Talk:Creation science/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

IP hopper

I see that this article appears to have an editor hopping from one IP address to the other. It's pretty clearly the same person, editing from California. Dougweller (talk) 07:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked 76.87.30.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) with an expiration time of 24 hours based on a violation of WP:3RR. Gabbe (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

For reference, these are the edits in question: [1], [2], [3] and [4]. Gabbe (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

genesisscience.org edit war starting?

I just happen to note this change while browsing change log. From wuick look at history, the name of the site suggests it could be a reliable source for a claim about creation science. Keep in mind that if the topic was about a blog, for example a blog by a person who had achieved notability and was mentioned on CNN, then the blog itslef would be a reasonble link or source about itself. Also, just reading the first few sentences of the article, there seem to be a lot of questionable adjectives such as "religious" and "accepted." These are always hard to edit as often they are just natural usage but in this context it would seem to help. There is nothing inherently "religious" ( I guess depending on how you want to define it) about examining data that addresses the possibility of the universe having been designed by a Creator, even the one described in the Bible and the sequence of events elaborated in Genesis. Certainly the Bible is associated with religion but the creationist theories needn't rely on religion. I guess you could say that by deciding the information contained in Genesis has any significance you have adopted a religious or faith based attitude but that would then mean trust of many documents would have to be considered a "religious" attitude. I have a hard time dropping "accepted" from the scientific stuff and it may be reasoanbly interpretted by most readers. It does introduce the topic as being a bit fringe and this may in fact be about right today. FWIW. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"the name of the site suggests it could be a reliable source for a claim about creation science" -- what has the name got to do with it being a RS or not? This site is not that of one of the major organisations pushing CS (ICR, AiG, GRI, CRS), nor does it "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article", so I see no reason for including it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I second what Hrafn said and that's why I removed the link a couple of times. Btw, the site itself has very little information. A few paragraphs on generic creationism plus a contact us and donate page. Regardless of its subject, this site has really no reason to be included here. --McSly (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I hadn't looked at it nor seen much justification for removing it. If it really seems to contribute nothing then fine but that wasn't apparent from the edit what standard the editor was applying and I hadn't actually checked the site. Certainly if it is just a mirror collection with a donate page ( like a mirror of wiki asking you to donate to the mirror site LOL) then I would agree unless of course it has achieved significant notability itself with some particular claims or content. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

How does this not seek to "study" in a way in which to blatantly endorse theism - or, perhaps additionally, deism, both religious ideals? It being religious is unquestionable.

And of course it's fringe scientifically. It's unscientific, as it does not use the scientific method. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 10:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

How does MTV help us to understand the Maxwell's Equations related to sending video down a cable? Do articles related to MTV only allow content that describes the physics of TV related phenomena? If a source is reliable for the desired claim, there is no standing requirement that it address a scientific topic, indeed alchemy and astrology are covered. Even if the topic has "science" in the name the use of the term for the sake of this article is governed by the literature on the topic, not some external notions you want to impose on it. Essentially science is not relevant, what is relevant is documenting reliable statements about what practitioners in the art state or believe of do. There are many topics that have notability and encyclopedic value but have no science ( or Elvis ) in them, so what? It would seem that notions of reliability are being extended beyond their wiki intent from "reliable for claim made" to "what everyone else thinks is reliable." Statements of opinion, be they untestable or wrong, can be reliable evidence about a topic if not a fundamental law of the universe. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the link has problems with WP:ELNO points 1, 4, and 5. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Take away from this article, "CS is something scientists don't like" LOL

WP:SOAPboxing "not relevant to improving the article" (archived per WP:TALK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
OK, after skimming this I will concede that the "religious" term could be applied but a citation may help on first usage. To pre-empt the stuff about undue weight, even disproven theories like spontaneous generation AFAIK have the attributes which I am suggesting below. Description of the topic does not mean undue weight as you are not advancing anything just trying to document it. The rest of the article reads from the POV of scientists and I'm left more or less knowing what scientists don't like and what science is but I'm still not entirely sure what specific theories or ideas have been advanced by covered creation theories. Let me just note several things : 1) History is not testable be it creation or big bang. 2) What is an "armchair geologist?" and do you have a source that uses this term for the putative geologist to which it refers? 3) Does the evolution article have a section that supposedly explains evoltion but begins with language such as, " most believers in evolution are liberal democrats with modern open minds?" as the one here basically describes the people not the the topic under consideration. I can't really find a section or sections that describe each creation or design theory in very specific terms as readily as I can find general rebuttals from scientists. Further , the level of detail would perhaps equate to something like " Evolution is based on the account of Darwin as put forth in Origin of Species and Favoured Races" without further details, evidence, and open issues. 4) While never accepted by courts could be an important observation, I'm not sure what it contributes to merit or why that deserves more prominence than "formerly taught in some schools." If you were describing a natural product that is sometimes used as a folk rememdy, you may reasonably mention "never approved by the FDA for foo" but I'm not sure it would get a lot of mention. I'll admit I'm taking a bit of a critical attitude and maybe if I read it again I would learn more about the various creation theories as well as their critics but the article should be about the topic. A topic that happens to have a lot of critics does not mean they should be ignored and indeed I am happy to see criticism but in this case I'm not sure if it obscures the point of the article which is at a minimum describing the topic before explaining how it is recieved in various communities. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Re: 1. Explanations of history are testable. You mention the big bang; big bang theory, in suggesting a mechanism for the origin of the universe, had a number of implications about astrophysical issues which scientists hadn't examined at the time. Then, scientists looked closely at those issues, and - wow! - the theory passed those tests. Further astronomical observations will find further evidence that is or is not compatible with current theories of the big bang, so those theories remain "testable". "Creation science" attempts to provide specific explanations of how the world came to be the way it is, without resorting to a simple "god did it"; those explanations should be testable because we can look for further evidence (perhaps geological) that supports or refutes these explanations. Of course, that alone does not mean that CS deserves the name "science". Re: 2. "Armchair geologist" seems like a fair label for George McCready Price. Can you suggest a better one? Would you be happier with "Discredited geologist", or "Handyman who claimed to be a geologist" perhaps? If you insist something explicitly and directly sourced, perhaps we could apply a label which explicitly describes his academic accomplishments, although that would be even less palatable to those who want his works to be taken seriously, hence it would be more controversial. Re: 3. No, because it is neither necessary, nor wholly true. Re: 4. Court rulings on this subject are relevant, given the several high-profile court cases on this subject. They hardly dominate the article. Re: "A topic that happens to have a lot of critics does not mean they should be ignored" - which topic are you thinking of? Creation science is not ignored on wikipedia; there's a lengthy article with a great deal of debate. Re: "I am happy to see criticism but in this case I'm not sure if it obscures the point of the article which is at a minimum describing the topic before explaining how it is recieved in various communities." - again, which article are you thinking of? The CS article as a whole starts with "beliefs & activities" before moving on to the proponents & opponents; the intro itself starts with a sentence about CS belief before a sentence on who holds those beliefs. Bobrayner (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC) No, you are not testing history you are testing if a possible sequence of events was possible or probable. With origins of life it is even easier to argue- so you synthesize life de novo in a test tube, that doesn't mean it happened that way originally even if your test tube recreates the conditions you think you have on pre-biotic earth. I don't care if the "geologist" in question is good,bad, or indifferent but you have to admit the term seems to have come out of the blue which could be taken as OR or POV. If he is called that anywhere or the term means something precise enough to test, you may want to cite the name caller or link the term to something. Alternatively, if credentials are not relevant don't even name or label him just state the point and give a citation for more details. I think you missed the point on 3, the section reads like an ad hominen, " CS is only believed by bad groups and the details of CS don't matter." I'm not suggesting softening criticism or removing the demographics part as these are likely notable and relevant, I am suggesting that a section on each notable CS theory would be helpful. You wouldn't define Darwinianism by the demographics of its followers, why not elaborate on what CS claims to be? This could be a stub article but everything I've seen suggests details are considered "undue weight" or something. There is nothing wrong with accurate criticms but when the topic isn't first explained its hard for an umfamiliar reader to evaluate. The court ruling thing just didn't seem to read well and may have been an original observation but I'd have to see if there was a citation to Ted Turner making the point or something. Again, I'm not claiming it is a bad observation but you could have just as easily said " variants used to be taught in some schools but no court has allowed it to continue." I think you missed my points in your last few comments- I just wanted to make clear I'm not criticizing the inclusion of criticism. I am worried that issues like "undue weight" are being used in an unhelpful way. That is, the article has to be about the topic and explain in as much detail as editorial policies permit. That is not an issue of weight, that is the exposition of a notable topic. If your topic was "Origins of the the Universe" then, ok, undue weight may mean you only mention CS in passing and concentrate on more popular ideas. I don't know where to recruit a CS expert but someone like that whose contributions could be made encyclopedic may be helpful. And, sure, after reading Blind Watchmaker with IIRC provably wrong plausibility arguments and assertions( it has been years and this isn't my life's interest so don't ask for examples just an FWIW), I began to take alt ideas more seriously. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Claims that creationism is science are well documented as a fringe pseudoscientific view, and see WP:NPOV with particular regard to WP:PSCI. The court cases are relevant, as creation science arose directly in response to schools reintroducing teaching about evolution, and developed when courts overturned as unconstitutional state laws against such teaching. As for the description of "Armchair geologist" George McCready Price, is that description in the cited source? If not, another source is needed, and we should show Numbers' description as his is usually an informed and well balanced assessment. dave souza, talk 21:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Labels like "pseudoscience" don't tell us more about the topic, just others' opinions. I'm not saying criticisms and insults should be removed, just trying to get more details on what the CS and ID people are advancing. Essentially the entry says, " the details of CS don't matter it is just a joke which is all you need to know, nuff said" which is hardly encyclopedic. Even alchemists and astrologers have elaborate theories that may be worth documenting. Undue weight can't apply to a single topic, just alternative "views" that compete within the intellectual space of a larger topic. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Do please provide reliable third party sources defining what CS / ID creationists are advancing. We provide the definition from Arkansas Act 590 which covers the basics pretty well, and go further into detail in the Issues section. Your detailed and fully sourced proposals for improvements will be welcome, remembering of course that WP:NPOV in its entirety always applies. . dave souza, talk 23:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Historical sciences are testable, in that they make testable predictions. E.g. the Big Bang theory predicted the existence of cosmic microwave background radiation. An "armchair geologist" is one who reads about geology, rather than researching it (he could "barely tell one fossil from another" in the field). The description is cited (in Flood geology to The Creationists (Extended edition p 106). Kindly read WP:GEVAL & WP:FRINGE. Last I checked, no "folk rememdy" [sic] had ever been the focus of a SCOTUS case. SCOTUS having a "prominent" viewpoint, we give it WP:DUE weight. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 23:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks, but it would require substantial research on my part to contribute a description of any detail for each ID/CS theory. Describing what some group believes or what a theory describes doesn't involve POV and I'n not against criticism it is just that I had hard time finding anything that tells me what is being refuted. If ID/CS is not notable it should not have an article, it is only fringe in another context. For example, there is a long article on vitamin C but vitamin C wouldn't get much coverage on "HIV cures" or "cancer cures" or "drugs that turn vampires into kangaroos." Just because it doesn't compete with some other theory doesn't mean that a notable topic should be excluded from its own article (LOL). A prominent viewpoint in the context of a CS article would be one of the CS theories, not really an issue of evolution. An article on "origins of life" would be a different topic and I wouldn't argue about passing mention especially if article is something like "scientific theories of the origin of life" . And, I'm now looking for every reference to Carl Sagan so I can call him "Butthead Astronomer" which I can source ( this even appears in wiki Apple article IIRC). If you can source "armchair" or it means something great but to a casual unfamiliar reader it sounds like an uninformative slur ( and my point relates to "uninformative" but "slur" is just to be specific about the nebulous impression it creates). No, history is not testable you are just making plausibility arguments.Cosmic background radiation doesn't prove anything, it is simply consistent with or can be rationalized with big-bang or any other theory I can make up. A test is some kind of reproducible experiment - sure you can keep measuring the cosmic background but so what? Again, you may be able to synthesyze life de novo in a test tube but that doesn't prove it every happened that way anywhere else. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I suggest you read up on testable predictions because what you seem to think they should be is not what they are. The big bang predicts cosmic background radiation. We go looking for it. We find it. Test confirmed. If testability necessitated recreating things in the lab exactly as they occur outside it, then we would literally know NOTHING scientifically.Farsight001 (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

