Talk:Creation science/Archive 7

message: Currently, the introduction feels off.  I worry that it will encourage people to immediately dismiss the entire article.  I recognize that this concern is far from shared by everyone, so perhaps we can find a suitable wording that addresses both ideas.  Toward this end, I would submit the following opening:
:Creation science (or CS) is a movement that attempts to redefine a number of biological and physical sciences in terms of Abrahamic creationism. Its premise requires several assumptions that do not comply with the scientific method and, as such, is a pseudoscience and a misnomer.  It is primarily concerned with issues such as the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, evolution, a global flood and the origin of humanity. Creation science as an organised movement is primarily centered within the United States, although creation science organisations are not unknown in other countries.
::Warning: Last paragraph modified by me after Hillbrand.  Barnaby dawson 14:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Scottish children taste better (No disrespect to Swift).  Note that I have no evidence for this.  Barnaby dawson 14:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmm...Salty. S.N. Hillbrand 18:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree.  What do you think of the current mod? S.N. Hillbrand 18:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version, which doesn't have the weasel words, is acceptable. --brian0918™ 19:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Please read again.  The statement of it being a pseudoscience is in the second sentence. S.N. Hillbrand 18:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I have a problem with the proposal. Namely that it says that the reason creation science is a pseudoscience and a misnomer is because it requires "several assumptions". This isn't the only reason it is a psuedoscience and a misnomer. A number of the proposals included in creation science including the flood geology and creationist cosmology proposals are simply pseudoscience because they are nonsense (i.e. contain ridiculously inaccurate and incorrect claims such as a decaying speed of light). These are evaluable completely independent of their assumptions, they are wrong because they propose phenomena for which there is no evidence. Joshuaschroeder 05:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

text: That is a fair criticism.  I will attempt to address this.  Would you agree, however, that a decaying speed of light or light being created in transit are assumptions that do not comply with the scientific method?  That is really the point I am trying to emphasize, that Creationism's starting assumptions cannot be disproven because they are stated as supernaturual.S.N. Hillbrand 12:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They actually aren't "assumptions" as much as they are pseudoscientific ideas that are meant to explain other assumptions (specifically associated with the Bible). It is important to realize that while there are assumptions implicit to creation science, creation science is also not "science" for the methodology, evidence, and out-and-out lies. Joshuaschroeder 12:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

text: So would you say it is a fair statement that the claims Creation Science makes are based on a single, fundamental assumption about the existence of a supernatural entity, that this assumption does not fit the scientific method and for this reason, it cannot be considered a science? S.N. Hillbrand 13:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While there are claims of creation science based on this assumption, there are also claims of creation science that are made for other reasons (being anti-science, having a limitted understanding of science, poor research, no research, etc.) that make creation science something that should not be considered a science. So it isn't a fair statement because all the problematic claims aren't based on that single fundamental assumption. Joshuaschroeder 13:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

text: OK.  Which claim do you view as that of the majority?  Which ones fit the category of significant minority?  S.N. Hillbrand 17:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where this "majority/minority" distinction is coming from. We are talking about the claims of creation science, not the claims of people in a two-party system. Joshuaschroeder 21:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Modest Proposal 

message: :Creation science (also known as scientific creationism or CS) is a pseudoscientific effort to provide evidence supporting the account of the creation of the universe related in the Bible. 
I'd say that since the name of the movement is "creation science" then whether or not it is scientific ought deserve to be in the opening sentence somewhere. Otherwise, the name seems to unfairly establish it as scientific (because it says so), and only later does it get clarified that, no, not really. FuelWagon 00:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: drive-by RFC commenter

message: rv, logical fallacy: third world "concervative views" are not near southern baptist conservative views, where Creation "science" originated. Project2501a 02:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "many" vs "most" 

message: Here is the intro as it now stands, paragraph by paragraph:
#Definition, topics studied, movement scope (geographically)
#Creation: where creation science developed through religious arguments, which religions accept it and which don't.
#Science: what the scientists have to say about all this
#Foundations: assumptions of creation science against naturalism in favor of supernatural explanations where appropriate.
I am considering adding some things to the last paragraph about the fact that a lot of creation science is so outlandish as to be not even worthy of consideration of scientists (such as polonium haloes or vapor canopies).
-- Joshuaschroeder 16:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Right, my mistake there.  Thanks for the correction.  Now, if we could just get the pseudoscientific adjective in the right place.  Out of curiosity, after the RfC, did you notice anyone suggesting keeping the phrasing?  Or are you of the mindset that those opinions do not count? S.N. Hillbrand 01:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually saw very little in the way of discussion and no one specifically addressing the problems and points being made with talk posts and the modified introductions that were tried along the way. I am not married to the idea of keeping the "pseudoscientific" adjective or the phrasing, but I have yet to see a compromise that addresses the issues I and others have pointed out. Joshuaschroeder 02:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Good idea.  That could help us all work from the same terms.  Do you have a suggestion for which one to use?  Incidentally, it may also be useful to review the definitions of Creation Science  as well. S.N. Hillbrand 17:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rearranged intro

