Talk:Creation science/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Macroevolution or evolution

There's a problem with saying that "creation science is primarily concerned with issues such as...macroevolution". The issue is that while creation science proponents see their "beef" to be with macroevolution only, the scientific community doesn't see it to be that way. Many of the "issues" with which creation science deals are deciding what parts of science to keep and what parts to discard or change. In this way, parts of "evolution" are kept and parts of evolution are not. That creation science deals with macroevolution is of course true. That it doesn't deal with the rest of evolution is absurd because by saying that macroevolution and microevolution can be viewed separately, they are making a statement on all of evolution. Therefore it should be "evolution" and not just "macroevolution". Joshuaschroeder 22:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Macroevolution is microevolution on a longer timescale. The proper term is evolution. -- Ec5618 12:24, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

So no "Hopeful Monsters"? No saltaions? All change in gradual steps? Interesting! Dan Watts 02:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since Dan seems intent on proving he knows absolutely nothing about evolution: Yes, a gradual change in DNA can have a "major" change in phenotype. Bensaccount 21:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

True. Usually from 'living' to 'dead'. Dan Watts 00:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Evolution does not occur during a single lifetime. Please try and understand the basics before calling them "true". Bensaccount 00:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Are you attempting to recant your phenotype statement? Dan Watts 16:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lets review: Evolution occurs because of changes in DNA from one generation to the next. A small/gradual change in DNA can have a large effect on phenotype from one generation to the next. Keep it up Dan, you are almost learning biology at a highschool level now. Bensaccount 18:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow! Changes in the DNA in each generation! No stasis here. How does the poor cockroach keep itself together? (I hope that you don't teach high school biology.) Dan Watts 00:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're kidding right? You really don't believe that the DNA of the parent is the same as the DNA of the child, do you? Even identical twins have variations in their DNA. Maybe you should take high school biology. Joshuaschroeder 12:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now THAT sounds like variation within a population. Blue eyes vis Brown viz Green, hair color, etc. Or are you stating that perhaps we should put a net over every delivery room because the next child born may have wings? Dan Watts 17:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at polyploidy. Genome duplication can result in speciation from one generation to the next. On the other hand, microsatellites can distinguish deviation at the level of a few generations. So, yes, DNA changes from generation to generation - it also changes within individuals over the course of a lifetime. Chimeras are much more common than was previously thought...most of us probably are. But selection can only operate between generations. Guettarda 17:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What other religions believe

Ungtss has restored the long-winded description of what other literalists in other religions might believe in (creation according to Genesis, great flood, etc). This is an unnecessary distraction editorially. There is no compelling reason to describe what these people who are, by the article's admission, not holders to creation science believe. We already say they are creationists, if they are that important let them be described on the creationism page or their own page. This is a page not about the beliefs of fundamentalists Bahai believers, it is a page about "creation science". Joshuaschroeder 22:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Scientific has a wider meaning than you think

Please do explain. Project2501a 21:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Creation science (or CS) is incorrectlydescribed by its proponents? Please. This edit was made to be controversial, and no effort was made to explain it on the talk page. -- Ec5618 22:17, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

They are incorrect. How hard is that to understand? Bensaccount 23:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will agree wtih Bensaccount, though. Creation science is only by name. I was just not supporting the use of strong language. Project2501a 00:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. that part is throwing coal into the fire.

I was asking for explaination on the "Scientific has a wider meaning than you think". What is this "wider" meaning of science? Project2501a 23:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Definition: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. (i.e. not limited to the more narrow world-view of the 'scientic method'). RossNixon 01:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

: *shakes head* Douglas Adams was right. it was a bad idea to come down from the trees in the first place... Strike that. Even the trees where a bad idea! Good, great. Um, I don't know if you remember but there was a time called the dark ages. Yes, terrible times. People went to the stake for saying the earth revolves around the sun because the bible said so. Allow me to express my sincere thanks for your efforts to push the world back in that direction. Thank you! Now, where's those five pints I ordered... Project2501a 03:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The 'scientific method' excludes all the supernatural. If "truth" includes the supernatural, then this method limits the chances of coming to correct conclusions. I prefer a 'science' that is not narrow-minded. Science = knowledge. Douglas Adams was funny, but wrong, and ultimately pathetic. RossNixon 09:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the "supernatural" is a part of empirical truth then it should be measurable commensurate to the scientific method. Then it usually isn't considered "supernatural" anymore. If God acts in a measurable way, then God or God's actions will be observable and no longer "supernatural" by the most strict of definitions. Science only excludes the supernatural that is considered to be unmeasurable. For example, belief in the soul need not have measurable effects in the natural world. Therefore the existence of the soul is not considered something that is scientifically-based. That doesn't mean that the soul doesn't exist, only that it isn't available for scientific measurement. It is unfortunate that people who find themselves trying to apologize for their belief in literalism find it necessary to attack emprical science because there is no reason to claim that all of truth must be based on empirical observation. Joshuaschroeder 09:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Creation science and parsimony

