User talk:Matthew J. Theriault

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Matthew J. Theriault, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV), and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

Please pay particular attention to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. If you fail to confine yourself to specific well referenced proposals for improving the article, and continue your off-topic arguments on talk pages, this will be seen as Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. .. dave souza, talk 11:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Dan Luck"[edit]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. This was a non-notable biography according to the criteria in WP:BIO.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

creation science[edit]

Just because you are using multiple accounts does not mean you (and any friends who are working in concert with you) cannot get away with circumventing the 3RR rule. In fact, you might be charged with sockpuppetry in addition. Do not engage on an edit war on creation science if you want to not be blocked or banned. Thanks.--Filll 18:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Escalating warnings for creation science[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on creation science. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. You cannot use sock puppets to avoid this rule.--Filll 19:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


Removed WP:SOAP rant[edit]

The claim is being made that Creation Science cannot be truly considered science because it allows conclusions to be drawn from empirical evidence and observation that state the such evidence points to and supports a Transcendent Cause (miracle, singularity) as the best explanation for the origin of the universe and living organisms. This is allegedly objectionable because science is the study, through observation and experimentation, of the natural Cosmos (whether that exists as a universe, multiverse, or any other model for the entirety of the material reality), and is not concerned with any being (God, angles) transcendent of this Cosmos. The assumption is therefore made that scientists should study the Cosmos purely in terms of naturalistic causes, and should not allow for any possibility of transcendent causes existing in addition to regular operational processes. The evident danger of this assumption is that if any transcendent causes have actually occurred, they would automatically be disregarded in favor of a falsely necessitated naturalistic explanation.

Yet some still argue that principle disallows consideration of transcendent causes, wrongly equating them with logical fallacies, fearful that Divine action upon the Cosmos requires a suspension of reason. However, no argument has been made to suggest that transcendent causes should be concluded as responsible for the origin of the Cosmos despite what observation and experimentation yields. Rather, if there exists overwhelming empirical evidence for design in nature, then the true suspension of reason occurs in the stubborn rejection of this possibility.

Only one other reason can exists, then, for a steadfast adherence to a naturalistic imposition on scientific study. If every aspect of the cosmos requires a naturalistic explanation, it necessarily follows that the cosmos is self-extant, as any agent operating to bring it into existence must be considered transcendent in relation to the cosmos, and would therefore be excluded by principle. This not only denies any Divine authorship for creation, but precludes the non-existence of the Deity by taking His place as self-extant. As such, inherent to naturalism is an atheistic theological foundation that reveals its deeply religious character. --Theriault 19:14, 9 July2007 (UTC)

First, let me say that this is not a debate club. If you want a debate club, go someplace else. Not here. This one time, I will answer this stuff. This will not turn into some long drawn out discussion, because I do not have the time or the interest to answer such nonsense for the 10,000th time. Next time, go someplace else with this sort of material and argument.

The claim is being made that Creation Science cannot be truly considered science because it allows conclusions to be drawn from empirical evidence and observation that state the such evidence points to and supports a Transcendent Cause (miracle, singularity) as the best explanation for the origin of the universe and living organisms. This is allegedly objectionable because science is the study, through observation and experimentation, of the natural Cosmos (whether that exists as a universe, multiverse, or any other model for the entirety of the material reality), and is not concerned with any being (God, angles) transcendent of this Cosmos. The assumption is therefore made that scientists should study the Cosmos purely in terms of naturalistic causes, and should not allow for any possibility of transcendent causes existing in addition to regular operational processes. The evident danger of this assumption is that if any transcendent causes have actually occurred, they would automatically be disregarded in favor of a falsely necessitated naturalistic explanation.

It is not up to you and me to decide what science is. It is up to the courts and the science community. This is completely verifiable, which is all that counts on Wikipedia. These groups have made this decision, so what you and I believe is irrelevant for Wikipedia. Sorry.


Yet some still argue that principle disallows consideration of transcendent causes, wrongly equating them with logical fallacies, fearful that Divine action upon the Cosmos requires a suspension of reason. However, no argument has been made to suggest that transcendent causes should be concluded as responsible for the origin of the Cosmos despite what observation and experimentation yields. Rather, if there exists overwhelming empirical evidence for design in nature, then the true suspension of reason occurs in the stubborn rejection of this possibility.

Unfortunately for your point, the US court system and the science establishment have decided that there is not overwhelming empirical evidence for design in nature. So you are incorrect. This is basically a nonsense paragraph, and is not germane to writing and encyclopedia. Sorry.

This , along with the rest of your argument here, is known nothing more tan a logical fallacy known as the Appeal to Authority, and continues to ignore the issue of non-neutrality in the article. Matthew J. Theriault 10:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


I believe you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. Please review WP:UNDUEand WP:NPOV. We are not directed to present pseudoscience in a neutral fashion, or to give equal weight to minority viewpoints. Creation science counts as a minority view and as a pseudoscience, so it must not be treated in a neutral fashion. --Filll 11:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


Only one other reason can exists, then, for a steadfast adherence to a naturalistic imposition on scientific study. If every aspect of the cosmos requires a naturalistic explanation, it necessarily follows that the cosmos is self-extant, as any agent operating to bring it into existence must be considered transcendent in relation to the cosmos, and would therefore be excluded by principle. This not only denies any Divine authorship for creation, but precludes the non-existence of the Deity by taking His place as self-extant. As such, inherent to naturalism is an atheistic theological foundation that reveals its deeply religious character. Matthew J. Theriault 00:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


The science establishment defines science as being naturalistic. So do the courts. So if you want this in Wikipedia, change the science establishment and win a few court cases. And a huge number of Christians and other religious people have no problem with naturalism, which has no basis in atheism. You cannot produce any verifiable reliable source that bolsters your argument, I am pretty sure. Until then, this sort of material does not belong in Wikipedia.--Filll 01:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions for you to answer before anything else[edit]

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.
So creationists do not know much about the theory of evolution? That's a strong claim.
  1. 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.
  2. 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?
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Creation science and creationism and intelligent design have no predictive power, and so are easily dismissed.
  8. Science and particularly evolution is silent on the cause of the universe. It is about "how", not about "why".
  9. 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.
  10. Your personal credibility, or lack thereof, has been confirmed by your statements. "By their fruits ye shall know them", after all.
  11. 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)

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Creation science, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Stop polluting the talk page with nonsense and trying to start debates and arguments. If you continue down this path, things will get negative. Thanks.--Filll 01:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you should rather use uw-chat2. Fatalistalk 09:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


Information.svg Please do not use talk pages such as Creation science for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. You have posted the same inappropriate material to the article talk page 4 times, and been repeatedly warned about this. Please do not continue down this path or else you might be banned or blocked.--Filll 11:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)