Talk:Creation science/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

false premise

The first sentence of the criticism paragraph in the intro says

Efforts in the creation science movement have focused significantly on forming arguments against Darwinian evolution, under the (wikilink)false premise|premise(wikilink) that assertions dismissing evolution are promoting young earth creationism;an example of a logically false dilemma.

I see Brian0918 modified it [here to remove the bit that says "example of a logically false dilemma". The problem is that the "false premise" is still presented as fact and I'm pretty sure that everyone would agree that Creation Science supporters would dispute that "fact". As such, that CS has a "false premise" is a viewpoint from somewhere, and it needs to be reported as the point of view of that source, and it needs to be sourced. I would also like to see a link/source that explains how big of a criticism this is of CS. If it is a minor criticism, it should either be moved to the end of the criticism paragraph, or moved out of the intro and into the body of the article. FuelWagon 20:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Read it more closely. It does not state that CS has a false premise, it states that "disproving evolution proves CS" is a false premise. It is a false premise because, logically, one does not lead to the other (for reasons pointed out above). That is not from any particular viewpoint any more than "2+2=4" is. If CSists argue with the "false premise" part, it is because they are too panicky at seeing a scary word in the sentence to bother to read the entire thing. I suppose you've accidentally raised a point there, though.. how many people will do that? SVI 21:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Fuelwagon - disproving evolution does not prove or support Creationism because, to put it simply, they may both be wrong and a third idea could be right. →Raul654 21:33, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this is attempting to apply the hard and pre-defined rules of logic to the messy and ill defined and partly unknown world we call reality. The idea "dismissing evolution promotes creationism" is impossible to disprove in the real world. It might even be true in the case of someone who is leaning in that direction in the first place and simply needs an excuse to dismiss evolution to adopt creationism. This can only be forwarded as a claim by someone, and that someone is unsourced. Dismissing evolution might actually promote creationism for some people, because people are not forced to follow the hard rules of logic. Someone might believe in creationism and seeing an evolution/creationism debate about teaching it in schools might cause that person to adopt scientific creationism and promote it. Where did this assertion come from in the first place? Write it from the point of view of that source as their claim. Or, lacking a source, it should be deleted as original research. Regardless, it cannot remain stated as fact when it clearly oversteps. FuelWagon 21:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The idea "dismissing evolution promotes creationism" is impossible to disprove in the real world. - this is flatly wrong. As I said above, if you come up with a correct third theory, you would dismiss both; thus by dismissing evolution while not promoting creationism, you have proven that it is possible, and therefore your statement is wrong. QED. →Raul654 21:54, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Don't quote logic to me if you're going to mangle it like that. If I do something to "dismiss evolution" and that fails to "promote creationism", THAT DOES NOT MEAN that ALL possible ways to "dismiss evolution" must ultimately fail to "promote creationism". Nor does that mean that the same action WITH A DIFFERENT AUDIENCE must ultimately fail. You cannot use one example on one person and logically extend it to all people in all cases. Logic doesn't give you that power. It may be that some instances of "dismissing evolution" may actually "promote creationism" for some people. You will never know, logic cannot inform you, so you cannot state it as logically true. FuelWagon 22:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

People in glass houses... er, your argument only holds true if that person's dismissal of evolution also happens to hold promotion of creationism. By your logic, you could say that eating snack crackers can cause murder (maybe someone enjoys eating snack crackers while killing people!). The point is that dismissal of evolution does not _inherently_ promote creation science or creationism in any way. SVI 22:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The point is that dismissal of evolution does not _inherently_ promote creation science or creationism in any way. Exactly. And it should be pointed out that there is no evidence that actually supports creationism; all the "evidence" offered up by creationists amounts to evidence against evolution. →Raul654 22:34, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Please read False dilemma and stop this nonsense. If you're simply trying to be nitpicky about the wording, here's a brilliant idea: suggest a more correct wording for "assertions dismissing evolution are promoting young earth creationism", rather than playing ignorant for the sake of personal pride. -- BRIAN0918  22:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

"crackers cause murder"? No, this is "dismissing one POV promotes another POV". dismissing atheism promotes catholicism. dismissing catholocism promotes atheism. Dismissing conservativism promotes liberalism. Dismissing liberalism promotes conservativism. You cannot state as fact that how people form their opinions about subjective and controversial topics must follow logic. For example, a simple NPOV violation and a citation of the rules could result in a quick fix or a wild edit war. perceptions and interpretations are not bound to the rules of logic, so no one can state as fact that dismissing atheism promotes creationism is logically invalid. individual opinions are not required to follow your logic. FuelWagon 22:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, there you go. You've provided a stew of illogical statements. If you don't actually see that they are a stew of illogical statements, I'm not sure how to explain things to you. I do have an idea, though: would you accept that "... assertions dismissing evolution are inherently promoting young earth creationism" in place of "... assertions dismissing evolution are promoting young earth creationism"? Both would fit (proponents do seem to think that dismissal of evolution inherently counts as promotion of YEC), but adding "inherently" makes things extra clear. SVI 22:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

side note: while it is true that individual opinions are not required to follow logic (it's not "my" logic, but I appreciate it, thanks), if they do not follow logic or are logically fallacious then they probably shouldn't go in an encyclopedia. You know, just a thought. Or should we put ALL definitions (of creation science, of philosophy, of snack crackers, of airplanes) as points of view because the guy on the corner insists that snack crackers are eight feet tall and made of aluminum? SVI

What are you talkign about. it is quite possible for someone to go on a cross country campaign and dismiss evolution and that could have the effect of promoting creation science. It's also possible to dismiss conservatism and have that promote liberalism. FuelWagon 22:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Please read False dilemma and stop this nonsense. If you're simply trying to be nitpicky about the wording, here's a brilliant idea: suggest a more correct wording for "assertions dismissing evolution are promoting young earth creationism", rather than playing ignorant for the sake of personal pride. -- BRIAN0918  22:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You all realize that the sentence uses teh word "promote", right? It doesn't say "prove", it says "promote", and "promote" is a simple matter of whether people adopt a view or not. It has nothing to do with whether a view is "proven" or not. It is so blatantly clear that this was original research from an editor. There is no source for this claim anywhere, is there. Someone jsut made it up. FuelWagon 22:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, you must be typing fast. Excited, eh? Err, yeah, I'd imagine we do realize that. It's right there. Is this your way of saying you object to the word "promote"? Because if so, the point isn't that the PEOPLE are promoting it, the point is that some people believe dismissing one inherently promotes the other, which it doesn't-- only the person supporting it can do that, it has nothing to do with the dismissal itself. SVI 22:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Nope. Sorry. Logic doesn't have "grades" of truth. It is either true or it isn't. If you mean to use the word "promote" in a logical sense, it is a mangled application of logic. The logical word is "prove" or "disprove". there is no "promoting" of a logical statement. Boolean logic has no shades of grey. FuelWagon 23:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he's obviously suggesting that the wording is bad, but he doesn't want to come right out and say it because that wouldn't be as fun. I'd suggest ignoring his further comments until he makes a few suggested rewordings to "assertions dismissing evolution are promoting young earth creationism" that fall in line with the example given at false dilemma. Stop feeding his natural high. :)  BRIAN0918  23:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

And it's quite possible for the guy on the street corner to tell me that snack crackers are inedible aluminum monstrosities. That does not mean that his opinion should be included in the encyclopedia, or reasoning for modification of the definition of a snack cracker (which I keep using as an example because I'm hungry, if you're wondering). What was that thing about "Alicia's theory that the raindrops falling on her head increase when she's singing in the rain ...", again? SVI 22:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Creation SCIENCE, not creationism, I'm sorry. We should remove the general definition of creation science, too, because in the messy real world those views could vary so widely that someone could see creation science as something completely different than what this article says. No, wait, I say we delete the whole thing, because in the real world none of us can ever prove or disprove that CS actually exists.

Well, the article argues that the exact phrase "creation science" is only used for the most part by Genesis-supporting YECers, so the definition is fine as it is. This doesn't mean that others can't come along and claim scientific proof for their other religions, but until then this statement does hold. -- BRIAN0918  22:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

But there are other groups that use it in different contexts, surely. I'm quite certain that someone out there feels differently about what "creation science" means, so the definition of creation science-- all subjects, maybe-- should be stated as a POV. (Just to make things clear for passers-by: yes, I'm joking to show how ridiculous the premise is.) SVI

I'm sorry, that was only sort of called for. Ah, dismissing evolution only promotes creationism in the sense that the infinite alternative theories would then number infinity minus one. The two do appear to be opposed in current times, but that does not mean that managing to dispro-- sorry, does not mean that dismissing one makes the other correct or even promotes it. To assume so is a logical fallacy (what's infinity minus one equal?), and logical fallacies should not be a part of anything except articles thereon. SVI 22:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Both CS and evolution could be wrong. So dismissing one is not promoting the other. It doesn't get more obvious than this. -- BRIAN0918  22:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Er, yeah. I agree with that. Indentation issue, or did I misword things? SVI 22:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Please note, we are not talking about "creationism" here, but a specific brand of creationism, YEC according to Genesis. -- BRIAN0918  21:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The "infinity minus one" statement above deserves further comment. While this is a mathematical truism; it is not very practical. Firstly, we don't currently, and never will have an infinite number of theories about something. Secondly, if someone has managed to collate a list of the main currently believed "origin theories" - you would find it to be quite short. Therefore; disproving the grand theory of evolution would leave some form of creationism as the main alternative. There must be a relatively easy way to rewrite the "promote" sentence to cover this, surely. RossNixon 01:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

two flavors, two problems

Brian0918 asked for alternative wording for the sentence that work for me. The problem is there is no way to fix a sentence that is flat out wrong. The sentence looks like this:

Efforts in the creation science movement have focused significantly on forming arguments against Darwinian evolution, under the (wikilink)false premise|premise(wikilink) that assertions dismissing evolution promotes young earth creationism

If the word "promote" is intended to mean "gain wider acceptance among the public", then "promote" should be changed to "cause wider acceptance for" to clarify its meaning.

Efforts in the creation science movement have focused significantly on forming arguments against Darwinian evolution, under the false premise that assertions dismissing evolution causes wider acceptance of young earth creationism

The problem then is that it is not a logical fallacy of false premise because campaigning against the primary competition can promote the alternative. smear campaigns against your opponent may never even mention you as a candidate but may get you more votes. Therefore the statemetn is not a logical fallacy, and the criticism is invalid.

If the word "promote" is meant to mean "logically prove" then the problem with that version is that it is a strawman.