Joshuaschroeder implies that creationism attempts to account for what is descibed in Genesis. If that is a true reading of Joshua's negative statement, then it is wrong to delete anything about creationism being opposed to an infinitely old universe. That model (steady state) IS ruled out by what is described in Genesis, therefore, Occam's razor does not have free reign (by Joshua's logic) to disallow creationism since it does "add to" the argument concerning the maximum age of the universe. Q.E.D. Dan Watts 20:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you should apply parsimony to your writing Dan. That is the most convoluted paragraph I have ever seen. Bensaccount 22:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Any superlative from Ben is worth noting. Dan Watts

Don't thank me, you earned it. It takes work to make such undecipherable arguments. Bensaccount 15:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I think what Dan is getting at is if Genesis is considered true then an infinite universe cannot be true. But that's not what the paragraph is getting at. What the paragraph is getting at is that any possibility is considered okay regardless of how outlandish as long as it fits an interpretation of Genesis. I have rewritten this to indicate that. Joshuaschroeder 23:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, you have removed at least one of the offending phrases. Dan Watts 02:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is the first time i've ever seen anybody pull the Chewbacca defence on creationism. LOL :) Project2501a 00:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss contribution

Ungtss has contributed the following:

=== Creation science and the God of the Gaps ===

Another issue surrounded creation science is the God of the gaps argument. The God of the gaps argument provides that it is unreasonable to believe that natural phenomena are explained by divine action, because historically, science has continually explained phenomena that were previously seen as divine in origin. Thus, creation science is seen as placing God in the "gaps" of science, when, in fact, further research into science should be placed in those gaps.

Creation scientists see the issue differently. They typically argue that the god of the gaps argument rests on the premise of philosophical naturalism that God does not act in the universe. For if it is believed that God may act in the universe, then "gaps" in science may be filled with either naturalistic or theistic explanations, and neither is inherently more likely when the true answer is unknown. "Gaps" in science should be presumed to have naturalistic explanations only when theistic causes are excluded a priori. Thus, the god of the gaps argument depends on philosophical naturalism for its meaning. Theistic realism, on the other hand, allows for the possibility of divine action in the universe as well as naturalistic causation. If one starts with the premises of theistic realism, therefore, the "gaps" in science may be filled with either naturalistic or theistic explanations, but where naturalistic explanations are consistently shown to be unreasonable or impossible, it is reasonable to infer divine causes.

I think that this contribution is problematic because I haven't seen anyone who claims that those advocating creation science believe in God of the Gaps. That's more of an Intelligent Design critique. Most creation science folks think that science is wrong so that there is really no need for them to invoke any "gaps" except to say that they invent "gaps" where no gaps are to be found. Joshuaschroeder 20:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of CS claims

Anyone know if there is a list of CS claims/disinformation on Wikipedia? I remember seeing something like this... Bensaccount 21:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just found it [1] and its not on Wikipedia. It should be here. I am going for just the CS parts (the list there is creationism in general). Does anyone see a problem with me copying parts of this list to make a new list on Wikipedia? Bensaccount 16:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That depends on the licence the information is released under. Also, I've been told such a list has been created before, and it was a failure. See Talk:Creation_science/Archive_4#New article proposal-- Ec5618 16:51, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Creation Science

In the article opening paragraph, there is a statement concerning the belief of all the "mainstream Christian churches." How is this group defined? Is it defined as all Christian churches that do not subscribe to CS? Dan Watts 22:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point. I have revised the intro accordingly. --JonGwynne 22:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is there a reference on that statement? Falphin 22:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

if the mainstream churches

are not accepting creation science as a literal interpretation of the bible, doesn't that mean that mainstream theologists don't accept genesis as literal interpretation? Project2501a 15:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the article is going to contain a statement to the effect that mainstream Christian churches consider (much of?) Genesis to be non-literal, then I request that there be a definition of "Mainstream Christian Churches." Otherwise, the statement is unsupportable. Dan Watts 19:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good one, dan. first demanding a definition and then switching the article to fit your needs. Have you ever thought of running for office? Project2501a

