Talk:Creation science/Archive 10

message: .. , Coke/Pepsi, Democrat/Republican, Sean Connery/Roger Moore, etc. 
I would like to propose that some debates cannot be resolved. Clearly, this is one of them. The scientific community is not going to accept Creation Science as even a valid title, as it has science in it. And they shouldn't. It's not science. The religious community is not going to accept reams and reams of scientific flaws with it, the Bible, or any other component of their particular flavor of mythology. And they shouldn't -- their belief isn't based on science, and those of us who believe in science, despite our higher I.Q.'s and better haircuts, need to respect their right to believe that. I am biased against religious mythology. I am a scientist. I might burn in Hell -- it's a directional bet I've placed, and if I'm wrong, I've erred badly. So be it. But the people who sincerely believe I'm Hellbound believe so with equal fervor to my belief that they've been brainwashed, and in a forum that is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal nor a religious text, both viewpoints have equal right to be present, and equal right to be criticized and ridiculed by opponents. In fact, I'm sticking my tongue out at the Jesus freaks right now, because I haven't yet learned that this medium doesn't convey facial expressions. But, I digress. I'm sure I had a point. Oh, right, freedom of expression and all that.
I would argue that we should take articles such as this and either separate them into two articles, or section them into multiple sections. Where there are clearly such polar opposites, let both present their side, unfettered by revisions from the other side, who are free to say what they want in their section. In the Miltonian marketplace of ideas, sometimes consensus is unattainable, and it is most fair to the reader -- a concept lost in these debates -- to present both ideas as persuasively as possible and let the reader decide for himself. If the reader is too stupid to make a decision on his or her own, I'm sure his or her minister will be happy to tell him or her exactly how to think on the matter. The current system is unfair to both sides, but more importantly, it is patently unfair to the critical reader, who would like to hear both sides. But it all out there and let people think. Anyone who thinks this is a forum for suppressing ideas as either unscientific or unholy is in the wrong place. Preczewski 16:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion/Science 

message: I apologize to anyone offended by my attempts at improving what I saw to be an abuse of fair play. It was furthest from my intent to ruffle the feathers of those who must defend science on a daily basis in the pursuit of their careers. I'm relatively new here, and I saw this article listed on the "third opinion" page. When I came to it, with the NPOV policy fresh in my memory, it seemed very much to run counter to the sections on Pseudoscience and Writing for the enemy. Perhaps I was too bold, made too many changes too quickly. I assure you that I have had, from the beginning, only the desire to see fairness and reason prevail. I realize that, whatever the outcome of the current debate, this will be, by no means, the end of troubles for this article. I hope that, regardless, subsequent editors will be able to, eventually, come to consensus whenever duty calls for it. I'm proud to be associated with such a dedicated, intelligent, and dilligent group of folks as are on this project, and am glad to see that the process, for the most part, works. 
Yours, respectfully, Parker Whittle 00:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An apology 

message: A new editor, going only by IP (138.130.203.177), has suggested that Eastern Orthodox traditions oppose evolution. The article had previously mentioned that the Eastern Orthodox church has either rejected creation science outright or are ambivalent to it. While both statements could be true (note that the first statement refers to historical traditions) we should be able to find a source for either suggestion. If the Eastern Orthodox church either does not oppose, or does still oppose, evolution, we should be able to find a source. 
And I do suggest we only make note of a religion's current stance. -- Ec5618 11:39, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
:The EO church values the teachings of the Church Fathers very highly, and a 20th century Orthodox Priest, Fr Seraphim Rose, wrote Genesis, Creation and Early Man which documented their YEC teachings with approval.  See review.138.130.203.177 13:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Orthodox 

message: The description of Numbers' book claims that it does not discuss creationism outside of the U.S.  While the primary focus of the book is U.S. creationism, chapter 8 is titled "Evangelicals and Evolution in Great Britain" and discusses the Victoria Institute, The Acworth Circle, the Evolution Protest Movement, and Robert E. D. Clark.  Chapter 16, "Creation Science Floods the World," discusses creationism in Great Britain again, and the Evolution Protest Movement's forays into Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, as well as the ICR's inroads into Korea, Europe, and Turkey.  The description in the current article is thus factually inaccurate.
Lippard 04:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, via removal of offending part. Not exactly an elegant fix, but if the book does indeed cover other groups (I'll take your word for it, the original writer of that section probably had a POV to push, as they also called it biased), there's no need to do anything other than remove the whole sentence. Thanks. SVI 05:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Content of Ronald Numbers' ''The Creationists''

message: *fact, If I go by the definition given in the article on science (Reasoned investigation or study of nature, aimed at finding out the truth.) CS tries to prove a  truth its followers seem to have undying faith in, and will find fault with anything that does not point to its predefined conclusion. That does not sound like an attempt to find the answers to me, but like an attempt to convert or confuse non-believers. Ec5618 23:00, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
*fact. Not just CS is non science, but not even bogus science. In the best case CS is pseudoscience. Here were not even talking about an old fashion idea of "knowledge pot" (like the science of shamanism in ancient times), because the proposer of CS try to make it looks like modern science, which have a well estabilished definition and set of rules. Nova77 04:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Creation science is not science" is a fact

message: *view. FuelWagon 22:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Creation science is not science" is a view

message: :Facts are not decided by voting. We don't even need to decide here whether or not something is a fact. All we need to determine is whether something should be stated as a fact on Wikipedia. We already did this in archive 8. WP:NPOV says we can state as fact "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. We decided not to state it as a fact because it was disputed.  Bensaccount 13:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "'Creation science is not science'; Fact or View" section above shows sufficient dispute in the debate that the different sides need to be presented as views, not facts, at least when it comes to definitions of terms and anything else that might be sourced by human interpretation. "Science" as a term is defined by people, and people have different views as to whether CS is science or not. Therefore follow NPOV and present the views as views. FuelWagon 05:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No this false dichotomy between facts and views shows nothing at all. The previous discussion on archive 8 shows it was disputed but that doesn't mean we pretend it is an opinion. Bensaccount 15:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No pretense about it. It is an opinion. How could it otherwise? Science is not a trival fact derived from simple observation. It is a process with rules defined by human beings. Different human beings accept or reject these rules in different ways. This calls to mind those physicists who have derided psychology and sociology as being non-scientific. —Parker Whittle 06:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Archive 8 resolves nothing. There is no false dichotomy between facts and views. There are facts, and views about facts. It is not a fact that CS is not science. It is a matter of the definition of science. That definition is, among most professional scientists and philosophers of science, a normative prescription of methodology that continues to evolve as the consensus evolves; it is not a universal statement of static truth. Professional scientists and philosophers of science do not own the definition of science. In fact, it is not uncommon to hear (among scientists!) that scientists, themselves, are not the most qualified to enter into discourse on the epistemological and ontological foundations that underly the methods of science. As actually used, the term science covers a broad spectrum of activity. I suppose at this point this whole mess will now descend into a debate about linguistic/semiotic/semantic theory. The only facts, it seems, that would have no serious dispute are trivial facts, such as "snow is white." The existence of a potent movement such as creation science indicates that the dispute is, indeed, rather serious. --Parker Whittle 18:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a false dichotomy :If its not a fact, that doesn't make it a view. Bensaccount 21:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, grasshopper. And if it's not a view, that doesn't make it a fact. You have unlocked the secret of the universe. Now that we've had our lesson in Zen philosophy for the day, what's your point? --Parker Whittle 21:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That you're wrong. Bensaccount 22:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Terrific. Now take your simple assertion, make a case for it, and turn it into an argument. Otherwise, you're just wasting everyone's time with "yes it is, no it isn't" banter. --Parker Whittle 22:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Refrain from your blatantly wrong assertions for a second and take a look at the title of this section PW. Bensaccount 23:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon me, but I responded, immediately above, in accordance with your precious section title. I develop arguments, support them, and post them, only to have you bleat out terse, unsupported, assertions bordering on the unintelligible. Make an effort and respond to the detailed arguments of other editors, why don't you? --Parker Whittle 04:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You said archive 8 resolves nothing, and that there is no false dichotomy between facts and views. You later admitted to being wrong. No more response is required.. Bensaccount 22:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please consider what has already been said

message: currently, the article does not describe the philosophy and/or theology of creation science.  it provides a dictionary definition, and then an extensive criticism section.  a section  describing a creationist philosophy of science, with criticisms, was deleted without discussion.  the section addresses the major issues of creation science, including, "is it science?  can science allow for supernatural phenomena?  is it parsimonious?  can religion and science meet?"  these were all deleted without explanation.  i'm told it's redundant, but i see absolutely nothing in that section that's redundant.  please justify the deletion.  Ungtss 20:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a discussion. Read the archives. Joshuaschroeder 20:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i searched and found no substantive discussion.  i found you announcing your deletion, and doing it.  so please back up your claim.  secondly, even if there was a discussion i haven't seen, i'm reopening it.  please waste my precious time with endless nonsense, sir.  i enjoy it.  why do you think this article shouldn't describe what the topic is, but should instead describe why you think it's wrong?  Ungtss 21:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ah yes, schroeder, bensaccount, and brian -- truly a page consensus.  consider the discussion reopened.  why do you think this article needs no cited, sourced discussion of a creationist philosophy of science?  Ungtss 21:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was consensus because nobody disagreed. Bensaccount 21:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: facts

message: I just created the Methodological ontological naturalism supernaturalism article and gave it a go. It describes what I think ungtss is talking about with regard to the different flavors of science and religion. The title sucks, but it does give what I think is a good overview of the four terms, how they combine, and the three resulting worldviews that people can have. Any possibility we can agree on some version of this article and reference all the creation/ID/teachthecontroversy articles to point to it? Any chance we could talk about it before someone goes in and wipes the entire article out with a complete rewrite? FuelWagon 23:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about adding this stuff to the supernatural page? Joshuaschroeder 02:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: MONS

message: I've renamed the MONS article to Ontology and methodology of evolutionary alternatives. It seems to succinctly describe the scope of the article, and explain why it isn't part of some other page. The point of the article is that this is where the differernt philosophies on the different sides of the evolution debate are reported. FuelWagon 12:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: rename: Ontology and methodology of evolutionary alternatives

message: Do not create long sections regarding your vague, angry interpretations of NPOV. Do not state your irrelevant philosophy here. Do not discuss other articles here. 
In order to keep this discussion on track I suggest that every user devotes a couple of sentences (no more) to succinctly state their position, without any rhetoric or abstraction. I have already done so but Ill repeat it since people tend to make up statements and attribute them to me. Bensaccount 21:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert, the only problem is when you say "view" to Bensaccount, he hears "opinion". When he uses the code phrase "scientific status", he isn't talking about a "view", he's talking about presenting mainstream science's view as a fact. i.e. He wants to say "CS is pseudoscience", rather than "NAS says CS is pseudoscience". NPOV policy clearly states to report views from their sources. It also says do NOT report from the "scientific point of view", with the assumption that mainstream science is factually true. FuelWagon 04:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that FuelWagon and I are saying the same thing, and not being understood by one other editor. 11:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You both think that science is a point of view? Bensaccount 02:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Science is not a point of view.  Science is a method of trying to determine truth.  However, whether scientists have found the truth correctly, or whether their method is correct, is a point of view.  Robert McClenon 03:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But whether or not CS is science has nothing to do with views or opinion.Bensaccount 22:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently there are only two positions, and they are entirely compatible. We clarify the scientific status of CS and state what the CS view is, without reference to view of scientists. Bensaccount 22:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with this discussion page (16/8/5)

message: Wdanwatts, regarding your edit here, NPOV policy says report views of "experts on the subject". Listing credentials that qualifies someone as an "expert" is not an "appeal to authority", it is following NPOV policy. FuelWagon 19:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain how "influential science historian" and "such prestigous followers" are credentials. Dan Watts 21:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can remove those as being biased. Someone's university degree is fact. FuelWagon 14:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: appeal to authority

message: Bensaccount, regarding this edit, that creation cannot be observed is irrelevant to whether it is scientific. the big bang was not observed. Regardless of your personal view, keep it out of the article and keep it neutral. FuelWagon 15:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Big Bang has been observed, see Big Bang#Observational evidence. What can't be observed is Divine Creation causing the Big Bang. Also, "observation" does not mean "looking at directly with your eyes". This notion is erroneous anyway, as light does not propagate at infinite speed. An observation necessarily extracts information that was created in the past, be it one microsecond or 13 billion years ago. Fredrik | talk 15:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem. The universe edge is thought to be 87 billion miles away. Click Who has been breaking the 'speed limit' then? RossNixon 01:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No one. The speed of light is the upper speed limit for things moving in spacetime, not an obstruction for the expansion of space. Fredrik | talk 17:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Puleeese!  The Big Bang has not been observed.  What the linked article refers to are physical sequelae of the Big Bang.  It's like saying that you witnessed a car accident when all you saw was the wrecked car a year later.Synaptidude 16:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that any different from saying that you've witnessed a car accident when all you observed was a few photons that had been reflected by the cars, and reached your eyes at first some 1036 Planck times afterwards? Fredrik | talk 17:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fredrik , if you're making a metaphysical point here, then you're making my point for me. The ontological status of objective reality lies beyond the reach of science because our testing apparatus operates within the same system as the phenomena we're attempting to test. It's the old brain-in-a-vat dilemma. If your point is one of sheer observability, then surely you're not arguing that observing a car accident directly (and its immediate aftermath) provides no more useful data for observation and hypothesis formation than examining the wrecked car months later!—Parker Whittle 21:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The idea that "Creation can't be observed" is a strawman. CS doesn't claim to have observed the moment of creation any more than scientists claim to have observed the Big Bang. This is also an unsourced criticism. If a critic of CS actually argues this, it should be sourced to that critic, and a URL should be given. If no critic actually argues this, then it is "original research" and should be deleted. FuelWagon 17:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not claimed CS to make that claim. I have commented your claims that something can being subject to science without being observable and the claim that the Big Bang has not been observed, which are both wrong. Fredrik | talk 19:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is, one does not have to observe the original event to make a scientific investigation of that event.  One can make predictions about the properties of that event's sequelae, and then objectively test whether those predictions are met by physical evidence or not.  CS does not become unscientific in positing creation, and it does not become unscientific in making predictions of the physical properties of the sequelae to creation.  It becomes unscientific when it selects only data that support it's hypothesis, rejects data that refute it, and deobjectifies the physical evidence to fit the hypotheisis.  Synaptidude 21:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: It's very simple. find a source that expresses this view, quote it, and provide a URL. Then put it in the article as "so-and-so argues that blah" (URL). this is NPOV policy, which says report the views. The problem is that Bensaccount cannot follow this policy and continues to report from the scientific point of view (SPOV) as if it were fact. He has said a number of times that he will not report views because they are "opinions", and he instead continues to write teh article stating the scientific "assessment" (whatever that means) of Creationism as if this assessment were true. FuelWagon 15:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have absolutely no grasp of science FuelWagon. Science is not a point of view. Do you think that by misquoting me you will advance your cause and have all relevant facts omitted from the intro? Its not going to work. Yes views are opinions, but no I have nothing against them. My problem is with people replacing facts with views and pretending they are the same. Bensaccount 19:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "You have absolutely no grasp of science FuelWagon" Please be aware of wikipedia's "No personal attack" policy. That statement may qualify as a personal attack. as to it's veracity, you clearly don't know who you're talking to. I know science. But I also know wikipedia policy on NPOV, and am not afraid to edit according to it. "Science is not a point of view." This is in complete opposition to NPOV policy which says "represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view". FuelWagon 04:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: observed

message: Some people keep removing this sourced quote from a legitimate magazine. There is no justification for its removal that has anything to do with wikipedia policy. I've put it back in as reporting the evolutionary point of view. FuelWagon 15:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bensaccount, further digging shows that you were the one who removed the quotes here. This is in complete opposition to wikipedia policy on NPOV, which states "report the views". Please familiarize yourself with NPOV policy. FuelWagon 15:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV does not allow you to give preference to certain views so unless you plan to include every quotation from every magazine that has ever written anything about CS (and I guarantee there will be more pros than cons) you are going to have to remove your biased quotations. Bensaccount 18:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Skeptic magazine

message: I have opened an RFC regarding Bensaccount's editing behaviour on the Creation Science article here. FuelWagon 03:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bensaccount RFC

message: Is there a single quote anywhere that shows a notable proponent of flood geology dismissing "uniformitarianism"? This word is used a couple times in this article. statements are made regarding what flood-geologists think of it and what mainstream-geologists think of it. However, there isn't a single quote anywhere to support any of these claims. can anyone find some URL's that show what flood-geologists say in response to "uniformitarianism"? Otherwise, I think some of the article will need rewriting to avoid the term. FuelWagon 17:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Apart from its theological underpinnings, the assumption of uniformitarianism is wishful thinking, being impossible to demonstrate empirically."  Dan Watts 19:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks FuelWagon 19:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: uniformitarianism

message: Hopefully I haven't stepped on any toes with my recent reorganization of the issues and controversy sections. There appeared to be much common language between the two.
Additionally, I attempted to improve some of what seems to me to be language bordering on original research. They are unsourced elucidations of various principles of science and reasoning that could be considered making an argument. There's plenty more of it left in that section to be cleaned up, but I figured I'd at least give it a start. I'd rather see it cleaned up than removed, outright.
—Parker Whittle 17:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging controversy with issues

message: Short, simple, to the point. FuelWagon 19:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice URL

message: I was just thinking -- each of the main Creationist pages has a section describing the basic problems with Creationist philosophies; would splitting those general critiques out and directing readers to a new page be more efficient than stating general criticisms on each page?  Neocapitalist 18:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, each form is subtly different, and articles MUST conform to NPOV policy. I have been thinking of writing an article entitled creationist pseudoscience on all creationist pseudoscience from creation science through intelligent design creationism, and considering their similarities, differences, historical context, and other less prominent forms such as various forms of OECism. It would of course, have to be NPOV. Dunc|☺ 18:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  NPOV, though, is about presentation, not content -- after all, the criticisms on each page are NPOV.  Also, on a rather irrelevant note, I would contribute to creationist pseudoscience.  Neocapitalist 23:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate Page for Criticisms? 

message: I removed an SPOV and redundant statement representing the non-scientific status of CS as a fact. The position of science is very well defended in this article. Refer to the long debates on this topic, above.
I also removed a value judgment regarding which criteria of science are the most important. An authority on scientific method should be cited for such an assertion.
—Parker Whittle 15:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPOV and unsourced evaluation of the criteria of science