Efforts in the creation science movement have focused significantly on forming arguments against Darwinian evolution, under the false premise that assertions dismissing evolution logically proves young earth creationism

It represents Creation Science's motives for "dismissing evolution" are to "prove" their point of view. And I'm pretty sure that claimed motivation would be disputed. i.e. I don't think every CS proponent thinks that disproving evolution somehow proves Creation Science. I'm sure they think their POV is correct somehow, but I highly doubt that their reasoning is "we disproved evolution, so CS must be true". I think their argument is something more along the lines of "CS is true because ...." insert logical fallacy of choice (god says so, bible says so, we'll burn in hell if we dont believe, if there is no god then what's the point, etc). And then they go around "disproving" evolution because they "proved" Creation by some other means. This means the sentence criticizes a strawman version of Creation Science. "CS is wrong because CS thinks that disproving evolution somehow proves CS, what morons". Morons or not, that's a strawman attack.

So, if the word "promote" means "cause wider acceptance", then it isn't a logical fallacy because campaigning against evolution might actually get more people to adopt Creation Science. And if the word "promote" means "logically prove", then the sentence is setting up a straw man of Creation Science to knock it down. In either case, the sentence should be removed.

And just in case I missed it in all the replies going back and forth above, did anybody happen to post a source for this claim? Or do we officially declare it to be an unsourced claim. Anyone? Bueller? FuelWagon 00:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The article currently has the following paragraph in the introduction to represent the criticism of Creation Science.

Efforts in the creation science movement have focused significantly on forming arguments against Darwinian evolution, under the false premise that assertions dismissing evolution are promoting young earth creationism. Creation science's unscientific dependence on the God of Abraham acting to unobservably alter the natural world renders it unfalsifiable, and its predetermined unconditional support of the Genesis account runs contrary to scientific methodology. Among fideists, creation science has also been criticized as suggesting that "faith is not good enough" and that evidence is needed to believe the Genesis account, and as such has been considered the antithesis of faith in the divine. Many Christian churches, including the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic[1], Anglican, and Lutheran faiths, have either rejected creation science outright or not insisted on its reception as doctrine, since much of Christian theology, including Liberal Christianity, considers the Genesis narrative primarily a poetic and allegorical work and not a literal history.

I propose removing the first sentence for stating a viewpoint as fact, for being an unsourced claim, for being a non-notable criticism (no source and it is an extremely uninportant criticism), and for being a view from nowhere, all in violation of wikipedia NPOV. I propose replacing it with the point of view of the National Academy of Science, a major organization that levels the main criticism against Creation Science: i.e. it isn't science.

The National Acadamy of Sciences states "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such"[2] Creation science's unscientific dependence on the God of Abraham acting to unobservably alter the natural world renders it unfalsifiable, and its predetermined unconditional support of the Genesis account runs contrary to scientific methodology. Among fideists, creation science has also been criticized as suggesting that "faith is not good enough" and that evidence is needed to believe the Genesis account, and as such has been considered the antithesis of faith in the divine. Many Christian churches, including the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic[3], Anglican, and Lutheran faiths, have either rejected creation science outright or not insisted on its reception as doctrine, since much of Christian theology, including Liberal Christianity, considers the Genesis narrative primarily a poetic and allegorical work and not a literal history.

The arguments I've recieved thus far for keeping the sentence are that the intro was the result of "consensus" (and they don't want to lose "consensus") and that the statement is indisputable fact, not subject to a point of view.

The basis of my arguments for changing the sentence all rest on wikipedia NPOV policies.

"fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct." [4]

The arguments given for keeping the sentence include the notion that the sentence is indisputably true and therefore correct.

"unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them." " Writing unbiasedly can be conceived very well as representing disputes, characterizing them, rather than engaging in them." [5]

The current sentence asserts a view as fact, and it is a view that I say is on shaky ground factually/logically. The current sentence engages in criticizing CS, rather than reports any criticism from any organizations point of view. The entire paragraph actually forwards all it's criticism of CS as fact, rather than as anyone's point of view.

"If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject," [6]

The current introductory sentence is a minor criticism at best, and contains no source to support it representing anyones point of view, let along any significant portion of critics.

"Facts are not points of view in and of themselves. So an easy way to avoid making a statement that promotes a point of view is to find a reputable source for a fact and cite the source." [7]

The current intro sentence is defended as beign factually true, yet no one has provided a source for an expert claiming it to be true. It is a bare fact with no source to support it.

You already have a source. Read this article (oh, but surely you've done that!), then read science. If you do not agree that they don't fit, explain why; if you disagree with the definition, explain why. I'd certainly hope that you wouldn't still be referring to the false premise after this time, but if that's it, I doubt you need the NAS to explain to you what a logical fallacy is. SVI 02:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

"the policy does not say that there even is such a thing as objectivity, a "view from nowhere" such that articles written from that point of view are consequently objectively true" [8]

The intro sentence is written as a view from nowhere. the sentence that follows it is a view from nowhere sentence too.

"represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view" "they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy" [9]

The intro sentence presents criticism of CS as fact. The sentence I propose represents criticism from the majority point of view of the National Academy of Science stating CS is not science. It includes a source for the criticism.

I believe I already pointed out the problems with this particular bit. Saying that CS is unscientific is not criticism-- stating facts about CS that CS advocates agree with (such as that knocking down evolution is a primary focus). As I said before, if you wish to argue with this statement, read all the reasoning behind it being unscientific (archives!), and read the definition of science. If you don't agree that CS does not match the definition of a science, explain why; if you don't agree with Wikipedia's definition of science, explain why. (I can only assume unscientific is what you've having an issue with, because I cannot fathom what else in the intro would be causing problems. No offense meant, but your explanation has not clarified things greatly.) Please, don't just repeat your point again. SVI

Wow. My point is that the sentence conflicts with several wikipedia NPOV policies. You say it's not subject to NPOV policy by virtue of being indisputably true. And then you ask me to clarify my point and to stop repeating myself. Tell you what, you explain why this sentence isn't subject to NPOV policy without repeating "it's true! it's true!" and maybe that will clarify your point. And since I've explained the problem with the two possible definitions of "promote" (either "cause wider acceptance of" or "logically prove"), perhaps you could explain what exactly the word "promote" means in your mind. Because either definition I've come up with has problems. FuelWagon 13:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

No arguments to keep the first sentence have mentioned wikipedia NPOV policy and have either defended it as the result of consensus and fear losing consensus if it is changed or argue that the statement is factually true yet provide no source for an expert that claims it to be true. FuelWagon 01:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

article RFC

The request for comments is around the introduction paragraph containing criticism of Creation Science. The first sentence currently reads.

Efforts in the creation science movement have focused significantly on forming arguments against Darwinian evolution, under the false premise that assertions dismissing evolution are promoting young earth creationism.

I propose replacing this sentence with

The National Acadamy of Sciences states "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such"[10]

A detailed explanation of reasoning is provided above. In short, the current sentence states criticism of Creation Science as fact rather than a point of view, the criticism is questionable as to its accuracy (explained above), no one has provided a source for the criticism, and even if it is accurate, the criticism is minor and should be moved to the body of the article. The sentence I propose cites the main criticism of a mainstream and large organization, it presents it clearly as a point of view, and it comes with a URL to verify the source. FuelWagon 01:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

What criticism? Efforts in the CS movement have focused significantly on forming arguments against Darwinian evolution, and dismissing evolution does not promote/prove/whateveryou'dliketosay YEC. I'm sorry, but what exactly are you having so much trouble with? All your above "explanation" states is that it's POV, over and over again. You say sourceless fact a few times, too. That's nice and all, but it isn't actually reasoning. SVI 02:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Efforts in the CS movement have focused significantly on forming arguments against Darwinian evolution,

Correct.

and dismissing evolution does not promote/prove/whateveryou'dliketosay YEC

Well, someone decide what "promote" actually means here, because you're all dancing around a vague word trying to excuse it by hiding behind it's ambiguities. Since you folks wrote the sentence and since you folks are so adamant about this sentence remaining because "it's twue! it's twue!" then it is up to you folks to explain what the heck "promote" means here. You're defending it, you explain it. I've come up with two definitions and they both have problems. Give me another word or phrase for "promote". I've come up with "cause wider acceptance of" (promote in a political campaign sense) and "logically prove" (promote in some weird shades of gray boolean logic system). Neither one works for the reasons explained above. Stop dancing around "It's twue!" and clarify what "promote" means since you're all so adamant about it being indisputably true. FuelWagon 13:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

So that's all you needed to say, then? That could have been a single sentence, but I suppose it's your choice whether to make your point by clearly stating it or by attempting to engage in a long-winded debate that will hopefully lead to it. As tempting as it is to follow suit... "prove" would be perfectly fine with me if the sentence was kept, but I don't know about anyone else. Oh, and ffr, "true" is spelled with an r ;) SVI 14:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, so, lets look at the sentence with the word "prove".

creation science has focused on arguing against Darwinian evolution, under the false premise that dismissing evolution proves young earth creationism.

The problem is that this is valid criticism if and only if CS argues the position that "dismissing evolution proves yec". Unless they argue that exact logic, you cannot criticize them for it. It is a strawman. Unless the basis for their logical argument is that dismissing evolution somehow logically proves creationism, then you are criticizing them for something they don't argue. It cannot be a false premise if it it isn't their premise. FuelWagon 14:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know what a strawman is, but I appreciate the clarification. As I said below, the reason that this isn't is that many CS articles seem to assume (a few explicitly) that if flaws are found in evolution, the most/only (depending on the writer) sensible alternative is creation according to Genesis. The advantage of promote/support is that it could mean that the disproving or dismissal of evolution qualified as evidence for creation science all by itself. The most accurate version would probably be something like that they assume perceived flaws in evolution would make creation according to Genesis the most logical/sensible/rational/whatever alternative (which is an extremely widely held view). Do you disagree with this (the last sentence, "The most accurate version..."), feel that the statement is unnecessary, feel that this is correct but needs restating, or what? SVI 15:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment from RfC: The 'false premise' sentence above is ambiguous. I think, from the link, that it is meant to say: the falsity of Darwinism does not logically imply that YEC is true. But it can easily be read, as FuelWagon seems to be reading it: that the discrediting of Darwinism will not make the political triumph of YEC more likely. Whether or not that assertion is true, it is certainly employing a crystal ball. Recast, and try again.

