Talk:Creation science/Archive 9

message: 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)
thread_title: Redundant critique, religious critiques

message: 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)
thread_title: Anti-freeze

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Fallacy in intro

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Just answer the question. Bensaccount 00:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Are you saying that CS proponents believe that nothing is observable, everything is interpretation? Bensaccount 00:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Creation science is not just creationists doing science. Bensaccount 21:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Approve of reorg, removed unsourced POV edits

message: 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)
thread_title: Oh Puleeeeze!