Talk:Creation science: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:11, 11 July 2007 editFradulent Ideas (talk \| contribs)112 edits →A single-word tweak to the lead ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 18:44, 1 December 2024 edit undoLenderthrond (talk \| contribs)26 edits →Scientific Consensus.: ReplyTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header\|noarchives=yes\|search=no}}
	{{Talkheader}}
	{\| class="messagebox standard-talk"
	\|-
	\|A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents Creation science in an unsympathetic light and that criticism is too extensive or violates Misplaced Pages's '''Neutral Point of View''' policy (]). The sections of the ] that apply directly to this article are:<br>
	*''']'''<br>
	*''']'''<br>
	*''']'''<br>
	*'''].'''
	If you wish to discuss or debate the ''validity'' of Creation science or promote Creation science please do so at or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Misplaced Pages article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time in accordance with ]: Keep on topic
	\|}
	{{controversial}}		{{controversial}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|1=
	{{TrollWarning}}
			{{WikiProject Religion\|importance=High}}
	{{delistedGA}}
			{{WikiProject Creationism\|importance=Mid\|Young Earth creationism=yes\|Young Earth creationism-importance=High}}
	<!-- Instructions for Janitorial Staff: Trolls may live here. Unsheath TrollSlayer +6, pack plenty of anti-troll ammo -->
			{{WikiProject Skepticism\|importance=high}}

			}}
	{{archive box\|
			{{ArbComPseudoscience}}
	*] - (])
			{{delistedGA\|April 27, 2006\|oldid=50302632}}

			{{Annual readership}}
	*] - (])
			{{archivebox\|auto=long\|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III\|age=90\|index=Talk:Creation_science/Archives index

			\|
	*] - (])
			*]

			*] (article was merged into this)
	*] - (])
			{{hidden begin\|title=It has been suggested in these archives...}}

	*]

	*]

	*]

	*]

	*]

	*] - (])

	*]

	*]

	]

	] (article was merged into this)

	'''When archiving this page, please use the ] procedure.'''

	It has been suggested in these archives,
	:<small>The following statements were discussed, not the result of the discussion.</small>		:<small>The following statements were discussed, not the result of the discussion.</small>
	# '''that creation science claims creation is directly observable;'''		# '''that creation science claims creation is directly observable;'''
	#:<small>]</small>		#:<small>]</small>
	#:<small>]</small>		#:<small>]</small>
	#:<small>]</small>		#:<small>]</small>
	#:<small>]</small>		#:<small>]</small>
	#:<small>]</small>		#:<small>]</small>
	# '''that creation science is not a creationist ploy'''		# '''that creation science is not a creationist ploy'''
	#:<small>]</small>		#:<small>]</small>
	#:<small>]</small>		#:<small>]</small>
	# '''that creation science is not ''];'''''		# '''that creation science is not ''];'''''
	#:<small>]</small>		#:<small>]</small>
	#:<small>]</small>		#:<small>]</small>
	#:<small>]</small>		#:<small>]</small>
	#:<small>]</small>		#:<small>]</small>
	#:<small>]</small>		#:<small>]</small>
	#:<small>]</small>		#:<small>]</small>
	#:<small>]</small>		#:<small>]</small>
	#:<small>]</small>		#:<small>]</small>
	#:<small>]</small>		#:<small>]</small>
	#:<small>]</small>		#:<small>]</small>
	#:<small>]</small>		#:<small>]</small>
	# '''that science cannot allow for the supernatural'''		# '''that science cannot allow for the supernatural'''
	#:<small>]</small>		#:<small>]</small>
	# '''that the title is POV, as it suggests CS is science'''		# '''that the title is POV, as it suggests CS is science'''
	#:<small>]</small>		#:<small>]</small>
	#:<small>]</small>		#:<small>]</small>
	#:<small>]</small>		#:<small>]</small>
	#:<small>]</small>		#:<small>]</small>
	# '''that criticism should be relegated to a seperate article or section;'''		# '''that criticism should be relegated to a seperate article or section;'''
	#:<small>]</small>		#:<small>]</small>
	# '''that since evolution is not heavily criticised in its article, neither should CS be;'''		# '''that since evolution is not heavily criticised in its article, neither should CS be;'''
	#:<small>]</small>		#:<small>]</small>
	# '''that since no-one is trained to be a ''creation scientist'', the term does not, should not exist'''		# '''that since no-one is trained to be a ''creation scientist'', the term does not, should not exist'''
	#:<small>]</small>		#:<small>]</small>
			# '''that the term ''peer-review'' is used incorrectly'''
			#:<small>]</small>
			{{hidden end}}}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 125K
			\|counter = 21
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|algo = old(90d)
			\|archive = Talk:Creation science/Archive %(counter)d
			}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn\|target=Talk:Creation_science/Archives index\|mask=Talk:Creation_science/Archive <#>\|mask1=Talk:Scientific creationism\|leading_zeros=0\|indexhere=yes}}
			{{Broken anchors\|links=
			* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Naturalization vs. supernaturalization) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Naturalization vs. supernaturalization","appear":{"revid":6928666,"parentid":6831424,"timestamp":"2004-10-24T19:29:38Z","replaced_anchors":{"The Supernatural as sovereign over nature":"The supernatural as sovereign over nature","The Supernatural as manifested through nature":"The supernatural as manifested through nature","The Supernatural as a human coping mechanism":"The supernatural as a human coping mechanism","The Supernatural as a higher nature":"The supernatural as a higher nature","Arguments in Favor of Supernaturality":"Arguments in favor of supernaturality","Naturalization vs. Supernaturalization":"Naturalization vs. supernaturalization"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":386598847,"parentid":386597522,"timestamp":"2010-09-23T19:27:01Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
	}}		}}

			== Fallacy ==

			"The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community"
	==REMINDER==

	This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the ''article itself'' and '''not''' the inherent worth of Creation Science. See ]

	If you wish to discuss or debate the ''validity'' of Creation Science or promote Creation Science please do so at or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Misplaced Pages article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

	== Moved ==
	Moved trolling to ] ] 13:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

	:Tough love, but perfect. ] 21:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	If you are convinced that the user's editing ''is'' trolling, the appropriate response is simply to stop replying, not to remove the content. If the problem continues, you should follow the guidelines for ]. Failing to do so simply results in more confusion and makes it more difficultly to achieve a resolution. The user in question has made ''no'' contribution to the article - why not just ignore his talk comments? ] 22:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	:At least on pages in this general topic area, editors have always userfied contentious trolling and off-topic posts. I have seen this done at least 5 article talk pages over and over for months, and been directed to do it by several administrators. This is not approved procedure now?--] 20:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	::It is OK to move off-topic trolling to the user's page...has been ever since I got here. ] 20:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	== Restored ==