FuelWagon's suggested substitute does not address the same point; include it or not. It should not be in the same place.Septentrionalis 02:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Septentrionalis. I also think that if the sentence meant to say the falsity of Darwinism does not logically imply that YEC is true. then that doesn't belong in the criticism paragraph of CS unless CS's main argument is "proving evolution false logically proves YEC is true". If CS really holds that viewpoint, the article should call it out with a source/link and the sentence can explain logic to the reader to show how CS's view is wrong. However, if CS does NOT have as a main view that "proving evolution false logically proves YEC is true", then the sentence is a non-sequitor or a strawman. The article cannot say CS's argument commits a logical fallacy if CS doesn't actually forward that argument. The reason my alternative didn't address the same point is because I don't think CS claims that "proving evolution false logically proves YEC true", so I see it as a non-sequitor or a strawman attack. FuelWagon 13:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the "NAS says..." point is that there was earlier disagreement about whether or not it would be right to include such a statement. Unless it's explicitly stated that CS is not a science, that statement implies that science is decided by consensus, not by definition, which has more POV weight than stating that creation science is not a science according to the definition of science. If the part about CS being genuinely unscientific is left in, of course, I guess I'd be fine with it, but it does seem a tad redundant then.

What, did everyone ignore every single link to NPOV policy I posted? Did anyone even read the bits I quoted? Reporting the viewpoint of science does not then mean that "science is decided by consensus". One has nothing to do with the other. You are all so worried that CS might appear to be "plausible" that you're unwilling to even consider what NPOV policy says. Read the link I posted about NPOV and pseudoscience. It says report the mainstream scientific point of view as the mainstream scientific point of view, report the minority point of view as the minority. You're so worried reporting science as a point of view will cause someone to think science is decided by consensus, that you're steamrolling NPOV policy and stating viewpoints as fact. FuelWagon 15:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I congratulate you on resolutely failing to ignore relevant counters to your point. For the sake of clarification, this has nothing to do with the viewpoint of science. The issue here is not reporting the mainstream scientific view on CS. The mainstream scientific view on CS is that it's unfounded crackpottery. Do you see anything about that in the article? No, you don't.

Stating that CS is not a science is not the scientific view. It is a view taken by scientists, among others, but it is not the scientific point of view. Quite simply, CS does not follow scientific principles (as defined by this encyclopedia) or fit the definition of a science (same). If you feel that this is inaccurate, then please state either which definition you feel is incorrect OR how CS could possibly fit the current definition of science. SVI 15:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. Your argument remains the same: "The sentence is indisputable fact, and therefore does not have to be reported as a viewpoint." And your defense is completely opposite of what NPOV policy says regarding pseudoscience and the difference between scientific point of view versus neutral point of view. I congratulate you on remaining resilient against any NPOV policies quoted above. NPOV policy says do not forward as fact something that is disputed instead report the POV's and their source. Your attempt to draw this into an argument over "definitions" and which one is correct is an attempt to camouflage the source of your facts. Your definitions of science are disputed by CS, therefore in the CS article, you must report the definition of science according to mainstream science, and the definition of science according to CS. You cannot say "CS says science is this, but we all know they are wrong" and justify it saying "because the definition says something else". That is exactly the sort of thing NPOV policy says you cannot do. So i'm not playing your definition game to argue which definition is right or wrong. That is irrelevant here. CS disputes the definition, so NPOV policy says you must fall back to reporting the mainstream point of view and its source and report the minority point of view and its source. No, that doesn't mean science is done by consensus, it means wikipedia must report the different points of view, not take sides. FuelWagon 17:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, my argument does stay the same, possibly because yours has as well. Get the feeling neither of us is getting through to the other? Eh, well. NPOV policy references serious dispute, of which there is none. This is not a definition game. The definitions don't match. Again, the 2+2=4 thing. It is obviously true according to current rules of mathematics, so you don't say "many mathematicians believe that two plus two is four", you say that 2+2=4 or that 2+2=4 according to current rules of mathematics. You don't say that most people believe bats aren't bugs, you say that bats aren't bugs according to the definition of bats, the definition of bugs, and the current classification system. You don't necessarily say it in that form, of course, you just say that bats aren't bugs.

Or was this another redundant brick-paragraph with your point buried deep within? Are you trying to say that creation scientists dispute exactly what "science" is? SVI 17:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not. The article does: Creationists often claim that creationism, and more specifically creation science, is not only scientific, but that it is more scientific than evolution. The fact that they use the word "science" in their name would seem to indicate that they think that they are scientific in some way or another. That they want CreationScience taught in science class would generally indicate they think it somehow qualifies as science. So, I think it is pretty safe to say they dispute your definition of science, which means you cannot reference your definiton of science as simple fact within the article. If they dispute the definition, you must report the definitions from the different points of view. That is NPOV policy. I hope my point here is sufficiently unburied for you to see it. FuelWagon 18:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite clear now. Thanks. Well, of course CSists would like to think that. People who study phrenology (which is still alive, yeah, though not very much so) say that it is truly scientific, plenty of people think dragonflies bite, et cetera. First, I'd like to clear something up. You're misreading the NPOV policy thing. Section 10.2, pseudoscience, does not deal with SAYING that a subject is pseudoscience or unscientific, it deals with saying that the subject lacks credibility and/or is false (which is scientific point of view, and which is, as I have said several times, not what we're talking about). The very fact that it describes pseudoscience as, well, pseudoscience and says nothing about describing subjects as such is evidence of this. Note also that other articles (phrenology is an example, again) on pseudosciences describe them as such. Remember that pseudoscience/unscientific doesn't mean wrong or false, it just means that the subject is not scientific. We should definitely be clear on s10.2 of NPOV before we move onto anything else, as it is a critical part of the discussion. SVI 18:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

What NPOV policy says on pseudoscience is this(emphasis added by me): "represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view;" I take that to mean that if there is a dispute in definition between the proponents of the topic of teh article and its critics, then NPOV policy requires no definition be forwarded as true, but that the definition of each viewpoint be reported. The current version intro criticism mentions the NAS as the majority scientific view declaring CS is unscientific. I can then cross my eyes and wave my hands and give the rest of the intro the benefit of the doubt that any statements of scientific fact are really shorthand for expressing the NAS (mainstream science) point of view. Without that quote, all statements of fact actually go against NPOV policy, since none of them are couched as the "majority view" but rather as simple, uncontested facts. I also had policy trouble with the logical falacy sentence, and the current version simply states that CS dismisses evolution to encourage the popularity of CS, which I don't think anyone disputes. The claim that their approach was an undisputed logical fallacy was... dubious, at best. FuelWagon 19:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, NPOV policy does say that. NPOV policy can say a lot of things, many of which are quite misleading out of context. The context of that is asking whether or not a subject should be called out as not credible or false, not defined as something that is part of its definition (as pseudoscience). There is discussion on this in the archives as well. However, if you really want to pretend that the statements after the NAS view are just extensions of that view and not fact, I suppose I have no reason to disagree... the point is explicit, either way, I just think it's a touch redundant now. Of course, if it actually helps others pretend that 'unscientific' is a viewpoint and not a fact (and thus prevents further reverts), I'm all for it.

Well, if you support the current version of the intro, then we can both agree on that. FuelWagon 19:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm.. well, actually, if we're both fine with the current version, I suppose this just became academic. Still, I'll make one more effort: 10.2 deals with the scientific point of view on pseudoscience. This has nothing to do with the SPOV on pseudoscience, it has to do with defining a subject as a pseudoscience or unscientific. This is actually not a fine split at all-- it is comparable to the difference between including the CSist view on evolution in the theory of evolution article and classifying the theory of evolution as a theory. While it is true that CSists hold evolution is a theory, it actually IS a theory (according to the definition of theory, at least), and the fact that is it a theory should not reflect poorly on it in any way, shape, or form. (I don't mean to open up the "theory" can of worms-- I know what a theory is, I know full well how silly the argument is, I'm just using an example in the same ballpark because it's closest to the subject matter.) Similarly, while it is true that scientists hold that creation science is a pseudoscience/unscientific, it actually IS a pseudoscience/unscientific (according to the definition of pseudoscience, at least), and the fact that it is not scientific should not reflect poorly on it. SVI 19:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we'll have to agree-to-disagree on this one. we read NPOV policy differently. If we agree on the current intro, then it is academic. My priority is the articles, and if we agree on the article, I don't need you to also agree to my philosophy or my interpretation of NPOV. FuelWagon 19:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I suppose it doesn't really matter why we agree as long as we agree. Hopefully this intro will stay accepted for longer than its predecessors... it would be nice if this were the last time the "unscientific" argument took place. SVI 19:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, the "straw man" argument here is actually not that at all-- it seems to be assumed in many CS articles that if evolution has flaws, CS must be the most (only, in some) reasonable option. If you don't feel the current wording says that, okay, but that's no reason to call it a straw man. SVI 14:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Should we note that the evidence of evolution page is based on bad logic by pointing out that regardless of how many observations consistent with it are made, the probability of evolution being accurate is discreetly zero? My point being, discrediting other theories is how theories become established as the mainstrem theory to begin with. Observations inconsistent with evolution would open the door for CS and all other competing theories. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:47, 2005 August 5 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing your ridiculously lousy logic. We're sure to take it into consideration..... -- BRIAN0918  02:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's lousy about it. It's a fact that evidence for theories does not exist, in the sense that no observation can improve the likelihood that a theory is correct. If this point is relevant on this page (in that we note that evidence undermining evolution does nothing to prove CS, an obvious truism) it seems it would be relevant elsewhere. The bigger point is that establishing an absurdly strict scrutiny of the logic here seems incongruous with our action elsewhere. Now we are free to be inconsistent, but I'm not sure why we would want to. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:36, 2005 August 5 (UTC)

The bigger point is that asking for logical accountability in science is rather foolish. The basic fact demonstrated by guys like Popper is that there's no way to use logic to get from observations to any general conclusions. Thus, logically, there is no proof or positive evidence in science at all. A better sentence would be something emphasizing that scientists believe that flaws in evolution call for a refinement of that theory rather than the wholesale adoption of a whole new theory, YEC. Unlike the other sentence, this is both specific to CS and also relevant to real-world considerations. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:49, 2005 August 5 (UTC)

Brian is totally right. Chris's previous statement is utterly absurd.