most of these discussions seem to be about merit as a scientific theory not the topic itself.

I guess after reviewing all the discussion here, it still seems that the criteria being applied to sources are largely based on their scientific merit and acceptance within the largely irrelevant scientific community. As I have indicated previously, there is no precedent or obvious benefit to the reader when taking this approach with other topics, why take it here? If you were writing an article on astrology, would you just make it a one liner saying it is a fringe or discredited view and leave it at that? What about spontaneous generation? You have to judge fringe or mainstream against the topic, not a universe you made up. So, in this case, you consider a CS writing to be fringe or mainstream depending on how prominent it is within the CS community. The fact that "science" is part of the name doesn't matter either. You would also have to judge reliability in terms of how well a source does at representing and noting the views of creationists, not how often it is cited in Nature. I'll admit I haven't read the article in much detail and indeed there does seem to be some information on CS in there, the exclusion criteria for sources, from the discussion here, seems to be a bit oriented towards the wrong standards. The fact that CS competes with evolution is indeed quite relevant as are critical commentaries on the topic. These rebuttals help establish notability and reliability of whatever CS sources they are rebutting, but coverage in a widely read edited or reviewed publication within the CS community should also qualify without regard to scientific merit and the absence of coverage with rebuttals in Nature would be immaterial. So, I'm not suggesting eliminating anything just making sure criteria are applied in a way that lets the reader understand the topic. Thoughts? FWIW. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be proposing that something which is claimed to be science suitable for use in science slassrooms and includes "science" in its name should be assessed without reference to science. See WP:PSCI for the basics on how articles are to treat such topics, and WP:FRINGE also gives useful guidance. The scientific community may be overwhelmingly irreverent when it comes to "CS", but in no way is it irrelevant. You also seem to be proposing that priority should be given to primary sources, suggesting original research in contradiction of WP:PSTS policy. Verification from reliable third-party sources is needed as the basis of the article or section, and scholarly sources about the phenomenon are appropriate, not self-published apologetics. . dave souza, talk 13:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm saying. I've read the policies and I would mention that if just as an editorial decision wikipedia decides not to cover CS, "things that we think people confuse with science", or nudity that's fine but I'm assuming that is not the case and just arguing for "best treatment" to make the topic known to a reader without including frivolous sources. First, other uses of the term "science" are irrelevant when defining this topic as it would be with other terms or idioms- this topic is about whatever "creation science" claims to be, same as with alchemy or astrology. If one of the claims is that it is science, then that claim and rebuttals may be quite appropriate but that doesn't mean that any CS sources change reliability because of their coverage by scientific sources. IEEE publications would not change quality on audio matters due to lack of MTV coverage even if IEEE published an article on music quality or something- for that matter, MTV would not turn classical music into a "fringe" topic by relative popularity. If a widely read publication , say a national religious newspaper, creates significant coverage of a primary source and basically gets the facts straight, that would seem to be sufficient to make the covered ideas notable. If you are waiting for Ted Turner to discuss it or for MTV to review IEEE works, there won't be much content. If anything, I was more concerned about OR from the anti-CS than pro-people. I had many obvious statements yanked from the Dendreon page for being OR but here I would guess I could find original observations critical of CS ( " CS claims foo but it is obvious from synthesis from well known facts that this is wrong"). I'm also not sure what qualifies as "self-published" as I was clear to mention edited/reviewed publications. Are you treating all the people expressing membership in the same faith as being non-independent( "they are all the same")? So, if foundation A publishes theory X and magazine B with no formal organizational or monetary link to A does a review on X, is B not a reliable secondary source if A and B both mention belief in Christian values? What about if they both expressed a belief in atheism? That would make most coverage of evolution non-independent. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to understand what you're trying to say a few times now, and I still don't understand. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'm assuming you're not arguing that 'creation science' should be presented as 'a truth within it's own universe'. Are you arguing that this article should be re-written in the style of the article on Hogwarts, ignoring the fact that people don't present Hogwarts as a field of science? -- Ec5618 (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for delay as I was busy with other things. Let me look at that and get back to you as I am not familiar with the topic or likely issues- I usually use abortion because most people are familiar with it and there are two major camps. But, again, the article has nothing to do with truth as much as documenting the state of human thought at various times- again going to the less emotinal spontaneous generation page or maybe astrology (which I haven't checked but assume it exists). So, first I'm not arguing about re-writing anything just trying to get some ideas of what is admissible "evidence." It wasn't clear to me which universe was being considered to determine reliability and fringe attributes. If you omit scientifically unreliable sources on an astrology page you don't have much nor document human thinking at various times. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

We do not have "two major camps", but rather an overwhelmingly solid scientific consensus on such issues as the theory of evolution, universal common descent and the age of the Earth, and a small and ineffectual religiously motivated fringe of intellectuals (generally scientists in unrelated fields, philosophers, theologians, etc) who, unable (due to their lack of relevant knowledge, qualifications and research) to convince the scientific community, have little choice but to follow a well-trodden pseudoscientific route of pitching their ideas direct to the (less knowledgeable and thus less critical) general public. The article should not be "documenting the state of human thought" but documenting expert opinion/explanation/analysis of that thought, per WP:PSTS. For some idea as to that opinion, I suggest you read this amicus brief. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If the issue were young Earth creationism versus the modern understanding that the Earth is billions of years old, you might be able to make a case that there are two camps. One 'camp' has scientifically concluded something, and the other merely denies those conclusions.

But we're not talking about such camps. We're talking about two groups of people who supposedly follow the scientific method. The first actually uses the scientific method, the second claims they do, but actually don't. We're talking about two groups in the scientific arena, of which one group is the clear winner. Thus the article deals with the science, and accurately reflects that creation science isn't science. -- Ec5618 (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Cites in support of claims.

