Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 4

message: Actually, 5% of scientists are young earth creation scientists according to the poll.  If you check the reference I replaced the old reference with you will find that the question was actually do you believe "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."  Thus a yes answer would mean that you are actually a young earth creationist.  I reworded this part so that it would be more correct.
:Sorry, the above was me.EMSPhydeaux 03:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. That's not what the source says, and Catastrophism is compatible with recent Creation of humans. I'd suggest reading Creationism and WP:NOR. . . dave souza, talk 08:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly what the source says.  You can read it for yourself in the reference.   "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." was the exact statement.   This is not original research.  This poll was referenced even before I got here, I simply gave a better link to the information.  I'm not sure what you mean by "Catastrophism", but the time at which humans first existed, according to Radiometric dating, was not near 10,000 years ago.  Anyone who says that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" clearly does not agree with Human Evolution or the age it implies, and is a young earth creationist.  I do not see away of debating this.EMSPhydeaux 15:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 5% of scientists are creationists?

message: There's no need to call George McCready Price (in the Revival section) an "armchair geologist". I have found no listing of that term on Wikipedia. In fact, I think it would be impossible to prove that he never looked at or studied any rocks. On top of that, I think Price easily fits the definition of geologist, which I did find on Wikipedia; "A geologist is a contributor to the science of geology, " Yaki-gaijin 23:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Price was not a "geologist" Price had no formal training as a geologist, beyond "some elementary courses in some of the natural sciences, including some mineralogy" as part of a one-year teacher-training course. In spite of urging from David Starr Jordan, Price did not "undertake some constructive work in Paleontology in the field and in laboratories." The basis for his books was Geology textbooks and documents, not first-hand research -- Jordan described his work as "based on scattered mistakes, omissions, and exceptions to general that anybody familiar with the facts in a general way could not possibly dispute." All this is documented in Ronald Numbers' The Creationists, in which Numbers himself calls Price an "armchair scientist". HrafnTalkStalk 02:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I fail to see how somebody unfamiliar with Price's credentials or the meaning of the adjective "armchair" can keep anybody "honest" on this -- beyond a dysfunctional "delete anything I don't understand, even if it's referenced" approach. I also fail to see how filling in these crucial holes in your understanding is being "a dick about it." I would strongly suggest that you observe WP:AGF & WP:NPA in the future. HrafnTalkStalk 12:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If you "understand the meaning of 'armchair'", then your statement "I have found no listing of ['armchair geologist'] on Wikipedia" was an intentionally misleading attempt to discredit the phrase (if we were restricted to only using phrases with listings on wikipedia, we'd end up with a lot of very strange articles). I assumed good faith and assumed that the root of this was ignorance, not mendacity. I likewise assumed that your grossly incorrect assertion that "Price easily fits the definition of geologist" sprang from ignorance not dishonesty. "Armchair geologist" is a perfectly apt characterisation of Price's complete lack of scientific standing and expertise. It is neither petty nor unnecessary. Ronald Numbers is a widely respected historian of the Creationism movement. To call his apt characterisation of Price "childish insults" is completely uncalled for. "Armchair geologist" is apt, well-cited and well-substantiated -- so there is no possible reason for its deletion, and so reason to continue these histrionics. HrafnTalkStalk 03:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Armchair"

message: Seems there's another tussel going on over Cat:Pseudoscience once again. And, you know, the Creation Science category is already in the Pseudoscience category now, isn't there something that can be said for avoiding redundancy? Does Evolution have the Biology and Science categories at the bottom? Homestarmy 18:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There wasn't consensus for that one editor, about 6 months ago, for deleting the Pseudoscience category.  We all thought it was dumb.  Evolution doesn't require a Biology and Science category because frankly that is well known and understood.  I don't like rude commentary from anonymous vandals.  I think if you provided a legitimate argument, I'd listen.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No opinion really on the matter, but some useful guidelines are Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever Ali.  Anyways, the Pseudoscience category does contain Creation Science, but you have to go to that to find YEC.  So it's not clear that YEC is really in the Pseudoscience category.  I think someone is fixing the category, then the rude reversions by the anonymous vandal will stop.  Homestarmy, good catch.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by saying "Whatever Ali." I was just stating the fact that there are Wikipedia guidelines that may help hone in on an answer. It may very well be that the solution is to fix the categories (as you have stated), so that it isn't as redundant, or that this article may fall under the guidelines as an "exception". I wasn't pushing an opinion on the matter, I was giving you more information to help make your decision/discussion easier and more informed. Again, mahalo. --Ali'i 20:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think creation science is psuedoscience, so I'm glad the "creation science" category is in the "psuedoscience" category, but I think our guidelines are clear and logical: no page in creation science should also be in psuedoscience. Categories are there to navigate around similar topics, not to present information to the reader. Atropos 19:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Exceptions should also be considered when the article subject has a relevance to the parent category that is not expressed by the subcategory's definition" (per WP:CLS) HrafnTalkStalk 04:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hmm, this sure sounds familiar