• "It's a fact that evidence for theories does not exist" - actually, when a theory makes a prediction, and experimental evidence produces data consistent with the prediction, that evidence is said to be "for" said theory, or to "support" it.
• "in the sense that no observation can improve the likelihood that a theory is correct" - actually, experimental evidence is occasionally used to modify theories so as to make them more correct. Ampere's law was modified by James Maxwell to include an extra term (the displacement current) because there was a detectable difference between experiment and theory. Furthermore, your statement betrays a basic lack of scientific understanding - science does not distinguish between "correct" and "incorrect", only degrees of correctness. Are Newton's laws "correct"? No - Einstien found flaws in them and addressed them with relativity. Then why are Newton's laws still being taught in physics classes? But Newton's are so close to being right that the error is negligible in most circumstances. That's what is meant by 'degrees of correctness' Furthermore, your statement that "Discrediting other theories is how theories become established as the mainstrem theory to begin with" could not be more wrong. Historically, theories tend to fall apart when experimental evidence shoots holes in them, and then a better theory comes along. Observations of planetary motion were flumoxing believers in the geocentric theory of the solar system for centuries before copernicus came up with the heliocentric model; the photoelectric effect was killing the wave-nature-of-light paradigm 20 years before Eisntein solved it by introducing quatum mechanics; the plum pudding model of the atom fell apart after the Ruthorford experiment only to be replaced by Bohr's model; 'etc.
• in that we note that evidence undermining evolution does nothing to prove CS, an obvious truism - Actually, when it comes to creationism, this is a VERY IMPORTANT POINT. There is basically no evidence supporting creationism, so creationists play-up the (very minor) flaws in our understanding of evolution and try to bootstrap that into evidence supporting creationism. The purpose of that statement is to shut this down fast and early. →Raul654 06:10, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Don't be so sure. Although it is not evidence for creationism; it does increase the likelihood that creationism is correct. RossNixon 10:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of that statement is to shut this down fast and early.[11] So it is the POV of the editors. You have engaged in the CreationScience/Evolution debate on the side of "shutting down" CS. This is a blatant NPOV violation. Cut the sentence, stop arguing "its a fact, it doesn't need a source", and follow NPOV policy: report the different views and the sources that advocate them. FuelWagon 13:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You are blatantly wrong. Don't talk about likelihood -- you obviously have no idea what probability is. Bensaccount 15:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

RfC comment - I've wikified the current NAS version of the intro. The quote is highly relevant and useful for readers, and fits the context of that paragraph. I gather that a better version of the "false premise" sentence has been moved to the first para. The result seems overall a good intro. Rd232 15:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

complaints of 68.44.194.112

... as newbie to wiki i just jumped right in.... believe i understand now... the biggest herd of lemmings gets to pick the cliff... the case is forever closed in favor of the majority... and is ruthlessly enforced as such... no surprises here... neutral POV, Hah! LOL --- IP 68.44.194.112

Clearly you don't understand at all. Your edits were reverted because they were insulting to advocates of other theories, because they were largely irrelevant, and because they were extremely biased (contained your personal views and commentary). There is no "case" here-- the point of the article is not, as you seem to believe, to spread your own views, but to describe the subject and criticism thereof. If you want to spread your view, put it in your diary, maybe try to submit your work to a journal. Don't put it in Wikipedia.

If you are still convinced that this is all about The Man trying to keep you down, bear in mind that one of the five people who have reverted your edits today has relatively pro-CS viewpoints; as he said, "personal commentary doesn't belong in the article." I'm not sure how much clearer things could possibly need to be. SVI 17:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

... heat!!! ... 'brand newbie' should explain it all, sport... "The Man"??... my comments above were very clear... indeed, i barged in recklessly and slew the sacred cow... which was presumably not the anti-CS thing... but the very act of breaking the china... regrets... enjoy yourselves... really. IP 68.44.194.112

68, I'm not sure what the relevance is of listing someone who has PHD in criminology as a supporter of Creation Science really has to do with much of anything. I don't think he would qualify as an expert in the field of biology. I don't think there's much point in turning wikipedia into a phonebook listing of all teh individuals who support/oppose and are neutral to each and every topic. It makes for dry reading. The paragraph talking about "shrill" criticism against CS was blatantly POV pushing, but at least it was entertaining. FuelWagon 17:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

... thanks, entertainment is good, no?... was originally curious if anyone knew that scores of respected active members of the technical community are convinced that the popular assumptions were wrong... as admitted, i was interdicting myself way too obtrusively in a format and forum i knew nothing about... be well... IP 68.44.194.112

Well, at least you've learned a valuable lesson. How vaguely heartwarming. Keep in mind, also, that in heavily disputed and edited articles such as this one, pretty much any major change should be discussed on the talk page first. SVI 18:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

...oh, and just confirming that nobody here could possibly believe this article expresses a 'neutral' POV, correct? IP 68.44.194.112

It's quite possible that it seems biased to you because you are so extreme that a neutral point of view seems like The Other Side(tm). But hey, let's assume the best... what do you feel is biased about it? One example is fine. SVI 00:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, your comments were certainly very clear. Unfortunately, they were very clear about that you do not know what standards Wikipedia articles are meant to conform to. This comment, the one I'm replying to now, is not quite as clear, perhaps because it consists of several semi-coherent thoughts strung together with ellipses. I'd ask you to clarify, but I suspect this thread of discussion could not possibly have a happy ending, especially given that I can not see how I could make things any more clear to you. So... have a nice day, I suppose. SVI 17:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

... for anyone doubting that thia topic is far beyond the self-control of most people to address... look at the strawman article *about* creation scientists, and its 'talk'... it is simply NOT allowed to discuss the legitimacy of this disagreement... so, can we all agree here then once and for all that we will NOT permit minds to inquire about issues of science that we prefer not to be true, nor let any information threatening our POV be posted on wiki... 68.44.194.112

For anyone reading the above comment, please note that I disagree with this user's assement of the article of creation scientists. The article consisted of nothing more than a list of self proclaimed creation scientists, and some text regaling their heroic stance. (Quote: They champion a process of progressive ongoing debate across the host of relevant scientific issues.) If the article is encyclopedic at all, it needs {{cleanup}}.-- Ec5618 15:53, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Redundant critique, religious critiques

The critique from science stated in the intro is already exceptionally well stated in its own section of the article; I moved and expanded (slightly) the religious critiques to their own section, just before the scientific critiques; I slightly expanded on 2nd paragraph of the intro. Parker Whittle 07:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Anti-freeze

I have no desire to prevent reverts by enforcing any specific consensus. The same matter may resurface over and over again, but it slowly gets clearer. Bensaccount 16:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Fallacy in intro

Personally, I think CS is as nutty a form of pseudoscience as there is. However, there is really no need to describe it as an outright fallacy directly in the intro. There is nothing pro-CS in the intro -- it's claims are stated with the appropriate qualifiers; and the section on the scientific critiques does an excellent job of pointing out the fallacies in appropriately NPOV language. Hopefully my compromise language will suffice in pointing out that CS goes against the scientific consensus. Parker Whittle 16:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

What is "compromise language"? The intro did not say CS was a fallacy. It says thinking that Creation is observable is a fallacy. If you want to disagree, go ahead, but so far you have completely misread the statement. Bensaccount 16:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Geez, give a guy the chance to write his Talk page comments, will you? Check the time stamps of the changes, and give a little time before just assuming that there are no comments. At any rate, it is the POV of the scientific community that CS is based on a fallacious assumption -- a point with which I adamantly agree! However, it is definitely not the POV of the CS community. Therefore, since the sci critique makes the scientific case exceedingly well, there is no need to assert the scientific POV as if it were a fact in the intro. Just because you and I believe it to be a fact is no reason not to at least be fair to those who disagree. Parker Whittle 16:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The statement is "Creation science makes the fallacious assumption that Creation is observable. Show me someone who disagrees and we can compromise. Show me disagreement or cease whatever it is you are trying to accomplish. Bensaccount 16:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the CS community agrees that they are operating under a fallacious assumption? I'd like to see a reference for that one. Parker Whittle 16:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

No I am saying that I have not seen anyone address this issue -- agree or disagree. And that includes what I have seen from the "CS community". But anyways, lets assume there is disagreement. There are really two statements here: CS makes the assumption that Creation is observable. And Creation is not observable. Which do you disagree with? Bensaccount 16:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I agree that Creation is not verifiable by empirical methods. If you haven't seen anyone address the issue, then doesn't that sound a lot like original research? Clearly, if CS assumes that the Biblical account can be scientifically verified, then CS does not consider that assumption to be a fallacy. CS does not consider their position to be pseudoscience -- they are very serious, even if severely misguided. Parker Whittle 16:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The article is about the CS position. The intro is there to describe what that position is. You are arguing that the CS position is unarguably a fallacy, and by refusing to qualify it as the scientific position, you are implying that CS advocates, themselves, hold the view that their own position is based on a fallacy. Clearly they do not. Parker Whittle 17:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Its not original research because it is obvious. Since you think that there is disagreement over whether thinking Creation is observable is a fallacy, I ask that you remove this statement until we can come up with a compromise over which there is no disagreement. Do not, however, replace it with the opinion of the scientific community because THIS IS NOT THE SAME. Bensaccount 17:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Revising the premise, with reference

After some research, I discovered that Creation Science is not necessarily based on the assumption that the Biblical account of the Creation is verifiable, but rather the assumption that it is no less verifiable than the naturalistic position of mainstream science. See the following:

What do Creation Scientists Believe? [12] The Scientific Method [13] (this reference directly refutes the claim that CS is based on the fallacy that the Biblical account is verifiable by scientific means). The Bible is a Textbook of Science [14]

Hence, the argument that CS is rooted in the fallacy that divine origins are empirically verifiable is just plain incorrect.

I am editing the introduction accordingly. Parker Whittle 18:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind that I disagree vehemently with this CS argument, as well. However, it does directly contradict the notion that CS proponents believe that divine Creation is observable. Parker Whittle 18:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

It is likely that CS proponents believe that the recent creation of the earth would have observable consequences differentiable from an old earth. What is incorrect with that? Dan Watts 18:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't find that as an accurate reading of the primary CS position. Can you provide references? If so, I think we can state both variants. It seems more accurate to say that they assume that observable facts can be interpreted in such manner as to avoid conflicting with the Biblical account. Parker Whittle 19:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Would these do?