The problem I see is that editors are making the claims that they believe are true and source-mining to find cites that support them (and not managing that, sometimes). The claim I have recently removed (that Humphrey's cosmology is considered pseudoscience) is supported by a citation that does not mention Humphreys or cosmology or pseudoscience. The previous citation did mention these, but just made innaccurate and unsupported assertions. As these citations are referencing "sources" it would probably be best to start with the sources to establish what statements to make in the article. Otherwise you look silly by "shopping" for cites and getting complete mismatches. LowKey (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And Farsight001 has reinstated it without addressing the issue that the claim and the source are at odds. The edit summary claims to be reverting disruptive editing. What am I disrupting, apart from incorrect citations?LowKey (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that another ref has been substituted for the brief. The new ref from TalkOrigins is certainly more apropriate and conveys the issues that scientists have with Humphrey's work. It does not, however, specifically label his work as "pseudoscience", so I am going to rewrite that sentence. Hugh Ross's criticism of Humphrey's work is the most compelling that I have read. Simply put, Humphrey's cosmology does not jive with observations. This is the fundemental reason why it is difficult to find criticisms of the work in academic journals--nobody is willing the check the equations because the conclusions are clearly wrong.Desoto10 (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) I'll scrap everything I typed that was caught by that conflict, because most of it is addressed by Desoto10. The TalkOrigins ref is the original ref, which I first highlighted as not supported the sentence. LowKey (talk) 05:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is better, but the obvious questions are "what predictions?" and "what observations?" The technical objections at TO are hopelessly fouled up. For instance objection 1 conflates expansion redshift with time dilation, and argues that time dilation, in the vicinity of the Earth, in the past, should be observable in the present via distant objects. Objection 3 is simply based on a false premise and confuses the past with the present. Frankly the objections just show that the TO contributors don't understand the material. This is why I was hoping for a better source than TO. (BTW you broke the reflink, but I have restored it). LowKey (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If this is the case, then you should be able to reference a source which refutes the TO stuff. Didn't Humphreys publish a rebuttal to many of the criticisms? Sorry about the formatting errors.Desoto10 (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Humphreys gives To enough credence to bother refuting it, but he did refute other critics, and I think Creationwiki specifically refutes the TO article. The problem is that it is rarely permitted to cite CW or the likes of Humphreys himself, as apparently Humphreys is not a reliable source on the content of Humphreys claims. It doesn't really matter, as Aunt Entropy's latest edit fixes the problem. LowKey (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Humphrey is "a reliable source on the content of Humphreys claims" (if a WP:PRIMARY one), he is however not a reliable source on the validity of scientific refutations of his claims. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hehe. Just as well I didn't claim he was then :) (although he is at least as reliable on the scientific validity of the TO rebuttals as the TO editors are on the the scientific validity of his model). Like I said, it doesn't matter with the way the sentence currently reads anyway. I just get frustrated that the whole of TO gets lumped as some sort of reliable resource, when much of it is unsupported opinion. The TO rebuttal in this case specifically misstated parts of Humphreys position. Don't mind me, just venting. LowKey (talk) 09:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that you were talking about the reliability of "CW or the likes of Humphreys himself" in the context of Humphrey "refut[ing] other critics" and "Creationwiki specifically refut[ing] the TO article", the claim was certainly implied. And you will find that most of the TOA refutations of Creationist claims contain fairly detailed citations. What elements of "Humphreys position" did TOA 'misstate', and can you substantiate this from Humphreys' own statements? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Not intended; but I should be more careful. I would have to dig out the book again for an actual quote, but objection 3 misstates Humphrey's position that the Earth once was (i.e. the primordial Earth) in a huge gravity well. TO says that Humphrey's places it in one at present. I have gone through quite a few TO rebuttals and I have generally found citations thin on the ground, or representing creationist claims via secondary (or worse) mis-representations. It has been a while since I looked it over in great detail, but I doubt that any changes are too dramatic. I honestly don't know why anti-creationists are so proud of TO; it is a poor resource and does your "side" no favours. LowKey (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's more likely that they assume that it's still in the gravity well, if Humphreys didn't specify when it got out of the well and how it survived the event without getting squashed like a pancake. Physicists are like that -- put something on some trajectory or orbit and, absent explained external forces, they'll expect it to still be there when they came back. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This article has a critical lack of impartiality that makes it unsuitable as an encyclopaedic article

This article has a critical lack of impartiality that makes it unsuitable as an encyclopaedic article. I accept the assertion that creationism as a body of thought cannot be considered to be a scientific discipline, due to the basis of its beliefs being in religious scriptures rather than empirical science. However, this article makes almost no attempt to hide its partiality.

An instance is the line, "Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence". If one says that scientists have rejected the arguments, one should say which scientists are being referred to, otherwise this statement qualifies as what is known in the Wikipedia community as a "weasel statement".

Another good example is the line, "Geologists conclude that no evidence for such a flood is observed in the preserved rock layers and moreover that such a flood is physically impossible". Which geologists?

Also, the line "Creation science's lack of adherence to the standards of the scientific method means that it cannot be said to be scientific in the way that the term "science" is currently defined by the leading world science organizations" shows a critical lack of impartiality.

The worst example I came across was, "Humphreys' theory is advocated by creationist organisations such as Answers in Genesis; however it is considered pseudoscience by the majority of scientists". What is the evidence for this? Has someone conducted a poll covering the whole of the world's scientific community? If not, then a statement like this does not belong in an encyclopaedia.

As for me personally, I am sitting on the fence when it comes to creation science. However, this article has not provided me with an impartial overview of the issue. I accept that a significant proportion of society is not in agreement with the creationism idea, but this article should be either cleaned up to ensure complete impartiality or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.114.193 (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There are fifteen archives of this talk page, I suggest that you read them. Also the External links and Further reading might give some assistance. Were every article dealing with "creationism" in its many guises to include all the details which you seem to require then they (the articles) would be unmanageable. Most of your points can be answered at Wikipedia, just to take one example: There is an article on Russell Humphreys which gives the information you ask for. TheresaWilson (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I accept your points. It is true that verification of each individual point would result in a very long article. However, I maintain that weasel words do not belong in an encyclopaedic article. A statement along the lines of, "A poll carried out by ..., in which ... academics of the ... scientific discipline chosen at random from Ivy League universities, resulted in ...% of respondents stating that they disbelieved the hypothesis claiming ..., which was made by a creation scientist named ...", is, to my mind a good format for a statement in an encylopaedia. Saying, "most scientists believe", without further verification, is an obvious weasel statement and has no place in an encylcopaedia.

If my questions can be answered within Wikipedia, then a link leading to the relevant article should be included. As said earlier, I accept that verification can add to an article's length. However, I would rather read an article with a small number of fully-verified details than a long article full of weasel words. I accept that creation science is not widely accepted, but if someone wishes to write an article refuting it, then refutations should be fully referenced.

Wikipedia authors should also be adept at distinguishing the difference between a fact and an opinion. The most prominent example of this is the "pseudoscience" label at the bottom of the article. The designation "pseudoscience is an opinion, not a fact. If, say, I were writing an article about detox diets, then I would maintain my view that they are pseudoscience, but it would be wrong for me to say to within the article, because that is solely my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.60.98.134 (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not regarded as "opinion," since that is the position of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. It can objectively regarded as a pseudoscience just as well, since the actual facts are for evolutionary theory, rather than this. I recommend you take a look at science and familiarize yourself with what science actually is. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 10:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether CS is valid or not, the article should remain impartial. Also the "position of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community" is their opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.7.109 (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Although Creation Science is in the minority in terms of scientific consensus, the article seems hostile to the idea of such. Since this is an article about the minority POV, it should be discussed in a less deconstructive and critical fashion and in a more informative manner instead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight). One does not have to give it scientific validity, but it is worth mentioning that there are enough issues that Creation Science has viable answers to (thermodynamics, magnetic alignment of cooled magma from different terrestrial magnetic periods, the rate of harmful mutations vs beneficial ones (some argue lack of observed beneficial mutation in a laboratory), Louis Pasteur and the Law of Biogenesis, and the statistics against irreducible complexity), that it should not be automatically viewed as psuedoscience. Rather, it should be noted that a majority see it as such. After all, true science is not subject to majority opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.82.65.10 (talk) 08:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Per wikipedia guidlines, we reflect reliable sources. That is exactly what happens here. I really don't know what you're talking about, especially since the real scientist's arguments against irreducible complexity don't involve statistics in the first place, nor do the creation "scientists" have any sort of viable explanation for any of the concepts you brought up. I'm also removing your tag because it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of npov policy. Neutral, as wikipedia sees it, does not mean half good and half bad, but rather that we weigh what the reputable sources say appropriately. So if, such as in this case, 99% of reliable sources speak negatively of the concept, about 99% of the article should also be negative. Furthermore, since creation science purports to be actual science, we use the reputable sources of REAL scientists for our sources. Hence, the hostility you see is perfectly in accord with policy.Farsight001 (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"real scientists"? This seems a little biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.7.109 (talk) 07:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Intelligent design advocates regularly fake their credentials or have credentials that are unrelated to evolution. Hence "real scientists" is only biased towards accuracy and honesty.Farsight001 (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

the word "fact" in the lead

this lead is very biased, you cannot use the word fact here since none of these so called facts can ever be proven RIP Pontiac (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you misunderstood the sentence which is about scientific facts. You must have been thinking of some other kind of fact, I've wikified the relevant words to make the lead clearer. . dave souza, talk 08:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Better RIP Pontiac (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I was going to make a similar point about the use of the phrase "scientific facts" in the lead. Although there are some outliers in any movement to whom all sorts of crazy quotes can be attributed, the larger creation science organizations (e.g., Answers in Genesis (AIG) or Institute for Creation Research (ICR)) recognize that the "scientific facts" (to use the word correctly) are just that - facts. Both AIG and ICR acknowledge that empirical (observable, repeatable) science is valid. It is only in the interpretation of those scientific facts that the creation science advocates differ from your so-called "real scientists." Therefore, to say in the lead that creation science seeks to "disprove generally accepted scientific facts..." is patently false. The sentence would be more encyclopedic if the phrase "scientific facts" were left out completely. As the WP rules require, Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. If you can provide an example of creation science attempting to disprove a scientific fact (as defined elsewhere in WP), please document and source it.Mthorn10 (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)mthorn10

The wikilink target for "scientific facts", fact#Fact in science describes such a "fact" as "an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory". Though it mentions the word "fact", the sense I get from the lead sentence of this article is that SCs dispute and attempt to disprove or explain away scientific theories which have been put forth as to explain classes of phenomena (not "facts" as described by fact#Fact in science).