	The page history has been restored. A few edits may have been lost - apologies. You will find them in the edit history. Let me know if your words of wisdom need to be replaced for the benefit of future generations. ] 11:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	Most of the material has now been restored to the archive, but the important thing is the history is now correct. Not pretty, but functional. ] 11:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	I believe this is the dif for the discussion before the abortive archiving and copy-and-paste restoration. Material not in the archive should be the stuff that was moved onto ] immediately before that. ] 12:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	:There is something going on that I do not understand. Although I have been on other pages with much longer discussions, this one is too long? The talk page had to be churched around, including the history, with no discussion? All recent discussions had to be removed? Sure we had a troll or two. Happens all the time. I just do not understand what is going on here.--] 12:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	::The other archives of this page are even smaller, not even reaching 200 KiB. The page had grown to a third of a megabyte, and was taking too long to load. It was archived as per ]. –] 12:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Pages should be archived when they get over about 70k. 250k is way too long, and will prevent the page from displaying on some browsers. The problem was not in the archiving so much as the method. The other archives had been created using cut & paste to a new page, but the method chosen this morning was a ''move''. Not only was this against the tradition established for this article, but it had the result of taking the page history to the archive. I've no reason to doubt that the archiving was done in good faith. The problem occurred when text was re-introduced from the moved archive back into the article. This created a situation where it was far from obvious where the text had come from and who had produced it; furthermore there was so much of it that it was again necessary to archive the material - a bit of a mess, really. ] 13:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	:What I have done is to revert the move, re-inserting all the edits that occurred in between. Everything is still there in the history for others to inspect. In the process I have left out the material that was moved to a user's talk page, and archived any material prior to that discussion. ] 13:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	:If there are specific items that have been removed in the process that are relevant to the '''content of the article''', please re-insert them. But there is an obvious problem if, as in this dif, the whole text is re-inserted - this negates the process of archiving. ] 13:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	::I understand the need to occasionally archive talk pages. However, usually this is done with much less drama. Just an observation.--] 13:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::You are quite right. Let's hope this is a one-off, and that you can all get back to building an excellent article. ] 13:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	::::Once again I had to undo the ], ], and ] to this page. I agree that some of the content needs to be archived, but ] has taken upon himself to archive without discussion, in a manner that does not allow it to be easily referenced, destroying the page history, and lots of other items. This editor needs to chill out.] 14:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	Just a minor question: where did the extra 150kB come from in the penultimate restoration of this talk page (by ornis)? ] 14:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	:I did a simple undo. I have no clue. This has been messed up beyond all belief by ]. I'm not even sure where to start. Some of the discussion I'm sure was archived a week ago???? ] 14:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	::No idea, I just copy-pasted everything Jan 07 onward from archive 12. ] 14:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::Some sections appear to be duplicated above. I will delete the duplicates. ] 14:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::Holy crap, you're right, how sloppy of me. ] 14:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::::Ok, I think that does it. At least there are no more duplicate sections. It's still a bit shy of the size from before this mess. I'm guessing that some material was moved off to "trolltalk", and maybe you chose not to copy over some of the older threads? ] 15:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	(ri) Well yeah, I left octuplus' most recent rambling on his talk, and I left stuff from last year in the archive. ] 15:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	:I wonder if someone could do us the favor of archiving only the closed discussions, say, just to be safe, leading up to http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Creation_science#New_lead_version ? This would leave only those sections active since around the beginning of June. ... ] 15:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	:: I'm sure that would be fine, but after this mess I think we should wait and see what everyone else has to say. ] 15:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	So it's back to square one. Well, whatever. –] 16:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	:I am totally puzzled by the motivations here, but I am suspicious. I think watchful waiting is called for.--] 17:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	::I've explained it several times. This is bordering harassment. –] 17:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::Harassment? Why not try to learn from this episode:
	:::*Discuss radical changes first on popular and controversial pages, particularly if you are not know at the page
	:::*Be apologetic if you screw up the page and history
	:::*Do not be defensive and angry when the fact that you screwed up the page is pointed out to you
	:::*Do not remove all the recent discussions from the talk page unilaterally
	:::*Hostile trolling on talk pages creates a situation that makes AGF very difficult
	:::*Statements like "So it's back to square one. Well, whatever." create a very negative impression
	:::I would ask the editor in question to please relax and not escalate this situation. This kind of tactic and response to disappointment and dismay of regular editors should not be a reason to engage in hostility. So just...please relax.--] 17:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	::::You should read some of the name calling he engaged in. I found it amusing that he's obsessed with panties and penises. He also tried to insert comments that I did not write into statements of mine. Kind of amusing, but fairly amateur. I think I'd rather deal with someone like Raspor, who at least wasn't a vandal. ] 18:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::I do not have to take frivolous warnings and aggressive bullying in silence. I was just standing my ground. If you are going to teach others about being civil, lead by example. Following me around and with your "suspicions" is clearly against the spirit of AGF. I already acknowledged I was wrong ''several times'', and I explained my motivations. You're even blaming me for "hostile trolling" now… –] 18:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::::In one of the most contentious articles around, to which you have made precisely 0 edits, out of the blue, you enter the discussion page without even a "hello", you rip apart the discussion, some of which remains to keep editors on the straight and narrow. For example, a couple of weeks ago, I reverted an edit here that was in line with consensus made a few weeks ago. I was reminded of the conversation, I easily read the conversation, and I immediately reverted my revert. This happens frequently. You went to my use talk page, where you reverted an archiving that I did, which is expressly not permitted. All of this removes ANY good faith that you deserve. Henceforth, if you want my good faith, you'll have to earn it. Your apologies have been worthless, because even after apologizing, you violated any good will earned by blanking this whole page last night or this morning. If you want good faith from any number of editors, first, apologize for your reckless name-calling against me, engage in conversation on this discussion about substantive issues regarding the article (and not about if it should be archived or not), and never vandalize (yes, it is by definition vandalizing when you refactor, change, edit or revert what I have done on my user talk page) a user page. You're not worth the trouble. Do the above, and let's edit these articles.] 18:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::::You can try to weasel out, but I will go to ]. You are misrepresenting what happened, you have been flagrantly violating official policies, and you have been insulting and provoking me from the very beginning. I will not stand for being abused here by you. –] 20:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	::::::I am asking you again, for about the 5th time. Please take it easy. Just relax and let this drop. Do NOT escalate this. Please. For your sake and the sake of others, so they do not have to waste their time on this ridiculous matter. --] 20:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::It is ''not'' ridiculous to me. I want justice. –] 20:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	::::::::What sort of justice do you want? What do you expect? Do you think you will see the regular editors here such as myself banned? blocked? For what? I have just tried to ask you nicely to please take it easy and maybe to learn from this little screwup of yours. What reason is that to want to attack me? Please, try to use some rationality here. Do you realize that things might not go the way you plan if you mount some sort of attack and demand "justice"?--] 20:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::::I want it acknowledged that I was not wrong, that it was an honest mistake anyone could make, and that I'm ''not'' a vandal, and an apology for being insulted so much. –] 21:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	You were not wrong to archive the material. There were two problems with what happened. One was that you chose a method that had not been used on this page before. Not a big problem in itself, but it disconcerted those who were expecting to see an edit history. The real problem occurred when a large block of archived material was re-inserted. This negated the archiving. But far more importantly, there was no obvious way to find the difs for that material, since the history was now in the archive. None of this is make-or-break stuff, and I have restored the history, fixing that problem. I strongly recommend that the editors move on, and actually start to talk about stuff that is relevant to the article. ] 21:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	:So now all of the restored stuff went poof? Nice move. And yes, it ''is'' a biggie. Trying to search for a rationale for the way this page has been archived and restored and rearchived is an exercise in futility. ] 21:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::I agree that it was a mess. But the patch-up it is the best that can be done, given the way in which the editors here insist on swapping large chunks of text around. Nothing went "poof", it's all still there in the history. The archive contains everything (I hope) except the material that was moved to user pages yesterday. Let's move on. ] 21:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	:Let's not. The real issue is that not all of the discussion topics were closed -- they were still active. We do not archive active discussions. ] 22:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	::So bring them back, by re-introducing, selectively, short sections from the archive. Don't negate the archiving by re-insereting long blocks of text. Keep the discussion moving on. ] 22:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Banno, you're missing the point. ''I'' shouldn't have to bring anything back, and ''you'' should have stopped with your restore before you decided on rearchiving everything. Also, your block of ornis was nonsense. ] 22:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	::Ok, so now where do we go from here? One way or another this mess has got to be sorted out. ] 15:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::So Banno, why didn't you spend one nanosecond reviewing this situation instead of blocking an editor indiscriminately, reverting ongoing conversations, and supporting a user who now is going to be enabled in such a way that he might continue this behavior rather than learning from it? We need to fix this page and deal with this situation aggressively. ] 16:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