"Using these opposing ideas, Initial Complexity vs. Initial Disorganization, we can make predictions about what sort of evidence we should find in many areas of science (biology, paleontology, genetics, physics, astronomy, biochemistry, geology, etc.) if one or the other is true. We can then apply the scientific method to test our predictions and see which set fits better with what we actually observe." [[15]]

"With this in mind, next time we'll start looking at both theories to see which fits better with the evidence that we do have." [[16]]

"As we learn more about the biology of living organisms, including ourselves, it is readily apparent which theory fits the data. [[17]]

"As can be readily seen above, a young universe model fits the data of the low number of observed SNRs." [[18]]

"Rather than insist that everything must be interpreted so as to make it fit into a naturalistic world view, why not investigate each piece of evidence to see if it fits better in the creation or the evolution model?" [[19]]

"Also, even though Morris claims that science can't answer the question of whether the Bible's creation story is literally and historically true, he has written several books about scientific evidence that he believes fits better into a creation framework than the mainstream science framework." [[20]]

Dan Watts 22:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, that's some really good work, thanks! One might paraphrase in the following manner: While CS argues that neither naturalism nor divine creation may be falsified by empirical testing, it claims that many observable phenomena better support the Biblical account. Parker Whittle 22:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

no criticism in intro violates NPOV

Wow, I take a break from the article and look what happens. whatever just happened to the article, someone did a really excellent job of rewriting the intro so that any and all criticism of Creation Science is missing. Whatever arguements someone may present on how their version represents a "better" understanding of what CS actually is, the simple fact of NPOV policy requires that major criticism be included on a topic to achieve balance. With any and all criticism of CS removed from the intro, this reads like a pro-CS propaganda piece. FuelWagon 21:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a huge section in the article with an excellent (and compelling, IMO) criticism of CS. I'm rather nonplussed with the assertion that direct criticism must appear in the introduction in order to qualify as NPOV. There is no defense or advocacy of CS's view in the intro, simply an elucidation of its stated position, with appropriate qualifiers. To illustrate, I find no direct criticism in introduction of the Atheism article, which seems suitably NPOV, IMO. Note, also, that there is no specific section dedicated to criticism in the Atheism article, but (again) it seems quite NPOV. Parker Whittle 21:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

That being said, I concur with both recent edits to the intro. It's a better article than it was, before! Thanks, folks. Parker Whittle 22:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The current introduction to the article, as of 2200 UTC, 6 August 2005, is considerably better than previous versions. Robert McClenon 22:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no defense or advocacy of CS's view in the intro That should always be the case. NPOV requires that the article report, rather than advocate, an idea. The intro should contain an overview of all points of view regarding a topic, not just the point of view of the topic's proponents. And in that light, the intro needs to report prominent criticism. The details can be left to the body of the article, but the intro should capture the main, differing points of view of the topic. That's the point of NPOV. FuelWagon 22:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

What changes, then, would you suggest to the following articles, neither of which report prominent criticism in the intro: Atheism, Evolution? Also, I don't seem to see any statement in WP:NPOV that concurs with your assertion that criticisms must appear in the intro. Maybe I just missed it. Parker Whittle 22:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

As a side note, what response do you think I'd be likely to get if I added a statement at the bottom of the intro to Evolution, like so: Creation science argues that biological evolution derived from Darwinism assumes a methodological naturalism that is no more falsifiable than Biblical accounts of the creation? Parker Whittle 22:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV discrepancy?

It's interesting that I find a comment from FuelWagon[21] regarding POV in the Atheism article (a comment with which I mostly agree, BTW). With all due respect, it seems a tad incongruous that he did not, at that time, to point out his position that NPOV dictates the inclusion of major criticisms in the introduction. I think, as a show of good faith, it would be proper for FuelWagon to follow one of the stated points in WP:NPOV and Write for the enemy, by inserting the creation science position in the intro to that article. Parker Whittle 23:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Another apparent inconsistency: In Talk:Atheism, FuelWagon vigorously defends the NPOV status of the article [22], and goes on to state that the atheism article is suitably NPOV simply because it describes the atheistic position in neutral language. I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, that's exactly what I was doing by reworking the introduction of this article. Yet, FuelWagon's response to my edits appears inconsistent:

Wow, I take a break from the article and look what happens. whatever just happened to the article, someone did a really excellent job of rewriting the intro so that any and all criticism of Creation Science is missing. Whatever arguements someone may present on how their version represents a "better" understanding of what CS actually is, the simple fact of NPOV policy requires that major criticism be included on a topic to achieve balance. With any and all criticism of CS removed from the intro, this reads like a pro-CS propaganda piece. FuelWagon 21:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

'EMPHASIS ADDED'

I think it's fair to expect that FuelWagon clear up this apparent inconsistency.

Parker Whittle 23:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

My comment on the atheism page was in response to an article RFC and was my attempt to help resolve a specific dispute, which has nothing to do with this article. THe atheism article already contains the Christian POV of atheism and an editor wanted to quote and insert some URL's that sermonized the christian POV that atheism is wrong. There is a difference between reporting POV's and sermonizing them. I opposed the two links. What that has to do with the CS intro being biased, I don't know. In any event, I was working on this article trying to get the statements of fact that CS is wrong and a logical fallacy and unscientific to be reported as a point of view rather than stated as bald fact. So I have no problem "writing for the enemy". I don't know where that complaint came from. After quite a lot of back and forth between myself and some other editors, we finally came to an agreement on a couple of sentences being rewritten. Rather than simply saying "CS is pseudoscience", I changed it to "NAS says CS is pseudoscience", and an sentence that claimed a CS view was a logical fallacy was rewritten to describe their viewpoint without declaring it logical or illogical. That was my attempt to balance the criticism of CS rather than have the article simply report that CS is wrong. That is the "criticism" I'm talking about in the above quote. And all that criticism from the scientific point of view was removed. So, I don't know where your "apparent inconsistency" is. I've been trying to get the intro to report the main points of view around CS for a while now. First to change "facts" to scientific points of view, now to reinsert the scientific point of view after it had been deleted. It seems completely consistent to me. FuelWagon 00:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's what I find inconsistent: Even in the context of an RfC regarding a couple of links, you actually made a statement regarding the POV status of the Atheism article, as a whole. In that review, you neglected to make any mention of the fact that the introduction thereof did not include any criticism whatsoever. If you follow the actual edit history of this (CS) article, you will find that the "pseudoscience-as-fact" language had been reinserted by a particular user. I reviewed the history, both of edits and of comments, and decided that it might be a reasonable compromise to make the introduction an entirely language-neutral statement of the CS position, just as the Atheism article is an entirely language-neutral statement of the atheistic position. However, you came in with an objection that an article simply cannot be NPOV unless it contains a mention of major criticism in the very introduction (regardless of the fact that CS is rather thoroughly trounced by the Scientific criticisms section -- a treatment likewise conspicuously lacking in the Atheism article). Would you now assert that the Atheism article cannot be NPOV because it, as well, does not include major criticism in the introduction? Respectfully, Parker Whittle 00:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

One more: you defend the language-neutral statement of the atheistic position, but when there is language-neutral statement of the CS position, you state that it reads like a propaganda piece. That, IMO, is an inconsistent application of the language-neutral position. Respectfully, Parker Whittle 00:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Why do you keep bringing up the atheism article? I have never even edited the article directly that I can remember. I commented on an article rfc in an attempt to help resolve a specific dispute an editor was having. That I didn't lecture everyone on every policy problem with the atheism article is irrelevant. I work on what I can, when I can. And right now, I'm working on teh CS article, and I see NPOV problems. FuelWagon 01:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how I can be any clearer. You state a position, namely, that articles in general cannot be NPOV unless they state major criticisms in the introduction. You apply that standard to CS. You were involved in an NPOV RfC on the Atheism article, and made a general statement that the article as a whole is NPOV, despite the fact that it violates the same rule you are applying to the CS article. That, my friend, is a double standard. Now, I'm willing to admit that you didn't notice it, before. But now that I've pointed out the fact, I'm simply asking this: wouldn't you agree, based on your own statements, that the Atheism article must also violate NPOV, because it fails to identify major criticisms in its introduction? Parker Whittle 01:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

this has become an acedemic exercise. There is no way any single editor can come up with teh "right" answer as to whether an article is POV or not. It's a wiki. It's subjective. I try to make articles better and I try to find language that all sides will support. It's my opinion that the CS intro is POV and I'd like to find a way to change it that most everyone can support. FuelWagon 01:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Gees I can't keep up. as for the "language-neutral" thing, Creation Science is attempting to redefine the language, i.e. the definition of science, so the only way to be language neutral is to introduce creation science and explain that some view at as not actually science. "Atheism" doesn't have that problem because "atheism" means "atheism" and no one disputes the definitions of the words being used there. At least not the way people dispute the definition of "science" here. FuelWagon 01:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Au contraire, mon ami. The definition of the word science is far broader than its use among scientists. CS is seeking, wrongly IMO, to redefine the demarcation of science -- a topic that is hotly debated both among scientists, themselves, as well as philosophers of science (Popper, Kuhn, etc.). In particular, the falsifiability criterion is disputed by a number of notable thinkers on the topic, and not just those hostile to the scientific agenda. It is certainly language-neutral to state what CS advocates think of the falsifiability criterion, and that they believe what they're doing is science. I wholeheartedly agreed when you reinserted the simple NAS statement that creationism is not science; but I feel you went to came close to the edge of promoting scientific POV when you decided to elaborate further. In short, I don't think you improved NPOV by adding that entire paragraph into the introduction. How about this -- can we compromise on the one liner statement in the introduction, and perhaps refer the reader to the expanded critique later in the article? Parker Whittle 01:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

We can only report the different POV's, we cannot sit down and figure out for ourselves how someone might interpret what "science" is, or where teh demarcation should be or could be and it's implications. That's original research and it's against wikipedia policy. We report the different points of view from notable and expert sources outside wikipedia. We can't simply make up a point of view and say "someone might argue this". And we can't state something as fact if it is disputed by the major players involved. So, here are a couple of things in the intro that cover the pro-CS view: by virtue of its name and by its claims, CS attempts to define itself as scientific and attempts to explain how its approach is scientific, CS attempts to disprove the validity of evolution. Those two points are significantly enough opposed by notable groups that those opposition views should be included in the intro. Namely: The NAS views CS as not science, the NAS says CS is not science because (insert approach to science not followed), the NAS says evolution is supported scientifically. So, if the intro contains the CS views that it is science, that its methodology is scientific, and that evolution has no scientific evidence to support it, the NAS is a significant group of experts that hotly contest this view, therefore it should be countered in the intro in brief, and then explained in detail in the body.

If we present the view that CS says it is scientific, CS says it's methodologys are scientific, and CS says evolution has no scientific evidence, and then we simply say NAS says CS is not science, then we leave the other hotly disputed views unreported in the intro. Because the NAS quotes I provided all directly address these three main points, they belong in the intro. The only alternative is to take a CS claim, such as their attacks on evolution, out of the intro, so that the NAS pov doesn't have to be in the intro either. Then move both POV's to the body of teh article somewhere. That doesnt give a good intro to CS, though, so I say go for short clips that describe the differnt POV's towards evolution. FuelWagon 03:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Allright, then. What would you suggest we write about CS (or ID for that matter) in the intro of the biological evolution article? The issue is no longer academic if you're going to insist that the one line NAS statement is somehow insufficiently NPOV, especially if it references a major critique in the article, itself. Surely you MUST agree that, according to your own statements, CS or ID claims should be inserted (point by point, apparently) into the introduction of an article on biological evolution. Parker Whittle 04:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

ID proponents do not dispute CS's claims around scientific methods, the validity of evolution, etc, so there is no point in their view being mentioned in the intro, or probably even the article as a whole, other than perhaps a mention of their similarities and minor differences. Mainstream science, on the other hand, complete opposes all the views that CS forwards, so to give a good overview of the different views around CS, mainstream science views should be included in the intro.

Look, I respect you as an editor. I agree with most of your edits. I'm really trying to work with you here, and I think I've raised a very valid point -- one which you seem to be avoiding. As for your last edit, you state that the NAS defense of evolution is necessary to respond to criticism in the intro. However, there is no specific critique of evolution in the intro; only a general critique concerning falsifiability. I've challenged your claim as to a general rule regarding NPOV and counterclaims in the intros, and you've yet to back it up. Given that biological evolution doesn't even mention creation science, much less in the intro, I believe I'm being more than fair when I agree that the NAS statement should be in the intro to this article. But I think you're carrying the demands of NPOV way too far. Parker Whittle 07:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The intro has two sentences around the topic of evolution that present the CS point of view.

CS claims the mainstream scientific theories of ... life are based on an assumption of methodological naturalism "methodological naturalism" refer to mainstream science's "theory of life" which is evolution.

Creation science has its roots in the ongoing effort ... to critique modern science's description of natural history—particularly evolution, CS has an ongoing effort to critique evolution.

If you present the CS view of the topic of evolution, you need to present the mainstream science view. FuelWagon 11:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

That's quite a stretch. It's not presenting a specific argument against a given theory to refer broadly to several theories while describing CS's critique of science, in general. What specific CS responses do you think would be necessary to render biological evolution NPOV? C'mon -- it's a valid question. You have consistently ignored or dodged it. Parker Whittle 16:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Two RfCs, One Set of Comments

I read this article a few weeks ago when there was a previous RfC. At the time, I deleted a non-attributed statement from the introduction that CS was a pseudoscience, but moved that emphasis to a mention of a report by the National Academy of Sciences that made the same statement. A statement that CS is a pseudoscience is a POV. A statement that scientists consider CS to be a pseudoscience is NPOV because it is a factual statement about what scientists think about CS. I was rebuked severely because I was told that there was a consensus that that statement should be in the introduction. I disagreed, but did not get into an edit war.

I came back to this article in response to another RfC. I see that the article has been expanded significantly and is a better article. On two different days, I have seen two different versions of the introductory paragraph. A recently modified version contained the statement that CS was based on a logical fallacy. It is not. Many of the arguments in favor of CS are based on logical fallacies, but CS is not fallacious. It is scientifically wrong, and is unverifiable, but it is not fallacious. In my opinion, it is also bad religion, but the First Amendment guarantees the right to bad religion.

What I have also seen is that the talk page for this article tends to be uncivil. The "troll food" warning at the top is well-placed. Unfortunately, it is my opinion that the editors who are being the most uncivil, as well as who are disrespecting NPOV, are some of those who have the better case, the evolutionists. (I am not referring to an entire viewpoint, only to certain editors.)

Wikipedia is not Usenet. This article talk page does not need to be talk.origins. Truth is not determined by who can shout the loudest. NPOV is not determined by who can shout the loudest.

Scientific Creationism, or Creation Science, is neither good science nor sound religion. However, it is a point of view that has enough adherents in the United States and elsewhere that it should be treated with respect. There is no reason to use this talk page as a soapbox to shout down CS. There is also no reason why the introductory paragraph to this article has to present CS as nonsense. We assume that Wikipedians reading the article are intelligent and can judge for themselves whether CS is nonsense, without "piling on" a defective theory (viz., scientific creationism).

A neutral POV is not the same as a scientific POV. It is difficult for scientists to treat the critics of scientific thought with respect, especially because in the past scientific thought was treated with disrespect by the churches. However, Wikipedia must present a neutral point of view. The introductory paragraph should be neither too favorable to CS or too unfavorable to it, but should allow the reader to continue to obtain information from the remainder of the article.

On a topic that is as controversial as CS, it may be difficult to be civil and to provide NPOV, but this is exactly the sort of topic that most tests the ability of the Wikipedia system. Robert McClenon 22:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Robert, where have you been hiding? (grin) I pretty much went through these same arguments in the sections above titled 20 NPOV flag, 20.1 false premise, 21 two flavors, two problems, and 22 article RFC. We didn't come to an agreement on the interpretation of that NPOV means exactly (we had slightly different interpretations about whether or not "definition" was POV or not), but at least one editor and myself had managed to agree to a version of the article here.

I was pushing for the NAS quote, so "CS is not science" would come from some source, rather than be stated as fact. I also rephrased the "logical fallacy" sentence to simply reflect behaviour "Efforts in the creation science movement have focused significantly on forming arguments against Darwinian evolution in an effort to promote wider acceptance of young earth creationism." and not rule it a "false premise" or whatever. Anyway, all that got blown away. I've reinserted the NAS quote. And think teh intro needs at least an overview sentence that explains the NAS criticism. Perhaps there's a good NAS quote we can use that would do this.

anyway, come on in, the water's fine. FuelWagon 22:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Where have I been hiding?  ;-) On the fifth floor, of course. Robert McClenon 22:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Approve of reorg, removed unsourced POV edits

I think the restructuring of the article was a superb idea. Much better. However, as I already pointed out, above, CS does not argue that the Biblical account can be verified by scientific means, and I provided references backing up my point. CS advocates recognize that it would be a fallacy to do so, and they do not wish to argue in favor of a fallacy, as bad as I think their arguments indeed are. To depict them as such is at least SPOV, if not outright POV. So I restored statements to that effect and have inserted those references into the body of the article. In addition, I restored language, with some expansion, better depicting the actual view of CS advocates, as they themselves state it. Parker Whittle 03:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that CS proponents consider creation to be observable or that they do not? You can't have it both ways. Bensaccount 21:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

It's really quite simple, and this makes me wonder whether you're simply being contrarian. CS argues that neither the creationist nor naturalist assumption are observable or refutable. When they state that the observable phenomena "fit better" with the creationist account, it is interpretive and conjectural, as is the case when scientists state that the observable phenomena "fit better" with the naturalist assumption. As seems to be the consensus among philosophers of science, the naturalistic worldview at the heart of science is, in itself, not falsifiable. It is simply a working hypothesis that, IMO, is responsible for the success of science. Without it, IMO, science would collapse. But this is an arguable position. It is much the same as when Popper asserted that (to paraphrase) neither Realism nor Idealism may be demonstrated or refuted; however, it may be argued, and the arguments are far in favor of Realism. Parker Whittle 21:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't be contrarian until I clarify your long philosophical rant. Are you saying that CS proponents believe that nothing is observable, everything is interpretation? Bensaccount 22:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I figured you'd already be familiar with the article on falsifiability, which does an excellent job on describing the demarcation of science. Perhaps you should reread it, and then rephrase your question. Parker Whittle 23:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Just answer the question. Bensaccount 00:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The question reflects such a fundamental misunderstanding of my statements that I, respectfully, request that you thoroughly review them in light of the well understood criterion of falsifiability. To answer your question would be to repeat myself, and I have no desire to do so until the statements I have already made have been thoroughly understood. What specific portions of my statements do you think need clarification? Parker Whittle 00:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that CS proponents believe that nothing is observable, everything is interpretation? Bensaccount 00:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I cannot even begin to see what it is in my statements that leads you to believe I am saying any such thing about the CS position, but I will assume good faith and humor what appears to me to be a rather belligerent attempt at baiting. Many professional scientists who consider themselves creationists, even young earth creationists, do perform good science in the pursuit of their careers, so clearly they do not believe that everything is interpretation. Nothing in my statements even approaches such an absurd implication. As I stated, CS argues that the root assumptions of both mainstream science and of creation science do not meet the falsifiability criteria. Mainstream scientists and well-accepted philosophers of science don't even argue that the naturalistic assumption meets the criterion of science. So, clearly, obviously, without a doubt, I am not arguing that CS adherents argue that nothing is observable. That delightful position is reserved for post-modernists :-). Parker Whittle 01:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Creation science is not just creationists doing science. Bensaccount 21:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect title?

Shouldn't something be done about the title of this article? It gives the false impression that creationism can be considered a science. User:68.198.149.91

We need to either delete the page or make it very clear from the start that creationism is not science. Bensaccount 22:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree that by its very name, "Creation Science" presents the CS view that they are scientific in some way, and therefore the mainstream scientific view needs to be included in the very beginning. Yes, that means the one-sentence intro would become two sentences. FuelWagon 22:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you proposing that we should mislead the reader into thinking that consensus science is science instead? Bensaccount 22:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

It is of paramount importance that the lead section mentions that it is pseudoscience, by mentioning who considers it pseudoscience and briefly why. It however ought not to be named (not least because its daughterintelligent design is also creationist pseudoscience). That is why I have added the NPOV tag. Dunc|☺ 22:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Facts are different from opinions Dunc. Bensaccount 00:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for comments: What's in a name? POV or SPOV?

This is about the most blatant attempt to push Scientific POV that I've seen, which is mentioned in WP:NPOV as one way to violate the policy. I've posted an RfC for this article. Parker Whittle 23:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "scientific POV". It is a meaningless buzzword. Bensaccount 23:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

This meaningless buzzword is specifically mentioned in the WP:NPOV policy. There is also a page on the topic [24].

There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience.

