Template talk:Creation Science

Name

I think a better title would be 'creationism', there is no such thing as creation science. Creationism is not scientific. A little angry (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I suppose one reason to use the name "Creation Science" is that the people and organizations listed present creationism as if it's a science or supported by scientific evidence. clpo13_(talk) 19:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Further to what I said above, there's actually a slight distinction between creation science and creationism in that creation science attempts to provide scientific proof of creationism, which is the sort of thing Ham, Hovind, et al do. clpo13_(talk) 19:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's be objective rather than say that "creationism is not scientific" just because you don't like it. One could easily and reasonably say the exact same thing about the well-accepted Theory of Evolution. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Creation science is a branch of creationism. All that matters for this navbox is that it's a distinct subject-based grouping of related articles -- and that looks to be the case. The [non]scientific nature isn't something that really needs to be debated here. WP:FRINGE is recommended reading, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate template

Why was a Template:Creation science, which is nearly (but not entirely) duplicate to this one, created? --1990'sguy (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: I'll nominate it at MfD. —PaleoNeonate – 14:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: Hmm it seems that for this type of template TfD would be used. However, I first boldly merged the contents from the new one here and substituted uses of the new one to this one; if that's eventually contested then the TfD discussion will become necessary. Please review the latest edit on this template, —PaleoNeonate – 05:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Looks good to me. Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Museums?

@GliderMaven, 1990'sguy, StAnselm, and Bpc.sg: Pinging people with >5 edits to the template.

• Mount St Helens Creation Center
• Ark Encounter
• Creation Museum
• Museum of Creation and Earth History
• Noah's Ark (Hong Kong)

Why are these specific 5 creationist museums listed in this template, out of the 16 in Category:Creationist museums? --GRuban (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

If there's a reason for these five, specifically, it's probably that they're (arguably) the most prominent/well-known of all of them (especially the facilities operated by AiG). At the very least, I would endorse adding a link to the category in the template. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic links

If we're going to link to people/organizations critical of YEC, we should at least have a separate section for them. Links to Eugenie Scott and the National Center for Science Education are simply out of place when intermingled (with nothing to differentiate) with every other link in the template to YEC people/organizations.

Separately, the Falsifiability link also had little to do with the topic. There's only a small section about YEC in that article, and in that section, there's a "Main article" link to Omphalos hypothesis, which is also in this template. Templates should be focused on the topic and the links should make sense. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh I AM sorry, perhaps you think this template is supposed to be an advertisement for Creation Science? You think that anything that anything, or anyone, or any philosophy that may contradict creation 'science' doesn't 'deserve' to be in the template? Which bit of WP:NPOV don't you understand?GliderMaven (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)