Never let truth interfere with a chance to denigrate another. I last edited the article on 14:05, 23 Jun 2005, and anyone (even you) can see when my request for a definition was made. Dan Watts 23:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

O.K., O.K. I just reverted one of Ben's incessant POV's but as far as changes, the above time stands. Dan Watts 23:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the article is pretty clear on who is mainstream. Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran and yes, i got, um, 84% of christianity on this planet. I'm excluding the baptists mostly because they are one of the contending parties and they don't amount to more than say, 40 million, 30 of which is focused in the US, which makes them a minority. Project2501a 21:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for the statement. Has the Pope declared that Creationism is false, as he is the head of the Catholic church etc. I'm not disagreeing with the statement but I believe a reference is needed. Falphin 23:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's break down your paragraph:

1. Do you have a reference for the statement. Do i have a reference for which statement?
2. Has the Pope declared that Creationism is false, as he is the head of the Catholic church etc. I'm not disagreeing with the statement but I believe a reference is needed.

You're changing subjects. I was talking about the literal interpretation of the bible vs mainstream theology, but i'll bite. Behold the power of google: [2], [3] (gimmie 2 days and i'll get you the italian original ^_^ ). And that's just 5 minutes of searching.

As far the Eastern Orthodox Churches, they plead "no contest" to science. they do their thing and science does its own. The Eastern Orthodox article mentions:

Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology is "Christocentric", viewing Christ Jesus as the head of the Church, and the Church as his body; with authority derived directly from this relationship. This authority is held to be intrinsic to the whole Church in all her members and mediated by the Holy Spirit dynamically in Tradition. Eastern Orthodoxy has an extensive oral tradition that predates the actual texts of the New Testament, hence, it does not consider itself to be "bibliocentric"; which is the case with most forms of Protestantism. This, however, does not in any way diminish their respect and devotion toward Scriptures, but rather puts it into perspective as the texts accepted by the Church as most important. The Eastern Orthodox Church holds the Old Testament (Septuagint) in high esteem (as the New), including the Psalms (which are a part of daily services) and the prophecies leading up to the incarnation of Christ. While many parts of the Old Testament are considered edifying (teaching moral lessons about hospitality and the result of sin) it is not a requirement that everything be taken literally. The Orthodox Church does not seek any conflict with science. It tends to consider truth to be seen in the "Consensus of the Fathers" (the golden thread of agreement that runs back through the patristic writings of the Church Fathers back to the early Church and the Apostles). All theological concepts must be in agreement with the consensus of the Fathers in order to be considered truth. Rules and laws are deëmphasized in the Orthodox Church in favor of guidelines with love, compassion and mercy considered in all things.

Point being: I defined who the mainstream churches/denominations are. since they are the majority and everybody else is the minority, i would seriously think that the majority churches constitute the majority of the mainstream theology.

reference ok? Project2501a 00:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thats fine, I didn't see a reference in the article which was my problem. I wasn't discussing the topic above but I wanted a reference for the statement before it remain in the article. Falphin 01:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CS's pathetic attempts are noteworthy

Got anything to add to this? Perhaps you think it is "scientific"? Edit: Creation science's attempt to question the reliability of dendrochronology. Bensaccount 23:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You bet! See [4] or [5] with [6] mentioning the problem and this link from UT [7] also discusses it. Seek and ye shall find. Dan Watts 30 June 2005 12:18 (UTC)

Heres a summary of what these four links seem to be:

1. "Just about everyone is familiar with the idea that trees put on one ring a year."
2. Questions for Neil (whoever that is)
3. Tree ring analysis of Larix griffithiana -- Rings in this tree have been found very distinct, with clear demarcation of early wood and late wood cells and have characters suitable for dendroclimatic studies.
4. There are many ways of assessing vegetation change, but one of the oldest and most reliable is by dendrochronology--the study of tree rings.

Is there a reason why you post these links Dan? Are these supposed to be CS? Are you ever going to produce the data for Lammert's so called "experiment"? Bensaccount 30 June 2005 21:17 (UTC)

Only if given permission. Otherwise, you may look it up yourself. What you didn't mention in the links:

1) - "In fact, the idea that trees lay down a ring each year is an over-simplification; in different parts of the world trees do not necessarily lay down a ring on a yearly basis, and some trees in unusual conditions will miss rings, or produce multiple rings in a year"

2) - " Myvonwynn Hopton has worked up several chronologies of tulip-poplar, black birch and cucumbertree, trees not commonly studied via tree-ring analysis. From her experiences with these trees it appears that false rings are a significant problem. One cucumbertree had 25 false rings on one radii!! We figured this out because the other radii from that tree "only" had 5 false rings. The core with 25 false rings is not datable for much of its inner "80 years.""