Richard Dawkins, in The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, goes on at quite some length about treating a scientific theory as fact in his first chapter, titled "Only a theory", quoting two senses of the word Theory from the OED:

Theory, Sense 1: A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of fact6s or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or extablished by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed. Theory, sense 2: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.

Dawkins, writing about Creationists and thoughts re Evolution, goes on to say that, "... the scientists are using Sense 1, while the creationists are - perhaps mischievously, perhaps sincerely, opting for Sense 2." He goes on to mention the Heliocentrism along with Evolution as two examples of theories where the Sense 1 definition applies. It seems to me that creationist theories are good examples where the Sense 2 definition applies.

But I ramble. ... I think the lead sentence would be better if it said, "scientific theories and paradigms" instead of the present, "scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms ". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Facts that CS has issue with: the fact that the earth is over four billion years old, the fact that dinosaurs and humans did not live concurrently, and the fact that there was no worldwide flood 3500 years ago. That's just for starters. Auntie E. (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but just because they are 'scientific facts', it does not follow that they are necessarily 'true facts'. ^rossnixon 01:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't "true fact" a rhetorical tautology? Can a fact be untrue? Can an untrue assertion be a fact?

It seems to me that the discussion in the Fact vs theory section below (which predates this part of the discussion here by nine months or so) has relevance here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think Auntie E. is failing to recognize a distinction that is critical to this discussion, if not the heart of the whole brouhaha between creation scientists and evolutionists. Scientific facts, as defined in the wikilink, are "observable" and "verifiable." This suggests to me facts that can be proven or disproven empirically, i.e., by using the scientific method. For example, if I pour vinegar over baking soda, CO2 is released. It happens every time and can be repeated ad infinitum with the same results.

But it is impossible to establish as "scientific fact" a specific historic event (Auntie E's assertions re: the 4bn year age of the earth, the coexistence of dinosaurs and humans, and the absence of a worldwide flood) using the scientific method. These events in history are not capable of being repeated and are therefore outside the realm of empirical science. Therefore, none of the three "facts" Auntie E lists can be "scientific fact" as defined in the wikilink (Thanks for letting me know what a wikilink was, Wtmitchell. I'm newish to WP speak.)

To be sure, empirical evidence can carry you a long way toward a conclusion regarding an historic event. But it can only take you so far and the rest of the distance must be "hurdled" by educated conjecture, a.k.a. "scientific theories and paradigms" as suggested by Wtmitchell (above).

As I stated above, most CS do not disagree with "scientific facts" established by the scientific method. It is in this area of "hurdling" (i.e., the theories and paradigms) that the CS and evolutionists diverge. Both sides look at the same empirical evidence, but come to radically different conclusions about how to interpret said evidence. Where you land, after making the jump, depends more than most people care to admit on where you wanted to land.Mthorn10 (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)mthorn10 mthorn10@hotmail.com

The discussion is veering off course. Wikipedia isn't for debating the issues. We have to explain the topic using the same logic and terminology given in the sources. We say what they say, that's all that matters here. Sources determine the content. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Scientific Creationism in the opening sentence?

I'm a bit confused regarding the opening sentence and why it uses both "creation science" and "scientific creationism". I wanted to bring it up here first before editing in case there was some sort of debate or discussion that already happened in the hopes I could get clarification on why we use the phrase "scientific creationism" at all. Aside from a few books with that title it's clearly not a commonly used synonym for creation science (check the google test after you remove any references to "Scientific Creationism" book titles). Additionally "Scientific Creation" as a unique term doesn't seem to have any sort of definition and as such just seems pointless and redundant to use in the opener. Nefariousski (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've restored this. Basically, Google is an idiot.

For an explanation of the early usage of the term "scientific creationism", and its meaning, see McLean v. Arkansas. There's an external link to the text of that 1981 ruling in the article. Please note that Google didn't even exist until the late 1990s. --TS 19:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony, good source. "The term "scientific creationism" first gained currency around 1965 following publication of The Genesis Flood in 1961 by Whitcomb and Morris. There is undoubtedly some connection between the appearance of the BSCS texts emphasizing evolutionary thought and efforts of Fundamentalist to attach the theory. (Mayer) In the 1960's and early 1970's, several Fundamentalist organizations were formed to promote the idea that the Book of Genesis was supported by scientific data. The terms "creation science" and "scientific creationism" have been adopted by these Fundamentalists as descriptive of their study of creation and the origins of man....." . . dave souza, talk 19:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

so since the phrase is admittedly obsolete and not in common use today why is it in the opening sentence? The google date point isn't really an issue here. Google as a source contains a myriad of information that existed before it's invention. We're talking about common usage and "scientific creationism" is definately not commonly used per WP:Google or any other source I can find. So again, what value does it add to have an archaic and unused term redundantly used with its modern equivalent in the opening sentence? Nefariousski (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a historical phenomenon as well as a present day issue, and it hasn't changed significantly since the 1960s, let alone the 1980s. Worth checking out Ron Numbers on it. Both terms are significant and as alternatives should feature in the lead. Got better sources? . . dave souza, talk 19:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No problems, I don't have any strong issue here aside from the lead looking redundant. It's more stylistic if anything, just wanted to see if there was any added value or reasoning for having it there aside from some sort of compromise to appease some editors. Thanks for the clarification! Nefariousski (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

1st sentence

Currently:

"Creation Science or scientific creationism is the movement within creationism which attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation myth, and disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.[1][2] "

It is the "attempts to provide scientific support..." that I object to. This phrase suggests that CS is attempting to use scientific method to determine whether or not the Genesis myth is true. I don't think that is the case. CS proponents begin with the conclusion that the Genesis myth is true and they then try to interpret evidence to back up that conclusion. If the evidence seems to contradict the Genesis myth, then CS people claim that there is something wrong with the evidence or its interpretation. To these believers, NO evidence can contradict the bible. That is not science as currently defined. If CS folks were truly trying to provide scientific support then they would make the hypothesis that the bible is true and then evaluate the evidence to see if their hypothesis is supported. That would be science. I would like to remove the word "scientific" in the first line. I did it, but it was reverted based on the opinion that CS folks attempt to use science, but fail. I do not think this is the case, as the CS people do not use science at all (except as a smokescreen). Desoto10 (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Both creation science and ID try to redefine science to support their preconceptions. McLean v. Arkansas as discussed above (link) gives an interesting account of "Mr. Ellwanger's views" at the origin of that act. The act itself gave various definitions, the finding includes the statement that "The creationists' methods do not take data, weigh it against the opposing scientific data, and thereafter reach the conclusions stated in Section 4(a). Instead, they take the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempt to find scientific support for it." Something worth considering. . . dave souza, talk 19:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and make the change. Tony Sidaway objected before and might again.Desoto10 (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

How about "attempt to find what they consider scientific support?" Or maybe "pseudoscientific"? The idea is they are going for "scienciness" and I think that's important to convey, rather than just straightforward apologetics. Auntie E. (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This definition is hardly "apologetics". It is completely faithful to the two sources, which are both impeccable. The first is from an anthology written by scientists and science advocates, including such prominent creationist critics as Eugenie Scott, Massimo Pigliucci, Victor Stenger and Wesley Elsberry. The second is by historian Ronald Numbers who is widely regarded as the best authority on the movement. Neither works are in any way apologetic texts. This is what the creation scientists try to do--of course scientists say there are fatal flaws in those attempts, and this is thoroughly covered in the article. But the claim is perfectly appropriate. You can't understand creation science properly by overlooking the fact that they are trying to validate Biblical claims with scientific claims. Creation science itself does not qualify as a true "science"-but that does not necessarily preclude its practitioners from attempting to find scientific support to bolster their religion's creation account. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is too bad that many people do not understand that creationists ("scientific" or otherwise) cannot use the scientific method because to do so means that you must admit that your current belief could be incorrect. Now, you can certainly act like a scientist and measure stuff and record things and make conclusions, but unless you accept that your hypothesis can be invalidated, you cannot even attempt to use science. You could, as Aunti Em suggests, say that they are attempting to use something that looks like science, but is not. Your references are either unaware of this or they are just using the word and concept of science incorrectly. However, they did say it and you did reference it, so I guess this misinformation will remain.Desoto10 (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, many don't understand that the conclusions made in science must be, by definition, tentative. However these authors do understand it. So much of what is said and written about this topic is so sharply polemical lately, that it becomes harder to read simple and straightforwardly accurate statements as they're written, even when they come from the best sources. Besides the two sources identified, the definition given here is consistent also with what Eugenie Scott of the NSCE wrote in her article, "Creation/Evolution Continuum" (see the discussion following Morris and Whitcomb's The Genesis Flood). The NSCE were instrumental in helping the plaintiffs succeed in the Kitzmiller trial--putting together the evidence and witnesses to testify about what is and isn't really "science". The Continuum article is a weaker and potentially confusing source for the introductory sentence because it won't be immediately clear to those unfamiliar with the topic what the relationship is between creation science and Henry Morris's young earth creationism. The introduction and later parts of the article do a good job spelling out what science is, and how creation science falls short, so I disagree it's misinforming anybody. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops! I seem to have stepped into a mine field with my bold edit of the first sentence. I should have read this section of the talk page first, so I'm willing to self-revert if I've bypassed anyone.

I was trying to convey the idea that Creation Science adherents believe that science already proves that their YEC viewpoint is true, or at least that all scientific evidence supports their viewpoint.

I'd also like to have the intro mention the idea that the primary response among non-YEC scientists (an overwhelming majority, by the way) is to regard YEC as a myth (see Genesis creation myth).

