Talk:Creation science/Archive 2

message: I removed:
...However, it would seem that the creation-evolution issue is unimportant for most practical science, especially physics and chemistry, and even most biological research:
:"The subject of evolution occupies a special, and paradoxical, place within biology as a whole. While the great majority [of] biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. "Evolution" would appear to be the indispensible unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.' (Wilkins, A.S., 2000. Evolutionary processes: a special issue, BioEssays 22:1051­1052).
which continues:
Yet, the marginality of evolutionary biology may be
changing. More and more issues in biology, from diverse
questions about human nature to the vulnerability of ecosystems,
are increasingly seen as reflecting evolutionary events.
A spate of popular books on evolution testifies to this
development. If we are to fully understand these matters,
however, we need to understand the processes of evolution
that, ultimately, underlie them. This thematic issue of
BioEssays is a survey of these processesÐand the ways
they shape the properties of living things, from bacteria to
humans.
The importance of comprehending the nature of evolutionary
processes, in order to make sense of the dynamic
properties of biological systems, is particularly well illustrated
by three articles in this issue.
(description of articles)
...
As this set of articles illustrate, evolutionary biology is alive
and well and extending its domain, as biology enters the 21st
century. Covering these developments, and their relevance to
different fields of biology, will continue to be one of the major
goals of this journal.
Dunc|☺ 18:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  quote mine 

message: Placing the Bible beyond question makes it dogma. It doesn't make it pseudoscience. Think about what you are writing, dont just add something because it "sounds neutral". Bensaccount 22:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yours doesn't even sound neutral, and it directly violates npov.  Ungtss 23:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your previous attempt to explain how it violates NPOV was a meaningless phrase and an attempt to quote yourself. Are you even going to bother to try again? And I just said that "sounding neutral" is different from being neutral. The former can be achieved simply by confusing the reader. Bensaccount 23:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Everybody but you knows what i meant above, and they know why you're wrong, so i'm not going to be drawn into another endless dialogue of nonsense with you.  there are three editors who disagree with you here.  DreamGuy and Gazpacho are supporting NPOV admirably in this case.  you are alone, and you are wrong.  Ungtss 23:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How does it violate NPOV? Bensaccount 23:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It states a disputed "fact" as fact.  when facts are in dispute (and the status of creation science as non-science is disputed by creationists), belief in those "facts" must be attributed to those who hold them.  the correct version, supported by all editors on this page but you, attributes the non-science status of creation science to the scientific community.  yours incorrectly states it as fact.  I will no longer discuss this with you, as you have continually demonstrated an unwillingness to follow the most basic precepts of npov, and prefer to create little gems of nonsense like creating.  Ungtss 23:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Disputed or not, a fact is a fact. NPOV does not require facts to be represented as POV. Bensaccount 23:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Q.E.D. Ungtss 23:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Its like saying the fact we landed on the moon must be attributed as Neil Armstrong's POV.Bensaccount 23:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not be drawn into endless nonsense with you.  if any other editors are interested in npov, they're welcome to revert your nonsense.  Fortunately, your violation of npov does no harm, because those who agree with you already agree with you, and those who disagree with you have learned long ago to read through the perpetual failure to distinguish fact and opinion to which you are your ilk are so subject.  this discussion is over.  Ungtss 23:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: i'll leave that to editors with good sense and the patience to deal with you.  Ungtss 00:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Assuming, arguendo, that you are correct, you have to clear another hurdle - the current version does not raise POV questions and still gets the point across about it probably not actually being scientific. - Jersyko 04:50, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
It is not "probably not scientific". That is your POV. It is definately not scientific. I restored the POV banner since you refuse to tell the truth. Bensaccount 04:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: That's nice.  But again, the hurdle still stands . . . Regardless, we have a consensus. - Jersyko 04:55, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
No you have ongoing discussion. Why are you avoiding clarity? Bensaccount 04:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: The current version does not raise POV questions because it does not take a stance on whether Creation science is scientific or not, while at the same time casting doubt on its scientific value through the presentation of factual information.  Again, the current version does not raise POV questions.  I'm sensing some ad hominem in the posts here, so I am going to leave this discussion for awhile and return tomorrow, if it continues till then. - Jersyko 05:03, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
It raises the question: Is this science? This is as POV as it gets. (I should leave this also).Bensaccount 05:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not science; pseudoscience 

message: User:Ungtss seems to have a newly found technique for pretending to not edit creationism-related pages. This entails pretending that there is an editting dispute and then placing a twoversions tag on the page. This is, in my opinion, a misuse of the pseudoprotection options that are made available to help handle real disputes rather than allow for parallel pages to be in place indefinitely. As it is, I'm not seeing that there is much of an editting dispute here at all on this page, so I'm removing the tag. Joshuaschroeder 05:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was simply attempting to save you the effort of reverting good edits mindlessly, which has been your "tactic" for months now.  okay.  if you want the edit dispute, we'll have the edit dispute.  i'm changing the intro because it is ridiculously pov, changing the order because creation biology is much more substantial and important than your bogus cosmologies page, and rewriting the biology and geology sections to describe what they are, rather than what they aren't.  Ungtss 13:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit conflict? 

message: Can people here working on this article also check out Theistic realism? I'd like to get a consensus from more than the two editors on how to proceed with this. Also, take a look at Talk:theistic realism. Thanks. Joshuaschroeder 01:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've determined along with User:Bensaccount that the theistic realism article deserves a hearing on VfD. Join the discussion there. Joshuaschroeder 23:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Theistic realism

message: thumb|250px|left|Creation science seen as religion in conflict with science
thumb|450px|right|Creation science seen as alternative interpretations of the evidence based on different philosophical presuppositions
dreamguy, you said they were unattractive, clumsy, and unhelpful.  attractiveness i can fix.  why are they clumsy and unhelpful?  I think they allow an easy way to understand the flow of thought in the creationist view -- how things flow from presupposition through science to different conclusions, and how the other one sees the conflict as simply science/religion.  Ungtss 00:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon me for saying so, but these diagrams are goddawful. Neither of them do justice to the opinions of either group and the one is more of a statement about what Ungtss believes rather than what creationists believe in general (not all creationists believe in theistic realism, not all supporters of mainstream science deny that God acts in history, etc.) I have removed both from the article. Joshuaschroeder 15:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: it amuses me to hear atheists call things goddawful.  means they're not quite over religion yet.  Ungtss 15:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It amuses me to hear creationists call me an atheist. It means they aren't quite over their presuppositions yet. Joshuaschroeder 15:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: pressuppositions or overwhelming evidence?  if you do believe in god, then calling something goddawful is a rather bizarre turn of phrase, since god modifies awful in a rather disrespectful way.  Perhaps you're a maltheist?  Ungtss 16:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you guys are overanalyzing the situation.  It is a simple expression that has fallen into common usage.  Take "By Jove!" as another example.  It is still in use, yet I'd be willing to bet that almost no one who uses it today is a worshipper of the Roman god Jupiter.--JonGwynne 16:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough:).  Ungtss 16:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: diagrams