Talk:Creation science/Archive 12

message: This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Creation Science. See WP:NOT
::Where do we do this? For the article to be accurate it must be discussed. If a single POV is assumed then the article can never be unbiased or completely accurate. w00tboy 04:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree, W00tboy. It's much better to read why someone changed the wikipedia entry in talk rather than slogging through the article's history. --Menswear 15:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: REMINDER

message: Dont you think that Creation, which I believe is God's working, needs  capital C?????--Wwjd333 22:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had not realized that plasmas with densities and temperatures of Big Bang proportions had been created in high-energy experimentation.  What reference is there to such results? Dan Watts 17:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can check out the Wikipedia articles on the subjects. Particle physics and physical cosmology are good starts. Especially the area of big bang nucleosynthesis (though this article is in need of expansion). --ScienceApologist 19:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut from article

message: At a more fundamental level, from a scientific viewpoint the supernatural inherently posits something which is outside nature and undetectable, and since its means are undetectable they are not susceptible to scientific observation or analysis.  By explaining everything, the supernatural explains nothing. Kenneth R. Miller makes this point 36 minutes into the BBC Horizon programme A War on Science (google video). If we come across a planet with two naked people and a talking snake, the faith position  is that this proves Genesis, so we should stop investigating. The scientific position is that now we have testable evidence, we can start trying out natural explanations. Even if we can't prove it wasn't created by the FSM, that doesn't mean that it was, it just means that we don't know; yet. ...dave souza, talk 10:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation

message: , as a reference for:
:Subsequently, advocates of Creation Science have expanded their critiques into biology and cosmology. However, efforts to have it legislated to be taught in schools in the United States were eventually halted by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First amendment in Edwards v. Aguillard 1987.
-- Ec5618 15:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut link

message: Some people may want to have a look at this recently created article. AfD?-- Ec5618 19:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A useful article, related to other responses to the A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition claiming support for ID. ..dave souza, talk 14:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, now. When I first saw it, it was horrible though (), and I couldn't see the point of this article. In fact, I found the article quite unreadable. It's since been cleaned up a bit. It doesn't deserve AfD. -- Ec5618 15:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[A Scientific Support For Darwinism]] 

message: The quotes from Dawkins and Haldane hardly make a strong case for evolution's falsifiability.  Evolutionists remain unable to adequately explain how the Cambrian phyla came into existence, due to a lack of evolutionary ancestors.  So, therefore, why do the Cambrian forms not fulfill the role of Haldane's "rabbit" and subsequently falsify evolution? XerKibard
*There are fossils that predate the cambrien explosion.  Furthermore, the fossils closly mirror the morphologies that would become predominant during the explosion. 
**Physics, chemistry, and geology have explained why there are so few fossils before the Cambrian explosion.  It is not that organisms did not exist, but rather that these organisms did not leave good fossils.  
*Developmental evolutionary biology (with the discovery of Hox genes and the genetic basis of the metazoan body plan) is starting to explain the evolutionary basis for the cambrien explosion.--Roland Deschain 22:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rabbits in the Precambrian." 

message: I did some copyediting (mostly for grammar, spelling and style, although some were for accuracy), and converted external links to refs to streamline the article. •Jim62sch• 12:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy editing, etc

message: It says that this topic is not a good article.  Is there a link to a page where that decision was made?  If not, can we start a to-do list get this article up to that level.--Roland Deschain 06:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There probably is, but it's miles from here.  ;)  Seriously, I'm not sure where those decisions are archived, but I agree with you and think we should get this back up to GA standards.  BTW, had the Who listened to you we would have had "I can see for Kilometers and kilometers" which just wouldn't have had the same ring.  :)  •Jim62sch• 20:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, if anybody can find the major objections of why this was removed, it would be greatly appreciated.  I've tried to look through the archives with little luck.  I'll wait a coupole of days for somebody to dig up the reasons why this is not a good article; if nobody comes up with those reasons, I'll renominate this article, effectivly forcing objections be be stated (which can then be discussed).--Roland Deschain 23:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That works for me.  •Jim62sch• 00:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, SA. •Jim62sch• 15:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a good article 

message: While there are branches of science called (for example) biological science, environmental science and physical science (chemistry and physics), there is no such branch called 'creation science'. One cannot attend a university and achieve a BSc in Creation Science. This is primarily because the scientific method cannot be applied to the idea that God created the earth. Creationists believe their god to be inerrant. There's no room for empirical experimentation - it all must lead toward God having created everything. I have thus altered the first sentence to dismiss any illusions that 'Creation Science" is a branch of science.
--Menswear 15:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of science in Creation Science 

message: According to a 2005 poll by the Creation Research Institute, 43% of scientists believe in Creation. More than half of astronomers believe in Creation. Creation science cannot be grouped with hollow-earth theory, ufology, or other such theories, which very few if any scientists support.
Creation science, indeed, is not a branch of science. Rather, it is an approach to science, just as evolution is an approach to science. Creation scientists do not get their research published in peer-reviewed journals only because the journals will not accept the research. It is a circulus in probando to say that "Creation science is not scientific because it does not receive press in peer-reviewed journals, and it does not receive press in peer-reviewed journals because it is not scientific."
Some creationists consider the entire origins debate to be outside the realm of science proper, and being better described as philosophy. No one alive today saw God create everything, and no one alive today saw everything evolve. Someone has to decide what interpretation of the evidence to believe. Although the pure scientific method cannot be applied to the idea that God created the earth, neither can it be applied to the idea that the earth came about as a process of planetary evolution, 4 to 5 billion years ago.
  
Furthermore, creation science does have branches that are based on empirical research and experimentation. These include baraminology. Baraminology research has even been published in a peer-reviewed journal a few years ago (I forget which one).
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.19.229.29 (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a link to the ICR poll? I would like to see more info, thanks. rossnixon 00:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be unwise to regard this organisation as a reliable source of such data. Jefffire 16:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All we need is the date, the sample size, the selection method and the exact question. rossnixon 00:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly.  Most scientists who are also religious are quite capable of grasping the concept of theistic evolution.  It would naturally be the most compelling and desirable solution to a scientific mind, seeing as how there is no inherent dichotomy or contradiction between creationism and evolution.  Cheers, Kasreyn 23:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 43% of scientists, polled anonymously, believe in Creation, according to ICR

message: The creation science crowd (and the creationist crowd before it) have taken a very narrow religious view, and then tried to claim they have a huge following, when they are just a handful of radical extremists. They want to define Christianity, and religion for everyone else. And interpret the bible for everyone else. And define science for everyone else. And their real agenda, is attacking evolution, in some sort of vague idea that is stopping people from believing or causing social ills. But the evidence is not there. And when this is pointed out to them, they are unhappy, with all kinds of charges of unfairness. They are really not much different than Scientology.--Filll 00:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What irritates me most is they want to dictate to God how he did his work. And then if anyone disagrees, they throw a fit.--Filll 00:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No, the agenda, as with most such impractical disputes, is to distract attention from ongoing economic disparities, fiscal irresponsibility, widespread ethical lapses, and military blunders abroad.  Enjoy the circus, folks...  Kasreyn 00:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: How can something which is not science be a minority view among scientists?  I suppose it can be a "view of self-described scientists".  That's about as far as verbiage can stretch the truth, though.  You're being too lenient in your phrasing.  ;)  Kasreyn 00:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: (Assuming you were replying to me) - I think you misunderstood.  I meant to say that "creation science" cannot be a "minority" view among scientists because it cannot even be a view among scientists at all, being unscientific in nature.  Ie., I'm basically saying "creation science"'s level of support among scientists is precisely zero, and that those who support it are, at least on that issue, not scientists.  Cheers, Kasreyn 04:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My view of the situation

message: Orangemarlin, introducing criticism into a definition is not encyclopedic. This is a major faux pas. Criticism should come after the definition or explanation of a position by it's proponents. There already is such criticism in the last few paragraphs of the introductory section. Please remove the criticism from the first sentence. I note that you have not sought consensus for the introduction of this material. rossnixon 01:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OM just asked to discuss it first.--Filll 01:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ross,  Creation Science is a Fringe Theory, and therefore needs special handling to make sure that unintentional endorsement does not occur.  Before you dispute that, it is even used as an example in the Fringe theory guidelines.  Don't get me wrong.  This has nothing to do with religious beliefs.  The "fringe" label doesn't come about as an attack on Creation, it is because as a science, it has no legs to stand on.Trishm 05:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: See Fringe Theory Guidelines. Trishm 09:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 213.*, saying something is fringe is not a negative by itself. And as to your quote from Dirty Harry - I suggest you read Wikipedia's relevant policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:V. While everyone has an opinion what matters here is that among the relevant experts this is a verifiably a fringe idea. As to your comment about science being a religion- the claim is fascinating; I can't wait to get tours of the churches where they have services- maybe they pray at the particle accelerators and have alters of PCR machines? Oh, and all those scientists who are religious Christians or Jews or other religions would be most annoyed to be told that science is somehow a religion to them. JoshuaZ 03:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep, it could be treated as a faith-based initiative.  Beaucoup bucks in that piss-hole. •Jim62sch• 00:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oxymoron

message: Part of the 3rd paragraph criticism is repeated further down (section 2.3 I think).
The whole introduction is rather long - too much content before the section index (or whatever it's called). rossnixon 05:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and make an improvement.  If we don't like, we'll revert it and leave you nasty messages.  :)  Orangemarlin 05:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just be sure to bash the subject or your change will be reverted. Jrtman 19:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep going Jrtman.  I don't usually threaten RfC's and the such, but you're pushing it.  Orangemarlin 20:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just stating my experience. I didn't start a name-calling argument, everyone else here did a nice job of that. Jrtman 00:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What???  Are you inventing things?  Orangemarlin 19:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently I am. Well, at least according to your just so beliefs. Jrtman 05:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third paragraph criticism

message: It's been two weeks since anyone edited the talk page, and the  banner was added by an anonymous anyway. I've removed it. Adam Cuerden talk 15:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banner. 

message: Personally I think that a good elegant first sentence is the key to improving any article - particularly one where contention is been prevalent, and the intro may be bogged down in legalese. So, I thought I'd throw this out there for comment:
"'Creation Science' refers to the belief of Young Earth Creationists that the scientific method can be used to support a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation."
Since I'm not very link-savvy, I left it in plain text. What d'you say, folks? SheffieldSteel 23:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, "'Creation Science' refers to the use of scientific methods by Creationists to support a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation." Note: There is not one scientific method. rossnixon 00:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, I don't see how either of these are improvements. Both of them are less precise and contain less information than the current opening sentence. JoshuaZ 00:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New opening sentence? 

message: I just came back to this article, and I realized that the Lead section has really gotten away from us.  It is long, and really has become uninteresting, given the subject matter.  In addition, lot's of POV has crept in over the past few days (maybe weeks).  
If you read Wikipedia's guide to layout, it suggests that lead sections be one or a few paragraphs long, and avoids wikilinks.  The guide says: "Normally, the first paragraph summarizes the most important points of the article. It should clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail and the qualifications and nuances that follow."
Right now the lead section is doing a lot more than that, making a case for Creation Science (which is fine, but could be done in a few sentences), is filled with wikilinks (which makes it hard to read, and doesn't draw anyone into the article), and doesn't summarize the key points of the article.
I suggest the Lead Section read as below:
Creation science, refers to the campaign by creationists (especially those who believe in a "young" Earth) to use the methods and empirical practices of science to demonstrate that scientific evidence supports a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation. Believers in creation science primarily include members of evangelical Christian denominations that subscribe to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy; however there are examples of Islamic supporters of creation science as well.Claim CA111Antievolutionism and Creationism in the United States Creationism news from around the world
The claim that Creation science is a valid science is disputed.  The scientific community overwhelmingly supports the fact that creation science is not a valid science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated "the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested. These observations lead to two fundamental conclusions: the teaching of evolution should be an integral part of science instruction, and creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes."Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition pg 2 and "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." National Academy of Sciences, 1999 Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition pg 25 It is viewed as a pseudoscience that does not conform to the scientific method, as well as admissions by its proponents that the means of creation cannot be proven.Duane Gish, Evolution? The Fossils Say No!, "We do not know how the Creator created, [or] what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator." Creation science literature generally consists of compilations of alleged weaknesses in current models of evolution and geology.How can creation have anything to do with science?How The Universe Began 
Advocates of creation science dispute the uniformitarian model of geology in favor of flood geology, arguing for the historical accuracy of the Biblical deluge as described in Genesis. They disagree with the scientific theory of common descent of all life via evolution, claiming that evolution is itself pseudoscientificRoman theological forum Positivism: the father of naturalism, Clement Butel, 1999 and argue in favor of creation biology. They reject scientific theories on the age of the universe, arguing for creationist cosmologies based on an age of less than ten thousand years. 
Some advocates have spent many years arguing for the inclusion of creation science in the science curriculum of U.S. public schools.  In 1987 in Edwards v. Aguillard the Supreme Court of the United States held that a requirement that public schools teach creation science alongside evolution as an alternative theory violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.EDWARDS v. AGUILLARD, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)
We shouldn't engage in an edit war here, so unless there are strong objections, I'm going to replace the current lead with this one, and let's fine-tune it there.  I cut out the whole Arkansas thing, because it really belongs in another section, and frankly, I'm not so sure why the Arkansas law has real merit, especially if we want to take a global view of this discussion.  Not to insult Arkansas, but it's not like it's England, Sweden or even a leading educational system in the United States.  OK, I insulted Arkansas.  Orangemarlin 17:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that version, though I note that the lack of wikilinks is suggested for biographical summaries, not summaries in general, so we could, with advantage, wikilink a bit more. Adam Cuerden talk 20:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't like the 2.6 billion wikilinks in the original version.  OK, I might have exaggerated a bit.  :)  Orangemarlin 23:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: the word espouse, rather than use better expresses the reputation of "creation science" among scientists, and the utter lack of publication "creationist hypotheses" in refereed scientific journals.JStripes 00:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Stripes--I missed your comments here.  I think you're right.  Orangemarlin 17:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Section 

message: I think both points of view should be explained after all it is an article on creation....
Plese consider this request...
does any1 agree with me?
I definitely agree! One of the first things that struck me while reading this was its obvious pro-evolution stance. It strongly criticizes the idea of creationism being scientific and constantly points to the "scientific consensus" against creationism. It definitely needs major editing, in fact it should probably be entirely redone. 
Anyone who belives that creationism is not supported by science should read a copy of the Book "It couldn't just happen" which does an excellent job of explaining a scientific view of creationism.
User: Fusionbomb
Llama scim 20:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the that wikipedia should cover "both points of view", assuming that there are only two, that they are given due weight, and that such views are expressed via attribution to reliable sources. I don't see that it being "an article on creation" is relevant. SheffieldSteel 20:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I don't agree.  It conforms to WP:NPOV, in that it describes Creation Science, then shows why it is a pseudoscience.  It is fair and balanced.  And the reason that the Rush Limbaugh articles does not start off with his drug addiction, Bill Clinton with his impeachment or Richard Nixon as a crook, is because in each case, the negative attribute is a minor part of their overall biography.  Orangemarlin 20:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your definition of notable is notably lacking.  If I were a historian, Nixon would be more notable for creating relations with China, ending the Vietnam war, and other activities.  He is also notable for resigning the presidency, which would be a result of the Watergate affair.  As for being "crooked" that's a highly POV term.  With regards to this article, the lead is exceedingly neutral.  Thanks Raspor for your comments.  Orangemarlin 21:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is Written from an evolutionists point of view!!!  

message: The lead was too long. I have condensed it and tried to retain the original balance. The two long quotes from the National Academy have been removed but these two references retained in the first paragraph. TimVickers 15:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Massive probelms. The findings of fact of Edwards v. Aguilard and McLean v. Arkansas were both that Creation Science is not science and the lead must reflect that among other problems. JoshuaZ 21:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Josh here; condensing the lead does not meaning removing important information.  •Jim62sch• 21:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Added that ruling back, I think you are right, that should be the last paragraph of the lead. The new version contains this material and is down to 1/2 a page from the full page of the previous version. TimVickers 23:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And to think that I thought Tim was just an expert on Evolution.  Now if I only can get you back on that Biology article!  Thanks for cleaning up that.....hmmmmm....paragraph.Orangemarlin 05:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I added a ref for the one cited above. However, the other one mentioned in the discussion Natural Selection versus Gene Uniqueness isn't related to creation science at all. Instead it is an early contribution to the discussion of fitness landscapes and is now cited in papers on evolutionary biology such as Link. TimVickers 19:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Natural Selection versus Gene Uniqueness is creation science.  It is part of the research leading up to the calculations in his book "NOT BY CHANCE!"  Also, Gentry alone published more than "a single paper in the 1970s".1EMSPhydeaux 04:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tim, I think your statement which said "Creation scientists do not typically publish in mainstream scientific journals and their work is instead reproduced in specialized periodicals published by religious organizations." is the most balanced and unquestionable.  Why not use that?EMSPhydeaux 05:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Spetner wrote one peer-reviewed paper which used a very basic model which (IIRC he acknowledged in the paper was very basic) in 1970 and nothing similar has occured since then. Nor for that matter is that paper even creationist, if anything it shows how a highly naive model of protein evolution fails. Since molecular evolution was a new thing in the 70s this mattered then. The notion that there is anything really creationist in that paper other than creationists say so is simply not the case. In any event, we don't need to make a massive change in wording due to one paper from over 30 years ago. However, I don't object too much to EMS's proposed wording and it seems like a reasonable statement of the situation. JoshuaZ 05:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Spetner has written more than just one peer-reviewed paper on evolution (there are 4 references in his book).  What really makes a peer-reviewed paper creation science?  Creation science is data viewed as to support the idea that the universe was created.  In relation, evolution science is data viewed as to support the idea that all life evolved from a single cell.  When you add the name of an idea in front of the word science it is then science from that point of view.  One does not say this fact is not science.  Instead one says that this fact does not support the idea that the universe was created and there for it must not be creation science.  Understand where I'm going with this?  As to the one paper by Gentry... I already gave a link that gave many more peer-review papers by Gentry.  So, check them out first.EMSPhydeaux 06:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1970 reference by Spetner is a letter, not a peer-reviewed article. It even says as much at the top of the page you linked. Adam Cuerden talk 11:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Adam, In this context a "Letter" is a short peer-reviewed paper. EMS, almost none of the papers you've given claim anywhere in them to be somehow supporting creation science. Anyways, I'm ok with the current wording. JoshuaZ 18:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I never used those exact words.  Anyway, even letters must be reviewed. EMSPhydeaux 16:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus wording put in page. TimVickers 17:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we've had this discussion before.  Creation science is not science.  Orangemarlin 19:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I beg to differ.  Denigrating the evidence used as supposedly scientific totally ignores the physical basis of the evidence.  The description of the evidence used is the subject of this discussion and the object of a preposition in the article's sentence. Dan Watts 21:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you will discuss the difference between supposedly scientific and physical, I will continue.  That was what I was discussing at this time.  Changing the subject does little to advance the discussion. Dan Watts 02:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?--Filll 04:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Physical evidence is wrong: For instance, take the first abstract at . This is a fairly typical Baraminology study, though perhaps a bit more honest than most: the last two sentences actually admit to throwing out data that didn't fit their preferred result. Is this physical evidence? No. Is it scientific? No, but it's claimed to be. Hence, supposedly scientific seems best. Adam Cuerden talk 12:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Physical evidence is physical evidence: SEM data, Arizona rim gravels, dinosaur nests, the Tavrick formation, stratigraphy of Americus, Ga. How many references are needed? Dan Watts 23:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's a subset of the evidence used... Adam Cuerden talk 08:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So "physical and seemingly scientific" would be a more accurate descriptor. Dan Watts 15:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the faked dinosaur and man tracks that still get brought up? Adam Cuerden talk 19:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are all such occurrences the Pauluxy tracks?  Are all Pauluxy tracks faked?  Is any of the global warming information faked/slanted? Dan Watts 16:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New lead version

message: Are all creation scientists Young Earth Creationists, or are there some Old Earth Creationists or other variants?--Filll 11:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that Creation science is inexorably tied with Flood geology, which is a decidedly YEC idea. Adam Cuerden talk 12:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, good point.--Filll 12:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends.. in 1984 Dean H. Kenyon's affidavit for what became Edwards v. Aguillard says "Creation-science does not include as essential parts the concepts of catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life, from nothingness (ex nihilo), the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts." – though of course that doesn't exclude YECs. Didn't do so well in court, so they changed the name to ID...... 16:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hugh_Ross_(creationist) is what I would call an Old-Earth creation scientist, although I don't know if he uses that exact term himself. rossnixon 02:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type of creationist 

message: When I read the LEAD, I realized that it was much too long and not that accurate. I took the liberty of rewording it a bit and putting the material that was less introductory into a new section.--18:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Filll. I tried to improve on the first sentence (because I didn't like to see the word "purported" in there). I realise that it is still far from ideal. A better opening sentence might refer to the scientific method rather than just scientific evidence. Of course, we need to be careful not to create a straw man definition of creation science. What does everyone think of my effort, and do you have any better suggestions? SheffieldSteel 21:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed use to find, gotta have it use it after all. I'm also half inclined to just drop the scientific as well, for both brevity and accuracy. ornis 21:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LEAD 

message: Wow.  All I had to do was read that first sentence and the POV came up and smacked me on the face. Jinxmchue 20:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been like that for months. What exactly is NPOV about it?--Filll 21:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's POV because it's accurate. •Jim62sch• 21:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not state what it claims to be first, without couching it with skeptical language? Then you can use your weasel words such as "purports" in the subsequent sentences. rossnixon 02:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop vandalising the article because you don't like the truth. ornis 02:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dont call Christian kooks we are equally intelligent as non-belivers --Wwjd333 22:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By their fruits ye shall know them.--Filll 10:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a religious tract or a recruiting tool for assorted right wing christian religious kooks. We are here to produce a reliable, secular encyclopedia. So....--Filll 02:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jinxmchue is blocked for edit warring.  He has no clue what is NPOV, he just rather be playing video games and railing on his original research on any number of articles.  I would suggest that we don't worry about what he says.  I'm much more willing to come to a consensus with rossnixon, who has been civil across a whole host of articles.  And I happen to agree with his commentary on weasel words.  Orangemarlin 16:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  While Ross does have a POV, I've never known him to be uncivil, tendentious, or prone to OR like Jinx. •Jim62sch• 21:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope that Ross understands when Jim and I think someone on the other side of this discussion is a good guy, it's rare.  But he probably still thinks we're still atheist Darwinists who eat Christian children for lunch.  :)  Orangemarlin 22:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Laugh out Loud (not that I spelt it all) :-D--Wwjd333 22:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll eat any children, I'm not picky.  ;) •Jim62sch• 23:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? There are still followers of the Babylonian Talmud around? rossnixon 02:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Past-life experience, I guess.  ;)  •Jim62sch• 18:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV again 

message: I was wondering if Creationism not really being taught in mainstream schools needs a paragraph as the fact that Creation is only taught in re classes and that this is very critisised by the Church is very important. --Wwjd333 22:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you trying to say?  Orangemarlin 00:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wwjd333, your comment "What Would Jesus Do?????" is not what WP:TALK pages are for, and be aware that there are many Churches. In the US the constitution requires state institutions not to favor any religion. .. dave souza, talk 06:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing like a completely incomprehensible post or two. I think if that there were "RE" classes in the US in which creationism was taught, there would be no problem at all. However, that is not what is going on and not what the threat is, and not the goal of creationists in the US and other places. They do not want to be relegated to "RE" classes. They do not want to be called a religion. That is the reason the term "creation science" was invented, for example.--Filll 11:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creationism In Mainstream Schools 

message: could the phrase...
"...and members of other religious communities which exhibit similar attitudes."
be changed to...
"...and members of other religious communities which hold similar views."
in the interest of mutual respect, NPOV, etc. etc.
Thank you.
Petlif 01:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an outside admin, I have no way to know if that is the issue of disagreement or not. Please find consensus and then request unprotection. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Beliefs and activities

message: Moved trolling to octoplus's talk page ornis 13:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tough love, but perfect.  Orangemarlin 21:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: At least on pages in this general topic area, editors have always userfied contentious trolling and off-topic posts. I have seen this done at least 5 article talk pages over and over for months, and been directed to do it by several administrators. This is not approved procedure now?--Filll 20:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is OK to move off-topic trolling to the user's page...has been ever since I got here. •Jim62sch• 20:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved 

message: Opening a new discussion here on what of this needs to go in the archive. Now as yet I have not deleted anything from archive 12. My thought is that any threads with replies as new a june should remain here, but that also we may wish to retain some older threads, for the sake of not rehashing old debates endlessly. ornis 17:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me that we should leave Archive 12 as-is, and add links to the side infobox for any threads we want to refer to so that they're there in the archive but easily pointed out if old debates resurface – there are already several such links in the infobox. Then, delete all threads which were not live at the start of June. Sound ok? .. dave souza, talk 21:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, and a much saner solution than those proposed by Fatalis and Banno. •Jim62sch• 21:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What a good idea. Banno 18:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect.  Now can we get back to editing this article?  It needs some clean-up in several places.  Orangemarlin 19:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Seems to have started up again. .. dave souza, talk 19:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Separated out the new part which has nothing to do with the old one.  Feel free to archive this. Silly rabbit 19:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No comments? This page is still over long, will delete 3–9 unless someone comments soon. .. dave souza, talk 19:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me, as long as it has been a couple of weeks since a thread has been posted to, I see no problem with archiving it.--Filll 19:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that's phase 1. Any objections to copying "Moved" and "Restored" to archive 12 and deleting them? .. dave souza, talk 21:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, enough with the archiving for now.  Based on Wiki's outdated size limits, damn near all of our articles are too long.  Shall we hack them to bits or archive them, too?  An arbitrary limit still existing from the days when most folks used dial-up is meaningless. •Jim62sch• 21:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threads to Archive 

message: This individual has the fortitude to use his real name and state his background. He has brought up valid points. He has been shown the door and has been treated very unkindly. Anonymous editors claiming education, knowledge and expertise have told him that he should not be here. The anonymous editors for all we know can be high school drop outs. And actually that does not matter. Mr. Theriault has presented himself in an honorable and forthcoming manner unlike the anonymous editors that hide behind secrecy and yet claim credentials. We can veryify Mr. Theriault's credentials but not those of his critics. I doubt that there will be a day where his critics show as much character as Mr. Theriault has. TheBestIsYet 11:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please use facts not your feelings.  Where above has he been treated without respect without a careful response.  His list of three items were wrong on the facts and on the law.  Don't make accusations in the future.  Orangemarlin 12:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further points - honour matters less than reliable sources, and education has nothing to do with contributions.  Filll's comments were addressing why Mr. Theriault's ideas were not eligible to be posted on the page.  Anonymity, honour and education count for nothing, it is content that counts.  Mr. T's comments had no reliable, NPOV content, ergo not posted.  WLU 14:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr. Theriault 

message: #Your artificial difference between an "evolutionary scientist" (a field that does not exists) and an "evolutionist" (a word that was resurrected recently to make evolution sound religious) are terms never used by scientists themselves.  All scientists (well 99.9%) accept evolution as a scientific fact.  In the fields of Biology, Chemistry, probably physics, and their subdisciplines, Evolution just is a fact.  Outside of science, whether someone cares to understand it or not, they are not given a descriptive term.  There is no Creation science, because there is no science that "believes" in creation.  We allowed the name of this article to stand because it is what is claimed by creationists, not by scientists.
#There are no political, philosophical or religious aspects to Evolution.  It depends on scientific research, supported by millions of peer-reviewed articles.  And, Filll is right, creation science is a term that isn't factual.  Creationists, by their nature, cannot employ the scientific method.  As discussed above, you do not appear to have an understanding of the science and the scientific method, and applying them to an essentially religious doctrine is inappropriate.  
#We do not feign, imply, state or argue that scientific theories and methodologies are intellectually inaccessible.  We do state that you are ignoring them, because they are quite easy to understand.  And please quit using "evolutionist" which is, once again, an invented word, utilized by creationists to imply, feign, state or argue that scientists follow a religion.  That term is pejorative and is never utilized by a scientist.
#Please note the NPOV sections.  This is an NPOV encyclopedia, and given the lack of scientific, peer-reviewed, and published data that any god, gods, aliens, or other supernatural being had anything to do with this planet, religious information can only be described as a religious.  
Orangemarlin 13:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have no idea if Mr. Theriault is the person who is posting here on Wikipedia. It could be a simple matter of identity theft. Even if it is the same person, this does not prove much except someone who has not yet learned the inherent dangers of exposing himself and his personal information on the internet. There should be extra points for this? WP is not a place where credentials are flaunted, but where results reign supreme. However, in this area, Mr. Theriault does not write as someone who even has a good high school level understanding of biology and evolution, let alone a college level grasp of these subjects. He did not bring up valid points, and they were easily dismissed. These are the same types of points that creationists have brought up for about 100 years and these points are always dismissed in a similar manner. I think that Mr. Theriault was treated kindly but firmly. The defects of his position were explained extremely carefully and thoughtfully. Several editors put a lot of thought and energy into explaining the problems with his position in great detail. He was pointed to several internal and external references with a substantial amount of valuable information. This was far more than he deserved, frankly, and far more attention than he would get in almost any other venue. The only problem is that the editors of this article did not immediately decide to change the character of this WP article to a religious recruiting tract. That would be unfair to the readers of Wikipedia. There are other wikis for that. If one looks at the article history, Mr. Theriault is lucky he is not banned or blocked for sock puppetry and violating the three revert rule. He was given EIGHT formal and informal warnings for his actions (on his talk page and the talk pages of his alleged sockpuppets) and was not the object of any disciplinary action, when he clearly could have been, for edit warring. His actions required that the talk page be protected from his attacks. He did not seek consensus before making major changes. Instead of some poor innocent, I see someone who is more aptly described as a POV warrior and vandal. Where was Mr. Theriault treated poorly? This is a charge that is completely without merit. Believe me, if I showed up on a forum at Answers in Genesis and engaged in the types of behavior Mr. Theriault did here, I would be treated far more harshly.--Filll 13:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further response Mr. Theriault

message: [Discussion again removed to talk page of TheBestIsYet per talk page guidelines. Reversion will be treated as vandalism. .. dave souza, talk 20:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review WP:SOAP.  We've just moved your one-person commentary to your talk page.  Don't revert, or it will be considered vandalism.  Orangemarlin 20:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why is it when you revert something it is OK but when I do it is vandalism? Deck stacked much? TheBestIsYet 23:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr. Theriault further 

message: ::Discussion again removed to talk page of Matthew J. Theriault per talk page guidelines. This discussion is not what is appropriate for a WP talk page. Reversion will be treated as vandalism.--Filll 01:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion directly related to the merits of an article’s neutrality can by no means be considered trolling simply because the poster (myself in this case) does not adhere to your understanding of the subject, and removal of such discussion under the false charge of WP:SOAP is itself vandalism.  If you wish to offer an actual retort based on the article’s neutrality, free of ad hominid attacks and ad ignorantiam fallacies, by I welcome your response.Matthew J. Theriault 01:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed this material for a 3rd time and left a warning on your page. These warnings will escalate if you continue.--Filll 01:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This material has now been removed for a 4th time and a second warning left on your page. Please do not continue or you might get banned or blocked.--Filll 11:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Failure of Naturalism’s Imposition on Science to Produce a Neutral Point of View

message: The lead currently starts with:
:Creation science is the creationists' attempt to find scientific evidence that would justify a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation....
I think that we should be more proprietary with the literal interpretation. I would write:
:Creation science is the creationists' attempt to present scientific evidence that would justify their literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation....
What do others think?--—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fradulent Ideas (talk • contribs)  11:23, 11 July 2007
:Are you sure you want to change the word "creationists'" to "creationists'a" ? --Filll 11:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slip of the finger. Thanks, Filll. --Fradulent Ideas 14:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think "find" is a bit problematic as creation scientists do not "find" evidence as they are engaged in pseudoscience. They "present" what they believe to be evidence. --Fradulent Ideas 14:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I always confuse what literal means.  I think we mean inerrant interpretation of the bible.  Isn't biblical literalism interpreting the bible in context of the writers intent?  I could be wrong.  Orangemarlin 06:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Most YECs prefer the term "plain interpretation". This means interpret things as they appear. To interpret things "literally" creates a problem when you read things like "Jesus is the door". "Inerrant" is a reasonable term to use, and is believed to apply to the "original documents". We allow that there have been inconsequential scribal errors over the centuries. rossnixon 02:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd keep the term 'find' over 'present', but I agree with changing 'a' to 'their' and will make the change. ornis 11:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A two-word tweak to the lead