message: The Oriental Orthodoxy (Monophysites) should not be confused with the Eastern orthodox churches (Greek, Russian etc.). The Eastern Orthodoxy view should be added to the article as well. Unfortunately I don't have the documentation or the skills necessary to expand the article myself (there are many who do it, but I avoid it). I also know only about the situation in Greece, not other countries. I can still provide some details.
The YEC theory was dominant in the Middle Ages, and therefore it is traceable in the works of some Church fathers, but it was not introduced as a doctrine. They merely used the knowlledge of their era to interprete the Bible. The Byzantine calendar was counting from 5508 BC, as this was supposed to be the world's creation date.
Today the majority of Orthodox biblical scholars reject literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account, as it is considered a derivative of the western scholastic theology. Therefore, the YEC theory is rejected. The six days are viewed as metaphors, since even Genesis (2:4) and the Deuterocanonical book of Sirach (18:1) contain contradictions on this. Many Orthodox theologians state that the book of Genesis just tells "who" made the Universe, but not "how". Some of them could be accounted as supporters of Old Earth Creationism or even of Theistic Evolution, altrough such terminology is not widely used in Greece yet. Of course, there are still conflicts in the Greek church about these issues, but at least the earth's age is not among them. Metropolitan Nikolaos, a Greek Bishop of Mesogaia and Lavreotiki (formely an Astronomer who has worked for NASA and the MIT) has recently stated that "the age of the universe is about 13.7 billion years old" and that "Genesis is not a book of Physics and Biology [to have conflicts with the Evolution theory]".
Farther reading (it's only Greek, sorry): Basil the Great, Homiliae in Hexaemeron, J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 29.; Gregory of Nyssa, Apologia in Hexaemeron, J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, v. 44. (in Koine and Medieval Greek); N. Matsoukas, Dogmatiki kai Symboliki Theologia, v. 2; E. Oikonomou, Semeiologia kai ermineia tis Palaias Diathikis apo to prototypo (in modern Greek).   --87.203.96.158 02:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks  very good. I think we should incorporate some of this information in a daughter article, and also in Dating Creation, if it is not there. Do you have references? Preferably in English? If not, we might have to go with the Greek references but I am a bit uncomfortable with that. --Filll 03:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me, too, but for classic works (the first two above) it's not necessary to provide an English edition; but the contemporary Orthodox views are expressed in the rest of the works. I can't recall any reference in English right now, apart from the late Seraphim Rose, Genesis, Creation and Early Man. He is a prominent author, but his work isn't representative at all, as it has a more literal approach and supports the YEC, among others. Also this page  gives us a testimony about what it seems to be a minority of YEC supporters among the Russian Orthodox community in the U.S. As I previously mentioned, I am more familiar with the status in Greece; I still know that the tendency in the whole Eastern Orthodoxy is to interpete the Genesis' first three books primarily in relation to Salvation, Christology and Eschatology, rathet than to Cosmology, so don't expect total uniformity on issues like YEC, because these are simply considered less significant. Therefore, I could mention many works about the Orthodox views on creation in general, but only very few on creation's date --87.203.96.158 04:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a good citation, but it refers to the year 5508 as the "formation of Adam and Eve" date and doesn't explicitly mention the Byzantine Calendar. I think I've found a better one  (search for "5509" in the text to locate the reference). Since you made this addition, I'll let you decide on any potential changes. By the way, the site you 've used is associated with Greek Old Calendarists, a separate fundamentalist group. For more representative Eastern Orthodox views I would recommend Myriobiblos  (multilingual, with integrated search function).  --85.72.179.107 20:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: Thanks for the suggestion. Somehow I thing I need improvement in some areas prior to becoming a registered user. --85.75.7.167 21:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Eastern Orthodox view 

message: It's subtle, but "accepting" something is when a stubborn person relents to overwhelming evidence.  The word "believe" is much more neutral. johnpseudo 18:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the word "accept" is a polyseme, and therefore has many meanings with different connotations. And not all have the connotation you suggest. However, I think this is minor enough that it is not worth arguing about when so much else is in a mess here.--Filll 19:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original longstanding text said "believe".  The change to "accept" was smuggled in today by Ed Poor in this edit:  (I use the word "smuggled" because his edit summary didn't mention it: he referred only to another change made at the same time). --Robert Stevens 19:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No smuggling, let's not get nasty. I meant "accept the account" as being true. To avoid misunderstanding - and correct a grammatical mistake - I have used the word belief. --Uncle Ed 21:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accept vs. Believe

message: I came into this because of a mistake in assuming bias by fellow editor [[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin] who, understandably, thought a change in the intro meant a bias on my part. Here's where I came in:
An edit posted on  Recent changes caught my attention while I was on Vandal Patrol. I swung by to check it out: the last para of the intro had read: 
* Despite a statement by 68 national and international science academies stating that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, that life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago, and that scientific evidence has never contradicted this, Young Earth creationists (YECs) claim that the lack of support for a Young Earth theory in professional science journals or among professional science organizations is due to discrimination and censorship.
The edit that got my attention was by Lgrove who didn't edit summarize but can be assumed to have attempted to address the presumed bias in the statement that the majority of scientists are right despite what the YECs believe. (Despite being a wesal word here.) However, Lgrove changed the order of the para to read this:
* Young Earth creationists (YECs) claim that the lack of support for a Young Earth theory in professional science journals or among professional science organizations is due to discrimination and censorship. This is illustrated by a statement of an organization which represents 68 national and international science academies stating that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, that life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago, and that scientific evidence has never contradicted this.
What this does is swing the presumed bias the other way: now the references 'prove' that there is discrimination on the part of the scientific majority against the YEC minority (when, in fact, a statement of scientific principle that doesn't agree with a faith isn't -by its nature- discrimination, just an apposing view.
Since the point of an intro is to introduce the subject, the YECs in this case, I took out the position of the scientists completely, which can be addressed more properly in the body of the article itself:
* 
Young Earth creationists (YECs) claim that the lack of support for a Young Earth theory in professional science journals or among professional science organizations is due to discrimination and censorship.
I think this addresses the need to introduce Young earth creationism, without getting sidetracked by ideology (from either side) so early in the article. As I've explained myself in better detail, and hopefully in a manner that will allow both sides see my intent to address this as what makes the article read NPOV, I'll re-attempt the change.
Please feel free to address the topic here. Thanks! --LeyteWolfer (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding of NPOV policy is that pseudoscientific claims have to be put in the context of mainstream science, and that the lead should be a self-contained summary of the article. To address this, I've summarised the international science academies statement more completely as a separate paragraph, without saying one or the other is "right" ... dave souza, talk 16:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to change your version, Dave, but I think it can be assumed that the pro-YECs are not going to find it satisfactory. If having a non-biased intro leads people to read the whole article, that's a good thing. Having a biased or weighted intro invites POV edit wars...that's not good for the article. I think everyone would have a better leg to stand on if the intro only explained the basics of the YEC viewpoint and the criticism was dealt with in the body of the article. There are MANY articles on wikipedia that have criticism sections that are not referenced in the intro. I just don't think this serves the greater good. I'm also willing to wage that the entry will be reverted two to three times today alone, based on the emotional investment of both sides (even if they claim rationality). NPOV with a focus on the subject (YEC in this case) is best for the intro and that's best for the article. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The addition is needed to meet the requirements of NPOV: Giving "equal validity", and NPOV: Undue weight which requires that though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. See also NPOV: Pseudoscience regarding the requirement to show majority scientific opinion. ..  dave souza, talk 21:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I agree whole-heartedly. I hold that the policy refers to the article itself, and not the lead and I don't think the lead is the place to put the counter-argument. If it needs to be there, it should only reference the material that will make up the opposing view in the body. For example, if it is in the intro, then no sentance usedin the intro should be repeated in the body (and that goes for the references. In the end, I just don't want to see the articles on wikipedia hurt by mission creep, as the intro becomes the article. (BTW, thanks for discussing this here, rather than in an edit war.) Sincerely, LeyteWolfer (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: As it stands today (17 NOV)

