
#REDIRECT Creation science
[[Image:Creation vs evolution debate.jpg|frame|right|''Creation Magazine'' is a publication supporting young-earth creationist beliefs. This issue examines whether dinosaurs perished in Noah's ark.]] Creation science (or CS) is described by its proponents as a scientific effort to study the Earth, life, and the universe from the perspective of Creationism. It is primarily concerned with issues such as the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, evolution, a flood geology and the human evolution. Its proponents are found primarily among various denominations of Christianity who describe themselves generally as evangelical, conservative or Fundamentalist Christianity Christians. However, not all Christians subscribe to creation science, and not all Christians who subscribe to Creation science describe themselves as conservative or fundamentalist Christians. Most mainstream Christian churches, including the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran faiths have rejected "Creation Science" outright. Mainstream theology considers Genesis a poetic work as opposed to one to be taken literally. Creationist movements also exist in the Baha'i faith, Islam, and Judaism, however these movements do not use the phrase ''creation science'' to describe their beliefs. The term ''creation science'' is used predominantly by American Christian groups (as described above) [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_statc.htm] who are the proponents of the philosophy. The vast majority of scientists consider 'creation science' to be pseudoscience and a misnomer. When the ideas encompassed by creation science are subjected to the scrutiny of scientific criticism or peer-review, they are found to lack scientific foundation, objective criticism of evidence, or scientific method. Additionaly, the foundation of Creation Science does not fit the most common definition of science as it relies on scripture as a historically accurate or literally true ''a priori'' source. Refer to the section on #Scientific criticisms of creation science. Creation science relies heavily on the belief that scientists should permit positing supernatural events where naturalistic explanations are found to contradict scripture or are believed to be otherwise inadequate. Proponents take the view that Creation according to Genesis is historically accurate and/or inerrant and that the observable physical evidence is more fully consistent with the account of Genesis than with generally accepted theories of biological evolution and natural history. As such, they interpret physical evidence within the framework of a literal and history interpretation of Creation according to Genesis and reject all mainstream scientific knowledge at odds with this view. == Philosophy and theology == Creation science is described by its proponents as a synthesis of science and religion, as it attempts to draw on both sources in developing its theories. As such, it differs both from pure creationist theology and from the widely accepted philosophy of science which excludes supernatural claims. It shares many similarities with other pseudosciences which nominally use the guise or trappings of scientific jargon and terminology to mask what most scientific skepticism consider to be a fundamental disconnect with the scientific method and the scientific consensus of the scientific community. Developed along the lines of young earth creationist theology, creation science presumes the historical accuracy of creation according to Genesis. Most adherents to creation science believe it to be Biblical inerrancy. Unlike creationist theology, creation science adopts some features of scientific language and criticism as a means to validate its claims about events in the past. For example, adherents to creation science refer often to supposed "scientific evidence" that they claim is consistent with the young Earth interpretation of Genesis. Oftentimes the interpretations of the evidence does not hold up to scrutiny and has been roundly criticized by those on the mainstream science side of the creation-evolution controversy. Unlike mainstream science creation science holds that the study of natural phenomena can reveal evidence of supernatural events and direct action by God. === "Operational science" and "Origins science" === In addition to allowing for supernatural events in history, creation science proponents also distinguish between what they call "operational science" and "origins science." Operational science, according to creation science advocates, involves the laws and phenomena of nature which are repeatable and testable through experiment; for instance, the laws of gravity, chemistry, and microevolution. However, advocates of creation science assert that issues of "origins science" are different from issues of "operational science," because they involve one-time events which cannot be observed or repeated, but can only be inferred from the evidence. Asserted examples of such issues in origins science are common ancestry, the age of the Earth, historical geology, and physical cosmology in which the ability of scientists to study the issues is limited by the available evidence, because the actual events cannot be observed first-hand. It is argued that in issues of "origins science," conclusions are much more tentative due to the unrepeatable nature of the events, that the conclusions are therefore much more subject to philosophical bias than in "operational science," and that "origins science" therefore admits multiple possible interpretations of the evidence. The consistent basis for such a bifurcation of science is not clear. The nature of a observation is the point of contention between advocates of creation science and those opposed to it. In mainstream science, all empirical evidence is given equal weight in the consideration of whether a hypothesis is falsification. The creation science proponent distinguishes between evidence in a fashion that is not generally accepted, in general discounting evidence that doesn't tend to support the ideas associated with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Radiometric dating is an often maligned by creation science advocates even though it is tied principally to observations which are repeatable and testable with experiment. "Operational science" would therefore be "any scientific theory that doesn't tend to contradict a creationist interpretation of Genesis" while "Origins science" would be "any scientific theory that does tend to contradict a creationist interpretation of Genesis". === Science and religion === Creation science has been considered by many to be "religion" placing itself in conflict with "science." According to this view, creation science is religious, rather than scientific, because it stems from the Bible, a "religious book." Acceptance of creation is thus "by faith," and not by the application of the scientific method. For example, the National Academy of Sciences wrote: :"Religious opposition to evolution propels antievolutionism. Although antievolutionists pay lip service to supposed scientific problems with evolution, what motivates them to battle its teaching is apprehension over the implications of evolution for religion."[http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4550_antievolutionism_and_creationi_2_13_2001.asp] Alternatively, creationists attribute the conflict between the theories to varying philosophical presuppositions which, they argue, affect a scientist's interpretation of the evidence. For example, David Bergman, a creationist physicist, attributes the conflict to two fundamentally different worldviews: on the one hand, atomism, which excludes supernatural action in the universe and holds that random events occur in nature; on the other hand, Creationism, which holds that the universe depends for its existence on God, and that the laws of nature are a result of his design and plan. Evolution, he argues, is merely a modern iteration of the ancient philosophy of Lucretius articulated in his work, On the Nature of Things. [http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/conflict.pdf] Under this creationist definition of science, creation science and mainstream science are both "sciences" which are grounded in opposing philosophies, so that the same methods and same evidence lead to opposite conclusions due to the underlying philosophical assumptions of the scientist. This argumentation is rejected as being a poor form of self justification by means of totally redefining science to fit creationists' own ends. Uniformitarianism, for example, is rejected by those supporting creation science by means of redefining science to include accomodations for other ideas about what could happen in the past because any induction (philosophy) contrary to Genesis cannot be true. Creation science is related to intelligent design which makes similar kinds of justification for its goals. The two ideas differ in that intelligent design proponents claim to not make any theological assumptions, they don't admit to considering Genesis to be an accurate scientific account of origins, nor do they necessarily oppose evolution (evolutionary creationism). Critics note that the intelligent design movement was started (by many of the same individuals previously campaigning for creationism) after attempts to get creation science in public classrooms met major opposition due to constitutional Separation of church and state issues in the United States. === Science and the supernatural === Creation science is closely linked to the issue of whether scientific endeavor permits the recognition of supernatural phenomena. The normal definition of supernatural events is anything not existing or observable in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws or not physical or material. Science, by necessity, is unable to consider such supernatural phenomena as evidence because a primary tenet of science is that nature, being widely observable, provides the only objective standard from which to evaluate evidence. By definition supernatural phenomena violate the natural laws, and are therefore inherently unfalsifiable and unscientific. The supernatural is not ruled out a priori; when supernatural claims produce observable results that can be studied scientifically they have been considered and studied [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10836918&dopt=Citation] [http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/132/11/903]. Adherents to creation science and proponents of intelligent design hold a different position. According to Intelligent Design proponent William Dembski, the proper application of science permits positing supernatural events, because supernatural phenomena should not be seen as ''violating'' the laws of nature, but instead as events reflecting a deeper, more fundamental physical reality than that which we understand. For example, a person on an island who has never seen an airplane fly before may think the airplane is "supernatural," because it appears to him to be "magic." However, from the perspective of greater knowledge, the airplane is fully natural -- it simply operates according to laws of nature which are unknown to the man on the island. This effectively redefines the supernatural to account for the natural, and most scientists would consider such an adjustment to be inappropriate as do many fideism. In the context of Genesis, creationists believe that Creation according to Genesis is a historically accurate account of the origins of the Earth, and that the physical evidence today is more consistent with that account than with the scientific theories of origins. The fact that the recorded events defy much of our current scientific knowledge is seen as an opportunity to explore and understand the spectacular events recorded in Genesis in order to expand our knowledge of science and history, rather than a reason to deny those events occurred at all. This type of reasoning flies in the face of falsification, trying to justify an account rather than looking for independent empirical evidence. From the perspective of mainstream science there is no useful definition of 'supernatural.' In most definitions, anything having an effect on nature makes that something a part of nature itself, the same point made by William Dembski. It follows that any explanation for something we see in nature would be considered natural by definition. Since nothing truly supernatural could be observed the only way science could reach a supernatural explanation is to eliminate all natural explanations; but it is impossible to ever know that all possibilities have been eliminated. Even if scientists were to conclude that a supernatural explanation is correct, it would be impossible even in principle to distinguish between one supernatural explanation and another; thus determining the correct supernatural explanation among many is again impossible. It is primarily for this reason that science came to adopt Naturalism_%28philosophy%29 as a cornerstone of the scientific method. The fact that there are many mutually exclusive supernatural claims with no credible method available to judge their veracity leads to the various faiths insisting that their supernatural explanation be taught as science to the exclusion of any other religious or scientific interpretations. === Creation science and parsimony === The mainstream scientific position is that where multiple explanations are available, each of which explains a phenomenon, scientists should prefer the theory which requires the fewest assumptions. This principle is known as Occam's razor, which suggests that new, more complicated principles or entities should not be posited if existing principles already provide an explanation. Creation science is often criticized for positing supernatural forces or beings in order to explain events than can be explained without them. The position of mainstream science has been that evolution alone is sufficient to explain life and its appearance, and positing a supernatural creator is unnecessary. A counterpoint to Occam's razor lies in Occam's Razor#Chatton's Anti-razor, which suggests, "If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on". Karl Menger articulated a similar principle: "Entities must not be reduced to the point of inadequacy" and "It is vain to do with fewer what requires more". Creationists argue that naturalistical models of the origin of life and macroevolution are inadequate because they fail to effectively explain the origin of life and the origins of irreducible complexity and specified complexity. Since Chatton's anti-razor holds that entities should not be reduced to the point of inadequacy, it is argued, a designer should not be ruled out unless and until naturalistic explanations are adequate. Thus, much of the literature about creation science is devoted to criticizing mainstream science, often taking issues, debates, and small discrepencies discovered by scientists working in the scientific paradigm and declaring that the problems indicate that the entire endeavor is wrong. Adherents of creation science also suggest that it is no more parsimony to posit an ostensibly unobserved and unexplained chemical mechanism for the above phenomenon than to posit an unexplained but ostensibly subjectively experienced designer, so that neither is ruled out by Occam's razor until one or the other is comprehensively observed, explained, and/or demonstrated. What the creationist means by "unobserved" or "unexplained" is subject to modification according to exactly how the criticism is levied. A common tactic, for example, is to claim that there is no evolutionary mechanism that can explain a particular biochemical process, and then when a mechanism is proposed, to claim that such a process has never been observed, and then when the process is duplicated in the lab, to claim that such a process wasn't observed in nature. In this way, evidence is continually dismissed as inconclusive by the creationist, leaving the only conclusion, in the eyes of the creationist, to be that God must have done it. Those criticizing this position argue that Chatton's anti-razor is not a principal tenet of the scientific method and that religious beliefs do not count as valid hypotheses; allowing God as an explaination is not open to verification nor validation. They also argue that creationism as an explanation is not an affirmative proposition. For an explanation to be an affirmative proposition it must explain why something is one way instead of an alternative way in a manner that accounts for or aligns with a broad range of, if not all, evidence and phenomena beyond the subject at hand. But requiring an assumed God to be the explanation posits that the correct description only need account for what is descibed in Genesis and does not address the scientific evidence. Thus, creationism is an entirely unnecessary entity and, by Occam's Razor, eliminated. == Subjects within creation science == Subjects within creation science can be into split into three broad categories, each covering a different area of origins research; creationist cosmologies, flood geology, and creation biology. === Creation biology === Creation biology states that life was created by God in a finite number of created kinds rather than through biological evolution. It also claims that much of the currently observable speciation took place through inbreeding and harmful mutations during a proposed population bottleneck after the great flood of Noah's ark, which they claim was an actual historical event that happened exactly as described in the Bible. Creation biology argues against biological evolution (see creation-evolution controversy). Popular arguments against evolution have changed over the years since the publishing of Henry M. Morris's first book on the subject, ''Scientific Creationism'', but these themes often arise: missing links as an indication that evolution is incomplete, arguments based on entropy, complexity, and information theory, arguments claiming that natural selection is an impossible mechanism, and general criticism of the conclusions drawn from natural history as lacking experimental basis. The human evolution is particularly hotly contested; the fossil remains of hominid ancestors are not considered by advocates of creation biology to be evidence for a speciation event involving homo sapiens. === Flood geology === Flood geology is based on the belief that many of Earth's geological formations were created by the global flood described in the story of Noah's ark. Fossils and fossil fuels are believed by its followers to have formed from animal and plant matter which was buried rapidly during this flood, while submarine canyon extensions are explained as having formed during a rapid runoff from the continents after the seafloors dropped. Sedimentary strata are described as sediments predominantly laid down after Noah's flood. In addition to the above ideas that are in opposition to the principles of geology, advocates of flood geology reject uniformitarianism geology and radiometric dating. === Creationist cosmologies === Several attempts have been made to construct a cosmology consistent with a young universe rather than the standard cosmological age of the universe, based on the belief that Genesis describes the creation of the universe as well as the Earth. The primary challenge for young universe cosmologies is that the accepted distances in the universe require millions or billions of years for light to travel to Earth. Cosmology is not as widely discussed as creation biology or flood geology, for several reasons. First, many creationists, particularly old earth creationists and intelligent design creationists do not dispute that the universe may be billions of years old. Secondly, some creationists who believe that the Earth was created in the timeframe described in a literal interpretation of Genesis believe that Genesis describes only the creation of the ''Earth'', rather than the creation of the entire universe, allowing for both a young Earth and an old universe. == Scientific criticisms of creation science == Creationists often claim that creationism, and more specifically creation science, is not only scientific, but that it is even more scientific than evolution. This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science, is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as Scientific_method it must be: * consistent (internally and externally) * Parsimony (sparing in proposed entities or explanations) * useful (describes and explains observed phenomena) * empirically testable and Falsifiability * based upon controlled, repeatable experiments * correctable and dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered) * progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more) * tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty) For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it simply cannot be treated as scientific in any sense of the word. On these points, the National Academy of Sciences said: :''Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence. Furthermore, the claims of creation science do not refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to meaningful tests, so they do not qualify as scientific hypotheses. In 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that creationism is religion, not science, and cannot be advocated in public school classrooms. [http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0482_0578_ZS.html] And most major religious groups have concluded that the concept of evolution is not at odds with their descriptions of creation and human origins. [http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/preface.html]'' Specific objections raised against creationism as actual science include: * ''Creationism is not falsifiable.'' Theism is not falsifiable, since the existence of God is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. God being a transcendental being, beyond the realm of the observable, claims about its existence can neither be supported nor undermined by observation, hence making creationism, the argument from design and other arguments for the existence of God a posteriori arguments. (See also the section on #Creation science and falsifiability, below) * ''Creationism violates the principle of parsimony.'' Creationism fails to pass Occam's razor. Adding supernatural entities to the equation is not strictly necessary to explain events. * ''Creationism is not empirically testable.'' That creationism is not empirically testable stems from the fact that creationism violates a basic premise of science, naturalism (Philosophy). * ''Creationism is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.'' Creationism professes to be the absolute Truth, the word of God, not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. Once it is claimed that the Truth has been established, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data as well as any future data. It is often given as a justification for the naturalistic basis of science. In any practical sense of the concept, creationism is not progressive: it does not explain or expand upon what went before it and is not consistent with established ancillary theories. In light of its lack of adherence to the standards of the scientific method, Creationism, and specifically Creation Science, cannot be said to be scientific. *The hypothesis/solution is not based on analysis and observation of the empirical world - rather, it comes directly from the Bible. *There is no way to test the theory. *The underlying assumptions of creationism are not open to change. Scientists note that Creation Science differs from mainstream science in that it begins with an assumption, then attempts to find evidence to support that assumption. Conversely, science sets out to learn about the world through the collection of empirical evidence and the use of the scientific method. Historically, the debate of whether Creationism is compatible with science can be traced back to 1874, the influential science historian John William Draper published his 'History of the Conflict between Religion and Science'. In it, he portrayed the entire history of scientific development as a war against religion. This somewhat skewed presentation of historical fact was propagated further by such prestigious followers as Andrew Dickson White in his essay 'A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom'. Some opponents consider Creation Science to be an ideology and politics motivated propaganda tool whose purpose is to promote the creationist agenda in society. They allege that the term "Creation Science" was chosen to purposely blur the distinction between science and religion, thereby undeservedly legitimizing creationism by association to science. === Creation science and falsifiability === Creation Science is commonly called unfalsifiable by prominent members of the mainstream scientific community. Falsifiability was proposed by Karl Popper as a criterion for whether an idea should be considered scientific. If no experiment could be devised which would prove a theory false, then the theory was not a function of science, but rather Metaphysics or pseudoscience. Popper argued that certain ideas, such as Freudian psychology, were not falsifiable, because any possible observation could be fit into the theory, so that the theory, although not necessarily false, were metaphysical, rather than strictly scientific. He classified theories into three broad categories based on how falsifiable they were: :''"...There will be well-testable theories, hardly testable theories, and non-testable theories. Those which are non-testable are of no interest to empirical scientists. They may be described as metaphysical."'' Popper, Karl, Conjectures and Refutations (New York: Basic Books, 1963), p. 257. Many prominent scientists have argued that "Creation Science" is an oxymoron and purely metaphysical, because it is unfalsifiable. For example, Stephen Jay Gould wrote in "Hens' Teeth And Horses' Toes": :''"Scientific creationism" is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified. I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science. Lest I seem harsh or rhetorical, I quote creationism's leading intellectual, Duane Gish, Ph.D. from his recent (1978) book, Evolution? The Fossils Say No! "By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation. We do not know how the Creator created, what process He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe [Gish's italics]. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator."'' Pray tell, Dr. Gish, in the light of your last sentence, what then is scientific creationism? Later in the same book, he says: :''The individual claims are easy enough to refute with a bit of research. Creationists themselves have been forced to retreat from the more embarrassing items. Noted creationist Henry Morris, for example, has often cited the supposed footprints of dinosaurs and humans together in rocks of the Paluxy River of Texas. But creationist Leonard Brand attributes some of the "human" prints to erosion and others to a three-toed dinosaur. He also adds: "We do know that there was a fellow during the Depression who carved tracks."'' Phillip Quinn, a philosopher of religion and science, thinks that being able to falsify creationist arguments automatically means being able to falsify creationism itself, and therefore sees a contradiction between Gould's two quotes above: :''"Unfortunately, the patently false claim that creation science is neither testable nor falsifiable seems well on its way to becoming, for some evolutionary biologists, a rhetorical stick with which to belabor their creationist opponents. In a recent collection of essays, Stephen Jay Gould claims that "'scientific creationism' is a self-contradictory nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified' ... Gould goes on to contradict himself by asserting that "the individual claims are easy enough to refute with a bit of research." Indeed some of them are! But since they are easily refuted by research, they are after all falsifiable and, hence, testable. This glaring inconsistency is the tip-off to the fact that talk about testability and falsifiability functions as verbal abuse and not a serious argument in Gould's anti-creationist polemics."'' Creationists acknowledge that some aspects of creationism are unfalsifiable, but assert that other aspects are falsifiable. They claim parts of their beliefs are very difficult to falsify solely because the related events took place in the distant past. Opponents say that all the falsifiable parts have been falsified. Creationists also argue that the unfalsifiability of an idea does not necessarily mean that the idea is false, but only that contemporary scientists lack the tools to test it effectively. However, this has no bearing on whether or not the arguments of Creationists are true or false, but whether they are scientific. Creationists see the unfalsifiable aspects of the theory as ambiguities in the idea, rather than cause to dismiss the idea out of hand. Finally, they assert that many aspects of evolutionary theory are also unfalsifiable, such as common ancestry between humans and apes. They claim that no falsifying experiment could be conducted to test that theory, so a theory need not be ''wholly'' falsifiable in order to be considered scientific.[http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/falsify.htm] In the first quote above, Gould disagrees: :''I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs.'' About Creationist methodology, he says: :''Since we proposed punctuated equilibrium to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge...are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."'' == History == Within the history of creationism, creationism was originally based purely on theology. The vast majority of Church Fathers and Reformers accepted Genesis straightforwardly, and even the few who did not, such as Origen and Augustine, defended an earth that was on the order of thousands of years old. When geologists revised the age of the Earth to millions of years, some writers looked to studying geology within the Biblical timeframe detailed in the Ussher-Lightfoot calendar. In the first half of the nineteenth century, the leaders were the scriptural geologists in Britain. About a century later, the Canadian George McCready Price, wrote extensively on the subject. However, the concept only revived during the 1960s following the publication of ''The Genesis Flood'' by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb. Subsequently, creation science has expanded into biology and cosmology. However, efforts to have it legislated to be taught in schools in the United States were eventually halted by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment in Edwards v. Aguillard 1987. == See also == *Creationism *Intelligent Design *Pseudoscience *Cargo cult science == References == ["The philosopher of science as expert witness", p. 43, in Cushing, J., Delaney, C.F. & Gutting, G., Science and reality: Recent Work in the Philosophy of Science, University of Notre Dame Press, 1984]}} == Bibliography == A history of the revival of this form of Creationism can be found in Ronald L. Numbers, ''The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992),'' but gives a somewhat distored picture in that it is limited to 20th century and is concerned only with the movement in the USA, while neglecting significant groups in Great Britain, Europe and Australia. E.g. it ignores the [http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/T_Mortenson.asp#bookinfo 19th century Scriptural Geologists] and the [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp#fathers virtually universal support for YEC among the Church Fathers and Reformers]. === Creation science === *Batten, Don, Editor ''The Answers Book'' ISBN 0-949906-23-9 (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999) *Morris, Henry M., ed., ''Scientific Creationism'' ISBN 0-89052-003-2 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985) *Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, ''What is Creation Science?'' ISBN 0-89051-081-4 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987) *Mortenson, Terry, ''The Great Turning Point: The Church's Catastrophic Mistake on Geology — Before Darwin'' ISBN 0-89051-408-9 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004) *Wilder-Smith, A. E., ''Man's Origin, Man's Destiny'' ISBN 0-87123-356-8 (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968) *Sarfati, Jonathan, ''Refuting Evolution'' ISBN 0-890512-58-2 (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999) *Sarfati, Jonathan, ''Refuting Evolution 2'' ISBN 0-890513-87-2 (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 2002) *Sarfati, Jonathan, ''Refuting Compromise'' ISBN 0-890514-11-9 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004) *Woodmorappe, John, ''Studies in Flood Geology'' ISBN 0-932766-54-4 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993) *Woodmorappe, John, ''Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study'' ISBN 0-932766-41-2 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996) *Woodmorappe, John, ''The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods'' ISBN 0-932766-57-9 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999) *Wilder-Smith, A. E., ''Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory'' ISBN 9-99213-967-6 (Costa Mesa, CA: TWFT Publishers, 1987) *Whitcomb, John C. and Henry Morris, ''The Genesis Flood'' ISBN 0-87552-338-2 (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964) *Roth, Ariel A., ''Origins—Linking Science and Scripture'' ISBN 0-8280-1328-4 (Hagarstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1998) === Criticism === * Bates, V. L., 1976, Christian Fundamentalism and the Theory of Evolution in Public School Education: A Study of the Creation Science Movement [Ph.D. dissert.]: University of California, Davis. * Lewin, R., 1982, Where is the Science in Creation science? ''Science'' 215, pp. 142–146. * Vawter, B., 1983, Creationism: Creative Misuse of the Bible, in Frye, R. M., ed., ''Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case Against Creation-Science'' (New York, Scribner's Sons), p. 71–82. == External links == ===Neutral=== *[http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0482_0578_ZS.html Edwards v. Aguillard] 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling preventing the teaching of creation science in public school science classrooms === Creation science === * [http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research] * [http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers in Genesis] * [http://www.drdino.com/ Creation Science Evangelism] * [http://www.trueorigin.org/ The True.Origin Archive] ** [http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp List of Articles Supporting Creation] * [http://www.creationresearch.org/ Creation Research Society] * [http://www.creationequation.com/ CreationDigest.com] * [http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/index.htm Creation Insights] * [http://www.creationscience.com Center for Scientific Creation] * [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2575 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American's Nonsense] - ApologeticsPress.org Rebuttal === Criticism === * [http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm No Answers in Genesis website] * [http://www.creationtheory.org Creationism vs. Science] * [http://www.talkorigins.org Talk.Origins Archive] ** [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html Index of Creationist claims with rebuttals] ** [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html Talkorigins.org article on What is Creationism?] * [http://www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=10 National Science Teachers Association] Position Statement: The Teaching of Evolution * [http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp National Association of Biology Teachers] Statement on Teaching Evolution * [http://www.ncseweb.org/ National Center for Science Education] * [http://atheism.about.com/religion/atheism/cs/creationism/index.htm About creationism] * [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/ creationism] * [http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064066/html/ Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences] by the Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences * [http://omnibus.uni-freiburg.de/~riexinge/EvolutionIslam.html Links to Islamic creationist and anti-creationists websites] * [http://www.skepdic.com/creation.html Skeptics Dictionary] Introduction and criticism of creationism. * [http://www.scicom.lth.se/fmet/myths.html Origin Myths] Introduction to a number of alternative origin myths from varied cultures around the world * [http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense] - Scientific American creationism pseudoscience
== Archives == :::Still relevant discussions are linked to as well. /Archive 1 - (/Archive 1#Creationism is not science) /Archive 2 - (/Archive 2#Pseudoscience) /Archive 3 - (/Archive 3#Creation science is not natural science or social science) /Archive 4 - (/Archive 4#Massive Edit) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Creation science ==Problems with the intro== A couple of points. First, the term "fundamentalist" is not a perjorative term depending on the context. In this context, it refers simply to someone who takes the view that Biblical Creation is fundamentally correct. Referring to people as "conservative" Christians is not factually correct and is unsupported by any evidence. Conservatism is a political viewpoint and the article is about religious views. While it is true that the majority of Fundamentalist Christians are politically conservative, there is nothing to suggest that all of them are. Therefore, describing Fundamentalist Christians as "conservative" is an unsupported claim. Also, the statement that there are non-Christians who endorse Creation Science is not supported and highly questionable. While it isn't possible to say that ''all'' supporters of Creation Science are Christians, there isn't a single shred of evidence provided that even one non-Christian supports it. Until and unless there is, the statement should be considered unsupported and misleading.--User:JonGwynne 02:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Creation science is supported by a variety of theologically conservative Christians, including Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals/Charismatics and others (and there are significant differences, even if you'd like to mass them all together). The Associated Press, in recognition of the pejorative nature of the term "fundamentalist" as it is often used, says in their stylebook only to use the term for those who use it for themselves. Making this the Wikipedia policy would be a good way to get the NPOV we all desire. Thus I'm removing the POV once again. User:Pollinator 03:37, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC) ::However, the way the intro is phrased, it implies that non-Christians support CS which is extremely doubtful. Again, "fundamentalist" is not a pejorative term - it is used by Christians to describe themselves. For this reason, it is not POV despite your unsupported insistence to the contrary. --User:JonGwynne 15:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Your rewrite is even more POV than the start. I've therefore reverted it, along with a vandalized link. User:Pollinator 20:10, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC) ::Most POV is the sentence (which I changed) that states that CS rejects information. Specifically CS will reject interpretations of data, but it is highly pejorative to suggest that CS will reject data. User:Wdanwatts 17:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Perhaps it would be better if you defined the difference. It seems pretty clear and unambiguous that CS supporters reject data - data for example that have to do with the age of the universe.--User:JonGwynne 19:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::Perhaps you could understand that photons are not rejected as being non-existant. User:Wdanwatts 21:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::Sorry, your point is? --User:JonGwynne 18:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::My point, elucidated by the example I wrote above: measuring light from distant stars (photons) is DATA. Someone, using Hubble red-shift, "standard candle" apparent brightness objects, etc. converts the measurement (DATA) to an age (THEORY). The CS rejection concerns the THEORY items, not DATA. Was that clear? User:Wdanwatts 20:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::Yes, thank you, that is much clearer. What I hear you saying is that Creation Science proponents reject the conclusions drawn from data collected by astronomers that strongly suggests that the universe is more than ~6,000 years old and that they reject these conclusions because they conflict with the letter of Genesis? Is my analysis correct? --User:JonGwynne 01:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::::Yes. User:Wdanwatts 01:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::::OK, then what's the problem? The CS advocates are not only rejecting interpretations of data, they're also rejecting data - why? Because they conflict with the writings of people several thousand years ago who didn't have the same understanding of physics and chemistry that we do today. Is my analysis correct? --User:JonGwynne 00:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::What DATA is being rejected? I'm NOT talking about interpretations, but DATA. Measurements. Volts, amps, photons. User:Wdanwatts 01:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::::::How about the age of the earth for one thing? Leaving red-shifts aside for a moment, geologists have demonstrated how to determine the age of the earth and while they may not have established the age to absolute precision, they've conclusively demonstrated that however old the earth may be, it is vastly older than Biblical Creationists believe it to be using Genesis as the basis for their claim. In other words, it is simply impossible to take Genesis literally without ignoring some basic facts about how the world works. That's why the Creationists have started coming up with desperate rationalizations like arguing about how long the initial "Seven Days" of creation lasted... These people haven't yet figured out that Genesis is a parable and not meant to be taken literally. --User:JonGwynne 07:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::::O.K., look at the determination of the Age of the Earth. "[C. C.] Patterson developed the uranium-lead dating method and, based on lead and uranium isotopic data from the meteorite Canyon Diablo [which is associated with the Barringer Crater ], calculated an age for the Earth of 4.55 billion years." CS takes issue with the assumptions (THEORY) necessary to make the uranium-lead calculated age. CS does not reject the uranium and lead isotopic DATA from the meteorite. Next? User:Wdanwatts 15:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::::::::All well and good but to continue to insist that the earth is only ~6,000 years old requires the rejection of data. Even Christian scientists like Dr. Roger Wiens are being forced to disappoint those who want to take Genesis literally by explaining to them how it simply isn't possible. --User:JonGwynne 00:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::::::No. It requires the rejection of an interpretation of data. The calculation of age for rocks is not data. The calculation of age is (hopefully) based upon data. There is no (known to me) 'timeometer' which measures age. What rejected DATA (density, relative abundances, counts of 'X', etc.) are you speaking of? User:Wdanwatts 15:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::::::::::All data is subject to interpretation. It's what Hume described as "sensory input" and Kant described as "phenomena". None of them have any ''meaning'' except by means of interpretation. When it is said that creationists reject data, it is necessary that they are rejecting interpretation of a phenomenon. Data itself is the interpretation of sensory input. So your playing with semantics is meaningless. Creationists reject both the content of rocks that are dated and the radiometric measurements of the content of those rocks. Thus they reject the data. User:Joshuaschroeder 16:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::I deny that the measured contents of rocks or the radiometric measurements are rejected, but due to the number of times that I have stated it, I will not argue the point any more. User:Wdanwatts 19:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::Your denial of this fact is noted, but I have seen more than a few creationist sites purporting to show that the way that isotope contents of rocks are measured is wrong. User:Joshuaschroeder 20:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::::Assumptions do not make a theory. you're playing with the meaning of the word here. User:JonGwynne is right of course - "creation scientists" reject all conclusions in the mainstream peer-reviewed scientific literature incompatible with their views. I've amended the wording accordingly. Wikipedia is about the real world, not about the situation as this or any other cult would define it. User:Ian Pitchford 12:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) :"The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter — 'tis the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning." - Mark Twain [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Twain#Miscellaneous]. The difference between rejecting data and rejecting interpretations OF data is at least that large. What User:JonGwynne wrote is wrong. However, even though I personally don't care for the choice of the word "knowledge" in the sentence in question, I will not challenge (nor change) the sentence as it stands. User:Wdanwatts 14:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::The above was written before JonGwynne's latest change. I retract my decision on the sentence as User:JonGwynne has left it. User:Wdanwatts 20:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) The phrase "Its proponents are mostly conservative Christians, although there are other supporters" is completely unacceptable. Here's why: First, it is inaccurate. Describing fundamentalist Christians as "conservative" is inaccurate. Not all of them are conservative. Besides, conservatism is a political qualifier, not a religious one. Second, the phrasing implies that there are supportes of Creation Science other than Christians and that is a highly questionable assertion without any support. Therefore, I have removed it (again). Please do not reinstate it unless you can provide support for these highly questionably claims.--User:JonGwynne 00:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Newest rewrite proposal == I have edited the /Phantym rewrite proposal to remove about half of the challenges to evolutionism. I also added a challenge to creationism by evolutionists [there are now 5]. Those 13 represent the most prominent issues on both sides, and every one of them has criticism from the opposite side as well as an article linked discussing the issue in more detail from a scientific perspective. I also removed some unneded stuff, like the discussion of creationist cosmologies, which is duplicated in the main article. I could see cut some more things down. For example, the main issues could be articles in and of themselves, and that process could be achieved without too much difficulty. I have also changed the section discussing how scientists on both sides have been quick to find evidence supproting their theories, in some cases too quick. That section is now labelled "finding what they are looking for" and has two examples from each side now. Note that the rewrite contains approx. half of the current article within it. -User:Phantym Why are you still here. Shouldn't you be off ripping up textbooks somewhere? User:Bensaccount :Why are you attacking User:Phantym? Isn't that considered bad form? User:Wdanwatts 19:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Bad form is spreading propaganda without any regard for reality. I am merely suggesting an alternate activity, which I am sure you and Phantym would enjoy more. User:Bensaccount 19:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==What's the problem with calling Fundamentalist Christians Fundamentalist Christians?== Why do some people object to this? --User:JonGwynne 07:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) :It has become a derisive label, especially following the rise of fundamentalist islam. It is covers only some of the Christian groups who believe in Creation and the Bible. A "broader" term is "evangelicals" or "conservative Christians". (so I've changed it to that). User:Rossnixon 08:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Who cares if it isn't "PC"? The fact is that it is an accurate description of a group of people. You know how I know this? Because these people refer to themselves as Fundamentalist Christians. It isn't a dirty word in all situations. --User:JonGwynne 19:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Ross is right, but there's more, as I've already explained. Why the frenetic desire to place a label? 99% of the time, when people try to apply the label, they have little real idea of what a fundamentalist Christian is. The three main groups in this arena are Evangelicals (including those within "mainline" churches), Pentecostals, and Fundamentalists, but there are others as well. Some Jews are young earth creationists, as are some Muslims. Then again, some Evangelicals are old earth creationists, and some are evolutionary creationists, neither of which would advocate "creation science," as it's commonly understood. The real question is, why are you so compulsive about pigeonholing? User:Pollinator 09:04, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) ::This is an encylopedia article - it is all about putting labels on things. --User:JonGwynne 19:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Stop wasting everyones time Pollinator. We all know you think your interpretation of every word in the sacred texts is literal truth. It is only a matter of time until you say so straight out. Why beat around the bush? User:Bensaccount 23:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Please shut up, Bensaccount. Attacking people is frowned upon on Wikipedia. And Pollinator's personal feelings should not matter. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. ::Any editor should be aware of his or her own POV. ::As an aside, Bensaccount, would you be willing to initiate banning procedures yourself, or are you honestly expecting someone else to bother. -- User:Ec5618 23:25, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) Actually, I no longer wish to be banned, as I am enjoying making some progressive edits to the intro. And Pollinators personal feelings (ie that fundamentalists are being "pigeonholed") don't matter at all, since they are unfounded and biased. User:Bensaccount 23:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) Stick to Wikipedia:Civility or you'll find your comments simply get deleted. ::I sure hope not. Deleting other people's commnents is simple censorship and completely unacceptable conduct here on the disussion board. If I find any situations in which one person deletes or modifies the statements of another, I'll revert it with some stern admonishments of the guilty party. *EVERYONE* gets their say here and no one has the right to censor it. The only person who gets to modify or delete a statement is the person who made it. --User:JonGwynne 19:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Not if they are breaking Wikipedia's rules. If you have a problem with that, you need to take it to the policy pages and argue the case for changing the policy. User:Steinsky User talk:Steinsky 20:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::Show me where it explicitly says in wikipedia policy that one user is allowed to censor another user if they don't like what that user says. The only way this talk page works is if everything gets to have their say freely - that includes statements that other people may find objectionable. --User:JonGwynne 15:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::Read above, again, carefully, and stop wasting time with straw men. User:Steinsky User talk:Steinsky 16:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::You'll notice that I don't delete your rude and pompous statements - why? Because it simply isn't appropriate. --User:JonGwynne 05:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::Well, since you're so attached to the straw man I'll leave you to it, but before I do, I'll leave you with the thought that deliberately mischaracterising somebody's argument (or not even bothering to read what somebody has said before replying, whichever it is) is rude, and, when the original comments are there for everybody to see that they bear no resemblance to your reply, is bewilderingly pointless. User:Steinsky User talk:Steinsky 14:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) Now, onto fundamentalism. While this particular use of the word may or may not be correct, I think Fundamentalist Christianity (in the original rather than more general use) needs to be mentioned, because it has always been amoungst the most vociferous anti-evolution groups. I have read several authors on this matter claim that without the Fundamentalist movement creationism would be much less of an issue than it is today, and I'll try and look up the references for the claim sometime this week (Julian Huxley and Daniel Dennett's names come to mind). User:Steinsky User talk:Steinsky 23:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) I see that a lot of people have strong feeling about this subject, but so far no one has made anything even approaching a convincing case that it is wrong to call Fundamentalist Christians by the name they have given themselves. Also, it is compeltely valid to mention Fundamentalist Christianity in this page. Since there is already an article about it in wikipedia, to not link this article to it would be wrong.