Jump to content

International Conference on Creationism: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Rvt: the problem IS NOT "individual sentences" but the OVERALL tone and composition of the article, and removal of the notability tag from an article that is "no consensus" on AfD would appear inappropriate
ok. restore notability tag, which is stupid imo but whatever. this article contains one quotation - you've cleaned up the rest. if any sentences are biased, please mark them in-line.
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Article issues
{{Article issues
| biased = August 2009
| notable = August 2009
| notable = August 2009
| quotefarm = August 2009
| orphan = August 2009
| orphan = August 2009
}}
}}

Revision as of 03:35, 1 September 2009

The International Conference on Creationism (ICC) is a series of conferences in support of creationism, specifically young earth creationism.[1][2] The Creation Science Fellowship (CSF), sponsor of ICC, holds that the paradigm of creation unifies all areas and disciplines such as "science, education, history, sociology, medicine, mathematics, etc." Their intention is to provide a forum for development of rigorous creationary models.[3]

Each conference has been attended by evolutionary watchdog organization the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) to keep abreast of the latest thinking in creationism. "The ICCs are the most ambitious of creation conferences. ... Total attendance was probably around 400 (in 1998)."[4]

Mathematics professor Jason Rosenhouse wrote this review after attending the 6th ICC in 2008:

"Unlike the revival tent atmosphere that prevails at Ken Ham's ubiquitous gatherings, the ICC's represent an attempt at a serious scientific conference on creationism. If you flip through the conference proceedings and just give it a quick skim, you could easily be impressed by the professionalism of the volume and the level of technical detail in the papers. It's a side of creationism we rarely see, and serves as a reminder that these folks honestly believe what they are saying, and at least attempt to do science with their idiosyncratic interpretaion of the Bible as their starting point."[5]

References