3) - Neil is Neil Pederson [8] of the Eastern Native Tree Society; from the third "Being under the influence of pronounced precipitation, with varying intensity, this region is somewhat problematic for such studies. Under such climatic conditions trees are expected to have false or multiple rings.";

4) - "If the climate of an area has two distinct rainy seasons separated by periods of no rain, trees will add two rings per year."

Dan Watts 1 July 2005 01:30 (UTC)

I don't think scientific data is copyrightable. I don't see the problem with summarizing the procedure and the results and telling me if anyone has repeated the experiment and received the same results. Bensaccount 1 July 2005 15:30 (UTC)

Law is not suspended by your thought. Try posting some article from the American Journal of Physics, and see how they react. They don't have the copyright symbol on their page just because they think it is cute.

I don't know of any repeated experiments on the subject. You are welcome to try yourself.

As to the reason that I posted the links, your original post on the page linked at the top of this discussion had an incorrect (as shown by these links) statement concerning scientific inquiry on the rate of tree ring growth.

One can not copyright saying "Lammerts did this and found that" if it is true. However I suspect that the "results" obtained are more a creative work than a scientific experiment. Bensaccount 3 July 2005 16:34 (UTC)

Creation science (or CS) is pseudoscience

I removed the remarks about psedoscience. Its already stated in the third paragraph in a much more NPOV format. However if this statement is kept the third paragraph in the introduction should be removed. Of course all of this is, IMHO. Falphin 23:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I restored the remarks since the reasons for removal (as usual) are simply incorrect. It is not stated in the third paragraph. Bensaccount 00:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ben mate calm down a little bit. Even though it is pseudoscience, and yes the lead section should be balanced, you have to state what the position is before criticising it. Anyone with any sense ought then to be able to see its failings. Dunc|☺ 00:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How is it not stated in the third paragraph? Falphin 00:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If this was called Advocates of Creation science you would have to describe the advocates position first; but it isn't. As for the usual incorrect reasons for removing any objective description of CS: It is different when you attribute it to scientists. It is more POV to attribute a judgement like that to scientists since you can not state what the opinion of every scientist is without making a generalization. To be NPOV one needs to first give an objective description, only after which you can discuss the various POVs. Bensaccount 00:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree, you have to give the basic definition of what the topic is. Further description and connections are to be made in the rest of the introduction. I'm stating this for the same reason as why I don't believe info on Pakistan's support of United States against terrorism/support of Taliban should be in the first paragraph it has nothing to do with CS. I believe its a POV to have it there. But like I said before this is IMHO, I'm not willing to get into an edit war over it. Falphin 00:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion but I think that you DO have to give the basic definition of what the topic is. Starting off by saying what CS proponents think just doesn't cut it. Bensaccount 01:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Well personally I hate the current first paragraph. I do think it is a POV as of now. The paragraph should be restarted but I believe it is redunant and a POV to state that it is a Psedoscience when its in the third paragraph. Falphin 01:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*bbbbzzzzzzt* Logical error.

1. Redunant? maybe. Redunansy does not constitute POV, though. It may, or may not, constitute bad writing style, depending on the occasion. In this case, I would prefer mentioning that it is a pseudoscience on both paragraphs.
2. It's a POV to state that it's pseudoscience Why? Since when stating the truth is considered POV?

If the intro to the paragraph is rewritten, it will only serve to make it more dilluted. Project2501a 07:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Um, it is not in the third paragraph. I don't know how you can confuse attributing an opinion to with stating a fact. The former is POV and generalization. Bensaccount 01:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The paragraph states that it is not scientificaly sound, that it lacks a foundation, that it rarely goes through peer-review and that it is a pseudoscience. Many people don't consider it a pseudoscience, and even some scientists so the paragraph is more NPOV than stating than the statement in the opening paragraph. Falphin 01:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC

The same old arguments are getting recycled here. Just because some people disagree with reality does not make it POV to state the facts. We landed on the moon. That is not a POV. Bensaccount 02:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The isssue is that there is a lot of someones. I just feel that the third paragraph is a clearer version of the statement in the first paragraph. Falphin 02:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Those "many" people are 32 million baptists in the southern United states. Which makes them a minority. A small one, too, compared to the world. You are making an appeal to emotion: "many people don't believe it's a pseudoscience, so, let's not hurt their feelings" (Logical fallacy). Therefore, it's a non-issue: Just because it doesn't bid well with their feelings, it doesn't null the fact. Science does not accomodate the facts to fit the scientists beliefs. In my opinion, it should be both on the first and on the third paragraph. That way people with a short attention span, can read the first 2 sentences or first paragraph and get an explicit understanding that is it a pseudoscience. Anybody that wishes to understand why it's a pseudoscience, can then read the third paragraph for the explaination. Project2501a 07:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neil armstong says he landed on the moon. Neil armstong landed on the moon. They are not the same. I really would like some more objective people here. I give up for today. Bensaccount 02:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have edited the intro. I've put the pseudoscience point into the first paragraph and avoided repeating the same words in the third paragraph (for style). I agree with Project2501a that the point should be made in the first paragraph but I agree with Bensaccount that it should be attributed. Barnaby dawson 09:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I said facts should be stated and opinions should be attributed. It is a fact that CS is unscientific. As usual, the reason for not stating this as a fact is missing. Bensaccount 28 June 2005 20:58 (UTC)

Amazingly, I've thought of doing the exact same thing for a long time. As the article stood, it noted the proponent's view first, and the opponent's view second. Now, it's reversed.

I'm not sure I mind, though in most articles, the positive discription precedes the critique. -- Ec5618 10:48, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit peeved now.

Ok, so Bensaccount added 'pseudoscience' to the intro, which is hardly an attempt to reach concensus. He has been adding this word for weeks, several times bordering on vandalism. I removed it. I'm absolutely sure anyone who has been paying attention to this page knows my reasoning by now. Apparently, Bensaccount has not been paying attention, as can be deduced from his reversion summary:

undoing Ecs unexpained reversion. His unexplained personal preference does not get to stay when facts are being mistaken for opinions.

Mentioning 'unexplained' twice. Nice. And I am not mistaking facts for opinions. In an article on creation science, no fact is holy, as that is exactly what creation science is about. You might feel that it is a fact that Scientology is a cult. It might fit the common definition of cult. But the article on creationism does not claim that it is a fact. -- Ec5618 June 29, 2005 05:36 (UTC)

So we have more rhetoric from Ec, but still no reason for ignoring facts. Just a vague attempt to make it seem like there is no such thing as objectivity when it comes to opinionated minority groups. Apparently all Ec has is the ability to say "I already explained myself, so I don't have to explain anything ever again". Bensaccount 29 June 2005 15:31 (UTC)

Rhetoric, thank you. /Archive_4#Reversions_again.

1. Creation science has proponents and opponents. Its proponents claim its scientific.
2. Creationists are not lying. Even if you assume they are wrong, they are probably not conspiring to tell conscious lies.
3. The introduction of an article is not a place to make a point. No. Please, that is what the section on critisism in the creationism article is all about.
4. The intro does not in any way suggest that Creation Science is considered by anyone in this world to be true, excluding its proponents. These proponents may truly believe that creation science is science, and it is offensive to suggest that while they are entitled to their beliefs, they believe in a lie.

This has gone far enough, we should be able to compromise. The main problem, as I see it, is that you want to make it clear that creationism is not science, while I want to make it clear that creationism is not generally considered to be science, as science is not clearly defined.

Have you read WP:NPOV since I suggested it?

"The policy is easily misunderstood. It doesn't assume that it's possible to write an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view. The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct."

I've copy/pasted most of these comments. They still apply.

Finally, I said, in response to your ideas on NPOV:

"I don't get how you justify what you just did. I showed you that your interpetation of policy is wrong, and you accuse me of twisting policy. Are you saying that you disagree with policy?" -- Ec5618 June 29, 2005 16:47 (UTC)

Rhetoric is not something to be proud of Ec. It means your "reasons" are loud, confused and empty talk. As for your copy and paste move: If these are your "reasons" for misrepresenting fact as opinion, they are seriously lacking substance. Here is a reminder of my previous answers to your nonsense.

1. Never said the contrary.
2. Never said the contrary.
3. The introduction should summarize all of the points.
4. Offending CS proponents is no reason to avoid objectivity.

Don't twist NPOV. Not assuming there is a single objective viewpoint is different from disallowing the objective viewpoint when it exists (as much as you wish it were the same). Bensaccount 30 June 2005 21:37 (UTC)