--User:JonGwynne 19:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I have no particular problem with the current wording (but I am also used to reading what Bensaccount writes concerning me). If someone believes the current wording to be inaccurate, then perhaps that issue should be discussed. User:Wdanwatts 20:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::I have no problem with the accuracy of the current wording. I ''do'' have a problem with the intended meaning of the line. Since this line is supposed to describe, in a nutshell, where 'Creation science's' proponents can be found, I slightly object to the current wording, as I feel it should also mention the fact that even within these groups, many people do not believe in CS. -- User:Ec5618 20:32, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC) :::That's a good point. I'll take a stab at that. --User:JonGwynne 15:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) For the same reason that many people object to being called an evolutionist. It has a lot of negative connotations surrounding it. User:Falphin 23:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) Though it is true that some proponents of Creation science call themselves 'Fundamentalist Christians', in my experience, most do not. 'Fundamentalist' does have a negative connotation to many people and therefore should probably be avoided in blanket statements such as those often used here. Like some people have pointed out, there are more brands of Christians that support Creation science, such as Evangelicals and Pentecostals. The most public proponents of Creation science do not call themselves 'Fundamentalist'; rather, that is a label given them by critics. User:istill316 16:04, 14 Jun 2005 (EST) ==So what's the problem of calling bugs, bugs?== The responses to the above section on fundamentalists show that, for ''at least'' one person, there are subtlties too difficult to grasp. Perhaps it can be explained by analogy. A child, an illiterate, or a pesticide salesman might be able to get away with equating insects and bugs. But not a Wikipedia editor...a Wikipedia editor would speak of Hemiptera (the bugs) and the many other orders of insects. Now I don't know if a dragonfly (of Odonata), or a bee (of Hymenoptera) would be insulted by being called a "bug" but even more important, neither of them ''is'' a bug. Fundamentalists are a part of young earth creationism and the closely related creation science, and a few are quite vocal about it, but they are not the only group that has representatives that adhere to this view; in fact, they probably are not the majority. The current wording of the article now admits a variety, so I have left it alone. User:Pollinator 17:16, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC) :These are the YECists. You don't expect them to know any biology do you? User:Duncharris|User talk:duncharris 18:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==A special note to Ben== What gives you the right to assume things about my beliefs that I have not stated? Note carefully that I have never edited the content of creation science, except to challenge the innacurate characterization of who advocates it. Did you hear that, or is that too subtle for you? User:Pollinator 17:16, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC) I base this assumption on your past contributions. :''No you didn't. You based it on your own jumping to a conclusion. I've seen it in some young journalists, who only half listen as they interview a news source, then go back to the office and write the story they had in their mind beforehand.'' Also, note the context of the remark. I was trying to get you to stop beating around the bush and make your point. Generally it seems your remarks were merely attempting to avoid any objective description. User:Bensaccount 21:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :''Nope. I was trying to make things more accurate and clear, but you did not want to listen. I was telling you that there are many varieties of insects, some of which would threaten the survival of humankind, if we managed to exterminate them. You were saying, "If it has six legs and it moves, it's a detestable 'bug,' (or shall we say: hellfire-and-brimstone-bible-thumper?) and it must be squashed." :My wish for you is that you gain some maturity, learn to listen, learn to distiguish among the great variety that exists, and learn to form opinions only after you've learned the facts. User:Pollinator 00:51, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)'' I am not mature? I don't listen? I don't distiguish among variety? I form opinions not based on facts? Make all the assumptions you want Pollinator. This is not a newspaper report, and my comment was addressed to you, so if it was incorrect you merely could have corrected me. Currently, I still stand by my assumption. It would be quite easy for you to state your own beliefs and put this all to rest. And yes, CS advocates often do think their interpretation of every word in the sacred texts is literal truth. That is almost the definition of CS. So yes calling them fundamentalists (among other things) is objective. As for your musing about bugs...stop beating around the bush. User:Bensaccount 01:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::There is a place for this kind of discussion. Please take your petty squabling there: WP:SB -- User:Ec5618 08:57, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) ==Careful with your edit summaries== "Serial vandal" is not an acceptable term to describe other editors whose opinions you disagree with; it is considered a form of personal attack. And no, just because you may find any particular editor disagreeable is not in itself justification for labeling them a 'vandal.' User:FeloniousMonk 22:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I'm sorry, but as this comment seems to be addressed to me, I will respond. I did call Bensaccount a 'serial vandal', only after he had repeatedly vandalised the main article. He had replaced sections of the article with nonsense. I see no problem with calling a serial vandal, a serial vandal. Had this 'other editor' disagreed, and had he taken his disagreement to the Talk page, there would have been no problem. Unless, of course, he had vandalised the Talk page. :I will continue to call vandals vandals, and repeat offenders serial vandals. It is my silent hope that such clarity in wording will attract administrators. -- User:Ec5618 22:54, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC) ::Others have used the term in recent edit histories as well. If I remember correctly, no personal attacks is a policy, whereas discuss your edits/reverts first is a guideline. Nor does choosing to not discuss on the Talk page constitute vandalism. See: WP:Vandalism, WP:Civility. You may want to reconsider your stance; your wish that your choice of words will attract administrators will likely come true if you continue, but not likely in the way you hope. User:FeloniousMonk 23:31, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::I'm sorry, but have you taken a look at these edits? Replacing the intro with :::*''"Creation science (or CS) is an attempt to change belief into science via persistent propaganda."'' :::*''"Creation science (or CS) is creationism that is falsely portrayed as science by its proponents."'' :::*''"Creation science (or CS) is an amusing phenomenon in which certain religious zealots attempt to cite material to support their patent nonsense, while ignoring as much of the material's context as possible."'' :::* and other, less subtle insults. :::This is vandalism. I do not ''disagree'' with his edits, they are clearly not intended for serious review. Bensaccount was vandalising. As an example, replacing the contents of the article on pedophilia with "My next door neighbour likes babies" is also vandalising. Or don't you agree? -- User:Ec5618 00:14, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) ::::That's not vandalism. Those are WP:NPOV violations, and perhaps violations of WP:Point as well. It doesn't make him a vandal. Again, read WP:Vandalism, particularly the section 'What vandalism is not.' Look, I started this subsection not to support BA's efforts or to chastise or castigate you or RN, but as a kindly word of caution that calling what BA does vandalism can be considered a personal attack. You see, I've had to have this explained to me once or twice as well. User:FeloniousMonk 01:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::perhaps the energy spent instructing editors on the finer points of the official wikipedia definition of "vandalism" would be better spent instructing bensaccount to cease his endless nonsense. User:Ungtss 03:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::You'd prefer someone else's endless nonsense? BA's been an good contributor in the past. Though I don't approve of BA's recent method, I can understand how he may have come to this point given the frequency the creationism articles are contested by new arrivals with ideological axes to grind, ready to re-argue each point and reluctant to read the archives (Ec5618, who seems reasonable enough, being the rare exception). I chalk up BA's short fuse to combat fatigue. User:FeloniousMonk 05:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::you are evading the argument. we agree that bensaccount is making inappropriate edits. why are you investing your efforts in making sure everybody knows the technical definition of vandalism, and making no noticeable efforts to get bensaccount to stop his extremely inappropriate and destructive edits to this page, while consistently defending him. you are holding bensaccount and everyone else to vastly different standards. Bensaccount is damaging the page. people call that vandalism. your response: "it's not TECHNICALLY vandalism, so don't call him a vandal." meanwhile the destructive edits continue. it is extremely unjust, and illustrates the cause of the chronic problems on this page. bensaccount entered the fray here by redirecting the controversy page to ignorance. his purposes here have been clear from the beginning. welcome to the painful world of impartiality. User:Ungtss 17:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::::You choosing to impugn my motives by tarring me with the brush of partiality does not say anything about my actual motives yet tells us a lot about yours. Editors involved in conflict are banned or blocked less for violating WP:NPOV than they are for WP:Civility. Does anyone doubt that if BA were kept off the article by those using "serial vandal" as a justification that he'd not seek official remedy? That was my motive for speaking out against about the misuse of the term. I thank you to not again question my motives: Assume good faith. User:FeloniousMonk 19:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::::i said nothing about your motives. you're imagining things and trying to drag things off topic. i asked, very simply, a question you are ''continually avoiding'': "Why are you more concerned with making sure nobody uses a less-than-precise definition of vandalism than making sure he ''stops making destructive and pov edits to the page''?" let me put this a different way: "Why are you describing Bensaccount's ridiculous edits as "battle exhausation" when you yourself know that this edits are so much nonsense?" as to "assume good faith," that is a rebuttable presumption. i met bensaccount over 6 months ago after he redirected the "controversy" page to ignorance, and repeatedly called me a moron because i don't think similarity and relationship are synonyms. The next 6 months continually gave me absolutely no reason to believe he has any interest in improving this page. his most recent bit of nonsense involved saying, "Somebody ban me, I'm tired of wikipedia." I ask you, after 6 months of this little boy's nonsense, why do you insist i assume good faith despite infinitely manifest evidence to the contrary? Insight into your true motives would be greatly appreciated, lest i impugn your self-perception with reality. User:Ungtss 20:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::I answered your question already. Other than to say that and to suggest that you're out of line, you get the last word. User:FeloniousMonk 20:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::::::i didn't see the answer. i'm not after the last word. i'm after the answer to my question. bensaccount is being "kept of the article" because of his vile edits. the description of him as a vandal is incidental, although often true. if this article is ever to work, the priority has to be on excluding edits (whether technically vandalous of not) like those to which bensaccount has been subjecting creationism pages for half a year. User:Ungtss 20:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::A good test: If a creationist editor had a spate of reverts and edits like Ben, would that be "vandalism?"User:Pollinator 03:41, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) ::::::It's still not vandalism. Again, see WP:Vandalism. There have been examples least as often, if not more so, of the situation being reversed at various creationism articles. User:FeloniousMonk 05:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Alright, maybe ''technically'' Bensaccount isn't vandalising, as "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." and we should always asume good faith. Nevertheless, his methods we destructive, rather than constructive, and I will obviously continue to revert them. -- User:Ec5618 07:55, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) ::And rightly so. Thanks for taking my caution at face value and not assuming bad faith on my part. User:FeloniousMonk 19:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) Wrongly so. CS is creationist pseudoscience. The best (only) attempt to convince me otherwise was made by Dan, and failed miserably. Lammert's "experiment" is obviously just propaganda. Growing a tree with extra rings does not call into question the reliability of dendrochronology. User:Bensaccount 23:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::We are not here to convince you. You seek to make a change, if anything, you should convince us. I for one, will listen to any constructive comment you make. -- User:Ec5618 00:12, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC) ::I don't think it's your position (which I share BTW) that's earning you reverts, but your method. There are better ways to make your point and have it actually remain on the page because it will be so apparent as to be easily defensible. ::As one who has inveighed not just against trolls, but troll enablers, I hope that you will not turn me into one here, BA. User:FeloniousMonk 00:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Perhaps there are others that would grade my attempt differently. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bensaccount#Creation_science] for more information on the tree-ring saga. User:Wdanwatts 01:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::If your attempt was to show that Lammerts did not falsely claim that extra tree rings could appear, I'll agree. If your attempt was to show that dendrochronology is unreliable, I don't think you have. To be fair, I haven't read every source you (both) provided. But I still feel that the chances of great numbers of additional rings appearing in trees around the world, are pretty slim. The environmental conditions would have to be pretty extreme, and I do think that Occam's razor suggests it's unlikely. -- User:Ec5618 09:13, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC) ::::Actually, the focus was on the reliability of Bristlecone pines (which only grow in the arid regions of six western states) for dendrochronology. Currently, other dendrochronologies may fend for themselves, although beyond the bristlecone pine, only some european oak (bog) dendrochronologies get to 4000BC. User:Wdanwatts 13:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::Perhaps that was the focus for you. I feel that Bensaccount trying to prove that this creationist was destroying or misusing science. :::::I am still not convinced there is the slightest change that trees could appear much older than they actually are. Would you be convinced that the earth is older than a few thousand years if a fossilised or otherwise preserved tree was found, with a younger tree growing within it? Suppose the newer tree were cut down and was found to have 7000 rings. -- User:Ec5618 19:35, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC) ::::::It is fortunate that I am only attempting to show information. Why deal in suppositions? There are many interesting things that EXIST. Talk from those things. Show evidence. (By the way, apparently the European oak chronologies were not continuous, as of what information I have seen - but the situation may have changed by now. If not, then Bristlecone still is the longest continuous dendrochronology - as popularly reckoned.) User:Wdanwatts 21:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Intro bias? == Bensaccount has made the following edits to the intro, which I quickly reverted. Nevertheless, the suggestion has been made that these next lines specifically were POV. :''"Creation science is based on the belief that scientists should permit positing supernatural events where naturalistic explanations are believed to be inadequate. Proponents believe that Creation according to Genesis is historically accurate and/or inerrant and that the observable physical evidence is more fully consistent with the account of Genesis than with generally accepted theories of biological evolution and planet formation."'' :''"As such, they interpret physical evidence within the framework of a literal and historical interpretation of Creation according to Genesis and reject all mainstream scientific knowledge at odds with this view."'' Are these lines biased? Are they disinformation? If so, how? -- User:Ec5618 00:12, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC) ::The first question to ask isn't "are they biased?" but, "are they accurate?". And, by "accurate", I mean do they tell the whole truth? Do they? If not, then it doesn't matter whether they're biased or not. If so, then how can they be biased? Those who feel that the truth is biased are laboring under a bias of their own. Wouldn't you agree? --User:JonGwynne 19:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) Look @ the 1st sentence: "Creation science is based on the belief that scientists should permit positing supernatural events where naturalistic explanations are believed to be inadequate." :It is disinformation. It makes the following false assumptions: #That science permits or dissallows theories based on whether or not they are supernatural. #That scientists favour explanations that are naturalistic (without God). These are incorrect, and if you want them in here, you are going to have to stop hiding them in this mess of disinformation. You have to say "CS proponents think that science disallows God." or "CS proponents think that scientisits operate by judging whether something is supernatural." Preferrably just delete this mess of disinformation. User:Bensaccount 04:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Thank you for seriously rejoining the effort. ''".. scientists should permit positing supernatural events .."'' A question for you: Does science not usually dismiss supernatural claims? Does science not strive for explanation without invoking a supernatural wildcard? ::I agree with you in that science doesn't seek to exclude divinity. More to the point perhaps, many scientists don't, as many scientists are religious. Evolution, to many people including scientists, does not preclude the notion of divinity. ::Perhaps the wording should make it clear that science doesn't strictly seek to disprove the supernatural. Do note that it ''has'' inadvertently 'disproven' supernatural events such as the near-death-experience. -- User:Ec5618 12:24, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) == supernatural == <<''Were scientists to conclude that a supernatural explanation is correct, it would be impossible even in principle to distinguish between one supernatural explanation and another; thus determining the correct supernatural explanation among many is again impossible.''>> :thank you, FM, for your great contributions here, which contribute greatly toward npov. in the name of improving clarity, i have a couple questions. in particular, i'm not quite clear how the above sentence fits into the context of the section. you said immediately before this that if something occurs, it would essentially be "natural." so if scientists were to determine that a supernatural explanation is correct, wouldn't they simply be concluding that "something happened but we don't understand it?" why, then, would they be unable to discriminate between supernatural explanations? further, don't the two clauses in the above sentence contradict each other? "If scientists were to determine one supernatural explanation was correct ... determining the correct supernatural explanation among many is again impossible." huh? User:Ungtss 00:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::That's a good question. I think the confusion is caused by my poor choice of words. Are either of these more clear? ::#Were scientists to ''accept'' that a supernatural explanation is correct, it would be impossible even in principle to distinguish between one supernatural explanation and another; thus determining the correct supernatural explanation among many is again impossible. ::#''Even if'' scientists were to conclude that a supernatural explanation is correct, it would be impossible even in principle to distinguish between one supernatural explanation and another; thus determining the correct supernatural explanation among many is again impossible. ::Do you have a preference which is used? User:FeloniousMonk 00:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::excellent:). much much clearer -- no preference -- either makes that point much clearer. my second question is this: you said in the beginning of the paragraph that it's difficult to give "supernatural" a meaningful definition. absolutely:). this makes it very difficult to understand what you mean by "supernatural" in the rest of the section -- are supernatural events indeed "natural things that appear like magic to us," or are they violations of the laws of nature itself? or something else? could you clarify which definition of supernatural you are using in the rest of the section? User:Ungtss 00:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::The definition of supernatural that is used within the mainstream scientific community and applies here is: ''not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material''. User:FeloniousMonk 17:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::excellent. that's the core disagreement here. to define the supernatural as that which does not exist in nature and to define God as supernatural is to define God as not existing in nature. A=B; B=C; Therefore A=C. The definitions make atheism logically unavoidable. A theistic realist defines the supernatural as that which occurs which defies our scientific knowledge, and define God as supernatural. That makes the existence of God at least plausible. Question for further clarification on the page: how is your definition of "supernatural" meaningful in any way, when it simply defines supernatural entities as "non-existent?" Further, how can we claim to define entities as supernatural/non-existent, when our knowledge of the universe is so miserably inadequate? User:Ungtss 22:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) I don't think we should imply that mainstream science doesn't allow supernatural explanations without explaining what those are and why mainstream science often rejects them. It is true that most explanations that are generally thought of as "supernatural" are rejected by science, however I don't think that this is because they are "supernatural" explanations but because they fail occams razor. If I posit the theory that my washing up is done by fairies my theory fails not because it is a supernatural explanation but because any extension of my theory that explained the existence of fairies would by necessity be much more complicated (especially if I insisted that the fairies were made from "magic" rather than from matter (I would have to explain the laws of magic and how it interacts with matter)). It is at least conceivable that my theory gain enough evidence to make it the dominant theory without filling in those details thouroughly and then we'd have a "supernatural" theory that was acceptable science. Of course due to its short comings the theory would need a lot of data to back it up. The point is if we take a "supernatural" explanation to be one which requires a complete and radical rewrite of basic physical laws then generally "supernatural" explanations are not preffered by occam's razor. However, they are still valid theories. There is an additional problem of moving goal posts as any "supernatural" theory that becomes to be considered plausible by mainstream science is no longer considered "supernatural" but just wacky. Personally I can't see any way of pinning down a meaning for supernatural in such a way as to systematically disallow supernatural explanations. User:Barnaby dawson 08:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) :agreed. the thing about parsimony, tho, is that it only applies when events can be ''fully'' explained. if a question remains open (for instance, what started the big bang) then parsimony does not apply -- because we do not have a closed loop of assumptions to prefer to the supernatural explanation. occam's razor only works to shave off assumptions unneccessary to comprehensively explain things, but does ''not'' shave off assumptions when we're