Talk:Creation science/Archive 5

message: I have edited the /Phantym rewrite proposal  to remove about half of the challenges to evolutionism.  I also added a challenge to creationism by evolutionists [there are now 5]. Those 13 represent the most prominent issues on both sides, and every one of them has criticism from the opposite side as well as an article linked discussing the issue in more detail from a scientific perspective.
I also removed some unneded stuff, like the discussion of creationist cosmologies, which is duplicated in the main article.
I could see cut some more things down. For example, the main issues could be articles in and of themselves, and that process could be achieved without too much difficulty.
I have also changed the section discussing how scientists on both sides have been quick to find evidence supproting their theories, in some cases too quick.  That section is now labelled "finding what they are looking for" and has two examples from each side now.
Note that the rewrite contains approx. half of the current article within it.
-Phantym
Why are you still here. Shouldn't you be off ripping up textbooks somewhere?  Bensaccount
:Why are you attacking Phantym?  Isn't that considered bad form? Dan Watts 19:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad form is spreading propaganda without any regard for reality. I am merely suggesting an alternate activity, which I am sure you and Phantym would enjoy more. Bensaccount 19:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newest rewrite proposal 

message: The responses to the above section on fundamentalists show that, for at least one person, there are subtlties too difficult to grasp. Perhaps it can be explained by analogy.  A child, an illiterate, or a pesticide salesman might be able to get away with equating insects and bugs. But not a Wikipedia editor...a Wikipedia editor would speak of Hemiptera (the bugs) and the many other orders of insects. Now I don't know if a dragonfly (of Odonata), or a bee (of Hymenoptera) would be insulted by being called a "bug" but even more important, neither of them is a bug.
Fundamentalists are a part of young earth creationism and the closely related creation science, and a few are quite vocal about it, but they are not the only group that has representatives that adhere to this view; in fact, they probably are not the majority. The current wording of the article now admits a variety, so I have left it alone. Pollinator 17:16, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
:These are the YECists.  You don't expect them to know any biology do you? Dunc|☺ 18:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: So what's the problem of calling bugs, bugs?

message: <<They also argue that creationism as an explanation is not an affirmative proposition. For an explanation to be an affirmative proposition it must tell why something is one way instead of an alternative way.>>
:can you elaborate a bit as to why this is so?  for instance, how does the proposition "man and apes evolved from a common ancestor" meet your criterion of "telling why something is one way instead of an alternative?"  Ungtss 19:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As it says an explanation tells us why something is one way instead of an alternative way. As an explanation, theory of evolution (which posits that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor) attempts to account for a broad range of phenomena/evidence. As an explanation its propositional quality is determined by the fact that by explaining one class of things it also explains phenomena/evidence of some other class. Thus, evolutionary theory is the framework tying together all of biology, and in turn explains peripheral topics like fossils, biogeography, etc. Mainstream science holds that evolution provides a framework for biology, and which can support other useful scientific advances, whereas creationism has been around for millennia and has not yet contributed a practical framework for further advances in any useful, meaningful way. FeloniousMonk 22:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm afraid i don't see the answer to my question in the above -- can you clarify: how does the specific explanation "man and apes evolved from a common ancestor" tell why things are one way and not the other -- that is, "man and apes were created separately?"  why does your position meet the criterion but mine fail it?  Ungtss 00:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I was explaining why evolutionary theory was an affirmative proposition, which is only one half of the story, because I thought the other half was self-evident. Evolutionary theory, being part of science, precludes any supernatural mechanisms. Conversely, creation science only precludes naturalistic mechanisms as a first cause, which must always be God. Therefore, evolutionary theory excludes creationism in all forms whereas CS allows for some naturalism. I may rewrite those sentences that refer to affirmative proposition as I'm not happy with the way they read. FeloniousMonk 17:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: sounds like a plan.  when you do, can you explain how "evolutionary theory, being part of science, precludes any supernatural mechanisms?"  since evolutionary theory is an explanatory framework, i fail to understand how the mere existence of one explanatory framework precludes the possibility of another.  i fail to see how saying "man and apes evolved from a common ancestor" means that humans and apes could not have been created separately.  Ungtss 18:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement "creationism is an unnecessary entity" seems to go against the idea that if it were true, then there could be evidence that the earth (and its neighbors) is (are) not very old.  Evidence such as questions (valid?) of the accuracy of bristlecone dendrochronology, or of the age of lunar craters, given the most probable viscosity of the lunar basalt (and the associated time for a crater to remain under the lunar gravity). Dan Watts 21:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  more on parsimony