message: Dave and Fill, thank you for your analysis and clarification. There seems to be a sharp clash between the Empiricism of "science" and the desire of religious believers to include the Supernatural as an object of scientific study and research. --Uncle Ed 15:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: YEC beliefs require a deceptive supernatural intervention: a "Trickster God" who has faked all the evidence that contradicts YEC.  Why should a Trickster God submit to "scientific study and research"?  If he has the ability and inclination to plant fake fossils, fake endogenous retroviruses and other DNA evidence, fudge radiometric dating, create artificial varves and ice-core layers, fake the light from distant stars, create historical accounts from cultures unaffected by the Flood... then such a phenomenon cannot be investigated scientifically (or indeed by any other means). --Robert Stevens 16:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It goes back to Paley promoting miracles as Evidences of Christianity and his natural theology using a god of the gaps to fend off Enlightenment questioning, leading to a Victorian crisis of faith – "Paradoxically, the success of the Paleyan apologetic was to prove disastrous in the 1860s: it was precisely the argument from design and miracles and prophecies (the "external evidences") that were devastated by the new science and [higher] criticism." Evangelicals had "inculcated belief that religious doubt was in itself sinful. The duty of avoiding doubt, whatever intellectual operations might be needed to accomplish this, was put with characteristically eloquent crudity by Samuel Wilberforce, later Bishop of Oxford: Whilst irreverence and doubt are the object of your greatest fear; whilst you would glady retain a childlike and unquestioning reverence by abasing, if need were, your understanding, rather than gain any knowledge at the hazard of your reverence; you are doubtless in God's hands, and therefore safe... Fly, therefore, rather than contend; fly to known truths. ... In an age that pressed desperately for the answers to all sorts of questions, Wilberforce believed they were better left unasked." An interesting read at  ..  dave souza, talk 16:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave, this is good stuff and helps provide a possible new direction for the article or at least a few sentences culminating in a link to another article. I gather that YECs desire to "have their cake and eat it too", i.e., preserve their fundamentalist faith in God's Creation while coming to terms with the findings of modern science. Perhaps this veers off into Creation Science or "scientific creationism". --Uncle Ed 17:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Remember, evidence is subject to interpretation, it doesn't "speak for itself". And any particular interpretation is subject to change, especially in historical (non-observational) science. rossnixon 01:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but there are limits, both to legitimate interpretation (beyond which it becomes mere rationalisation) and how far the consensus interpretation changes (they tend very heavily to be refinements rather than wholesale replacements). The various flavours of YEC can be ruled out on both counts, as being far beyond these limits. HrafnTalkStalk 03:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Empiricism and its limits

message: The criticism section is messy IMO. 
Firstly, is an allegation of quote mining really a scientific criticism of YEC?
"Proponents of YEC are regularly accused of quote mining, the dishonest practice of isolating passages from academic texts that appear to support their claims while deliberately excluding context and conclusions to the contrary."
IMO, this should be in a new section. Perhaps "other criticisms" would be appropriate.
Secondly, the paragraph about light from distant stars is indeed a criticism, but it is far from being theological. IMO it should be moved from theological criticism to scientific criticism.
"Another problem is the fact that distant galaxies can be seen. If the universe did not exist until 10,000 years ago, then light from anything farther than 10,000 light-years would not have time to reach us. Most cosmologists accept an inflation model as the likely explanation for the horizon problem. Inflationary models also account for other phenomena, and are in agreement with observations of recent microwave anisotropy satellites. Creationists have also proposed models to explain why we see distant starlight.[59][60] See creationist cosmologies for more information."
Apart from this, the criticism section is still a little messy, but perhaps that's just me.
Thanks, Glooper (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quote mining among creationists is ubiquitous, and is a misrepresentation of scientific results and statements. As such, this is a legitimate scientific criticism. HrafnTalkStalk 06:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: No Chris, your post was not "neutrality" -- it was a lengthy, off-topic and unsubstantiated rant. It served no purpose whatsoever. Now either make specific recommendations for changes, based upon verifable and reliable sources, or go elsewhere. Any further posts from you that do not meet this standard will be summarily deleted. HrafnTalkStalk 16:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism: Theological v Scientific 

message: WP:SOAP moved to User talk:Chris g79
Yes, and this shows it is not possible on wiki to have an unbiased article, because people keep violating this neutrality. Even neutrality is called SOAP. You have my sincere condoleances but your not stopping me from setting my teeth in this article!Chris g79 (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No Chris, your post was not "neutrality" -- it was a lengthy, off-topic and unsubstantiated rant. It served no purpose whatsoever. Now either make specific recommendations for changes, based upon verifable and reliable sources, or go elsewhere. Any further posts from you that do not meet this standard will be summarily deleted. HrafnTalkStalk 16:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objectivity