Talk:Creation science/Archive 8

message: Creation science (also known as scientific creationism or CS), which is regarded by the scientific community as pseudoscience and a misnomer, is an effort to provide arguments and evidence supporting the account of the creation of the universe related in the Bible.  It is primarily concerned with providing alternatives to the scientific views on 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.
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)
replies: text: It appears the idea of there being actual evidence (found using the scientific method) is too novel to Brian to be included.  Barnaby doesn't want any such evidence included because it would be too confusing to the gullible.  Have I misunderstood their positions? Dan Watts 00:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: shall we provide both definitions?  Ungtss 14:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Both"? Bensaccount 14:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Alright, I've rearranged the first sentence to describe the effort then describe its accuracy. I also reworded the 3rd sentence to sound less like a repetition of the first sentence. -- BRIAN0918  14:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine.  Barnaby dawson 11:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: You trust that your textbook and professor are telling you the truth. I trust the scientific community. I'm not regarding the scientific community as a consensus, but as a living organism that will sort out whatever problems it might have along the way. -- BRIAN0918  15:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, that's what they pay me for anyway. So are you saying that you've failed at adding to the discussion (the only reason one resorts to a personal attack)? -- BRIAN0918  15:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Indeed, I love to conform. -- BRIAN0918  15:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Current intro

message: if anyone is interested in rfcing this rogue editor who has been making the same pov edit to the intro for several months now (creation science is pseudoscience), disregarding consensus and agreement by editors of both sides (and i can pull up abject vandalism going back to last november), please let me know.  Ungtss 14:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said before I tend to agree with him. The definition given in pseudoscience is clear. The rest is IMHO chatting. Nova77 00:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope; although I am curious about Bensaccount lapse into vandalism. - RoyBoy 800 04:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What vandalism? Don't make accusations if you can't back them up... Bensaccount 14:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: vandalism, and a brief sampling of pov edits and personal attacks on talkpages:  
         There are at least two people interested in the rfc, bensaccount, and that's enough to get things rolling.  however, i'm sure we all have better things to do than engage in the games of wikipedia politics.  i know i certainly do.  please, in order to avoid an rfc, cease making edits to the intro which "define" creation science as pseudoscience or explicitly claim it is false (which to you is an undisputable fact, but to the subjects of the article is strongly disputed), and instead attribute it to the scientists who hold that view, who actually hold some credibility.  if we can agree to make this simple change in your behavior, there will be no need for an rfc.  what do you say?  Ungtss 13:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: That's merely a collection of random links, none of which are vandalism or POV. I will continue in my attempt to make this article define CS as unscientific or pseudoscience because it would be misleading not to. Bensaccount 14:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment Bensaccount

message: Looks like there's been a bit of disagreement over use of this term, as shown by this diff.  Both sides claim to be more NPOV.  Can everyone agree that creation science does not follow the scientific method?  I'm attempting this as a stab at compromise wording.  Friday 02:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From my experience with the dispute, I would say no, because the disputants can't agree on the essential features of the scientific method. Gazpacho 02:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But surely that issue belongs in Talk:Scientific method, not here?  Friday 02:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We quit talking about the scientific method long ago. Bring your discussions up to date :)   BRIAN0918  02:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Please, you're going to have to contribute more to the current discussion (and not just rehash very old arguments) before making changes like that. Even if the scientific community was consensus/majority-based, which it isn't, the National Academy of Sciences isn't just "some prominent members of the scientific community". This is the understatement of the century. -- BRIAN0918  02:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  From reading the discussion, I had assumed current debate was over the term "pseudoscience".  So I tried to express facts without applying that label.  Out of curiosity, which POV did you think my quickly-reverted edit was pushing?  Friday 03:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience? 