	I think that we should, one way or another, restore the ongoing discussions. We should see if we get more flack from the newcomers to the page, whether they are new administrators we are not familiar with, editors from other pages we do not know, new editors that are exhibiting troll-like behavior, etc. And if there is more trouble, we should deal with it. We should complain in the appropriate venues, since this article is a target. It is very hard to know how much of this interference is misplaced and misdirected and just clumsy, and how much is really meant to disrupt the work of the editors on this page, given our past history.--] 15:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

	:Agreed. I'm prepared to bite the bullet and restore the discussions, however before I do, I'll wait and see what others have to say about <i>how much</i> should be restored. My inclination is to start with all of it, then open a new thread to decide how much of that needs archiving. We should also update the index to archived discussions. ] 16:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

	::How much bandwidth was spent on this problem. We haven't actually discussed the article for several days because of the aggressive archiving. Well, I agree, let's add back everything, then archive what hasn't been discussed for a few weeks. Of course, let's hope Banno doesn't block one or all of us for trying to do this. ] 17:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::Too much, anyway i've restored everything, so hopefully we can no decide what needs archiving. Hopefully I won't get blocked again for this.] 17:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

	::::You won't, assuming Banno wants to retain his adminship. Other admins are watching this page now and any further missteps could prove to be, uh, not taken very kindly. (No Banno, this is not a threat, it is a statement of fact). ] 21:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

	== Threads to Archive ==

	Opening a new discussion here on what of this needs to go in the archive. Now as yet I have not deleted anything from archive 12. My thought is that any threads with replies as new a june should remain here, but that also we may wish to retain some older threads, for the sake of not rehashing old debates endlessly. ] 17:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

	:Seems to me that we should leave Archive 12 as-is, and add links to the side infobox for any threads we want to refer to so that they're there in the archive but easily pointed out if old debates resurface – there are already several such links in the infobox. Then, delete all threads which were not live at the start of June. Sound ok? .. ], ] 21:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

	::That's fine, and a much saner solution than those proposed by Fatalis and Banno. ] 21:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

	:What a good idea. ] 18:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

	::Perfect. Now can we get back to editing this article? It needs some clean-up in several places. ] 19:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

	:So, the result is that the talkpage has been archived, then the archive re-inserted into the talk page, and now the suggestion is that the editors selectively delete the material that was re-inserted. This is somehow better than archiving the talk page and then selectively re-inserting material from the archive onto the talk page - my suggestion. Thus (hopefully) ends one of the most perversely stupid incidents in which I have been involved on the wiki. Who'd be a janitor. ] 21:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

	Right. Have deleted the pre-June stuff, which is all there in Archive 12. Nothing jumped out to me as particularly worth linking from the side bar. It's still pretty large, glancing through the list as of now, my suggestions / questions, feel free to add your own comments . .. ], ] 22:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


	1 REMINDER – anyone got a good chat site for a suggested link?

	2 New lead version – <s>this discussion ended 10 June, suggest delete as in archive.</s>
	:<s>Seems to have started up again. .. ], ] 19:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)</s>
	::Separated out the new part which has nothing to do with the old one. Feel free to archive this. ] 19:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

	3 Type of creationist – this discussion ended 11 June, suggest delete as in archive.

	4 Are there creation scientists? – resolved 19 June, worth linking from list at side?

	5 Peer reviewed creationism - long and incoherent, suggest delete as in archive.

	6 Arbitrary nonsense break - long and incoherent, suggest delete as in archive.

	7 LEAD – this discussion ended 21 June, suggest delete as in archive.

	8 NPOV again – this discussion ended 22 June, suggest delete as in archive.

	9 Creationism In Mainstream Schools – this discussion ended 28 June, suggest delete as in archive.

	10 Moved – for information only, suggest copy to archive 12 and delete

	11 Restored – still current, resolved? If so, suggest copy to archive 12 and delete

	12 Threads to Archive – current.

	:No comments? This page is still over long, will delete 3–9 unless someone comments soon. .. ], ] 19:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


	::Looks good to me, as long as it has been a couple of weeks since a thread has been posted to, I see no problem with archiving it.--] 19:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::OK, that's phase 1. Any objections to copying "Moved" and "Restored" to archive 12 and deleting them? .. ], ] 21:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

	::::Uh, enough with the archiving for now. Based on Wiki's outdated size limits, damn near all of our ''articles'' are too long. Shall we hack them to bits or archive them, too? An arbitrary limit still existing from the days when most folks used dial-up is meaningless. ] 21:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

	== New new lead version ==

	In order to help establish consensus, I must state my agreement with the improved accuracy and fairness of F00188846’s new lead.
	] 14:15, 7 July2007 (UTC)

	:Do you find it more accurate and fair because it doesn't mention creationism at all, and gives the misleading impression that creation science is a legitimate scientific enterprise? In that case, yes, it is perhaps more fair to the creation scientist's claim to scientificity. This claim, however, is more than amply refuted in the references provided for the article. On the basis of ], Misplaced Pages does not need to provide all points of view in a balanced way. If, in the consensus of the scientific community, creation science is not science, then it is the obligation of the Misplaced Pages article to make this clear from the beginning. ] 18:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

	::Just because it advances the ]'s agenda of promoting a pseudoscience, does not mean that your proposed LEAD is appropriate. By repeatedly reverting to your lead with no true consensus aside from one between you and your alleged ]s, you are violating several WP rules. Please do not continue down this path or you will be banned or blocked. Misplaced Pages is not a religious tract or a recruiting tool for some narrow religious agenda. By the vast majority of the science community (well in excess of 99.9% of all biologists), creation science is not science but at best a pseudoscience meant to mislead the naive and ignorant, and at worst a fraudulent scam and tool of some intolerant religious extremists with dark motives. If you can find any peer-reviewed articles in respectable academic journals, supporting your version of the lead, then present them here. Otherwise, we have to decline your efforts to rewrite this article as a religious polemic.--] 18:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::Well, the guy's planning on being a preacher for one of the most conservative denominations in the world, so what can you expect. Of course, having read his user page, I'm still trying to figure out precisely what "theological languages" are. ] 21:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

	::::He might be referring to ], ], ], and ]. Or he might mean ].--] 22:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::Or he could mean Sanskrit, Hittite, Sumerian and Akkadian. And let's not forget Chinese and Japanese. ] 00:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::: ''Ph'nglui mglw'nafh ] ] wgah'nagl ]''? ] 00:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::And that one, too. ;) ] 18:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

	A number of points made by Silly rabbit and Filll reveal a gross misunderstanding of the subject matter, only some of which I am now able to adress.

	1) If the scientificity of Creationary Science is based solely on the use of the Scientific Method, then Creationary Science is absolutely scientific. It does not draw its data from nor base any hypothesis on miracles or revealed knowledge, as you claim, but draws solely from empirical evidence found in the natural cosmos, the same evidence used by Evolutionary Science. It is the conclusions that differ, not the method.

