of years. I understand you probably don't agree with the conclusions, but it was done through the scientific method none the less.EMSPhydeaux 21:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you contend EMSP that a paper containing the phrases "...the rate of deposition, which is asserted to have peaked at an enormous level during and after the biblical Flood and is presumed to have fallen at an exponential rate to the present low level. Because biblical evidence strongly supports a short historical period between the Flood and the present, the shape of the decay curve is very steep." is a non-religiously based piece of peer-reviewed science? This religious organisation is publishing material that asserts that the bible is literally true and then makes predictions based on this assumption. That isn't science. It's not even close. TimVickers 21:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I would never say that they do not have religious content in the journal. All they are doing is discussing how the evidence works in their model. Yes it is a biblical one. So what? Creating a model is part of science.EMSPhydeaux 22:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

However, the model has to work. Additionally, there are far too many presuppositions afoot in the above-mentioned "theory" (I use that term very loosely), the foremost of which isn't even "assume a global flood", or even "assume the Bible is corect" (although that's closer), but assume god. That's not science, science doesn't do the supernatural or paranormal. Besides, the "theory" doesn't question (i.e., starting from evidence and working backward), it asserts, and then twists data and, violating parsimony, proceeds to offer outlandish reasoning to get from point A to point B. Bah. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

How about this howler "An evaluation of DNA/RNA mutations indicates that they cannot provide significant new levels of information." How could something like that get past "Peer-review"? Your suggestion was a good one, the papers themselves show clearly that this journal does not publish science. Unless you want to count badly-written essays riddled with high-school level errors as scientific papers. TimVickers 22:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Now you are getting in to wether or not creationist's opinions are correct or not. This is not the proper place to discuss that. We probably shouldn't have even gotten into wether the papers are science or not, but at least it is a simpler issue than genetic information.EMSPhydeaux 22:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Tim, thanks for saving me the trouble of actually reading this thing. Even if I gave EMSPydeaux 1 & 2, 3 is wrong, since why would anyone need to prove a tree stood for millions of years? Sheesh. Orangemarlin 22:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It is possible "Falsifiability." Is your question why would anyone need to Falsify this?

Ack. Come on EMS. If it uses unprovable references to biblical evidence, it's no longer science. You know, I'm just patient here figuring you might actually be open to science and the scientific method. This conversation is going no where, and should be archived, because it's just repeats of what has been argued about 500 times. Sigh. Orangemarlin 22:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all I did not begin the point where we started arguing whether creation was science or not. This is unimportant to my point. If you go up to before Dan Watts got into the conversation you will see that I proved that 1) Creationist do their own research and 2) it has been published in peer-reviewed journals such as Science. This is the reason for changing the portion I first pointed out. Further more, for the health of the discussion, I will not continue to discuss the selections that do not relate to the subject at hand on this page.EMSPhydeaux 22:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What about, "Creation scientists do not typically publish in mainstream scientific journals and their work is instead reproduced in specialized periodicals published by religious organizations." TimVickers 23:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me.EMSPhydeaux 00:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

1) No. 2) No. The article was not printed as a "Creationist" article but as an article on radiohalos. In fact, it was proven wrong (which is good science, admittedly, but 35 years ago is ancient history). 2) It was not a "creationist" article, it merely pointed out the existence of Polonium radiohalos, which the author misinterpreted, when in fact they were Uranium artifacts. But the author did not claim that G_d had anything to do with it. So, although the article might "prove" your point, it wasn't written to prove your point, and it ended up being wrong. So, once again, this conversation is going nowhere. Orangemarlin 01:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't proven wrong. Gentry and I (not together ofcourse) have studdied all of the aguments agianst this paper and still believe it is correct. There are still two sides to the story. You just side with the evolutionists. It is true that he never directly mentions creation. This is because the people who run the journals are evolutionist. They are not going to publish something that mentions creation science because they are obviously anit-creationists. None the less, this paper is still work, by creationist, that is used to support creation science today. This means that this "Creation scientists are not involved in laboratory or field research; rather they re-interpret existing laboratory and field data." is still incorrect, and the statement by TimVickers is correct. I don't know how typical it is but I am willing suppose it isn't typical. I don't see how you can get around this fact. Do you need another example where a creationist biophysicist puts work in a journal? L.M. Spetner, Natural selection versus gene uniqueness, Nature 1970, vol. 226, s. 948EMSPhydeaux 11:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So you feel that the ability of a creationist to do any form of science is evidence in favour of creation science? Come on.

A creationist published an article. That doesn't mean that articles on creationism were published.

And the "conspiracy by 'evolutionists'"-concept is laughable. -- Ec5618 11:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I never said it is "evidence in favour". I just said the what is said on this page is incorrect. They are used to support creation and I think that is good enough.EMSPhydeaux 11:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

EMSPhydeaux is correct. The statement in the article is absolute in its denial that Creationists do research. Any good study of logic will caution that absolutes cannot allow a single exception (robbing one bank disallows anyone from being a non-bank-robber). Any exception, and multiple ones have been presented, disproves an absolute statement. Dan Watts 13:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The article in correct in stating that in their positions as 'creation scientists', they do no research. In their position as a scientist, they may still do. That isn't relevant though. Would you prefer "Creation scientists are not involved in laboratory or field research concerning creation science"? That seems redundant. -- Ec5618 13:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So, if a 'creation scientist' sets up an apparatus to, for example, investigate the possible rates of calcium carbonate deposition, employed tap water plus carbon dioxide; tap water plus carbon dioxide plus 5% sodium chloride; and tap water plus carbon dioxide plus 1% acetic acid, measured the rates of input, conditions (temp,pressure,etc.), and measured the resultant, (see: Williams, Herdklotz, Mulfinger, Jonsonbaugh, and Pierce (CRSQ 1976, pp. 211-2)) this could definitely be described as not research? Incredible! Dan Watts 14:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Incredible indeed.

It'll become part of scientific literature only when published in a scientific journal. Until then, it may or may not be research, we really don't know.

And again, doing just enough to appear as science, because it 'fits a definition' is an underhanded, deceitful tactic. Your 'peer-reviewed' magazine isn't actually peer reviewed, and anyone familiar with science should know that. Your creation researchers are not publishing their 'scientific' findings, and they don't even try because they know their findings will never pass actual peer review. It's pathetic, and it's just enough to convince a few people. I'm surprised at you. -- Ec5618 14:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wether it is is the litereture or not it is still scientific reseach and still proves the statement wrong.72.185.255.105 15:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You "really don't know" if it is research or not. Why not say that? It is much closer to the truth than what is stated now.Judging intentions instead of results, rejecting plain language You refuse to allow referenced information into the article. I will not discuss this further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdanwatts (talk • contribs) 09:12, May 25, 2007 (UTC)

<Reduce Indent> I do not know how to make this more simple, because it is simple. Back to the radiohalos. I don't care what you've done, it isn't published, it hasn't been peer-reviewed, and it is not in a SUBSTANTIAL journal of science, of which there are thousands in geology alone. Science requires the scientific method which, if you utilize G_d anywhere, cannot by definition be science, because YOU, not me, but YOU cannot accept a false hypothesis that your results will disprove the existence of G_d. Since my science does not require the existence of G_d, I don't worry if a supernatural being is proven or unproven, because it is simply not part of my equation (with respect to science or Evolution). Your research does not exist, because it is not published in a manner that has other eyes, smarter than mine, determine the viability of the experiment, the results, or even the hypothesis. By the way, evolutionist is not a word to describe me or my fellow scientists. We do not accept Evolution on faith, we accept the fact of Evolution because of the wealth of science behind it. Your Creationism requires blind faith in a supernatural being. Science explains the natural world without a supernatural being, whether it is a Judeo-Christian G_d or a little green aliens from Gamma Doofus. So, try as you might, your "experiments" are cute, but they aren't science. Orangemarlin 17:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong you can find evidence for God and you can possibly prove at least certen aspects of him wrong. Anyway, it has nothing to do with creation science because the main aspect of creation science doesn't really have to have a God in it. Just a creater.72.185.255.105 15:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, God hates reasoning, common sense, good grammar and spelling. Praise Jesus! --Filll 15:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OM brings up a point that most hyper-religious types merely cannot or will not understand: Science does not give a damn whether a god or gods exist or don't exist, the existence or lack thereof of deities never enters into the equation. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What about saying "With the exception of a few papers in the 1970's, creation scientists do not publish their work in the scientific literature: instead their efforts to prove that the bible is literally true are reproduced in specialized periodicals published by religious organizations." TimVickers 13:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Suppose I proclaim that "UFOs Today" is a scientific journal. Imagine that the only requirement for publishing in "UFOs Today" is that contributors must sign a statement that UFOs exist and that they personally have been abducted by aliens and sexually abused in alien spacecraft travelling to the Dingleberry System around Uranus. Would Wikipedia be required to recognize the articles in UFOs Today as genuine science? This is ludicrous in the extreme. This issue has been addressed by the courts over and over for decades, and it has ALWAYS been decided that "creation science" and similar fantasies are NOT science. Are all these lawyers and judges and courts and scientists at secular insitutitions just doing the devil's work? Are they all insane? Are they all stupid? Are they all possessed by demons? This sort of stuff does not belong here on Wikipedia. Sorry.--Filll 14:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the lawyers and judges bear the mark of the beast. Sigh...

Anybody can publish papers -- there are lunatic fringe publications/magazines for virtually every possible topic. Hell, I could write a paper "proving" that my dog is actually an alien and get it published in some rag. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Jim, someone already made a movie about a dog that was an alien. Seriously though, if your dog really is an alien, you can buy a shirt. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

New lead version

The lead was too long. I have condensed it and tried to retain the original balance. The two long quotes from the National Academy have been removed but these two references retained in the first paragraph. TimVickers 15:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Massive probelms. The findings of fact of Edwards v. Aguilard and McLean v. Arkansas were both that Creation Science is not science and the lead must reflect that among other problems. JoshuaZ 21:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Josh here; condensing the lead does not meaning removing important information. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The LEAD still reads sort of awkwardly.--Filll 22:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Added that ruling back, I think you are right, that should be the last paragraph of the lead. The new version contains this material and is down to 1/2 a page from the full page of the previous version. TimVickers 23:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

And to think that I thought Tim was just an expert on Evolution. Now if I only can get you back on that Biology article! Thanks for cleaning up that.....hmmmmm....paragraph.Orangemarlin 05:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, a regional biology journal published an article by an advocate of intelligent design a few years ago, and that this was the only article in a refereed publication espousing any aspect of creationism. What articles were published in the 1970s?JStripes 17:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a ref for the one cited above. However, the other one mentioned in the discussion Natural Selection versus Gene Uniqueness isn't related to creation science at all. Instead it is an early contribution to the discussion of fitness landscapes and is now cited in papers on evolutionary biology such as Link. TimVickers 19:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Natural Selection versus Gene Uniqueness is creation science. It is part of the research leading up to the calculations in his book "NOT BY CHANCE!" Also, Gentry alone published more than "a single paper in the 1970s".¹EMSPhydeaux 04:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Tim, I think your statement which said "Creation scientists do not typically publish in mainstream scientific journals and their work is instead reproduced in specialized periodicals published by religious organizations." is the most balanced and unquestionable. Why not use that?EMSPhydeaux 05:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Spetner wrote one peer-reviewed paper which used a very basic model which (IIRC he acknowledged in the paper was very basic) in 1970 and nothing similar has occured since then. Nor for that matter is that paper even creationist, if anything it shows how a highly naive model of protein evolution fails. Since molecular evolution was a new thing in the 70s this mattered then. The notion that there is anything really creationist in that paper other than creationists say so is simply not the case. In any event, we don't need to make a massive change in wording due to one paper from over 30 years ago. However, I don't object too much to EMS's proposed wording and it seems like a reasonable statement of the situation. JoshuaZ 05:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Spetner has written more than just one peer-reviewed paper on evolution (there are 4 references in his book). What really makes a peer-reviewed paper creation science? Creation science is data viewed as to support the idea that the universe was created. In relation, evolution science is data viewed as to support the idea that all life evolved from a single cell. When you add the name of an idea in front of the word science it is then science from that point of view. One does not say this fact is not science. Instead one says that this fact does not support the idea that the universe was created and there for it must not be creation science. Understand where I'm going with this? As to the one paper by Gentry... I already gave a link that gave many more peer-review papers by Gentry. So, check them out first.EMSPhydeaux 06:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The 1970 reference by Spetner is a letter, not a peer-reviewed article. It even says as much at the top of the page you linked. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Adam, In this context a "Letter" is a short peer-reviewed paper. EMS, almost none of the papers you've given claim anywhere in them to be somehow supporting creation science. Anyways, I'm ok with the current wording. JoshuaZ 18:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I never used those exact words. Anyway, even letters must be reviewed. EMSPhydeaux 16:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus wording put in page. TimVickers 17:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Why (other than WP:POV) should "Creation science ... with supposedly scientific evidence ...." be better/(more accurate) than "Creation science ... with physical evidence ...."? Dan Watts 19:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we've had this discussion before. Creation science is not science. Orangemarlin 19:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Denigrating the evidence used as supposedly scientific totally ignores the physical basis of the evidence. The description of the evidence used is the subject of this discussion and the object of a preposition in the article's sentence. Dan Watts 21:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

How on earth is "creation science" science? For example:

• no real science starts from an assumption and works backward
• no real science uses a man-made ancient text as a science manual
• miracles are not part of science
• the instant you talk about the supernatural, you are not using science. The supernatural is not part of science by the definition of any respectable authority anywhere on planet earth.
• magic is not part of science
• real science is falsifiable. Creation science is not.
• creation science is not published in peer-reviewed respectable journals, only in creationist rags
• real science changes as new evidence appears; it is not stuck on some story that is 2 or 3 or 5 thousand years old that never changes
• in real science, the theory is changed to fit the facts, not the other way around as is done in creation science
• real sciences are debated and settled in the scientific arena and are not subject to the dictates of religious leaders

This is just a small sample.--Filll 21:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If you will discuss the difference between supposedly scientific and physical, I will continue. That was what I was discussing at this time. Changing the subject does little to advance the discussion. Dan Watts 02:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh?--Filll 04:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Physical evidence is wrong: For instance, take the first abstract at [2]. This is a fairly typical Baraminology study, though perhaps a bit more honest than most: the last two sentences actually admit to throwing out data that didn't fit their preferred result. Is this physical evidence? No. Is it scientific? No, but it's claimed to be. Hence, supposedly scientific seems best. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Physical evidence is physical evidence: SEM data, Arizona rim gravels, dinosaur nests, the Tavrick formation, stratigraphy of Americus, Ga. How many references are needed? Dan Watts 23:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

But that's a subset of the evidence used... Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

So "physical and seemingly scientific" would be a more accurate descriptor. Dan Watts 15:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What about the faked dinosaur and man tracks that still get brought up? Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Are all such occurrences the Pauluxy tracks? Are all Pauluxy tracks faked? Is any of the global warming information faked/slanted? Dan Watts 16:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[reset indent] In any case, the main point is that there's no unambiguous physical evidence for creation science, and little physical evidence is used: it's mostly theoretical work. Perhaps we should just leave any discussion of evidence out, and just mention the newly-proposed processes? Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Type of creationist

Are all creation scientists Young Earth Creationists, or are there some Old Earth Creationists or other variants?--Filll 11:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Creation science is inexorably tied with Flood geology, which is a decidedly YEC idea. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, good point.--Filll 12:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Depends.. in 1984 Dean H. Kenyon's affidavit for what became Edwards v. Aguillard says "Creation-science does not include as essential parts the concepts of catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life, from nothingness (ex nihilo), the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts." – though of course that doesn't exclude YECs. Didn't do so well in court, so they changed the name to ID...... 16:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there actually an example of a self-described creation scientist that doesn't use at least some of those? Eh, well, that's an excellent quote for the history section. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hugh_Ross_(creationist) is what I would call an Old-Earth creation scientist, although I don't know if he uses that exact term himself. ^rossnixon 02:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Are there creation scientists?

I don't believe removing "creation scientist" from the paper is helpful. I understand that believers in evolution science probably don't believe in creation scientist but the evidence speaks other wise. If a creationist puts research in the journal of Science how could you suppose he is not a scientist? Just because you don't agree with him does not remove his title as a scientist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EMSPhydeaux (talk • contribs) 00:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Have a look through: Talk:Flood geology#Scientists. The gist of the discussion was, that since, whatever else their qualifications, the term "creation scientist" should be avoided, since it would force us to add a qualifier like "mainstream" or "real" to scientists, and give undue weight to creationists who don't actually do any science, at least not in support of their creationism. ornis 00:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Before we get into an edit war here, I think that we should discuss this point here. Rossnixon insists that a Creation scientist has the right to call himself whatever he wants. I and ornis strongly disagree with the self-description. A scientist is someone who utilizes the scientific method in their research, publishes the results of that research in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and who utilizes both to further the knowledge of a scientific field. Creation scientists (using the term here just to further the discussion) do none of those things. There has been other discussions on the topic, especially in Talk:Flood geology. I accept Creation science as a term, because it establishes what they try to do. However, none of those individuals who make up the field can be called scientists. Orangemarlin 03:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If you guys would read over "creationist don't do their own research?" you would realize that you are bringing up the same false arguments that where shown to be wrong there. Creationist do use the scientific method. Oh and sorry for not signing before. EMSPhydeaux 14:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Here are some ways in which creationists do not use the scientific method:

• start with an answer instead of a question
• introduce magic/the supernatural etc into their reasoning
• reject or avoid the evidence produced by the rest of the scientific community
• unable to produce convincing arguments for the rest of the scientific community
• lack of knowledge of many of the fields they speculate in
• want to avoid the regular scientific process and go directly to the schools with their arguments
• insistence on biblical literalism when they do not understand the problems with the bible, its inconsistencies, etc
• will never accept that an argument has failed

The US federal court system has considered this question over and over, including the US Supreme Court. The final decision has ALWAYS been that creationism/creation science/intelligent design is NOT science and that these disciplines do NOT use the scientific method. You want to dispute the court decisions? After failing 10+ times? Be my guest. But until you are successful in changing the definition of science, WE will not rewrite the articles in WP to reflect this. --Filll 14:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I started with a reference so I suppose you must be talking about content in "creationist don't do their own research?".

• In order to have an answer there must be a question so I don't know what you are talking about.
• Just because we don't understand exactly how does not make it magic.
• Rejecting evidence is ok as long as you are rejecting because you believe the interpretation is incorrect. This is why creationist reject the evidence.
• The fact that most scientist do not agree with them does not make them wrong nor unscientific.
• How could I ever prove to you that they do not have "Lack of knowledge?"
• Scientific processes have nothing to do with a school, and a school has nothing to do with the scientific method.
• How could I ever prove that to you that they do "understand the problems with the bible?"
• They do. Ever seen "Arguments Creationists Should Not Use?"

This isn't even about wether Creation Science is science. The question is "are there creation scientists?"EMSPhydeaux 15:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's go through these point by point:

• For example, if you START by assuming that Noah's Ark was a real vessel and the Noah's Ark story was a literal historical event, then you have started with an answer, not a question. This is NOT the scientific method. It is nonsense.
• Just claiming that "God Did It" is not science. It is magic.
• You are never allowed to reject evidence in science. Never. Sorry.
• In science, no theory is ever 100% accepted. However, a theory that is accepted by 99.9% of scientists is a standard accepted theory. A person who rejects such a theory is basically not doing science, unless they can convince others of their position.
• I have read creationist papers on creation science subjects. They are so bad, and the creationists are so ignorant that it is laughable. They would not pass a freshman class in the subject in college. They are a joke. It is so bad to be embarassing.
• It is quite true that the school has nothing to do with the scientific method. However, creation scientists often focus on grade school textbooks and classes. This proves that they are not doing science.
• Anyone who claims the bible is literally true knows nothing of science and is doing bad theology. This is well understood in both scientific and religious communities. They are doing nonsense, or worse.
• Of course I have seen lists of "Arguments Creationists should not use". Unfortunately, most creationists never seem to learn, and continue to make these same arguments over and over and over and over, making themselves look ridiculous. And the arguments that AiG approves are still just as ludicrous as the ones they suggest should not be used.
• My position is that creation scientists call themselves that to try to get some authority, but they do not do science.

Do you not have any answer for why the courts have ruled that creation scientists do not do science?--Filll 15:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the key thing that you are saying here is that creationist do not have any evidence there for they are not scientist. If you believed that they had real evidence for the flood then you would not have claimed they where not doing real science am I right? Tell me, are you rejecting the evidence that is in the Bible and many other stories (for one example)? Regardless of wether you believe their evidence really supports the idea of the flood or not they are still scientist. Science is not what ever is believed to be fact by you. Continuing on, I did not mean that you could reject the evidence it's self. I realize the evidence is there, and so does every other creationist. I instead reject the "interpretation" of the evidence. Which you your self do when you suppose the evidence is not literal.

P.S. Do you have a link where I could read about the specific time you are citing that the courts said this?. EMSPhydeaux 20:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It is clever of you to avoid ALL the points I made and make up your own point in response. Is it just too hard to answer my points? There are HUGE amounts of copious evidence these people are not scientists. The National Academy of Sciences disagrees. The American Association for the Advancement of Science disagrees. Hundreds of other science societies disagree. Over 99.9% of biologists disagree (see level of support for evolution, for example). I am not rejecting the evidence from the bible or evidence of Noah's flood. I am saying that this evidence does not exist, and I am not the only person who believes this. In fact, in science, I am in the vast majority. Science is not what is believed by one person, but by the science community at that time. The pat statement that creationists do not reject the evidence, but only the interpretation of the evidence, basically is silly. It means that the dominant scientific theories that make good predictions, that is, the real science, are rejected. The courts have said over and over that creationism/creation science/intelligent design are not science. For example, look at

• 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas, United States Supreme Court
• 1981 Segraves v. State of California, Supreme Court of California
• 1982 McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, U.S. Federal Court
• 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard, United States Supreme Court
• 1990 Webster v. New Lennox School District, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
• 1994 Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
• 1997 Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
• 2000 Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al., District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota
• 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, US Federal Court
• 2006 Hurst v. Newman US District Court Eastern District of California

These will get you started but there are many others. In law, there are a set of rules to distinguish between science and pseudoscience, and creation science/creationism/intelligent design has always failed those. --Filll 21:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not reply to points you made one by one because none of the are evidence for your position, and I can therefor respond to them all in the same way. Why respond to them one by one if I am just going to say the same thing about them all? I believe we are going about it all wrong. You are trying to prove that none agrees with creation science. What I think needs to happen is I need to show an example of a creation scientist doing science and you can then show how it was not "an expert in at least one area of science who uses the scientific method to do research" ( Scientist ) in support of "creation science". Agreed?EMSPhydeaux 01:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is, basically by definition, creation scientists do not do science when doing creation science because creation science is not science. I can go on at great length, but I have tried many times now, and I can see this is pointless.--Filll 02:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I can also see that we may never agree. No need to continue because "creationists" has been agreed on.EMSPhydeaux 12:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I also note that there is an Old Earth Creationist site called Answers in Creation that disputes most of the "creation research" that has appeared, including the RATE project. They do not do real science, either, however.--Filll 21:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously they were liberal, activist judges. I mean, like duh.  ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs) 10:03, June 18, 2007 (UTC)

EMSPhydeaux, the point of all of these discussion are simply this: Can you falsify your position, meaning would you accept the alternative position that no alternative being had anything to do with anything, specifically evolution. Until you can accept that your hypothesis can be proven false, then we aren't getting anywhere. You see, my life won't come to an end if Evolution by natural selection and genetic drift is show to be wrong (for example, science shows that Evolution is controlled by Aliens from Gamma doofus). Then I'll get to read all the great science articles after that point. Creationists, on the other hand, do not accept the alternative, that Evolution is merely a natural science uncontrolled by anything or anyone. Orangemarlin 18:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course I cannot disprove that someone, somewhere did something. This is why we are more specific in our theories of how earth got here, and I think we are a lot more specific.EMSPhydeaux 20:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not the bloody point, and you know it. Besides, most myths are very specific, that hardly makes them true. See my post below. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't understand your point fully until now. I would say that wether or not creationists accept the alternative as a possibility doesn't really matter as long as they give way for the evidence in support of their theory to be rebutted. Wouldn't you say that is true? Although they may never decide that the flood never happened at least they will not claim that evidence in support of their position has not be rebutted without giving a rebuttal in response first.EMSPhydeaux 01:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well there are many other problems with creationism/creation science, some of which we have noted here. However, creation scientists refuse to allow their hypotheses to rebutted, and always have, for well over 150 years. This is not science.--Filll 02:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to sign? Mea culpa.

Of course, the bigger point is that creationism requires a supernatural being as a causative agent. Said agent, being supernatural, is neither provable nor disprovable, hence any allegedly scientific theories derived from creationism are not falsifiable. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Jim62sch's points. You can be as specific as you like, but that does not make your theories "right". This is particularly true when you have no evidence for your theories, and there is plenty of evidence against your theories. Also, you are again avoiding the main issue; that creation science is not falsifiable, since it is never admitted to be false, by definition.--Filll 21:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Filll, I think you'll find that the courts have found that "Creation Science" is not science. They have not found that "creation scientists do not do science". Sometimes they do science (e.g. The RATE Project) and sometimes they do pseudoscience (e.g. gathering evidence for something that is not repeatable in a laboratory). ^rossnixon 02:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid this is splitting hairs. Show me a serious scientific reference that demonstrates that the RATE project is science. What I know of it, is that it not science. For one thing, they start with an answer, not a question.--Filll 05:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh... look regardless of what real science a creationist might otherwise do, when he starts ignoring physical evidence and declares the earth no older than 10,000 years at the most, or throws up his hands and says: "well I can't imagine how this might have emerged naturally, I guess god must have done it." then he's not doing so as a scientist, he's doing it as creationist. Hell, he might for instance be an excellent chemist, do good work, be highly respected in his field, and in a chemistry article touching on his work, he'd be described as a scientist. This article though, is solely concerned with the "work" they do as creationists. ornis 05:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Now Ornis, read this from the Institute for Creation Reasearch, how can you say it's not science?  ;)

There's exciting new scientific evidence which supports the Biblical teaching of a young earth. Scientists associated with the Institute for Creation Research have finished an eight-year research project.

For over a hundred years, evolutionists have insisted that the earth is billions of years old, and have arrogantly dismissed any views contrary to this belief. However, a team of seven creation scientists have discovered incredible physical evidence that supports what the Bible says about the young age of the earth.

This scientific research project is called RATE, which stands for Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth.

Geez, they even have all sorts of neat papers you can look at, with lots of big, important-sounding terms, and all that stuff. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Jim, you're the expert – does "incredible physical evidence" mean evidence without credibility, or unbelievable evidence? . . dave souza, talk 17:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I suppose these great scientists are merely using the vernacular and using "incredible" as "unbelievably awesome", but I see it as "not credible". Of course, the "physical evidence" part does baffle me -- if one is really doing science, what other kind of evidence can there be? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure enough, I found Answers in Creation which is an Old Earth Creationism site, and has written quite a bit of negative stuff about the RATE project. It is hilarious when creationists end up attacking each other. However, the problem with RATE and similar ideas is that they only end up standing on their heads to explain one type of dating, like radioactive dating. What about layers of ice in Greenland? Mud at the bottom of the ocean? Magnetic stripes on the ocean bottom? Tree rings? All of these and other dating methods are consistent with the radioactive dating methods. Of course creationists can invent all kinds of crazy reasons that explain all this, but it is not science.--Filll 18:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of like Stalin and Mao arguing who was the better Communist.

Anyway, I'd love to see the mechanism that changes decay rates explained -- that should be a doozy. Of course, depending on how you play with relativity acceleration could change the decay rate (see the time slowing down proof re satellites bearing atomic clocks), but since the earth moved faster billions of years ago, the rate would actually be slower. Hmmm, a bit of a problem, there. Oh wait, that's only in the scientific view that the Earth moved faster, I keep forgetting our planet is only 10K years old. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

<r-indent> Amusing as this is, I fear we've wandered a little off-topic. Would it be safe to assume that objections of EMSPhydeaux and rossnixon notwithstanding, we agree, "creation scientists" should be described as creationists to avoid ambiguities? ornis 19:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we have, and yes, I agree with using "creationists" &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that using "creationists" would be better than "believers in creation science".EMSPhydeaux 20:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer reviewed creationism

Has anyone, other than creationists, read [this link? It lists out the supposed peer-reviewed science done by Creationists. Most of it is the debunked halo stuff, and the only reference that is recent was published in a Creationist journal. Some of the references are to a Los Alamos journal that is interestingly no longer available for review, probably because they pulled it. More than that, it is an internal newsletter that is not peer-reviewed. How did we let this scruff in here? Unless someone convinces me, I'm deleting it, because it's violates so many NPOV ideals, including undue weight. Orangemarlin 23:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I read some of it and also a rebuttal here. It appears that the excitement over Polonium halos is mostly the product of one man, named Gentry, at a fundamentalist college (Columbia Union College) in Takoma, Maryland. When you read the review paper, it becomes clear that almost nothing about Polonium Haloes is reasonable or reproducible, or likely to tbe true. The results are contradicted by literally hundreds of lines of evidence, if not thousands.--Filll 23:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I'm cutting the sentence and reference. I need to review the references herein more carefully. Orangemarlin 00:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually it has not been debunked. Just because some random guy puts up a rebuttal online does not mean has been debunked. Gentry has put a challenge out on his website for this guy to publish a rebuttal in a peer-reviewed journal and he has yet to do so. Secondly, wether or not it is rebutted it still does not change the fact that it was published in a peer-reviewed journal. So please put the line back in.EMSPhydeaux 00:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I also read the article in EOS Forum, which is not much of a journal. It basically consisted of Gentry desperately trying to save hypothesis from a blindly harsh attack. The problem with creationists and creation scientists etc, it is impossible by definition to disprove anything they write, which is just proof that it is pure nonsense and not science.--Filll 00:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to disprove this fact of radios. I don't know why you would think other wise considering the fact that you think it was debunked.EMSPhydeaux 01:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Are those AM or FM radios? Digital? Clearly from what you have written here and above, you have no idea what you are writing. I think you might find it meritorious to edit some other article since you do not seem to have the technical or linguistic understanding to edit this one. Thanks.--Filll 01:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I will explain further. You say that "it is impossible by definition to disprove anything they [creationist] write". I point out that you are contradicting your self because you [agreed] that "Most of it is the debunked halo stuff". This means not only that you believe that you can disprove creationist's writing you also believe it has been disproved! One other thing I saw is that you look at examples of papers not peer-reviewed to prove your point instead of the examples of the peer-reviewed stuff. You have not cited one peer-reviewed journal. I find this amazing considering how much the evolutionist are winning by!EMSPhydeaux 01:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

So, regardless to the above off topic stuff about wether creationist's writing can be disproved. Can we agree that halos are not officially debunked at least until this guy publishes his work in a real scientific paper? We can at least agree that it doesn't matter if halos are debunked or not because they where still published in scientific papers right?EMSPhydeaux 02:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No. This stuff has been debunked over and over in peer-reviewed published journals. Sorry.--Filll 02:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Example?EMSPhydeaux 11:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Lord. This is not rocket science. Please use your research skills to do some investigation:

• Geology of Gentry's "Tiny Mystery", J. Richard Wakefield, Journal of Geological Education, May 1988.
• Collins, Lorence G., 1997, "Polonium Halos and Myrmekite in Pegmatite and Granite," , 9 pgs.
• EXAMINING RADIOHALOS, R. H. Brown, H. G. Coffin, L. J. Gibson, A. A. Roth, and C. L. Webster, Origins 15(1):32-38 (1988).
• Schnier,C (August 2002). "Indications for the existence of superheavy elements in radioactive halos". Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 253: 209-216.
• S.R. Hashemi-Nezhad, J.H. Fremlin, and S.A. Durrani (October 1979). "Polonium Haloes in Mica". Nature 278: 333-335.

I am sure a little more investigation would lead to many many more of these types of references including rebuttals. This is like trying to convince someone that the earth is round when they refuse to believe it.--Filll 19:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The Earth is round?????? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

'Course it is, Jim – haven't you read Discworld? Now where did those turtles get to? ... dave souza, talk 21:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I though thought was elephants. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Geology of Gentry's "Tiny Mystery", J. Richard Wakefield, Journal of Geological Education, May 1988.

Gentry has rebutted this here.

• Collins, Lorence G., 1997, "Polonium Halos and Myrmekite in Pegmatite and Granite," , 9 pgs.

Peer-reviewed journal?

• EXAMINING RADIOHALOS, R. H. Brown, H. G. Coffin, L. J. Gibson, A. A. Roth, and C. L. Webster, Origins 15(1):32-38 (1988).

This is a review of his book. It doesn't really seem to be much of a paper disproving Gentry's ideas.

• Schnier,C (August 2002). "Indications for the existence of superheavy elements in radioactive halos". Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 253: 209-216.

What does SHE have to do with polonium halos?

• S.R. Hashemi-Nezhad, J.H. Fremlin, and S.A. Durrani (October 1979). "Polonium Haloes in Mica". Nature 278: 333-335.

Rebutted here.

Anyway, you still need to explain how any of this disproves the fact that he published peer-reviewed papers.EMSPhydeaux 14:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Gentry published peer-reviewed papers. The dominant scientific verdict is that this was a blind alley and that his observations can be more easily explained another way. So what? It happens all the time. It is not worth getting upset about. Gentry's thesis is that the earth is 6000 years old and to bolster this claim he will disregard any evidence and twist any facts whatsoever to try to "explain" away the problems with his theory. To continue this dialogue is like having a conversation with a robot or someone who is brain damaged. There are literally thousands of other observations that have to be ignored to accept Gentry's hypothesis (such as tree ring data, ice core data, magnetic stripe data, coral ring data, other radioactive dating results, racemic acid dating data, etc). There is a reason that Gentry's work is not accepted science; it just is too flakey. It does not matter what references are given, or what facts are presented, since what Gentry is doing is NOT science, it will all be ignored or a way will be found to twist it into something else. This is exactly the demonstration that these sorts of beliefs are "not falsifiable". It has been proven here exactly why these sorts of beliefs are not treated seriously and people like Gentry are not a mainstream part of the scientific community. --Filll 15:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am starting to get the impression that EMSPhydeaux is being difficult on purpose and making us jump through hoops needlessly. If this is the case, this will not end in a pleasant way, as I am sure I do not have to remind anyone. This nit-picking and insistence that he be spoon-fed is ludicrous. The two rebuttals above are not peer-reviewed. The Collins article appeared in a peer-reviewed book:

• Hunt, C. W., Collins, L. G., and Skobelin, E. A., 1992, Expanding Geospheres, Energy And Mass Transfers From Earth’s Interior Calgary, Polar Publishing Company, pp. 128-140: "POLONIUM HALOS AND MYRMEKITE IN PEGMATITE AND GRANITE" by Lorence G. Collins February 3, 1997

SHE clearly has something to do with Polonium Haloes, as anyone can tell. If you cannot tell, locate and read the article. Here are some more peer-reviewed articles which dismiss Gentry's claims:

• Ellenberger, C.L., with reply by Gentry. R.V. 1984. "Polonium Halos Redux," Physics Today. December 1984. p. 91-92

• Osmon, P., 1986, "Gentry’s pleochroic halos: Creation/Evolution," Newsletter, Feser, Karl D., Editor, v. 6, no. 1, Concord College, Athens, West Virginia
• Schadewald, R., 1987. "Gentry’s tiny mystery, Creation/Evolution" Newsletter, Fezer, Karl D, Editor, v. 4, no. 2 & 3. Concord College. Athens. West Virginia, p 20.
• Wakefield, J. R., 1987-88, "Gentry’s Tiny Mystery - unsupported by geology," Creation/Evolution, v. 22, p. 13-33.
• Wakefield, J. R., 1988, "The geology of 'Gentry’s Tiny Mystery,'" Journal of Geological Education, v. 36, p. 161-175.
• Moazed, Cyrus; Richard M. Spector; Richard F. Ward, 1973, Polonium Radiohalos: An Alternate Interpretation, Science, Vol. 180, pp. 1272-1274.
• Odom, L.A., and Rink, W.J., 1989, "Giant Radiation-Induced Color Halos in Quartz: Solution to a Riddle," Science, v. 246, pp. 107-109.

Even the Old Earth Creationists at Answers in Creation and other places have come to the conclusion that Gentry is not doing real science and that this sort of stuff discredits Christianity. We could argue about this for years. You will not convince me if you cannot convince the rest of the scientific community. If you cannot convince the rest of the scientific community, then there is no chance that we will change the POV of these creationist articles. Sorry. You might as well try to argue that we should write Wikipedia as though the earth were flat.--Filll 15:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm making you "jump through hoops needlessly???" You are the one who has been creating the hoops. All that I ask is that you explain how the fact that evolutionist do not agree with Gentry shows that Gentry did not do scientific work. You have been ignoring this. I could easily and have before proven that all Gentry's theory is correct, but it would take up much of my time and much space. This would also be needless, because all you have to do is prove that Gentry's research was never published in a scientific journal, or why it doesn't count as a point in time when a creation scientist published in a peer-reviewed journal.EMSPhydeaux 16:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure you don't want to take up much of your time. That makes a lot of sense. Well then I guess you will not be mounting a legal challenge to get the US Supreme Court to reverse itself and declare that creationism/creation science/etc is science. When you do that, and are successful, then we can talk about rewriting this article. Until then, you know what is the right course of action, don't you?--Filll 16:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You still continue to ingnor me. "prove that Gentry's research was never published in a scientific journal, or why it doesn't count as a point in time when a creation scientist published in a peer-reviewed journal." I have a reason to ignor your none agrees with Gentry agrument. All we are saying is that creationists publish papers in peer-reviewed journals at times. This does not mean that everyone agrees with him. There are already parts which say that many people do not agree with creationists. What is your reason for ignoring my challenge?EMSPhydeaux 19:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed that creation scientists never published in peer-reviewed journals. I did note that creation science is not science, since it does not meet the standards that science itself requires, or the legal standards laid down by the courts for what is "science". Please do not continue this charade. You have ignored all the material you have no answer to that I presented. And as a result, you are not someone to be taken seriously.--19:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing the statement that they did seems to suggest that you are saying that they do not. If you are only discussing wether or not creation science is science, then why is the title "Peer reviewed creationism? I only ignore the stuff you have written about wether creation science is science so that we do not go off topic.EMSPhydeaux 20:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Suppose I found 20 or 50 or 100 peer-reviewed rebuttals of this nonsense. I am sure it would all be dismissed out of hand or explained away. Why am I so sure? Because this is what someone who is defending pseudoscience will do. This is why creation science is not falsifiable. This is why the courts in the US have ruled over and over and over that it is NOT science. Argue with the courts, not me.--Filll 16:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if it could be proved that this person published or did not publish in a peer-reviewed journal, what is the practical effect on the article? The status quo will remain; the problems of undue weight are still there. We're not suddenly going to say "creationists write in peer-reviewed journals" because one person may have done it. "Creationists publish papers in peer-reviewed journals at times" is an odd and tendentious statement to include in the article, if that's what EMS is asking for, or something like that. First of all, it's not a prevalent practice. The scientific community by and large shuns creationists, much like the historical community shuns Holocaust deniers. If someone is looking for a statement in this article that quasi-legitimizes creationist involvement in scientific publications, then he or she is after fool's gold.UberCryxic 20:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It was more than one person as you would find if you looked at the past discussion. I simply put one example on the paper, because that was all that was needed. The statement that was there before it was removed was "...in a few cases research by creation scientists has also been published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals." The reason we put that statement there was because before there was a different part that said creationist scientists did not do their own research. This is the reason for putting it in, because evolutionists tend to remove everything procreation science. It is also an important thing the place in the paper because it is a misconception that creationist do not publish in peer-reviewed journals. What is it with all this none agrees with creation science stuff? What difference does it make? None agreed that the world was round from the beginning. It is simply the result of censership.EMSPhydeaux 20:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That is what I say. Just because a creationist or creation scientist has published a peer-reviewed paper or two, it does not prove that they are doing science when they do creation science. As I have said over and over above, there are many reasons that creation science is not science. I am backed up by the US courts and all the major US science organizations. When creation scientists can address these objections, then they can be called scientists. Until then, they are pseudoscientists.--Filll 20:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You never defined "science" other than as something that has nothing to do with creation science. Anyway, the paper did not say that creation science is "science" because they publish in peer reviewed Journals.EMSPhydeaux 20:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What is this "procreation science"? Sounds interesting – do you know what experimental work has been carried out, and where it has been published? Is it available in plain brown wrappers? ... dave souza, talk 21:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

See this is why it need to be on the page. Oh and here is the example the removed.EMSPhydeaux 21:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Very plain and very brown.

EMS, do you even know what a radiohalo is? Do you even understand physics, rates of decay, half-lives, etc? I kind of doubt it given the way you've been prattling on here. Quick, without looking it up, define half-life. Ugh. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A half life is the time it takes for half of a given radio active substance to decay. A radio halo is caused by the radio active decay of an element in granite and in other substances such as coal. I know what I am talking about and again it doesn't even matter because it is still an example.EMSPhydeaux 21:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Very good. Next test, if an isotope of X has a halflife of ten years, and if there is a mass containing 1K atoms, how long will it take to decay?  ;)

Still an example of what? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If the statement removed was the one above, then I'm sure we can come up with some reasonable solution. Instead of trying to establish generalities, which will mire us in conflict perpetually, let's just highlight the specific and notable cases where creationists have had their work published in peer-reviewed journals. So in the section on halos, we could have something like: "Although some of Gentry's research has been published in peer-reviewed journals, the majority of the scientific community disagrees with his conclusions" and so and so forth. Where relevant/notable, and where the articles can actually be documented - creationists have an unfortunate history of fabricating a lot of the material they claim to cite or to have been cited in - I prefer this model. So if we know for certain that Gentry published material in those sources, and if that material is relevant to creation science, then I think we should make the above compromise. This kind of statement, "it is a misconception that creationist do not publish in peer-reviewed journals," is what I'm worried about. A few cases do not establish sociological notability within scientific fields. The fact is that, in the field of biology, creationist science is not even a minority; it's virtually not recognized and is considered something that a serious person should not bother with. Its strengths are mainly political and financial, not scientific, and I'm worried you may be trying to establish the latter.UberCryxic 21:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

We're back to the old conundrum, if a creationist publishes in a peer reviewed journal research which makes no creationist claims, is this a creationist publication? Gentry seems to be a case: from this FAQ –

The fact that Gentry has published in Nature, Science and Medical Opinion and Review leads one to believe that there is a fair amount of support for his work, but Gentry avoids making direct creationist statements in these works -- it seems he is only cautiously trying to link the rocks of the Precambrian to the rocks that existed right after the Earth's formation - or creation. His book, however, leaves no doubt on his position:

"Were tiny polonium halos God's fingerprints in Earth's primordial rocks? Could it be that the Precambrian granites were the Genesis rocks of our planet?" [1, p. 32]1.....

Gentry's case rests heavily on a "God-of-the-gaps" approach to the halos; that is, it requires that there be no acceptable naturalistic explanation for the halos. Once such an explanation is found, Gentry's case crumbles.

A more recent FAQ briefly notes the geological errors undermining Gentry's argument – which was presented in his book, and not in his peer reviewed articles. .. dave souza, talk 22:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not the God of the gaps theory. It was first predicted that the earth was created quickly. This is evidence in that theory's favor. The God of the gaps would be saying why is that there oh God must have done it. That is not the case.EMSPhydeaux 01:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand what the problem is here. What does EMSP want, besides to yank our chains? What does he want to prove? How does he want to reword the article? I am confused...--Filll 23:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want you to reword it. I want you undo what you have already reworded based upon false logic. Incase you don't remember, you removed this:

"...in a few cases research by creation scientists has also been published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals.EMSPhydeaux 01:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

He simply "making us jump through hoops needlessly", as a wise editor once noted. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

All I want is to bring some neutrality into the paper. When you only put in evolutionist views you are not being neutral. What you guys are saying is that you don't want to give creation science any thing that might make it look like it has any place in the real world of science. This is not neutral. Putting this in here is of need as I have already pointed out because it is information which most people do not realize. The purpose of this page is to give people a better understanding of creation science if I am not mistaken.EMSPhydeaux 01:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Creationism does not have anything to contribute to the "real world of science." A Wikipedia article on the topic will reflect that (the dominant views on the subject, which are what I mentioned). Fringe and crackpot theories, and those who advocate them, have a tendency to be deceptive, so we are just making sure that this article does not lose its quality by being flooded with irrelevant or incorrect information.UberCryxic 04:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspected what souza wrote above: if Gentry was included in these publications, it was most likely because he attempted to make quasi-worthy scientific points, not because he was pushing a specific version of Earth's creation through his scientific research. If that's the case, the article is fine as it is now and we need no longer worry about this specific issue.UberCryxic 23:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

<edit cornflic> IMO it's clearly a demand that NPOV: Undue weight be given to the occasional instance, such as Gentry and Behe, where a creationist publishes, in a mainstream journal, research which makes no mention or inference about creationism – then publishes creationist arguments in books without peer review. One is sore tempted to give advice on procreation and travel. ... dave souza, talk 23:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a good question. Is it creation science if it does not mention creation in the paper? What makes anything creation science in the first place? Creation science is science that is interpreted support creation. Do creationist interpret polonium halos to support creation? Yes. I'm not sure if you could say that creation science is a tiny-minority view because large amount of americans are on that side. Sure, most scientists may not support creation science but these scientist may actually be the minority as compared to the world.EMSPhydeaux 01:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I would just drop it now, but I can see, in a couple months, "normally" evolving into only. This is another reason why I feel it is important that the example of peer reviewed work is there. So that I will not have to come back and prove again that they do publish in peer reviewed journals :) .EMSPhydeaux 01:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you're talking about "as compared to the world," you're definitely making a bad point. The only place where creationism has a strong footing is in the US. In most of the rest of the world, evolution reigns supreme, both with official institutions and public attitudes. Actually, thank you for making this point. Wikipedia articles generally should be written with a global perspective in mind. This eliminates the problem you raised; we can now say confidently that, around the world, this is a minority view and is rightly being treated as such in this encyclopedia.UberCryxic 04:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure about that. There is a large amount creationist in Turkey and I'm sure in many other islamic countries in the world. Is there really a poll that shows world opinion anyway?EMSPhydeaux 06:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned "most of the world," not all of it. You don't need a poll regarding global opinion on this; evolution is taught as true in the vast majority of all countries. Pakistan is one of the few nations that does not teach evolution at the university level. And as has been mentioned before, global scientific opinion on evolution is decisively anti-creationist. Point being: it's not a stretch to claim that evolution has the upper hand worldwide, just sociologically speaking (leaving out claims to truth and so on). Creationists can masquerade behind the name of science here in the US because of funds and political support that exists virtually nowhere else. There is strong support for creationist-like tendencies in the Muslim world, yes, but there is not the same level of scientific research by those declared creationists because of the aforementioned reasons.UberCryxic 00:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy does not assess NPOV: Pseudoscience on the basis of a popularity contest amongst USians deprived of adequate education on the subject by almost a century of fundamentalist campaigning – see also NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". ... dave souza, talk 06:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's talk about how many scientist think creation science is pseudo science. If I am reading this right 45% of the worlds scientists in 1997 believed in some form of creation. 5% believed in 10,000 year age of the earth. Now, I'm sure the evolutionist probably think creation science is pseudo science but do the 40% of theistic evolutionists? You could probably argue that many theistic evolutionists believe in some form of creation science themselves. Does the huge majority of scientist believe creation science is pseudo science? I don't know if it is as clear as you guys try to make it.EMSPhydeaux 07:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

A remedial reading course might be a good thing. From your cite: That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14% However, the American public thinks very differently. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Read Kitzmiller and McLean v. Arkansas to educate yourself. .. dave souza, talk 10:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that People should start to write which country they are from as many diffrent places have other points of view ie american evoloutionist and creationist have had MANY theorys which in a worldly sense are all acurate--Wwjd333 22:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What does that have to do with how many scientist think creation science is pseudo science?EMSPhydeaux 18:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In a word, yes, the vast majority of scientists of all kinds think that creation science is pseudoscience, or worse. See level of support for evolution.--Filll 14:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok.. So your saying that you can ignore the poll I cited because polls from the 80s and from well know anti-creationist association disagree? How can you ignore the fact that a poll from 1997 that says 45% scientist believe that God created the world?EMSPhydeaux 18:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

First, it would only be 5% (theistic evolution deals with evolution itself as science, it merely posits a deity as a causative agent (whereas evolution proper implies no causative agent). Secondly, the poll is utterly useless as per the disclaimer: The "scientist" group would presumably (emphasis mine) include biologists and geologists. But it would also include persons with professional degrees in fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, chemical engineering, physics, etc. In other words, the opinion of a computer scientist has as much validity when discussing biology and geology as would the opinion of a dishwasher at Joe's Greasy Diner. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The page says that: "Scientists criticize creation science as a pseudoscience that does not conform to the scientific method since creation science does not attempt to propose or test any mechanisms by which creation could occur." If a theistic evolutionist where to say that creation science is pseudo science because of this reason they would be saying that their own theory is pseudo science considering the fact that theistic evolution has the same "problem" that this points out. Do they consider their own theory to be pseudo science? Chemistry and physics may not be a part evolution but it is a part of creation science, and we are looking at wether or not creation science is pseudo science according to scientist's opinions. We are not looking at evolution.EMSPhydeaux 20:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid my patience is running out here. I am a scientist. I am also a deist. I am a theistic evolutionist. I and every scientist I know, whether atheist or theist or agnostic, no matter what school of religious tradition they were brought up in or subscribe to, believes that creation science is pseudoscience. Every single one. I have never met a single scientist who believes otherwise. Never. The data support this observation, so it is not just my subjective experiences. Everything I wrote above supports this. Creation science is the purest hogwash and nonsense. There is no reason to treat it any more seriously than astrology or alchemy or ufology or any other pseudoscience. It fails test after test of a real science. It fails most of the rules of thumb that scientists themselves use to determine what is a real science. It fails several of the tests that the legal system uses to determine what is pseudoscience and what is real science. That is all we need. We are writing an encyclopedia here. This is not rocket science. It does not have to be that difficult. If you want to debate, go someplace else. If this continues down its current trajectory, I predict there will be negative consequences, so bear heed. Thanks for your kind attention. --Filll 20:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like dishwasherism. However, how can you ignore the point that EMSPhydeaux seems to be incapable of reading and understanding the articles he refers us to, let alone the articles we suggest for his edification and information. (substitute she or it if appropriate) Is that a whiff of troll under the bridge? ... dave souza, talk 19:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I am somewhat astounded but still trying to AGF. Let's review what the data say:

• A 1987 estimate is that among US biologists and geologists, the level of support for creationism was about 0.16%
• A 2006 NIH article estimated that the level of support for evolution among scientists was about 99.9%
• A 1991 US Gallup poll estimated that the level of support for creationism among all US scientists was about 5% (unfortunately, this figure includes many fields with no expertise in evolutionary biology).
• A 1997 US Gallup poll also estimated that the level of support for creationism among US scientists was about 5%
• The Darwin Dissenters that are biologists represent considerably less than 0.0157% of the biologists in the US at present.

By any examination, it is very clear that the number of US scientists that reject evolution and subscribe to some form of creationism is vanishingly small, particularly among those who actually know something about evolution. More strict definitions of biblical literalistic creationism would likely produce even smaller numbers. --Filll 19:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Trying to AGF in this case is like trying eat steak through a coffee stirrer. None of this is difficult, none of this requires ant more than the most rudimentary reading and cognitive ability, yet we keep going round the mulberry bush trying to sew the seeds of knowledge in a sterile desert. Chances are, Dave is correct: there's a troll under the bridge. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Since EMSP's argument rests on the idea that proponents of theistic evolution somehow believe in creation science, said user will no doubt refuse to believe that the plaintiffs opposing "creation science" at McLean v. Arkansas included the resident Arkansas Bishops of the United Methodist, Episcopal, Roman Catholic and African Methodist Episcopal Churches, the principal official of the Presbyterian Churches in Arkansas, other United Methodist, Southern Baptist and Presbyterian clergy, the American Jewish Congress, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, and the American Jewish Committee. ... dave souza, talk 20:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have is that the page is removing theistic evolutionist from the picture. They are important to logically figuring out (because none of them actually say they think creation science is pseudo science) wether or not creation science is pseudo science according to most scientist. The 99.9% number was in no way scientific.EMSPhydeaux 20:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

<undent> EMSP, you are starting to look at smell like a troll to me. There will be consequences if you do not behave in a more reasonable fashion. The 99.9% figure is published a peer-reviewed journal by an acknowledged expert in the field. It is consistent with the other figures we have. It does not have to be "scientific", only verifiable, which it is. We have no reason to doubt it give all that. We have multiple reasons to believe that creation science is pseudoscience. To start with, creation scientists will never acknowledge that they are wrong, since their beliefs are not falsifiable. Also, they include the introduction of magic into the explanatory process, which is against every principle of the scientific method. They fail to meet several other requirements for real science as well. Therefore, creation science IS PSEUDOSCIENCE. Case closed.--Filll 20:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe my patience is running out too. I am trying to follow the rules of wikipedia. What happened to no original research? "I and every scientist I know, whether atheist or theist or agnostic, no matter what school of religious tradition they were brought up in or subscribe to, believes that creation science is pseudoscience." You did not even directly discuss my points. If you would directly answer my questions maybe I wouldn't have a problem with the answers. This quote: "Also, they include the introduction of magic into the explanatory process, which is against every principle of the scientific method. They fail to meet several other requirements for real science as well. Therefore, creation science IS PSEUDOSCIENCE." There are two things that would make the name pseudo science a correct name according to wikipedia. "Generally considered pseudoscience" and obvious pseudoscience. The first is shown by the poll to be incorrect. Maybe it will help you to realize that "theistic evolutionist" in this poll includes old earth creation scientist which are part of the creation science. The second point I will get to if I am correct about the poll (this includes the talk about "magic").EMSPhydeaux 21:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt that theistic evolutionist, old earth creationist, and young earth creationist all disagree with one another but they are all creationists. Resting on the same problem that this paper points out. They all do "not attempt to propose or test any mechanisms by which creation could occur." Obviously they do not think of themselves as people who believe in pseudoscience. If you don't believe that theistic evolutionist believe this well look at the poll. The choice that they chose was "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation." So they must have believed that God created in some way, and the did not "propose or test any mechanisms". Maybe you are not in this group but the 40% are. Let me prove that theistic evolutionists in this poll includes old earth creationists (there are probably a lot more of them than there are young earth creation scientist). Here are the two choices side by side "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation." If you are an old earth creation scientist which one are you going to choose? If you look at a later poll (2006) without the age of the earth involved you will see that the amount of creationists increases by about 10%. Who knows what it would do to the scientist's poll. I am also going to point out that even the example of the time cube on wikipedia on undue weight tells that the theory has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.EMSPhydeaux 21:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As is becoming rapidly evident, it is not possible to answer any of EMSP's questions/comments. I have done my best.--Filll 21:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls

&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If you guys wish not discuss it any more I suppose I must drop it. I can see that we both will never agree on this topic. It seems to me that you have ignored everything I have said. The next time you bring up the old "it's pseudoscience argument" just remember that you ignored the attempt to disprove your bias.EMSPhydeaux 22:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't disprove anything. You proved that there is no science in creationism. So, I guess we should thank you. Orangemarlin 00:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said I disproved anything and, of course, I don't agree with your statement which was said without supporting evidence. If you actually want to talk about the evidence let me know.EMSPhydeaux 01:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should also clear things up a little bit because there seems to be some confusion. Your statement "You proved that there is no science in creationism" isn't relevant to the discussion at all because we where not talking about the "science in creationism." The reason why we are not discussing this is first because it doesn't have anything to do with peer-reviewed creationism, and second because something else was brought to my attention over and over again. This was the no undue weight. Let me explain why we started talking about that. I realized that anything I suggest as an improvement could possibly be rejected as undue weight if it seems to give creation science any credibility. So, I looked at wikipedia's undue weight and found that undue weight applied largely to unpopular views. So, I went to the polls and found that creation science is a popular view. So, instead they brought up NPOV: Pseudoscience. I saw that this was also based partly upon the opinion on the majority. So, now we are actually discussing wether or not the majority of scientist think creation science is pseudo science. Up until they decided I was a troll and that they should ignore me. Without pointing out a specific time in which I was trolling I might add.EMSPhydeaux 02:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Your fundamental basis for the above argument is sort of weak anyway. When you look at those US polls, less than half of all respondents believe in the literal creation story as highlighted in the Bible. If we assume those polls represent the country at large, then we are left with a (sizable) minority believing in the precepts of creationism, but not enough, it seems, to warrant changing this article in the way you want. You can call something a "popular view" because some poll has 45% of those surveyed agreeing with that view, but it obviously isn't a dominant view. Technically actually, again, if you firmly believe these polls accurately represent the country at large, it's a minority view.UberCryxic 00:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to look at the polls again. 55% believe that "God created humans in [their] present form". How can you claim that "it obviously isn't a dominant view" while the polls are staring you right in the face? If you really want to say that 45% is a minority then I guess we should start treating evolution as one (55-100=?). :) So that I don't look a like troll or whatever, I will point out that I am not really suggesting we treat evolution as a minority view. I am only showing the lack of consistency in his reasoning. My suggestion is that we treat creation science (which includes old earth creationism) as equal to evolution. Even though you may not believe that they are equal. This is what wikipedia does when two views are so hotly debated (basically 50% to 50%). Wikipedia takes the neutral point of view.EMSPhydeaux 05:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:

• NPOV: Pseudoscience
• NPOV: Undue weight
• NPOV: Making necessary assumptions
• NPOV: Giving "equal validity".

Contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. .. dave souza, talk 06:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

All of this is based upon the assumption that creation science is pseudoscience. As I pointed out not very far above one of the the requirements that you need to show before you claim creation science is pseudoscience according to wikipedia is that a great majority of scientists agrees with that statement, but my argument suggests that 45% of scientist could not believe creation science is pseudoscience. Try reading my argument again please. What is the big deal with giving creation science a chance anyway? It seems that many people here are overly worried about this.EMSPhydeaux 07:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

EMSP, I'm as strongly YEC as they come. Yet I agree that Creation Science contains pseudoscience due to the way science is currently defined. Science deals with what is observable and repeatable. Anything (including evolution) from 6000 years ago, is not observable and repeatable. These are both pseudoscientific parts of both worldviews. Both views make assumptions and extrapolations. ^rossnixon 09:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

For something to be science, it needs to be falsifiable. This is because science is the most rigorous form of intellectual inquiry we have discovered. Evolution is fully falsifiable, but "magic-man done it" is not. End of story. –Fatalis 09:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Even Popper admitted that much of evolution is not falsifiable. And as Ross says many studies including economics are not falsifiable and could be labeled as pseudoscience depending on one's definition of pseudoscience. There is no way we can run an experiment to show that mammals came from reptiles. Therefore one cans say that that assertion is pseudoscience. Of course we can always develop a definition that is very strict or very loose. Evolutionists use the strict one on ID and creation science and use the loose one on Darwinism and Evolution. The lack of honesty in the debate is astounding and embarassing. Octoplus 12:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

First, we need to distinguish between natural sciences and social sciences. The criteria for what is actual science will be similar, but much blurrier for the latter. Second, you need to understand that the strict requirements for a scientific theory is what f*cking makes science work. It is what distinguishes a scientific theory from plain conjecture. A scientific theory needs to have explanatory power, needs to have predictive power, needs to be falsifiable, and then it must be able to pass the peer-review process that is supposed to find errors in it. Does IDC or creation "science" have any of this? No, actually. They don't even have explanatory power, because their "explanations" themselves are in need of explanations. No predictive power, no peer-reviewed publications, and no supporting evidence (in the case of, say, YEC, there's actually an enormous amount of contradictory evidence). But does ToE have all that? Hell yeah! –Fatalis 18:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Creation science is the "attempt to find scientific evidence that would justify a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation." So, let me redefine the question in context. Is the "scientific evidence" used to support the idea that someone created pseudoscience? I think that we can agree that it is not pseudoscience.EMSPhydeaux 19:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're producing incoherent gibberish, but I'm pretty sure I don't agree with whatever you're proposing. Unless it's the status quo, Auntie. .. dave souza, talk 21:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep...I tried those sentences in English and the other twelve languages I can read and nothing registered.

Oh, BTW, for whomever it was who raised "Popper": his "theory" of falsifiability is not in itself falsifiable. Chaw on that for a while. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What don't you understand? The first sentence is a quote from the article we are discussing. If the sentence wasn't good english it wouldn't be in the article. The second sentence I have no idea how you couldn't understand. You do know what "redefine" and "context" means right? In third sentence I redefine the question. I do this because it seems that some people may be thinking to them selves "creationism is psuedoscience" while we are not talking about creationism at all. We are talking about creation science. So, basically, what I am trying to do is to make sure we all are talking about the same thing.EMSPhydeaux 03:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary nonsense break

"Even Popper"? Believe it or not, Popper was not the God of Science that he has been made out to be. His opinions are just that, opinions. Nothing more.

Economics is not a science, nor can it be, given that there are too many unpredictable human factors that effect the economy.

And no, we can't go diddling around with the definition of science, nor do scientists do so.

Darwinism is one of the most misuded terms I've ever run across. How are you using it? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 13:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

So you would also say that psychology is psuedoscience? There are a lot of unpredictable human factors there also. Evolution seems to be a very misused term also. How do you use it? Can you tell me how you feel Darwinism is misused? Octoplus 13:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You are invited to examine the scientific definitions of evolution. A good place to start might be the article here on Wikipedia. It always helps if you know what you are talking about. I have noticed that almost NO creationists even know what evolution is. Not one. Even most people who support intelligent design do not seem to know what evolution is. The term "Darwinism" is not really in current use by anyone except creationists and other fringe elements that do not believe in science. Even the use of words like "Darwinism" or "evolutionist" brand the user as a bit of a crank and pseudoscientist.--Filll 14:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Clinical psychology no, and you're conflating "unpredictable human factors" with psychological behaviours. "Unpredictable human factors" can iclude a wide range of things from reactions to natural disaster, to the starting of wars, to sudden shifts in foreign policy or domestic policy by any country,etc. Pop-psychology, (which in cludes most self-help crap) yes.

When you answer my question about Darwinism, I'll answer your other two. A question is not answered by asking another question. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 13:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

(moved) Then what criteria in your opinion differentiates science from pseudoscience? ID and creation science are usually crticized as pseudoscience because they supposedly do not meet Popper's criteria but now you are saying that his criteria is invalid. What is the valid criteria then? 13:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Popper is not the only person to define science, you know (but we digress). In any case, what was referred to was that Popper stated the evolution is not falsifiable -- that is his opinion. Capisce?

Furthermore -- there is much more than falsifiability that defines science, much more. Creationism fails on a number of levels aside from falsifiability: it also lacks consistency, violates the principle of parsimony, is not empirically testable, and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Creation science is the "attempt to find scientific evidence that would justify a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation." So, let me redefine the question in context. Is the "scientific evidence" used to support the idea that someone created pseudoscience? I am not saying someone because there are more views than just the biblical view alone.EMSPhydeaux 13:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Surely you misphrased something there. Or maybe you're just trolling again. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 13:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly Jim. Part of what makes this so difficult is that EMSP does not seem to be able to comprehend or use English very well. I have no idea what he just wrote.--Filll 13:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What EMS is talking about in the above has been discussed many times in the philosophy of science. It has been used as a refutation of Popper's theory. You just are not grasping the concepts here. Octoplus 21:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

First most of what I wrote was quoted so don't blame me. Second, I meant to put it in the above discussion. Sorry guys ;) feel free to delete it I'm moving it.EMSPhydeaux 19:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

<undent>We are not here to debate whether economics or psychology is a pseudoscience or not. And the criteria for whether something is a science or not does not include whether it is an experimental or an observational science, or data can be collected directly or indirectly. You can find the court's definition, which has varied somewhat over the years and has several parts, or the definitions that scientists use. Science must be falsifiable, according to most definitions. Science must not include the supernatural. Science must be published in peer-reviewed journals, not vanity journals; this means that if your "science" cannot survive scrutiny by your competitors and even adversaries, it is not science. Scientific theories must be updated to include new evidence when it is apparent; this does not mean that the theory stays the same and the evidence gets explained away. The theory changes to fit the data, not the other way around. There are several other conditions that may or may not be in different defintions, but you get the idea. Do your own research. By these conditions, anyone who is reasonable, including an agnostic or pantheist or deist or theist or panentheist or aetheist or polytheist or whatever, will define creation science as pseudoscience. Is that so hard to understand or accept? --Filll 13:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

""Clinical psychology no, and you're conflating "unpredictable human factors" with psychological behaviours. "Unpredictable human factors" can iclude a wide range of things from reactions to natural disaster, to the starting of wars, to sudden shifts in foreign policy or domestic policy by any country,etc. Pop-psychology, (which in cludes most self-help crap) yes. ""

Are you really saying that the theory that self-help psychotherpeutic methods are beneficial is not a scientific hypothesis? Octoplus 17:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Are they beneficial? Given that most of the people who use the self-help method go through several hundred of these books in a lifetime, most of which offer totally different strategies, I doubt the efficacy rate is all that high. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You missed the entire point. It is irrelevant whether they are beneficial or not. We are talking about a scientific hypothesis. You obvious do not grasp these concepts Octoplus 21:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

LEAD

When I read the LEAD, I realized that it was much too long and not that accurate. I took the liberty of rewording it a bit and putting the material that was less introductory into a new section.--18:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC) unsigned User:Filll

Thanks Filll. I tried to improve on the first sentence (because I didn't like to see the word "purported" in there). I realise that it is still far from ideal. A better opening sentence might refer to the scientific method rather than just scientific evidence. Of course, we need to be careful not to create a straw man definition of creation science. What does everyone think of my effort, and do you have any better suggestions? SheffieldSteel 21:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed use to find, gotta have it use it after all. I'm also half inclined to just drop the scientific as well, for both brevity and accuracy. ornis 21:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV again

Wow. All I had to do was read that first sentence and the POV came up and smacked me on the face. Jinxmchue 20:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been like that for months. What exactly is NPOV about it?--Filll 21:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's POV because it's accurate. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not state what it claims to be first, without couching it with skeptical language? Then you can use your weasel words such as "purports" in the subsequent sentences. ^rossnixon 02:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop vandalising the article because you don't like the truth. ornis 02:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dont call Christian kooks we are equally intelligent as non-belivers --Wwjd333 22:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

By their fruits ye shall know them.--Filll 10:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a religious tract or a recruiting tool for assorted right wing christian religious kooks. We are here to produce a reliable, secular encyclopedia. So....--Filll 02:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Jinxmchue is blocked for edit warring. He has no clue what is NPOV, he just rather be playing video games and railing on his original research on any number of articles. I would suggest that we don't worry about what he says. I'm much more willing to come to a consensus with rossnixon, who has been civil across a whole host of articles. And I happen to agree with his commentary on weasel words. Orangemarlin 16:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. While Ross does have a POV, I've never known him to be uncivil, tendentious, or prone to OR like Jinx. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope that Ross understands when Jim and I think someone on the other side of this discussion is a good guy, it's rare. But he probably still thinks we're still atheist Darwinists who eat Christian children for lunch.  :) Orangemarlin 22:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Laugh out Loud (not that I spelt it all) :-D--Wwjd333 22:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll eat any children, I'm not picky.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What? There are still followers of the Babylonian Talmud around? ^rossnixon 02:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Past-life experience, I guess.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Creationism In Mainstream Schools

I was wondering if Creationism not really being taught in mainstream schools needs a paragraph as the fact that Creation is only taught in re classes and that this is very critisised by the Church is very important. --Wwjd333 22:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? Orangemarlin 00:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wwjd333, your comment "What Would Jesus Do?????" is not what WP:TALK pages are for, and be aware that there are many Churches. In the US the constitution requires state institutions not to favor any religion. .. dave souza, talk 06:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing like a completely incomprehensible post or two. I think if that there were "RE" classes in the US in which creationism was taught, there would be no problem at all. However, that is not what is going on and not what the threat is, and not the goal of creationists in the US and other places. They do not want to be relegated to "RE" classes. They do not want to be called a religion. That is the reason the term "creation science" was invented, for example.--Filll 11:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Third paragraph criticism

Part of the 3rd paragraph criticism is repeated further down (section 2.3 I think). The whole introduction is rather long - too much content before the section index (or whatever it's called). ^rossnixon 05:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and make an improvement. If we don't like, we'll revert it and leave you nasty messages.  :) Orangemarlin 05:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Just be sure to bash the subject or your change will be reverted. Jrtman 19:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep going Jrtman. I don't usually threaten RfC's and the such, but you're pushing it. Orangemarlin 20:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just stating my experience. I didn't start a name-calling argument, everyone else here did a nice job of that. Jrtman 00:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What??? Are you inventing things? Orangemarlin 19:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I am. Well, at least according to your just so beliefs. Jrtman 05:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

New opening sentence?

Personally I think that a good elegant first sentence is the key to improving any article - particularly one where contention is been prevalent, and the intro may be bogged down in legalese. So, I thought I'd throw this out there for comment:

"'Creation Science' refers to the belief of Young Earth Creationists that the scientific method can be used to support a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation."

Since I'm not very link-savvy, I left it in plain text. What d'you say, folks? SheffieldSteel 23:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Or, "'Creation Science' refers to the use of scientific methods by Creationists to support a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation." Note: There is not one scientific method. ^rossnixon 00:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, I don't see how either of these are improvements. Both of them are less precise and contain less information than the current opening sentence. JoshuaZ 00:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Lead Section

I just came back to this article, and I realized that the Lead section has really gotten away from us. It is long, and really has become uninteresting, given the subject matter. In addition, lot's of POV has crept in over the past few days (maybe weeks).

If you read Wikipedia's guide to layout, it suggests that lead sections be one or a few paragraphs long, and avoids wikilinks. The guide says: "Normally, the first paragraph summarizes the most important points of the article. It should clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail and the qualifications and nuances that follow."

Right now the lead section is doing a lot more than that, making a case for Creation Science (which is fine, but could be done in a few sentences), is filled with wikilinks (which makes it hard to read, and doesn't draw anyone into the article), and doesn't summarize the key points of the article.

I suggest the Lead Section read as below:

Creation science, refers to the campaign by creationists (especially those who believe in a "young" Earth) to use the methods and empirical practices of science to demonstrate that scientific evidence supports a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation. Believers in creation science primarily include members of evangelical Christian denominations that subscribe to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy; however there are examples of Islamic supporters of creation science as well.

The claim that Creation science is a valid science is disputed. The scientific community overwhelmingly supports the fact that creation science is not a valid science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated "the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested. These observations lead to two fundamental conclusions: the teaching of evolution should be an integral part of science instruction, and creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes." and "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." It is viewed as a pseudoscience that does not conform to the scientific method, as well as admissions by its proponents that the means of creation cannot be proven. Creation science literature generally consists of compilations of alleged weaknesses in current models of evolution and geology.

Advocates of creation science dispute the uniformitarian model of geology in favor of flood geology, arguing for the historical accuracy of the Biblical deluge as described in Genesis. They disagree with the scientific theory of common descent of all life via evolution, claiming that evolution is itself pseudoscientific and argue in favor of creation biology. They reject scientific theories on the age of the universe, arguing for creationist cosmologies based on an age of less than ten thousand years.

Some advocates have spent many years arguing for the inclusion of creation science in the science curriculum of U.S. public schools. In 1987 in Edwards v. Aguillard the Supreme Court of the United States held that a requirement that public schools teach creation science alongside evolution as an alternative theory violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

We shouldn't engage in an edit war here, so unless there are strong objections, I'm going to replace the current lead with this one, and let's fine-tune it there. I cut out the whole Arkansas thing, because it really belongs in another section, and frankly, I'm not so sure why the Arkansas law has real merit, especially if we want to take a global view of this discussion. Not to insult Arkansas, but it's not like it's England, Sweden or even a leading educational system in the United States. OK, I insulted Arkansas. Orangemarlin 17:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I like that version, though I note that the lack of wikilinks is suggested for biographical summaries, not summaries in general, so we could, with advantage, wikilink a bit more. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't like the 2.6 billion wikilinks in the original version. OK, I might have exaggerated a bit.  :) Orangemarlin 23:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with OrangeMarlin's version, with the proviso that the removed material be incorporated elsewhere in the body of the article.--Filll 00:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

the word espouse, rather than use better expresses the reputation of "creation science" among scientists, and the utter lack of publication "creationist hypotheses" in refereed scientific journals.JStripes 00:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There continues to be a serious problem in logic here: "The United States National Academy of Sciences has stated 'the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested. These observations lead to two fundamental conclusions: the teaching of evolution should be an integral part of science instruction, ...'" This statement appears to suggest that evolution is taught, or should be taught, because creation science fails. Nothing could be further from the truth. Evolutionary theory developed and established itself with no reference to "creation science." "Creation science" arose in reaction against the theory of evolution. Cause and effect are reversed in the lead section as it stands, distorting the processes and nature of scientific inquiry, as well as the resulting classroom content.

This problem stems from having sliced the beginning off the quotation from the source, viz, "The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims ..." It is the first observation that leads to the first conclusion. It sould be quoted in full, or summarized more accurately. JStripes 04:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Stripes--I missed your comments here. I think you're right. Orangemarlin 17:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

In order to create an NPOV, this needs removed from the category of "Pseudoscience." There are serious scientists who look into this, there is serious scientific evidence that hints at it. Further more, I am not waiting for a consensus, this does not have an NPOV and needs removed from "Pseudoscience." --Jorbian 02:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No, per NPOV is needs to be in the article. This is well supported by references. As for "serious scientists who look into this" - please do tell who they are and where their science in published. Not in any real peer reviewed scientific journals. Guettarda 03:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience--a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific. Creation Science is a misnomer, because it is not, in fact, a science. There are no serious published scientists who espouse Creation Science. There are no peer-reviewed journals that cover Creation Science. It does not even fit even a marginal definition of science. Orangemarlin 06:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

To fellow creationists - I used to be offended by the pseudoscience tag, but now I almost regard it as flattering. It means we do not use a narrow-minded scientific method (only) that can never find out that life must have been designed by a creator.

To non-creationists - there are serious published scientists who espouse Creation Science. There are peer-reviewed journals that cover Creation Science. Find these yourselves. And evolution is pseudoscience also, due to the a priori assumptions used, and the obvious religious fervour of many of it's followers. ^rossnixon 01:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Name one. But let's make sure we define who's a scientist and who's not. Some bozo on the internet, who has a degree from Bob Jones University in Computer Science, is NOT a scientist by any stretch of the imagination. I'd prefer someone with credentials from the NAS or other legitimate governing body. And when we define peer-reviewed journals, let's make sure that they're peer-reviewed by other worthy scientists. Lastly, don't be flattered by the pseudoscience tag. It includes Astrology, Homeopathy, Alchemy, and other worthy subjects. In other words, hooey. Orangemarlin 17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This is blatant nonsense. There are essentially no peer-reviewed creationist publications in major journals. Show me an example of a creationist publication in Science or Nature or Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Academy or a National Academy of Sciences journal and I might change my mind. There are a few extremists who might subscribe to creationist views, but there are a teeny tiny minority; much less than 0.1% in the relevant fields. After all, it makes no sense to find a lawyer or a sanitation engineer who claims that the world was created in 6000 years. My response to that is, "so what?". It is essentially meaningless. It is about the same as finding a bus driver who believes that apricot pits will cure cancer. If you get cancer, will you go to your bus driver for treatment, or an oncologist? --Filll 02:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Ross Nixon is flattered by the pseudoscience tag, let me guess that he'd choose the bus driver. With some laying on of hands. Orangemarlin 17:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Science or just scientific?

You may correct just my english, for if we do an internet search on "creation science" we get huge amount of results, although if so it on "evolution science" (with no connectors) we get very few. On the other hand, if we do the same with "creationism" and "evolutionism" then we get quite the inverse, what comes to be a better expecting proportion. That is because, like evolutionism, creationism should be considered just a scientific trend inside the science of biology, or maybe also some others, like archeology and astronomy. Please, creationism is not A science. I'm a creationist myself but I see calling its still raising scientific arm as "Creation Science" is inappropriate and shows out as infantile and pretentious, what we are NOT. I understand even the term "creationist science" is not suitable, because we want to be (and will be) more and more side by side with evolutionism, as a strong alternative second trend, close to them, and reviewing THEM to begin with. I suggest to change this article title to "Scientific Creationism", or have a new one and calling attention to this issue. Also, the lable "pseudoscience" is much more easily appliable, for this same reason - however much less with "pseudoscientific" for then it would be labeling a simply new scientific trend. Or, in the contrary, it should be also applied to any other trends (inside any sciences) just because of claiming new approaches while being not fully tested yet. --Lacerda 16:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"creationism should be considered just a scientific trend inside the science of biology"? No, not really. OK, no not at all. Creationism is religion, period. There's more science involved in making a pencil than will ever exist in creationism.

BTW, it's really cosmology to which you refer, not astronomy, and paleontology would be more appropriate than archaeology (at least concerning creationism). Now, for the study of why creation myths exist archaeology would be the correct term.

In any case, your post reminds me of Kruschev's boastful "Kitchen Speech" -- when the time came to meet at the crossroads the Soviet Union crumbled. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, great reversion (kind of an olympic one)! But be not afraid - just prepared though... I'm not a scientist myself, but even a cook may help here. Unfortunately (to all skeptics) the scientific method does not provide to avoid scientists to take inspiration from whatever they want. If observing some data, one of them see he can use, lets say, the ouroboros to erect some new and consistent explanatory model, then no one and nothing will hinder him - of course given he will not confess it. The difference is that creationists do confess and the scientific method has nothing against if their models are scientifically consistent. Or you may tell just one of their claims that is not corroborated by clear scientific evidence. Or (quite possibly) IF you see the evidence as not already peer reviwed... THEN the label is ready. :-) --Lacerda 17:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Believers in creationism are not scientists, because they do not seek simple rational explanations for their observations; rather, they seek observations that confirm their beliefs. Creationism is not a scientific theory; it will not be altered in the light of any evidence that comes to light. I could go on but those who understand don't need to be told and those who don't won't.

SheffieldSteel 03:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Believers in evolutionism are not scientists, because they do not seek simple rational explanations for their observations; rather, they seek observations that confirm their beliefs. Evolutionism is not a scientific theory; it will not be altered in the light of any evidence that comes to light. I could go on but those who understand don't need to be told and those who don't won't. ^rossnixon 01:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is pap, or prejudiced and prejudicial nonsense, to be only too polite, horsefeathers to be more accurate (compared to dinosaur feathers discussed below). For example, see the article on the evolution of feathers in late dinosaurs (evolved into birds) in the 2005 Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Vol. 33, pp. 277-299, by Mark A. Norell and Xing Xu. This international research collaboration excavated, cleaned and studied numerous fossils of the late Mesozoic era. The link from dinosaurs to birds is now on more solid ground, but geologists and paleontologists are always ready to accept new evidence, for or against any evolutionary link. Suggest folks read the scientific literature! Research papers in reliable journals are refereed by peers, and Annual Reviews seeks out the best reviewers. There are lots of photos of specimens in the above-cited paper. Carrionluggage 16:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that old chestnut about science being a religion. Frankly, science is somewhat more convincing as a religion than God is as a scientific theory. SheffieldSteel 21:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel:"...rather, they seek observations that confirm their beliefs." <- When evolutionists read creationist scientific explanations, they also do the same, of course, arguing against exactly in order to confirm their belief (that evolution is correct). Nothing wrong with that, as any human activity is founded in beliefs that are naturally self defensive. Materialist scientists should not qualify creationist scientists as just believers, if not wanting to respond about scientific basic and unfounded beliefs. Religious have the right to get in science if they want, given to stay strictly scientifical, WHAT does not concern their motivations, or please tell where in science there is anything formalizing what a scientist can or cannot get as his epistemological motivation, like expecting to demonstrate consciousness is just about nervous activity.

"Creationism is not a scientific theory" <- Well, maybe not for now, but might be in time, as creationist scientists are working on it. Please see if you can find a single one scientific creationist work in the internet that is not signed by a scientist. But do they try to scientifically prove their religious beliefs? Yes, of course, just like the scientific police tries to prove what they believe to be an evident crime. They are not "pseudoscientific" just because of their police motivation, even not for their work being not A science, and still not even if they find no proof. Scientific creationism IS scientific. If it will become a whole theory, we don´t know, but surely they have the right to try. And without getting apriori labels just for that.

"I could go on but those who understand don't need to be told and those who don't won't." <- Sorry, but just bare believers (not scientific ones) are excusable to use this argument ignoring it can be applied to themselves. --Lacerda 01:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Carrionluggage:"Research papers in reliable journals are refereed by peers, and Annual Reviews seeks out the best reviewers." <- Please, do you really believe materialist scientists would make honest reviews on creationist works? Could it be possible that absolutely none of the arguments presented by creationists scientists have anything correct? Or could be them all insane? Have you in good will studied some of their works? --Lacerda 02:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry, but anyone who disregards evidence because it does not confirm their prior beliefs is being unscientific. And there are plenty of documented examples (some even on wikipedia) of creationists discounting evidence after evaluating it, because it did not agree with their beliefs.

This is the fundamental difference between science and religion: Scientific theories can change, have changed, and will change in the light of discoveries. Scientists pride themselves on that. Religous beliefs, on the other hand, tend not to have changed historically very much, and believers remain extremely resistant to changing their beliefs in the light of evidence. They pride themselves on that, too, calling it faith. And you know what? They are right to do so. It's a mistake to try to claim that religion is science, or that science is a religion. An iPod is a wonderful device, but you wouldn't use it to tighten a wheel nut when your car gets a puncture. SheffieldSteel 02:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"No, sorry, but anyone who disregards evidence because it does not confirm their prior beliefs is being unscientific." <- This is correct and should be ever observed, but, unfortunately, the scientific method provides no means to keep a scientist intellectually honest, so leaving him on his own. But this is normal in science. The simple desire of a scientist to be spotted can easily deviate his attention from others promissing works. Then you see new raising trends in place of better developed ones. Of course materialist scientists also disregard creationist scientific evidences - and there are lots - but none of them is minimally recognized to be slightly correct. If you reply they disregarded first, that indeed couldn't be avoided because materialist science came first. So the real problem here is about politics - for how possibly could we expect a materialist to recognize a single bit of what could consequently destruct all his world view and leave him with nothing to scientifically explain why he does not believe in God? For him, thinking this is a waking nightmare, the worse that could happen to his life and to his children, and so he will fight (like now) against any remote threat to avoid it. No gods or priests over him: period!

"Scientific theories can change, have changed, and will change in the light of discoveries." <- Surprise: this is exactly what will happen with creationism. They will change their theories, but given they will be just new ways to prove what they previously believe in: that matter is animated by spirit. Likewise you will ever see materialist scientists changing theories, but just if they do NOT threaten what they previously believe in: that only matter exists.

"An iPod is a wonderful device, but you wouldn't use it to tighten a wheel nut when your car gets a puncture." <- Nor would you use the wheel spanner to set the iPod. And that is what materialist scientists do when they strive to prove consciousness is not spiritual but just some nervous chemical processes. Well, you can set the iPod with the spanner if you really try, but don´t tell me this proves the iPod to be not necessarily designed for the fingers. --Lacerda 19:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that wasn't the point I was trying to make at all. Science and religion are very different things; they are tools suited to fundamentally different purposes. If science is religion, and religion is science, then God is a theory and gravity should be worshipped. Good luck with that world view. SheffieldSteel 21:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read some of the parapsychological literature in college - the quietest place to study was that section of Widener Library, because no one else ever came there. So I read some of the articles. I fear that none of you who complain about scientists have gone to a library to look at the Annual Review I cited. It is in most University libraries. If you disbelieve what is written and displayed in photos there, the onus is on you to find some way to disprove it. Carrionluggage 05:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Creation scientists by and large do no laboratory or field research; rather they re-interpret existing laboratory and field data." Are you saying doing that is not legitimate research or science? 68.109.232.53 20:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No. It indicates that they are not interested in primary research, because I would assume it would all disprove their belief sets. Whatever the reason, true science must eventually produce primary data that can be interpreted. Real science, for example, establishes a hypothesis, and then tests that hypothesis. Creationists hypothesize that some supernatural being, aliens from Mars, or the Rolling Stones created the world, all of its organisms, etc. Then they fail to produce the experiments to test that hypothesis, since how do you test for the presence of supernatural beings. Interpreting other peoples data is fine, but it's not real science. Orangemarlin 20:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Meta-analysis and Meta-studies are not real science? And what experiment has been done to show that martians did not influence life here on earth? 68.109.232.53 20:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel:"Actually, that wasn't the point I was trying to make at all." <- If you don't mind I'll leave this up to all and future readers. "Science and religion are very different things; they are tools suited to fundamentally different purposes." <- Ideally I do agree, but in the real world different things mix as convenient, generally for political need. Religion was quite homy when materialist science began to gain much souls, telling there is no need of God. So now religious are using sciences own prestige to strike back. In my opinion, this will bring scientific materialism to fall, because #1 its method does not rule motivations, #2 it made too deep ontological assumptions, so digging its own grave, and #3 science in fact cannot tell what phenomena are, but just how phenomena behave. --Lacerda 21:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Carrionluggage:"Yes, I read some of the parapsychological literature in college - the quietest place to study was that section of Widener Library, because no one else ever came there. So I read some of the articles." <- Ok, but this quite makes you seeming to don't know that parapsychology is not a creationist scientific subject, although I personaly would like to include it. It is tricky but very important, specially concerning buncodebunkers who mislead the public about the actual scientific meaning of their challenges.

"I fear that none of you who complain about scientists have gone to a library to look at the Annual Review I cited. It is in most University libraries." <- Fortunately I live deep inside the brazilian jungle but I don't think I will find this work at the local sequoia. I did search the internet for it and found just its abstract, having to spend 20 bucks for the whole pdf. I have this much just to feed my crocodile. Of course, in case you can lend me the file, then I can try to comment. Anyway see below.

"If you disbelieve what is written and displayed in photos there, the onus is on you to find some way to disprove it." <- In fact I have found several articles on the feathered dinossaurs, even about these 2005 ones, but found also that then creationist scientists promptly presented their reviews, and I cannot say I would do better. If you will want to endure the readings there are some at ICR and TrueOrigin under "There are No Transitional Fossils", but all the paper is very enlightening for who are still wanting to form a balanced opinion. I would just like to suggest you all to check how these articles (as others mainly at ICR) are eminently scientific and signed by scientists, no matter what they want to demonstrate. --Lacerda 21:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin:"Whatever the reason, true science must eventually produce primary data that can be interpreted." <- Please see that scientific creationism is not A science, but just new scientific trends inside several already existing sciences. So creationist scientists would be unethical and naive to start not considering all existing scientific works and theories. That is why they must begin mainly adressing and reviewing. --Lacerda 21:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see my mistake now. Orangemarlin, you've worked pretty tirelessly to improve these articles and have also done a good job of being civil to people who dispute the content of the article. I'd like to apologise for f*****g the t***l contributing to the large quantity of relatively unproductive text on this page. I'll see if I can improve the article instead. SheffieldSteel 22:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is Written from an evolutionists point of view!!!

I think both points of view should be explained after all it is an article on creation....

Plese consider this request...

does any1 agree with me?

I definitely agree! One of the first things that struck me while reading this was its obvious pro-evolution stance. It strongly criticizes the idea of creationism being scientific and constantly points to the "scientific consensus" against creationism. It definitely needs major editing, in fact it should probably be entirely redone. Anyone who belives that creationism is not supported by science should read a copy of the Book "It couldn't just happen" which does an excellent job of explaining a scientific view of creationism. User: Fusionbomb

Llama scim 20:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)llama scimLlama scim 20:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. And the same with ID, evolution, just about antying in this general subject. For instance look at the articl about Rush Limbaugh. It does not say he is a drug addict in the first line. or say that Bill Clinton was impeached in the first line or say the Richard Nixon was a crook in the first line. The first lines or even paragraphs should be very neutral and just state fact. Wiki is very good except in these evolution articles. 68.109.234.155 20:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree the that wikipedia should cover "both points of view", assuming that there are only two, that they are given due weight, and that such views are expressed via attribution to reliable sources. I don't see that it being "an article on creation" is relevant. SheffieldSteel 20:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. It conforms to WP:NPOV, in that it describes Creation Science, then shows why it is a pseudoscience. It is fair and balanced. And the reason that the Rush Limbaugh articles does not start off with his drug addiction, Bill Clinton with his impeachment or Richard Nixon as a crook, is because in each case, the negative attribute is a minor part of their overall biography. Orangemarlin 20:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well Nixon is most notable for being a crooked president and Clinton is notable for his illicit relationships and Rush is very noted for his drug addiction. No, I think in any case the first paragraph should bend over backwards to present only facts. Look at nambla, hitler. And in the astrology, homeopathy article it does not state it is pseudoscience till the second paragraph. Phrenology is called a 'theory'. I think the whole evolution related articles are written from POV. 68.109.234.155 20:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Your definition of notable is notably lacking. If I were a historian, Nixon would be more notable for creating relations with China, ending the Vietnam war, and other activities. He is also notable for resigning the presidency, which would be a result of the Watergate affair. As for being "crooked" that's a highly POV term. With regards to this article, the lead is exceedingly neutral. Thanks Raspor for your comments. Orangemarlin 21:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Swap paras 2 & 3?

I think it might be better to swap paragraphs 2 & 3 in the intro, so that the proponents' position is described before that of the critics. What does everyone else think? SheffieldSteel 20:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be more balanced. 68.109.234.155 20:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to put forth, in fairly glowing, uncritical terms, a position that is almost entirely rejected by scientists before mentioning that it's widely criticised. I don't think all the criticism needs to come first, and this lead is pretty awful anyway, but we need some hint of the majority position before the advocate's position. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it needs work - even after my attempts (or perhaps more so :-/ )... but I think we must say what creation scientists believe before we document criticism of those beliefs. SheffieldSteel 02:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

To some extent, yes, but it needs to be clear it's a fringe view, and not generally considered science quite early on. Whether this is done with criticism first, or just by adding a sentence about the criticism to the first paragraph, it doesn't matter, but it shouldn't take 5 paragraphs to discover it's a fringe view, nor to learn that the advocates' claim of it being a science is not accepted by scientists, and does not even fit into most definitions of science. Also, the first sentence and the first paragraph are both supposed to be able to stand on their own (WP:LEAD) - a suggestion I support, as there's no guarantee people will read further - but taken on their own, only present one POV, which is bad (though probably not intentional). If we can get the lead paragraph sorted, it'll probably be alright to then begin the advocate's position, but I think this arrangement is necessary until the opening paragraph is balanced out. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to restructure the intro, taking into account that the first paragraph should form a mini-intro in its own right. I'm still unhappy with what is now the second paragraph: I think it goes into too much detail about geology. I'm also removing two uses of the word "claimed" from the same sentence (!) SheffieldSteel 17:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

About (Undid revision 119524781 by Lacerda (talk) last edit made nonsense out of the point), please explain. --Lacerda 18:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have posted an explanation earlier. The introductory paragraph is following a format established by consensus as the best way to introduce the topic. As such, it goes:

• One sentence defining the subject matter
• One sentence outlining the proponents' position
• One sentence outlining the critics' position

For your convenience, here's a copy of the first paragraph to compare with this pattern:-

Advocates of Creation science lay claim to the methods and empirical practices of science, that is, the scientific method, to assert that scientific evidence supports a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation (see Creation according to Genesis). Creation scientists primarily include Young Earth Creationists, especially members of evangelical Christian denominations that subscribe to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy; however, there are examples of Islamic supporters of creation science as well. The worldwide scientific community views creation science as a pseudoscience that does not conform to the scientific method; there are admissions by its proponents that the means of creation cannot be proven.

The last phrase is part of the criticism that CS does not conform to the scientific method. It's not meant to be an accurate or complete summary of the source's position on the subject of CS as a whole, and attempting to make it into such a summary defeats the purpose of the sentence (which is to document criticism of CS). The edit I reverted also (if I remember correctly) took the position that the source "admitted" that scientific evidence proved that creation had occured - which would be more of a bold claim than an admission, even if the source did say just that. SheffieldSteel 19:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. I think anyway, although I didn't put creation was proven but provable, the last phrase suggests there are creation scientists (any of them) who state creation itself cannot be proven because its means cannot be proven. --Lacerda 20:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have rephrased the third sentence to emphasise what the worldwide scientific community is saying, as per the consensus for how the leading paragraph should be structured. SheffieldSteel 22:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but I'm not sure of why you say this as a reply. Maybe it will be useful if you post a link to your rephrasing diff page, or its date. --Lacerda 00:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I edited the third sentence before making that reply. I don't know why it didn't make it to the server. I've made another attempt at getting the point across. SheffieldSteel 01:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Good one, but it seems your use of the verb to concede is strategically graceless and open for negotiation... So, well, what about a pretty nice direct and bold statement, instead? :-) --Lacerda 13:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Strategically graceless? Are points never conceded in your culture? Never mind. I've edited the sentence to make it more neutral and more scientific in tone - after all, what concerns us here is how well creation science stands up to the scientific method. SheffieldSteel 11:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't "mechanism" something necessarily provable, today or someday? --Lacerda 19:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That's part of why mainstream science views CS as pseudoscience - a point which I hope the 3rd sentence now makes clear. SheffieldSteel 19:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

They do not propose any possible existing mechanisms. You may check. :-) --Lacerda 02:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the scientific position is stated in scientific terminology. I look forward to hearing your reasons for reverting again. SheffieldSteel 04:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean last or next reversion? Never mind. It was or would be because you are intellectually honest and would subsequently understand and seek for a better balanced solution. What you succesfully did now - as to avoid me insisting in that spirited term. So, congratulations. Now I tried to edit keeping the scientific tone, but it is not sounding well. --Lacerda 04:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never really understood what "lay claim to the methods of science" is supposed to mean. Could we rewrite that part into clearer terms? Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I never found that clear too, but I'm not a native english speaker. The verb to lay seems to be used as to put, possibly meaning something like "put the methods of science as claimed to assert...". And there are two "to" to phrase it, adding in between a possibly not needed scientific explicitation that repeats science root four times in this first sentence. "Advocates" is also repeated in the beginning of the second sentence. I would like to suggest a general clearing in the whole starting paragraphs, but as to the first sentence I think we could have something like:

"Advocates of Creation science claim that already existing scientific discoveries in fact supports a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation (see Creation according to Genesis)."

As who could allege that in an encyclopedia should be just scientists, and as it is factual that they are, the first paragraph could be like:

"Creation scientists are normally religious biologists and geologists who claim that already existing scientific discoveries in fact support a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation, this way criticising worldwide recognised concept of evolution, which they consider pseudoscientific. By their turn, mainstream biologists, geologists, and general evolutionist scholars react against creation scientists, arguing them to be pseudoscientifical, because of constantly referring to religious sources and not conforming to the scientific method: as stated by creation scientists themselves, they cannot propose an underlying mechanism of creation which can be falsified or investigated by scientific means."

Soon I will try to suggest how this could rearrange the whole first paragraphs, without changing their contents. Waiting to hear from you all. --Lacerda 16:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

New paragraph proposal

Let's have a new section for easy editing.

Here's a copy of Lacerda's proposal:-

“ Creation scientists are normally religious biologists and geologists who claim that already existing scientific discoveries in fact support a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation, this way criticising worldwide recognised concept of evolution, which they consider pseudoscientific. By their turn, mainstream biologists, geologists, and general evolutionist scholars react against creation scientists, arguing them to be pseudoscientifical, because of constantly referring to religious sources and not conforming to the scientific method: as stated by creation scientists themselves, they cannot propose an underlying mechanism of creation which can be falsified or investigated by scientific means. ”

Revising the grammar, and altering the meaning as little as possible, I think produces a version like this:-

“ Creation scientists are mainly religious biologists and geologists who claim that existing scientific discoveries in fact support a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation, a criticism of the worldwide recognised concept of evolution which they consider pseudoscientific. In turn, mainstream biologists, geologists, and general evolutionist scholars respond that creation scientists are pseudoscientific in that they constantly refer to religious sources and do not conform to the scientific method: as stated by creation scientists themselves, they cannot propose an underlying mechanism of creation which can be falsified or investigated by scientific means. ”

Not that I am endorsing this version; I'm just offering this in my capacity as a native English speaker (Brit, not U.S.). Personally I would prefer a different word to "evolutionist" since it implies a believer in evolution rather than a scientist. Perhaps "biologists, geologists, and other scholars/scientists (pick one)" would work. SheffieldSteel 18:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, nice translation :-). About evolutionism as a scientific belief, I understand it is a unavoidable fact, as it is broadly recognised that any human activity does assume some supporting set of beliefs, although scientists claim their set is the most credible one... Anyway I find this first (proposed) paragraph not very NPOV balanced, for we all may discuss it, and easier now as the rest of the edition is posted below. I think to have kept all the contents. Some few evident additions were intentional. Please discuss. The first paragraph is the one already turned into real English.

“ Creation scientists are mainly religious biologists and geologists who claim that existing scientific discoveries in fact support a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation, a criticism of the worldwide recognised concept of evolution which they consider pseudoscientific. In turn, mainstream biologists, geologists, and general evolutionist scholars respond that creation scientists are pseudoscientific in that they constantly refer to religious sources and do not conform to the scientific method: as stated by creation scientists themselves, they cannot propose an underlying mechanism of creation which can be falsified or investigated by scientific means.

Even with the exception of supernatural concernings, there is not full accordance between creation scientists about which material aspects of scriptural accounts are suited for scientific analysis, depending this on their particular creationist denominations, which may be christian (the largest, mostly evangelical), judaic, islamic, hindu, taoist, etc., although there can be found divergences also inside a same denomination. As till now their work have been not laboratorial or field research, rather doing revision and re-interpretation of existing scientific data, the following are some of their most presented positions:

• Rejection of the theory of common descent of all life via evolution (see Evolution as theory and fact).

• Rejection of scientific estimates of the age of the universe, arguing for creationist cosmologies based on an age of less than ten thousand years. Some creationists don't go that far.

• Regarding of the usual scientific theories of geology as being strongly tied to uniformitarianism, the concept that that processes occurring in the present have operated in the past and will continue in the future.

• Discarding of standard explanations of many phenomena through gradual processes, such as mountain building by colliding plates, favoring catastrophism, which postulates that at intervals in the earth’s history cataclysms destroyed (nearly) all living things and formed geological features such as mountains and valleys.[7]

• Inference of the effects of flood geology as based on the the presumed historical accuracy of the Biblical deluge account in Genesis.

Creation science literature generally consists of compilations of these kind of alleged weaknesses in current models of evolution and geology.[8]

Concerned about the growing diffusion of creation science, a specially convoqued meeting of scientists at the The United States National Academy of Sciences have unitely stated:

• "the theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines . . . [whereas] the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested. These observations lead to two fundamental conclusions: the teaching of evolution should be an integral part of science instruction, and creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes."[9] and
• "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[10]

Some advocates have spent many years arguing for the inclusion of creation science in the science curriculum of U.S. public schools; however, in 1987 in the case Edwards v. Aguillard the Supreme Court of the United States held that a requirement that public schools teach creation science alongside evolution as an alternative theory violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[11] (See also Intelligent Design movement.)

”

--Lacerda 20:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The convoqued meeting at NAS mentioned above seems to be not the one which produced the followed excerpts, which are probably older. So please keep the original paragraph "The United States National Academy of Sciences has stated:"

I would like some help to find official information about the meeting as noticed here, when it did happened, full text, or so. I couldn't find it at NAS site, or elsewhere. --Lacerda 00:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There is the IAP document, which is mentioned in other site, but seeming to be only a conjunct signed statement, having NAS as just one of the endorsers. This is an important document, but I cannot prove it was intended to be an "attack" against creation or creationism, words not even used in the text. Unless any of you will show better evidences. --Lacerda 03:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Creationist don't do their own research?

I suppose someone didn't agree with my suspicion that this was a small change.

Creation scientists are not involved in laboratory or field research; rather they re-interpret existing laboratory and field data.

This incorrect statement should be changed to something like "Contrary to common belief, Creation Scientist do their own field and laboratory research." The reference could be this. Any objections?EMSPhydeaux 01:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but research must use the scientific method. None of the research in that link does. It isn't science, it's religion. Orangemarlin 01:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There isn't one inviolable scientific method. And no it's not religion, it just has a religious presupposition, just like materialism does. ^rossnixon 02:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Care to expand upon this, "There isn't one inviolable scientific method"? It can be read several ways. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not science. If you want to write it NPOV and state that they are engaging in research that has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and that it does not follow scientific methodology, I'm fine with that. Orangemarlin 02:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that that site was not the best to choose for an example. I think you can agree that this one is much better. It was published in Science (A peer-reviewed journal), and it could be used for an example of lab work. I just need to find a real good one for field research now.EMSPhydeaux 02:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How exactly does an early study on a charge-migration phenomenon produced by radioactive decay (which is now understood link) relate to creation science? Stating that model A is wrong as it is inconsistent with other data on the age of the earth does not prove that the age of the earth is wrong, instead it proves model A is wrong. Before citing this research, you might also want to read this testimony of Robert V. Gentry TimVickers 16:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This study was used to proved that ²¹⁸Po halos are not actually ²²²Rn halos. This is very helpful to creationist because it adds to the evidence that ²¹⁸Po did not originate from ²³⁸U. Your second point is beside the issue. We are not discussing wether or not creationist reasoning is correct. We are discussing wether or not creationist do their own research, and as a bonus I add in an example of a creationist publishing in one of the highest respected peer-review Journals. Anyway, the claim is that the earth was created instantly and the fact that time is limited to an instant that proves it. Oh and I've read Gentry's book back to front.EMSPhydeaux 20:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Tim, nice to see you watching this article. This is a frustrating conversation. The first point that Creation Scientists did research. Well they admit to not doing primary research and it's never been peer-reviewed and published. And there will be millions of articles that fine tune science. Fifty years ago, we didn't know a giant meteor or comet hit the earth 65.5 million years ago, causing the K-T Extinction. We didn't know about DNA (or just learned about it, I forgot the exact year). Etc. Etc. Let's stick with facts--do Creationists perform primary research that is published in peer-reviewed journals? No. Orangemarlin 16:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the answer is yes. Anyway, once again, even if creationists did not publish in peer(evolutionist)-reviewed journals it would not change the fact that they do their own research.EMSPhydeaux 20:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that The Creation Research Society Journal is characterized as not being peer reviewed (or is it characterized as not being published.) Let's stick with facts. Creationists perform primary research that is published in at least one journal. Dan Watts 17:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No it's not. Also, bad link. Orangemarlin 17:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Link fixed. Your position is that there is no peer reviewed journal of creationism. I have many copies of the Creation Research Society Quarterly, so the published part is established. They claim that it is peer reviewed, so unless there is presented evidence that they are not telling the truth about that, it seems that the statement attributed to Orangemarlin is inconsistent with reality. Dan Watts 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Scientific societies do not require people to affirm a Statement of belief in God and creation before they can join. This is therefore a religious organisation, not a scientific one. TimVickers 18:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The subject was Peer reviewed journal and publishing, not society qualifications. Dan Watts 18:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the society publishes the journal. So given their statement of principles, their articles will not falsify the existence of a god, which means it isn't science. So, I guess if you want to quote the article in conservapedia, it may work well there. Orangemarlin 18:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the falsification of the existance of some gods does not sound like it would be out of the question at all. But we digress ... the subject discussed was Do Creationists perform primary research that is published in a peer reviewed journal? and the answer is yes. Dan Watts 19:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, let me guess, Shiva and Baal were falsified? ROFL. I really hate it when religion tries to pretend it's science -- it's like professional wrasslin' pretending it's a sport. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

<reducing indent> No, the answer is no. It's not science. It's peer-reviewed by fellow creationists secondary research. And as for falsification, answer me this--can you see an experiment that proves that your Judeo-Christian G_d does not exist? If you can, then I say you're not a Creationist. Orangemarlin 19:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can. If, after death, the judgement doesn't happen, then the existence of God is in serious doubt. Dan Watts 19:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not supposed to interrupt a conversation, but I don't know how else to do this. How you answered isn't falsification because the premise, first requires someone to be killed. Of course, when you're dead, it's kind of hard to publish your experimental findings. So, given that you assume the existence of G_d, which is a matter of faith, science is no longer applicable. That's why we don't buy into your sources. Orangemarlin 20:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Science doesn't do "I hear dead people", that's where that paranormal physcic crap and ghost-busting come in. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since it is strongly supported that the rate of mortality approaches 100%, there is no reason to go to the extremes of killing anyone, and you are now changing the ground-rules by adding publishing. Dan Watts 14:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ground-rules? What are you talking about? You're arguing semantics again. Do we really have to explain the details of falsification one more time? -- 14:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

To use an analogy, if a neo-Nazi organisation published a magazine they claimed to be a scientific journal about "Racial science" would it be wise to uncritically accept their assurances about the journal being a real scientific journal dealing with genuine research about racial groupings? In Wikipedia, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the claim that a religious group dedicated to the proof of literal creation runs a genuine scientific journal is a very extraordinary claim indeed. To settle this argument, is the journal recognised by any genuinely scientific societies? Is it listed in PubMed or ISI? All we have at the moment is a website containing some claims. These claims are extraordinary, so we do need more proof. TimVickers 19:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Dan Watts, we have had this discussion before. You suddenly left in the middle of it. I had assumed you had seen the error of your ways. Please re-read the discussion on my Talk page. -- Ec5618 19:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I realized that ID was the subject of the previous discussion, and I would rather discuss Creation Science. As for evidence, look at the articles published on their website. Dan Watts 19:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The subject of the previous discussion was Creation Science Quarterly specifically, not Creation Science or intelligent design. Please look at our previous discussion. -- Ec5618 08:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, their articles "The model of deposition presented in this paper differs from the conventional model primarily in the rate of deposition, which is asserted to have peaked at an enormous level during and after the biblical Flood and is presumed to have fallen at an exponential rate to the present low level. Because biblical evidence strongly supports a short historical period between the Flood and the present, the shape of the decay curve is very steep." link. That's pretty funny from my perspective and certainly not science by any stretch of the imagination. TimVickers 19:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

From "our" perspective, ID is just another flavor of Creation Science. You probably heard the old adage, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's a duck. Their articles are not science. It's trying to prove that G_d exists and created the world, etc. etc. That's faith, not science. Orangemarlin 20:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What decides wether it is faith or science is not what they try to prove, but how they try to prove it. Before you go off and say "it's not science" first define what you would except as science.EMSPhydeaux 21:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Science is scientific method. They fail on multiple accounts, falsifiability being one of the major points. Orangemarlin 21:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning." Example from the CRSQ article on polystrate fossils. 1) "Observable, empirical, measurable evidence." Polystrate fossils are observable and measurable. 2) "Reasoning." Trees could not have stood up for millions of years thus the layers must not have taken millions of years to form. 3) "Falsifiability." Example, you could find proof that the tree could have stood up for millions of years. I understand you probably don't agree with the conclusions, but it was done through the scientific method none the less.EMSPhydeaux 21:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you contend EMSP that a paper containing the phrases "...the rate of deposition, which is asserted to have peaked at an enormous level during and after the biblical Flood and is presumed to have fallen at an exponential rate to the present low level. Because biblical evidence strongly supports a short historical period between the Flood and the present, the shape of the decay curve is very steep." is a non-religiously based piece of peer-reviewed science? This religious organisation is publishing material that asserts that the bible is literally true and then makes predictions based on this assumption. That isn't science. It's not even close. TimVickers 21:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I would never say that they do not have religious content in the journal. All they are doing is discussing how the evidence works in their model. Yes it is a biblical one. So what? Creating a model is part of science.EMSPhydeaux 22:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

However, the model has to work. Additionally, there are far too many presuppositions afoot in the above-mentioned "theory" (I use that term very loosely), the foremost of which isn't even "assume a global flood", or even "assume the Bible is corect" (although that's closer), but assume god. That's not science, science doesn't do the supernatural or paranormal. Besides, the "theory" doesn't question (i.e., starting from evidence and working backward), it asserts, and then twists data and, violating parsimony, proceeds to offer outlandish reasoning to get from point A to point B. Bah. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

How about this howler "An evaluation of DNA/RNA mutations indicates that they cannot provide significant new levels of information." How could something like that get past "Peer-review"? Your suggestion was a good one, the papers themselves show clearly that this journal does not publish science. Unless you want to count badly-written essays riddled with high-school level errors as scientific papers. TimVickers 22:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Now you are getting in to wether or not creationist's opinions are correct or not. This is not the proper place to discuss that. We probably shouldn't have even gotten into wether the papers are science or not, but at least it is a simpler issue than genetic information.EMSPhydeaux 22:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Tim, thanks for saving me the trouble of actually reading this thing. Even if I gave EMSPydeaux 1 & 2, 3 is wrong, since why would anyone need to prove a tree stood for millions of years? Sheesh. Orangemarlin 22:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It is possible "Falsifiability." Is your question why would anyone need to Falsify this?

Ack. Come on EMS. If it uses unprovable references to biblical evidence, it's no longer science. You know, I'm just patient here figuring you might actually be open to science and the scientific method. This conversation is going no where, and should be archived, because it's just repeats of what has been argued about 500 times. Sigh. Orangemarlin 22:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all I did not begin the point where we started arguing whether creation was science or not. This is unimportant to my point. If you go up to before Dan Watts got into the conversation you will see that I proved that 1) Creationist do their own research and 2) it has been published in peer-reviewed journals such as Science. This is the reason for changing the portion I first pointed out. Further more, for the health of the discussion, I will not continue to discuss the selections that do not relate to the subject at hand on this page.EMSPhydeaux 22:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What about, "Creation scientists do not typically publish in mainstream scientific journals and their work is instead reproduced in specialized periodicals published by religious organizations." TimVickers 23:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me.EMSPhydeaux 00:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

1) No. 2) No. The article was not printed as a "Creationist" article but as an article on radiohalos. In fact, it was proven wrong (which is good science, admittedly, but 35 years ago is ancient history). 2) It was not a "creationist" article, it merely pointed out the existence of Polonium radiohalos, which the author misinterpreted, when in fact they were Uranium artifacts. But the author did not claim that G_d had anything to do with it. So, although the article might "prove" your point, it wasn't written to prove your point, and it ended up being wrong. So, once again, this conversation is going nowhere. Orangemarlin 01:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't proven wrong. Gentry and I (not together ofcourse) have studdied all of the aguments agianst this paper and still believe it is correct. There are still two sides to the story. You just side with the evolutionists. It is true that he never directly mentions creation. This is because the people who run the journals are evolutionist. They are not going to publish something that mentions creation science because they are obviously anit-creationists. None the less, this paper is still work, by creationist, that is used to support creation science today. This means that this "Creation scientists are not involved in laboratory or field research; rather they re-interpret existing laboratory and field data." is still incorrect, and the statement by TimVickers is correct. I don't know how typical it is but I am willing suppose it isn't typical. I don't see how you can get around this fact. Do you need another example where a creationist biophysicist puts work in a journal? L.M. Spetner, Natural selection versus gene uniqueness, Nature 1970, vol. 226, s. 948EMSPhydeaux 11:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So you feel that the ability of a creationist to do any form of science is evidence in favour of creation science? Come on.

A creationist published an article. That doesn't mean that articles on creationism were published.

And the "conspiracy by 'evolutionists'"-concept is laughable. -- Ec5618 11:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I never said it is "evidence in favour". I just said the what is said on this page is incorrect. They are used to support creation and I think that is good enough.EMSPhydeaux 11:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

EMSPhydeaux is correct. The statement in the article is absolute in its denial that Creationists do research. Any good study of logic will caution that absolutes cannot allow a single exception (robbing one bank disallows anyone from being a non-bank-robber). Any exception, and multiple ones have been presented, disproves an absolute statement. Dan Watts 13:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The article in correct in stating that in their positions as 'creation scientists', they do no research. In their position as a scientist, they may still do. That isn't relevant though. Would you prefer "Creation scientists are not involved in laboratory or field research concerning creation science"? That seems redundant. -- Ec5618 13:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So, if a 'creation scientist' sets up an apparatus to, for example, investigate the possible rates of calcium carbonate deposition, employed tap water plus carbon dioxide; tap water plus carbon dioxide plus 5% sodium chloride; and tap water plus carbon dioxide plus 1% acetic acid, measured the rates of input, conditions (temp,pressure,etc.), and measured the resultant, (see: Williams, Herdklotz, Mulfinger, Jonsonbaugh, and Pierce (CRSQ 1976, pp. 211-2)) this could definitely be described as not research? Incredible! Dan Watts 14:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Incredible indeed.

It'll become part of scientific literature only when published in a scientific journal. Until then, it may or may not be research, we really don't know.

And again, doing just enough to appear as science, because it 'fits a definition' is an underhanded, deceitful tactic. Your 'peer-reviewed' magazine isn't actually peer reviewed, and anyone familiar with science should know that. Your creation researchers are not publishing their 'scientific' findings, and they don't even try because they know their findings will never pass actual peer review. It's pathetic, and it's just enough to convince a few people. I'm surprised at you. -- Ec5618 14:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wether it is is the litereture or not it is still scientific reseach and still proves the statement wrong.72.185.255.105 15:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You "really don't know" if it is research or not. Why not say that? It is much closer to the truth than what is stated now.Judging intentions instead of results, rejecting plain language You refuse to allow referenced information into the article. I will not discuss this further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdanwatts (talk • contribs) 09:12, May 25, 2007 (UTC)

<Reduce Indent> I do not know how to make this more simple, because it is simple. Back to the radiohalos. I don't care what you've done, it isn't published, it hasn't been peer-reviewed, and it is not in a SUBSTANTIAL journal of science, of which there are thousands in geology alone. Science requires the scientific method which, if you utilize G_d anywhere, cannot by definition be science, because YOU, not me, but YOU cannot accept a false hypothesis that your results will disprove the existence of G_d. Since my science does not require the existence of G_d, I don't worry if a supernatural being is proven or unproven, because it is simply not part of my equation (with respect to science or Evolution). Your research does not exist, because it is not published in a manner that has other eyes, smarter than mine, determine the viability of the experiment, the results, or even the hypothesis. By the way, evolutionist is not a word to describe me or my fellow scientists. We do not accept Evolution on faith, we accept the fact of Evolution because of the wealth of science behind it. Your Creationism requires blind faith in a supernatural being. Science explains the natural world without a supernatural being, whether it is a Judeo-Christian G_d or a little green aliens from Gamma Doofus. So, try as you might, your "experiments" are cute, but they aren't science. Orangemarlin 17:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong you can find evidence for God and you can possibly prove at least certen aspects of him wrong. Anyway, it has nothing to do with creation science because the main aspect of creation science doesn't really have to have a God in it. Just a creater.72.185.255.105 15:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, God hates reasoning, common sense, good grammar and spelling. Praise Jesus! --Filll 15:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OM brings up a point that most hyper-religious types merely cannot or will not understand: Science does not give a damn whether a god or gods exist or don't exist, the existence or lack thereof of deities never enters into the equation. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What about saying "With the exception of a few papers in the 1970's, creation scientists do not publish their work in the scientific literature: instead their efforts to prove that the bible is literally true are reproduced in specialized periodicals published by religious organizations." TimVickers 13:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Suppose I proclaim that "UFOs Today" is a scientific journal. Imagine that the only requirement for publishing in "UFOs Today" is that contributors must sign a statement that UFOs exist and that they personally have been abducted by aliens and sexually abused in alien spacecraft travelling to the Dingleberry System around Uranus. Would Wikipedia be required to recognize the articles in UFOs Today as genuine science? This is ludicrous in the extreme. This issue has been addressed by the courts over and over for decades, and it has ALWAYS been decided that "creation science" and similar fantasies are NOT science. Are all these lawyers and judges and courts and scientists at secular insitutitions just doing the devil's work? Are they all insane? Are they all stupid? Are they all possessed by demons? This sort of stuff does not belong here on Wikipedia. Sorry.--Filll 14:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the lawyers and judges bear the mark of the beast. Sigh...

Anybody can publish papers -- there are lunatic fringe publications/magazines for virtually every possible topic. Hell, I could write a paper "proving" that my dog is actually an alien and get it published in some rag. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Jim, someone already made a movie about a dog that was an alien. Seriously though, if your dog really is an alien, you can buy a shirt. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

New lead version

The lead was too long. I have condensed it and tried to retain the original balance. The two long quotes from the National Academy have been removed but these two references retained in the first paragraph. TimVickers 15:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Massive probelms. The findings of fact of Edwards v. Aguilard and McLean v. Arkansas were both that Creation Science is not science and the lead must reflect that among other problems. JoshuaZ 21:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Josh here; condensing the lead does not meaning removing important information. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The LEAD still reads sort of awkwardly.--Filll 22:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Added that ruling back, I think you are right, that should be the last paragraph of the lead. The new version contains this material and is down to 1/2 a page from the full page of the previous version. TimVickers 23:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

And to think that I thought Tim was just an expert on Evolution. Now if I only can get you back on that Biology article! Thanks for cleaning up that.....hmmmmm....paragraph.Orangemarlin 05:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, a regional biology journal published an article by an advocate of intelligent design a few years ago, and that this was the only article in a refereed publication espousing any aspect of creationism. What articles were published in the 1970s?JStripes 17:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a ref for the one cited above. However, the other one mentioned in the discussion Natural Selection versus Gene Uniqueness isn't related to creation science at all. Instead it is an early contribution to the discussion of fitness landscapes and is now cited in papers on evolutionary biology such as Link. TimVickers 19:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Natural Selection versus Gene Uniqueness is creation science. It is part of the research leading up to the calculations in his book "NOT BY CHANCE!" Also, Gentry alone published more than "a single paper in the 1970s".¹EMSPhydeaux 04:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Tim, I think your statement which said "Creation scientists do not typically publish in mainstream scientific journals and their work is instead reproduced in specialized periodicals published by religious organizations." is the most balanced and unquestionable. Why not use that?EMSPhydeaux 05:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Spetner wrote one peer-reviewed paper which used a very basic model which (IIRC he acknowledged in the paper was very basic) in 1970 and nothing similar has occured since then. Nor for that matter is that paper even creationist, if anything it shows how a highly naive model of protein evolution fails. Since molecular evolution was a new thing in the 70s this mattered then. The notion that there is anything really creationist in that paper other than creationists say so is simply not the case. In any event, we don't need to make a massive change in wording due to one paper from over 30 years ago. However, I don't object too much to EMS's proposed wording and it seems like a reasonable statement of the situation. JoshuaZ 05:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Spetner has written more than just one peer-reviewed paper on evolution (there are 4 references in his book). What really makes a peer-reviewed paper creation science? Creation science is data viewed as to support the idea that the universe was created. In relation, evolution science is data viewed as to support the idea that all life evolved from a single cell. When you add the name of an idea in front of the word science it is then science from that point of view. One does not say this fact is not science. Instead one says that this fact does not support the idea that the universe was created and there for it must not be creation science. Understand where I'm going with this? As to the one paper by Gentry... I already gave a link that gave many more peer-review papers by Gentry. So, check them out first.EMSPhydeaux 06:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The 1970 reference by Spetner is a letter, not a peer-reviewed article. It even says as much at the top of the page you linked. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Adam, In this context a "Letter" is a short peer-reviewed paper. EMS, almost none of the papers you've given claim anywhere in them to be somehow supporting creation science. Anyways, I'm ok with the current wording. JoshuaZ 18:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I never used those exact words. Anyway, even letters must be reviewed. EMSPhydeaux 16:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus wording put in page. TimVickers 17:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Why (other than WP:POV) should "Creation science ... with supposedly scientific evidence ...." be better/(more accurate) than "Creation science ... with physical evidence ...."? Dan Watts 19:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we've had this discussion before. Creation science is not science. Orangemarlin 19:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Denigrating the evidence used as supposedly scientific totally ignores the physical basis of the evidence. The description of the evidence used is the subject of this discussion and the object of a preposition in the article's sentence. Dan Watts 21:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

How on earth is "creation science" science? For example:

• no real science starts from an assumption and works backward
• no real science uses a man-made ancient text as a science manual
• miracles are not part of science
• the instant you talk about the supernatural, you are not using science. The supernatural is not part of science by the definition of any respectable authority anywhere on planet earth.
• magic is not part of science
• real science is falsifiable. Creation science is not.
• creation science is not published in peer-reviewed respectable journals, only in creationist rags
• real science changes as new evidence appears; it is not stuck on some story that is 2 or 3 or 5 thousand years old that never changes
• in real science, the theory is changed to fit the facts, not the other way around as is done in creation science
• real sciences are debated and settled in the scientific arena and are not subject to the dictates of religious leaders

This is just a small sample.--Filll 21:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If you will discuss the difference between supposedly scientific and physical, I will continue. That was what I was discussing at this time. Changing the subject does little to advance the discussion. Dan Watts 02:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh?--Filll 04:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Physical evidence is wrong: For instance, take the first abstract at [3]. This is a fairly typical Baraminology study, though perhaps a bit more honest than most: the last two sentences actually admit to throwing out data that didn't fit their preferred result. Is this physical evidence? No. Is it scientific? No, but it's claimed to be. Hence, supposedly scientific seems best. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Physical evidence is physical evidence: SEM data, Arizona rim gravels, dinosaur nests, the Tavrick formation, stratigraphy of Americus, Ga. How many references are needed? Dan Watts 23:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

But that's a subset of the evidence used... Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

So "physical and seemingly scientific" would be a more accurate descriptor. Dan Watts 15:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What about the faked dinosaur and man tracks that still get brought up? Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Are all such occurrences the Pauluxy tracks? Are all Pauluxy tracks faked? Is any of the global warming information faked/slanted? Dan Watts 16:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[reset indent] In any case, the main point is that there's no unambiguous physical evidence for creation science, and little physical evidence is used: it's mostly theoretical work. Perhaps we should just leave any discussion of evidence out, and just mention the newly-proposed processes? Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Type of creationist

Are all creation scientists Young Earth Creationists, or are there some Old Earth Creationists or other variants?--Filll 11:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Creation science is inexorably tied with Flood geology, which is a decidedly YEC idea. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, good point.--Filll 12:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Depends.. in 1984 Dean H. Kenyon's affidavit for what became Edwards v. Aguillard says "Creation-science does not include as essential parts the concepts of catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life, from nothingness (ex nihilo), the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts." – though of course that doesn't exclude YECs. Didn't do so well in court, so they changed the name to ID...... 16:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there actually an example of a self-described creation scientist that doesn't use at least some of those? Eh, well, that's an excellent quote for the history section. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hugh_Ross_(creationist) is what I would call an Old-Earth creation scientist, although I don't know if he uses that exact term himself. ^rossnixon 02:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Are there creation scientists?

I don't believe removing "creation scientist" from the paper is helpful. I understand that believers in evolution science probably don't believe in creation scientist but the evidence speaks other wise. If a creationist puts research in the journal of Science how could you suppose he is not a scientist? Just because you don't agree with him does not remove his title as a scientist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EMSPhydeaux (talk • contribs) 00:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Have a look through: Talk:Flood geology#Scientists. The gist of the discussion was, that since, whatever else their qualifications, the term "creation scientist" should be avoided, since it would force us to add a qualifier like "mainstream" or "real" to scientists, and give undue weight to creationists who don't actually do any science, at least not in support of their creationism. ornis 00:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Before we get into an edit war here, I think that we should discuss this point here. Rossnixon insists that a Creation scientist has the right to call himself whatever he wants. I and ornis strongly disagree with the self-description. A scientist is someone who utilizes the scientific method in their research, publishes the results of that research in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and who utilizes both to further the knowledge of a scientific field. Creation scientists (using the term here just to further the discussion) do none of those things. There has been other discussions on the topic, especially in Talk:Flood geology. I accept Creation science as a term, because it establishes what they try to do. However, none of those individuals who make up the field can be called scientists. Orangemarlin 03:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If you guys would read over "creationist don't do their own research?" you would realize that you are bringing up the same false arguments that where shown to be wrong there. Creationist do use the scientific method. Oh and sorry for not signing before. EMSPhydeaux 14:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Here are some ways in which creationists do not use the scientific method:

• start with an answer instead of a question
• introduce magic/the supernatural etc into their reasoning
• reject or avoid the evidence produced by the rest of the scientific community
• unable to produce convincing arguments for the rest of the scientific community
• lack of knowledge of many of the fields they speculate in
• want to avoid the regular scientific process and go directly to the schools with their arguments
• insistence on biblical literalism when they do not understand the problems with the bible, its inconsistencies, etc
• will never accept that an argument has failed

The US federal court system has considered this question over and over, including the US Supreme Court. The final decision has ALWAYS been that creationism/creation science/intelligent design is NOT science and that these disciplines do NOT use the scientific method. You want to dispute the court decisions? After failing 10+ times? Be my guest. But until you are successful in changing the definition of science, WE will not rewrite the articles in WP to reflect this. --Filll 14:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I started with a reference so I suppose you must be talking about content in "creationist don't do their own research?".

• In order to have an answer there must be a question so I don't know what you are talking about.
• Just because we don't understand exactly how does not make it magic.
• Rejecting evidence is ok as long as you are rejecting because you believe the interpretation is incorrect. This is why creationist reject the evidence.
• The fact that most scientist do not agree with them does not make them wrong nor unscientific.
• How could I ever prove to you that they do not have "Lack of knowledge?"
• Scientific processes have nothing to do with a school, and a school has nothing to do with the scientific method.
• How could I ever prove that to you that they do "understand the problems with the bible?"
• They do. Ever seen "Arguments Creationists Should Not Use?"

This isn't even about wether Creation Science is science. The question is "are there creation scientists?"EMSPhydeaux 15:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's go through these point by point:

• For example, if you START by assuming that Noah's Ark was a real vessel and the Noah's Ark story was a literal historical event, then you have started with an answer, not a question. This is NOT the scientific method. It is nonsense.
• Just claiming that "God Did It" is not science. It is magic.
• You are never allowed to reject evidence in science. Never. Sorry.
• In science, no theory is ever 100% accepted. However, a theory that is accepted by 99.9% of scientists is a standard accepted theory. A person who rejects such a theory is basically not doing science, unless they can convince others of their position.
• I have read creationist papers on creation science subjects. They are so bad, and the creationists are so ignorant that it is laughable. They would not pass a freshman class in the subject in college. They are a joke. It is so bad to be embarassing.
• It is quite true that the school has nothing to do with the scientific method. However, creation scientists often focus on grade school textbooks and classes. This proves that they are not doing science.
• Anyone who claims the bible is literally true knows nothing of science and is doing bad theology. This is well understood in both scientific and religious communities. They are doing nonsense, or worse.
• Of course I have seen lists of "Arguments Creationists should not use". Unfortunately, most creationists never seem to learn, and continue to make these same arguments over and over and over and over, making themselves look ridiculous. And the arguments that AiG approves are still just as ludicrous as the ones they suggest should not be used.
• My position is that creation scientists call themselves that to try to get some authority, but they do not do science.

Do you not have any answer for why the courts have ruled that creation scientists do not do science?--Filll 15:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the key thing that you are saying here is that creationist do not have any evidence there for they are not scientist. If you believed that they had real evidence for the flood then you would not have claimed they where not doing real science am I right? Tell me, are you rejecting the evidence that is in the Bible and many other stories (for one example)? Regardless of wether you believe their evidence really supports the idea of the flood or not they are still scientist. Science is not what ever is believed to be fact by you. Continuing on, I did not mean that you could reject the evidence it's self. I realize the evidence is there, and so does every other creationist. I instead reject the "interpretation" of the evidence. Which you your self do when you suppose the evidence is not literal.

P.S. Do you have a link where I could read about the specific time you are citing that the courts said this?. EMSPhydeaux 20:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It is clever of you to avoid ALL the points I made and make up your own point in response. Is it just too hard to answer my points? There are HUGE amounts of copious evidence these people are not scientists. The National Academy of Sciences disagrees. The American Association for the Advancement of Science disagrees. Hundreds of other science societies disagree. Over 99.9% of biologists disagree (see level of support for evolution, for example). I am not rejecting the evidence from the bible or evidence of Noah's flood. I am saying that this evidence does not exist, and I am not the only person who believes this. In fact, in science, I am in the vast majority. Science is not what is believed by one person, but by the science community at that time. The pat statement that creationists do not reject the evidence, but only the interpretation of the evidence, basically is silly. It means that the dominant scientific theories that make good predictions, that is, the real science, are rejected. The courts have said over and over that creationism/creation science/intelligent design are not science. For example, look at

• 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas, United States Supreme Court
• 1981 Segraves v. State of California, Supreme Court of California
• 1982 McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, U.S. Federal Court
• 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard, United States Supreme Court
• 1990 Webster v. New Lennox School District, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
• 1994 Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
• 1997 Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
• 2000 Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al., District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota
• 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, US Federal Court
• 2006 Hurst v. Newman US District Court Eastern District of California

These will get you started but there are many others. In law, there are a set of rules to distinguish between science and pseudoscience, and creation science/creationism/intelligent design has always failed those. --Filll 21:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not reply to points you made one by one because none of the are evidence for your position, and I can therefor respond to them all in the same way. Why respond to them one by one if I am just going to say the same thing about them all? I believe we are going about it all wrong. You are trying to prove that none agrees with creation science. What I think needs to happen is I need to show an example of a creation scientist doing science and you can then show how it was not "an expert in at least one area of science who uses the scientific method to do research" ( Scientist ) in support of "creation science". Agreed?EMSPhydeaux 01:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is, basically by definition, creation scientists do not do science when doing creation science because creation science is not science. I can go on at great length, but I have tried many times now, and I can see this is pointless.--Filll 02:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I can also see that we may never agree. No need to continue because "creationists" has been agreed on.EMSPhydeaux 12:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I also note that there is an Old Earth Creationist site called Answers in Creation that disputes most of the "creation research" that has appeared, including the RATE project. They do not do real science, either, however.--Filll 21:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously they were liberal, activist judges. I mean, like duh.  ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs) 10:03, June 18, 2007 (UTC)

EMSPhydeaux, the point of all of these discussion are simply this: Can you falsify your position, meaning would you accept the alternative position that no alternative being had anything to do with anything, specifically evolution. Until you can accept that your hypothesis can be proven false, then we aren't getting anywhere. You see, my life won't come to an end if Evolution by natural selection and genetic drift is show to be wrong (for example, science shows that Evolution is controlled by Aliens from Gamma doofus). Then I'll get to read all the great science articles after that point. Creationists, on the other hand, do not accept the alternative, that Evolution is merely a natural science uncontrolled by anything or anyone. Orangemarlin 18:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course I cannot disprove that someone, somewhere did something. This is why we are more specific in our theories of how earth got here, and I think we are a lot more specific.EMSPhydeaux 20:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not the bloody point, and you know it. Besides, most myths are very specific, that hardly makes them true. See my post below. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't understand your point fully until now. I would say that wether or not creationists accept the alternative as a possibility doesn't really matter as long as they give way for the evidence in support of their theory to be rebutted. Wouldn't you say that is true? Although they may never decide that the flood never happened at least they will not claim that evidence in support of their position has not be rebutted without giving a rebuttal in response first.EMSPhydeaux 01:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well there are many other problems with creationism/creation science, some of which we have noted here. However, creation scientists refuse to allow their hypotheses to rebutted, and always have, for well over 150 years. This is not science.--Filll 02:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to sign? Mea culpa.

Of course, the bigger point is that creationism requires a supernatural being as a causative agent. Said agent, being supernatural, is neither provable nor disprovable, hence any allegedly scientific theories derived from creationism are not falsifiable. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Jim62sch's points. You can be as specific as you like, but that does not make your theories "right". This is particularly true when you have no evidence for your theories, and there is plenty of evidence against your theories. Also, you are again avoiding the main issue; that creation science is not falsifiable, since it is never admitted to be false, by definition.--Filll 21:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Filll, I think you'll find that the courts have found that "Creation Science" is not science. They have not found that "creation scientists do not do science". Sometimes they do science (e.g. The RATE Project) and sometimes they do pseudoscience (e.g. gathering evidence for something that is not repeatable in a laboratory). ^rossnixon 02:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid this is splitting hairs. Show me a serious scientific reference that demonstrates that the RATE project is science. What I know of it, is that it not science. For one thing, they start with an answer, not a question.--Filll 05:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh... look regardless of what real science a creationist might otherwise do, when he starts ignoring physical evidence and declares the earth no older than 10,000 years at the most, or throws up his hands and says: "well I can't imagine how this might have emerged naturally, I guess god must have done it." then he's not doing so as a scientist, he's doing it as creationist. Hell, he might for instance be an excellent chemist, do good work, be highly respected in his field, and in a chemistry article touching on his work, he'd be described as a scientist. This article though, is solely concerned with the "work" they do as creationists. ornis 05:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Now Ornis, read this from the Institute for Creation Reasearch, how can you say it's not science?  ;)

There's exciting new scientific evidence which supports the Biblical teaching of a young earth. Scientists associated with the Institute for Creation Research have finished an eight-year research project.

For over a hundred years, evolutionists have insisted that the earth is billions of years old, and have arrogantly dismissed any views contrary to this belief. However, a team of seven creation scientists have discovered incredible physical evidence that supports what the Bible says about the young age of the earth.

This scientific research project is called RATE, which stands for Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth.

Geez, they even have all sorts of neat papers you can look at, with lots of big, important-sounding terms, and all that stuff. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Jim, you're the expert – does "incredible physical evidence" mean evidence without credibility, or unbelievable evidence? . . dave souza, talk 17:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I suppose these great scientists are merely using the vernacular and using "incredible" as "unbelievably awesome", but I see it as "not credible". Of course, the "physical evidence" part does baffle me -- if one is really doing science, what other kind of evidence can there be? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure enough, I found Answers in Creation which is an Old Earth Creationism site, and has written quite a bit of negative stuff about the RATE project. It is hilarious when creationists end up attacking each other. However, the problem with RATE and similar ideas is that they only end up standing on their heads to explain one type of dating, like radioactive dating. What about layers of ice in Greenland? Mud at the bottom of the ocean? Magnetic stripes on the ocean bottom? Tree rings? All of these and other dating methods are consistent with the radioactive dating methods. Of course creationists can invent all kinds of crazy reasons that explain all this, but it is not science.--Filll 18:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of like Stalin and Mao arguing who was the better Communist.

Anyway, I'd love to see the mechanism that changes decay rates explained -- that should be a doozy. Of course, depending on how you play with relativity acceleration could change the decay rate (see the time slowing down proof re satellites bearing atomic clocks), but since the earth moved faster billions of years ago, the rate would actually be slower. Hmmm, a bit of a problem, there. Oh wait, that's only in the scientific view that the Earth moved faster, I keep forgetting our planet is only 10K years old. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

<r-indent> Amusing as this is, I fear we've wandered a little off-topic. Would it be safe to assume that objections of EMSPhydeaux and rossnixon notwithstanding, we agree, "creation scientists" should be described as creationists to avoid ambiguities? ornis 19:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we have, and yes, I agree with using "creationists" &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that using "creationists" would be better than "believers in creation science".EMSPhydeaux 20:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer reviewed creationism

Has anyone, other than creationists, read [this link? It lists out the supposed peer-reviewed science done by Creationists. Most of it is the debunked halo stuff, and the only reference that is recent was published in a Creationist journal. Some of the references are to a Los Alamos journal that is interestingly no longer available for review, probably because they pulled it. More than that, it is an internal newsletter that is not peer-reviewed. How did we let this scruff in here? Unless someone convinces me, I'm deleting it, because it's violates so many NPOV ideals, including undue weight. Orangemarlin 23:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I read some of it and also a rebuttal here. It appears that the excitement over Polonium halos is mostly the product of one man, named Gentry, at a fundamentalist college (Columbia Union College) in Takoma, Maryland. When you read the review paper, it becomes clear that almost nothing about Polonium Haloes is reasonable or reproducible, or likely to tbe true. The results are contradicted by literally hundreds of lines of evidence, if not thousands.--Filll 23:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I'm cutting the sentence and reference. I need to review the references herein more carefully. Orangemarlin 00:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually it has not been debunked. Just because some random guy puts up a rebuttal online does not mean has been debunked. Gentry has put a challenge out on his website for this guy to publish a rebuttal in a peer-reviewed journal and he has yet to do so. Secondly, wether or not it is rebutted it still does not change the fact that it was published in a peer-reviewed journal. So please put the line back in.EMSPhydeaux 00:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I also read the article in EOS Forum, which is not much of a journal. It basically consisted of Gentry desperately trying to save hypothesis from a blindly harsh attack. The problem with creationists and creation scientists etc, it is impossible by definition to disprove anything they write, which is just proof that it is pure nonsense and not science.--Filll 00:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to disprove this fact of radios. I don't know why you would think other wise considering the fact that you think it was debunked.EMSPhydeaux 01:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Are those AM or FM radios? Digital? Clearly from what you have written here and above, you have no idea what you are writing. I think you might find it meritorious to edit some other article since you do not seem to have the technical or linguistic understanding to edit this one. Thanks.--Filll 01:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I will explain further. You say that "it is impossible by definition to disprove anything they [creationist] write". I point out that you are contradicting your self because you [agreed] that "Most of it is the debunked halo stuff". This means not only that you believe that you can disprove creationist's writing you also believe it has been disproved! One other thing I saw is that you look at examples of papers not peer-reviewed to prove your point instead of the examples of the peer-reviewed stuff. You have not cited one peer-reviewed journal. I find this amazing considering how much the evolutionist are winning by!EMSPhydeaux 01:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

So, regardless to the above off topic stuff about wether creationist's writing can be disproved. Can we agree that halos are not officially debunked at least until this guy publishes his work in a real scientific paper? We can at least agree that it doesn't matter if halos are debunked or not because they where still published in scientific papers right?EMSPhydeaux 02:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No. This stuff has been debunked over and over in peer-reviewed published journals. Sorry.--Filll 02:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Example?EMSPhydeaux 11:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Lord. This is not rocket science. Please use your research skills to do some investigation:

• Geology of Gentry's "Tiny Mystery", J. Richard Wakefield, Journal of Geological Education, May 1988.
• Collins, Lorence G., 1997, "Polonium Halos and Myrmekite in Pegmatite and Granite," , 9 pgs.
• EXAMINING RADIOHALOS, R. H. Brown, H. G. Coffin, L. J. Gibson, A. A. Roth, and C. L. Webster, Origins 15(1):32-38 (1988).
• Schnier,C (August 2002). "Indications for the existence of superheavy elements in radioactive halos". Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 253: 209-216.
• S.R. Hashemi-Nezhad, J.H. Fremlin, and S.A. Durrani (October 1979). "Polonium Haloes in Mica". Nature 278: 333-335.

I am sure a little more investigation would lead to many many more of these types of references including rebuttals. This is like trying to convince someone that the earth is round when they refuse to believe it.--Filll 19:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The Earth is round?????? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

'Course it is, Jim – haven't you read Discworld? Now where did those turtles get to? ... dave souza, talk 21:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I though thought was elephants. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Geology of Gentry's "Tiny Mystery", J. Richard Wakefield, Journal of Geological Education, May 1988.

Gentry has rebutted this here.

• Collins, Lorence G., 1997, "Polonium Halos and Myrmekite in Pegmatite and Granite," , 9 pgs.

Peer-reviewed journal?

• EXAMINING RADIOHALOS, R. H. Brown, H. G. Coffin, L. J. Gibson, A. A. Roth, and C. L. Webster, Origins 15(1):32-38 (1988).

This is a review of his book. It doesn't really seem to be much of a paper disproving Gentry's ideas.

• Schnier,C (August 2002). "Indications for the existence of superheavy elements in radioactive halos". Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 253: 209-216.

What does SHE have to do with polonium halos?

• S.R. Hashemi-Nezhad, J.H. Fremlin, and S.A. Durrani (October 1979). "Polonium Haloes in Mica". Nature 278: 333-335.

Rebutted here.

Anyway, you still need to explain how any of this disproves the fact that he published peer-reviewed papers.EMSPhydeaux 14:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Gentry published peer-reviewed papers. The dominant scientific verdict is that this was a blind alley and that his observations can be more easily explained another way. So what? It happens all the time. It is not worth getting upset about. Gentry's thesis is that the earth is 6000 years old and to bolster this claim he will disregard any evidence and twist any facts whatsoever to try to "explain" away the problems with his theory. To continue this dialogue is like having a conversation with a robot or someone who is brain damaged. There are literally thousands of other observations that have to be ignored to accept Gentry's hypothesis (such as tree ring data, ice core data, magnetic stripe data, coral ring data, other radioactive dating results, racemic acid dating data, etc). There is a reason that Gentry's work is not accepted science; it just is too flakey. It does not matter what references are given, or what facts are presented, since what Gentry is doing is NOT science, it will all be ignored or a way will be found to twist it into something else. This is exactly the demonstration that these sorts of beliefs are "not falsifiable". It has been proven here exactly why these sorts of beliefs are not treated seriously and people like Gentry are not a mainstream part of the scientific community. --Filll 15:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am starting to get the impression that EMSPhydeaux is being difficult on purpose and making us jump through hoops needlessly. If this is the case, this will not end in a pleasant way, as I am sure I do not have to remind anyone. This nit-picking and insistence that he be spoon-fed is ludicrous. The two rebuttals above are not peer-reviewed. The Collins article appeared in a peer-reviewed book:

• Hunt, C. W., Collins, L. G., and Skobelin, E. A., 1992, Expanding Geospheres, Energy And Mass Transfers From Earth’s Interior Calgary, Polar Publishing Company, pp. 128-140: "POLONIUM HALOS AND MYRMEKITE IN PEGMATITE AND GRANITE" by Lorence G. Collins February 3, 1997

SHE clearly has something to do with Polonium Haloes, as anyone can tell. If you cannot tell, locate and read the article. Here are some more peer-reviewed articles which dismiss Gentry's claims:

• Ellenberger, C.L., with reply by Gentry. R.V. 1984. "Polonium Halos Redux," Physics Today. December 1984. p. 91-92

• Osmon, P., 1986, "Gentry’s pleochroic halos: Creation/Evolution," Newsletter, Feser, Karl D., Editor, v. 6, no. 1, Concord College, Athens, West Virginia
• Schadewald, R., 1987. "Gentry’s tiny mystery, Creation/Evolution" Newsletter, Fezer, Karl D, Editor, v. 4, no. 2 & 3. Concord College. Athens. West Virginia, p 20.
• Wakefield, J. R., 1987-88, "Gentry’s Tiny Mystery - unsupported by geology," Creation/Evolution, v. 22, p. 13-33.
• Wakefield, J. R., 1988, "The geology of 'Gentry’s Tiny Mystery,'" Journal of Geological Education, v. 36, p. 161-175.
• Moazed, Cyrus; Richard M. Spector; Richard F. Ward, 1973, Polonium Radiohalos: An Alternate Interpretation, Science, Vol. 180, pp. 1272-1274.
• Odom, L.A., and Rink, W.J., 1989, "Giant Radiation-Induced Color Halos in Quartz: Solution to a Riddle," Science, v. 246, pp. 107-109.

Even the Old Earth Creationists at Answers in Creation and other places have come to the conclusion that Gentry is not doing real science and that this sort of stuff discredits Christianity. We could argue about this for years. You will not convince me if you cannot convince the rest of the scientific community. If you cannot convince the rest of the scientific community, then there is no chance that we will change the POV of these creationist articles. Sorry. You might as well try to argue that we should write Wikipedia as though the earth were flat.--Filll 15:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm making you "jump through hoops needlessly???" You are the one who has been creating the hoops. All that I ask is that you explain how the fact that evolutionist do not agree with Gentry shows that Gentry did not do scientific work. You have been ignoring this. I could easily and have before proven that all Gentry's theory is correct, but it would take up much of my time and much space. This would also be needless, because all you have to do is prove that Gentry's research was never published in a scientific journal, or why it doesn't count as a point in time when a creation scientist published in a peer-reviewed journal.EMSPhydeaux 16:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure you don't want to take up much of your time. That makes a lot of sense. Well then I guess you will not be mounting a legal challenge to get the US Supreme Court to reverse itself and declare that creationism/creation science/etc is science. When you do that, and are successful, then we can talk about rewriting this article. Until then, you know what is the right course of action, don't you?--Filll 16:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You still continue to ingnor me. "prove that Gentry's research was never published in a scientific journal, or why it doesn't count as a point in time when a creation scientist published in a peer-reviewed journal." I have a reason to ignor your none agrees with Gentry agrument. All we are saying is that creationists publish papers in peer-reviewed journals at times. This does not mean that everyone agrees with him. There are already parts which say that many people do not agree with creationists. What is your reason for ignoring my challenge?EMSPhydeaux 19:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed that creation scientists never published in peer-reviewed journals. I did note that creation science is not science, since it does not meet the standards that science itself requires, or the legal standards laid down by the courts for what is "science". Please do not continue this charade. You have ignored all the material you have no answer to that I presented. And as a result, you are not someone to be taken seriously.--19:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing the statement that they did seems to suggest that you are saying that they do not. If you are only discussing wether or not creation science is science, then why is the title "Peer reviewed creationism? I only ignore the stuff you have written about wether creation science is science so that we do not go off topic.EMSPhydeaux 20:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Suppose I found 20 or 50 or 100 peer-reviewed rebuttals of this nonsense. I am sure it would all be dismissed out of hand or explained away. Why am I so sure? Because this is what someone who is defending pseudoscience will do. This is why creation science is not falsifiable. This is why the courts in the US have ruled over and over and over that it is NOT science. Argue with the courts, not me.--Filll 16:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if it could be proved that this person published or did not publish in a peer-reviewed journal, what is the practical effect on the article? The status quo will remain; the problems of undue weight are still there. We're not suddenly going to say "creationists write in peer-reviewed journals" because one person may have done it. "Creationists publish papers in peer-reviewed journals at times" is an odd and tendentious statement to include in the article, if that's what EMS is asking for, or something like that. First of all, it's not a prevalent practice. The scientific community by and large shuns creationists, much like the historical community shuns Holocaust deniers. If someone is looking for a statement in this article that quasi-legitimizes creationist involvement in scientific publications, then he or she is after fool's gold.UberCryxic 20:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It was more than one person as you would find if you looked at the past discussion. I simply put one example on the paper, because that was all that was needed. The statement that was there before it was removed was "...in a few cases research by creation scientists has also been published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals." The reason we put that statement there was because before there was a different part that said creationist scientists did not do their own research. This is the reason for putting it in, because evolutionists tend to remove everything procreation science. It is also an important thing the place in the paper because it is a misconception that creationist do not publish in peer-reviewed journals. What is it with all this none agrees with creation science stuff? What difference does it make? None agreed that the world was round from the beginning. It is simply the result of censership.EMSPhydeaux 20:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That is what I say. Just because a creationist or creation scientist has published a peer-reviewed paper or two, it does not prove that they are doing science when they do creation science. As I have said over and over above, there are many reasons that creation science is not science. I am backed up by the US courts and all the major US science organizations. When creation scientists can address these objections, then they can be called scientists. Until then, they are pseudoscientists.--Filll 20:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You never defined "science" other than as something that has nothing to do with creation science. Anyway, the paper did not say that creation science is "science" because they publish in peer reviewed Journals.EMSPhydeaux 20:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What is this "procreation science"? Sounds interesting – do you know what experimental work has been carried out, and where it has been published? Is it available in plain brown wrappers? ... dave souza, talk 21:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

See this is why it need to be on the page. Oh and here is the example the removed.EMSPhydeaux 21:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Very plain and very brown.

EMS, do you even know what a radiohalo is? Do you even understand physics, rates of decay, half-lives, etc? I kind of doubt it given the way you've been prattling on here. Quick, without looking it up, define half-life. Ugh. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A half life is the time it takes for half of a given radio active substance to decay. A radio halo is caused by the radio active decay of an element in granite and in other substances such as coal. I know what I am talking about and again it doesn't even matter because it is still an example.EMSPhydeaux 21:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Very good. Next test, if an isotope of X has a halflife of ten years, and if there is a mass containing 1K atoms, how long will it take to decay?  ;)

Still an example of what? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If the statement removed was the one above, then I'm sure we can come up with some reasonable solution. Instead of trying to establish generalities, which will mire us in conflict perpetually, let's just highlight the specific and notable cases where creationists have had their work published in peer-reviewed journals. So in the section on halos, we could have something like: "Although some of Gentry's research has been published in peer-reviewed journals, the majority of the scientific community disagrees with his conclusions" and so and so forth. Where relevant/notable, and where the articles can actually be documented - creationists have an unfortunate history of fabricating a lot of the material they claim to cite or to have been cited in - I prefer this model. So if we know for certain that Gentry published material in those sources, and if that material is relevant to creation science, then I think we should make the above compromise. This kind of statement, "it is a misconception that creationist do not publish in peer-reviewed journals," is what I'm worried about. A few cases do not establish sociological notability within scientific fields. The fact is that, in the field of biology, creationist science is not even a minority; it's virtually not recognized and is considered something that a serious person should not bother with. Its strengths are mainly political and financial, not scientific, and I'm worried you may be trying to establish the latter.UberCryxic 21:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

We're back to the old conundrum, if a creationist publishes in a peer reviewed journal research which makes no creationist claims, is this a creationist publication? Gentry seems to be a case: from this FAQ –

The fact that Gentry has published in Nature, Science and Medical Opinion and Review leads one to believe that there is a fair amount of support for his work, but Gentry avoids making direct creationist statements in these works -- it seems he is only cautiously trying to link the rocks of the Precambrian to the rocks that existed right after the Earth's formation - or creation. His book, however, leaves no doubt on his position:

"Were tiny polonium halos God's fingerprints in Earth's primordial rocks? Could it be that the Precambrian granites were the Genesis rocks of our planet?" [1, p. 32]1.....

Gentry's case rests heavily on a "God-of-the-gaps" approach to the halos; that is, it requires that there be no acceptable naturalistic explanation for the halos. Once such an explanation is found, Gentry's case crumbles.

A more recent FAQ briefly notes the geological errors undermining Gentry's argument – which was presented in his book, and not in his peer reviewed articles. .. dave souza, talk 22:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not the God of the gaps theory. It was first predicted that the earth was created quickly. This is evidence in that theory's favor. The God of the gaps would be saying why is that there oh God must have done it. That is not the case.EMSPhydeaux 01:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand what the problem is here. What does EMSP want, besides to yank our chains? What does he want to prove? How does he want to reword the article? I am confused...--Filll 23:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want you to reword it. I want you undo what you have already reworded based upon false logic. Incase you don't remember, you removed this:

"...in a few cases research by creation scientists has also been published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals.EMSPhydeaux 01:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

He simply "making us jump through hoops needlessly", as a wise editor once noted. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

All I want is to bring some neutrality into the paper. When you only put in evolutionist views you are not being neutral. What you guys are saying is that you don't want to give creation science any thing that might make it look like it has any place in the real world of science. This is not neutral. Putting this in here is of need as I have already pointed out because it is information which most people do not realize. The purpose of this page is to give people a better understanding of creation science if I am not mistaken.EMSPhydeaux 01:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Creationism does not have anything to contribute to the "real world of science." A Wikipedia article on the topic will reflect that (the dominant views on the subject, which are what I mentioned). Fringe and crackpot theories, and those who advocate them, have a tendency to be deceptive, so we are just making sure that this article does not lose its quality by being flooded with irrelevant or incorrect information.UberCryxic 04:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspected what souza wrote above: if Gentry was included in these publications, it was most likely because he attempted to make quasi-worthy scientific points, not because he was pushing a specific version of Earth's creation through his scientific research. If that's the case, the article is fine as it is now and we need no longer worry about this specific issue.UberCryxic 23:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

<edit cornflic> IMO it's clearly a demand that NPOV: Undue weight be given to the occasional instance, such as Gentry and Behe, where a creationist publishes, in a mainstream journal, research which makes no mention or inference about creationism – then publishes creationist arguments in books without peer review. One is sore tempted to give advice on procreation and travel. ... dave souza, talk 23:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a good question. Is it creation science if it does not mention creation in the paper? What makes anything creation science in the first place? Creation science is science that is interpreted support creation. Do creationist interpret polonium halos to support creation? Yes. I'm not sure if you could say that creation science is a tiny-minority view because large amount of americans are on that side. Sure, most scientists may not support creation science but these scientist may actually be the minority as compared to the world.EMSPhydeaux 01:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I would just drop it now, but I can see, in a couple months, "normally" evolving into only. This is another reason why I feel it is important that the example of peer reviewed work is there. So that I will not have to come back and prove again that they do publish in peer reviewed journals :) .EMSPhydeaux 01:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you're talking about "as compared to the world," you're definitely making a bad point. The only place where creationism has a strong footing is in the US. In most of the rest of the world, evolution reigns supreme, both with official institutions and public attitudes. Actually, thank you for making this point. Wikipedia articles generally should be written with a global perspective in mind. This eliminates the problem you raised; we can now say confidently that, around the world, this is a minority view and is rightly being treated as such in this encyclopedia.UberCryxic 04:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure about that. There is a large amount creationist in Turkey and I'm sure in many other islamic countries in the world. Is there really a poll that shows world opinion anyway?EMSPhydeaux 06:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned "most of the world," not all of it. You don't need a poll regarding global opinion on this; evolution is taught as true in the vast majority of all countries. Pakistan is one of the few nations that does not teach evolution at the university level. And as has been mentioned before, global scientific opinion on evolution is decisively anti-creationist. Point being: it's not a stretch to claim that evolution has the upper hand worldwide, just sociologically speaking (leaving out claims to truth and so on). Creationists can masquerade behind the name of science here in the US because of funds and political support that exists virtually nowhere else. There is strong support for creationist-like tendencies in the Muslim world, yes, but there is not the same level of scientific research by those declared creationists because of the aforementioned reasons.UberCryxic 00:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy does not assess NPOV: Pseudoscience on the basis of a popularity contest amongst USians deprived of adequate education on the subject by almost a century of fundamentalist campaigning – see also NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". ... dave souza, talk 06:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's talk about how many scientist think creation science is pseudo science. If I am reading this right 45% of the worlds scientists in 1997 believed in some form of creation. 5% believed in 10,000 year age of the earth. Now, I'm sure the evolutionist probably think creation science is pseudo science but do the 40% of theistic evolutionists? You could probably argue that many theistic evolutionists believe in some form of creation science themselves. Does the huge majority of scientist believe creation science is pseudo science? I don't know if it is as clear as you guys try to make it.EMSPhydeaux 07:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

A remedial reading course might be a good thing. From your cite: That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14% However, the American public thinks very differently. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Read Kitzmiller and McLean v. Arkansas to educate yourself. .. dave souza, talk 10:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that People should start to write which country they are from as many diffrent places have other points of view ie american evoloutionist and creationist have had MANY theorys which in a worldly sense are all acurate--Wwjd333 22:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What does that have to do with how many scientist think creation science is pseudo science?EMSPhydeaux 18:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In a word, yes, the vast majority of scientists of all kinds think that creation science is pseudoscience, or worse. See level of support for evolution.--Filll 14:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok.. So your saying that you can ignore the poll I cited because polls from the 80s and from well know anti-creationist association disagree? How can you ignore the fact that a poll from 1997 that says 45% scientist believe that God created the world?EMSPhydeaux 18:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

First, it would only be 5% (theistic evolution deals with evolution itself as science, it merely posits a deity as a causative agent (whereas evolution proper implies no causative agent). Secondly, the poll is utterly useless as per the disclaimer: The "scientist" group would presumably (emphasis mine) include biologists and geologists. But it would also include persons with professional degrees in fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, chemical engineering, physics, etc. In other words, the opinion of a computer scientist has as much validity when discussing biology and geology as would the opinion of a dishwasher at Joe's Greasy Diner. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The page says that: "Scientists criticize creation science as a pseudoscience that does not conform to the scientific method since creation science does not attempt to propose or test any mechanisms by which creation could occur." If a theistic evolutionist where to say that creation science is pseudo science because of this reason they would be saying that their own theory is pseudo science considering the fact that theistic evolution has the same "problem" that this points out. Do they consider their own theory to be pseudo science? Chemistry and physics may not be a part evolution but it is a part of creation science, and we are looking at wether or not creation science is pseudo science according to scientist's opinions. We are not looking at evolution.EMSPhydeaux 20:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid my patience is running out here. I am a scientist. I am also a deist. I am a theistic evolutionist. I and every scientist I know, whether atheist or theist or agnostic, no matter what school of religious tradition they were brought up in or subscribe to, believes that creation science is pseudoscience. Every single one. I have never met a single scientist who believes otherwise. Never. The data support this observation, so it is not just my subjective experiences. Everything I wrote above supports this. Creation science is the purest hogwash and nonsense. There is no reason to treat it any more seriously than astrology or alchemy or ufology or any other pseudoscience. It fails test after test of a real science. It fails most of the rules of thumb that scientists themselves use to determine what is a real science. It fails several of the tests that the legal system uses to determine what is pseudoscience and what is real science. That is all we need. We are writing an encyclopedia here. This is not rocket science. It does not have to be that difficult. If you want to debate, go someplace else. If this continues down its current trajectory, I predict there will be negative consequences, so bear heed. Thanks for your kind attention. --Filll 20:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like dishwasherism. However, how can you ignore the point that EMSPhydeaux seems to be incapable of reading and understanding the articles he refers us to, let alone the articles we suggest for his edification and information. (substitute she or it if appropriate) Is that a whiff of troll under the bridge? ... dave souza, talk 19:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I am somewhat astounded but still trying to AGF. Let's review what the data say:

• A 1987 estimate is that among US biologists and geologists, the level of support for creationism was about 0.16%
• A 2006 NIH article estimated that the level of support for evolution among scientists was about 99.9%
• A 1991 US Gallup poll estimated that the level of support for creationism among all US scientists was about 5% (unfortunately, this figure includes many fields with no expertise in evolutionary biology).
• A 1997 US Gallup poll also estimated that the level of support for creationism among US scientists was about 5%
• The Darwin Dissenters that are biologists represent considerably less than 0.0157% of the biologists in the US at present.

By any examination, it is very clear that the number of US scientists that reject evolution and subscribe to some form of creationism is vanishingly small, particularly among those who actually know something about evolution. More strict definitions of biblical literalistic creationism would likely produce even smaller numbers. --Filll 19:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Trying to AGF in this case is like trying eat steak through a coffee stirrer. None of this is difficult, none of this requires ant more than the most rudimentary reading and cognitive ability, yet we keep going round the mulberry bush trying to sew the seeds of knowledge in a sterile desert. Chances are, Dave is correct: there's a troll under the bridge. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Since EMSP's argument rests on the idea that proponents of theistic evolution somehow believe in creation science, said user will no doubt refuse to believe that the plaintiffs opposing "creation science" at McLean v. Arkansas included the resident Arkansas Bishops of the United Methodist, Episcopal, Roman Catholic and African Methodist Episcopal Churches, the principal official of the Presbyterian Churches in Arkansas, other United Methodist, Southern Baptist and Presbyterian clergy, the American Jewish Congress, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, and the American Jewish Committee. ... dave souza, talk 20:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have is that the page is removing theistic evolutionist from the picture. They are important to logically figuring out (because none of them actually say they think creation science is pseudo science) wether or not creation science is pseudo science according to most scientist. The 99.9% number was in no way scientific.EMSPhydeaux 20:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

<undent> EMSP, you are starting to look at smell like a troll to me. There will be consequences if you do not behave in a more reasonable fashion. The 99.9% figure is published a peer-reviewed journal by an acknowledged expert in the field. It is consistent with the other figures we have. It does not have to be "scientific", only verifiable, which it is. We have no reason to doubt it give all that. We have multiple reasons to believe that creation science is pseudoscience. To start with, creation scientists will never acknowledge that they are wrong, since their beliefs are not falsifiable. Also, they include the introduction of magic into the explanatory process, which is against every principle of the scientific method. They fail to meet several other requirements for real science as well. Therefore, creation science IS PSEUDOSCIENCE. Case closed.--Filll 20:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe my patience is running out too. I am trying to follow the rules of wikipedia. What happened to no original research? "I and every scientist I know, whether atheist or theist or agnostic, no matter what school of religious tradition they were brought up in or subscribe to, believes that creation science is pseudoscience." You did not even directly discuss my points. If you would directly answer my questions maybe I wouldn't have a problem with the answers. This quote: "Also, they include the introduction of magic into the explanatory process, which is against every principle of the scientific method. They fail to meet several other requirements for real science as well. Therefore, creation science IS PSEUDOSCIENCE." There are two things that would make the name pseudo science a correct name according to wikipedia. "Generally considered pseudoscience" and obvious pseudoscience. The first is shown by the poll to be incorrect. Maybe it will help you to realize that "theistic evolutionist" in this poll includes old earth creation scientist which are part of the creation science. The second point I will get to if I am correct about the poll (this includes the talk about "magic").EMSPhydeaux 21:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt that theistic evolutionist, old earth creationist, and young earth creationist all disagree with one another but they are all creationists. Resting on the same problem that this paper points out. They all do "not attempt to propose or test any mechanisms by which creation could occur." Obviously they do not think of themselves as people who believe in pseudoscience. If you don't believe that theistic evolutionist believe this well look at the poll. The choice that they chose was "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation." So they must have believed that God created in some way, and the did not "propose or test any mechanisms". Maybe you are not in this group but the 40% are. Let me prove that theistic evolutionists in this poll includes old earth creationists (there are probably a lot more of them than there are young earth creation scientist). Here are the two choices side by side "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation." If you are an old earth creation scientist which one are you going to choose? If you look at a later poll (2006) without the age of the earth involved you will see that the amount of creationists increases by about 10%. Who knows what it would do to the scientist's poll. I am also going to point out that even the example of the time cube on wikipedia on undue weight tells that the theory has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.EMSPhydeaux 21:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As is becoming rapidly evident, it is not possible to answer any of EMSP's questions/comments. I have done my best.--Filll 21:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls

&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If you guys wish not discuss it any more I suppose I must drop it. I can see that we both will never agree on this topic. It seems to me that you have ignored everything I have said. The next time you bring up the old "it's pseudoscience argument" just remember that you ignored the attempt to disprove your bias.EMSPhydeaux 22:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't disprove anything. You proved that there is no science in creationism. So, I guess we should thank you. Orangemarlin 00:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said I disproved anything and, of course, I don't agree with your statement which was said without supporting evidence. If you actually want to talk about the evidence let me know.EMSPhydeaux 01:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should also clear things up a little bit because there seems to be some confusion. Your statement "You proved that there is no science in creationism" isn't relevant to the discussion at all because we where not talking about the "science in creationism." The reason why we are not discussing this is first because it doesn't have anything to do with peer-reviewed creationism, and second because something else was brought to my attention over and over again. This was the no undue weight. Let me explain why we started talking about that. I realized that anything I suggest as an improvement could possibly be rejected as undue weight if it seems to give creation science any credibility. So, I looked at wikipedia's undue weight and found that undue weight applied largely to unpopular views. So, I went to the polls and found that creation science is a popular view. So, instead they brought up NPOV: Pseudoscience. I saw that this was also based partly upon the opinion on the majority. So, now we are actually discussing wether or not the majority of scientist think creation science is pseudo science. Up until they decided I was a troll and that they should ignore me. Without pointing out a specific time in which I was trolling I might add.EMSPhydeaux 02:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Your fundamental basis for the above argument is sort of weak anyway. When you look at those US polls, less than half of all respondents believe in the literal creation story as highlighted in the Bible. If we assume those polls represent the country at large, then we are left with a (sizable) minority believing in the precepts of creationism, but not enough, it seems, to warrant changing this article in the way you want. You can call something a "popular view" because some poll has 45% of those surveyed agreeing with that view, but it obviously isn't a dominant view. Technically actually, again, if you firmly believe these polls accurately represent the country at large, it's a minority view.UberCryxic 00:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to look at the polls again. 55% believe that "God created humans in [their] present form". How can you claim that "it obviously isn't a dominant view" while the polls are staring you right in the face? If you really want to say that 45% is a minority then I guess we should start treating evolution as one (55-100=?). :) So that I don't look a like troll or whatever, I will point out that I am not really suggesting we treat evolution as a minority view. I am only showing the lack of consistency in his reasoning. My suggestion is that we treat creation science (which includes old earth creationism) as equal to evolution. Even though you may not believe that they are equal. This is what wikipedia does when two views are so hotly debated (basically 50% to 50%). Wikipedia takes the neutral point of view.EMSPhydeaux 05:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:

• NPOV: Pseudoscience
• NPOV: Undue weight
• NPOV: Making necessary assumptions
• NPOV: Giving "equal validity".

Contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. .. dave souza, talk 06:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

All of this is based upon the assumption that creation science is pseudoscience. As I pointed out not very far above one of the the requirements that you need to show before you claim creation science is pseudoscience according to wikipedia is that a great majority of scientists agrees with that statement, but my argument suggests that 45% of scientist could not believe creation science is pseudoscience. Try reading my argument again please. What is the big deal with giving creation science a chance anyway? It seems that many people here are overly worried about this.EMSPhydeaux 07:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

EMSP, I'm as strongly YEC as they come. Yet I agree that Creation Science contains pseudoscience due to the way science is currently defined. Science deals with what is observable and repeatable. Anything (including evolution) from 6000 years ago, is not observable and repeatable. These are both pseudoscientific parts of both worldviews. Both views make assumptions and extrapolations. ^rossnixon 09:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

For something to be science, it needs to be falsifiable. This is because science is the most rigorous form of intellectual inquiry we have discovered. Evolution is fully falsifiable, but "magic-man done it" is not. End of story. –Fatalis 09:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Even Popper admitted that much of evolution is not falsifiable. And as Ross says many studies including economics are not falsifiable and could be labeled as pseudoscience depending on one's definition of pseudoscience. There is no way we can run an experiment to show that mammals came from reptiles. Therefore one cans say that that assertion is pseudoscience. Of course we can always develop a definition that is very strict or very loose. Evolutionists use the strict one on ID and creation science and use the loose one on Darwinism and Evolution. The lack of honesty in the debate is astounding and embarassing. Octoplus 12:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

First, we need to distinguish between natural sciences and social sciences. The criteria for what is actual science will be similar, but much blurrier for the latter. Second, you need to understand that the strict requirements for a scientific theory is what f*cking makes science work. It is what distinguishes a scientific theory from plain conjecture. A scientific theory needs to have explanatory power, needs to have predictive power, needs to be falsifiable, and then it must be able to pass the peer-review process that is supposed to find errors in it. Does IDC or creation "science" have any of this? No, actually. They don't even have explanatory power, because their "explanations" themselves are in need of explanations. No predictive power, no peer-reviewed publications, and no supporting evidence (in the case of, say, YEC, there's actually an enormous amount of contradictory evidence). But does ToE have all that? Hell yeah! –Fatalis 18:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Creation science is the "attempt to find scientific evidence that would justify a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation." So, let me redefine the question in context. Is the "scientific evidence" used to support the idea that someone created pseudoscience? I think that we can agree that it is not pseudoscience.EMSPhydeaux 19:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're producing incoherent gibberish, but I'm pretty sure I don't agree with whatever you're proposing. Unless it's the status quo, Auntie. .. dave souza, talk 21:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep...I tried those sentences in English and the other twelve languages I can read and nothing registered.

Oh, BTW, for whomever it was who raised "Popper": his "theory" of falsifiability is not in itself falsifiable. Chaw on that for a while. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What don't you understand? The first sentence is a quote from the article we are discussing. If the sentence wasn't good english it wouldn't be in the article. The second sentence I have no idea how you couldn't understand. You do know what "redefine" and "context" means right? In third sentence I redefine the question. I do this because it seems that some people may be thinking to them selves "creationism is psuedoscience" while we are not talking about creationism at all. We are talking about creation science. So, basically, what I am trying to do is to make sure we all are talking about the same thing.EMSPhydeaux 03:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary nonsense break

"Even Popper"? Believe it or not, Popper was not the God of Science that he has been made out to be. His opinions are just that, opinions. Nothing more.

Economics is not a science, nor can it be, given that there are too many unpredictable human factors that effect the economy.

And no, we can't go diddling around with the definition of science, nor do scientists do so.

Darwinism is one of the most misuded terms I've ever run across. How are you using it? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 13:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

So you would also say that psychology is psuedoscience? There are a lot of unpredictable human factors there also. Evolution seems to be a very misused term also. How do you use it? Can you tell me how you feel Darwinism is misused? Octoplus 13:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You are invited to examine the scientific definitions of evolution. A good place to start might be the article here on Wikipedia. It always helps if you know what you are talking about. I have noticed that almost NO creationists even know what evolution is. Not one. Even most people who support intelligent design do not seem to know what evolution is. The term "Darwinism" is not really in current use by anyone except creationists and other fringe elements that do not believe in science. Even the use of words like "Darwinism" or "evolutionist" brand the user as a bit of a crank and pseudoscientist.--Filll 14:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Clinical psychology no, and you're conflating "unpredictable human factors" with psychological behaviours. "Unpredictable human factors" can iclude a wide range of things from reactions to natural disaster, to the starting of wars, to sudden shifts in foreign policy or domestic policy by any country,etc. Pop-psychology, (which in cludes most self-help crap) yes.

When you answer my question about Darwinism, I'll answer your other two. A question is not answered by asking another question. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 13:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

(moved) Then what criteria in your opinion differentiates science from pseudoscience? ID and creation science are usually crticized as pseudoscience because they supposedly do not meet Popper's criteria but now you are saying that his criteria is invalid. What is the valid criteria then? 13:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Popper is not the only person to define science, you know (but we digress). In any case, what was referred to was that Popper stated the evolution is not falsifiable -- that is his opinion. Capisce?

Furthermore -- there is much more than falsifiability that defines science, much more. Creationism fails on a number of levels aside from falsifiability: it also lacks consistency, violates the principle of parsimony, is not empirically testable, and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Creation science is the "attempt to find scientific evidence that would justify a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation." So, let me redefine the question in context. Is the "scientific evidence" used to support the idea that someone created pseudoscience? I am not saying someone because there are more views than just the biblical view alone.EMSPhydeaux 13:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Surely you misphrased something there. Or maybe you're just trolling again. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 13:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly Jim. Part of what makes this so difficult is that EMSP does not seem to be able to comprehend or use English very well. I have no idea what he just wrote.--Filll 13:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What EMS is talking about in the above has been discussed many times in the philosophy of science. It has been used as a refutation of Popper's theory. You just are not grasping the concepts here. Octoplus 21:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

First most of what I wrote was quoted so don't blame me. Second, I meant to put it in the above discussion. Sorry guys ;) feel free to delete it I'm moving it.EMSPhydeaux 19:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

<undent>We are not here to debate whether economics or psychology is a pseudoscience or not. And the criteria for whether something is a science or not does not include whether it is an experimental or an observational science, or data can be collected directly or indirectly. You can find the court's definition, which has varied somewhat over the years and has several parts, or the definitions that scientists use. Science must be falsifiable, according to most definitions. Science must not include the supernatural. Science must be published in peer-reviewed journals, not vanity journals; this means that if your "science" cannot survive scrutiny by your competitors and even adversaries, it is not science. Scientific theories must be updated to include new evidence when it is apparent; this does not mean that the theory stays the same and the evidence gets explained away. The theory changes to fit the data, not the other way around. There are several other conditions that may or may not be in different defintions, but you get the idea. Do your own research. By these conditions, anyone who is reasonable, including an agnostic or pantheist or deist or theist or panentheist or aetheist or polytheist or whatever, will define creation science as pseudoscience. Is that so hard to understand or accept? --Filll 13:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

""Clinical psychology no, and you're conflating "unpredictable human factors" with psychological behaviours. "Unpredictable human factors" can iclude a wide range of things from reactions to natural disaster, to the starting of wars, to sudden shifts in foreign policy or domestic policy by any country,etc. Pop-psychology, (which in cludes most self-help crap) yes. ""

Are you really saying that the theory that self-help psychotherpeutic methods are beneficial is not a scientific hypothesis? Octoplus 17:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Are they beneficial? Given that most of the people who use the self-help method go through several hundred of these books in a lifetime, most of which offer totally different strategies, I doubt the efficacy rate is all that high. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You missed the entire point. It is irrelevant whether they are beneficial or not. We are talking about a scientific hypothesis. You obvious do not grasp these concepts Octoplus 21:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

LEAD

When I read the LEAD, I realized that it was much too long and not that accurate. I took the liberty of rewording it a bit and putting the material that was less introductory into a new section.--18:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC) unsigned User:Filll

Thanks Filll. I tried to improve on the first sentence (because I didn't like to see the word "purported" in there). I realise that it is still far from ideal. A better opening sentence might refer to the scientific method rather than just scientific evidence. Of course, we need to be careful not to create a straw man definition of creation science. What does everyone think of my effort, and do you have any better suggestions? SheffieldSteel 21:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed use to find, gotta have it use it after all. I'm also half inclined to just drop the scientific as well, for both brevity and accuracy. ornis 21:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV again

Wow. All I had to do was read that first sentence and the POV came up and smacked me on the face. Jinxmchue 20:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been like that for months. What exactly is NPOV about it?--Filll 21:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's POV because it's accurate. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not state what it claims to be first, without couching it with skeptical language? Then you can use your weasel words such as "purports" in the subsequent sentences. ^rossnixon 02:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop vandalising the article because you don't like the truth. ornis 02:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dont call Christian kooks we are equally intelligent as non-belivers --Wwjd333 22:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

By their fruits ye shall know them.--Filll 10:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a religious tract or a recruiting tool for assorted right wing christian religious kooks. We are here to produce a reliable, secular encyclopedia. So....--Filll 02:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Jinxmchue is blocked for edit warring. He has no clue what is NPOV, he just rather be playing video games and railing on his original research on any number of articles. I would suggest that we don't worry about what he says. I'm much more willing to come to a consensus with rossnixon, who has been civil across a whole host of articles. And I happen to agree with his commentary on weasel words. Orangemarlin 16:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. While Ross does have a POV, I've never known him to be uncivil, tendentious, or prone to OR like Jinx. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope that Ross understands when Jim and I think someone on the other side of this discussion is a good guy, it's rare. But he probably still thinks we're still atheist Darwinists who eat Christian children for lunch.  :) Orangemarlin 22:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Laugh out Loud (not that I spelt it all) :-D--Wwjd333 22:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll eat any children, I'm not picky.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What? There are still followers of the Babylonian Talmud around? ^rossnixon 02:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Past-life experience, I guess.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Creationism In Mainstream Schools

I was wondering if Creationism not really being taught in mainstream schools needs a paragraph as the fact that Creation is only taught in re classes and that this is very critisised by the Church is very important. --Wwjd333 22:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? Orangemarlin 00:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wwjd333, your comment "What Would Jesus Do?????" is not what WP:TALK pages are for, and be aware that there are many Churches. In the US the constitution requires state institutions not to favor any religion. .. dave souza, talk 06:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing like a completely incomprehensible post or two. I think if that there were "RE" classes in the US in which creationism was taught, there would be no problem at all. However, that is not what is going on and not what the threat is, and not the goal of creationists in the US and other places. They do not want to be relegated to "RE" classes. They do not want to be called a religion. That is the reason the term "creation science" was invented, for example.--Filll 11:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved

Moved trolling to octoplus's talk page ornis 13:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Tough love, but perfect. Orangemarlin 21:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are convinced that the user's editing is trolling, the appropriate response is simply to stop replying, not to remove the content. If the problem continues, you should follow the guidelines for Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Failing to do so simply results in more confusion and makes it more difficultly to achieve a resolution. The user in question has made no contribution to the article - why not just ignore his talk comments? Banno 22:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Restored

The page history has been restored. A few edits may have been lost - apologies. You will find them in the edit history. Let me know if your words of wisdom need to be replaced for the benefit of future generations. Banno 11:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the material has now been restored to the archive, but the important thing is the history is now correct. Not pretty, but functional. Banno 11:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe this[4] is the dif for the discussion before the abortive archiving and copy-and-paste restoration. Material not in the archive should be the stuff that was moved onto User talk:Octoplus immediately before that. Banno 12:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There is something going on that I do not understand. Although I have been on other pages with much longer discussions, this one is too long? The talk page had to be churched around, including the history, with no discussion? All recent discussions had to be removed? Sure we had a troll or two. Happens all the time. I just do not understand what is going on here.--Filll 12:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The other archives of this page are even smaller, not even reaching 200 KiB. The page had grown to a third of a megabyte, and was taking too long to load. It was archived as per WP:ARCHIVE. –Fatalis 12:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Pages should be archived when they get over about 70k. 250k is way too long, and will prevent the page from displaying on some browsers. The problem was not in the archiving so much as the method. The other archives had been created using cut & paste to a new page, but the method chosen this morning was a move. Not only was this against the tradition established for this article, but it had the result of taking the page history to the archive. I've no reason to doubt that the archiving was done in good faith. The problem occurred when text was re-introduced from the moved archive back into the article. This created a situation where it was far from obvious where the text had come from and who had produced it; furthermore there was so much of it that it was again necessary to archive the material - a bit of a mess, really. Banno 13:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What I have done is to revert the move, re-inserting all the edits that occurred in between. Everything is still there in the history for others to inspect. In the process I have left out the material that was moved to a user's talk page, and archived any material prior to that discussion. Banno 13:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If there are specific items that have been removed in the process that are relevant to the content of the article, please re-insert them. But there is an obvious problem if, as in this[5] dif, the whole text is re-inserted - this negates the process of archiving. Banno 13:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand the need to occasionally archive talk pages. However, usually this is done with much less drama. Just an observation.--Filll 13:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right. Let's hope this is a one-off, and that you can all get back to building an excellent article. Banno 13:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)