While I'm at it, I'd like the intro to clarify whether CS is confined only to asserting that YEC has a scientific basis, or whether the claims of groups like http://www.answersincreation.org/ are sufficiently non-fringe to be mentioned. That is, is there a current within CS which pushes Old Earth creationism as "proven by" or "consistent with" science? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Creation science is a social phenomenon. As such, the lines get fuzzy. Initially, creation science under Morris examined evolution and historical claims made in Genesis in scientific terms. Morris was a strict YEC that gave no quarter to OEC or Catholic style theistic evolution--it was extremely doctrinal. CS quickly developed into a social movement to reform evolution education in schools, in which almost no scientific research was conducted and creation scientists (most of them were scientists) put their efforts into looking for weaknesses or contradictions in the studies in published scientific literature they could exploit to fortify their arguments. They were extremely effective in undermining public confidence in the evidence for evolution in the US while downplaying the YEC religious aspects, but they never really yielded their YEC stance. The prominence of these creation scientists was such that creationism became synonymous with creation science in the public's mind--and people still often use the two terms interchangeably. There are now OEC scientists such as Hugh Ross that look for evidence against evolution to support their religious beliefs, Islamic proponents, and intelligent design proponents who are a very mixed bag that includes at least a few agnostic secularists like David Berlinski. So the term "creation science" most often refers to Henry Morris style YEC, but more broadly speaking, it can also be applied now to other belief systems that attempt to prove other forms of theistic creation with science. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that comprehensive answer. I hope we can make sure that all of that gets into the appropriate articles. I gather that:

• a major purpose of CS is to undermine public confidence in evolution, i.e., saying the evidence is no good, etc.
• CS is largely YEC but downplays this aspect
• a parallel purpose of CS is to use science to "prove" Creation
• it is not just (or no longer?) an project to examine evidence for and against Creation, using the tools and methodology of science
• there's a melding of creation science and Creationism in the public mind, and the CS movement bears a significant responsibility for this confusion.

Did I get any of that right? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope this article still conveys these ideas. A major component of CS is challenging the evidence for evolution, yes. CS is largely YEC, but not completely; I know that as recently as a year or so ago, though, creation science was predominantly YEC, at least in the US. All of creation science, by definition, seeks scientific proof of some element of special creation, and for most creation scientists, this means special creation of human beings. For ID proponent Michael Behe, the "special creation" is not at the species level, but at the molecular level or thereabouts. It's not just an exploration with science; for organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research and the Discovery Institute, there are political objectives involved. About the terminology, as one source described it, "the term creationism was co-opted by creation science" in the 1970s and 80s. I wouldn't say creation science is responsible for the confusion-if anything, during this period especially, creation scientists did not want to be confused with OEC and other creationists. What they hoped by downplaying the YEC was to avoid creation science being labeled a "religious" enterprise rather than "scientific" enterprise. Intelligent design theory, which is a subset of creation science proper, wants to distance itself from the label "creationist", in large part because they're not necessarily YEC. Not all creationists are creation scientists, (I believe most creationists are not) and neither are all young earth creationists vis a vis creation scientists. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Moved the article from Creation science to Creation Science

I've boldly moved the article. The lead sentence of the article currently begins, "Creation Science or scientific creationism is the movement within creationism which ...". The name of the movement would be a proper noun, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) says, "For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper noun that would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence." (emphasis supplied). Accordingly, I've renamed the article. I've left a redirect at Creation science, but that might at some point need to be disambiguated if an article appears on the topic of science as it relates to creation. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If it is indeed a proper noun, should it be capitalized in the rest of the article? The first line seems to be the only place where both words are capitalized, presently. Other parts of the talk page refer to it being a proper noun rather than an adjective/noun pair (the discussion on whether it is science). Compwhiz797 (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Design and creationism

This phrase imputes an indissoluble connection between "design" and Creationism:

intelligent design proponents sought to reintroduce the creationist ideas into science classrooms while sidestepping the First Amendment's prohibition

I think it should rather say that the proponents of ID are arguing that nature shows evidence of having been designed as opposed to, say, having come about through natural causes alone. To show a human vs. natural example, a picket fence or barbed wire fence shows signs of having been created by human beings, as opposed to the six-fold symmetry of a snowflake which (we know) regularly comes about naturally.

It is a matter of controversy whether ID is a sort of Creationism, with US courts agreeing with ID opponents that is. On the other hand, there are some vocal and prominent ID supporters who insist that ID merely is an argument that some forms of life have a structure more intricate than any natural cause could bring about.

The dispute lies between those who argue that ID entails creationism in the sense of beginning with a religious faith in a Creator and then (as in Creation Science) looking for scientific evidence to support this religious belief - and those who argue that ID literally is only an argument for "intelligent design" as derived only from physical evidence in fields such as microbiology without beginning with any sort of religious premise.

I wonder if this dispute can be mentioned in the current article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The claim is historically accurate. The ID "movement" with its Big Tent philosophy predictably will include more diverse views than the Henry Morris stream. However the Panda's and People left a trail a mile wide that it was a creationist idea attempting to sidestep the McLean/Edwards court rulings. With the uncovering of the Wedge Document, and Michael Behe's involvement with Panda's and People, DI's attempts to present ID as a scientific discipline rather than a religiously driven legal/political strategy has failed to get much traction except with religiously motivated creationists whose own creationist beliefs have been excluded from public education by McLean and Edwards. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Denialism

The Category:Denialism may be a bit POV. Pseudoscience is descriptive, but denialism seems to be coming more from someone's perspective. It might be true or not, but it seems to me such a category isn't needed here. Denialism is more for things like Holocaust denialism and AIDS denialism, things that are obviously beyond reason. To people who are raised with this belief, it isn't beyond reason. Because so many people believe it, it isn't obviously wrong, though to some it may seem to be. I don't think the Denialism adds anything here except a tad of POV.

I think Pseudoscience describes the position well enough without the Denialism. --DanielCD (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Anthropologist Didier Fassin defines denialism as "an ideological position whereby one systematically reacts by refusing reality and truth"

Creationists are unmoved by the wealth of fossil, molecular, and anatomical evidence for evolution…the category appears to be absolutely correct? No matter how many people "believe" something, it doesn't make it true!!! Teapotgeorge^Talk 17:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, don't pop a vein. Just revert it. I wanted to start some discussion thoough. --DanielCD (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You're not wrong to want a discussion. With that said, Pseudoscience and Denialism are two entirely distinct things. Removing one due to having the other would be like proposing Category:Acronyms be removed from the AIDs article because it is already in the STD category. Secondly, an article about evolution denialism meets the criteria for the denialism category perfectly. You'll see that Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism are already in the category, and rightly so... Evolution is a fact, and is also a better supported theory in the field of science than, say, the authorship of Shakespeare's works is in the field of history. This article is about nothing but an organization which is devoted to denying science in a variety of forms, and it belongs in the denialism category as a result. Jess_talk|_edits 21:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

From memory, I recall seeing something in Wikipedia guidelines about not 'idly' adding controversial categories to articles (as the anon editor did) - so I have removed it. ^rossnixon 02:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If you could cite that guideline, that would be helpful. Until then, I don't see any valid objections other than that it is "controversial". Quite a few other pages relating to this article are already in that category. Do you have a solid reason for objecting to it, besides that it wasn't discussed first? Jess_talk|_edits 04:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I find user ^rossnixon's reasoning flawed. I gave a perfectly valid explanation above for re-adding the category, as did user Jess_talk|_edits to then remove it because it was added initially by an anon editor is disingenuous. Adding the category Denialism[5] is in no way controversial, the category already includes it's own subcategory of Creation Science! Teapotgeorge^Talk 12:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have much to add here except to say that it should be quite obvious why any form of Creationism would be considered denialism. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As requested, here is the WP guideline from Categorization#What_categories_should_be_created "Categorizations appear on pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossnixon (talk • contribs) @ 01:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that there's any question in the reader's mind about why "creation science" is a form of denialism? Or are you suggesting that there's any genuine controversy here? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"Many notable scientists..." in 'History and organization' section

I'm removing this paragraph as it:

1. Lists a number of scientists who lived before modern geology and biology challenged a literal creation.
2. Appears to conflate support for the theological doctrine of creation with the pseudoscientific claims of creationism.
3. Cites blatantly sectarian and/or unreliable sources, e.g. Campus Crusade for Christ International, wikipedia article
4. Cites references too vague to allow verification, e.g. "Johannes Kepler: His Life, His Laws, and Times." NASA./The Religious Affiliation of philosopher and mathematician Rene Descartes. Webpage

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

MOre areas for creation science?

Just looking at the various branches of creation science, it seems to me that a few areas are missing, and I'm wondering if there are creation science versions of these:

• Archaeology: Since the world began only 6~120k years ago, there isn't room for long paleolithic etc periods in the history of cultures. Radiocarbon and other dating must be a problem. Is there a creation science version of archaeology?
• Linguistics: Since all languages derive from the aftermath of the Tower of Babel, the division into language families seems moot (modern linguistics is essentially an evolutionary model - languages are classified by families etc rather like species etc, and they "evolved" into their present forms).
• Ethnology/anthropology: only 70 "peoples" are allowed, according to the Table of Nations - and the ToN sets certain rules, so that the inhabitants of Canaan have to be "Hamites" (Africans?), not "Semites" - modern ethnologists regard the Canaanites as Semitic in language and culture.