as-yet-unable to comprehensively explain them. that's another issue that i think we should address ... the creationist view that since there are many open questions about the specifics of the development of life (such as irreducible complexity, macroevolution, and specified complexity), occam's razor does not cut off ''any'' potential explanation. i'll take a stab at that this afternoon. User:Ungtss 13:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::I certainly don't agree with that point. It is always possible to estimate the complexity necessary to fill in any current gaps in understanding. Suppose your theory says that the clock on my wall is powered by the energy from the slow fall of a weight and my theory states that the clock is powered by the absorbsion of highly energetic tachyons emitted by aliens to fuel government licensed instruments. Suppose furthermore that we have not made enough observations to disprove either theory. Suppose that neither theory fully explain the operation of the clock as they don't explain how the hands are moved in the clock. Occam's razor still does prefer one explanation over the other. User:Barnaby dawson 21:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) :,''I don't think we should imply that mainstream science doesn't allow supernatural explanations without explaining what those are and why mainstream science often rejects them''> I've already done this — read the first and last paragraphs of the subsectionCreation_science#Science_and_the_supernatural. User:FeloniousMonk 17:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Indeed that is good work. User:Barnaby dawson 21:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) The word "supernatural" is a code word for "I don't understand how it works and I don't ''want'' to understand because that understanding may conflict with what I believe to be true" --User:JonGwynne 05:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) :you say that ascribing things to the supernatural is a means of avoiding the exploration of the issues. if that were the case in this context, would creationists and ID proponents be spending millions trying desperately to study, understand, and evidence it? User:Ungtss 14:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Of course they would, because they're not interested in facts but rather in protecting themselves from facts. It is a defense mechanism. p.s. "evidence" isn't a verb, it is a noun. ;-> --User:JonGwynne 02:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) == propaganda == please, mr. pitchford, be a good chap and behave like felonious monk. do not delete text because you think it is propaganda. it is a point of view, attributed to those who hold it. if you think it's wrong, address why, afterward. deletion is censorship. i will be placing the attributed point of view back on the page now. please edit appropriately. thank you. User:Ungtss 15:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) :It's not a point of view, as worded it's a false claim. --User:Ian Pitchford 15:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::everything in the text is appropriately attributed. nothing in the text states or implies that anything said is actually true. if it be a false claim, then attribute the true rebuttal. please. that's how the game is played here. User:Ungtss 15:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Claiming that X explains everything and that X requires no explanation is not a contribution to knowledge, it's a rhetorical device used as a thought-terminating clichè. --User:Ian Pitchford 15:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::that would look great as a rebuttal, immediately after the argument. if you want to persuade, you have to let the other side say his piece, and then tear it to bits. i have no objection to that. User:Ungtss 16:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::Maybe if the page was meant to be the text of an argument. Please remember that we are attempting to write an encyclopedia article here not carry out an argument. === more on parsimony === <<''They also argue that creationism as an explanation is not an affirmative proposition. For an explanation to be an affirmative proposition it must tell why something is one way instead of an alternative way.''>> :can you elaborate a bit as to why this is so? for instance, how does the proposition "man and apes evolved from a common ancestor" meet your criterion of "telling why something is one way instead of an alternative?" User:Ungtss 19:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::As it says an explanation tells us why something is one way instead of an alternative way. As an explanation, theory of evolution (which posits that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor) attempts to account for a broad range of phenomena/evidence. As an explanation its propositional quality is determined by the fact that by explaining one class of things it also explains phenomena/evidence of some other class. Thus, evolutionary theory is the framework tying together all of biology, and in turn explains peripheral topics like fossils, biogeography, etc. Mainstream science holds that evolution provides a framework for biology, and which can support other useful scientific advances, whereas creationism has been around for millennia and has not yet contributed a practical framework for further advances in any useful, meaningful way. User:FeloniousMonk 22:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::i'm afraid i don't see the answer to my question in the above -- can you clarify: how does the specific explanation "man and apes evolved from a common ancestor" tell why things are one way and not the other -- that is, "man and apes were created separately?" why does your position meet the criterion but mine fail it? User:Ungtss 00:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::Ah, I was explaining why Modern evolutionary synthesis was an affirmative proposition, which is only one half of the story, because I thought the other half was self-evident. Evolutionary theory, being part of science, precludes ''any'' supernatural mechanisms. Conversely, creation science only precludes naturalistic mechanisms as a first cause, which must always be God. Therefore, Modern evolutionary synthesis excludes creationism in all forms whereas CS allows for some naturalism. I may rewrite those sentences that refer to affirmative proposition as I'm not happy with the way they read. User:FeloniousMonk 17:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::sounds like a plan. when you do, can you explain how "evolutionary theory, being part of science, precludes any supernatural mechanisms?" since evolutionary theory is an explanatory framework, i fail to understand how the mere existence of one explanatory framework precludes the possibility of another. i fail to see how saying "man and apes evolved from a common ancestor" means that humans and apes ''could not have been created separately''. User:Ungtss 18:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::The statement "creationism is an unnecessary entity" seems to go against the idea that if it were true, then there could be evidence that the earth (and its neighbors) is (are) not very old. Evidence such as questions (valid?) of the accuracy of bristlecone dendrochronology, or of the age of lunar craters, given the most probable viscosity of the lunar basalt (and the associated time for a crater to remain under the lunar gravity). User:Wdanwatts 21:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Macroevolution or evolution== There's a problem with saying that "creation science is primarily concerned with issues such as...macroevolution". The issue is that while creation science proponents see their "beef" to be with macroevolution only, the scientific community doesn't see it to be that way. Many of the "issues" with which creation science deals are deciding what parts of science to keep and what parts to discard or change. In this way, parts of "evolution" are kept and parts of evolution are not. That creation science deals with macroevolution is of course true. That it doesn't deal with the rest of evolution is absurd because by saying that macroevolution and microevolution can be viewed separately, they are making a statement on all of evolution. Therefore it should be "evolution" and not just "macroevolution". User:Joshuaschroeder 22:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I agree. Macroevolution is microevolution on a longer timescale. The proper term is evolution. -- User:Ec5618 12:24, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) ::So no "Hopeful Monsters"? No saltaions? All change in gradual steps? Interesting! User:Wdanwatts 02:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) Since Dan seems intent on proving he knows absolutely nothing about evolution: Yes, a gradual change in DNA can have a "major" change in phenotype. User:Bensaccount 21:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :True. Usually from 'living' to 'dead'. User:Wdanwatts 00:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) Evolution does not occur during a single lifetime. Please try and understand the basics before calling them "true". User:Bensaccount 00:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Thanks for the tip. Are you attempting to recant your phenotype statement? User:Wdanwatts 16:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) Lets review: Evolution occurs because of changes in DNA from one generation to the next. A small/gradual change in DNA can have a large effect on phenotype from one generation to the next. Keep it up Dan, you are almost learning biology at a highschool level now. User:Bensaccount 18:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Wow! Changes in the DNA in each generation! No stasis here. How does the poor cockroach keep itself together? (I hope that you don't teach high school biology.) User:Wdanwatts 00:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::You're kidding right? You really don't believe that the DNA of the parent is the same as the DNA of the child, do you? Even identical twins have variations in their DNA. Maybe you should take high school biology. User:Joshuaschroeder 12:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Now THAT sounds like variation within a population. Blue eyes vis Brown viz Green, hair color, etc. Or are you stating that perhaps we should put a net over every delivery room because the next child born may have wings? User:Wdanwatts 17:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::Have a look at polyploidy. Genome duplication can result in speciation from one generation to the next. On the other hand, microsatellites can distinguish deviation at the level of a few generations. So, yes, DNA changes from generation to generation - it also changes within individuals over the course of a lifetime. Chimeras are much more common than was previously thought...most of us probably are. But selection can only operate between generations. User:Guettarda 17:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==What other religions believe== Ungtss has restored the long-winded description of what other literalists in other religions might believe in (creation according to Genesis, great flood, etc). This is an unnecessary distraction editorially. There is no compelling reason to describe what these people who are, by the article's admission, ''not'' holders to creation science believe. We already say they are creationists, if they are that important let them be described on the creationism page or their own page. This is a page not about the beliefs of fundamentalists Bahai believers, it is a page about "creation science". User:Joshuaschroeder 22:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) == What is the story of creation?== I'm sorry for this rather ranting post. I have tried to be as open minded and neutral as I could possible be, and I still strive for that. However, looking over some creationist sites has left me wondering wether creation science is not just a well funded lie. I've been reading a few sites on creationism (AiG and creationism.org and the like), and they seem very inconsistent on anything but the big picture. They all agree that Noah built an Ark to escape a flood, they all agree that the Grand Canyon could have been formed in this flood. A few claims I found: * One author claims that Noah's ark would not have had to carry much or any food, as the animals would go into hibernation or estivation[http://www.creationism.org/caesar/tough.htm]. He claims that hibernation is induced by lack of nutrition, while he glosses over the fact that very few animals actually hibernate, and that these few animals spend weeks or months building a layer of fat. * Another author continues with this notion of hibernation, but acknowledges that the idea of all animals going into hibernation is improbable.[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp] * This same author posits that the Ark would probably have carried compressed and dried foodstuffs, and probably a lot of concentrated food. Concentrated food. Concentrated food. * And he states that the Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits, and claims Genesis 6:15 as his source. These values are only valid if one assumes the Ark was a perfect box. While Genesis does include measurements, to assume that the Ark was not shaped like a boat at all seems odd. To assume that such a structure could be built out of wood millenia ago seems incredible. * Finally he claims that the Ark didn't need to carry many animals at all. It needed only carry a pair of Equines, from which current horses, zebras and donkeys 'descended'. Note that he didn't use the word 'evolved'. His statement hinges on his assertion that horses and zebras are the same species. To make his point that the current definition of a species (''a group of organisms which can interbreed and produce fertile offspring'') is not reliable, he says: :: ''"However, most of the so-called species (obviously all the extinct ones) have not been tested to see what they can or cannot mate with."'' : Is he actually claiming that scientists should have tried to pair all animals, to see what would happen? Dolphins and hedgehogs? Humans and catfish? It seems to me, that this is a non-stuble way of trying to discredit science. ''"'So-called' species havn't even been tested by scientists. Why believe science?"'' * John Morris, Ph.D., 'a former professor in geological engineering', claims that the Grand Canyon could have been formed in a single event, because such things are not unheard of. He cites an example of a small canyon, forming in sand and clay, in just a few days, due to rainwater. I fail to see the relevance of this analogy, as everyone knows that mild rain can easily wash away a sandcastle, but can not be observed destroying stone.[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i4/canyon.asp] Most of these comments seem aimed at spreading doubt about evolution through underhanded means. ''"Great minds of the past had no difficulty with the concept of a young earth shaped and reshaped by catastrophic forces, especially the upheavals associated with Noah’s Flood."'' Great minds used to believe the Earth was flat. The author must have known that, but chose to include this comment, for effect. This statement comes across as a logical fallacy (appeal to authority). I'm not sure what the purpose of my post is, and I know that strictly it has little to do with the article, but I feel rather let down by the 'creation sciences'. If this is the best they can do, or if this is the sort of garbage they 'teach' people through their websites, I have little choice but to agree with Bensaccount: Creation science may be a true effort, but its fruits are unreliable, and its most prominent advocates dishonest. If so, the article should reflect that. -- User:Ec5618 12:24, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) :Welcome to the reality of creation science, Ec. :The problem is, of course, that as soon as you start to describe creation science for what it really is, the creationists who believe in it will start crying foul. They will claim one of the following: 1) your valid criticisms represent original research, 2) your valid criticisms are uncited, 3) even if there are valid criticisms of the "theories", the "theories" themselves should be represented without criticism in order to maintain some "NPOV" that the creationists seem to think represents special protection for their nonsense. :I just reverted a huge amount of crap in Creationist cosmologies where some rather rabid creationists had inserted all manner of nonsense about cosmology in general and certain creationist believers in particular. Not content to have the ideas presented and roundly shown to be extremely problematic, these people prefer to see inaccurate and incomplete "critiques" of mainstream science serve as the meat of the article. The reason for this is that this is the modus operendi of creationists and creation science proponents: to criticize science to make themselves feel better in their beliefs. Consistency is impossible for them because there is no agreed-upon threshhold for determining when empricism and logic should be used to back up their statements and when the bible should be used. Thus you come up with bizarre claims like certain "scientists" demanding the ark was a box while other "scientists" claim that it only "approximated" a box. That the ark existed, however, is something that cannot be debated in "creation science" because it is necessarily assumed to be true by means of scriptural authority. :Therein lies the rub. Creationists have used the idealization of "creation science" for decades now to confuse the issue that they really have a problem when it comes to the skeptical inquiry that is science. Since they have little to no way to consistently defend their rabid believe in literalism (or historicity, as Ungtss likes to call it), they have created for themselves an invented world and a ready-made repository of nonsense to cite as a means to weasle themselves out of any corner their contradictory beliefs get them into. The "NPOV" thing to do is call creation science what it is: a basic sham-outfit to distract from the major problems that rejection of empirical science imposes on a worldview. :-User:Joshuaschroeder 13:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::'Concerning the Grand Canyon' ::Here is a possible analogy using not rain, but running water. See [http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/hydraulics_lab/history/history_paper_burgi.pdf], especially Figure 4 on page 7. User:Wdanwatts :::First of all, great source. Great concept. The source talks of a spillway tunnel used at Hoover Dam. A short excerpt: :::''"The damage was thought to initiate at a “misalignment” of the tunnel invert just above the elbow. The damage was caused by high velocity flow passing over the roughness and leading to bubble formation (similar to boiling water) in the flow. When the bubbles collapsed, high energy shock waves were generated damaging the concrete. This phenomena is referred to as cavitation formation and damage."'' :::This would show that water, under high pressure, and at high speed (thus at low pressure, courtesy of Bernoulli's principle) can cause microfractures and in time, can quickly erode a rough surface. And while this effect requires need high pressure and extreme speed, this story does grant some level of credibility to the notion of Flood geology. I would like to point out though that most concepts of Flood geology assert that the Earth had few features prior to the flood, which begs the question: 'how would such high pressure and speed have been possible?' :::Also, you must admit that the [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i4/canyon.asp AiG source] was useless, from a scientific point of view. And it is a bit silly that I had to hear of this [http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/hydraulics_lab/history/history_paper_burgi.pdf decent source] from you. Shouldn't AiG have used this source, instead of resorting to telling tales of simple but useless science experiments? -- User:Ec5618 13:49, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) ::::I have no (well, maybe little) knowledge of AiG, and would ask you to peruse the [http://creationresearch.org/ Creation Research Society] website as an alternative. I really do not know what research is done at AiG. User:Wdanwatts 15:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::I asked you several direct questions. I gave you a chance to speak ill of AiG, or this specific example. You could have admitted that the [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i4/canyon.asp AiG source] is useless, from a scientific point of view. You could have admitted that the 'high pressure and high speed' required for the fact erosion mentioned above present 'a bit of a puzzle'. You chose not to, citing 'lack of background knowledge'. Why? Work with me here. :::::I am now perusing http://creationresearch.org as per your suggestion, and I'll admit, I havn't found gaping logical fallacies or false claims in the few minutes I have been reading. -- User:Ec5618 15:31, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) ::::::I apologize for not answering all of your questions, not that I am any authority. Yes, I agree that the AiG article you pointed out has little (if any) scientifically useful information on Grand Canyon formation. As for high velocity, (I assume that the interaction of a high-velocity stream with any solid body could generate sufficient force) a possible driver would be orogeny during the year following the flood itself. If the pre-flood earth had little vertical contrast, then tides could travel without much abatement by continents (if the whole earth's surface was under water). Any tectonic tilting could interact with the (pre-existing) flow to cause 'local' disturbances. That is one possible mechanism. User:Wdanwatts 16:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::I don't have time for a longwinded comment. Let me suffice by noting that the tides would hardly be capable of causing extreme water speeds, even on a flat Earth. Also, plate tectonics are also contested by creation science, I believe, so invoking them might be controversial. -- User:Ec5618 16:45, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) ::::::::The extreme speeds would be due to the interaction of the tidal flow with (controversial) plate tectonics driven orogeny. Hurriedly, User:Wdanwatts 16:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::::All this discussion is irrelevent because it is just the speculation of Dan Watts as to how creation scientists might try to post-justify their beliefs in flood geology. None of this belongs on this page and it certainly doesn't qualify as actual science. User:Joshuaschroeder 18:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::::All this discussion is irrelevent because it is just the speculation both sides. None of this is science, it's just origins theories which are not proveable by either side. And what's with all the anti-creationist sentiment? Did a creation science advocate run over your cat? This is my first post so if I'm breaking some rules here let me know.User:hawnsa 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) Anti-creationist is different than anti-creation science. As for the latter, people generally dislike liars. User:Bensaccount 21:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) The discussion on this section should probably cease. It has little to do with discussion of the article's content. User:-Ril- 19:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) == ''Scientific has a wider meaning than you think'' == Please do explain. User:Project2501a 21:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Creation science (or CS) is incorrectlydescribed by its proponents? Please. This edit was made to be controversial, and no effort was made to explain it on the talk page. -- User:Ec5618 22:17, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) ::They are incorrect. How hard is that to understand? User:Bensaccount 23:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) : I will agree wtih Bensaccount, though. Creation science is only by name. I was just not supporting the use of strong language. User:Project2501a 00:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) Agreed. that part is throwing coal into the fire. I was asking for explaination on the "Scientific has a wider meaning than you think". What is this "wider" meaning of science? User:Project2501a 23:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) : Definition: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. (i.e. not limited to the more narrow world-view of the 'scientic method'). User:Rossnixon 01:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) : : *shakes head* Douglas Adams was right. it ''was'' a bad idea to come down from the trees in the first place... Strike that. Even the trees where a bad idea! Good, great. Um, I don't know if you remember but there was a time called the dark ages. Yes, terrible times. People went to the stake for saying the earth revolves around the sun because the bible said so. Allow me to express my sincere thanks for your efforts to push the world back in that direction. Thank you! Now, where's those five pints I ordered... User:Project2501a 03:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: The 'scientific method' excludes all the supernatural. If "truth" includes the supernatural, then this method limits the chances of coming to correct conclusions. I prefer a 'science' that is not narrow-minded. Science = knowledge. Douglas Adams was funny, but wrong, and ultimately pathetic. User:Rossnixon 09:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::If the "supernatural" is a part of empirical truth then it should be measurable commensurate to the scientific method. Then it usually isn't considered "supernatural" anymore. If God acts in a measurable way, then God or God's actions will be observable and no longer "supernatural" by the most strict of definitions. Science only excludes the supernatural that is considered to be unmeasurable. For example, belief in the soul need not have measurable effects in the natural world. Therefore the existence of the soul is not considered something that is scientifically-based. That doesn't mean that the soul doesn't exist, only that it isn't available for scientific measurement. It is unfortunate that people who find themselves trying to apologize for their belief in literalism find it necessary to attack emprical science because there is no reason to claim that all of truth must be based on empirical observatio
Creation Science