	:I don't like interrupting a conversation, but this is the easiest way to respond. Creation science is NOT based on the scientific method, and is always reliant upon secondary sources without primary research. The ] requires a number of items, falsfiability amongst them. Basically, if you cannot assume the false hypothesis, that is a supernatural being does not exist, then it's not science. In other words, Creationists cannot accept the fact that their god may not exist. That's not science, that's just confirming your belief set. ] 19:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

	2) Creationary Science cannot be discredited as non-scientific for drawing conclusions that infer a transcendent source for the cosmogony of the universe. If the natural evidence suggests a purposeful, supernatural design, then a Primary Cause is the best explanation for the origin of the cosmos.

	:Another evil interruption. There is NO evidence for natural design. Again, not science. The only science will be one that can test that hypothesis, assume that the negative of that hypothesis could be valid. This is a bad argument (not attacking you, because it just is a bad argument). ] 19:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

	3) Creationary Science cannot be discredited as non-scientific for being related to a “religious” worldview. The foundations of Evolutionary Science rest equally on the Humanist worldview, as revealed by prominent evolutionist Richard Lewontin, “It is not that the <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">methods and institution<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">s of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” It may be just as rightly claimed that evolution, not creation, is the “tool of some intolerant religious extremists with dark motives.” It is true that Misplaced Pages is not “a religious tract or a recruiting tool for some narrow religious agenda.” Such a rule applies to Humanists as well as Christians.

	:No one discredits anything because it is related to a religious POV. Evolution, as a science, relies on the scientific method. There are no values, Humanist or otherwise, that is applied to it. Evolution is not a dogma, it is not a religion, it does not require faith. Don't try to place those value sets on it. ] 19:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

	As for attacks of my personal credibility at this time, the university which I attend allows evolution to be taught about in the manner which evolutionists explain it, in addition to teaching about creation in a like manner. While not a biologist or physicist myself, I am at the same time not a novice to the subject.

	] 15:30, 8 July2007 (UTC)

	:::Don't care about your University. Don't care how you are taught. Don't care about that. I also have no clue what an "evolutionist" is. Must be some invented word by Creationists. Yup, it is, it's a word that implies Evolution is a religion. Not useful. ] 19:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	:I wouldn't hold my breath for reaching a consensus if I were you, and I wouldn't boast about knowing something about this topic either. In fact, I would just shut my mouth in shame. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)




	::On your side about this one. However, that was probably way too tough. Show him facts, not attacks. He does have no clue about the scientific method, that's for sure. ] 19:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


	I could go on at great length about the comments by young ]. However, lets just look at a few points.

	#Mr. Theriault does seem to be quite a novice because he uses words like "evolutionist", "scientificity" and "evolutionary", which really are only commonplace among ]s, not among those who know much about the ]. He also has a distorted and incorrect view of the foundations of evolution. It has NOTHING to do with humanism. Darwin was trained as a theologian, and his book ] was replete with references to God and God's creation. It is silly to create a "talk-radio show" version of evolution as a strawman and then attack it. In fact, it just demonstrates a substantial depth of ignorance of the science, and it is pitiful.
	#Mr. Theriault does not seem to understand ], the ], the ], the ], and the criteria used by Judge ] to distinguish between science and ].
	#If the situation is so clear-cut as Mr. Theriault suggests, why have creationists and creation scientists and intelligent design supporters lost court case after court case on this issue? Why do more than 99.9% of the scientists in relevant fields like biology support evolution and not beliefs like creationism, creation science and intelligent design?
	#The advocation of supernatural processes and causes appears throughout creationism, creation science and similar beliefs. These are not part of science or the scientific method, and would be pure poison for all forms of science if they were incorporated in the scientific method.
	#Evolution has nothing to do with ]. The suggestion that it does, suggests that Mr. Theriault does not really have any understanding of cosmology or evolution, or really of science itself, if any further confirmation was needed.
	#Mr. Theriault's quote in point (3) is actually an example of ], as can be demonstrated by examining . It has been taken totally out of context, which is typical of the lies and misrepresentations that ], ] and similar beliefs are well known for.
	#Just claiming that any interpretation of the evidence is equally noteworthy or worthy of respect is silly. There are an infinite number of possible interpretations, and the scientific method culls through and discards the nonsense interpretations. The creation science and creationism and similar interpretations are among those that are discarded.
	#Creation science and creationism and intelligent design have no predictive power, and so are easily dismissed.
	#Science and particularly evolution is silent on the cause of the universe. It is about "how", not about "why".
	#Evolution has nothing to do with religion. It is '''not''' a religion and science is '''not''' a religion. Neither have anything to do with ] nor are they advanced by those with an atheist agenda. Any suggestion otherwise suggests someone who is badly misinformed and living in a fantasy world, and probably has been listening to too much propaganda.
	#Your personal credibility, or lack thereof, has been confirmed by your statements. "By their fruits ye shall know them", after all.
	#Please consult other articles on here to educate yourself before you continue down this ludicrous path. Look at ] or ], for example.--] 21:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Well, that certainly sums it all up nicely. One of the primary issues creationists seem to have the biggest problem comprehending is that evolution does not address the existence or non-existence of a deity or deities as it is utterly irrelevant. Evolution neither affirms nor denies the possibility of a prime mover, or first cause, it merely works with the evidence at hand. None of this is really all that difficult. ] 21:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

	::] is right that since , evolution appears to lack truthiness. If he's heard too much , no wonder understanding it's a problem. As a well known theology graduate said, "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except in so far as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence." .... ], ] 21:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::Truthiness? Now I've got to head over to my OED again :) Good answer Fill. And low on the ] scale :) ] 21:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::ColbertOED? Anyway, perhaps a better cite from the theology graduate is "He considers that the theory of Evolution is quite compatible with the belief in a God; but that you must remember that different persons have different definitions of what they mean by God.", link as above, p 307. ... ], ] 22:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::::Nope, the real ]. And it hasn't been used in 150 years, but I'm all right with that. :) ] 23:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::BTW, I just read those articles (kind of hard to read links on my iPhone connected at 100 kbps on an EDGE network). Got home here, and they are both wonderful. Good catches Dave. And I read the LA Times every morning while drinking coffee. I missed that one a few days ago.] 23:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

	:: I have read the 12 points posted by Filll in response to Mr Theriault. I wanted to ask the intent of those points. Are persons allowed to debate issues here? I did not see what the 12 point had to do with improving the article. Are persons allowed to respond to the 12 points if they feel there are errors in logic in those points? ] 00:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::The intent of these points and the other responses above is to communicate to Theriault and any other creationists who come by here some realities. They need to understand that this article and the other articles on Misplaced Pages are here to present an NPOV version of these subjects. These articles are not and cannot be religious tracts. There are other wikis which welcome religious articles, and I would be glad to direct anyone to these other wikis. That is not the purpose of WP. Understanding the intent of Misplaced Pages, editors can contribute productively, hopefully and not engage in pointless edit wars and get banned and blocked. These pages are not for debate, and there are other venues for this, which we can direct you to if you want to do this. If you want to point out the errors in these 12 points, do so in one of these other venues.--] 01:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::: But if someone feels that the points you are making are not valid they are not allowed to respond in anyway? There seems to me to be some factual misconceptions in what you are saying. So a person just has to accept what you say as fact without question? Are creationist allowed to participate in wiki? It seem that you are saying that people who believe in God are not allow to edit or comment here but you are allowed to tell everyone what the truth is. That does not seem fair to me. ] 01:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

	If you disagree with these points, which are the basis on which the article is written and will continue to be written, you might be more happy working on another wiki such as
	*
	*
	*
	*
	If you want to disagree with these points or debate these points, you are in the wrong place and I would suggest you go to another site.--] 02:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


	:As for the difference between an evolutionary scientist and an evolutionist, the former is a narrow term for those in the fields of scientific study which hold to the evolutionary model, and the latter is any proponent of evolution, regardless of vocation. The same difference applies to creationary scientists and creationists, as is self-evident.--] 19:53, 8 July2007 (UTC)

	::I am afraid that your definitions are incorrect in common usage or scientific usage. I would direct you to dictionaries to get proper meanings in everyday usage, or learn the scientific meanings.--] 01:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

	Regarding the implications of the terms, they simply affirm that there exist scientific, political, philosophical, and religious aspects to the two opposing worldviews with which evolution and creation are associated.
	Furthermore, the ignorance of your assumptions that any proponent of creationary science cannot possess an understanding of the scientific method is not fruitful to open intellectual discussion.--] 19:53, 8 July2007 (UTC)

	:I am afraid you have bought into a strange false dichotomy and are caught up in some fantasy world of pseudoscience and conspiracy. There are some creationists who might understand standard scientific reasoning, but I am afraid that you have not given any evidence of this in your writings. Do not presume to lecture the editors at this page, because most actually have substantial training and degrees and background in science. We are not students and we are not in the student council.--] 01:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

	Finally, do not feign that scientific theories and methodologies are so intellectually inaccessible to the general populace that laymen without graduate-level scientific training cannot make educated and informed conclusions for themselves, as is the case for myself and a multitude of other creationists, for the same then applies to the majority of evolutionists, including a number of individuals partaking in this dialogue.--] 19:53, 8 July2007 (UTC)

	:This material is not inaccessible if it is explained properly. That is the purpose of Misplaced Pages articles. To make it accessible. You are free to make your own conclusions, but you are not free to turn a secular encyclopedia article into a religious recruiting tract. If you were familiar with the editors here, you would soon realize that they are exceedingly well-educated, and I would suggest you try not to make such rash assumptions. If you want to write creationist aritcles, go to a creationist wiki. You do not belong here. Thanks.--] 01:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	:: It seems you are jumping to conclusions in saying that he want to create a 'religious tract'. I do not understand what you mean by 'creationist articles'. Do not others have the right to participate or do you determine who is allowed do respond or comment? ] 01:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

	:I have seen his past edits and I have seen his user page. And as long as users are productive and interested in creating an NPOV encyclopedia article, they are welcome. If not, they are not welcome and will be sent elsewhere.--] 02:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

	I think this header from ] is equally applicable to Creation Science, and may answer some of Theriault's & TheBestIsYet's concerns:
	{{quotation\|A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Misplaced Pages's '''Neutral Point of View''' policy (]). The sections of the ] that apply directly to this article are:<br>
	*''']'''<br>
	*''']'''<br>
	*''']'''<br>
	*'''].'''}}
	Maybe we should introduce similar boilerplate here. ] 03:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

	::Seems a good idea, have done so. .. ], ] 09:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

	== Mr. Theriault ==

	This individual has the fortitude to use his real name and state his background. He has brought up valid points. He has been shown the door and has been treated very unkindly. Anonymous editors claiming education, knowledge and expertise have told him that he should not be here. The anonymous editors for all we know can be high school drop outs. And actually that does not matter. Mr. Theriault has presented himself in an honorable and forthcoming manner unlike the anonymous editors that hide behind secrecy and yet claim credentials. We can veryify Mr. Theriault's credentials but not those of his critics. I doubt that there will be a day where his critics show as much character as Mr. Theriault has. ] 11:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

	:Please use facts not your feelings. Where above has he been treated without respect without a careful response. His list of three items were wrong on the facts and on the law. Don't make accusations in the future. ] 12:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

	::Further points - honour matters less than ], and education has nothing to do with contributions. Filll's comments were addressing why Mr. Theriault's ideas were not eligible to be posted on the page. Anonymity, honour and education count for nothing, it is content that counts. Mr. T's comments had no reliable, NPOV content, ergo not posted. ] 14:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

	==Further response Mr. Theriault==

	#Your artificial difference between an "evolutionary scientist" (a field that does not exists) and an "evolutionist" (a word that was resurrected recently to make evolution sound religious) are terms never used by scientists themselves. All scientists (well 99.9%) accept evolution as a scientific fact. In the fields of Biology, Chemistry, probably physics, and their subdisciplines, Evolution just is a fact. Outside of science, whether someone cares to understand it or not, they are not given a descriptive term. There is no Creation science, because there is no science that "believes" in creation. We allowed the name of this article to stand because it is what is claimed by creationists, not by scientists.
	#There are no political, philosophical or religious aspects to Evolution. It depends on scientific research, supported by millions of peer-reviewed articles. And, Filll is right, creation science is a term that isn't factual. Creationists, by their nature, cannot employ the ]. As discussed above, you do not appear to have an understanding of the science and the scientific method, and applying them to an essentially religious doctrine is inappropriate.
	#We do not feign, imply, state or argue that scientific theories and methodologies are intellectually inaccessible. We do state that you are ignoring them, because they are quite easy to understand. And please quit using "evolutionist" which is, once again, an invented word, utilized by creationists to imply, feign, state or argue that scientists follow a religion. That term is pejorative and is never utilized by a scientist.
	#Please note the NPOV sections. This is an NPOV encyclopedia, and given the lack of scientific, peer-reviewed, and published data that any god, gods, aliens, or other supernatural being had anything to do with this planet, religious information can only be described as a religious.
	] 13:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


	::We have no idea if Mr. Theriault is the person who is posting here on Misplaced Pages. It could be a simple matter of identity theft. Even if it is the same person, this does not prove much except someone who has not yet learned the inherent dangers of exposing himself and his personal information on the internet. There should be extra points for this? WP is not a place where credentials are flaunted, but where results reign supreme. However, in this area, Mr. Theriault does not write as someone who even has a good high school level understanding of biology and evolution, let alone a college level grasp of these subjects. He did not bring up valid points, and they were easily dismissed. These are the same types of points that creationists have brought up for about 100 years and these points are always dismissed in a similar manner. I think that Mr. Theriault was treated kindly but firmly. The defects of his position were explained extremely carefully and thoughtfully. Several editors put a lot of thought and energy into explaining the problems with his position in great detail. He was pointed to several internal and external references with a substantial amount of valuable information. This was far more than he deserved, frankly, and far more attention than he would get in almost any other venue. The only problem is that the editors of this article did not immediately decide to change the character of this WP article to a religious recruiting tract. That would be unfair to the readers of Misplaced Pages. There are other wikis for that. If one looks at the article history, Mr. Theriault is lucky he is not banned or blocked for ] and violating the ]. He was given EIGHT formal and informal warnings for his actions (on his talk page and the talk pages of his alleged sockpuppets) and was not the object of any disciplinary action, when he clearly could have been, for edit warring. His actions required that the talk page be protected from his attacks. He did not seek consensus before making major changes. Instead of some poor innocent, I see someone who is more aptly described as a POV warrior and vandal. Where was Mr. Theriault treated poorly? This is a charge that is completely without merit. Believe me, if I showed up on a forum at ] and engaged in the types of behavior Mr. Theriault did here, I would be treated far more harshly.--] 13:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

	] 20:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

	== Mr. Theriault further ==
	] per talk page guidelines. Reversion will be treated as vandalism. .. ], ] 20:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

	Why is not vandalism when you do it? Not very fair.
	] 20:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

	:Please review ]. We've just moved your one-person commentary to your talk page. Don't revert, or it will be considered vandalism. ] 20:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

	:: Why is it when you revert something it is OK but when I do it is vandalism? Deck stacked much? ] 23:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

	==The Failure of Naturalism’s Imposition on Science to Produce a Neutral Point of View==



	::Discussion again removed to talk page of Matthew J. Theriault per talk page guidelines. This discussion is not what is appropriate for a WP talk page. Reversion will be treated as vandalism.--] 01:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::Discussion directly related to the merits of an article’s neutrality can by no means be considered trolling simply because the poster (myself in this case) does not adhere to your understanding of the subject, and removal of such discussion under the false charge of WP:SOAP is itself vandalism. If you wish to offer an actual retort based on the article’s neutrality, free of ad hominid attacks and ad ignorantiam fallacies, by I welcome your response.] 01:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

	::::I have removed this material for a 3rd time and left a warning on your page. These warnings will escalate if you continue.--] 01:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::::This material has now been removed for a 4th time and a second warning left on your page. Please do not continue or you might get banned or blocked.--] 11:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

	== The battle is not fought here ==

	Both Theriault and TheBestIsYet seem to be under the impression that Misplaced Pages and this Talk page are the front line in the war over whether Creation Science is Science or not. It is not. What is Science is determined by what scientists do in order to do research, what philosophers of science analyse as the commonalities of good scientific research and what the courts determine based on expert testimony of the first two. If you want to do battle to alter the outcome of this war, then join a university science department and do research, a philosophy department and synthesise and debate arguments or the bar and litigate. None of these things are done here. Here we are reporters not soldiers, and merely report the outcomes of the battles fought in scientific and philosophical journals and in court cases.

	Either bring us something tangible (i.e. based on reliable sources) about these battles to report, or take your desire to do battle, to fight the good fight, elsewhere. ] 12:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

	:: I have been bringing tangibles here but they keep getting moved. Are we allowed to discuss factual errors with sources? ] 12:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::Given your past history and alleged past history TheBestIsYet, why dont you post it on your talk page and see what people think? However, I have never seen anything of this nature from you.--] 12:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

	::: I have been watching this page closely, and ''nowhere'' have I seen you or anybody else provide ''reliably sourced'' (that is ''explicitly'' what I said I meant by "tangible") evidence of "factual errors", let alone of any acceptance of Creation Science by scientific journals or courts. In fact you have never cited ''any'' sources, reliable or otherwise, in ''any'' of your posts on this page. ] 13:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::: The problem IS the sourcing and that was the point I tried to bring up. Filll had a lengthly rant against Mr. T and I supported Mr. T and they had my support for him moved. The point is many of the articles are biased. Sure anyone can find quotes supporting there POV but the ones that do not support the prevailing power base here are deemed 'unreliable' or somehow insignificant. Really using someones court testimony as a source. Since went does a court decide what science is or is not. And there are internal contradictions. And how in the world can someone make a change in an article when as soon as they criticize an article their comments are moved or they are threatened with blocking. Until the power base here allows dissent there can be not NPOV editing. ] 14:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::For the purposes of our society and WP, courts decide what science is and what it is not all the time. And you are obviously wilfully ignorant of the ] and ] policies. And again, still no reputable sources. Clearly you are continuing to troll and have not yet learned your lesson. I guess we have to block the IP addresses of everyone in your town. And if anyone complains, direct them to you personally.--] 14:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::::: If I am a troll why do you feed me? Only a troll feeds a troll. I feel you are willfully ignorant of many issues: ] and ]. I asked politely to discuss changes here and was blasted with insults. Until the present POV controllers will consider listening to dissent there is little use bring in more sources. The sources that are being used now are many times unreliable and inaccurate. Could we start there? The courts yes. But not specific testimonies. Then why does that woman's testimony carry more weight than Behe's. The present POV pushers in control cherry pick quotes. What can be done about that? ] 17:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::*You have proposed no ''specific'' changes, just made a host of vague and unsubstantiated accusations.
	:::::::*Barabara Forrest's testimony was given weight because she is a Philosopher and Historian of Science and an acknowledged expert on the history of the ID movement, the area about which she testified. Behe's testimony was given little weight because he testified on, but was proven on cross-examination to be frequently unversed in Evolutionary Biology, Immunology and Philosophy of Science (and has neither qualification nor experience in any of these fields).
	:::::::] 18:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

	:(ri) "that woman"? ROFL. ] 18:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

	::She's so satanically atheistic that good Creationists dare not even speak her name. ;) ] 18:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::This user is now solidly GYFROOMFPOV. I completely ignore trolls, so how's it going Hrafn42. How's the weather out there? :) ] 18:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

	::::Just coming off an extended cold-snap -- still cold, wet, misty & miserable, but at least the ice & snow is gone for now. Where you are? :D ] 18:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

	:Cold snap? Send some cold this way.
	:"satanically atheistic" ... I like that. ;) ] 19:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Norway? I know it's been a bit chilly in the land of a few of my forebears. ] 19:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	::Satanically atheistic. Yum. Not only am I solidly GYFROOMFPOV, but I'm also going to lay claim to be satanically atheistic. Not because I am, because it's always assumed that those who take a scientific POV are somehow evil. BTW on Friday, it was 114 here. I hate anything above 75. ] 19:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::Given that ''even'' Richard Dawkins is ''insufficiently'' satanically atheistic that Creationists avoid saying his name, I suspect that us lesser evils only count as "impishly atheistic" (or impishly Taoistic, in my case). ;) ] 02:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Yeah, it was 99 yesterday...cooled off to 95 today. I think I was wrong...knew it was Scandanavian (the hr combo gave it away), but I was a bit too far to the east I think. I saw a movie from there once, about a kid who was a lazy genius. ] 19:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	::<chuckles> Umm, Scandinavia is in the ''Northern'' hemisphere, same as the US, so it is summer up there too at the moment. I am tempted to make a comment about Americans' sense of Geography. ;D ] 02:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::There's the American hemisphere. Then there's the rest of the world over on some tiny island not a part of America. We don't need no steenkeen geography. :) Oh, I forgot, there's the other part of the world that was covered by a flood once. ] 06:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::Well that "steenkeen geography" ''might'' help a few more Americans find Florida on the map. But who needs Florida, eh? It's only on the ''edge'' of the US, which is almost as bad as not existing at all. ] 07:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	<ui> Well, it's a pleasantly cool 16 here today, but this is well off-topic. Back to improving articles! .. ], ] 08:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

			Appeal to consensus, followed by other claims about empiricism, which at basic level is mislabeled given the positions counter point also has no observable evolution.
	==A two-word tweak to the lead==

			More of why I no longer donate. ] (]) 17:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
	The lead currently starts with:
			:See ]. Evolution has notably been observed in Lenski's ''E. coli'' long-term experiment, and earlier, in peppered moth coloration during (and after) the Industrial Revolution. I expect this section will soon be deleted as inappropriate forum-style argumentation; I am entirely OK with such deletion. ] (]) 18:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
			:Not a fallacy, except within the motivated reasoning of pseudoscience fans. By your reasoning, we would also have to dismiss the round Earth and the Periodic System of the elements, because both are consensus. --] (]) 06:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
			:Misplaced Pages is not in need of your sad allowance. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. ] (]) 10:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
			:Explained at ]: for Misplaced Pages it's not a fallacy to appeal to authority. ] (]) 11:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