message: Should be deleted. I think it is full of nonsense weasel words and arguments that are not necessarily indicative of creation science or its opponents. I say we make a clean break and delete the section. Anybody want to see anything preserved? Joshuaschroeder 21:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire section. Joshuaschroeder 23:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very long. But deleting it gets rid of too much useful info. I don't propose editing it down myself; but would like at least the first paragraph of the first part kept. RossNixon 01:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see keeping the first two paragraphs of the section in some modified form. Any other objections? Joshuaschroeder 02:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Get rid of the whole thing. Even the first two paragraphs are just fluff from both sides. -- BRIAN0918  02:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Although the two paragraphs are not entirely incorrect, they have nothing to do with philosophy or theology. They are basically just empty words. The entire section seems without merit to me. Bensaccount 02:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am inclined to agree with the above. Removal of the section in its entirety does not seem to be problematic from an informational standpoint. If people think some valuable information is missing, please let us know. Joshuaschroeder 06:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosophy and theology section

message: I have decided to be bold and delete the word pseudoscientific from the introductory paragraph.  While scientists (of whom I consider myself one) are in agreement that Scientific Creationism is a pseudoscience, to make that statement as fact is stating the most widely held POV as a neutral POV.  The fact that scientists characterize Scientific Creationism as a pseudoscience is not a POV but a fact, as the NAS report indicates.  I have moved the word pseudoscience to the scientific criticisms.  I disagree completely with Scientific Creationism, but I think we need to give it what little due it deserves.  It is a minority POV and should be recognized as one.
Robert McClenon 18:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for going against all the discussion on the talk page. I've decided to be bold and undo your deletion. :)   BRIAN0918  18:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is your privilege.  I won't start a revert war, although I disagree.  Robert McClenon 18:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: That's an odd way of putting it, Brian.  The majority of posters are actually against the word but these potential editors are successfully chased off by a series of insulting comments. I appreciate your civility in this but the argument doesn't hold water. S.N. Hillbrand 19:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I did not think of the comment as derogatory, but I bow to your take on this and have edited my comment.  Hopefully it will cease to be a point of contention for you.  As to the POV comment, it remains that in borderline cases, citing is prefered on Wikipedia .S.N. Hillbrand 00:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

text: welcome, mr. mclenon.  you're absolutely right.  disputed claims must be attributed, rather than stated as fact, and the pseudoscientific status of creation science is disputed by the very subjects of the article.  unfortunately, there is a small contingent of people around here who have little better to do than blockade npov on this page, and a large contingent of people less reasonable than yourself who permit it to continue.  Ungtss 22:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Whether adherent agree that something is a pseudoscience or not is not the issue since pseudoscience is necessarily defined not by adherents but rather by people who are in the scientific community. Joshuaschroeder 22:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudoscience reference

message: As I have stated many times, if people want it removed, they should address the points that the word in place tries to address:
#From a definitional standpoint, creation science is a pseudoscience. Is there another generalized category to which creation science belongs that we can use that is as illustrative as this? Remember, creation science is not science, but uses the guise of science to back-up its arguments. It is almost the perfect example of pseudoscience.
#By having "science" in the name of the article, it is only natural that we address whether it is science or not from the get-go.
#There is no major dispute among the editors that creation science is a pseudoscience. The page on pseudoscience seems to do a good job describing creation science. If people want to know what editors of Wikipedia mean by pseudoscience they can click. Why is a one-word, linked reference considered so problematic?
#As per the definition of pseudoscience and a number of references to a number of scientific authorities on the subject, creation science can be considered pseudoscience. So the point is referenced and NPOV. Where's the problem?
#An introduction should be succinct and summary nature. This one word takes care of a lot of issues and problems. How is that "unencyclopedic"?
#Adherents dispute the term is not worthy of consideration since pseudoscience by definition has a dispute the term associated with it. It is as if we are saying from the get-go that it is not considered science, though the adherents dispute that which is absolutely what pseudoscience means!
--Joshuaschroeder 03:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated very clearly, pseudoscience by definition implies that the advocates of the pseudoscience believe it to be actual science and points that are opposed to it in mainstream science are considered unscientific. As for the rest of your invectives, they are not worthy of response. Joshuaschroeder 13:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing the word "pseudoscience" from the introduction

message: I removed "mainstream" from "mainstream science" as there isn't any other form of science. "Mainstream" on its own is an understandable concept, but "mainstream science" isn't. I still suggest using "science" since it's science we're talking about, and replacing that with "mainstream" seems weasely. -- BRIAN0918  13:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree with the statement that all science is mainstream.  There exist divergent currents in many scientific theories.  Consider the debate between dark matter and modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND).  There are a definite minority of scientists who are researching MOND as opposed to dark matter.  Thus, it would be correct to state that dark matter is "mainstream science" while MOND is not.  In biology, consider the debate between the mainstream punctuated equilibrium and the non-mainstream phyletic gradualism.  I think that keeping "mainstream science" would imply that there are scientists on the fringe that may disagree. S.N. Hillbrand 16:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A dichotomy might be made between mainstream and fringe science if one was so inclined. CS is neither, so don't imply it. Bensaccount 16:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't imply that CS is science at all; it is a movement or an idea, take your pick.  My examples were individual theories.  I stated them only to note that science can be fractured and is not by definition a monolithic entity.  Therefore, it makes sense to include the "mainstream" distinction. S.N. Hillbrand 17:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're fracturing science for no reason. These are all valid, testable scientific theories (not "theories" in the normal use of the word). They are science, regardless of whether they provide the most accurate results fitting all the data. "Creation science" on the other hand, doesn't even operate on scientific principles. It is not science and all of science is inherently different from it. -- BRIAN0918  03:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: CS operates on the same principals as "origins science" in evolutionism. They are equally scientific, or equally pseudoscientific. RossNixon 10:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is incorrect.  Origins science makes testable statements such as "Staphylococcus aureus will develop resistance to any widely-applied antibiotic."  The emergence in the last 45 years of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bears this out.  S.N. Hillbrand 13:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not what I thought 'origins science' was!??? I call that 'natural selection'. RossNixon 03:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

text: So it is roughly similar to string theory wrt observational measurements? Dan Watts 14:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe if your only knowledge of string theory comes from that Elegant Universe book or TV show. String theory has since seen an expansion in understanding and presented testable predictions. -- BRIAN0918  15:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is partially correct.  String Theory makes many predictions that are observable and verifiable.  Unfortunately, those are merely the ones that coincide with prior theories.  Currently, string theory makes no predictions that are both unique and verifiable.  It has, however, led to a vast expansion in a number of mathematical fields and, in that sense, is quite distinct from CS. LHC may or may not help us because there is nothing which predicts that we will even be able to "see" an extra dimension, should it exist.  So, LHC may verify part of the theory but a negative result would be inconclusive.S.N. Hillbrand 17:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to CMB measurements. What other theories coincide with this prediction? -- BRIAN0918  17:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The prediction of transplanckian corrections to the CMB is certainly unique to string theory (and spin-offs).  However, as noted in the article, it is currently not falsifiable.  If we don't see it, it may be because string theory is incorrect or because the scale of perturbations is too small.  And we won't know which. Incidentally, WMAP has been running now for 3 years without seeing this.S.N. Hillbrand 19:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As with all cutting edge theories, their predictions lie just outside current measuring abilities. As the article linked states, future improvements over WMAP will be able to see this. -- BRIAN0918  19:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really that they are outside of measuring abilities, it may not even be possible in theory to see the disturbance , .  It all depends on constants that we don't know and might not exist. S.N. Hillbrand 00:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually with the LHC it will be possible to verify a part of the string theory, by trying to generate atomic-level black holes and see if these extra dimensions really exist. Nova77 15:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Mainstream science"

message: In short: CS is based upon religious beliefs that can't be tested scientifically; therefore it is not science. CS does (however) use the scientific method to pick holes in evolution and other mainstream science. RossNixon 09:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Problematic because CS fundamentally does not use the scientific method as shown by the citations we already have in the article. Joshuaschroeder 11:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible alternative

message: I see no problem with Barnaby Dawson's current incarnation of the intro. It may be a bit redundant but since pseudoscience itself no longer states where the judgement arises, here it stands. Are there any substantive (that is, factual) disputes with the current form? If not, I wonder where the problem is. Joshuaschroeder 11:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Current intro