#REDIRECT Creation science
Creation science
[[Image:Creation vs evolution debate.jpg|frame|right|''Creation Magazine'' is a publication supporting young-earth creationist beliefs. This issue examines whether dinosaurs perished in Noah's ark.]] Creation science (or CS) is described by its proponents as a scientific effort to study the Earth, life, and the universe from the perspective of Creationism. It is primarily concerned with issues such as the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, evolution, a flood geology and the human evolution. Its proponents are found primarily among various denominations of Christianity who describe themselves generally as evangelical, conservative or Fundamentalist Christianity Christians. However, not all Christians subscribe to creation science, and not all Christians who subscribe to Creation science describe themselves as conservative or fundamentalist Christians. Most mainstream Christian churches, including the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran faiths have rejected "Creation Science" outright. Mainstream theology considers Genesis a poetic work as opposed to one to be taken literally. Creationist movements also exist in the Baha'i faith, Islam, and Judaism, however these movements do not use the phrase ''creation science'' to describe their beliefs. The term ''creation science'' is used predominantly by American Christian groups (as described above) [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_statc.htm] who are the proponents of the philosophy. The vast majority of scientists consider 'creation science' to be pseudoscience and a misnomer. When the ideas encompassed by creation science are subjected to the scrutiny of scientific criticism or peer-review, they are found to lack scientific foundation, objective criticism of evidence, or scientific method. Additionaly, the foundation of Creation Science does not fit the most common definition of science as it relies on scripture as a historically accurate or literally true ''a priori'' source. Refer to the section on #Scientific criticisms of creation science. Creation science relies heavily on the belief that scientists should permit positing supernatural events where naturalistic explanations are found to contradict scripture or are believed to be otherwise inadequate. Proponents take the view that Creation according to Genesis is historically accurate and/or inerrant and that the observable physical evidence is more fully consistent with the account of Genesis than with generally accepted theories of biological evolution and natural history. As such, they interpret physical evidence within the framework of a literal and history interpretation of Creation according to Genesis and reject all mainstream scientific knowledge at odds with this view. == Philosophy and theology == Creation science is described by its proponents as a synthesis of science and religion, as it attempts to draw on both sources in developing its theories. As such, it differs both from pure creationist theology and from the widely accepted philosophy of science which excludes supernatural claims. It shares many similarities with other pseudosciences which nominally use the guise or trappings of scientific jargon and terminology to mask what most scientific skepticism consider to be a fundamental disconnect with the scientific method and the scientific consensus of the scientific community. Developed along the lines of young earth creationist theology, creation science presumes the historical accuracy of creation according to Genesis. Most adherents to creation science believe it to be Biblical inerrancy. Unlike creationist theology, creation science adopts some features of scientific language and criticism as a means to validate its claims about events in the past. For example, adherents to creation science refer often to supposed "scientific evidence" that they claim is consistent with the young Earth interpretation of Genesis. Oftentimes the interpretations of the evidence does not hold up to scrutiny and has been roundly criticized by those on the mainstream science side of the creation-evolution controversy. Unlike mainstream science creation science holds that the study of natural phenomena can reveal evidence of supernatural events and direct action by God. === "Operational science" and "Origins science" === In addition to allowing for supernatural events in history, creation science proponents also distinguish between what they call "operational science" and "origins science." Operational science, according to creation science advocates, involves the laws and phenomena of nature which are repeatable and testable through experiment; for instance, the laws of gravity, chemistry, and microevolution. However, advocates of creation science assert that issues of "origins science" are different from issues of "operational science," because they involve one-time events which cannot be observed or repeated, but can only be inferred from the evidence. Asserted examples of such issues in origins science are common ancestry, the age of the Earth, historical geology, and physical cosmology in which the ability of scientists to study the issues is limited by the available evidence, because the actual events cannot be observed first-hand. It is argued that in issues of "origins science," conclusions are much more tentative due to the unrepeatable nature of the events, that the conclusions are therefore much more subject to philosophical bias than in "operational science," and that "origins science" therefore admits multiple possible interpretations of the evidence. The consistent basis for such a bifurcation of science is not clear. The nature of a observation is the point of contention between advocates of creation science and those opposed to it. In mainstream science, all empirical evidence is given equal weight in the consideration of whether a hypothesis is falsification. The creation science proponent distinguishes between evidence in a fashion that is not generally accepted, in general discounting evidence that doesn't tend to support the ideas associated with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Radiometric dating is an often maligned by creation science advocates even though it is tied principally to observations which are repeatable and testable with experiment. "Operational science" would therefore be "any scientific theory that doesn't tend to contradict a creationist interpretation of Genesis" while "Origins science" would be "any scientific theory that does tend to contradict a creationist interpretation of Genesis". === Science and religion === Creation science has been considered by many to be "religion" placing itself in conflict with "science." According to this view, creation science is religious, rather than scientific, because it stems from the Bible, a "religious book." Acceptance of creation is thus "by faith," and not by the application of the scientific method. For example, the National Academy of Sciences wrote: :"Religious opposition to evolution propels antievolutionism. Although antievolutionists pay lip service to supposed scientific problems with evolution, what motivates them to battle its teaching is apprehension over the implications of evolution for religion."[http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4550_antievolutionism_and_creationi_2_13_2001.asp] Alternatively, creationists attribute the conflict between the theories to varying philosophical presuppositions which, they argue, affect a scientist's interpretation of the evidence. For example, David Bergman, a creationist physicist, attributes the conflict to two fundamentally different worldviews: on the one hand, atomism, which excludes supernatural action in the universe and holds that random events occur in nature; on the other hand, Creationism, which holds that the universe depends for its existence on God, and that the laws of nature are a result of his design and plan. Evolution, he argues, is merely a modern iteration of the ancient philosophy of Lucretius articulated in his work, On the Nature of Things. [http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/conflict.pdf] Under this creationist definition of science, creation science and mainstream science are both "sciences" which are grounded in opposing philosophies, so that the same methods and same evidence lead to opposite conclusions due to the underlying philosophical assumptions of the scientist. This argumentation is rejected as being a poor form of self justification by means of totally redefining science to fit creationists' own ends. Uniformitarianism, for example, is rejected by those supporting creation science by means of redefining science to include accomodations for other ideas about what could happen in the past because any induction (philosophy) contrary to Genesis cannot be true. Creation science is related to intelligent design which makes similar kinds of justification for its goals. The two ideas differ in that intelligent design proponents claim to not make any theological assumptions, they don't admit to considering Genesis to be an accurate scientific account of origins, nor do they necessarily oppose evolution (evolutionary creationism). Critics note that the intelligent design movement was started (by many of the same individuals previously campaigning for creationism) after attempts to get creation science in public classrooms met major opposition due to constitutional Separation of church and state issues in the United States. === Science and the supernatural === Creation science is closely linked to the issue of whether scientific endeavor permits the recognition of supernatural phenomena. The normal definition of supernatural events is anything not existing or observable in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws or not physical or material. Science, by necessity, is unable to consider such supernatural phenomena as evidence because a primary tenet of science is that nature, being widely observable, provides the only objective standard from which to evaluate evidence. By definition supernatural phenomena violate the natural laws, and are therefore inherently unfalsifiable and unscientific. The supernatural is not ruled out a priori; when supernatural claims produce observable results that can be studied scientifically they have been considered and studied [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10836918&dopt=Citation] [http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/132/11/903]. Adherents to creation science and proponents of intelligent design hold a different position. According to Intelligent Design proponent William Dembski, the proper application of science permits positing supernatural events, because supernatural phenomena should not be seen as ''violating'' the laws of nature, but instead as events reflecting a deeper, more fundamental physical reality than that which we understand. For example, a person on an island who has never seen an airplane fly before may think the airplane is "supernatural," because it appears to him to be "magic." However, from the perspective of greater knowledge, the airplane is fully natural -- it simply operates according to laws of nature which are unknown to the man on the island. This effectively redefines the supernatural to account for the natural, and most scientists would consider such an adjustment to be inappropriate as do many fideism. In the context of Genesis, creationists believe that Creation according to Genesis is a historically accurate account of the origins of the Earth, and that the physical evidence today is more consistent with that account than with the scientific theories of origins. The fact that the recorded events defy much of our current scientific knowledge is seen as an opportunity to explore and understand the spectacular events recorded in Genesis in order to expand our knowledge of science and history, rather than a reason to deny those events occurred at all. This type of reasoning flies in the face of falsification, trying to justify an account rather than looking for independent empirical evidence. From the perspective of mainstream science there is no useful definition of 'supernatural.' In most definitions, anything having an effect on nature makes that something a part of nature itself, the same point made by William Dembski. It follows that any explanation for something we see in nature would be considered natural by definition. Since nothing truly supernatural could be observed the only way science could reach a supernatural explanation is to eliminate all natural explanations; but it is impossible to ever know that all possibilities have been eliminated. Even if scientists were to conclude that a supernatural explanation is correct, it would be impossible even in principle to distinguish between one supernatural explanation and another; thus determining the correct supernatural explanation among many is again impossible. It is primarily for this reason that science came to adopt Naturalism_%28philosophy%29 as a cornerstone of the scientific method. The fact that there are many mutually exclusive supernatural claims with no credible method available to judge their veracity leads to the various faiths insisting that their supernatural explanation be taught as science to the exclusion of any other religious or scientific interpretations. === Creation science and parsimony === The mainstream scientific position is that where multiple explanations are available, each of which explains a phenomenon, scientists should prefer the theory which requires the fewest assumptions. This principle is known as Occam's razor, which suggests that new, more complicated principles or entities should not be posited if existing principles already provide an explanation. Creation science is often criticized for positing supernatural forces or beings in order to explain events than can be explained without them. The position of mainstream science has been that evolution alone is sufficient to explain life and its appearance, and positing a supernatural creator is unnecessary. A counterpoint to Occam's razor lies in Occam's Razor#Chatton's Anti-razor, which suggests, "If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on". Karl Menger articulated a similar principle: "Entities must not be reduced to the point of inadequacy" and "It is vain to do with fewer what requires more". Creationists argue that naturalistical models of the origin of life and macroevolution are inadequate because they fail to effectively explain the origin of life and the origins of irreducible complexity and specified complexity. Since Chatton's anti-razor holds that entities should not be reduced to the point of inadequacy, it is argued, a designer should not be ruled out unless and until naturalistic explanations are adequate. Thus, much of the literature about creation science is devoted to criticizing mainstream science, often taking issues, debates, and small discrepencies discovered by scientists working in the scientific paradigm and declaring that the problems indicate that the entire endeavor is wrong. Adherents of creation science also suggest that it is no more parsimony to posit an ostensibly unobserved and unexplained chemical mechanism for the above phenomenon than to posit an unexplained but ostensibly subjectively experienced designer, so that neither is ruled out by Occam's razor until one or the other is comprehensively observed, explained, and/or demonstrated. What the creationist means by "unobserved" or "unexplained" is subject to modification according to exactly how the criticism is levied. A common tactic, for example, is to claim that there is no evolutionary mechanism that can explain a particular biochemical process, and then when a mechanism is proposed, to claim that such a process has never been observed, and then when the process is duplicated in the lab, to claim that such a process wasn't observed in nature. In this way, evidence is continually dismissed as inconclusive by the creationist, leaving the only conclusion, in the eyes of the creationist, to be that God must have done it. Those criticizing this position argue that Chatton's anti-razor is not a principal tenet of the scientific method and that religious beliefs do not count as valid hypotheses; allowing God as an explaination is not open to verification nor validation. They also argue that creationism as an explanation is not an affirmative proposition. For an explanation to be an affirmative proposition it must explain why something is one way instead of an alternative way in a manner that accounts for or aligns with a broad range of, if not all, evidence and phenomena beyond the subject at hand. But requiring an assumed God to be the explanation posits that the correct description only need account for what is descibed in Genesis and does not address the scientific evidence. Thus, creationism is an entirely unnecessary entity and, by Occam's Razor, eliminated. == Subjects within creation science == Subjects within creation science can be into split into three broad categories, each covering a different area of origins research; creationist cosmologies, flood geology, and creation biology. === Creation biology === Creation biology states that life was created by God in a finite number of created kinds rather than through biological evolution. It also claims that much of the currently observable speciation took place through inbreeding and harmful mutations during a proposed population bottleneck after the great flood of Noah's ark, which they claim was an actual historical event that happened exactly as described in the Bible. Creation biology argues against biological evolution (see creation-evolution controversy). Popular arguments against evolution have changed over the years since the publishing of Henry M. Morris's first book on the subject, ''Scientific Creationism'', but these themes often arise: missing links as an indication that evolution is incomplete, arguments based on entropy, complexity, and information theory, arguments claiming that natural selection is an impossible mechanism, and general criticism of the conclusions drawn from natural history as lacking experimental basis. The human evolution is particularly hotly contested; the fossil remains of hominid ancestors are not considered by advocates of creation biology to be evidence for a speciation event involving homo sapiens. === Flood geology === Flood geology is based on the belief that many of Earth's geological formations were created by the global flood described in the story of Noah's ark. Fossils and fossil fuels are believed by its followers to have formed from animal and plant matter which was buried rapidly during this flood, while submarine canyon extensions are explained as having formed during a rapid runoff from the continents after the seafloors dropped. Sedimentary strata are described as sediments predominantly laid down after Noah's flood. In addition to the above ideas that are in opposition to the principles of geology, advocates of flood geology reject uniformitarianism geology and radiometric dating. === Creationist cosmologies === Several attempts have been made to construct a cosmology consistent with a young universe rather than the standard cosmological age of the universe, based on the belief that Genesis describes the creation of the universe as well as the Earth. The primary challenge for young universe cosmologies is that the accepted distances in the universe require millions or billions of years for light to travel to Earth. Cosmology is not as widely discussed as creation biology or flood geology, for several reasons. First, many creationists, particularly old earth creationists and intelligent design creationists do not dispute that the universe may be billions of years old. Secondly, some creationists who believe that the Earth was created in the timeframe described in a literal interpretation of Genesis believe that Genesis describes only the creation of the ''Earth'', rather than the creation of the entire universe, allowing for both a young Earth and an old universe. == Scientific criticisms of creation science == Creationists often claim that creationism, and more specifically creation science, is not only scientific, but that it is even more scientific than evolution. This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science, is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as Scientific_method it must be: * consistent (internally and externally) * Parsimony (sparing in proposed entities or explanations) * useful (describes and explains observed phenomena) * empirically testable and Falsifiability * based upon controlled, repeatable experiments * correctable and dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered) * progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more) * tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty) For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it simply cannot be treated as scientific in any sense of the word. On these points, the National Academy of Sciences said: :''Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence. Furthermore, the claims of creation science do not refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to meaningful tests, so they do not qualify as scientific hypotheses. In 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that creationism is religion, not science, and cannot be advocated in public school classrooms. [http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0482_0578_ZS.html] And most major religious groups have concluded that the concept of evolution is not at odds with their descriptions of creation and human origins. [http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/preface.html]'' Specific objections raised against creationism as actual science include: * ''Creationism is not falsifiable.'' Theism is not falsifiable, since the existence of God is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. God being a transcendental being, beyond the realm of the observable, claims about its existence can neither be supported nor undermined by observation, hence making creationism, the argument from design and other arguments for the existence of God a posteriori arguments. (See also the section on #Creation science and falsifiability, below) * ''Creationism violates the principle of parsimony.'' Creationism fails to pass Occam's razor. Adding supernatural entities to the equation is not strictly necessary to explain events. * ''Creationism is not empirically testable.'' That creationism is not empirically testable stems from the fact that creationism violates a basic premise of science, naturalism (Philosophy). * ''Creationism is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.'' Creationism professes to be the absolute Truth, the word of God, not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. Once it is claimed that the Truth has been established, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data as well as any future data. It is often given as a justification for the naturalistic basis of science. In any practical sense of the concept, creationism is not progressive: it does not explain or expand upon what went before it and is not consistent with established ancillary theories. In light of its lack of adherence to the standards of the scientific method, Creationism, and specifically Creation Science, cannot be said to be scientific. *The hypothesis/solution is not based on analysis and observation of the empirical world - rather, it comes directly from the Bible. *There is no way to test the theory. *The underlying assumptions of creationism are not open to change. Scientists note that Creation Science differs from mainstream science in that it begins with an assumption, then attempts to find evidence to support that assumption. Conversely, science sets out to learn about the world through the collection of empirical evidence and the use of the scientific method. Historically, the debate of whether Creationism is compatible with science can be traced back to 1874, the influential science historian John William Draper published his 'History of the Conflict between Religion and Science'. In it, he portrayed the entire history of scientific development as a war against religion. This somewhat skewed presentation of historical fact was propagated further by such prestigious followers as Andrew Dickson White in his essay 'A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom'. Some opponents consider Creation Science to be an ideology and politics motivated propaganda tool whose purpose is to promote the creationist agenda in society. They allege that the term "Creation Science" was chosen to purposely blur the distinction between science and religion, thereby undeservedly legitimizing creationism by association to science. === Creation science and falsifiability === Creation Science is commonly called unfalsifiable by prominent members of the mainstream scientific community. Falsifiability was proposed by Karl Popper as a criterion for whether an idea should be considered scientific. If no experiment could be devised which would prove a theory false, then the theory was not a function of science, but rather Metaphysics or pseudoscience. Popper argued that certain ideas, such as Freudian psychology, were not falsifiable, because any possible observation could be fit into the theory, so that the theory, although not necessarily false, were metaphysical, rather than strictly scientific. He classified theories into three broad categories based on how falsifiable they were: :''"...There will be well-testable theories, hardly testable theories, and non-testable theories. Those which are non-testable are of no interest to empirical scientists. They may be described as metaphysical."'' Popper, Karl, Conjectures and Refutations (New York: Basic Books, 1963), p. 257. Many prominent scientists have argued that "Creation Science" is an oxymoron and purely metaphysical, because it is unfalsifiable. For example, Stephen Jay Gould wrote in "Hens' Teeth And Horses' Toes": :''"Scientific creationism" is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified. I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science. Lest I seem harsh or rhetorical, I quote creationism's leading intellectual, Duane Gish, Ph.D. from his recent (1978) book, Evolution? The Fossils Say No! "By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation. We do not know how the Creator created, what process He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe [Gish's italics]. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator."'' Pray tell, Dr. Gish, in the light of your last sentence, what then is scientific creationism? Later in the same book, he says: :''The individual claims are easy enough to refute with a bit of research. Creationists themselves have been forced to retreat from the more embarrassing items. Noted creationist Henry Morris, for example, has often cited the supposed footprints of dinosaurs and humans together in rocks of the Paluxy River of Texas. But creationist Leonard Brand attributes some of the "human" prints to erosion and others to a three-toed dinosaur. He also adds: "We do know that there was a fellow during the Depression who carved tracks."'' Phillip Quinn, a philosopher of religion and science, thinks that being able to falsify creationist arguments automatically means being able to falsify creationism itself, and therefore sees a contradiction between Gould's two quotes above: :''"Unfortunately, the patently false claim that creation science is neither testable nor falsifiable seems well on its way to becoming, for some evolutionary biologists, a rhetorical stick with which to belabor their creationist opponents. In a recent collection of essays, Stephen Jay Gould claims that "'scientific creationism' is a self-contradictory nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified' ... Gould goes on to contradict himself by asserting that "the individual claims are easy enough to refute with a bit of research." Indeed some of them are! But since they are easily refuted by research, they are after all falsifiable and, hence, testable. This glaring inconsistency is the tip-off to the fact that talk about testability and falsifiability functions as verbal abuse and not a serious argument in Gould's anti-creationist polemics."'' Creationists acknowledge that some aspects of creationism are unfalsifiable, but assert that other aspects are falsifiable. They claim parts of their beliefs are very difficult to falsify solely because the related events took place in the distant past. Opponents say that all the falsifiable parts have been falsified. Creationists also argue that the unfalsifiability of an idea does not necessarily mean that the idea is false, but only that contemporary scientists lack the tools to test it effectively. However, this has no bearing on whether or not the arguments of Creationists are true or false, but whether they are scientific. Creationists see the unfalsifiable aspects of the theory as ambiguities in the idea, rather than cause to dismiss the idea out of hand. Finally, they assert that many aspects of evolutionary theory are also unfalsifiable, such as common ancestry between humans and apes. They claim that no falsifying experiment could be conducted to test that theory, so a theory need not be ''wholly'' falsifiable in order to be considered scientific.[http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/falsify.htm] In the first quote above, Gould disagrees: :''I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs.'' About Creationist methodology, he says: :''Since we proposed punctuated equilibrium to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge...are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."'' == History == Within the history of creationism, creationism was originally based purely on theology. The vast majority of Church Fathers and Reformers accepted Genesis straightforwardly, and even the few who did not, such as Origen and Augustine, defended an earth that was on the order of thousands of years old. When geologists revised the age of the Earth to millions of years, some writers looked to studying geology within the Biblical timeframe detailed in the Ussher-Lightfoot calendar. In the first half of the nineteenth century, the leaders were the scriptural geologists in Britain. About a century later, the Canadian George McCready Price, wrote extensively on the subject. However, the concept only revived during the 1960s following the publication of ''The Genesis Flood'' by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb. Subsequently, creation science has expanded into biology and cosmology. However, efforts to have it legislated to be taught in schools in the United States were eventually halted by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment in Edwards v. Aguillard 1987. == See also == *Creationism *Intelligent Design *Pseudoscience *Cargo cult science == References == ["The philosopher of science as expert witness", p. 43, in Cushing, J., Delaney, C.F. & Gutting, G., Science and reality: Recent Work in the Philosophy of Science, University of Notre Dame Press, 1984]}} == Bibliography == A history of the revival of this form of Creationism can be found in Ronald L. Numbers, ''The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992),'' but gives a somewhat distored picture in that it is limited to 20th century and is concerned only with the movement in the USA, while neglecting significant groups in Great Britain, Europe and Australia. E.g. it ignores the [http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/T_Mortenson.asp#bookinfo 19th century Scriptural Geologists] and the [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp#fathers virtually universal support for YEC among the Church Fathers and Reformers]. === Creation science === *Batten, Don, Editor ''The Answers Book'' ISBN 0-949906-23-9 (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999) *Morris, Henry M., ed., ''Scientific Creationism'' ISBN 0-89052-003-2 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985) *Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, ''What is Creation Science?'' ISBN 0-89051-081-4 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987) *Mortenson, Terry, ''The Great Turning Point: The Church's Catastrophic Mistake on Geology — Before Darwin'' ISBN 0-89051-408-9 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004) *Wilder-Smith, A. E., ''Man's Origin, Man's Destiny'' ISBN 0-87123-356-8 (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968) *Sarfati, Jonathan, ''Refuting Evolution'' ISBN 0-890512-58-2 (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999) *Sarfati, Jonathan, ''Refuting Evolution 2'' ISBN 0-890513-87-2 (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 2002) *Sarfati, Jonathan, ''Refuting Compromise'' ISBN 0-890514-11-9 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004) *Woodmorappe, John, ''Studies in Flood Geology'' ISBN 0-932766-54-4 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993) *Woodmorappe, John, ''Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study'' ISBN 0-932766-41-2 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996) *Woodmorappe, John, ''The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods'' ISBN 0-932766-57-9 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999) *Wilder-Smith, A. E., ''Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory'' ISBN 9-99213-967-6 (Costa Mesa, CA: TWFT Publishers, 1987) *Whitcomb, John C. and Henry Morris, ''The Genesis Flood'' ISBN 0-87552-338-2 (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964) *Roth, Ariel A., ''Origins—Linking Science and Scripture'' ISBN 0-8280-1328-4 (Hagarstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1998) === Criticism === * Bates, V. L., 1976, Christian Fundamentalism and the Theory of Evolution in Public School Education: A Study of the Creation Science Movement [Ph.D. dissert.]: University of California, Davis. * Lewin, R., 1982, Where is the Science in Creation science? ''Science'' 215, pp. 142–146. * Vawter, B., 1983, Creationism: Creative Misuse of the Bible, in Frye, R. M., ed., ''Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case Against Creation-Science'' (New York, Scribner's Sons), p. 71–82. == External links == ===Neutral=== *[http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0482_0578_ZS.html Edwards v. Aguillard] 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling preventing the teaching of creation science in public school science classrooms === Creation science === * [http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research] * [http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers in Genesis] * [http://www.drdino.com/ Creation Science Evangelism] * [http://www.trueorigin.org/ The True.Origin Archive] ** [http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp List of Articles Supporting Creation] * [http://www.creationresearch.org/ Creation Research Society] * [http://www.creationequation.com/ CreationDigest.com] * [http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/index.htm Creation Insights] * [http://www.creationscience.com Center for Scientific Creation] * [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2575 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American's Nonsense] - ApologeticsPress.org Rebuttal === Criticism === * [http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm No Answers in Genesis website] * [http://www.creationtheory.org Creationism vs. Science] * [http://www.talkorigins.org Talk.Origins Archive] ** [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html Index of Creationist claims with rebuttals] ** [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html Talkorigins.org article on What is Creationism?] * [http://www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=10 National Science Teachers Association] Position Statement: The Teaching of Evolution * [http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp National Association of Biology Teachers] Statement on Teaching Evolution * [http://www.ncseweb.org/ National Center for Science Education] * [http://atheism.about.com/religion/atheism/cs/creationism/index.htm About creationism] * [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/ creationism] * [http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064066/html/ Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences] by the Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences * [http://omnibus.uni-freiburg.de/~riexinge/EvolutionIslam.html Links to Islamic creationist and anti-creationists websites] * [http://www.skepdic.com/creation.html Skeptics Dictionary] Introduction and criticism of creationism. * [http://www.scicom.lth.se/fmet/myths.html Origin Myths] Introduction to a number of alternative origin myths from varied cultures around the world * [http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense] - Scientific American creationism pseudoscience
Creation science
== Archives == :::Still relevant discussions are linked to as well. /Archive 1 - (/Archive 1#Creationism is not science) /Archive 2 - (/Archive 2#Pseudoscience) /Archive 3 - (/Archive 3#Creation science is not natural science or social science) /Archive 4 - (/Archive 4#Massive Edit) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Creation science ==Problems with the intro== A couple of points. First, the term "fundamentalist" is not a perjorative term depending on the context. In this context, it refers simply to someone who takes the view that Biblical Creation is fundamentally correct. Referring to people as "conservative" Christians is not factually correct and is unsupported by any evidence. Conservatism is a political viewpoint and the article is about religious views. While it is true that the majority of Fundamentalist Christians are politically conservative, there is nothing to suggest that all of them are. Therefore, describing Fundamentalist Christians as "conservative" is an unsupported claim. Also, the statement that there are non-Christians who endorse Creation Science is not supported and highly questionable. While it isn't possible to say that ''all'' supporters of Creation Science are Christians, there isn't a single shred of evidence provided that even one non-Christian supports it. Until and unless there is, the statement should be considered unsupported and misleading.--User:JonGwynne 02:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Creation science is supported by a variety of theologically conservative Christians, including Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals/Charismatics and others (and there are significant differences, even if you'd like to mass them all together). The Associated Press, in recognition of the pejorative nature of the term "fundamentalist" as it is often used, says in their stylebook only to use the term for those who use it for themselves. Making this the Wikipedia policy would be a good way to get the NPOV we all desire. Thus I'm removing the POV once again. User:Pollinator 03:37, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC) ::However, the way the intro is phrased, it implies that non-Christians support CS which is extremely doubtful. Again, "fundamentalist" is not a pejorative term - it is used by Christians to describe themselves. For this reason, it is not POV despite your unsupported insistence to the contrary. --User:JonGwynne 15:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Your rewrite is even more POV than the start. I've therefore reverted it, along with a vandalized link. User:Pollinator 20:10, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC) ::Most POV is the sentence (which I changed) that states that CS rejects information. Specifically CS will reject interpretations of data, but it is highly pejorative to suggest that CS will reject data. User:Wdanwatts 17:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Perhaps it would be better if you defined the difference. It seems pretty clear and unambiguous that CS supporters reject data - data for example that have to do with the age of the universe.--User:JonGwynne 19:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::Perhaps you could understand that photons are not rejected as being non-existant. User:Wdanwatts 21:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::Sorry, your point is? --User:JonGwynne 18:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::My point, elucidated by the example I wrote above: measuring light from distant stars (photons) is DATA. Someone, using Hubble red-shift, "standard candle" apparent brightness objects, etc. converts the measurement (DATA) to an age (THEORY). The CS rejection concerns the THEORY items, not DATA. Was that clear? User:Wdanwatts 20:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::Yes, thank you, that is much clearer. What I hear you saying is that Creation Science proponents reject the conclusions drawn from data collected by astronomers that strongly suggests that the universe is more than ~6,000 years old and that they reject these conclusions because they conflict with the letter of Genesis? Is my analysis correct? --User:JonGwynne 01:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::::Yes. User:Wdanwatts 01:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::::OK, then what's the problem? The CS advocates are not only rejecting interpretations of data, they're also rejecting data - why? Because they conflict with the writings of people several thousand years ago who didn't have the same understanding of physics and chemistry that we do today. Is my analysis correct? --User:JonGwynne 00:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::What DATA is being rejected? I'm NOT talking about interpretations, but DATA. Measurements. Volts, amps, photons. User:Wdanwatts 01:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::::::How about the age of the earth for one thing? Leaving red-shifts aside for a moment, geologists have demonstrated how to determine the age of the earth and while they may not have established the age to absolute precision, they've conclusively demonstrated that however old the earth may be, it is vastly older than Biblical Creationists believe it to be using Genesis as the basis for their claim. In other words, it is simply impossible to take Genesis literally without ignoring some basic facts about how the world works. That's why the Creationists have started coming up with desperate rationalizations like arguing about how long the initial "Seven Days" of creation lasted... These people haven't yet figured out that Genesis is a parable and not meant to be taken literally. --User:JonGwynne 07:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::::O.K., look at the determination of the Age of the Earth. "[C. C.] Patterson developed the uranium-lead dating method and, based on lead and uranium isotopic data from the meteorite Canyon Diablo [which is associated with the Barringer Crater ], calculated an age for the Earth of 4.55 billion years." CS takes issue with the assumptions (THEORY) necessary to make the uranium-lead calculated age. CS does not reject the uranium and lead isotopic DATA from the meteorite. Next? User:Wdanwatts 15:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::::::::All well and good but to continue to insist that the earth is only ~6,000 years old requires the rejection of data. Even Christian scientists like Dr. Roger Wiens are being forced to disappoint those who want to take Genesis literally by explaining to them how it simply isn't possible. --User:JonGwynne 00:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::::::No. It requires the rejection of an interpretation of data. The calculation of age for rocks is not data. The calculation of age is (hopefully) based upon data. There is no (known to me) 'timeometer' which measures age. What rejected DATA (density, relative abundances, counts of 'X', etc.) are you speaking of? User:Wdanwatts 15:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::::::::::All data is subject to interpretation. It's what Hume described as "sensory input" and Kant described as "phenomena". None of them have any ''meaning'' except by means of interpretation. When it is said that creationists reject data, it is necessary that they are rejecting interpretation of a phenomenon. Data itself is the interpretation of sensory input. So your playing with semantics is meaningless. Creationists reject both the content of rocks that are dated and the radiometric measurements of the content of those rocks. Thus they reject the data. User:Joshuaschroeder 16:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::I deny that the measured contents of rocks or the radiometric measurements are rejected, but due to the number of times that I have stated it, I will not argue the point any more. User:Wdanwatts 19:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::Your denial of this fact is noted, but I have seen more than a few creationist sites purporting to show that the way that isotope contents of rocks are measured is wrong. User:Joshuaschroeder 20:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::::Assumptions do not make a theory. you're playing with the meaning of the word here. User:JonGwynne is right of course - "creation scientists" reject all conclusions in the mainstream peer-reviewed scientific literature incompatible with their views. I've amended the wording accordingly. Wikipedia is about the real world, not about the situation as this or any other cult would define it. User:Ian Pitchford 12:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) :"The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter — 'tis the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning." - Mark Twain [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Twain#Miscellaneous]. The difference between rejecting data and rejecting interpretations OF data is at least that large. What User:JonGwynne wrote is wrong. However, even though I personally don't care for the choice of the word "knowledge" in the sentence in question, I will not challenge (nor change) the sentence as it stands. User:Wdanwatts 14:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::The above was written before JonGwynne's latest change. I retract my decision on the sentence as User:JonGwynne has left it. User:Wdanwatts 20:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) The phrase "Its proponents are mostly conservative Christians, although there are other supporters" is completely unacceptable. Here's why: First, it is inaccurate. Describing fundamentalist Christians as "conservative" is inaccurate. Not all of them are conservative. Besides, conservatism is a political qualifier, not a religious one. Second, the phrasing implies that there are supportes of Creation Science other than Christians and that is a highly questionable assertion without any support. Therefore, I have removed it (again). Please do not reinstate it unless you can provide support for these highly questionably claims.--User:JonGwynne 00:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Newest rewrite proposal == I have edited the /Phantym rewrite proposal to remove about half of the challenges to evolutionism. I also added a challenge to creationism by evolutionists [there are now 5]. Those 13 represent the most prominent issues on both sides, and every one of them has criticism from the opposite side as well as an article linked discussing the issue in more detail from a scientific perspective. I also removed some unneded stuff, like the discussion of creationist cosmologies, which is duplicated in the main article. I could see cut some more things down. For example, the main issues could be articles in and of themselves, and that process could be achieved without too much difficulty. I have also changed the section discussing how scientists on both sides have been quick to find evidence supproting their theories, in some cases too quick. That section is now labelled "finding what they are looking for" and has two examples from each side now. Note that the rewrite contains approx. half of the current article within it. -User:Phantym Why are you still here. Shouldn't you be off ripping up textbooks somewhere? User:Bensaccount :Why are you attacking User:Phantym? Isn't that considered bad form? User:Wdanwatts 19:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Bad form is spreading propaganda without any regard for reality. I am merely suggesting an alternate activity, which I am sure you and Phantym would enjoy more. User:Bensaccount 19:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==What's the problem with calling Fundamentalist Christians Fundamentalist Christians?== Why do some people object to this? --User:JonGwynne 07:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) :It has become a derisive label, especially following the rise of fundamentalist islam. It is covers only some of the Christian groups who believe in Creation and the Bible. A "broader" term is "evangelicals" or "conservative Christians". (so I've changed it to that). User:Rossnixon 08:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Who cares if it isn't "PC"? The fact is that it is an accurate description of a group of people. You know how I know this? Because these people refer to themselves as Fundamentalist Christians. It isn't a dirty word in all situations. --User:JonGwynne 19:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Ross is right, but there's more, as I've already explained. Why the frenetic desire to place a label? 99% of the time, when people try to apply the label, they have little real idea of what a fundamentalist Christian is. The three main groups in this arena are Evangelicals (including those within "mainline" churches), Pentecostals, and Fundamentalists, but there are others as well. Some Jews are young earth creationists, as are some Muslims. Then again, some Evangelicals are old earth creationists, and some are evolutionary creationists, neither of which would advocate "creation science," as it's commonly understood. The real question is, why are you so compulsive about pigeonholing? User:Pollinator 09:04, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) ::This is an encylopedia article - it is all about putting labels on things. --User:JonGwynne 19:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Stop wasting everyones time Pollinator. We all know you think your interpretation of every word in the sacred texts is literal truth. It is only a matter of time until you say so straight out. Why beat around the bush? User:Bensaccount 23:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Please shut up, Bensaccount. Attacking people is frowned upon on Wikipedia. And Pollinator's personal feelings should not matter. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. ::Any editor should be aware of his or her own POV. ::As an aside, Bensaccount, would you be willing to initiate banning procedures yourself, or are you honestly expecting someone else to bother. -- User:Ec5618 23:25, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) Actually, I no longer wish to be banned, as I am enjoying making some progressive edits to the intro. And Pollinators personal feelings (ie that fundamentalists are being "pigeonholed") don't matter at all, since they are unfounded and biased. User:Bensaccount 23:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) Stick to Wikipedia:Civility or you'll find your comments simply get deleted. ::I sure hope not. Deleting other people's commnents is simple censorship and completely unacceptable conduct here on the disussion board. If I find any situations in which one person deletes or modifies the statements of another, I'll revert it with some stern admonishments of the guilty party. *EVERYONE* gets their say here and no one has the right to censor it. The only person who gets to modify or delete a statement is the person who made it. --User:JonGwynne 19:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Not if they are breaking Wikipedia's rules. If you have a problem with that, you need to take it to the policy pages and argue the case for changing the policy. User:Steinsky User talk:Steinsky 20:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::Show me where it explicitly says in wikipedia policy that one user is allowed to censor another user if they don't like what that user says. The only way this talk page works is if everything gets to have their say freely - that includes statements that other people may find objectionable. --User:JonGwynne 15:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::Read above, again, carefully, and stop wasting time with straw men. User:Steinsky User talk:Steinsky 16:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::You'll notice that I don't delete your rude and pompous statements - why? Because it simply isn't appropriate. --User:JonGwynne 05:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::Well, since you're so attached to the straw man I'll leave you to it, but before I do, I'll leave you with the thought that deliberately mischaracterising somebody's argument (or not even bothering to read what somebody has said before replying, whichever it is) is rude, and, when the original comments are there for everybody to see that they bear no resemblance to your reply, is bewilderingly pointless. User:Steinsky User talk:Steinsky 14:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) Now, onto fundamentalism. While this particular use of the word may or may not be correct, I think Fundamentalist Christianity (in the original rather than more general use) needs to be mentioned, because it has always been amoungst the most vociferous anti-evolution groups. I have read several authors on this matter claim that without the Fundamentalist movement creationism would be much less of an issue than it is today, and I'll try and look up the references for the claim sometime this week (Julian Huxley and Daniel Dennett's names come to mind). User:Steinsky User talk:Steinsky 23:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) I see that a lot of people have strong feeling about this subject, but so far no one has made anything even approaching a convincing case that it is wrong to call Fundamentalist Christians by the name they have given themselves. Also, it is compeltely valid to mention Fundamentalist Christianity in this page. Since there is already an article about it in wikipedia, to not link this article to it would be wrong.--User:JonGwynne 19:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I have no particular problem with the current wording (but I am also used to reading what Bensaccount writes concerning me). If someone believes the current wording to be inaccurate, then perhaps that issue should be discussed. User:Wdanwatts 20:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::I have no problem with the accuracy of the current wording. I ''do'' have a problem with the intended meaning of the line. Since this line is supposed to describe, in a nutshell, where 'Creation science's' proponents can be found, I slightly object to the current wording, as I feel it should also mention the fact that even within these groups, many people do not believe in CS. -- User:Ec5618 20:32, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC) :::That's a good point. I'll take a stab at that. --User:JonGwynne 15:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) For the same reason that many people object to being called an evolutionist. It has a lot of negative connotations surrounding it. User:Falphin 23:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) Though it is true that some proponents of Creation science call themselves 'Fundamentalist Christians', in my experience, most do not. 'Fundamentalist' does have a negative connotation to many people and therefore should probably be avoided in blanket statements such as those often used here. Like some people have pointed out, there are more brands of Christians that support Creation science, such as Evangelicals and Pentecostals. The most public proponents of Creation science do not call themselves 'Fundamentalist'; rather, that is a label given them by critics. User:istill316 16:04, 14 Jun 2005 (EST) ==So what's the problem of calling bugs, bugs?== The responses to the above section on fundamentalists show that, for ''at least'' one person, there are subtlties too difficult to grasp. Perhaps it can be explained by analogy. A child, an illiterate, or a pesticide salesman might be able to get away with equating insects and bugs. But not a Wikipedia editor...a Wikipedia editor would speak of Hemiptera (the bugs) and the many other orders of insects. Now I don't know if a dragonfly (of Odonata), or a bee (of Hymenoptera) would be insulted by being called a "bug" but even more important, neither of them ''is'' a bug. Fundamentalists are a part of young earth creationism and the closely related creation science, and a few are quite vocal about it, but they are not the only group that has representatives that adhere to this view; in fact, they probably are not the majority. The current wording of the article now admits a variety, so I have left it alone. User:Pollinator 17:16, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC) :These are the YECists. You don't expect them to know any biology do you? User:Duncharris|User talk:duncharris 18:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==A special note to Ben== What gives you the right to assume things about my beliefs that I have not stated? Note carefully that I have never edited the content of creation science, except to challenge the innacurate characterization of who advocates it. Did you hear that, or is that too subtle for you? User:Pollinator 17:16, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC) I base this assumption on your past contributions. :''No you didn't. You based it on your own jumping to a conclusion. I've seen it in some young journalists, who only half listen as they interview a news source, then go back to the office and write the story they had in their mind beforehand.'' Also, note the context of the remark. I was trying to get you to stop beating around the bush and make your point. Generally it seems your remarks were merely attempting to avoid any objective description. User:Bensaccount 21:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :''Nope. I was trying to make things more accurate and clear, but you did not want to listen. I was telling you that there are many varieties of insects, some of which would threaten the survival of humankind, if we managed to exterminate them. You were saying, "If it has six legs and it moves, it's a detestable 'bug,' (or shall we say: hellfire-and-brimstone-bible-thumper?) and it must be squashed." :My wish for you is that you gain some maturity, learn to listen, learn to distiguish among the great variety that exists, and learn to form opinions only after you've learned the facts. User:Pollinator 00:51, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)'' I am not mature? I don't listen? I don't distiguish among variety? I form opinions not based on facts? Make all the assumptions you want Pollinator. This is not a newspaper report, and my comment was addressed to you, so if it was incorrect you merely could have corrected me. Currently, I still stand by my assumption. It would be quite easy for you to state your own beliefs and put this all to rest. And yes, CS advocates often do think their interpretation of every word in the sacred texts is literal truth. That is almost the definition of CS. So yes calling them fundamentalists (among other things) is objective. As for your musing about bugs...stop beating around the bush. User:Bensaccount 01:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::There is a place for this kind of discussion. Please take your petty squabling there: WP:SB -- User:Ec5618 08:57, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) ==Careful with your edit summaries== "Serial vandal" is not an acceptable term to describe other editors whose opinions you disagree with; it is considered a form of personal attack. And no, just because you may find any particular editor disagreeable is not in itself justification for labeling them a 'vandal.' User:FeloniousMonk 22:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I'm sorry, but as this comment seems to be addressed to me, I will respond. I did call Bensaccount a 'serial vandal', only after he had repeatedly vandalised the main article. He had replaced sections of the article with nonsense. I see no problem with calling a serial vandal, a serial vandal. Had this 'other editor' disagreed, and had he taken his disagreement to the Talk page, there would have been no problem. Unless, of course, he had vandalised the Talk page. :I will continue to call vandals vandals, and repeat offenders serial vandals. It is my silent hope that such clarity in wording will attract administrators. -- User:Ec5618 22:54, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC) ::Others have used the term in recent edit histories as well. If I remember correctly, no personal attacks is a policy, whereas discuss your edits/reverts first is a guideline. Nor does choosing to not discuss on the Talk page constitute vandalism. See: WP:Vandalism, WP:Civility. You may want to reconsider your stance; your wish that your choice of words will attract administrators will likely come true if you continue, but not likely in the way you hope. User:FeloniousMonk 23:31, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::I'm sorry, but have you taken a look at these edits? Replacing the intro with :::*''"Creation science (or CS) is an attempt to change belief into science via persistent propaganda."'' :::*''"Creation science (or CS) is creationism that is falsely portrayed as science by its proponents."'' :::*''"Creation science (or CS) is an amusing phenomenon in which certain religious zealots attempt to cite material to support their patent nonsense, while ignoring as much of the material's context as possible."'' :::* and other, less subtle insults. :::This is vandalism. I do not ''disagree'' with his edits, they are clearly not intended for serious review. Bensaccount was vandalising. As an example, replacing the contents of the article on pedophilia with "My next door neighbour likes babies" is also vandalising. Or don't you agree? -- User:Ec5618 00:14, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) ::::That's not vandalism. Those are WP:NPOV violations, and perhaps violations of WP:Point as well. It doesn't make him a vandal. Again, read WP:Vandalism, particularly the section 'What vandalism is not.' Look, I started this subsection not to support BA's efforts or to chastise or castigate you or RN, but as a kindly word of caution that calling what BA does vandalism can be considered a personal attack. You see, I've had to have this explained to me once or twice as well. User:FeloniousMonk 01:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::perhaps the energy spent instructing editors on the finer points of the official wikipedia definition of "vandalism" would be better spent instructing bensaccount to cease his endless nonsense. User:Ungtss 03:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::You'd prefer someone else's endless nonsense? BA's been an good contributor in the past. Though I don't approve of BA's recent method, I can understand how he may have come to this point given the frequency the creationism articles are contested by new arrivals with ideological axes to grind, ready to re-argue each point and reluctant to read the archives (Ec5618, who seems reasonable enough, being the rare exception). I chalk up BA's short fuse to combat fatigue. User:FeloniousMonk 05:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::you are evading the argument. we agree that bensaccount is making inappropriate edits. why are you investing your efforts in making sure everybody knows the technical definition of vandalism, and making no noticeable efforts to get bensaccount to stop his extremely inappropriate and destructive edits to this page, while consistently defending him. you are holding bensaccount and everyone else to vastly different standards. Bensaccount is damaging the page. people call that vandalism. your response: "it's not TECHNICALLY vandalism, so don't call him a vandal." meanwhile the destructive edits continue. it is extremely unjust, and illustrates the cause of the chronic problems on this page. bensaccount entered the fray here by redirecting the controversy page to ignorance. his purposes here have been clear from the beginning. welcome to the painful world of impartiality. User:Ungtss 17:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::::You choosing to impugn my motives by tarring me with the brush of partiality does not say anything about my actual motives yet tells us a lot about yours. Editors involved in conflict are banned or blocked less for violating WP:NPOV than they are for WP:Civility. Does anyone doubt that if BA were kept off the article by those using "serial vandal" as a justification that he'd not seek official remedy? That was my motive for speaking out against about the misuse of the term. I thank you to not again question my motives: Assume good faith. User:FeloniousMonk 19:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::::i said nothing about your motives. you're imagining things and trying to drag things off topic. i asked, very simply, a question you are ''continually avoiding'': "Why are you more concerned with making sure nobody uses a less-than-precise definition of vandalism than making sure he ''stops making destructive and pov edits to the page''?" let me put this a different way: "Why are you describing Bensaccount's ridiculous edits as "battle exhausation" when you yourself know that this edits are so much nonsense?" as to "assume good faith," that is a rebuttable presumption. i met bensaccount over 6 months ago after he redirected the "controversy" page to ignorance, and repeatedly called me a moron because i don't think similarity and relationship are synonyms. The next 6 months continually gave me absolutely no reason to believe he has any interest in improving this page. his most recent bit of nonsense involved saying, "Somebody ban me, I'm tired of wikipedia." I ask you, after 6 months of this little boy's nonsense, why do you insist i assume good faith despite infinitely manifest evidence to the contrary? Insight into your true motives would be greatly appreciated, lest i impugn your self-perception with reality. User:Ungtss 20:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::I answered your question already. Other than to say that and to suggest that you're out of line, you get the last word. User:FeloniousMonk 20:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::::::i didn't see the answer. i'm not after the last word. i'm after the answer to my question. bensaccount is being "kept of the article" because of his vile edits. the description of him as a vandal is incidental, although often true. if this article is ever to work, the priority has to be on excluding edits (whether technically vandalous of not) like those to which bensaccount has been subjecting creationism pages for half a year. User:Ungtss 20:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::A good test: If a creationist editor had a spate of reverts and edits like Ben, would that be "vandalism?"User:Pollinator 03:41, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) ::::::It's still not vandalism. Again, see WP:Vandalism. There have been examples least as often, if not more so, of the situation being reversed at various creationism articles. User:FeloniousMonk 05:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Alright, maybe ''technically'' Bensaccount isn't vandalising, as "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." and we should always asume good faith. Nevertheless, his methods we destructive, rather than constructive, and I will obviously continue to revert them. -- User:Ec5618 07:55, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) ::And rightly so. Thanks for taking my caution at face value and not assuming bad faith on my part. User:FeloniousMonk 19:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) Wrongly so. CS is creationist pseudoscience. The best (only) attempt to convince me otherwise was made by Dan, and failed miserably. Lammert's "experiment" is obviously just propaganda. Growing a tree with extra rings does not call into question the reliability of dendrochronology. User:Bensaccount 23:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::We are not here to convince you. You seek to make a change, if anything, you should convince us. I for one, will listen to any constructive comment you make. -- User:Ec5618 00:12, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC) ::I don't think it's your position (which I share BTW) that's earning you reverts, but your method. There are better ways to make your point and have it actually remain on the page because it will be so apparent as to be easily defensible. ::As one who has inveighed not just against trolls, but troll enablers, I hope that you will not turn me into one here, BA. User:FeloniousMonk 00:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Perhaps there are others that would grade my attempt differently. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bensaccount#Creation_science] for more information on the tree-ring saga. User:Wdanwatts 01:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::If your attempt was to show that Lammerts did not falsely claim that extra tree rings could appear, I'll agree. If your attempt was to show that dendrochronology is unreliable, I don't think you have. To be fair, I haven't read every source you (both) provided. But I still feel that the chances of great numbers of additional rings appearing in trees around the world, are pretty slim. The environmental conditions would have to be pretty extreme, and I do think that Occam's razor suggests it's unlikely. -- User:Ec5618 09:13, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC) ::::Actually, the focus was on the reliability of Bristlecone pines (which only grow in the arid regions of six western states) for dendrochronology. Currently, other dendrochronologies may fend for themselves, although beyond the bristlecone pine, only some european oak (bog) dendrochronologies get to 4000BC. User:Wdanwatts 13:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::Perhaps that was the focus for you. I feel that Bensaccount trying to prove that this creationist was destroying or misusing science. :::::I am still not convinced there is the slightest change that trees could appear much older than they actually are. Would you be convinced that the earth is older than a few thousand years if a fossilised or otherwise preserved tree was found, with a younger tree growing within it? Suppose the newer tree were cut down and was found to have 7000 rings. -- User:Ec5618 19:35, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC) ::::::It is fortunate that I am only attempting to show information. Why deal in suppositions? There are many interesting things that EXIST. Talk from those things. Show evidence. (By the way, apparently the European oak chronologies were not continuous, as of what information I have seen - but the situation may have changed by now. If not, then Bristlecone still is the longest continuous dendrochronology - as popularly reckoned.) User:Wdanwatts 21:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Intro bias? == Bensaccount has made the following edits to the intro, which I quickly reverted. Nevertheless, the suggestion has been made that these next lines specifically were POV. :''"Creation science is based on the belief that scientists should permit positing supernatural events where naturalistic explanations are believed to be inadequate. Proponents believe that Creation according to Genesis is historically accurate and/or inerrant and that the observable physical evidence is more fully consistent with the account of Genesis than with generally accepted theories of biological evolution and planet formation."'' :''"As such, they interpret physical evidence within the framework of a literal and historical interpretation of Creation according to Genesis and reject all mainstream scientific knowledge at odds with this view."'' Are these lines biased? Are they disinformation? If so, how? -- User:Ec5618 00:12, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC) ::The first question to ask isn't "are they biased?" but, "are they accurate?". And, by "accurate", I mean do they tell the whole truth? Do they? If not, then it doesn't matter whether they're biased or not. If so, then how can they be biased? Those who feel that the truth is biased are laboring under a bias of their own. Wouldn't you agree? --User:JonGwynne 19:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) Look @ the 1st sentence: "Creation science is based on the belief that scientists should permit positing supernatural events where naturalistic explanations are believed to be inadequate." :It is disinformation. It makes the following false assumptions: #That science permits or dissallows theories based on whether or not they are supernatural. #That scientists favour explanations that are naturalistic (without God). These are incorrect, and if you want them in here, you are going to have to stop hiding them in this mess of disinformation. You have to say "CS proponents think that science disallows God." or "CS proponents think that scientisits operate by judging whether something is supernatural." Preferrably just delete this mess of disinformation. User:Bensaccount 04:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Thank you for seriously rejoining the effort. ''".. scientists should permit positing supernatural events .."'' A question for you: Does science not usually dismiss supernatural claims? Does science not strive for explanation without invoking a supernatural wildcard? ::I agree with you in that science doesn't seek to exclude divinity. More to the point perhaps, many scientists don't, as many scientists are religious. Evolution, to many people including scientists, does not preclude the notion of divinity. ::Perhaps the wording should make it clear that science doesn't strictly seek to disprove the supernatural. Do note that it ''has'' inadvertently 'disproven' supernatural events such as the near-death-experience. -- User:Ec5618 12:24, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) == supernatural == <<''Were scientists to conclude that a supernatural explanation is correct, it would be impossible even in principle to distinguish between one supernatural explanation and another; thus determining the correct supernatural explanation among many is again impossible.''>> :thank you, FM, for your great contributions here, which contribute greatly toward npov. in the name of improving clarity, i have a couple questions. in particular, i'm not quite clear how the above sentence fits into the context of the section. you said immediately before this that if something occurs, it would essentially be "natural." so if scientists were to determine that a supernatural explanation is correct, wouldn't they simply be concluding that "something happened but we don't understand it?" why, then, would they be unable to discriminate between supernatural explanations? further, don't the two clauses in the above sentence contradict each other? "If scientists were to determine one supernatural explanation was correct ... determining the correct supernatural explanation among many is again impossible." huh? User:Ungtss 00:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::That's a good question. I think the confusion is caused by my poor choice of words. Are either of these more clear? ::#Were scientists to ''accept'' that a supernatural explanation is correct, it would be impossible even in principle to distinguish between one supernatural explanation and another; thus determining the correct supernatural explanation among many is again impossible. ::#''Even if'' scientists were to conclude that a supernatural explanation is correct, it would be impossible even in principle to distinguish between one supernatural explanation and another; thus determining the correct supernatural explanation among many is again impossible. ::Do you have a preference which is used? User:FeloniousMonk 00:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::excellent:). much much clearer -- no preference -- either makes that point much clearer. my second question is this: you said in the beginning of the paragraph that it's difficult to give "supernatural" a meaningful definition. absolutely:). this makes it very difficult to understand what you mean by "supernatural" in the rest of the section -- are supernatural events indeed "natural things that appear like magic to us," or are they violations of the laws of nature itself? or something else? could you clarify which definition of supernatural you are using in the rest of the section? User:Ungtss 00:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::The definition of supernatural that is used within the mainstream scientific community and applies here is: ''not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material''. User:FeloniousMonk 17:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::excellent. that's the core disagreement here. to define the supernatural as that which does not exist in nature and to define God as supernatural is to define God as not existing in nature. A=B; B=C; Therefore A=C. The definitions make atheism logically unavoidable. A theistic realist defines the supernatural as that which occurs which defies our scientific knowledge, and define God as supernatural. That makes the existence of God at least plausible. Question for further clarification on the page: how is your definition of "supernatural" meaningful in any way, when it simply defines supernatural entities as "non-existent?" Further, how can we claim to define entities as supernatural/non-existent, when our knowledge of the universe is so miserably inadequate? User:Ungtss 22:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) I don't think we should imply that mainstream science doesn't allow supernatural explanations without explaining what those are and why mainstream science often rejects them. It is true that most explanations that are generally thought of as "supernatural" are rejected by science, however I don't think that this is because they are "supernatural" explanations but because they fail occams razor. If I posit the theory that my washing up is done by fairies my theory fails not because it is a supernatural explanation but because any extension of my theory that explained the existence of fairies would by necessity be much more complicated (especially if I insisted that the fairies were made from "magic" rather than from matter (I would have to explain the laws of magic and how it interacts with matter)). It is at least conceivable that my theory gain enough evidence to make it the dominant theory without filling in those details thouroughly and then we'd have a "supernatural" theory that was acceptable science. Of course due to its short comings the theory would need a lot of data to back it up. The point is if we take a "supernatural" explanation to be one which requires a complete and radical rewrite of basic physical laws then generally "supernatural" explanations are not preffered by occam's razor. However, they are still valid theories. There is an additional problem of moving goal posts as any "supernatural" theory that becomes to be considered plausible by mainstream science is no longer considered "supernatural" but just wacky. Personally I can't see any way of pinning down a meaning for supernatural in such a way as to systematically disallow supernatural explanations. User:Barnaby dawson 08:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) :agreed. the thing about parsimony, tho, is that it only applies when events can be ''fully'' explained. if a question remains open (for instance, what started the big bang) then parsimony does not apply -- because we do not have a closed loop of assumptions to prefer to the supernatural explanation. occam's razor only works to shave off assumptions unneccessary to comprehensively explain things, but does ''not'' shave off