			== Which of these six categories does creation science belong to? ==
	:'''''Creation science''' is the ]s' attempt to find scientific evidence that would justify a ] of the ]....''
			{{Collapse\|{{Arbitration ruling on pseudoscience}}}}
	I think that we should be more proprietary with the literal interpretation. I would write:
			Which does creation science belong to? ] (]) 21:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
	:'''''Creation science''' is the ]s' attempt to present scientific evidence that would justify their ] of the ]....''
			:That's not a list of six categories. Maybe read the article lede; creation science is pseudoscience. ] ] 05:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
	What do others think?--{{unsigned\|Fradulent Ideas\| 11:23, 11 July 2007}}

			==Changing the word "claims" in the lede to "endeavors"==
	:Are you sure you want to change the word "creationists'" to "creationists'a" ? --] 11:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
			The current opening sentence states: "Creation science or scientific creationism is a pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible." I argue that the word "claims" should be replaced with "endeavors". Reasons:

			#. Its not precisely accurate. It implies that those who practice Creation Science have already completed what they set out to do. Creation Science practitioners are working towards that goal. As an analogy, the wikipedia page for ] also uses the word "endeavor".
	::Slip of the finger. Thanks, Filll. --] 14:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
			#. "Claim" is a word to use with extreme care because of the dismissive insinuations that come along with it(see ]). We should avoid even the appearance of POV on Misplaced Pages.
			#. The word "endeavor" in no way gives Creation Science a sense that it is correct. Nobody is going to come away reading the sentence with the word "endeavor" and think "wow, this might actually be real science"! But with "claim" they might be more likely to come away thinking, "Wow, this was written by a bunch of atheists with a grudge." ] (]) 02:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

			:MOS:CLAIM doesn't say that we disregard what sources say. If the Creation scientists are CLAIMING that their arguments are scientific when those arguments are not, than the word claim is appropriate. If they are trying to find real scientific arguments that support their beliefs, than you would be correct. We should use what the sources describe this as. ---''']]''' 22:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
	::I also think "find" is a bit problematic as creation scientists do not "find" evidence as they are engaged in pseudoscience. They "present" what they believe to be evidence. --] 14:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
			:::I want to be clear that my contention has ZERO to do with whether creation science is a valid field of study (its not). Can you point to a source that uses the word "claim"? I'm dubious that's what the sources actually say. ] (]) 23:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
			::::I'm not familiar with the sources in this article; but if you want to change this, you should find what the sources say. ---''']]''' 23:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::::you wrote: "We should use what the sources describe this." That's what I was referring to ] (]) 11:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::We do not even know whether they really endeavor to do that. We do know that they claim to do it. For all we know, they are fully aware that all their reasoning is bogus.
			:::] does not say we should not use the word "claim". It says, {{tq\|To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question}}. And that is exactly what we should be doing because the consensus in science is that all creationist reasoning is crap. Every reason they give is easy to refute for those who know what they are talking about. See . --] (]) 15:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
			::::To be clear, I am not stating that creationist reasoning is good, that is truly not my point. My #1 point, is that the sentence as it currently stands is inaccurate. Creation Science itself is not a claim. Creationism is a claim. Creation Science is an activity trying to prove the claim with pseudoscience. Creation Science is more accurately worded as an endeavor. ] (]) 05:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I see your point, but to change to "endeavor" would also then require rewording the rest of the sentence. They don't endeavor to offer SCIENTIFIC arguments, they endeavor to create and offer scientific SOUNDING or scientific APPEARING arguments.
			:::::I think that there is sometimes a balance between explicit, 100% accurate statements and concise statements, and for the first sentence of the lead, is is better to lean toward concision. ---''']]''' 01:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

			== Insufficient information ==
	=="Hypothesis"==

			The article says that certain theories are rejected by mainstream science, but doesn’t explain why. It’s simply states that Whitehole cosmology doesn’t correspond to observed evidence. I’d like to know what the observed evidence is And how Whitehole cosmology would be different if it were true. Just simply stating that you disagree with a theory is not doing your homework in a scientific investigation. I want to know why the theory is wrong. I want a theory that explains how the universe should look if the theory were true And why that evidence is contraindicated from a proper peer reviewed reference, journal if possible. If this is attempting to be scientific and not just arguing back-and-forth. “No, you’re wrong.” The information in this article does an insufficient job of explaining why current theory is accepted by Science are right and the other theory is wrong. Peer reviewed sources Should be included, please
	The current text reads:

			] (]) elrondaragorn ] (]) 20:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
	:''There are two main branches of creation science, one starting with an old earth hypothesis and the other starting with a young earth hypothesis.''
			: Have you read this about ? Have you read the sources in the article where White hole is mentioned? We can't do your work for you. As a ], it doesn't have enough ] for anything but short mention. Those are the rules here. Our content is based on reliable sources, not on fringe and unreliable sources. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 22:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

			== Scientific Consensus. ==
	The problem with this is that neither "old earth" nor "young earth" function as ] in the normal sense of the term since they are subject to the whims of biblical interpretation for their support rather than observation and falsification. A Young Earth Creationist will never permit the "hypothesis" of a young earth to be subject to the ] because they take it as a matter of faith that the earth is young. It is best not to mislead the readers into believing that creationists are actually engaging in the same methods of science that scientists do. Instead, I suggest the following:

			I am totally new to Misplaced Pages, sorry if I make mistakes. But I read somewhere in ] that, if I understand it correctly, though we must call pseudoscience pseudoscience, we must not make statements of whether it is true or false. Therefore, instead of saying "such and such a theory is false" we should say "the vast majority of scientists reject such a theory" or "this theory is unscientific." Even pseudoscientists agree. For example, on the topic of young earthism, I have a quote from Ken Ham saying "we are the minority."
	:''There are two main branches of creation science, one starting with a belief in an old earth and the other starting with a belief in a young earth.''

			Just wondering if I got this correct. Thank you! ] (]) 23:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
	This is more accurate a description of the manner in which creation science operates: belief first, looking for evidence to support that belief second.

			:Mind providing a specific quote for {{tq\|we must not make statements of whether it is true or false}}? I do not believe the section you linked supports that claim, and the relevant policy page clearly states {{tq\|Avoid stating facts as opinions.}} ] (] • ]) 00:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
	--] 15:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
			::It says, in section "giving equal validity" That "Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy certainly ''does not'' state, or imply, that we should or must "give equal validity" to minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) views. ''It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers'', but that does not stop us from describing the majority views ''as such'' and using the words of ] to present strong criticisms" ] (]) 18:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::By definition, sources supporting creation science are not ]. See ]. ] (]) 18:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Makes sense. ] (]) 18:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Also note, we don't make statements in the article of whether it is true or false, though we do describe the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. To comply with ] policy, the fringe or pseudoscientific view is clearly described as such, and an explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views is prominently included. Which includes noting that professional biologists have criticized creation science for being unscholarly, and even as a dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences. . . ], ] 10:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:44, 1 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Creation science article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion High‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Creationism: Young Earth creationism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Young Earth creationism task force (assessed as High-importance).

Skepticism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Creation science was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
Review: April 27, 2006. (Reviewed version).

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20	Archive 21

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Creation science
Talk:Scientific creationism (article was merged into this)

It has been suggested in these archives...