message: I'm tending to agree with his latest attempt, and have made some slight modifications to both make the lead clearer and more neutral for everyone. Please discuss it here rather than reverting. We're all open to everyone's concerns. -- BRIAN0918  03:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hope nobody considers my attempt a revert.  I didn't see this til I'd submitted.  Specifically, I thought "As it is established by the scientific community to be wholly unscientific" was a slight overstatement, and I think we can do better.  Friday 03:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the discussions already on this page. The NAS says "it is a fact that creation science is not science". Since we default to science/logic/fact in all other articles, I think "established" is a safe compromise. We've already established that "regarded" is regarded by most to be unacceptable. If you don't like established, suggest another synonym on the talk page. -- BRIAN0918  03:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, had an edit conflict was I was posting this:  I'm not happy with my latest either.  "Regarded by the scientific community as unscientific" is more wishy-washy than it needs to be.  Despite the name, it's not actually science, and "regarded" seems to unneccessarily soften that fact.  Not sure how to fix it yet tho.  Sorry if I was too bold and stepped on any toes.  Friday 04:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I imagine that any suggestion I can make has already been made, because I've only read this one page, not all the archives.  However, IMO the discussion pages here are unreasonably large.  You probably won't get any fresh input from new editors if everyone is expected to be familiar with the entire history.  However, since I've already made a fool of myself here, I might as well ask a question.  Based on the latest discussion I see just looking at this page, I don't think I was entirely wrong in supposing that the word "pseudoscience" is part of the current problem.  What's wrong with an attempt to avoid the word altogether?  It's clear from the article (and properly so) that this isn't really science.  Since some people consider "pseudoscience" an insult, maybe there'd be less fighting here without that word.  Friday 04:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, from previous edits, I'm fairly certain everyone is fine with just not using this word, since the article is already stuck in that category and linked under See also. "Not science" automatically means "pseudoscience" in this case. Even Bensaccount has opted for "unscientific" before. I do like the wording of this current version though, and think that "pseudoscience" is more acceptable in this form. -- BRIAN0918  04:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: If you have a special wording that you think is "neutral", post it in talk, or we won't know what you are referring to. By the way, if it ignores the fact that CS is unscientific it is misleading. Bensaccount 15:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The book has very little to do with the actual creation science vs. real science 'debate', afaict. It seems to be mainly a historical look at creation science (its advocates over the years, the sources of many CS beliefs, conflicts between and within creationist groups, etc.). I'm not saying that I believe it's a neutral source, as I have not read it through, but I feel that the the statement about it being distorted should be removed unless/until someone's willing to provide exact (and reasonably comprehensive) information on how it is such. I wouldn't remove the other bits, just the "somewhat distored [sic]" part. SVI 15:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jschroeder's compromise

message: I don't know why you didn't like my previous quote, but perhaps this one straight from the horse's mouth will be better. From the book "Science and Creationism, A View from the National Acadamy of Sciences", the book says
:the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested. ... creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes.
There is sufficient rock-solid fact there that can be reported in the article as representing the NAS point of view. Use the second half of the quote if both pieces are too long. but report it as the POV of the NAS, and no one can revert it on the grounds of violating NPOV. FuelWagon 05:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously don't understand how it is more biased to place a critical POV in an intro than to place a definition there. Sorry, I am trying to think of a way of expressing this eloquently, give me some time. Bensaccount 15:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read NPOV policy regarding pseudoscience. It directs editors to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view. Your statement that "CS is pseudoscience" is a "view from nowhere", it comes from someone, somwhere. report it. Also note that the above link mentions the difference between a "scientific point of view" and a "neutral point of view." FuelWagon 16:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: when in doubt, quote

message: *A scientist's view:
#I am a scientist.  As such I strongly feel that CS is an abomination and a complete and cynical misuse of the word "science".  That's my POV (just for context).
#Having re-read the first paragraph, I find it highly POV.  Even though it happens to agree with my POV, it's still POV.
#Why can't we just use this organization for the first para?
## Creation science (also known as scientific creationism or CS) is an effort to construct rational arguments for the account of the creation of the universe related in the Bible.  Areas of focus include 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.  Creation Science is held to be an application of scientific principals by it's adherants, but the mainstream scientific community regards CS as non-scientific.
##(para 2; The viewpoint of creation scientists): Creation science has its roots in the ongoing effort by creationists to critique modern science's description of natural history while offering a Biblically compatible alternative. As such proponents are found primarily among various denominations of Christianity who describe themselves generally as evangelical, conservative or fundamentalist Christians. However, many Christian churches, including the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic[1], Anglican and Lutheran faiths, have either rejected creation science outright or not insisted on its reception as doctrine, since much of Christian theology, including Liberal theology, considers the Genesis narrative primarily a poetic and allegorical work and not a literal history. While creationist movements also exist in the Baha'i faith, Islam, and Judaism, these movements do not use the phrase creation science to describe their beliefs.
##para 3; The viewpoint of scientists): The scientific community does not consider creation science to be science, and considers the term creation science itself to be a misnomer. In 1986 seventy two nobel laureates (as well as many American scientific institutions) signed an amicus brief which amongst other things maintained that "creation science" was in fact just religious dogma. When the ideas encompassed by creation science are subjected to the scrutiny of scientific criticism or peer-review, they are found to be lacking in scientific foundation, objective criticism of evidence, and scientific reasoning and method. See scientific criticism of creation science. The National Academy of Sciences of the United States has stated the official policy that "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such..." [3]
*(note: just to be clear in attribution: most of the above is exactly the text that was there before (I didn't write it). The only change I made was in the first para, where I presented the description of CS in a non-POV way.  The opposing POVs are stated at the end of the first paragraph, but they are stated asPOV.  The details of each opposing POV are in the second and third paragraphs.  While I've maintained the three paragraph structure of the existing text, I think it would be just as legitimate to combine the three paragraphs into the first, as long as both POVs are stated, and stated as the opposing POV's.  I think support for the scientific's view that CS is pseudoscience is still strongly supported in this article, but the article leads with a non-POV intro.  The use of the words "an attempt" in the first sentence is critical.  It alerts the reader that there is debate on the legitimacy, which is completely appropriate, because there is.
Synaptidude 15:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do we draw the line between when we need to say "[scientific authority] says this is true" and just saying "this is true"? For all other articles, we only say the latter (as opposed to actually referencing every single source within each sentence that is pulled from that source). Why not on this one? Because there is "controversy"? There is no serious controversy, or you'd see debates in the scientific literature about it. WP:NPOV defines a fact as "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute". There are only laypeople who would like to define themselves as being part of science. Again I bring up dragonflies. Most of the public believes they bite/sting, but any entomologist knows they don't. Should the article on dragonflies be changed to state "many prominent entomologists regard dragonflies as harmless"? No, it should say "dragonflies are harmless". This is a fact, just as it is a fact that creation science is not science. This statement isn't based on what the NAS says, but uses the same reasoning they do to come to the conclusion. That the NAS has to tell us "creation science is not science" is not a sign of the NAS's POV, but a sign that the public shouldn't be trusted in handling matters of science; otherwise every biology textbook would have a warning against the dangers of dragonflies. -- BRIAN0918  15:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a newbie, so I may not have the best answer here, but off the top of my head I'd say we draw the line when we get lots of edit warring due to NPOV concerns.  Like it or not, many people object to "is" statements, like "CS is pseudoscience".  This is why I suggested "CS does not use scientific method" as a possibly less controversial alternative.  Yes, I wish people were sufficiently educated that nobody objected to "CS is pseudoscience", but obviously people do object. I'm going on the assumption that wording acceptable to both sides is preferable to constant reversions.  Friday 15:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How is saying "CS does not use scientific method" ANY different from saying "CS is not science" (and thus being able to definitely say that it is science)? -- BRIAN0918  15:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: FWIW, I like Synaptidude's suggestion for the first paragraph, above.  Friday 15:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're going to say "the scientific community regards" here, we have to say it for every statement of fact in the entire encyclopedia. -- BRIAN0918  15:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, if I wanted to, I could argue your assertion that the dragon flys are harmless thing is an assertion not a fact.  One could fly into your eye, cause you to lose your balance and fall off a cliff, for example.  One could even bite you, they just generally don't, being herbivores.  But the main difference is that "scientific method" is a philosophy.  It is a philosophy that defines what you need to do to establish something as an observable and reproducible fact, but it itself is still a philosphy (just ask Thomas Kuhn).  Even the definition of what constitutes a "fact" is a matter of philosophy.  If you believe in the scientific method, then CS is pseudoscience.  If you believe in CS and claim to use the scientific method, you are mistaken.  Regardless, I think that my revision still gets across that CS is not accepted by scientists without making it POV by wikipedia's definition of POV. The point is, whether this is POV or not is a judgement call.  My proposed edit takes out the judgement Synaptidude 16:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that "Creation science" isn't claiming to be/use science and scientific methods? They obviously are claiming such, and, as you have yourself stated: If you believe in CS and claim to use the scientific method, you are mistaken. So you must support the article saying "CS is pseudoscience" (since "pseudoscience" is defined as "a system of theories, assumptions, and methods mistakenly regarded as scientific") and therefore "CS is not science". -- BRIAN0918  16:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No not at all.  What I'm sayinng is that there is a judgement call here.  I'm proposing a compromise that is clearly not POV.  I've removed the judgement.  "If you believe in CS and claim to use the scientific method, you are mistaken." is my POV.  Yes, I agree with the POV that CS is pseudoscience.  In fact, my POV goes further.  I belive that CS does not even qualify as a pseudoscience.  It is, IMHO, religion pure and simple.  But other people here find the introduction as written to be POV, as do I. I agree with that POV.  I'm just trying to find a wording that is clearly not POV.  That is NPOV with no judgement required.  So we state both sides, then we make our argument.  Now that is scientific. Synaptidude 17:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion I started below as I don't think this current discussion will take us anywhere new. -- BRIAN0918  17:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Can't we all get along?

message: although I'm not sure why this discussion should go anywhere that the previous jillion ones have not.  
I'm simply responding to the Edit freeze on the article and it's call for consensus.  I'm proposing a specific compromise.  Yes, I'm giving a little to the CS POV (I'm letting them have their opinion put alongside the scientific one) - that is what a compromise is. 
My point is that we can bicker and argue for years on whether this is a "serious" dispute or not.  Or we can agree on wording.
We will never reach a compromise by argument, that is clear.  So what I'm proposing is this:
#we vote on my proposed wording in the section above.  Up or down.
#2/3rds majority on either side (up or down) either confirms or kills my proposal
##less than a 2/3 majority on either side returns us to debate mode.
##any user who has had a posted opinion in this forum gets one vote.
###if your opinion is not on this page, but rather in the archive, then make a link to it alongside your vote
# If my proposed revision is approved by 2/3 majority, it is placed in the article, if not, then someone else write a specically worded compromise text.  
# The vote is open until 1 week from today.  Ends at 12:00 noon wikitime on August 4.
#It's the only way we are going to reach a consensus.
===Vote===
It is proposed that active users in this forum vote to approve or disapprove of the text, as it is written by Synaptidude in the section: Can't we all get along?.  The vote will occur according to the rules set forth in the section above.  
===The tally===
Yes Synaptidude 17:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me like you're looking for what you think is the perfect solution.  Maybe we're just misguided newbies, but at least a couple of us think a compromise should be considered.  To me, the recent edit warring on this article indicates that what we currently have isn't working all that well.  I suspect both sides feel that their arguments have not been answered. Friday 20:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine to consider suggestions. It's not fine to start a vote on them as the final word when little or no discussion has been made about these 2-hour-old suggestions. -- BRIAN0918  20:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: fine we can argue it here instead, or better yet, not

message: Yes Synaptidude 17:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me like you're looking for what you think is the perfect solution.  Maybe we're just misguided newbies, but at least a couple of us think a compromise should be considered.  To me, the recent edit warring on this article indicates that what we currently have isn't working all that well.  I suspect both sides feel that their arguments have not been answered. Friday 20:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine to consider suggestions. It's not fine to start a vote on them as the final word when little or no discussion has been made about these 2-hour-old suggestions. -- BRIAN0918  20:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 
The tally


message: ===No serious dispute?===
WP:NPOV defines a fact as "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute". People who think it is POV to say "creation science is not science" need to show that there is serious dispute about this statement. 
To be clear:
#"Serious dispute" isn't referring to dispute among Wikipedians.
#"Serious" can't simply refer to the public population (ie, "how many people hold the view"), otherwise, as I've said before, dragonfly would have to be altered to include the misconception that dragonflies can bite/sting. (see Argumentum ad populum and the list of conditions at argumentum ad verecundiam) -- BRIAN0918  15:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read the 2nd note several times.  However I still think the same thing.  I agree with the user above that different people will consider different things "serious".  You've made it clear what it means to you, but that's not to say every other editor will agree.  Friday 20:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I haven't made it clear what it means to me. All we have to do is come to a consensus about what constitutes serious dispute in this case, and decide where to go from there. The whole debate is based on whether that statement is fact or not, and so whether there is serious dispute to the contrary or not. I simply pointed out that "serious dispute" wasn't referring to Wikipedians so that people wouldn't think we were confining the discussion to what other Wikipedians think. -- BRIAN0918  20:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the real determinant has to be how many of them are called Steve Dunc|☺ 21:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any Steve Dawkins on the list? :)   BRIAN0918  21:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, fine.  If we are going to have to consider the most recent argument before a consensus is reached, then when does that end?  Did you even consider my text?  Or is it just your revisions that require special consideration?  The mere fact that some people can't even stand to have the two ends of the argument placed side by side (the ultimate NPOV solution) means either that they are afraid of even the idea itself, or, that those 'some people' are so POV on the topic that they can't stand to let the other POV even see the light of day.  Which by itself makes the idea pretty controversial (just ask the Kansas school board and their opponents if there is serious dispute about the legitimacy of CS).  If you want to be helpful here, don't tell me that I'm being somehow anti-wiki.  Don't tell me what doesn't constitute a serious dispute, tell me what does.  Don't tell me how you don't reach a consensus, tell me how you do.  I don't think that you are the only one who gets to decide whether or not we try a vote as a way of making a consensus.  Synaptidude 21:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's exactly how this discussion should be going. Would you care to suggest possibilities for what constitutes serious dispute? -- BRIAN0918  21:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and BTW?  I did read Wikipedia consensus.  The statement therein "In day-to-day Wikipedia practice, e.g. on VfD, consensus means something closer to supermajority, usually a two-thirds majority. In other polls, it has been defined as a 70% majority. In yet other cases, such as approving a request for a person to become an administrator, it is generally considered an 80% majority. In article disputes, consensus is used as if it means anything from genuine consensus to my position; it is possible to see both sides of a back-and-forth revert war claiming a consensus for their version of the article." is the basis for my proposal.  I could quote more of it in support of my action taken, but perhaps you should just read it again. 21:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "In article disputes, consensus is used as if it means anything from genuine consensus to my position;" Genuine consensus means 100% agreement. In any case, your vote 2 hours after posting a totally new version with only 3 replies is ridiculous. Would you care to suggest possibilities for what constitutes serious dispute?  -- BRIAN0918  21:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Voting is not consensus. What is your rush to reach consensus anyways? You just got here, and have yet to offer anything of value to this discussion. Bensaccount 21:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Back to discussion