assumptions when we're as-yet-unable to comprehensively explain them. that's another issue that i think we should address ... the creationist view that since there are many open questions about the specifics of the development of life (such as irreducible complexity, macroevolution, and specified complexity), occam's razor does not cut off ''any'' potential explanation. i'll take a stab at that this afternoon. User:Ungtss 13:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::I certainly don't agree with that point. It is always possible to estimate the complexity necessary to fill in any current gaps in understanding. Suppose your theory says that the clock on my wall is powered by the energy from the slow fall of a weight and my theory states that the clock is powered by the absorbsion of highly energetic tachyons emitted by aliens to fuel government licensed instruments. Suppose furthermore that we have not made enough observations to disprove either theory. Suppose that neither theory fully explain the operation of the clock as they don't explain how the hands are moved in the clock. Occam's razor still does prefer one explanation over the other. User:Barnaby dawson 21:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) :,''I don't think we should imply that mainstream science doesn't allow supernatural explanations without explaining what those are and why mainstream science often rejects them''> I've already done this — read the first and last paragraphs of the subsectionCreation_science#Science_and_the_supernatural. User:FeloniousMonk 17:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Indeed that is good work. User:Barnaby dawson 21:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) The word "supernatural" is a code word for "I don't understand how it works and I don't ''want'' to understand because that understanding may conflict with what I believe to be true" --User:JonGwynne 05:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) :you say that ascribing things to the supernatural is a means of avoiding the exploration of the issues. if that were the case in this context, would creationists and ID proponents be spending millions trying desperately to study, understand, and evidence it? User:Ungtss 14:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Of course they would, because they're not interested in facts but rather in protecting themselves from facts. It is a defense mechanism. p.s. "evidence" isn't a verb, it is a noun. ;-> --User:JonGwynne 02:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) == propaganda == please, mr. pitchford, be a good chap and behave like felonious monk. do not delete text because you think it is propaganda. it is a point of view, attributed to those who hold it. if you think it's wrong, address why, afterward. deletion is censorship. i will be placing the attributed point of view back on the page now. please edit appropriately. thank you. User:Ungtss 15:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) :It's not a point of view, as worded it's a false claim. --User:Ian Pitchford 15:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::everything in the text is appropriately attributed. nothing in the text states or implies that anything said is actually true. if it be a false claim, then attribute the true rebuttal. please. that's how the game is played here. User:Ungtss 15:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Claiming that X explains everything and that X requires no explanation is not a contribution to knowledge, it's a rhetorical device used as a thought-terminating clichè. --User:Ian Pitchford 15:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::that would look great as a rebuttal, immediately after the argument. if you want to persuade, you have to let the other side say his piece, and then tear it to bits. i have no objection to that. User:Ungtss 16:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::Maybe if the page was meant to be the text of an argument. Please remember that we are attempting to write an encyclopedia article here not carry out an argument. === more on parsimony === <<''They also argue that creationism as an explanation is not an affirmative proposition. For an explanation to be an affirmative proposition it must tell why something is one way instead of an alternative way.''>> :can you elaborate a bit as to why this is so? for instance, how does the proposition "man and apes evolved from a common ancestor" meet your criterion of "telling why something is one way instead of an alternative?" User:Ungtss 19:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::As it says an explanation tells us why something is one way instead of an alternative way. As an explanation, theory of evolution (which posits that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor) attempts to account for a broad range of phenomena/evidence. As an explanation its propositional quality is determined by the fact that by explaining one class of things it also explains phenomena/evidence of some other class. Thus, evolutionary theory is the framework tying together all of biology, and in turn explains peripheral topics like fossils, biogeography, etc. Mainstream science holds that evolution provides a framework for biology, and which can support other useful scientific advances, whereas creationism has been around for millennia and has not yet contributed a practical framework for further advances in any useful, meaningful way. User:FeloniousMonk 22:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::i'm afraid i don't see the answer to my question in the above -- can you clarify: how does the specific explanation "man and apes evolved from a common ancestor" tell why things are one way and not the other -- that is, "man and apes were created separately?" why does your position meet the criterion but mine fail it? User:Ungtss 00:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::Ah, I was explaining why Modern evolutionary synthesis was an affirmative proposition, which is only one half of the story, because I thought the other half was self-evident. Evolutionary theory, being part of science, precludes ''any'' supernatural mechanisms. Conversely, creation science only precludes naturalistic mechanisms as a first cause, which must always be God. Therefore, Modern evolutionary synthesis excludes creationism in all forms whereas CS allows for some naturalism. I may rewrite those sentences that refer to affirmative proposition as I'm not happy with the way they read. User:FeloniousMonk 17:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::sounds like a plan. when you do, can you explain how "evolutionary theory, being part of science, precludes any supernatural mechanisms?" since evolutionary theory is an explanatory framework, i fail to understand how the mere existence of one explanatory framework precludes the possibility of another. i fail to see how saying "man and apes evolved from a common ancestor" means that humans and apes ''could not have been created separately''. User:Ungtss 18:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::The statement "creationism is an unnecessary entity" seems to go against the idea that if it were true, then there could be evidence that the earth (and its neighbors) is (are) not very old. Evidence such as questions (valid?) of the accuracy of bristlecone dendrochronology, or of the age of lunar craters, given the most probable viscosity of the lunar basalt (and the associated time for a crater to remain under the lunar gravity). User:Wdanwatts 21:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Macroevolution or evolution== There's a problem with saying that "creation science is primarily concerned with issues such as...macroevolution". The issue is that while creation science proponents see their "beef" to be with macroevolution only, the scientific community doesn't see it to be that way. Many of the "issues" with which creation science deals are deciding what parts of science to keep and what parts to discard or change. In this way, parts of "evolution" are kept and parts of evolution are not. That creation science deals with macroevolution is of course true. That it doesn't deal with the rest of evolution is absurd because by saying that macroevolution and microevolution can be viewed separately, they are making a statement on all of evolution. Therefore it should be "evolution" and not just "macroevolution". User:Joshuaschroeder 22:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I agree. Macroevolution is microevolution on a longer timescale. The proper term is evolution. -- User:Ec5618 12:24, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) ::So no "Hopeful Monsters"? No saltaions? All change in gradual steps? Interesting! User:Wdanwatts 02:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) Since Dan seems intent on proving he knows absolutely nothing about evolution: Yes, a gradual change in DNA can have a "major" change in phenotype. User:Bensaccount 21:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :True. Usually from 'living' to 'dead'. User:Wdanwatts 00:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) Evolution does not occur during a single lifetime. Please try and understand the basics before calling them "true". User:Bensaccount 00:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Thanks for the tip. Are you attempting to recant your phenotype statement? User:Wdanwatts 16:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) Lets review: Evolution occurs because of changes in DNA from one generation to the next. A small/gradual change in DNA can have a large effect on phenotype from one generation to the next. Keep it up Dan, you are almost learning biology at a highschool level now. User:Bensaccount 18:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Wow! Changes in the DNA in each generation! No stasis here. How does the poor cockroach keep itself together? (I hope that you don't teach high school biology.) User:Wdanwatts 00:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::You're kidding right? You really don't believe that the DNA of the parent is the same as the DNA of the child, do you? Even identical twins have variations in their DNA. Maybe you should take high school biology. User:Joshuaschroeder 12:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Now THAT sounds like variation within a population. Blue eyes vis Brown viz Green, hair color, etc. Or are you stating that perhaps we should put a net over every delivery room because the next child born may have wings? User:Wdanwatts 17:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::Have a look at polyploidy. Genome duplication can result in speciation from one generation to the next. On the other hand, microsatellites can distinguish deviation at the level of a few generations. So, yes, DNA changes from generation to generation - it also changes within individuals over the course of a lifetime. Chimeras are much more common than was previously thought...most of us probably are. But selection can only operate between generations. User:Guettarda 17:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==What other religions believe== Ungtss has restored the long-winded description of what other literalists in other religions might believe in (creation according to Genesis, great flood, etc). This is an unnecessary distraction editorially. There is no compelling reason to describe what these people who are, by the article's admission, ''not'' holders to creation science believe. We already say they are creationists, if they are that important let them be described on the creationism page or their own page. This is a page not about the beliefs of fundamentalists Bahai believers, it is a page about "creation science". User:Joshuaschroeder 22:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) == What is the story of creation?== I'm sorry for this rather ranting post. I have tried to be as open minded and neutral as I could possible be, and I still strive for that. However, looking over some creationist sites has left me wondering wether creation science is not just a well funded lie. I've been reading a few sites on creationism (AiG and creationism.org and the like), and they seem very inconsistent on anything but the big picture. They all agree that Noah built an Ark to escape a flood, they all agree that the Grand Canyon could have been formed in this flood. A few claims I found: * One author claims that Noah's ark would not have had to carry much or any food, as the animals would go into hibernation or estivation[http://www.creationism.org/caesar/tough.htm]. He claims that hibernation is induced by lack of nutrition, while he glosses over the fact that very few animals actually hibernate, and that these few animals spend weeks or months building a layer of fat. * Another author continues with this notion of hibernation, but acknowledges that the idea of all animals going into hibernation is improbable.[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp] * This same author posits that the Ark would probably have carried compressed and dried foodstuffs, and probably a lot of concentrated food. Concentrated food. Concentrated food. * And he states that the Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits, and claims Genesis 6:15 as his source. These values are only valid if one assumes the Ark was a perfect box. While Genesis does include measurements, to assume that the Ark was not shaped like a boat at all seems odd. To assume that such a structure could be built out of wood millenia ago seems incredible. * Finally he claims that the Ark didn't need to carry many animals at all. It needed only carry a pair of Equines, from which current horses, zebras and donkeys 'descended'. Note that he didn't use the word 'evolved'. His statement hinges on his assertion that horses and zebras are the same species. To make his point that the current definition of a species (''a group of organisms which can interbreed and produce fertile offspring'') is not reliable, he says: :: ''"However, most of the so-called species (obviously all the extinct ones) have not been tested to see what they can or cannot mate with."'' : Is he actually claiming that scientists should have tried to pair all animals, to see what would happen? Dolphins and hedgehogs? Humans and catfish? It seems to me, that this is a non-stuble way of trying to discredit science. ''"'So-called' species havn't even been tested by scientists. Why believe science?"'' * John Morris, Ph.D., 'a former professor in geological engineering', claims that the Grand Canyon could have been formed in a single event, because such things are not unheard of. He cites an example of a small canyon, forming in sand and clay, in just a few days, due to rainwater. I fail to see the relevance of this analogy, as everyone knows that mild rain can easily wash away a sandcastle, but can not be observed destroying stone.[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i4/canyon.asp] Most of these comments seem aimed at spreading doubt about evolution through underhanded means. ''"Great minds of the past had no difficulty with the concept of a young earth shaped and reshaped by catastrophic forces, especially the upheavals associated with Noah’s Flood."'' Great minds used to believe the Earth was flat. The author must have known that, but chose to include this comment, for effect. This statement comes across as a logical fallacy (appeal to authority). I'm not sure what the purpose of my post is, and I know that strictly it has little to do with the article, but I feel rather let down by the 'creation sciences'. If this is the best they can do, or if this is the sort of garbage they 'teach' people through their websites, I have little choice but to agree with Bensaccount: Creation science may be a true effort, but its fruits are unreliable, and its most prominent advocates dishonest. If so, the article should reflect that. -- User:Ec5618 12:24, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) :Welcome to the reality of creation science, Ec. :The problem is, of course, that as soon as you start to describe creation science for what it really is, the creationists who believe in it will start crying foul. They will claim one of the following: 1) your valid criticisms represent original research, 2) your valid criticisms are uncited, 3) even if there are valid criticisms of the "theories", the "theories" themselves should be represented without criticism in order to maintain some "NPOV" that the creationists seem to think represents special protection for their nonsense. :I just reverted a huge amount of crap in Creationist cosmologies where some rather rabid creationists had inserted all manner of nonsense about cosmology in general and certain creationist believers in particular. Not content to have the ideas presented and roundly shown to be extremely problematic, these people prefer to see inaccurate and incomplete "critiques" of mainstream science serve as the meat of the article. The reason for this is that this is the modus operendi of creationists and creation science proponents: to criticize science to make themselves feel better in their beliefs. Consistency is impossible for them because there is no agreed-upon threshhold for determining when empricism and logic should be used to back up their statements and when the bible should be used. Thus you come up with bizarre claims like certain "scientists" demanding the ark was a box while other "scientists" claim that it only "approximated" a box. That the ark existed, however, is something that cannot be debated in "creation science" because it is necessarily assumed to be true by means of scriptural authority. :Therein lies the rub. Creationists have used the idealization of "creation science" for decades now to confuse the issue that they really have a problem when it comes to the skeptical inquiry that is science. Since they have little to no way to consistently defend their rabid believe in literalism (or historicity, as Ungtss likes to call it), they have created for themselves an invented world and a ready-made repository of nonsense to cite as a means to weasle themselves out of any corner their contradictory beliefs get them into. The "NPOV" thing to do is call creation science what it is: a basic sham-outfit to distract from the major problems that rejection of empirical science imposes on a worldview. :-User:Joshuaschroeder 13:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::'Concerning the Grand Canyon' ::Here is a possible analogy using not rain, but running water. See [http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/hydraulics_lab/history/history_paper_burgi.pdf], especially Figure 4 on page 7. User:Wdanwatts :::First of all, great source. Great concept. The source talks of a spillway tunnel used at Hoover Dam. A short excerpt: :::''"The damage was thought to initiate at a “misalignment” of the tunnel invert just above the elbow. The damage was caused by high velocity flow passing over the roughness and leading to bubble formation (similar to boiling water) in the flow. When the bubbles collapsed, high energy shock waves were generated damaging the concrete. This phenomena is referred to as cavitation formation and damage."'' :::This would show that water, under high pressure, and at high speed (thus at low pressure, courtesy of Bernoulli's principle) can cause microfractures and in time, can quickly erode a rough surface. And while this effect requires need high pressure and extreme speed, this story does grant some level of credibility to the notion of Flood geology. I would like to point out though that most concepts of Flood geology assert that the Earth had few features prior to the flood, which begs the question: 'how would such high pressure and speed have been possible?' :::Also, you must admit that the [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i4/canyon.asp AiG source] was useless, from a scientific point of view. And it is a bit silly that I had to hear of this [http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/hydraulics_lab/history/history_paper_burgi.pdf decent source] from you. Shouldn't AiG have used this source, instead of resorting to telling tales of simple but useless science experiments? -- User:Ec5618 13:49, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) ::::I have no (well, maybe little) knowledge of AiG, and would ask you to peruse the [http://creationresearch.org/ Creation Research Society] website as an alternative. I really do not know what research is done at AiG. User:Wdanwatts 15:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::I asked you several direct questions. I gave you a chance to speak ill of AiG, or this specific example. You could have admitted that the [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i4/canyon.asp AiG source] is useless, from a scientific point of view. You could have admitted that the 'high pressure and high speed' required for the fact erosion mentioned above present 'a bit of a puzzle'. You chose not to, citing 'lack of background knowledge'. Why? Work with me here. :::::I am now perusing http://creationresearch.org as per your suggestion, and I'll admit, I havn't found gaping logical fallacies or false claims in the few minutes I have been reading. -- User:Ec5618 15:31, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) ::::::I apologize for not answering all of your questions, not that I am any authority. Yes, I agree that the AiG article you pointed out has little (if any) scientifically useful information on Grand Canyon formation. As for high velocity, (I assume that the interaction of a high-velocity stream with any solid body could generate sufficient force) a possible driver would be orogeny during the year following the flood itself. If the pre-flood earth had little vertical contrast, then tides could travel without much abatement by continents (if the whole earth's surface was under water). Any tectonic tilting could interact with the (pre-existing) flow to cause 'local' disturbances. That is one possible mechanism. User:Wdanwatts 16:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::I don't have time for a longwinded comment. Let me suffice by noting that the tides would hardly be capable of causing extreme water speeds, even on a flat Earth. Also, plate tectonics are also contested by creation science, I believe, so invoking them might be controversial. -- User:Ec5618 16:45, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) ::::::::The extreme speeds would be due to the interaction of the tidal flow with (controversial) plate tectonics driven orogeny. Hurriedly, User:Wdanwatts 16:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::::All this discussion is irrelevent because it is just the speculation of Dan Watts as to how creation scientists might try to post-justify their beliefs in flood geology. None of this belongs on this page and it certainly doesn't qualify as actual science. User:Joshuaschroeder 18:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::::All this discussion is irrelevent because it is just the speculation both sides. None of this is science, it's just origins theories which are not proveable by either side. And what's with all the anti-creationist sentiment? Did a creation science advocate run over your cat? This is my first post so if I'm breaking some rules here let me know.User:hawnsa 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) Anti-creationist is different than anti-creation science. As for the latter, people generally dislike liars. User:Bensaccount 21:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) The discussion on this section should probably cease. It has little to do with discussion of the article's content. User:-Ril- 19:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) == ''Scientific has a wider meaning than you think'' == Please do explain. User:Project2501a 21:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Creation science (or CS) is incorrectlydescribed by its proponents? Please. This edit was made to be controversial, and no effort was made to explain it on the talk page. -- User:Ec5618 22:17, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) ::They are incorrect. How hard is that to understand? User:Bensaccount 23:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) : I will agree wtih Bensaccount, though. Creation science is only by name. I was just not supporting the use of strong language. User:Project2501a 00:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) Agreed. that part is throwing coal into the fire. I was asking for explaination on the "Scientific has a wider meaning than you think". What is this "wider" meaning of science? User:Project2501a 23:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) : Definition: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. (i.e. not limited to the more narrow world-view of the 'scientic method'). User:Rossnixon 01:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) : : *shakes head* Douglas Adams was right. it ''was'' a bad idea to come down from the trees in the first place... Strike that. Even the trees where a bad idea! Good, great. Um, I don't know if you remember but there was a time called the dark ages. Yes, terrible times. People went to the stake for saying the earth revolves around the sun because the bible said so. Allow me to express my sincere thanks for your efforts to push the world back in that direction. Thank you! Now, where's those five pints I ordered... User:Project2501a 03:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: The 'scientific method' excludes all the supernatural. If "truth" includes the supernatural, then this method limits the chances of coming to correct conclusions. I prefer a 'science' that is not narrow-minded. Science = knowledge. Douglas Adams was funny, but wrong, and ultimately pathetic. User:Rossnixon 09:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::If the "supernatural" is a part of empirical truth then it should be measurable commensurate to the scientific method. Then it usually isn't considered "supernatural" anymore. If God acts in a measurable way, then God or God's actions will be observable and no longer "supernatural" by the most strict of definitions. Science only excludes the supernatural that is considered to be unmeasurable. For example, belief in the soul need not have measurable effects in the natural world. Therefore the existence of the soul is not considered something that is scientifically-based. That doesn't mean that the soul doesn't exist, only that it isn't available for scientific measurement. It is unfortunate that people who find themselves trying to apologize for their belief in literalism find it necessary to attack emprical science because there is no reason to claim that all of truth must be based on empirical observatio