In its article on creationism, even the Encyclopedia Britannica does not state it as a matter of fact that creationism is pseudoscience. Since the topic of the article is Creation science, which is arguably a belief system, it is not POV to accurately depict the arguments made by its adherents when they are stated exactly as that: arguments and beliefs. It is unnecessary argue that the scientific community's position must be stated as a matter of fact. This borders on scientism. I am a strident supporter of science as viewed by the NAS, but this seems like propagandizing. Parker Whittle 23:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Not really. If a faith-based belief is presented as a faith-based belief, the scientific community generally ignores it. Scientists do not like pseudoscience because it is damaging to science. It is highly significant that the scientific community thinks that it is pseudoscience, and that should be mentioned in the article in order for it to be NPOV, POVs are attributed, not endorsed. Dunc|☺ 23:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the article that the scientific community thinks that it is pseudoscience. In fact, the scientific critique in the article is as long as the rest of the article and thoroughly trounces the notion that creation science is actual science. The point I take issue with is that the title of the article is POV, and that CS as pseudoscience must be stated as a matter of fact (as opposed to the position of the scientific community). Parker Whittle 00:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

In which case we have to follow the rules of self-identity and common usage. Put it in scare quotes if linking to it if necessary. I think we have two issues mixed up a bit here though. Dunc|☺ 00:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You are mixing up fact and opinion. Bensaccount 00:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Dunc wrote the article on SPOV. There is no such thing. Bensaccount 00:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I did indeed, and it was intended as an essay sortofthing for articles such as this one. Dunc|☺ 00:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

We are not going to refer to your essay as authoritative. Bensaccount 00:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, Dunc, I think it's an excellent article. And the fact that the official policy on NPOV still mentions the term "scientific point of view" belies the notion that it is empty of meaning. I'm no rocket scientist, and I understand what it's talking about, so clearly there is some content, some sensible referent. I'll step back a bit, because I think you're not making the same arguments as other editors in this discussion. What specific statements in the current version of this article are insufficiently NPOV? What is it about the introductory sentence, specifically, that makes it in any way in favor of CS? Is it POV because it states the CS position as the CS position, without a specific mention of the scientific point of view? Does every section that merely describes the CS position need to repeat the NAS disclaimer that is already state in the article several times? Parker Whittle 01:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

1 topic, 2 povs

Parker, the name "creation science" takes the topic called "science" and forwards the CS view that CS is science. The topic is the word "science", and the view is the CS view that CS is science. There is another view of teh topic called "science", and it is held by the NAS. The NAS view is that CS is NOT science. by virtue of its name, the topic of science is introduced from the CS view. To achive neutrality on this article, therefore, the NAS view of "science" needs to be introduced alongside it. There is one topic (the definition of the word "science") that has 2 points of view (CS and NAS). When the topic comes up, both views must be presented. That is what NPOV means. This isn't pushing the scientific POV, its simply a matter of when you bring up a topic from one POV, if there are other major but differetn POV's, you need to mention them too.

This isn't the same as the atheism article, because no one disputes the definition of the word "atheism" the way people dispute the definition of the word "science". The atheism article does mention the various flavors of atheism, hard atheism, soft atheism, etc, which give the different POVs for the definition, but there is no substantial criticism that opposes teh idea that atheism is basically the lack of belief in god. That is why the christian POV doesn't need to be included in the atheism intro. "Creation Science" by its name, asserts the CS POV on what is "science". and to keep balance in the intro, the NAS view need be mentioned. FuelWagon 02:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand your position, and I agree with it 95%. I think you're stating the position more generally than you intend, because the same doesn't really apply to biological evolution, and rightfully so. I wouldn't think it at all appropriate to insert a disclaimer every time a scientific article made a claim that some creationists disagreed with. Basically what I'm trying to point out is this: the article is very, very heavy with the scientific position, and I think that's quite as it should be. If we insert a disclaimer into the first paragraph, then that's 3 full times that the exact same point is made in the article, and I think that's hammering the point home just a little too much. It begins to seem like we're being pedantic, or we're afraid that if a single broad statement of the CS position appears naked and unchallenged for a few inches of space (with all the appropriate qualifiers, mind you), that it will undermine the delicate, gossamer structure of the scientific method. I think science is stronger than that, and I think readers (at the reachable ones) are just plain smarter than that. Besides which, the intro as it stood before the revert only really implies that CS is science (by the use of the term). It's like saying that we'd have to have a disclaimer in every section of an article on (the former) East Germany stating that it wasn't really a Democratic Republic. Science appears to be exceedingly well defended in the article as it was, and to insist that it be littered with disclaimers in every section seems rather defensive. At any rate, how about this. If absolutely must disclaim in the intro, then let's at least make it explicit there that CS claims to be scientific:

Creation science (also known as scientific creationism or CS) is an attempt to construct theories meeting scientific standards, constrained by the assumption, from religious faith, that the Bible is an accurate historical depiction of the divine creation. Scientists overwhelmingly argue that such efforts arepseudoscientific and are damaging (intentionally or unintentionally) to the understanding and practice of science in the modern world.

Parker Whittle 02:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

That, or some variation of that, would do fine. FuelWagon 04:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, FuelWagon. I've made the change. If you approve, I'll leave it to your discretion to remove the NPOV tag. Additionally, I apologize if any of my remarks in our lengthy discussion seemed overly argumentative. I had put a lot of effort into rendering a fair appraisal of CS without promoting it in any way; when you then declared the results of my work as propagandist, I felt that it completely dismissed those efforts, out of hand. There you have it; all's well that ends well. It's been a pleasure doing business with you :-) --Parker Whittle 14:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The propagandist comment was me getting hot under the collar. Sorry. I'd spent a huge amount of time debating on the talk page to get two sentences changed. They dissappeared in the rewrite. Anyway, it doesn't appear that my debating actually accomplished anything, as some editors are still disputing what NPOV and SPOV mean in this context. I posted something village pump and the NPOV talk page asking for some clarification on this policy, because it isn't clear to people. FuelWagon 15:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

If SPOV exists, that is it; the opinions of scientists. I removed this highly inappropriate bias from the intro. Bensaccount 15:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

SPOV isn't "presenting the views of scientists as sourced from scientists". That's NPOV. NPOV says present the minority (pseudoscientific) view as the viewpoint of the minority and the majority (scientific) view as the viewpoint of the majority. That means "CS says blah. NAS says blah." The "Scientific Point Of View" means writing FROM the POV of science as if it were fact/true. SPOV would be "CS says blah. They are wrong." The declaration "they are wrong" has no source. It comes from no one. It is presented instead as fact. And facts are not disputed. From the scientific point of view, this would be fine, but from the neutral point of view, this is unacceptable. FuelWagon 15:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

My remarks, below, notwithstanding, I want to be clear that I fully support the consensus we have reached. --Parker Whittle 15:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Uh.... Okay (scratching my head)! Who are you, and what have you done with Bensaccount? I'm fine with removing it. However, in light of your comment, above, "We need to either delete the page or make it very clear from the start that creationism is not science" (emphasis added), it seemed that we had reached a consensus. I take issue with the characterization that it's biased, since it does seem to accurately reflect the view of the overwhelming majority of scientists. But so be it. I've thought from the beginning that such a disclaimer in the intro was excessive. Thanks! --Parker Whittle 15:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Until you try and differentiate between facts and POV all you have is rhetoric about your preference for certain POVs. Bensaccount 15:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? What POV are you accusing me of attempting to insert into the article? Parker Whittle 15:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The opinion of scientists is inappropriate here. Just like the opinion of creationists is inappropriate on an article about science. Bensaccount 15:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

That isn't what I asked. What POV are you accusing me of attempting to insert into the article? Parker Whittle 16:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The POV of scientists. Note the difference between "scientist's POV" and "scientific POV" btw. Bensaccount 21:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You're accusing me of attempting the skew the article in favor of the POV of scientists? Parker Whittle 21:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

For the nth time, yes. I am against skewing, whatever the POV may be. Bensaccount 22:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Awwww, please

The recent revert by Raul654 undoes a great deal of work that has nothing to do with the current debate, and it reinserts the following language, which is an exceedingly unfair (and unsourced) characterization of the CS position. As wrongheaded as I believe the CS position to be, it is a serious position, and deserves to be depicted fairly. Write for the enemy. The statement in question is this:

Efforts in the creation science movement have focused significantly on forming arguments against Darwinian evolution, under the false premise that assertions dismissing evolution are promoting young earth creationism.... Creation science's unscientific dependence on the God of Abraham acting to unobservably alter the natural world renders it unfalsifiable, and its predetermined unconditional support of the Genesis account runs contrary to scientific methodology.

1. CS does not argue under a false premise that dismissing evolution promotes the young earth creationism. I have demonstrated this with a number of links that states the CS argument, as it really is.

2. I agree with Dunc that it is important to identify that CS is pseudoscience by stating who identifies it as such. But the phrase "Creation science's unscientific dependence on...." is an unfair characterization of the actual CS position.

--Parker Whittle 01:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Gak! I only spent this much time arguing against that sentence. Nice to see progress has been made. sheesh. If "promoting" means "logically prove", it is a strawman version of actual creation science because no one can show me a source that says CS believes that "disproving evolution logically proves creation science". If "promote" means "to get wider acceptance for", then the approach is not a "false premise" becuase it is certainly possible that campaigning against evolution will win Creation Science wider acceptance. Oh my head. Will it never end? FuelWagon 01:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. And I was actually trying to find the middle path that was acceptable to all. The recent revert was by an admin, no less, and there's no comment whatsoever on the talk page. I'm a little nonplussed. Parker Whittle 02:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't write for the "enemy". If you have an enemy, you need to work out your differences. Pretending to agree while secretly adding in your own POV just creates confusion. Bensaccount 15:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

HOLY COW! Are you not familiar with the actual NPOV policy as written? I believe the following excerpt is in order (I've included the entire section, as it is exceptionally apropos):

Those who constantly attempt to advocate their views on politically charged topics, and who seem not to care about whether other points of view are represented fairly, are violating the non-bias policy ("write unbiasedly"). But the policy also entails that it is our job to speak for the other side, and not just avoid advocating our own views. If we don't commit ourselves to doing that, Wikipedia will be weaker for it. We should all be engaged in explaining each other's points of view as sympathetically as possible.

In saying this, we are spelling out what might have been obvious from an initial reading of the policy. If each of us is permitted to contribute biased stuff, then how is it possible that the policy is ever violated? The policy says, "Go thou and write unbiasedly". If that doesn't entail that each of us should fairly represent views with which we disagree, then what does it mean? Maybe you think it means, "Represent your own view fairly, and let others have a say." But consider, if we each take responsibility for the entire article when we hit "save", then when we make a change that represents our own views but not contrary views, or represents contrary views unfairly or incompletely, surely we are adding bias to Wikipedia. Does it make sense not to take responsibility for the entire article? Does it make sense to take sentences and say, "These are mine"? Perhaps, but in a project that is so strongly and explicitly committed to neutrality, that attitude seems out of place.

The other side might very well find your attempts to characterize their views substandard, but it's the thought that counts. In resolving disputes over neutrality issues, it's far better that we acknowledge that all sides must be presented fairly, and make at least a college try at presenting the other sides fairly. That will be appreciated much more than not trying at all.

