Talk:Creation science/Archive 11

message: I'm not sure if this is the best page for this, but its a common arguement I've been hearing a lot lately. Its a well known fact that creation v. evolution debates are often potrayed as Science v. Belief(or Religion) but this argument by Creationists suggests it to be Philosophy v. Philosophy and that very few scientists hold to the strict scientific method. Obviously there are counter arguments to it such as, hard statistics and defining what adhering to the scientific method is. Perhaps an entire article should be devoted to the topic but then again that might be going overboard. Finally, if it doesn't deserve its own article then which should it go under. What do you'll think?
Philosophy vs. philosophy is actually a common creationist battle cry. Take, for example, the material written over on the naturalism (philosophy) page. Joshuaschroeder 12:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguement of Philosophy v. Philosophy

message: Under "Scientific criticisms of creation science" it says:
"Creationism is not empirically testable. That creationism is not empirically testable stems from the fact that creationism violates a basic premise of science, naturalism."
I disagree that creationism is necesarily opposed to naturalism as a basic premise of science. The scientific method (and general naturalism) doesn't specify why things happen (or if they happen without any reason at all), it just states that they can be observed the same way wether there is a supernatural deity behind or not. Supposing a deity did create the world, this could still be made into a scientific theory, if you are prepared to accept evidence against the predictions this theory makes, and prepared to change your theory if this evidence is found. Those who call themselves "creationists" usually reject the scientific method since they don't want to have to reinterpret their version of Genesis, but many scientists are christians who believe that god created the world, and see no problems interpretating the bible so that it fits scientific theories. Putting equations between "strict" naturalism and science is part of some creationists efforts to make all scientists seem like atheists. Of course some specific variations of naturalism state that there is no reason behind nature, but this interpretation is not inherent in the scientific method. The comment should be rewritten or removed.
:Any hypothesis which requires or even allows the possibility of a surpreme being is (almost by definition) impossible to falsify. Raul654 21:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry you find the phrase scarey: if you look at the article on Naturalism (philosophy) you'll find clarification that the scientific method inherently looks at that which empirically testable, which effectively limits it to studying and explaining the natural world. This methodological naturalism says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural which by definition is beyond natural testing. From the viewpoint of theistic evolution, including the Roman Catholic view, this makes science compatible with religion, as each has its own realm. However, some creationists want to change the basis of science to support their religious beliefs. Your edit correctly points to creationist claims about "atheistic naturalism", but fails to point out that these claims are false, conflating methodological naturalism with ontological naturalism. ..dave souza, talk 16:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naturalism

message: His name has been removed and re-inserted into the article a number of times, now. What should we do? Is 'dr.' Dino a notable creationist, in this article, or is he a horrible creationist and a PR nightmare? -- Ec5618 10:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course he is notable. There are creationists who hate him, but he still tours and gives lectures to numerous churches and organizations. Why should we exclusde him? Joshuaschroeder 14:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  (dr.) Dino 

message: "If there were a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found." - Dawkins
Why was this posted exactly? It is a blatant red herring. Nobody is claiming hippos or rabbits existed in the Precambrian. The Cambrian period is the issue.
:It is a bit of a red herring for you to claim this is a red herring. Since creation science believes that special creation demanded a creation of the biosphere in 6 days, the difference between the cambrian and the pre-cambrian is barely noticeable for them. Joshuaschroeder 09:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems you have a tendency to misrepresent any opposing views to your own. Not all Creationists accept the six periods of creation to be literal days. It also doesn't alter the fact the the above quote is a red herring. It has no relevance whatsoever as not even Young-Earth creationists claim rabbits, hippos etc. existed in the period before the creation of complex life. 220.235.159.70 01:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, not all creationists are YEC. However, as those who are claiming creation science is valid are YEC. They do not believe that the fossil record is complete or well ordered and since they think that sediment is laid down during the flood, Dawkins' quote is perfectly reasonable. Joshuaschroeder 15:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just take it out. It is very simple. It is obviously fallacious and Dawkins meant it rhetorically. If it upsets people to have it in, take it out. Consider why you want it in so much. It is not a reasonable argument. It is argument from ignorance to some people who would argue that affirmative evidence could not reasonably be expected to be found (though I would disagree with that.) If you would like, instead write what you said above straight into the article if it is true and verifiable. Explain the quote if necessary, maybe explain that the scientific view is that these fossils would likely have been found if you can verify it. Or you can take it out and not have to do any work (and not risk being accused, probably quite rightly, of making the article into a personal essay). It is just a quote. Find a better one maybe.--Ben 06:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote from Dawkins 

message: This is an interesting and relevant article.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051104/ap_on_sc/vatican_science
Synaptidude 01:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vatican says: Pay attention to Science

message: In the flood geology section, it says that Noah's flood is impossible due to the heights of mountains. I changed this to say that this assumed no significant change in mountain heights.
I submit that there is extensive evidence of mountain upthrust during and since Noah's Flood. See http://globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCcpt.html for example. My edit put back in. RossNixon 23:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no evidence that mountain upthrust can occur in such a timescale. --ScienceApologist 01:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those who attack Flood Geology, as impossible, should attack what it's proponents claim. None of it's proponents claim that the flood waters were kilometres deep. Therefore Flood Geologists would agree with you that the flood that you describe is impossible. You are describing a different flood, which no one proposes and then attacking it. Therefore it should either be removed, or the assumption added back in. RossNixon 10:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, the Institute for Creation Research asserts that the highest mountain chains arose after the flood .  Endomion 15:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If the mountains rose after the flood avoiding kilometers deep flood, then they have the problem of mountain uplift. If the mountains were the size they are now, then they have the problem of lack of water. --ScienceApologist 18:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What "problem of mountain uplift" is this? Is the timeframe impossible? For Mt Everest, 29000/4500 = 6.4 ft per year, assuming there was no small mountain to begin with. Of course it probably was fast to begin with and is now just a few inches per year. RossNixon 05:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When was the last time uplift of that magnitude was measured? What geophysical processes could occur which would allow for this kind of uplift? --ScienceApologist 05:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: December 26, 2004.  See  Dan Watts 14:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not uplift, that's faulting. --ScienceApologist 14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell that to the side of the fault that rose. Dan Watts 15:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Upthrust != mountain uplift --ScienceApologist 19:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They surely seem to be in close proximity.  See  or  or  where it states "For the past 50 million years India has continued to plow into Asia at a rate of about 5 cm per year. The collision has squeezed both India and Tibet, creating a series of thrust faults that have almost doubled the thickness of the crust in the collision zone."  That looks like faults are part of orogeny.  and  appear to correlate earthquake activity (along faults) with Himalayan orogeny, so how does one separate upthrusts from orogeny? Dan Watts 13:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Himalayas are fold mountains. Any associated faulting thickens the crust by dropping the crust down past the Moho. --ScienceApologist 15:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this report  which shows "Cross sections ...of a part of the Sierra Nacimiento uplift based on the upthrust model of Sanford (1959). " and also discusses a "Gravity model for upthrust interpretation of the Sierra Nacimiento uplift." [italics added] support the hypothesis "Upthrust != mountain uplift" ? Dan Watts 14:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some mountain ranges are fault mountains, but very few. The Sierra Nacimiento is one example. However, reverse faulting as a mechanism for mountain building is known to be very rare, which is why the paper is novel. Why don't creation science advocates content themselves with the fact that the mountain building mechanisms found in geology exclude flood geology I don't know, but nonetheless here we are. --ScienceApologist 14:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  "...the island rose and is now several kilometers longer. No information has been provided on how much the island rose, but preliminary data indicates that it may have been as much as 5 meters."   But what do I know, I'm just a stupid theist.  Endomion 15:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Instead of harping on religious bias, maybe you should take some time to learn the difference between fault upthrust and mountain uplift. --ScienceApologist 16:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: RossNixon, my statement was neither in favor nor against the conjecture of post-Flood mountain-building, I only offered a link to the ICR which shows that they do indeed accept a flood that was 5.5 miles deep, and they propose that high mountains such as the Rockies are very recent. Endomion 05:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I hear that the top 3000 ft of Mt Everest is sedimentary rock containing sea shells, so surely this was once a sea-bed? Sure, the flood could have been 5.5 miles deep, but if it's purpose was to cover the mountains, I expect it need not have been so deep. RossNixon 00:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RossNixon, the problem is that the kind of mountain building that would be required to raise the earth's high mountains from, say, 3000 feet to their current elevation would blanket the earth in ash in the case of igneous rock or involve a much higher level of seismic activity, and neither of these are attested to in history.  Endomion 01:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there were only 8 survivors -- say in a very large seaworthy barge? -- then we wouldn't necessarily expect a detailed history to be recorded. RossNixon 00:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mountain heights 

message: Cpcjr, creationwiki is not a valid source for these purposes. JoshuaZ 19:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Multiple reasons. First, in general wikis are not valued sources for wikipedia. On top of that, creationwiki is a highly POVy source with a massive built in bias for these sorts of issues. JoshuaZ 05:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  radiohalos. 

message: * With regards to the "scientific criticisms" section perhaps the best solution is would be a link to a separate site providing a responses. That would have the advantage giving the reader access to a response with out turning the page into a debate. It would also have the advantage of avoiding hostile editing of the response. No insult intended but I have encountered a few Evolutionists that would stoop to that. One possible place would be Creationwiki, if that's agree able.
: In keeping with other articles on this topic, the criticism section needs to stay.  The problem with creation science is that it is both religion and pseudoscience masquerading as real science.  Thus, the criticisms are warranted. Jim62sch 10:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We cannot link to "responses" as that would be removing valuable information simply to avoid the pretense of controversy. If you think there are notable and verifiable responses, work them into the main body of text. --ScienceApologist 13:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific criticism criticism

message: I tried to make "Creation Science" capitalized through the article, though we may consider switching it all over to uncaps. What we want to avoid is the awful looking "Creation science" that had shown up in the article (perhaps due to Wikipedia article naming convention). 
Over the months, some POV-creep has occurred in this article. I've tried to make the prose more NPOV including
*changing sentences where the subject "creation science" is anthropomorphized and replaced these with "Creation Science advocates".
*fixing the history section, including the removal of the "Theory of Special Creation" which technically doesn't exist.
*making a new criticism section for history, philosophy, and sociology.
*removal of creationist counterpoints in the criticism sections for consistency sake. That's not to say that verifiable facts along those lines cannot be included in the article, just that tit-for-tat argumentation should be eschewed in favor of description of position and description of criticism rather than a "debate style" prose.
I think this improves the article greatly,
--ScienceApologist 20:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SA -- excellent job!  As for the caps, I looked on the web and there's a pretty even split between caps and lower case.  I would treat it the way evolution, intelligent design, irreducible complexity, theory of relativity, etc., are generally written, all lower case.  Jim62sch 12:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article cleanup

message: To clarify my earlier complaints about the article's POV, my objections can be summarized as follows: The article gives space to criticisms of creation science, but it does not give equal space to arguments for creationism or give the creationist responses to the criticisms. To qualify as truly NPOV, the article must:
1. Give at least as much space to arguments for creationism as it does for criticisms of it
2. Allow creationists a chance to answer the criticism. Creationists certainly have answers to every criticism presented on this page, but the answers are not even mentioned.
--EthanSudman 04:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I am aware they have answers for some but not all of the criticisms. I may try to add some of their responses later. JoshuaZ 04:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to add responses, please do it in the main body of the work. For example, if the creationist response to 'Creationists are not peer-reviewed' is 'The scientific establishment is biased', find some place in the body of the main article to state that 'the scientific establishment is biased' rather than polluting the criticism section. This is not to denigrate the creationist position, only to avoid debate-style rather than summary style writing. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 04:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: None of this responds to the major style guidelines presented above. --ScienceApologist 01:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: Creation "Science" will never be a science or theory for a number of reasons. First off, it does not follow the scientific method. 
'Creation scientists' are not out looking for the truth and facts as actual scientists are, they are looking for specific 'evidence' that conforms with their stone-set beliefs.
:eerrrr... and exactly how does that differ from a lot of other scientist? If we admitt it or not most people have a lot of firmly held beliefs on certain subjects. Mathmo 18:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inherently Pseudoscience 

message: Copy from article.
Supporters of Young Earth creationism aruge the hermeneutical point that Genesis has the style of a historical narrative and none of the earmarks of Hebrew poetry .
Don't think this sentence was in the correct location in the article. FloNight talk 06:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I'm reading this completely wrong, this sentence shouldn't be in the Religious criticisms of creation science section of the article. It supports creation science, right? --FloNight talk 06:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it's consturctive ctiticism of the religious text to support creationism.  Does that count?ColdSalad 02:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? where located in article 

message: Pleas inform why the article reproduced below and that I added in the dicussion list of the article " Creation science " in Wikipedia is constantly being deleted ?
Why am I being censored ?
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Talkpages are for discussing changes to the article, not for preaching. --ScienceApologist 20:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CENSORSHIP IN WIKIPEDIA 

message: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Talkpages are for discussing changes to the article, not for preaching. --ScienceApologist 20:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that we include the below material in the article? Because none of this material conforms to the standards required for including it in Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 23:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticism of creationism" (SIC) 

message: re evolution •Jim62sch• 22:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoting from that article "While it’s looking more likely, it is not a sure thing..." rossnixon 01:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely mined quote, Ross. It takes a lot to take things as wildly out-of-context as the creationist does. In particular, the question of the "sure thing" is whether a particular hominid evolved into another (not the fact of human evolution from hominids). --ScienceApologist 06:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting news article

message: Shouldn't this be somehow qualified and perhaps stated differently? Many people in what probably gets termed "mainstream science" do not actively support evolution and instead believe in alternative theories. Many people in "mainstream science" don't believe in the idea of capatilism, does that mean we should call that or any other economic theory airy fairy rubbish?? Of course not. So why such strong words here against creation science right here in the first part. Mathmo 18:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because its accurate. And I don't know what you mean by there being people in the mainstream that do not "support evolution and instead believe in alternative theories." That's basically false, see for example Project Steve for starters. JoshuaZ 18:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: False?? How can you say that? There are to scientist who don't believe in evolution as it currently stands. As for the number of them, which seems to be your problem. The mere point is that they do exist and hence the "mainstream scientific community" (and exactly how would you define that?? I imagine you would define it as those who believe in evolution etc...) do not as an entire whole believe that. Mathmo 21:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   When the vast majority of scientists have one view on the matter (and an even stronger majority if we just looked at the fields that matter) saying "mainstream community" is accurate. JoshuaZ 21:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The mainstream scientific community dismisses creation science as a pseudoscience

message: "Creationists however highlight the difference between empirical observational science (which they endorse provided it conforms to the scientific method) and historical science (the attempt to explain what has happened in the past by interpreting evidence found in the present such as fossils and rock strata). Creationists argue that when interpreting what has happened in the past, both secular scientists, and creationists interpret the 'evidence' within the framework of thier pre-existing belief system or worldview ie.naturalism or Special creation. The evidence is the same but the interpretation of it differs. Creationist interpretations of scientific evidence are often excluded from secular scientific Journals because they are seen to be biased and shaped by an underlying faith in a supernatural creator. Most creationists would not deny this but would argue that their secular counterparts are no less biased and interpret the same evidence according to their pre-existant worldview and faith in naturalism. Creationists claim that their arguments and interpretations are generally not published in secular journals because they oppose the ruling paradigm of the day (naturalism). For this reason creationist material is generally published in separate peer reviewed creationist journals such as the Australian publication 'Journal of Creation'. While the evolution/creation argument is an emotive one between the two opposing sides, many creationists (who are often as equally qualified in their scientific disciplines as their secular counterparts) regulaly publish in secular journals on other issues. Secular scientists argue that the issue of creation verses evolution is one of faith verses science. Creationists argue that as the study of origins (including evolution) is 'historical' science not 'observational' science, it is an issue of faith verses faith." Don't think you should have simply reverted it, neither was what you replaced it with NPOV. Although it is perhaps a little lengthy as it stands now, or just be placed  in a different use. However that can fixed. Not now, I need to leave now for wellington for the week. Perhaps later. Mathmo 21:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all creationists even make these arguments, and to add various extra creationist arguments here would be a serious problem with NPOV in particular an issue of undue weight. Furthermore, I'd like to see one good citation showing that creationists are shut out of journals. You won't find one other than various creationists making the claim without any hard evidence (example: I have a friend who is an editor for a bio journal, and they basically get zero creationist submissions) and given that many, if not most of the scientists who accept evolution are religious, it is POV to label them "secular scientists." Those issues are just for starters. JoshuaZ 21:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting

message: I'm speeding removing this article from GA. The refrencing is a complete mess, I can't tell the random links from the footnotes and the magazine cover has nothing to do with the article basiclly and the article doesn't describe the magazine at all period so it does not qualify for fair-use so that equals copyvio. And the article currently has an history of edit wars so it's not stable. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you possibly think the magazine cover has nothing to do with the article?? More like everything to do with the article! (ok that was obviously a slight exageration! :p Still, it is clearly something very stongly related to the article and should be in some way mentioned/included) This is one of the major magazines published for the public by people in the creation sciences. So please justify your reasoning as to how this is not at all related to the article as you claim. Mathmo 12:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Removal 

message: I put this article in the correct catagory, as it does not practice the scientific method and is without scientific foundation.
:Very true, but the entire category of Creation science is listed under pseudoscience so that might be redundant. That said is there any reason not to have tags on the individual pages? Jefffire 20:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As it happens someone was trying to remove the pseudoscience category from :category:intelligent design and the talk page there has a plaintive note trying to get rid of such double categorisation, as pseudoscience is overcrowded! ...dave souza, talk 21:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Pseudoscience 

message: There is a problem in claiming a universalist umbrella for creation theology. In particular, without adequate citation to a comparative religion text, it isn't at all clear that the various religions and mythologies of the world are actually adhering to a particular doctrine that we descirbe and ascribe by means of the via negativa to Christianity in particular. The fact of the matter is that with the possible exception of a few fringe Islamic and Jewish fundamentalists, there are very few people from religions other than Christianity that would see their religions as progenitors of creation science. It's a novel and original stance to claim a universalist creation ethos (or mythos) is the historical precursor to creation science. While we have citations for Christianity's doctrine of creation, we don't have any citations for a doctrinal position from most of the other religions listed by Ungtss. --ScienceApologist 08:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Ethnocentrism" and the doctrine of creation

message: Deleted pejorative comment on Gish. Turned this into section on Limits of Science. Provided balancing references that other scientists and mathematicians also hold that there are primary limits to the scientific method. e.g. Yockey holds that it is impossible to show how abiogenesis occurred for lack of data and the mathematics involved.
:Yockey is a typically poor source that creationists rely on because he is skeptical about inductive science being trained in mathematical determinism. He's not considered a good resource in this area. --ScienceApologist 20:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to agree with the anon editor above that the term quote mining is quite pejorative in this sense.  Yockey may not be a good source, but he is neither being misquoted nor contradictory in his statements.  I move for a more neutral statement.  El Cubano 22:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yockey is only brought up in the context of abiogenesis as a quote mine technique. If you want to remove Yockey all together, that's fine with me. Actually, the whole section is somewhat dubious. --ScienceApologist 22:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree with that.  The section reads poorly and doesn't seem to add much to the article. El Cubano 22:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Limits to Science

message: Cut from article:
:publications from the university of Rochester have shown that light speed can be slowed down to 38 miles per hour using super dence matter or the speed of light can bee increase by 100 fold.
This info should go into the Speed of light article first, if you can provide a valid source and a cogent summary. --Uncle Ed 14:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speed of light