message: WP:NPOV defines a fact as "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute". People who think it is POV to say "creation science is not science" need to show that there is serious dispute about this statement. 
To be clear:
#"Serious dispute" isn't referring to dispute among Wikipedians.
#"Serious" can't simply refer to the public population (ie, "how many people hold the view"), otherwise, as I've said before, dragonfly would have to be altered to include the misconception that dragonflies can bite/sting. (see Argumentum ad populum and the list of conditions at argumentum ad verecundiam) -- BRIAN0918  15:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read the 2nd note several times.  However I still think the same thing.  I agree with the user above that different people will consider different things "serious".  You've made it clear what it means to you, but that's not to say every other editor will agree.  Friday 20:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I haven't made it clear what it means to me. All we have to do is come to a consensus about what constitutes serious dispute in this case, and decide where to go from there. The whole debate is based on whether that statement is fact or not, and so whether there is serious dispute to the contrary or not. I simply pointed out that "serious dispute" wasn't referring to Wikipedians so that people wouldn't think we were confining the discussion to what other Wikipedians think. -- BRIAN0918  20:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the real determinant has to be how many of them are called Steve Dunc|☺ 21:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any Steve Dawkins on the list? :)   BRIAN0918  21:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, fine.  If we are going to have to consider the most recent argument before a consensus is reached, then when does that end?  Did you even consider my text?  Or is it just your revisions that require special consideration?  The mere fact that some people can't even stand to have the two ends of the argument placed side by side (the ultimate NPOV solution) means either that they are afraid of even the idea itself, or, that those 'some people' are so POV on the topic that they can't stand to let the other POV even see the light of day.  Which by itself makes the idea pretty controversial (just ask the Kansas school board and their opponents if there is serious dispute about the legitimacy of CS).  If you want to be helpful here, don't tell me that I'm being somehow anti-wiki.  Don't tell me what doesn't constitute a serious dispute, tell me what does.  Don't tell me how you don't reach a consensus, tell me how you do.  I don't think that you are the only one who gets to decide whether or not we try a vote as a way of making a consensus.  Synaptidude 21:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's exactly how this discussion should be going. Would you care to suggest possibilities for what constitutes serious dispute? -- BRIAN0918  21:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and BTW?  I did read Wikipedia consensus.  The statement therein "In day-to-day Wikipedia practice, e.g. on VfD, consensus means something closer to supermajority, usually a two-thirds majority. In other polls, it has been defined as a 70% majority. In yet other cases, such as approving a request for a person to become an administrator, it is generally considered an 80% majority. In article disputes, consensus is used as if it means anything from genuine consensus to my position; it is possible to see both sides of a back-and-forth revert war claiming a consensus for their version of the article." is the basis for my proposal.  I could quote more of it in support of my action taken, but perhaps you should just read it again. 21:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "In article disputes, consensus is used as if it means anything from genuine consensus to my position;" Genuine consensus means 100% agreement. In any case, your vote 2 hours after posting a totally new version with only 3 replies is ridiculous. Would you care to suggest possibilities for what constitutes serious dispute?  -- BRIAN0918  21:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Voting is not consensus. What is your rush to reach consensus anyways? You just got here, and have yet to offer anything of value to this discussion. Bensaccount 21:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No serious dispute?

message: 1) From: answers.com
"Advocates of creationism have campaigned to have it taught in U.S. public schools along with the theory of evolution, which they dispute. In 1981, a federal judge ruled unconstitutional an Arkansas law requiring the teaching of creationism, holding it to be religious in nature; a similar Louisiana law was overturned in 1982. In 1999, supporters of creationism in Kansas succeeded in removing the requirement that evolution be taught as part of the state's high school biology curriculum, but after several supporters of the measure were not reelected to the state school board that decision was reversed in 2001. Fundamentalist Christians have also opposed the teaching of scientific theories concerning the formation of the universe (see cosmology). See also intelligent design."
It being in the courts seems like serious dispute.
2).  The National Academy of Sciences has seen fit to go to the trouble of gathering over 70 Nobel Laureates to assert that creation science is not science.  They must have felt like there was some pretty serious dispute to go to all that trouble.
3) from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/
One of the leading advocates of CS, "Dr." Ken Hovind, is apparently considered something of an embarasment by even some proponents of CS.  That seems like a serious dispute.
4) From: http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_intro/creationscience.html
"In their defense, creationists have asserted such things as evolution is not a fact, it is just a theory. Some scientists, such as Carl Sagan, on the other hand, have asserted that evolution is a fact, not a theory. Stephen Jay Gould claims that evolution is both a fact and a theory."
Sounds like some serious dispute goin on there....
Synaptidude 22:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Does any of this constitute "serious dispute"?

message: As it is established by the scientific community to be unscientific, it can be considered pseudoscience and a misnomer.
This is telling the reader that whether or not something is scientific depends on what the scientific community establishes. This is incorrect; it depends on systematic observation not the scientific community. Bensaccount 23:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with the protected intro

message: It appears that Lacrimosus has decided that changes to the introduction do not need discussion. Dan Watts 00:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction change