Talk:Creation science

A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents Creation science in an unsympathetic light and that criticism is too extensive or 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". If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of Creation science or promote Creation science please do so at talk.origins or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time in accordance with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages: Keep on topic

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

If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of Creation Science or promote Creation Science please do so at talk.origins or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

Beliefs and activities

{{editprotected}} could the phrase... "...and members of other religious communities which exhibit similar attitudes." be changed to... "...and members of other religious communities which hold similar views." in the interest of mutual respect, NPOV, etc. etc. Thank you. Petlif 01:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As an outside admin, I have no way to know if that is the issue of disagreement or not. Please find consensus and then request unprotection. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Carl. OK. I suggest that the current ending of the sentence above is an ad hominem twist. It is not required for conveying the purely factual content of the sentence and negatively impacts on the quality of the article. Any views? Thanks. Petlif 06:10, 14 July 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)

At least on pages in this general topic area, editors have always userfied contentious trolling and off-topic posts. I have seen this done at least 5 article talk pages over and over for months, and been directed to do it by several administrators. This is not approved procedure now?--Filll 20:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It is OK to move off-topic trolling to the user's page...has been ever since I got here. •Jim62sch• 20:27, 4 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[1] 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[2] 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)

Once again I had to undo the disruptive editing, improper refactoring of this talk page, and discussion page vandalism to this page. I agree that some of the content needs to be archived, but Fatalis has taken upon himself to archive without discussion, in a manner that does not allow it to be easily referenced, destroying the page history, and lots of other items. This editor needs to chill out.Orangemarlin 14:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor question: where did the extra 150kB come from in the penultimate restoration of this talk page (by ornis)? Silly rabbit 14:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I did a simple undo. I have no clue. This has been messed up beyond all belief by Fatalis. I'm not even sure where to start. Some of the discussion I'm sure was archived a week ago???? Orangemarlin 14:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No idea, I just copy-pasted everything Jan 07 onward from archive 12. ornis 14:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Some sections appear to be duplicated above. I will delete the duplicates. Silly rabbit 14:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap, you're right, how sloppy of me. ornis 14:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think that does it. At least there are no more duplicate sections. It's still a bit shy of the size from before this mess. I'm guessing that some material was moved off to "trolltalk", and maybe you chose not to copy over some of the older threads? Silly rabbit 15:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

(ri) Well yeah, I left octuplus' most recent rambling on his talk, and I left stuff from last year in the archive. ornis 15:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if someone could do us the favor of archiving only the closed discussions, say, just to be safe, leading up to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Creation_science#New_lead_version ? This would leave only those sections active since around the beginning of June. ... Kenosis 15:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that would be fine, but after this mess I think we should wait and see what everyone else has to say. ornis 15:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

So it's back to square one. Well, whatever. –Fatalis 16:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am totally puzzled by the motivations here, but I am suspicious. I think watchful waiting is called for.--Filll 17:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've explained it several times. This is bordering harassment. –Fatalis 17:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Harassment? Why not try to learn from this episode:

• Discuss radical changes first on popular and controversial pages, particularly if you are not know at the page
• Be apologetic if you screw up the page and history
• Do not be defensive and angry when the fact that you screwed up the page is pointed out to you
• Do not remove all the recent discussions from the talk page unilaterally
• Hostile trolling on talk pages creates a situation that makes AGF very difficult
• Statements like "So it's back to square one. Well, whatever." create a very negative impression

I would ask the editor in question to please relax and not escalate this situation. This kind of tactic and response to disappointment and dismay of regular editors should not be a reason to engage in hostility. So just...please relax.--Filll 17:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You should read some of the name calling he engaged in. I found it amusing that he's obsessed with panties and penises. He also tried to insert comments that I did not write into statements of mine. Kind of amusing, but fairly amateur. I think I'd rather deal with someone like Raspor, who at least wasn't a vandal. Orangemarlin 18:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not have to take frivolous warnings and aggressive bullying in silence. I was just standing my ground. If you are going to teach others about being civil, lead by example. Following me around and with your "suspicions" is clearly against the spirit of AGF. I already acknowledged I was wrong several times, and I explained my motivations. You're even blaming me for "hostile trolling" now… –Fatalis 18:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In one of the most contentious articles around, to which you have made precisely 0 edits, out of the blue, you enter the discussion page without even a "hello", you rip apart the discussion, some of which remains to keep editors on the straight and narrow. For example, a couple of weeks ago, I reverted an edit here that was in line with consensus made a few weeks ago. I was reminded of the conversation, I easily read the conversation, and I immediately reverted my revert. This happens frequently. You went to my use talk page, where you reverted an archiving that I did, which is expressly not permitted. All of this removes ANY good faith that you deserve. Henceforth, if you want my good faith, you'll have to earn it. Your apologies have been worthless, because even after apologizing, you violated any good will earned by blanking this whole page last night or this morning. If you want good faith from any number of editors, first, apologize for your reckless name-calling against me, engage in conversation on this discussion about substantive issues regarding the article (and not about if it should be archived or not), and never vandalize (yes, it is by definition vandalizing when you refactor, change, edit or revert what I have done on my user talk page) a user page. You're not worth the trouble. Do the above, and let's edit these articles.Orangemarlin 18:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You can try to weasel out, but I will go to WP:AN/I. You are misrepresenting what happened, you have been flagrantly violating official policies, and you have been insulting and provoking me from the very beginning. I will not stand for being abused here by you. –Fatalis 20:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am asking you again, for about the 5th time. Please take it easy. Just relax and let this drop. Do NOT escalate this. Please. For your sake and the sake of others, so they do not have to waste their time on this ridiculous matter. --Filll 20:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not ridiculous to me. I want justice. –Fatalis 20:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What sort of justice do you want? What do you expect? Do you think you will see the regular editors here such as myself banned? blocked? For what? I have just tried to ask you nicely to please take it easy and maybe to learn from this little screwup of yours. What reason is that to want to attack me? Please, try to use some rationality here. Do you realize that things might not go the way you plan if you mount some sort of attack and demand "justice"?--Filll 20:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I want it acknowledged that I was not wrong, that it was an honest mistake anyone could make, and that I'm not a vandal, and an apology for being insulted so much. –Fatalis 21:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You were not wrong to archive the material. There were two problems with what happened. One was that you chose a method that had not been used on this page before. Not a big problem in itself, but it disconcerted those who were expecting to see an edit history. The real problem occurred when a large block of archived material was re-inserted. This negated the archiving. But far more importantly, there was no obvious way to find the difs for that material, since the history was now in the archive. None of this is make-or-break stuff, and I have restored the history, fixing that problem. I strongly recommend that the editors move on, and actually start to talk about stuff that is relevant to the article. Banno 21:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

So now all of the restored stuff went poof? Nice move. And yes, it is a biggie. Trying to search for a rationale for the way this page has been archived and restored and rearchived is an exercise in futility. •Jim62sch• 21:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it was a mess. But the patch-up it is the best that can be done, given the way in which the editors here insist on swapping large chunks of text around. Nothing went "poof", it's all still there in the history. The archive contains everything (I hope) except the material that was moved to user pages yesterday. Let's move on. Banno 21:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's not. The real issue is that not all of the discussion topics were closed -- they were still active. We do not archive active discussions. •Jim62sch• 22:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

So bring them back, by re-introducing, selectively, short sections from the archive. Don't negate the archiving by re-insereting long blocks of text. Keep the discussion moving on. Banno 22:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Banno, you're missing the point. I shouldn't have to bring anything back, and you should have stopped with your restore before you decided on rearchiving everything. Also, your block of ornis was nonsense. •Jim62sch• 22:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so now where do we go from here? One way or another this mess has got to be sorted out. ornis 15:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So Banno, why didn't you spend one nanosecond reviewing this situation instead of blocking an editor indiscriminately, reverting ongoing conversations, and supporting a user who now is going to be enabled in such a way that he might continue this behavior rather than learning from it? We need to fix this page and deal with this situation aggressively. Orangemarlin 16:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should, one way or another, restore the ongoing discussions. We should see if we get more flack from the newcomers to the page, whether they are new administrators we are not familiar with, editors from other pages we do not know, new editors that are exhibiting troll-like behavior, etc. And if there is more trouble, we should deal with it. We should complain in the appropriate venues, since this article is a target. It is very hard to know how much of this interference is misplaced and misdirected and just clumsy, and how much is really meant to disrupt the work of the editors on this page, given our past history.--Filll 15:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm prepared to bite the bullet and restore the discussions, however before I do, I'll wait and see what others have to say about how much should be restored. My inclination is to start with all of it, then open a new thread to decide how much of that needs archiving. We should also update the index to archived discussions. ornis 16:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How much bandwidth was spent on this problem. We haven't actually discussed the article for several days because of the aggressive archiving. Well, I agree, let's add back everything, then archive what hasn't been discussed for a few weeks. Of course, let's hope Banno doesn't block one or all of us for trying to do this. Orangemarlin 17:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Too much, anyway i've restored everything, so hopefully we can no decide what needs archiving. Hopefully I won't get blocked again for this.ornis 17:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You won't, assuming Banno wants to retain his adminship. Other admins are watching this page now and any further missteps could prove to be, uh, not taken very kindly. (No Banno, this is not a threat, it is a statement of fact). •Jim62sch• 21:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Threads to Archive

Opening a new discussion here on what of this needs to go in the archive. Now as yet I have not deleted anything from archive 12. My thought is that any threads with replies as new a june should remain here, but that also we may wish to retain some older threads, for the sake of not rehashing old debates endlessly. ornis 17:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that we should leave Archive 12 as-is, and add links to the side infobox for any threads we want to refer to so that they're there in the archive but easily pointed out if old debates resurface – there are already several such links in the infobox. Then, delete all threads which were not live at the start of June. Sound ok? .. dave souza, talk 21:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, and a much saner solution than those proposed by Fatalis and Banno. •Jim62sch• 21:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What a good idea. Banno 18:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. Now can we get back to editing this article? It needs some clean-up in several places. Orangemarlin 19:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

So, the result is that the talkpage has been archived, then the archive re-inserted into the talk page, and now the suggestion is that the editors selectively delete the material that was re-inserted. This is somehow better than archiving the talk page and then selectively re-inserting material from the archive onto the talk page - my suggestion. Thus (hopefully) ends one of the most perversely stupid incidents in which I have been involved on the wiki. Who'd be a janitor. Banno 21:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. Have deleted the pre-June stuff, which is all there in Archive 12. Nothing jumped out to me as particularly worth linking from the side bar. It's still pretty large, glancing through the list as of now, my suggestions / questions, feel free to add your own comments . .. dave souza, talk 22:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

1 REMINDER – anyone got a good chat site for a suggested link?

2 New lead version – this discussion ended 10 June, suggest delete as in archive.

Seems to have started up again. .. dave souza, talk 19:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Separated out the new part which has nothing to do with the old one. Feel free to archive this. Silly rabbit 19:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

3 Type of creationist – this discussion ended 11 June, suggest delete as in archive.

4 Are there creation scientists? – resolved 19 June, worth linking from list at side?

5 Peer reviewed creationism - long and incoherent, suggest delete as in archive.

6 Arbitrary nonsense break - long and incoherent, suggest delete as in archive.

7 LEAD – this discussion ended 21 June, suggest delete as in archive.

8 NPOV again – this discussion ended 22 June, suggest delete as in archive.

9 Creationism In Mainstream Schools – this discussion ended 28 June, suggest delete as in archive.

10 Moved – for information only, suggest copy to archive 12 and delete

11 Restored – still current, resolved? If so, suggest copy to archive 12 and delete

12 Threads to Archive – current.

No comments? This page is still over long, will delete 3–9 unless someone comments soon. .. dave souza, talk 19:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, as long as it has been a couple of weeks since a thread has been posted to, I see no problem with archiving it.--Filll 19:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's phase 1. Any objections to copying "Moved" and "Restored" to archive 12 and deleting them? .. dave souza, talk 21:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, enough with the archiving for now. Based on Wiki's outdated size limits, damn near all of our articles are too long. Shall we hack them to bits or archive them, too? An arbitrary limit still existing from the days when most folks used dial-up is meaningless. •Jim62sch• 21:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

New new lead version

In order to help establish consensus, I must state my agreement with the improved accuracy and fairness of F00188846’s new lead. Theriault 14:15, 7 July2007 (UTC)

Do you find it more accurate and fair because it doesn't mention creationism at all, and gives the misleading impression that creation science is a legitimate scientific enterprise? In that case, yes, it is perhaps more fair to the creation scientist's claim to scientificity. This claim, however, is more than amply refuted in the references provided for the article. On the basis of WP:UNDUE, Wikipedia does not need to provide all points of view in a balanced way. If, in the consensus of the scientific community, creation science is not science, then it is the obligation of the Wikipedia article to make this clear from the beginning. Silly rabbit 18:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because it advances the creationist's agenda of promoting a pseudoscience, does not mean that your proposed LEAD is appropriate. By repeatedly reverting to your lead with no true consensus aside from one between you and your alleged sock puppets, you are violating several WP rules. Please do not continue down this path or you will be banned or blocked. Wikipedia is not a religious tract or a recruiting tool for some narrow religious agenda. By the vast majority of the science community (well in excess of 99.9% of all biologists), creation science is not science but at best a pseudoscience meant to mislead the naive and ignorant, and at worst a fraudulent scam and tool of some intolerant religious extremists with dark motives. If you can find any peer-reviewed articles in respectable academic journals, supporting your version of the lead, then present them here. Otherwise, we have to decline your efforts to rewrite this article as a religious polemic.--Filll 18:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the guy's planning on being a preacher for one of the most conservative denominations in the world, so what can you expect. Of course, having read his user page, I'm still trying to figure out precisely what "theological languages" are. •Jim62sch• 21:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

He might be referring to Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Or he might mean glossolalia.--Filll 22:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Or he could mean Sanskrit, Hittite, Sumerian and Akkadian. And let's not forget Chinese and Japanese. •Jim62sch• 00:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn? Silly rabbit 00:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And that one, too. ;) •Jim62sch• 18:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A number of points made by Silly rabbit and Filll reveal a gross misunderstanding of the subject matter, only some of which I am now able to adress.

1) If the scientificity of Creationary Science is based solely on the use of the Scientific Method, then Creationary Science is absolutely scientific. It does not draw its data from nor base any hypothesis on miracles or revealed knowledge, as you claim, but draws solely from empirical evidence found in the natural cosmos, the same evidence used by Evolutionary Science. It is the conclusions that differ, not the method.

I don't like interrupting a conversation, but this is the easiest way to respond. Creation science is NOT based on the scientific method, and is always reliant upon secondary sources without primary research. The scientific method requires a number of items, falsfiability amongst them. Basically, if you cannot assume the false hypothesis, that is a supernatural being does not exist, then it's not science. In other words, Creationists cannot accept the fact that their god may not exist. That's not science, that's just confirming your belief set. Orangemarlin 19:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

2) Creationary Science cannot be discredited as non-scientific for drawing conclusions that infer a transcendent source for the cosmogony of the universe. If the natural evidence suggests a purposeful, supernatural design, then a Primary Cause is the best explanation for the origin of the cosmos.

Another evil interruption. There is NO evidence for natural design. Again, not science. The only science will be one that can test that hypothesis, assume that the negative of that hypothesis could be valid. This is a bad argument (not attacking you, because it just is a bad argument). Orangemarlin 19:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

3) Creationary Science cannot be discredited as non-scientific for being related to a “religious” worldview. The foundations of Evolutionary Science rest equally on the Humanist worldview, as revealed by prominent evolutionist Richard Lewontin, “It is not that the <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">methods and institution<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">s of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” It may be just as rightly claimed that evolution, not creation, is the “tool of some intolerant religious extremists with dark motives.” It is true that Wikipedia is not “a religious tract or a recruiting tool for some narrow religious agenda.” Such a rule applies to Humanists as well as Christians.

No one discredits anything because it is related to a religious POV. Evolution, as a science, relies on the scientific method. There are no values, Humanist or otherwise, that is applied to it. Evolution is not a dogma, it is not a religion, it does not require faith. Don't try to place those value sets on it. Orangemarlin 19:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As for attacks of my personal credibility at this time, the university which I attend allows evolution to be taught about in the manner which evolutionists explain it, in addition to teaching about creation in a like manner. While not a biologist or physicist myself, I am at the same time not a novice to the subject.

Theriault 15:30, 8 July2007 (UTC)

Don't care about your University. Don't care how you are taught. Don't care about that. I also have no clue what an "evolutionist" is. Must be some invented word by Creationists. Yup, it is, it's a word that implies Evolution is a religion. Not useful. Orangemarlin 19:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't hold my breath for reaching a consensus if I were you, and I wouldn't boast about knowing something about this topic either. In fact, I would just shut my mouth in shame. Fatalis ^talk 19:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

On your side about this one. However, that was probably way too tough. Show him facts, not attacks. He does have no clue about the scientific method, that's for sure. Orangemarlin 19:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I could go on at great length about the comments by young Theriault. However, lets just look at a few points.

1. Mr. Theriault does seem to be quite a novice because he uses words like "evolutionist", "scientificity" and "evolutionary", which really are only commonplace among creationists, not among those who know much about the theory of evolution. He also has a distorted and incorrect view of the foundations of evolution. It has NOTHING to do with humanism. Darwin was trained as a theologian, and his book Origin of the Species was replete with references to God and God's creation. It is silly to create a "talk-radio show" version of evolution as a strawman and then attack it. In fact, it just demonstrates a substantial depth of ignorance of the science, and it is pitiful.
2. Mr. Theriault does not seem to understand science, the scientific method, the demarcation problem, the Daubert standard, and the criteria used by Judge William Overton to distinguish between science and pseudoscience.
3. If the situation is so clear-cut as Mr. Theriault suggests, why have creationists and creation scientists and intelligent design supporters lost court case after court case on this issue? Why do more than 99.9% of the scientists in relevant fields like biology support evolution and not beliefs like creationism, creation science and intelligent design?
4. The advocation of supernatural processes and causes appears throughout creationism, creation science and similar beliefs. These are not part of science or the scientific method, and would be pure poison for all forms of science if they were incorporated in the scientific method.
5. Evolution has nothing to do with cosmology. The suggestion that it does, suggests that Mr. Theriault does not really have any understanding of cosmology or evolution, or really of science itself, if any further confirmation was needed.
6. Mr. Theriault's quote in point (3) is actually an example of quote mining, as can be demonstrated by examining this discussion. It has been taken totally out of context, which is typical of the lies and misrepresentations that creationism, creation science and similar beliefs are well known for.
7. Just claiming that any interpretation of the evidence is equally noteworthy or worthy of respect is silly. There are an infinite number of possible interpretations, and the scientific method culls through and discards the nonsense interpretations. The creation science and creationism and similar interpretations are among those that are discarded.
8. Creation science and creationism and intelligent design have no predictive power, and so are easily dismissed.
9. Science and particularly evolution is silent on the cause of the universe. It is about "how", not about "why".
10. Evolution has nothing to do with religion. It is not a religion and science is not a religion. Neither have anything to do with atheism nor are they advanced by those with an atheist agenda. Any suggestion otherwise suggests someone who is badly misinformed and living in a fantasy world, and probably has been listening to too much propaganda.
11. Your personal credibility, or lack thereof, has been confirmed by your statements. "By their fruits ye shall know them", after all.
12. Please consult other articles on here to educate yourself before you continue down this ludicrous path. Look at Objections to evolution or Level of support for evolution, for example.--Filll 21:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that certainly sums it all up nicely. One of the primary issues creationists seem to have the biggest problem comprehending is that evolution does not address the existence or non-existence of a deity or deities as it is utterly irrelevant. Evolution neither affirms nor denies the possibility of a prime mover, or first cause, it merely works with the evidence at hand. None of this is really all that difficult. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Theriault is right that since Gut instinct isn't science, evolution appears to lack truthiness. If he's heard too much Talk Radio Evolution, no wonder understanding it's a problem. As a well known theology graduate said, "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except in so far as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence."[3] .... dave souza, talk 21:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Truthiness? Now I've got to head over to my OED again :) Good answer Fill. And low on the personal attack scale :) Orangemarlin 21:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

ColbertOED? Anyway, perhaps a better cite from the theology graduate is "He considers that the theory of Evolution is quite compatible with the belief in a God; but that you must remember that different persons have different definitions of what they mean by God.", link as above, p 307. ... dave souza, talk 22:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the real Oxford English Dictionary. And it hasn't been used in 150 years, but I'm all right with that.  :) Orangemarlin 23:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I just read those articles (kind of hard to read links on my iPhone connected at 100 kbps on an EDGE network). Got home here, and they are both wonderful. Good catches Dave. And I read the LA Times every morning while drinking coffee. I missed that one a few days ago.Orangemarlin 23:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read the 12 points posted by Filll in response to Mr Theriault. I wanted to ask the intent of those points. Are persons allowed to debate issues here? I did not see what the 12 point had to do with improving the article. Are persons allowed to respond to the 12 points if they feel there are errors in logic in those points? TheBestIsYet 00:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The intent of these points and the other responses above is to communicate to Theriault and any other creationists who come by here some realities. They need to understand that this article and the other articles on Wikipedia are here to present an NPOV version of these subjects. These articles are not and cannot be religious tracts. There are other wikis which welcome religious articles, and I would be glad to direct anyone to these other wikis. That is not the purpose of WP. Understanding the intent of Wikipedia, editors can contribute productively, hopefully and not engage in pointless edit wars and get banned and blocked. These pages are not for debate, and there are other venues for this, which we can direct you to if you want to do this. If you want to point out the errors in these 12 points, do so in one of these other venues.--Filll 01:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

But if someone feels that the points you are making are not valid they are not allowed to respond in anyway? There seems to me to be some factual misconceptions in what you are saying. So a person just has to accept what you say as fact without question? Are creationist allowed to participate in wiki? It seem that you are saying that people who believe in God are not allow to edit or comment here but you are allowed to tell everyone what the truth is. That does not seem fair to me. TheBestIsYet 01:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree with these points, which are the basis on which the article is written and will continue to be written, you might be more happy working on another wiki such as

• CreationWiki
• Research ID Wiki
• Conservapedia
• Iron Chariots

If you want to disagree with these points or debate these points, you are in the wrong place and I would suggest you go to another site.--Filll 02:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the difference between an evolutionary scientist and an evolutionist, the former is a narrow term for those in the fields of scientific study which hold to the evolutionary model, and the latter is any proponent of evolution, regardless of vocation. The same difference applies to creationary scientists and creationists, as is self-evident.--Theriault 19:53, 8 July2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that your definitions are incorrect in common usage or scientific usage. I would direct you to dictionaries to get proper meanings in everyday usage, or learn the scientific meanings.--Filll 01:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the implications of the terms, they simply affirm that there exist scientific, political, philosophical, and religious aspects to the two opposing worldviews with which evolution and creation are associated. Furthermore, the ignorance of your assumptions that any proponent of creationary science cannot possess an understanding of the scientific method is not fruitful to open intellectual discussion.--Theriault 19:53, 8 July2007 (UTC)

I am afraid you have bought into a strange false dichotomy and are caught up in some fantasy world of pseudoscience and conspiracy. There are some creationists who might understand standard scientific reasoning, but I am afraid that you have not given any evidence of this in your writings. Do not presume to lecture the editors at this page, because most actually have substantial training and degrees and background in science. We are not students and we are not in the student council.--Filll 01:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Finally, do not feign that scientific theories and methodologies are so intellectually inaccessible to the general populace that laymen without graduate-level scientific training cannot make educated and informed conclusions for themselves, as is the case for myself and a multitude of other creationists, for the same then applies to the majority of evolutionists, including a number of individuals partaking in this dialogue.--Theriault 19:53, 8 July2007 (UTC)

This material is not inaccessible if it is explained properly. That is the purpose of Wikipedia articles. To make it accessible. You are free to make your own conclusions, but you are not free to turn a secular encyclopedia article into a religious recruiting tract. If you were familiar with the editors here, you would soon realize that they are exceedingly well-educated, and I would suggest you try not to make such rash assumptions. If you want to write creationist aritcles, go to a creationist wiki. You do not belong here. Thanks.--Filll 01:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems you are jumping to conclusions in saying that he want to create a 'religious tract'. I do not understand what you mean by 'creationist articles'. Do not others have the right to participate or do you determine who is allowed do respond or comment? TheBestIsYet 01:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have seen his past edits and I have seen his user page. And as long as users are productive and interested in creating an NPOV encyclopedia article, they are welcome. If not, they are not welcome and will be sent elsewhere.--Filll 02:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this header from Talk:Intelligent design is equally applicable to Creation Science, and may answer some of Theriault's & TheBestIsYet's concerns:

A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or 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".

Maybe we should introduce similar boilerplate here. Hrafn42 03:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems a good idea, have done so. .. dave souza, talk 09:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Theriault

This individual has the fortitude to use his real name and state his background. He has brought up valid points. He has been shown the door and has been treated very unkindly. Anonymous editors claiming education, knowledge and expertise have told him that he should not be here. The anonymous editors for all we know can be high school drop outs. And actually that does not matter. Mr. Theriault has presented himself in an honorable and forthcoming manner unlike the anonymous editors that hide behind secrecy and yet claim credentials. We can veryify Mr. Theriault's credentials but not those of his critics. I doubt that there will be a day where his critics show as much character as Mr. Theriault has. TheBestIsYet 11:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please use facts not your feelings. Where above has he been treated without respect without a careful response. His list of three items were wrong on the facts and on the law. Don't make accusations in the future. Orangemarlin 12:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Further points - honour matters less than reliable sources, and education has nothing to do with contributions. Filll's comments were addressing why Mr. Theriault's ideas were not eligible to be posted on the page. Anonymity, honour and education count for nothing, it is content that counts. Mr. T's comments had no reliable, NPOV content, ergo not posted. WLU 14:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Further response Mr. Theriault

1. Your artificial difference between an "evolutionary scientist" (a field that does not exists) and an "evolutionist" (a word that was resurrected recently to make evolution sound religious) are terms never used by scientists themselves. All scientists (well 99.9%) accept evolution as a scientific fact. In the fields of Biology, Chemistry, probably physics, and their subdisciplines, Evolution just is a fact. Outside of science, whether someone cares to understand it or not, they are not given a descriptive term. There is no Creation science, because there is no science that "believes" in creation. We allowed the name of this article to stand because it is what is claimed by creationists, not by scientists.
2. There are no political, philosophical or religious aspects to Evolution. It depends on scientific research, supported by millions of peer-reviewed articles. And, Filll is right, creation science is a term that isn't factual. Creationists, by their nature, cannot employ the scientific method. As discussed above, you do not appear to have an understanding of the science and the scientific method, and applying them to an essentially religious doctrine is inappropriate.
3. We do not feign, imply, state or argue that scientific theories and methodologies are intellectually inaccessible. We do state that you are ignoring them, because they are quite easy to understand. And please quit using "evolutionist" which is, once again, an invented word, utilized by creationists to imply, feign, state or argue that scientists follow a religion. That term is pejorative and is never utilized by a scientist.
4. Please note the NPOV sections. This is an NPOV encyclopedia, and given the lack of scientific, peer-reviewed, and published data that any god, gods, aliens, or other supernatural being had anything to do with this planet, religious information can only be described as a religious.

Orangemarlin 13:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

We have no idea if Mr. Theriault is the person who is posting here on Wikipedia. It could be a simple matter of identity theft. Even if it is the same person, this does not prove much except someone who has not yet learned the inherent dangers of exposing himself and his personal information on the internet. There should be extra points for this? WP is not a place where credentials are flaunted, but where results reign supreme. However, in this area, Mr. Theriault does not write as someone who even has a good high school level understanding of biology and evolution, let alone a college level grasp of these subjects. He did not bring up valid points, and they were easily dismissed. These are the same types of points that creationists have brought up for about 100 years and these points are always dismissed in a similar manner. I think that Mr. Theriault was treated kindly but firmly. The defects of his position were explained extremely carefully and thoughtfully. Several editors put a lot of thought and energy into explaining the problems with his position in great detail. He was pointed to several internal and external references with a substantial amount of valuable information. This was far more than he deserved, frankly, and far more attention than he would get in almost any other venue. The only problem is that the editors of this article did not immediately decide to change the character of this WP article to a religious recruiting tract. That would be unfair to the readers of Wikipedia. There are other wikis for that. If one looks at the article history, Mr. Theriault is lucky he is not banned or blocked for sock puppetry and violating the three revert rule. He was given EIGHT formal and informal warnings for his actions (on his talk page and the talk pages of his alleged sockpuppets) and was not the object of any disciplinary action, when he clearly could have been, for edit warring. His actions required that the talk page be protected from his attacks. He did not seek consensus before making major changes. Instead of some poor innocent, I see someone who is more aptly described as a POV warrior and vandal. Where was Mr. Theriault treated poorly? This is a charge that is completely without merit. Believe me, if I showed up on a forum at Answers in Genesis and engaged in the types of behavior Mr. Theriault did here, I would be treated far more harshly.--Filll 13:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

TheBestIsYet 20:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Theriault further

[Discussion again removed to talk page of TheBestIsYet per talk page guidelines. Reversion will be treated as vandalism. .. dave souza, talk 20:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is not vandalism when you do it? Not very fair. TheBestIsYet 20:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:SOAP. We've just moved your one-person commentary to your talk page. Don't revert, or it will be considered vandalism. Orangemarlin 20:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is it when you revert something it is OK but when I do it is vandalism? Deck stacked much? TheBestIsYet 23:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Failure of Naturalism’s Imposition on Science to Produce a Neutral Point of View

Discussion again removed to talk page of Matthew J. Theriault per talk page guidelines. This discussion is not what is appropriate for a WP talk page. Reversion will be treated as vandalism.--Filll 01:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion directly related to the merits of an article’s neutrality can by no means be considered trolling simply because the poster (myself in this case) does not adhere to your understanding of the subject, and removal of such discussion under the false charge of WP:SOAP is itself vandalism. If you wish to offer an actual retort based on the article’s neutrality, free of ad hominid attacks and ad ignorantiam fallacies, by I welcome your response.Matthew J. Theriault 01:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this material for a 3rd time and left a warning on your page. These warnings will escalate if you continue.--Filll 01:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This material has now been removed for a 4th time and a second warning left on your page. Please do not continue or you might get banned or blocked.--Filll 11:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The battle is not fought here

Both Theriault and TheBestIsYet seem to be under the impression that Wikipedia and this Talk page are the front line in the war over whether Creation Science is Science or not. It is not. What is Science is determined by what scientists do in order to do research, what philosophers of science analyse as the commonalities of good scientific research and what the courts determine based on expert testimony of the first two. If you want to do battle to alter the outcome of this war, then join a university science department and do research, a philosophy department and synthesise and debate arguments or the bar and litigate. None of these things are done here. Here we are reporters not soldiers, and merely report the outcomes of the battles fought in scientific and philosophical journals and in court cases.

Either bring us something tangible (i.e. based on reliable sources) about these battles to report, or take your desire to do battle, to fight the good fight, elsewhere. Hrafn42 12:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been bringing tangibles here but they keep getting moved. Are we allowed to discuss factual errors with sources? TheBestIsYet 12:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Given your past history and alleged past history TheBestIsYet, why dont you post it on your talk page and see what people think? However, I have never seen anything of this nature from you.--Filll 12:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been watching this page closely, and nowhere have I seen you or anybody else provide reliably sourced (that is explicitly what I said I meant by "tangible") evidence of "factual errors", let alone of any acceptance of Creation Science by scientific journals or courts. In fact you have never cited any sources, reliable or otherwise, in any of your posts on this page. Hrafn42 13:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem IS the sourcing and that was the point I tried to bring up. Filll had a lengthly rant against Mr. T and I supported Mr. T and they had my support for him moved. The point is many of the articles are biased. Sure anyone can find quotes supporting there POV but the ones that do not support the prevailing power base here are deemed 'unreliable' or somehow insignificant. Really using someones court testimony as a source. Since went does a court decide what science is or is not. And there are internal contradictions. And how in the world can someone make a change in an article when as soon as they criticize an article their comments are moved or they are threatened with blocking. Until the power base here allows dissent there can be not NPOV editing. TheBestIsYet 14:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

For the purposes of our society and WP, courts decide what science is and what it is not all the time. And you are obviously wilfully ignorant of the WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE policies. And again, still no reputable sources. Clearly you are continuing to troll and have not yet learned your lesson. I guess we have to block the IP addresses of everyone in your town. And if anyone complains, direct them to you personally.--Filll 14:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If I am a troll why do you feed me? Only a troll feeds a troll. I feel you are willfully ignorant of many issues: WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. I asked politely to discuss changes here and was blasted with insults. Until the present POV controllers will consider listening to dissent there is little use bring in more sources. The sources that are being used now are many times unreliable and inaccurate. Could we start there? The courts yes. But not specific testimonies. Then why does that woman's testimony carry more weight than Behe's. The present POV pushers in control cherry pick quotes. What can be done about that? TheBestIsYet 17:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• You have proposed no specific changes, just made a host of vague and unsubstantiated accusations.
• Barabara Forrest's testimony was given weight because she is a Philosopher and Historian of Science and an acknowledged expert on the history of the ID movement, the area about which she testified. Behe's testimony was given little weight because he testified on, but was proven on cross-examination to be frequently unversed in Evolutionary Biology, Immunology and Philosophy of Science (and has neither qualification nor experience in any of these fields).

Hrafn42 18:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(ri) "that woman"? ROFL. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

She's so satanically atheistic that good Creationists dare not even speak her name. ;) Hrafn42 18:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This user is now solidly GYFROOMFPOV. I completely ignore trolls, so how's it going Hrafn42. How's the weather out there?  :) Orangemarlin 18:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Just coming off an extended cold-snap -- still cold, wet, misty & miserable, but at least the ice & snow is gone for now. Where you are? :D Hrafn42 18:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Cold snap? Send some cold this way.

"satanically atheistic" ... I like that.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Norway? I know it's been a bit chilly in the land of a few of my forebears. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Satanically atheistic. Yum. Not only am I solidly GYFROOMFPOV, but I'm also going to lay claim to be satanically atheistic. Not because I am, because it's always assumed that those who take a scientific POV are somehow evil. BTW on Friday, it was 114 here. I hate anything above 75. Orangemarlin 19:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that even Richard Dawkins is insufficiently satanically atheistic that Creationists avoid saying his name, I suspect that us lesser evils only count as "impishly atheistic" (or impishly Taoistic, in my case). ;) Hrafn42 02:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was 99 yesterday...cooled off to 95 today. I think I was wrong...knew it was Scandanavian (the hr combo gave it away), but I was a bit too far to the east I think. I saw a movie from there once, about a kid who was a lazy genius. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

<chuckles> Umm, Scandinavia is in the Northern hemisphere, same as the US, so it is summer up there too at the moment. I am tempted to make a comment about Americans' sense of Geography. ;D Hrafn42 02:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There's the American hemisphere. Then there's the rest of the world over on some tiny island not a part of America. We don't need no steenkeen geography.  :) Oh, I forgot, there's the other part of the world that was covered by a flood once. Orangemarlin 06:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well that "steenkeen geography" might help a few more Americans find Florida on the map. But who needs Florida, eh? It's only on the edge of the US, which is almost as bad as not existing at all. Hrafn42 07:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

<ui> Well, it's a pleasantly cool 16 here today, but this is well off-topic. Back to improving articles! .. dave souza, talk 08:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A two-word tweak to the lead

The lead currently starts with:

Creation science is the creationists' attempt to find scientific evidence that would justify a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation....

I think that we should be more proprietary with the literal interpretation. I would write:

Creation science is the creationists' attempt to present scientific evidence that would justify their literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation....

What do others think?--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fradulent Ideas (talk • contribs) 11:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to change the word "creationists'" to "creationists'a" ? --Filll 11:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Slip of the finger. Thanks, Filll. --Fradulent Ideas 14:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I also think "find" is a bit problematic as creation scientists do not "find" evidence as they are engaged in pseudoscience. They "present" what they believe to be evidence. --Fradulent Ideas 14:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I always confuse what literal means. I think we mean inerrant interpretation of the bible. Isn't biblical literalism interpreting the bible in context of the writers intent? I could be wrong. Orangemarlin 06:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Most YECs prefer the term "plain interpretation". This means interpret things as they appear. To interpret things "literally" creates a problem when you read things like "Jesus is the door". "Inerrant" is a reasonable term to use, and is believed to apply to the "original documents". We allow that there have been inconsequential scribal errors over the centuries. ^rossnixon 02:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd keep the term 'find' over 'present', but I agree with changing 'a' to 'their' and will make the change. ornis 11:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Hypothesis"

The current text reads:

There are two main branches of creation science, one starting with an old earth hypothesis and the other starting with a young earth hypothesis.

The problem with this is that neither "old earth" nor "young earth" function as hypotheses in the normal sense of the term since they are subject to the whims of biblical interpretation for their support rather than observation and falsification. A Young Earth Creationist will never permit the "hypothesis" of a young earth to be subject to the scientific method because they take it as a matter of faith that the earth is young. It is best not to mislead the readers into believing that creationists are actually engaging in the same methods of science that scientists do. Instead, I suggest the following:

There are two main branches of creation science, one starting with a belief in an old earth and the other starting with a belief in a young earth.

This is more accurate a description of the manner in which creation science operates: belief first, looking for evidence to support that belief second.

--Fradulent Ideas 15:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Neither are hypotheses, they are beliefs. The difference being is that a hypothesis can be proven incorrect. No YEC or OEC will accept that they are wrong. Of course, we can't edit this article, so please remember what you have written here! LOL. Orangemarlin 05:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A question: how prominent was OEC in 'Creation Science' (before the torch got passed to ID)? My impression was that it was exclusively (or almost so) YEC. Hrafn42 04:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OEC was common/prominent in the 20th century, until around the time of Henry Morris & John Whitcombe's "The Genesis Flood". Until then, Christians assumed scientific statements were likely to be unbiased and true, and so had to "fit" an old creation between the first two verses of Genesis. ID is actually a concept that encompasses theistic evolution, OEC & YEC. The current ID movement has only been around for about 10(?) years and attempts to keep religion or who the Creator is out of the discussion. ^rossnixon 05:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Trouble is that the article talks (I suspect correctly) about "Creation science (dubbed Scientific Creationism at the time) emerged as an organized movement during the 1960s", which appears to place it after the publication of tGF in 1961, and in the period of YEC-dominance. I would emphatically disagree that ID encompasses theistic evolution, as its arguments are entirely negative anti-evolution ones, and as its leading proponents (most notably Dembski) have denied that the two viewpoints are compatible. Hrafn42 05:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't word the ID bit well. I just meant that the plain meaning of "Intelligent Design" encompasses all the groups. Currently, of course, one group has grabbed hold of the ID label for themselves. ^rossnixon 06:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I would claim that what the "plain meaning" may have been (and your interpretation was never one that had common usage) has become irrelevant, as 'Intelligent Design' has become ubiquitously identified with a form of Neocreationist anti-evolutionism antithetical to Theistic Evolution. Hrafn42 07:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Creationists sometimes want to claim a big tent as much as possible, to gain the benefit of numbers. Something like fundamentalist Christians. Then, when push comes to shove, they are glad to exclude many of those same people that they just counted because they are not the "right sort of Christian" or the "right sort of creationist".--Filll 11:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Similar to claiming many of the Founding Fathers as 'Christians' but elsewhere rejecting their viewpoints as not being Christian. Hrafn42 12:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What? Like those naughty deists whose ideas of "laws" gradually won over the earnest Christian Charles Darwin?

More to the point, the 1961 publication of The Genesis Flood and the term "scientific creationism" gaining currency around 1965 are both mentioned at McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education. In 1984 Dean H. Kenyon's affadavit states "Creation-science means origin through abrupt appearance in complex form, and includes biological creation, biochemical creation (or chemical creation), and cosmic creation.", "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."[4] so that marks an early example of the ID big tent approach: the 1984 book The Mystery of Life’s Origin by Charles Thaxton and others has been described as the start of the ID movement.[5]. .... dave souza, talk 14:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm -- why have "cosmic creation" (as opposed to a "cosmic evolution" of the universe from the Big Bang to its current state), unless you are attempting to argue for a 'Young Earth'? I suspect that Kenyon (who is, as far as I know, a 'big tent' YEC) is attempting to have his cake and eat it. Hrafn42 14:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Apply Common Sense

by Mike Martin, Former State Legislator

If there are scientific discoveries that back claims of a world-wide catastrophic flood taking place in history, should that evidence be excluded from students because it also backs the story of Noah's flood? NASA scientists were so convinced that the moon and earth were of the same age that they designed the first lunar lander's legs to be six feet longer than needed. There was no doubt at the time that solar dust would be ten feet deep. When it ended up being only six inches, did they rewrite theories of the age of the moon? No, they changed the theory by saying that solar dust has only been falling for the past twenty thousand years rather than 3.5 billion. What froze the mastodons so quickly that they were found standing up with buttercups still in their mouths? The vapor canopy theory explains such mysteries quiet well; however, evolutionists will not allow the theory because it clashes with too much of their stuff. According to them, the ice age came slowly.

There are thousands of theories taught in our public schools as "facts of science" when they are only guesses made by so called, educated people. When a God-believing educated person creates a theory on scientific finds that lends credibility to something mentioned in the Bible, he is a nut. The author of this Wikipedia article managed to get that across in his biased definitions of what Creation Science is and is not. "The science of evolution" is wrongfully defined. It should be called, "the religion of evolution". To accept most of the theories derived by evolutionists, you have to take each by faith. To accept any, you have to believe by faith that the earth is billions of years old without any scientific proof what-so-ever. I believe the "Creation Scientists" rely more on science than the evolutionists. At least they do not try to censor the other side.

Note: If you don't believe me, look into the history of this discussion page and see how many times the author and his buddies attempt to delete my comments. For crying out loud, I'm not editing the biased article. I'm just back here in the discussion page where no one goes. I even had the balls to put my name on this. I'm retired with lots of time on my hands. I will simply keep undoing their censorship. What they are doing is called "Secular Humanism", and it is taking over this country.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.112.62.246 (talk • contribs) 6 August 2007.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. If you want to improve the article, you're welcome, but at least for now, "creation science" is considered by scientists to be pseudoscience. If you want to change that, you're at the wrong place. Also, there's at least two wiki for people who don't care about objectivity; Creation Wiki and Conservapedia. -PhDP ^(talk) 23:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Creation science article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Removal of material judged to be inappropriate is not at attempt to "supress the truth" - nothing so sinister. It sounds from what you've written as though you'd like it over at Talk.Origins - they just love discussing frozen mastodons there. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 23:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So we have a regular Gish-gallop of idiotic and unsubstantiated assertions, purportedly written by somebody who must be the most incompetently corrupt sleazebag of a politician ever. Should we:

1. feed his martyr-complex by deleting his steaming pile of refuse; or
2. laugh ourselves silly at the idiot?

Hrafn42 11:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Better to leave it up. If we remove it, he'll just keep readding it until he gets blocked, resulting in a waste of everyone's time. Let's just leave it up to let its inanity speak for itself, and then conveniently skip over this section when this page is archived. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have my doubts if this is by the person above who claims to have written it, although the IP address is from Austin Texas. I cannot imagine that this person would brag about his identity and even link his name to a pretty uncomplimentary article about himself. If he was to edit here, I would suspect he would edit his own article.--Filll 13:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter if he's a faux-sleazebag or the genuine article? Either way, you'd need to use a micrometer to measure his reputation. Hrafn42 15:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

I removed a phrase that said basically that Creation science is found to be lacking when it is subjected to peer-review; after I found an AiG article stating that they do use peer-review. The questions then are: 1. Is this true? (we should AGF until opposing evidence is found). 2. Is the "common" definition of peer-review being used?

(two quotes copied from my talk page)

Sorry that is not peer review. That is having a few of your like minded friends proofread it for you. If you want this, make a case on the talk page. Thanks.--Filll 23:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

To expand on what Filll said, the reason peer review works like it does is that often the peers hold contrary views to those of the scientist who wrote the paper (or at the very least are neutral about it). This guarantees that the paper will be held up to a very high standard. What's being done in this case involves papers being sent only to people who hold the same conclusion as the authors, so they're likely to let it pass even if the science is sloppy. They may call it "peer review," but that doesn't make it such. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Filll, when non-creationists do peer-review - they are using like minded friends also. Infophile, creationist-peers may hold contrary views on a particular matter also. You are confusing "conclusions" with assumptions or presuppositions. Creationists share a number of common presuppositions. Non-creationists share a number of common presuppositions. We have an EXACT parallel situation between the two groups. ^rossnixon 03:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That statement is so laughable I'm not sure it's even worth responding to. It's you who is confusing terms here, cretinists start from the pre-supposition of special creation, and look for any evidence that would support that supposition and discard or ignore any that doesn't ( pretty much all of it as it happens ). Further by positing a supernatural creator at all, they violate parsimony, and produce a hypothesis which makes no testable claims at all. Any "peer-review" they do is worthless, as whatever they are doing, it's not even remotely similar to science. ornis (t) 04:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I could write an essay about the unicorns helped build the moon out of toilet paper, and pass it on to a few people who actually believe that, but that still wouldn't make it scientific, nor would it be a "real" peer review. GSlicer (t • c) 04:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The word "peer" just means people at the same standing, so it is valid to talk about a unicornist peer-review, a creationist peer-review or a scientific preer-review. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 05:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the argument is specifically over whether or not creation science has been subjected to scientific peer review[6]. ornis (t) 05:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. That's what I meant by a "real" peer review. GSlicer (t • c) 07:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ornis, so you agree that they do "peer review"? We are not discussing whether their articles have any worth or not. My take on the sentence, expanding it, was "it is found lacking when subjected to scientific criticism; and it is found lacking when subjected to peer review". Are you reading the "or" between the phrases to imply they are both the same thing? There is a difference in many cases - e.g. non-scientific peer review. That's why it should go. ^rossnixon 05:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Now what the fuck are you talking about? The sentence in question, clearly says that when it's subjected to scientific peer-review creation science falls flat. You made the ridiculous claim that creation scientists do their own scientific peer-review which (as has been pointed out to you) is bullshit. ornis (t) 05:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

When we're dealing with a scientific/pseudoscientific topic, saying "peer review" implies scientific peer-review, not just peer-review to anyone who'll listen. GSlicer (t • c) 07:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

According to Peer_review it is subjection of a work to scrutiny by people who are experts in the same field. If a journal article submitted by someone with a PhD in a scientific discipline is reviewed by several people who also hold PhDs in a relevant field then it would seem to indeed fall under "peer reviewed". There are at least a few "creationist" journals that would fall under that category that I'm aware of. Additionally, from what I've seen some of these "creation scientists" also publish their work in "normal" science journals as well so I'm not sure it can all be lumped together. J mantha 07:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, can you name any particular creationist works published in significant peer-reviewed journals? Everything they do is just cargo cult science, especially making their own "peer-reviewed" journals, which are well known to not be critical and to spread blatant lies. Reinis^talk 09:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

<undent> Now, if they could get it reviewed by some lords that'd be peer review, but somehow it seems unlikely that even the most antiquated denizens of the house of Lords would support it......... dave souza, talk 07:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ornis, from several paragraphs up said "what are you talking about?" I will rephrase in an attempt to make it clearer. The phrase reads "subjected to the scrutiny of scientific criticism or peer-review". There are "invisible brackets" which change the meaning, depending where you put them:

1. (scientific criticism) or (peer-review)
2. scientific (criticism or peer-review)

I read it with the first meaning. You, apparently, read it with the second. This needs changing to make it clear to the reader. Since creationists don't submit articles for "scientific peer-review", the phrase needs changing to "scientific criticism" only (or similar). ^rossnixon 01:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No one but you thinks the phrase needs to be changed. ornis (t) 02:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone answer the point, thanks? Can you see the difference between 1. and 2.? ^rossnixon 02:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I see the difference. And it is just pointless word games. Why do you not read the section below that I wrote for your edification? Try to learn something. You are not going to get your way. Sorry.--Filll 02:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The term peer review does not exist outside of the scientific context. Including it suggests that intelligen design has validity it does not have. -- Ec5618 06:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Humanities have peer-review too, but in this context, yeah we mean scientific peer-review. ornis (t) 06:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fix the text to say that then! "Scientific criticism or peer-review" implies two things. (BTW, should peer-review be hyphenated, looks like 90%+ times it's not)?) ^rossnixon 01:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, that's a wilful misconstrual. Any reasonable person reading the whole sentence would understand it to mean scientific criticism and scientific peer review. ornis (t) 02:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What is peer review?

There seems to be a complete confusion about what peer review is here.

• First, if something is to be published in a peer-reviewed history journal, the reviewers with be professionally recognized historians. If something is to be published in a peer-reviewed linguistics journal, the reviewers will be professionally recognized linguists. If the journal is a peer-reviewed medical journal, the reviewers will be recognized experts in medicine. And if the journal is a peer-reviewed science journal, the reviewers will be scientists. Since creation science is NOT science, anyone who claims to be a "creation scientist" is not a recognized expert by the scientific community, and would be unsuitable for reviewing something that is supposed to be science.

• Typically you do not get to choose who your reviewers will be in peer-review. You do not get to personally choose the reviewers of your own articles.

• Not only must the reviewers be in a recognized field by the overall academic community, but they will be reviewers specializing in the same area your article is in. Which might not be your exact specialty. You might get a mainstream biology textbook author and a National Academy member with expertise in evolution and a junior biology faculty member as reviewers of an article claiming that evolution is wrong. You have to convince them ALL you are correct to get your article is published.

• Typically people are chosen who oppose your views, or are your adversaries/competitors, and also recognized experts in the same field. This means that someone who claims to have found a flaw in radioactive dating techniques, for example, would have a reviewer who is a world expert in scientific radioactive dating techniques and who has often expressed the view that such flaws are spurious.

• There are good reviewed journals, and bad. If a journal starts to always get easy softball reviewers, its reputation will go down and no one will want to publish anything of quality in that journal, because it will be meaningless to pass review in such a journal.

• A proper peer-review can mean that articles take a few months to write, and maybe a year or two or more to get through review. If ever.

• Most articles sent to properly peer-reviewed journals are rejected.

• Even good peer-reviewed journals publish some bad things, sometimes. To really count, people have to confirm it, and it has to be heavily cited by other peer-reviewed articles in high quality high reputation journals, over a long period of time.

• Some articles have 3 reviewers per article. Some have 5. Some have more. It can be a brutal, gruelling process.

• Just claiming your journal is peer-reviewed does not really mean that the academic community accepts it as "peer-reviewed". A journal will gain a reputation over time based on its quality of articles and what others in the academic community think of it. If the general community of scientists do not think a journal is peer-reviewed or produces high quality scientific articles, then it is not treated seriously by the scientific community. You cannot self-proclaim a book like "Explore Evolution" or "Origins" to be peer-reviewed. That is up to the community, not up to the authors or creationists etc. That is up to the science community at large. And if they do not think it is peer-reviewed, it does not matter what you personally claim.

Is this clearer? --Filll 13:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort, though a link to a definition would have sufficed. ^rossnixon 01:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Definition of a Scientist" - unsuitable material removed

Please note that this page is for discussing improvements to the article itself, not for soapbox speeches on the article's subject. The material removed here did not suggest improvements. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 14:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Even harsher than I would have been. But admittedly funny. Unfortunately, no WP:V and WP:RS sources for his assertions. --Filll 14:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Typical censorship by biased Wiki editors. Let all the anti-creationists garbage in the discussion page, but crop out reasonable discussion from the other side. I used to think Wiki was a great creation until I found out how they take sides on controversial subjects like creation science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.32.58 (talk) 12:41, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

In the articles WP takes sides. Both sides, usually in proportion to how the community of which the article is part of is divided. It is part of WP:UNDUE. These talk pages are not for soap box arguments or proselytizing. There are many other places on the internet for that.--Filll 12:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Intro" - Non-NPOV edits by Filll, Infophile, ConfuciusOrnis

The edits that I made to the Intro were completely NPOV. To say that the "scientific community" -- which the Wikipedia link defines as "the total body of scientists, its relationships and interactions" -- "regards the term 'creation science' as a misnomer" is very POV, so I made a minor change to read "Many in the scientific community regards the term "creation science" as a misnomer." Yes, I forgot to remove that "s" -- so Filll undid my revision for "bad grammar" (instead of just doing a minor edit and removing the "s" like he should have). I didn't see that "s" and reposted it, then did another minor edit to another POV statement: "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." I simply changed that to "Some scientists criticize" (very true, and NPOV), and added "Other scientists, though, claim that the scientific method simply cannot be applied to the study of origins in the same manner as other scientific pursuits." I included references from other scientists, which were very similar to the previous references used for the above POV statement.

So then Infophile came along and undid my revisions, for the VERY POV reason that "AiG is not an appropriate source for what scientists think." I undid his POV reversal (removing that dang "s" so no one could make another fake "bad grammar" claim), noting that "I have specifically quoted TWO scientists, regardless of the fact that they're quoted at AIG" -- again, maintaining NPOV for this revision.

Surprisingly, ConfuciusOrnis reverted my edits with a completely unsupported reason of "Ugh... POV pushing."

Look, I realize that this article is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. I made sure I supplied full citations when adding information like this. Filll, Infophile, and ConfuciusOrnis, however, did NOT follow the guidelines, and simply allowed their POV to guide their actions.

I believe my edits should be re-inserted, and would like to see that done. -profg 03:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

AiG is not a reliable source. They never have been and probably never will be. ornis (t) 03:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Gee, Ornis, that's not POV at all, is it? Certainly a reason for you, Filll, and Infophile to delete my edits - not a violation of WP:NPOV at all, right?

"In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views" -- and AiG is both for this "significant-minority" view. Despite what your POV leads you to believe, AiG has a well-established "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." --profg 03:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, since you seem to have missed it, I'll say it again, AiG is not a reliable source. Also NPOV doesn't require us to mention tiny minority view points at all, let alone give them equal time. I suggest you go back and re-read WP:NPOV, this time the whole thing, particularly the sections about pseudoscience, giving equal validity, and undue weight. All in all, your edits were poorly written, poorly sourced, completely POV and will never fly. ornis (t) 03:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't miss anything. You claim that AiG is not a reliable source. That is a totally POV statement, which many would disagree with.. You claim that we're discussing a "tiny" minority point of view. That is also a totally POV statement, which many would disagree with. I have read the "whole thing," and none of it applied to my edits, despite your best efforts to claim otherwise. (And you thing my edits "where" [sic] poorly written? Pot, kettle. They were well-sourced, you just didn't like the source. --profg 03:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me add, that according to WP:RS#Claims_of_consensus, "Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources." That whole "total body of scientists" thing - obviously an unsourced claim of consensus. --profg 03:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes they were poorly written, poorly sourced POV pushing, protesting otherwise won't change that. ornis (t) 03:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I am sorry you do not make much sense. If I understood I might be able to respond.--Filll 03:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Myers, PZ (2006-06-18). "Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution?". Pharyngula. scienceblogs.com. Retrieved 2006-11-18.
• The National Science Teachers Association's position statement on the teaching of evolution.
• IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society (PDF file)
• From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society: 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (PDF file), AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws
• Fact, Fancy, and Myth on Human Evolution, Alan J. Almquist, John E. Cronin, Current Anthropology, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Jun., 1988), pp. 520-522
• As reported by Newsweek: "By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'."(# Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (29 June 1987), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek CIX(26): 23-24, ISSN 0028-9604)
• Finding the Evolution in Medicine, Cynthia Delgado, NIH Record, July 28, 2006.
• Public beliefs about evolution and creation, Robinson, B. A. 1995.
• Many scientists see God's hand in evolution, Witham, Larry, Reports of the National Center for Science Education 17(6): 33, 1997
• List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design
• Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83.
• A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition begun in 2001 has about 800 signatures. A four day A Scientific Support For Darwinism petition gained 7733 signatories from scientists opposing ID.
• The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID.
• More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes.
• List of statements from scientific professional organisations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism.

I could go on, but I won't. It's a tiny minority viewpoint among scientists, particularly those actually qualified to make such a judgement. ornis (t) 04:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There are definite standards for what qualifies as a reliable source. Particularly, I'd like to call your attention to lines such as, "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight," and "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." AiG is a far cry from meeting these standards, and is thus not a reliable source. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 04:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that Level of support for evolution#Scientific support covers all this already. A wiki-link to this section, in the sentence in question, would probably help to avoid repeats of this pointless argument. I would suggest that Profg read the links at the top of the page on Undue Weight & Making Necessary Assumptions. Hrafn42 04:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's where I got them from, I just wanted to hammer the point home, so there was absolutely no possible room for confusion. A link would probably be helpful yes. ornis (t) 04:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I note that the very first line there states, "The vast majority of the scientific community..." OK, how about we replace "The scientific community regards the term "creation science" as a misnomer" with "The vast majority of the scientific community regards the term "creation science" as a misnomer" to satisfy, since it's obviously NOT the entire scientific community here? --profg 04:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Not going to fly either. That's a problem with that article not this one. Creation science is a minority position amongst creationists, whereas that article deals with all stripes of creationism, this one deals with one very specific fringe position. ornis (t) 04:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"The vast majority" underestimates the level of support, particularly as the scientific consensus is always weighted towards those with particular expertise with the issue at hand, who tend to be even more skpetical of Creation Science than scientists generally. To properly express it with a qualifier would probably take unencyclopedically hybperbolic language. "The scientific community..." (unqualified) would thus appear to be a good first and second order approximation to the truth and qualifying it would appear to be giving undue weight to the vanishingly small minority opposing this view. Hrafn42 06:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Remarkable. The two of you agree that Level of support for evolution#Scientific support "covers all this already", so when I say "great, let's use that article then," you suddenly change your tune to say the article has "a problem" and it "underestimates the level of support". You are obviously modifying each iteration of your statements based on biased POV. Let's go ahead and change it to what we should all agree on, or else go to arbitration. --profg 12:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

One question: can you read? Reinis^talk 13:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem with the original article, merely with your recent POV-pushing attempts. There appears to be a consensus forming behind the original wording, buttressed by a wikilink to Level of support for evolution#Scientific support. Last I heard, arbitration wasn't required simply for a single editor who disagrees with the consensus. Hrafn42 14:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I am still mystified as to the source of the problem here. What is this editor disputing? That creationism is a minority belief? That creation science is a minority belief? What is he claiming? That the level of acceptance of evolution among scientists is over estimated? That the characterization of the science community is inaccurate? And now wants to go to arbitration???--Filll 14:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am merely trying to apply WP:NPOV to this one small sentence. I'm amazed at the heated and vitriolic response to this attempt. --profg 15:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As you should know, things work by consensus here, and you do not appear to have it, I am afraid.--Filll 15:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I can now see how things work here: by POV consensus, instead of encyclopedic NPOV. And you're right, I don't have that. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. I'm done now. --profg 15:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a good compromise would be to change wording of the form "the scientific community says X" or "scientists say X" to "the scientific consensus is X". This would reduce the temptation for editors of a certain motivation to propose edits of the form, "but scientist Y disagrees!"

The IAP statement on evolution is a great resource in this area. It is signed by multiple scientific societies around the world, and as such, it represents a consensus of consensus of scientific opinion. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 15:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I would support such a wording, though would prefer to add an adjective such as "overwhelming scientific consensus". Hrafn42 16:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet these guys would be unreceptive to your suggestion, Sheffield, but what the heck, let's give it a shot, shall we? --profg 17:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the problem is the shorthand linguistic device of stating that "the scientific community believes/states/says/claims/supports/etc X". Of course, this is just a shorthand expression. The "scientific community" is not a being or creature. And what statements like this mean is "the vast majority/consensus of the people belonging to this group that we call the 'scientific community' subscribe to X". So this is more of a confusion and disagreement about language and terms, rather than anything else, as near as i can determine. Comments?--Filll 16:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It is, I think, like saying "the population of country X elected John Smith as president". It is a valid setence for Wikipedia policies?

And remember, in most democratic nations, the consensus for electing someone is simple majority - 50% plus one. Scientific consensus is different - and more complex. wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 17:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)