"Writing for the enemy" might make it seem as if we were adding deliberately flawed arguments to Wikipedia, which would be a very strange thing to do. But it's better to view this (otherwise puzzling) behavior as adding the best (published) arguments of the opposition, citing some prominent person who has actually made the argument in the form in which you present it, and stating them as sympathetically as possible. Academics, e.g., philosophers, do this all the time. Always cite your sources, and make sure your sources are reputable, and you won't go far wrong.

Respectfully, Parker Whittle 15:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view: without bias, representing all views fairly. Bensaccount 15:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You can read Wikipedia policy above. Parker Whittle is right. Also, Your version still represents POV. "..or alterernatively to make it resemble science." is just scientific critisism in code. Why not spell it out, and make the intro less ambiguous. -- Ec5618 16:13, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Would it be less ambiguous to say that "scientists consider the earth to be round"? Bensaccount 21:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Definitions are created by humans. The definition of "science" is whatever people say it is. In an article where the definition is not a source of dispute between the main parties involved, you can simply go with the mainstream definition. In an article where the definition is disputed, you have to report the different definitions from the different points of view. You can attempt to argue that your definition is "true" the way the earth is round is true, but that completely ignores the fact that the definition of "science" or any other word is whatever people say it is. And in this case, CS says it is different than the mainstream definition. FuelWagon 21:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

It is our job as editors to use the most conventional definitions we can, in order that we will be understood by the most people possible -- NOT the unconventional redefinitions made up by biased minority groups. Bensaccount 21:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Your position seems to directly contradict the stated NPOV policy on disputed topics, in which the majority and minority positions are both stated, fairly, and attributed to the groups that are making those statements. If you've got a beef with the policy, I suggest you take it up with the powers that be. But the policy seems quite clear on this point. Parker Whittle 21:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Once again, I ask that you note the difference between fact and opinion. Differentiate between conventional definitions and opinions. Bensaccount 21:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not at all unclear on the difference. Fact: CS disputes the definition of science as described by the vast majority of scientists. Note that I agree with the vast majority of scientists. Also note, that in this case of disputes, the NPOV policy is clear. Do you dispute the policy? Parker Whittle 22:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV states that we represent all views fairly and without bias. How does that translate to you as "we should abandon the conventional definitions and use those of biased minority groups". Bensaccount 22:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh Puleeeeze!

I went away for a while and coming back, see that a mess has been made of this entire thing. But proposing that the title of the article is POV? Puleeeze. Remember, my POV is pro-(real) science. You can put your heads in the sand and pretend that Creation Science does not exist as a movement or you can face it. There IS such a thing as creation science. The article is about that thing. It can't be POV. Furthermore, the intro, as it now stands, does nothing to define what CS is, only what it is not. Please, just begin with a paragraph that says what CS is, or purports to be. There is plenty of room for critisism after that. Some of you guys are just being petty. Synaptidude 18:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

For your review

Can the editors who disagree with the intro I wrote, below, please offer specific arguments as to how it is somehow insufficient?

• • • Why should we bother? Did that about two weeks ago. Got everyone's consensus, and then came back two weeks later to find it all blown apart again. At this point, I don't see the point. We can reach a consensus wording, and then the next person will just blow it up again.Synaptidude 23:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Creation science (also known as scientific creationism or CS) is an attempt to construct theories meeting scientific standards, constrained by the assumption, from religious faith, that the Bible is an accurate historical depiction of the divine creation. Scientists overwhelmingly argue that such efforts are pseudoscientific and are damaging to the proper understanding and practice of science in the modern world.

1) It accurately represents the CS position, as they have stated it (with cited sources), without promoting it in any way. CS is an attempt (not a successful one, IMO) to construct scientific theories (badly, IMO) under the assumption that the bible is a historical depiction (wrongly, IMO). If someone can back up the assertion that CS argues that refuting evolution consitutes a logical defense of the bible, then so be it. So far, no sources have been cited in defense of that position.

2) The majority, scientific position is strongly represented here.

People seem to be talking around my points, perhaps under the assumption that I am not acting in good faith. Please address the specific points I've raised, and avoid pointless speculation. I am extremely pro-science, pro-reason, and opposed to all creationist arguments. I just don't think science is well served by distorting our opponents' arguments.

Frustrated, respectfully, Parker Whittle 18:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

CS is not an attempt to meet scientific standards. Bensaccount 21:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

According to whom? Webster? Then report that point of view from webster's dictionary. NAS? then report that pov from NAS. You? Then it qualifies as original research. FuelWagon 21:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it's an attempt to pretend to meet scientific standards--172.128.124.231 21:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

see above. FuelWagon 21:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe that's what they are trying to do, and that's exactly what CS advocates claim that they are attempting, as indicated by the sources I've provided. Nevertheless, how about this wording:

Creation science (also known as scientific creationism or CS) is a subset of the creationist movement. It's advocates claim to be constructing theories meeting scientific standards, constrained by the assumption, from religious faith, that the Bible is an accurate historical depiction of the divine creation. Scientists overwhelmingly argue that such efforts are pseudoscientific and are damaging to the proper understanding and practice of science in the modern world.

--Parker Whittle 21:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

We do not include the opinion of scientists here. Just like we don't include religious opinions in scientific articles. Define, describe, and summarize but don't criticize. Bensaccount 21:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes we do. that's exactly what "reporting the points of view" means. You report the opinions of groups or organizations or individuals who hold different views about the same topic. I don't know what you're doing, but it ain't following NPOV. FuelWagon 22:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

So in other words, any opinion that Fuelwagon likes, goes in the article, regardless of how biased, or how grossly inappropriate. Bensaccount 22:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Why, yes, I have stopped beating my wife. How did you know? FuelWagon 22:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Please confirm for me, as I can be a bit dense sometimes. You are indeed saying the opinion of scientists is irrelevant/unwelcome on a page with science in the title? I just want to make sure I'm understanding correctly. Preczewski 21:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Summarizing the criticism is acceptable, since controvery is part of the subject. What we can not do is use the criticism as our own description or definition. Bensaccount 21:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Illuminate me. What am I criticizing? Parker Whittle 22:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

We can not use the criticism by scientists. Bensaccount 22:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that Bensaccount is trying to make a point. I just wish he would make it, instead of continually responding with one-liners and rather rude edit summaries.

About the actual intro-proposal:

Why use the phrase depiction of the divine creation. To me, that reads as though there was devine creation, obviously, but that the questionin whether the Bible accurately depicts it. I'd prefer something like depiction of the origin of the universe. To me, creation itself, as a term used to refer to the beginnings of everything suggests divinity.

Also, the word overwhelmingly suggests that the argument is made with unstoppable force, and that all but the illinformed or mentally handicapped can't help but be swept away. Perhaps An overwhelming majority of scientists .. or By far, most scientists... Sources would help at this point (a reference link is easily inserted).

Finally, can we find a word in place of the word constrained. While painfully accurate, the term may come across as degoratory. (By painfully accurate I mean to say that creation scientists, in my mind, do seek to constrain science, as they feel that any scientist who disallows for the existance of a higher power is thinking too far out of the box. To them it's obvious that any theory that disallows for the existance of a deity is flawed, and so all theories should include the hypothesis. But constraint sounds negative. (I'm not sure how I got to this point)) -- Ec5618 22:15, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your first point. I disagree with your second point -- the scientific community, a biased group to be sure, has overwhlemingly condemned it. Your third point is very good -- perhaps "constrained by the assumption" could be replaced with "with the stipulation". Preczewski 22:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I cannot tell you how much this warms my heart! Pro-science folks who think I may have been a little too fair to our position. --Parker Whittle 22:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

How's this: Creation science (also known as scientific creationism or CS) is a subset of the creationist movement. Its advocates claim to be constructing theories that meet scientific standards, under the assumption, by way of religious faith, that the Bible is an accurate historical depiction of the origins of the universe, Earth, and/or life. The vast majority of scientists argue that such efforts are pseudoscientific and are damaging to the proper understanding and practice of science in the modern world. --Parker Whittle 22:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the issue with the word creation . Hope you don't mind, but I revised in line, above. It's tough to use origins of the universe by itself, as some CS folks believe the Bible talks only about this planet, not the universe as a whole. Parker Whittle 22:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I like it. I wonder whether the last sentence warrants a counterpoint regarding its popularity -- as unpopular as it is in the scientific community, it is well-received by people who struggle to reconcile religion and science. Perhaps adding "The theory has nonetheless gained recent publicity and popularity among those who struggle to reconcile their faith with a society increasingly reliant on science." Preczewski 22:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I have wikified and spellchecked the above proposal. I also changed 'the planet' into 'Earth' I suggest that we leave the last bit off, the part about damaging the proper understanding of science. While true, it seems a little derisive. This comment should be attributed (to avoid the perception of original research) and should be moved down into the main body of the article. -- Ec5618 22:58, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

How's this then: Creation science (also known as scientific creationism or CS) is a subset of the creationist movement. Its advocates claim to be constructing theories that meet scientific standards, under the assumption, by way of religious faith, that the Bible is an accurate historical depiction of the origins of the universe, Earth, and/or life. The vast majority of scientists argue that such efforts are pseudoscientific. The United States' National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such." [25]

Not an ideal reference, and not a complete one (there is no source for the claim that 'The vast majority of scientists argue..' ). Nevertheless, I hope this intro proposal can be the basis for consensus. -- Ec5618 23:28, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts in this. I like it. I doubt anyone will reasonably challenge the "vast majority" point -- even CS advocates concede that virtually the entire scientific community disputes their claims. In fact, I think they wear it with a certain amount of pride. I like Preczewski's point about those struggling to reconcile faith, but I think it belongs as a point well below the intro. I'll also see if I can dig up a good citation for the "damaging the proper understanding of science." Again, thank you. Parker Whittle 00:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Policy on pseudoscience

The complete section on pseudoscience from the NPOV policy (emphasis added):[26]

How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.

There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience.

-- Parker Whittle 22:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

So you are saying that CS is pseudoscience? Bensaccount 22:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

How can this be unclear to you? I'm saying that I, and the vast majority of scientists, believe that CS is pseudoscience. Parker Whittle 22:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Bensaccount, you're behaving like a child. Make your bloody point already. No, Parker Whittle didn't just say what you would have liked him to have said. He didn't call creation science pseudo science. And yes, you have just responded with a single line of text to a complicated problem again. And yes, you have failed to address the actual issue. And yes, you did offend me by creating a subheading for my constructive comment. Intentionally, I'm sure. Please, make your point, or do as you so cowardly commented in the edit summary, and leave. Stop wasting everyone's time by making vague comments. -- Ec5618 22:38, August 9, 2005 (UTC)