The following statements were discussed, not the result of the discussion.

that creation science claims creation is directly observable;
Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#CS assumes Creation is observable

Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#CS does not argue that Creation is observable

Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#Dan's unexplained reversions

Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#observed

Talk:Creation science/Archive 9#Fallacy in intro
that creation science is not a creationist ploy
Talk:Creation science/Archive 8

Talk:Creation science/Archive 1#Creation Science as propaganda
that creation science is not science;
Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#'Creation science is not science'; Fact or View

Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#Yet another vague interpretation of NPOV?

Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#Creation Science advocates disagree whether CS is science

Talk:Creation science/Archive 8#another entry

Talk:Creation science/Archive 5#What is the story of creation?

Talk:Creation science/Archive 4#Creation 'science'

Talk:Creation science/Archive 3#Science and empiricism - Pseudoscience

Talk:Creation science/Archive 3#Creation science is not natural science or social science

Talk:Creation science/Archive 2#Pseudoscience

Talk:Creation science/Archive 1#Disbelieve

Talk:Creation science/Archive 1#Creationism is not science
that science cannot allow for the supernatural
Talk:Creation science/Archive 5#supernatural
that the title is POV, as it suggests CS is science
Talk:Creation science/Archive 9#Incorrect title?

Talk:Creation science/Archive 9#Oh Puleeeeze!

Talk:Creation science/Archive 9#Request for comments: What's in a name? POV or SPOV?

Talk:Creation science/Archive 11#Non-science disclaimer
that criticism should be relegated to a seperate article or section;
Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#Separate Page for Criticisms?
that since evolution is not heavily criticised in its article, neither should CS be;
Talk:Creation science/Archive 9
that since no-one is trained to be a creation scientist, the term does not, should not exist
Talk:Creation science/Archive 9
that the term peer-review is used incorrectly
Talk:Creation science/Archive 13#Peer_review

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

] The anchor (#Naturalization vs. supernaturalization) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Fallacy

"The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community"

Appeal to consensus, followed by other claims about empiricism, which at basic level is mislabeled given the positions counter point also has no observable evolution.

More of why I no longer donate. 98.4.89.168 (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

See Fallacy fallacy. Evolution has notably been observed in Lenski's E. coli long-term experiment, and earlier, in peppered moth coloration during (and after) the Industrial Revolution. I expect this section will soon be deleted as inappropriate forum-style argumentation; I am entirely OK with such deletion. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Not a fallacy, except within the motivated reasoning of pseudoscience fans. By your reasoning, we would also have to dismiss the round Earth and the Periodic System of the elements, because both are consensus. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not in need of your sad allowance. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. 47.44.49.171 (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Explained at WP:VERECUNDIAM: for Misplaced Pages it's not a fallacy to appeal to authority. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Which of these six categories does creation science belong to?

Extended content

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Which does creation science belong to? WorldQuestioneer (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not a list of six categories. Maybe read the article lede; creation science is pseudoscience. PepperBeast (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Changing the word "claims" in the lede to "endeavors"

The current opening sentence states: "Creation science or scientific creationism is a pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible." I argue that the word "claims" should be replaced with "endeavors". Reasons:

. Its not precisely accurate. It implies that those who practice Creation Science have already completed what they set out to do. Creation Science practitioners are working towards that goal. As an analogy, the wikipedia page for Science also uses the word "endeavor".
. "Claim" is a word to use with extreme care because of the dismissive insinuations that come along with it(see MOS:CLAIM). We should avoid even the appearance of POV on Misplaced Pages.
. The word "endeavor" in no way gives Creation Science a sense that it is correct. Nobody is going to come away reading the sentence with the word "endeavor" and think "wow, this might actually be real science"! But with "claim" they might be more likely to come away thinking, "Wow, this was written by a bunch of atheists with a grudge." Epachamo (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

MOS:CLAIM doesn't say that we disregard what sources say. If the Creation scientists are CLAIMING that their arguments are scientific when those arguments are not, than the word claim is appropriate. If they are trying to find real scientific arguments that support their beliefs, than you would be correct. We should use what the sources describe this as. ---Avatar317 22:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I want to be clear that my contention has ZERO to do with whether creation science is a valid field of study (its not). Can you point to a source that uses the word "claim"? I'm dubious that's what the sources actually say. Epachamo (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the sources in this article; but if you want to change this, you should find what the sources say. ---Avatar317 23:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

you wrote: "We should use what the sources describe this." That's what I was referring to Epachamo (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

We do not even know whether they really endeavor to do that. We do know that they claim to do it. For all we know, they are fully aware that all their reasoning is bogus.

MOS:CLAIM does not say we should not use the word "claim". It says, To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question. And that is exactly what we should be doing because the consensus in science is that all creationist reasoning is crap. Every reason they give is easy to refute for those who know what they are talking about. See An Index to Creationist Claims. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not stating that creationist reasoning is good, that is truly not my point. My #1 point, is that the sentence as it currently stands is inaccurate. Creation Science itself is not a claim. Creationism is a claim. Creation Science is an activity trying to prove the claim with pseudoscience. Creation Science is more accurately worded as an endeavor. Epachamo (talk) 05:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I see your point, but to change to "endeavor" would also then require rewording the rest of the sentence. They don't endeavor to offer SCIENTIFIC arguments, they endeavor to create and offer scientific SOUNDING or scientific APPEARING arguments.

I think that there is sometimes a balance between explicit, 100% accurate statements and concise statements, and for the first sentence of the lead, is is better to lean toward concision. ---Avatar317 01:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Insufficient information

The article says that certain theories are rejected by mainstream science, but doesn’t explain why. It’s simply states that Whitehole cosmology doesn’t correspond to observed evidence. I’d like to know what the observed evidence is And how Whitehole cosmology would be different if it were true. Just simply stating that you disagree with a theory is not doing your homework in a scientific investigation. I want to know why the theory is wrong. I want a theory that explains how the universe should look if the theory were true And why that evidence is contraindicated from a proper peer reviewed reference, journal if possible. If this is attempting to be scientific and not just arguing back-and-forth. “No, you’re wrong.” The information in this article does an insufficient job of explaining why current theory is accepted by Science are right and the other theory is wrong. Peer reviewed sources Should be included, please

elrondaragorn (talk) elrondaragorn elrondaragorn (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you read this about White hole cosmology? Have you read the sources in the article where White hole is mentioned? We can't do your work for you. As a fringe theory, it doesn't have enough due weight for anything but short mention. Those are the rules here. Our content is based on reliable sources, not on fringe and unreliable sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Scientific Consensus.

I am totally new to Misplaced Pages, sorry if I make mistakes. But I read somewhere in here that, if I understand it correctly, though we must call pseudoscience pseudoscience, we must not make statements of whether it is true or false. Therefore, instead of saying "such and such a theory is false" we should say "the vast majority of scientists reject such a theory" or "this theory is unscientific." Even pseudoscientists agree. For example, on the topic of young earthism, I have a quote from Ken Ham saying "we are the minority."

Just wondering if I got this correct. Thank you! Lenderthrond (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Mind providing a specific quote for we must not make statements of whether it is true or false? I do not believe the section you linked supports that claim, and the relevant policy page clearly states Avoid stating facts as opinions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

It says, in section "giving equal validity" That "Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we should or must "give equal validity" to minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers, but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such and using the words of reliable sources to present strong criticisms" Lenderthrond (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

By definition, sources supporting creation science are not WP:RS. See WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. Lenderthrond (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Also note, we don't make statements in the article of whether it is true or false, though we do describe the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. To comply with WP:PSCI policy, the fringe or pseudoscientific view is clearly described as such, and an explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views is prominently included. Which includes noting that professional biologists have criticized creation science for being unscholarly, and even as a dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences. . . dave souza, talk 10:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: