Talk:Creation Evidence Museum: Difference between revisions
Victuallers (talk | contribs) {{dyktalk|19 August|2008}} |
→NPOV demands: new section |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:Fair enough, you have improved it. I might make some tweeks. [[User:We66er|We66er]] ([[User talk:We66er|talk]]) 07:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC) |
:Fair enough, you have improved it. I might make some tweeks. [[User:We66er|We66er]] ([[User talk:We66er|talk]]) 07:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
== NPOV demands == |
|||
A naive young person, reading this article, would find in it no material questioning 'creationism' as a valid field of scientific activity. But 'creationists' are not looking for evidence capable of disproving their theories, they are only looking for evidence supporting them. Real scientific investigation is different. A real scientist looks at evidence that seems to contradict his previous view of the world and attempts to form a theory that expands previous theory so as to accomodate the new evidence. Or, (very rarely) as an alternative, the old theory is completely replaced. After that, for the real scientist, comes the difficult and elaborate effort to verify or disprove the new theory, which, of couse, leads to new theories, etc. |
|||
After Isaac Newton rvelutionized scientific thought, several centuries were spent in working out detailed explanations of the world around us. As time went on, it became evident that, in some areas, Newton's explanations came up short. In the twentieth century relativity and quantom mechanics filled in the holes in Newton's theories, but did not disprove them in general. Engineers, to this day, use Newton's 'Laws' to design such things as bridges and aircraft, even though other ideas are necessary in the design of modern computers, radios, television, etc. |
|||
For creationists (in contrast) no evidence would ever be sufficient to modify their convictions about the age of the universe, or the history of organic life. For a scientist, something in apparent contradiction to accepted theory usually becomes the basis for new research, with a view of expanding or modifying the theory. By contrast, creationists view contradictory evidence as fraudulent. |
|||
We have an obligation, in Wikipedia. of ensuring that conflicting ideas be represented at every level. That has not been done here. |
|||
[[User:Too Old|Too Old]] ([[User talk:Too Old|talk]]) 20:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 20:27, 19 August 2008
 | A fact from Creation Evidence Museum appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 August 2008 (check views). A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/August. |  |
Merger to Carl Baugh
On 18:27, August 14, 2008, User:We66er merged Creation Evidence Museum to Carl Baugh with the comment: (not separable from Baughn and much of this is redundant).
I would like to revert that merge, at least temporarily. I had only been writing this article for a few hours when it was merged, and would like the opportunity to see if it really can stand on its own. We66er, you may turn out right in the end, and in that case I won't object to a merge, but I would like the opportunity to see. Give the article a reasonable chance, a week or so, OK? Thanks, GRuban (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough, you have improved it. I might make some tweeks. We66er (talk) 07:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
NPOV demands
A naive young person, reading this article, would find in it no material questioning 'creationism' as a valid field of scientific activity. But 'creationists' are not looking for evidence capable of disproving their theories, they are only looking for evidence supporting them. Real scientific investigation is different. A real scientist looks at evidence that seems to contradict his previous view of the world and attempts to form a theory that expands previous theory so as to accomodate the new evidence. Or, (very rarely) as an alternative, the old theory is completely replaced. After that, for the real scientist, comes the difficult and elaborate effort to verify or disprove the new theory, which, of couse, leads to new theories, etc.
After Isaac Newton rvelutionized scientific thought, several centuries were spent in working out detailed explanations of the world around us. As time went on, it became evident that, in some areas, Newton's explanations came up short. In the twentieth century relativity and quantom mechanics filled in the holes in Newton's theories, but did not disprove them in general. Engineers, to this day, use Newton's 'Laws' to design such things as bridges and aircraft, even though other ideas are necessary in the design of modern computers, radios, television, etc.
For creationists (in contrast) no evidence would ever be sufficient to modify their convictions about the age of the universe, or the history of organic life. For a scientist, something in apparent contradiction to accepted theory usually becomes the basis for new research, with a view of expanding or modifying the theory. By contrast, creationists view contradictory evidence as fraudulent.
We have an obligation, in Wikipedia. of ensuring that conflicting ideas be represented at every level. That has not been done here.