I'm sure there are more, but for those three, are there any CS versions? PiCo (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Haven't seen any -- they may be dumped into the 'too hard' category (too many facts that are too hard to explain from a CS/YEC viewpoint) along with things like population genetics and biogeography. You're welcome to 'dumpster dive' into YEC sites like AiG, ICR & CMI to see if they address any of this however. :) TOA's An Index to Creationist Claims may also be useful. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Bold changes to lead.

Could we please discuss these first, so as to avoid edit-warring? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Rossnixon, if you have any specific objections, this is the place to make them. Please do not edit-war. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

True. But you are mistaken. I was merely reverting the bold and undiscussed edit of 64.118.22.209. ^rossnixon 02:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Every edit is someone else's reversion. Regardless, I would very much appreciate it if you would explain your specific objections. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you reverted again without a single explanation here shows that you are edit-warring. I suggest that you self-revert immediately. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Editors should support their additions. Forgive me for asking, but you are not the original anonymous editor are you? ^rossnixon 02:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No, but you're about to violate WP:3RR, so I recommend self-reverting and explaining your objections. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Pot, kettle, black! ^rossnixon 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's both act like adults, shall we? Give us your reasons. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have given sufficient reason. Go look for it.^rossnixon 02:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Go look for it" is an inadequate response. Post it here; this is not a guessing game. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

All the fireworks attracted my attention, so I took a look at this. The changes aren't very extensive, so I broke them down point by point.

A. The redlink Genesis creation narratives and the question of whether "it comes" (singular) or "they come" (plural).

There is a WP article titled Genesis creation narrative (singular) wherein it says, "The opening passages of the Book of Genesis consecutively contain two creation stories." The name of that article could be pluralized as Genesis creation narratives, but I'd suggest leaving it singular (not explicitly pluralizing a singular article name here) so as not to cause unnecessary confusion. "The Genesis creation narrative comes from the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Bible." seems clear enough to me.

B. The question of whether the article needs to point out that the Bible is Christianity's holy scripture.

I'd say not; it's not something likely to need clarification, and it neglects to mention that the Bible (or portions or specific versions thereof) is holy to some non-Christians as well. That second point re non-Christians is probably not of much concern in this article since (AFAIK, anyhow) Creation Science is exclusively Christian.

C. The question of whether the first creation story describes creation of a flat Earth under a bowl-shaped Heaven.

Digging around, I found David Presutta (2007), "The Firmament of Heaven", The Biblical Cosmos Versus Modern Cosmology: Why the Bible Is Not the Word of God, Llumina Press, ISBN 9781595268297, which presents a pretty detailed discussion of this which boils down to "yes". On p. 82 "flat" is mentioned as coming from a noun-ized Hebrew verb said to be used for beating or hammering out metal into thin plates or sheets, and as the first-ssense of a dictionary entry for that Hebrew noun; an "upside-down-bowl" is mentioned as a synonym for "vault", and tied to the second-sense dictionary entry for that Hebrew noun.

D. The question of whether the in Genesis chapter two narrative was written by a different author at a much later time period than the story in chapter one.

I didn't do a lot of reading about this, and I ran into some nonpreviewable pages of the aforementioned book which are apparently relevant. I get the sense from pp. 247-248, however, that the author of that book attributes the chapter 1 account to Luke and the chapter 2 account to Matthew (speaking in the context of the tablet theory of biblical authorship).

I'm not a biblical scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but I think that the above lays out the skeleton for what might be a supportable rewrite for the paragraph at issue. If there are strong editorial opinions that other interpretations should be presented, those interpretations should be given due weight in the article, with supporting sources cited. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Wtmichell, thanks for making breaking down the list of changes and commenting on it. Really, this is something RossNixon should have done, but you were kind to do their job for them. The only thing you couldn't do was read their mind to determine what their motivation was.

In any case, I'd like to briefly respond to your points.

A. I'm not sure that pluralizing would cause any significant confusion, but to be frank, I don't feel strongly one way or the other.

B. Well, there are Jewish and Muslim Creationists, and "Creation Science" is just Creationism under another name. Still, I agree that we can probably drop the remark in parentheses.

C. I agree that this is both correct and relevant. It belongs in the article.

D. I'm not sure how significant the tablet theory is, compared to the documentary hypothesis, or whether there's room for it here.

Thanks again. Hopefully, we can move forward, despite RossNixon's stubborn determination not to cooperate. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As you know Dylan, I am happy with bold changes provided they are supported by cites to reliable sources. Until then, such proposed changes should remain on talk pages. ^rossnixon 02:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless you have some specific objection, the above consensus will be enforced. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

"'Creation Science' is just Creationism under another name." I would have to disagree -- 'Creation Science' is (i) creationism promoted under the color of science (i.e. under the pretence of science) and (ii) a loose coalition of YEC proponents of such, most notable for their promotion of flood geology (see Numbers' The Creationists, whose table of different types of creationists uses Flood Geology & Creation Science synonymously). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll be traveling starting tomorrow, so I've gone ahead and taken a whack at a rewrite of the paragraph under discussion here. The changes I made and the rationale behind them are:

• I removed the wikilink on the previously redlinked term "Genesis creation narratives". The singular version of this term is wikilinked earlier in the article. I've left the unwikilinked term here singular, as that seemed to me to read more smoothly than if the term were pluralized.
• I put the bit about the flat earth and bowl-shaped heaven back in. It has been in and out as an unsupported assertion; having found the source discussed above supporting the assertion, I added it back in and cited that supporting source.
• I added the info that some theories of biblical authorship suggest that the two genesis creation stories were written at different times by different authors, citing a supporting source for that.
• I removed the final sentence, "For biblical literalists, it incudes the story of original sin." The rest of the paragraph is focused on chapters 1 snd 2 of genesis, and this concerns chapter 3. If material on chapter 3 is added back in, I'd suggest making that a separate paragraph. The phrase "For biblical literalists" has been edited back and forth with an alternative phrase, "For fundamentalist Christians". I would suggest not mentioning either phrase -- the story of original sin is included in chapter 3 regardless of who the reader might be. Also, I'd suggest wikilinking original sin the first time it is mentioned.

Hopefully, I've struck an acceptable balance here. Feel free to improve what I've done. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you did a good job implementing what was discussed and the article is better for it.

The one thing I'm wondering is whether creation science is necessarily of the young-earth flavor. It's plausible, but news to me. Do you know if we have a citation for it somewhere? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I would call it more a historical accident than a 'necessity'. Creationism has two main areas of disagreement with modern science: geology (and specifically the age of the earth) and biology (specifically evolution). Flood geology is explicitly YEC, and 'creation biology' decamped to the ID movement before having achieved any notoriety under the CS banner. The result is that there is little, if any, work that self-identifies as 'Creation Science' that isn't YEC. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so more recent Creationist attempts to look scientific would call themselves "Intelligent Design" and would focus on anti-evolution, right? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, except the YEC/CS/FG effort is still alive and well (Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, etc). They also attack evolution at every opportunity, just don't work so hard as ID at the pretence of offering an 'alternative' to it (Baraminology as an alternative to cladistics would be the only exception to this). Oh, and I just remembered that both CS & ID take an interest in cosmology -- CS from a viewpoint of 'the universe is not billions of years old', ID from the viewpoint of the 'fine tuning' argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrafn (talk • contribs) @ 03:41, 9 November 2010

Interesting. Looks like the strategy is to evolve to fill all niches. Darwin would have approved. :-) Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oui -- it has been oft commented on that, for a bunch so emphatically opposed to evolution, they seem to do an awful amount of evolving (in response to First Amendment court rulings, as well as to find new niches). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

All that evolving, and yet they still haven't been able to develop any resistance to Miller's simple argument for the compatibility of Christianity and evolution. Maybe they're right about the impossibility of evolution! Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Their two sticking points appear to be Biblical Inerrancy (never a big issue with Catholics, of which Miller is one) and the historical-Adam-and-Eve/Fall/Original Sin thing. That 'resistance is futile' never seems to stop people futilely trying to resist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As yet another Catholic, I can confirm that we reject sola scriptura. The Church has been around long enough to remember that it's the one that chose which books went into the Bible. Since the Bible is as much a product of the Church as it is its foundation, we do not place it above the living tradition through which we interpret it. End result is that the Pope, for all the claims that he's a hidebound traditionalist, admits to the truth of evolution. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes

I do not agree with the Gwilenius/Rossnixon changes to the lead:

1. CSists do in fact attempt to "disprove generally accepted facts" -- RATE would be an obvious example.
2. That much of the material altered was part of a direct quote from Plavcan -- so should not be altered unless evidence is presented that he was misquoted.
3. It is a violation of both WP:SELFPUB ("unduly self-serving") & WP:DUE to use Morris' self-description of CS's methods (which is compounded by offering a lengthy quote).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, RATE is not an example of Creation Scientists "disproving" scientific facts - RATE makes use of the exact same data sets as naturalistic scientists, use the same methodologies to collect their data, and the same methods to interpret their data (L. Vardiman, A. Snelling, E. Chaffin. (2005). Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth. Institute for Creation Research. El Cajon, CA.) Facts are data, not the conclusions of that data. Saying the earth is billions of years old is not a fact, it is a conclusion based on interpretation of factual data in light of a particular decay model based on the presumption of uniformitarianism. Creation scientists interpret factual data based on teh presumption of Creationism - neither of which can be proven, and therefore neither position can be proven. Additionally, I have cited the president of the Institute for Creation Research himself as stating the purpose of Scientific Creationism is to use scientific facts to present evidence of origins in a manner at least as effective as evolutionary theory. (H. Morris. (2009). Scientific Creationism. Master Books. Green Forest, AR. P.3). Therefore, to say that Creation Scientists disprove scientific facts just because ONE reference is cited is clearly false because it is a logical fallacy called "hasty generalization." I am suggesting to change the word "disprove" to "challenge," because it is more accurate and closer to the truth. Otherwise, would some one counter my argument and provide a good explanation as to why it should be asserted that "creation science," implying ALL creation scientists, attempt to disprove scientific facts, when this is indeed not the case?

I will apologize for changing the quote - that was not my intention. This is the first time I have contributed and the edit screen looked like it was part of the text, not a citation with a quote. Will you please define "lengthy quote?" How was it "more lengthy" than Ref. 1? Finally, Morris is an authority in Scientific Creationism, and his viewpoint is accepted by peers and therefore there is nothing wrong with his "self-description," which is more an observation. Also, this viewpoint is fully supported by others such as Dr. Ariel Roth and the RATE team. Please, eliminate the bias in this article and include all perspectives. I will emphasize once again that not all creation scientists attempt to disprove scientific facts, and have conclusively demonstrated this.Gwilenius (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

1. "I disagree, RATE is not an example of Creation Scientists "disproving" scientific facts - RATE makes use of the exact same data sets as naturalistic scientists, use the same methodologies to collect their data, and the same methods to interpret their data (L. Vardiman, A. Snelling, E. Chaffin. (2005)." No. "RATE makes use of the" anomalous results of a small group of YECs untrained in experimental geochronology, and extrapolates from this that large, previously-undocumented and theoretically-unexplainable variations in nuclear decay rates are possible. A more reasonable conclusion is that they simply cocked up their experiments.
   • I would further point out that the "data sets [of] naturalistic scientists" includes a considerable body of experimental and observational data demonstrating that it is extremely difficult to alter nuclear decay rates, even by an extremely small amount, and even under extreme conditions. I would be curious as to how RATE "makes use of" that particular set of data. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
2. "Saying the earth is billions of years old is not a fact" -- it is very close to one. Uniformity of nuclear decay is however a fact.
3. "Creation scientists interpret factual data based on teh presumption of Creationism" -- Creation 'Scientists' cherry-pick data to fit their presumption.
   • I would further point out that basing work "on teh presumption of Creationism" whose main conclusion is an attempt to prove "teh presumption of Creationism" is the fallacy of begging the question, and thus logically invalid. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
4. Henry M. Morris was a crank with little scientific training and no scientific or scholarly credibility. The book was published by the organisation he created, ICR, which also lacks scientific or scholarly credibility. It is the very epitome of WP:SELFPUB. I see no more reason to give any more credence to his self-assessment than to Gene Ray's assessment of his Time Cube theories. The same applies, to a lesser or greater extent, to "Dr. Ariel Roth and the RATE team".
5. Please read WP:DUE, and particularly the statement: "However, such pages [about minority viewpoints] should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view." This means that minority self-assessments should not be accepted at face value.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I would conclude by stating that your entire argument is premised on giving equal validity to Creation Science versus the Scientific consensus. Wikipedia explicitly rejects this premise. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

1) Perhaps you should read the reference I provided. The data RATE uses is described in detail. Every branch of science "cherry-picks" the data to some degree.

2) Possessing an engineering degree is lacking scientific training? Who made that determination? Resorting to ad hominen attacks is hardly a counter-argument. Who's opinion are you citing which claims ICR has no scientific credibility? Biased reports from the NSF? Biased consensus from mainstream science?

3) The consensus is not always correct.

4) My point is this - stating that creation science, and implying all creation scientists, attempt to disprove facts of science is a lie and the wording should be changed. I have provided sufficient evidence that not all creation scientsts resort to these tactics, your opinions aside. As a whole, this article is not a "neutral" represntation of Creation Science, as it immediately makes the false generalization that CS rejects science.

If Wikipedia rejects giving equal validity, then WP is in and of itself biased. Perhaps this is why WP is forbidden to be used as research material in many educational institutions.Gwilenius (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

1. I have -- I wrote the Creation geophysics section on RATE. Their report is however nearly 700 pages long. Please point to where you believe they have established, on the basis of "the exact same data sets as naturalistic scientists" (as opposed to their own malformed experiments) that nuclear decay rates are highly variable. "Every branch of science 'cherry-picks' the data to some degree." Only to the "degree" that they expect to be laughed out of the building -- doing so is considered scientific malfeasance.
2. Engineers are trained to build things, scientists to discover things -- two very different things. "Who made that determination?" [72 Nobel Laureates, 17 State Academies Of Science, And 7 Other Scientific Organizations] determined that CS lacked any merit. Pointing out that somebody who (i) lacks any relevant scientific training, & (ii) makes claims rejected by the scientific community over a century before he was born, is not a WP:RS is hardly an ad hominem. Choosing sources means evaluating their credibility.
3. The consensus may not be always correct, but it is more times than it is not -- and the amount of error by which it is wrong by, even when it is wrong, has shrunk precipitously in the last century.
4. The majority scientific viewpoint is that CS is worthless pseudoscience. Wikipedia is required to give WP:DUE weight to that view. And it is forbidden to accept its proponents self-assessments (the only sources from which you have presented "evidence") at face value.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Rodsgarden

@Rodsgarden: You need to realize that any thing published by any creationists on any topic is an "unreliable source" by definition on Wikipedia. _AshforkAZ (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that creationists are not allowed to speak for themselves in Wikipedia, even in the article on Creation Science, but their opponents are allowed to put words in their mouths and misrepresent what they actually teach. It was easy to see the bias in the article, but I had hoped that I could at least correct a glaring error in the article. Is Wikipedia that prejudiced against creation science that it refuses to consider an opposing viewpoint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodsgarden (talk • contribs) 01:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Creationist sources are authoritative on the matter of what Creationist sources say, and this may well be relevant in some articles. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

To be blunt, the creationist big wigs are habitual lying sacks of crap blatantly contravening the commands of Christ through their intentional dishonesty. We can, actually, report what they say, but it would need to be balanced/countered by the truth. Creation science is not an "opposing viewpoint" like gradualism and punctuated equillibrium might be in evolution. You need to recognize this first and foremost. Creation science is just plain crap - like trying to convince people 2+2=22 instead of 4 and creating a whole method of algebra based on that false premise, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

In regards to your edit specifically, while those quotes are what those people say in the public eye, they have failed to learn from the Nixon administration and retain their private conversations, which inevitably leak and reveal an entirely different belief and intent that they don't want their followers to know of. The Wedge Strategy, while not associated with the people you are citing, is perhaps the most famous example of Creationists' real intentions being leaked.Farsight001 (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

@Rodsgarden: Exactly! Farsight is typical editor on WP. Wikipedia is not about truth, but about who has "reliable" sources. You need secondary 'reliable' sources, not primary 'unreliable' sources. All publications by Creationists about creationism are 'unreliable' primary sources. All 'reliable' secondary sources are anti-creation, published by anti-creationists. There are no neutral sources in the creation/evolution issue. And that explains the tone of all the articles on this issue. That's why Creation-wiki was started. _AshforkAZ (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" -- if you don't like that, then you're welcome to find some other online encyclopedia to edit. (ii) The dogmatic utterances of a hydraulic engineer and a theologian are most certainly not WP:RS on the subject of geology, or what is or isn't good science. Anybody expecting Wikipedia to accept such really needs a reality check! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Creationists sources would, almost exclusively, be classified as "Self-published or questionable sources", per WP:QS & WP:SPS. WP:SELFPUB therefore applies:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I would point out that much of creationist self-characterisation would be considered "unduly self-serving", including the claim that they "only question the assumption of uniformity of rates of geological and other processes," because "the original enunciation of the uniformitarian doctrine by Hutton, Playfair and Lyell insisted also that the rates had never changed."

WP:DUE, WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE & WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE also apply to articles about creationism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

@Rodsgarden: See.... One or more of these disqualifiers are applied to all material published by creationists, resulting in a one-sided presentation. _AshforkAZ (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to participate in the discussion and respond the the substance of what we say, or ignore/mock it, continue to make derisive comments about us like we're not here, and be generally unhelpful? Because if you are, policy also dictates that we can simply delete your comments. Contribute, or don't post.Farsight001 (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am being helpful. I'm explaining to Rodsgarden how things work on WP. That way he can avoid posting material that will be deleted. And save editors time and effort deleting it. _AshforkAZ (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You and I and probably everyone who reads this knows that if that is your opinion, then the derisive comments are completely unneccesary, and your "explanation" (which I really don't find much of one. It's just bickering, not explaining) would be better served on his talk page, not here, as this page is for discussion of article improvement only. You're posting it here more than just to "explain" to him. I'm not stupid.Farsight001 (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"@Rodsgarden: See.... One or more of these disqualifiers are applied to all material published by creationists, resulting in a one-sided presentation." Translation: I, AshforkAZ, demand that Wikipedia ignore WP:DUE, WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE & WP:RS and include the inexpert and dogmatic claims of a hydraulic engineer and a theologian, on the subjects of geology and philosophy of science, as though they had equal validity to the expert opinions of genuine experts in this field. Have a WP:TROUT and get a clue. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I would further point out that nearly every purveyor of WP:FRINGE & WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE theories or claims is a self-appointed expert on the subject (often accepted by those subscribing to these claims) -- this does not mean that Wikipedia is under any obligation to treat them as WP:RS -- quite the opposite. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I merely stated cold, hard facts, no opinions. And I'm not asking WP to change it's good policies. I was simply explaining how things work here concerning Creation materials to a newbe. I really don't care about dead Mr. Henry Morris. _AshforkAZ (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No. You "merely stated" your opinion that failing to include this obviously inexpert & self-serving material rendered the article "a one-sided presentation." No factual content whatsoever. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

---

I would suggest that this topic has been discussed to death, and that the relevant policies have been brought to everybody's attention. If anybody disagrees with the current consensus, that Creationist 'experts' are WP:QS and/or WP:SPS, then they are welcome to appeal this consensus to the relevant noticeboards: WP:RSN & WP:FTN. (I should however point out that these noticeboards may be no more willing to reopen the issue than this talkpage is -- this is to a considerable extent flogging a dead horse.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of this section was to point out to Rodsgarden the futility of trying to post creationist materials and why. As to if the article one-sided: Hey. The experts have spoken. That's all we need to know. _AshforkAZ (talk) 04:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You made no attempt to direct Rodsgarden to the policies that made his attempts futile -- giving the impression that the exclusion of the material was capricious or arbitrary (which in turn would give the false impression that a more forcefully-argued defence of the material might prove successful). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

A direct answer to Rodsgarden's comment [dated 01:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)] can in fact be found at WP:FRINGE#Independent sources:

The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As the one who started this discussion, I want to thank everyone for explaining to me how Wikipedia really works. I was puzzled by your comment, Dylan, "Creationist sources are authoritative on the matter of what Creationist sources say, and this may well be relevant in some articles." If a quote from the founders of creation science about creation science is not relevant to an article about creation science, what is? But, it was helpful to discover that all quotations by creationists about their own beliefs are considered "questionable source" and "self serving" while the misrepresentations of their beliefs by their opponents are not. I had hoped that I could make the article about Creation Science to conform closer to the ideal expressed under Wikipedia:Neutral point of View "Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." But it appears that the editors' bias against Creation Science will not allow it. Rodsgarden (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You're missing what people have been trying to say to you, Rod - that this article IS in compliance with NPOV policy. You just don't understand NPOV policy.Farsight001 (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What Dylan meant was that Creationist sources are acceptable as a source for their own views (with attribution), but not for information "about third parties" or "events not directly related to the source". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the objection to my edit that I quoted what the creationists said about Hutton, Playfair and Lyell's views because they are third parties? If I dropped the second quote about them and only included the first quote about what the founders of creation science actually believe, would that be acceptable. After all, it is a clarification of what their own views actually are, not the misrepresentation about their views taken from Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd edition. Rodsgarden (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be acceptable, provided we then explain that there isn't actually an assumption regarding uniformity as they claim. Failure to do that would make it misleading.Farsight001 (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That is one of them. I would also question (i) how "question[ing] the assumption of uniformity of rates of geological and other processes" differs from "reject[ing] one of the fundamental principles of modern geology (and of modern science generally): uniformitarianism", and whether this 'questioning' has any valid basis (or is simply "unduly self-serving"). These sorts of word-games is why "independent reliable sources" are preferred in such situations. (As a minor aside, starting the sentence with "However" also violates WP:WTA.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"However" don't tell Professor Irwin Corey. Dan Watts (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

[Deadpan] I didn't know that he was a Wikipedia editor. But thanks for trying to find obscurantist humour in my week-old comment. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I've also found a book that says of this ("only question the assumption...") quote: "Because geologists also question substantive uniformitarian assumptions, creationist criticism of the principle of uniformitarianism is, in part, a strawman."[6] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

<ec> Another couple of issues – if the foundational book of the modern creation science movement does indeed "only question the assumption of uniformity of rates of geological and other processes," then it doesn't question the modern formulation of uniformitarianism, nor to a large extent is it true that "the original enunciation of the uniformitarian doctrine by Hutton, Playfair and Lyell insisted also that the rates had never changed", even though that may be a common misunderstanding. According to Gould, even Hutton's view of uniformity of rate allowed for major events such as floods, earthquakes, and eruptions, though these catastrophes were thought by him to be strictly local. He apparently considered, in particular, that the whole earth is never convulsed at once. As it says in our article. Modern science does allow the whole earth to have been convulsed at once in its formative period, and incorporates aspects of Catastrophism. Though that article's a bit inaccurate, must attend to that some day. . dave souza, talk 11:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Hrafn, There is an important difference between "rejecting" and "questioning." Rejecting implies the belief that everything about uniformitarianism is wrong. Questioning implies the belief that some parts of uniformitarianism may be wrong and need to be re-evaluated. Here is what Whitcomb and Morris said in "The Genesis Flood". "It seems quite obvious that a misrepresentation of the authors' position on the doctrine of uniformitarianism continues to persist in some quarters. So far from holding that this doctrine, which underlies much of modern scientific theory, is totally invalid, the authors have insisted that 'The priniple of uniformity in present processes is both scientific and Scriptural (Gen.8:22), but comes into conflict with Biblical revelation when utilized to deny the possibility of past or future miraculous suspension or alteration of the processes by their Creator.'" (page xxiii) "We only question the assumption of uniformity of rates of geological and other processes." (page xxvii)

The book gives several examples of geologic features in the past which are not being produced presently: the great lava flows of the Columbia Plateau cover 200,000 square miles, p. 138; mountains contain gigantic faults, folds and thrusts, p. 139; continental ice sheets covered 4,000,000 square miles of North America and 2,000,000 square miles of Europe, p. 143; geosynclines contain 40,000 foot deep layers of sediments all deposited in shallow water, p. 147-148; fossil graveyards, p. 155-161; peat bogs grading down into repeated layers of coal, p.162-165. None of these geological features are being currently being produced.

So, Whitcomb and Morris do not reject uniformitarianism, but they do question its interpretation in the field of historical geology. They give ample evidence for questioning the doctrine that present rates of geological processes have produced all the geologic features of the past. The article quotes an opponent who clearly misrepresents what the founders of Creation Science actually believe, so the quote should be removed or a clarifying note should be added. Rodsgarden (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Strawman. That is not, and never has been, a "doctrine" in science. The beliefs of the founders of CS are at odds with scientific uniformitarianism, as shown by a reliable third party source. Your claim that "None of these geological features are being currently being produced" lacks any scientific backing, and indeed your quote about "the possibility of past or future miraculous suspension or alteration of the processes by their Creator" indicates CS proposing rejection of science when it "comes into conflict with Biblical revelation". . . dave souza, talk 10:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Claiming "...the possibility of past or future miraculous suspension or alteration of the processes by their Creator" as an explanation = rejection, not only of uniformitarianism, but of the scientific method.
2. "Questioning" it in this manner, whenever it conflicts with their religious dogma, both guts uniformitarianism of any scientific utility, and is also functionally equivalent to "rejecting" it.
3. "The book gives several examples of geologic features in the past which are not being produced presently..." that are absolutely irrelevant to the issue at hand, and do nothing whatsoever to do with dating geological formations. Nothing in geology suggests that lava will flow unceasingly, nothing in geology suggests that mountains will rise unceasingly, nothing in geology suggests that ice-sheets never melt. (12km-deep geosynclines seems far-fetched -- I would need credible evidence of their existence before I commented upon them. You have offered no evidence why the existence of peat-bogs conflicts with, even a strawman version of, uniformitarianism.) All of this only conflicts with a ridiculously naive strawman version of "uniformitarianism". I must therefore conclude that your hydraulic engineer and your theologian either know jack-shit about geology, or are lying about it (but then that's been the scientific hypothesis about creationism since at least Stephen Jay Gould's time).
4. Whitcomb and Morris were dishonest charlatans pretending that, by ostensibly only rejecting a nonsensical version of uniformitarianism that no geologist accepts, they had in some way disproved the billions-of-years-old age of the Earth. This is why scientists, and Wikipedia, generally view creationists as bald-faced liars [or self-deluded fools], whose self-assessments should rarely be accepted at face value!

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, in Wikipedia terms creationists of the literal varieties hold tiny minority or fringe views on a number of subjects, particularly science, and such views are presented in strict accordance with WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, as well as with WP:PSCI where relevant as in the case of fludde geology. We may view them as living in an alternative tiny minority reality and making statements which are self-contradictory or easily falsified, but whether they are liars is a difficult question and we lack the mind reading powers to determine if that's the case. . . dave souza, talk 12:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Courts generally make little differentiation between intentional action, and the result of wilful negligence -- nor does that difference make much difference in how much credence WP should put in their statements. However, I've altered my original statement to reflect this alternative. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

---

But in accordance with what principles of modern uniformitarian geology may one assert that such a vast body of water could have covered the entire Near East for a year? And further, by what principles of geology may one assert that six thousand years of weathering would be sufficient to eradicate the specific evidence for such a flood? [The Genesis Flood (1989 ed) p113]

Such, apparently contradictory or equivocal, passages are why we need reliable independent sources to interpret them. To be blunt, I (and Wikipedia with me), no more accept Creationists' 'I accept uniformitarianism except ..." statements at face value, than I do their 'I accept evolution except [self-serving equivocations that gut evolution]' statements. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a good point that reliable third party sources are required to evaluate the significance or indeed the interpretation of creationist claims. . . dave souza, talk 12:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hrafn, before I respond to your last post, can you verify that you included the quotation from "The Genesis Flood" p. 113 as evidence that creationists reject uniformitarianism. I do not want to misrepresent your meaning. Rodsgarden (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I was presenting it as evidence that any claim that Morris and Whitcoomb make that they do not reject uniformitarianism is equivocal and/or contradicted by other passages, and that therefore (i) such non-rejections should not be taken at face value, (ii) that such equivocal non-rejections should be taken as "unduly self-serving" and (iii) that a reliable independent source is required to filter this equivication/contradiction and associated word-games out and explicate their substantive position. Dave and I already demonstrated, above, that their claimed (strawman) differences with uniformitarianism do not present a legitimate basis for disputing geology's timescales. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)