Talk:Baraminology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 5 December 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Somebody asked for this at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Mathematical and Natural Sciences but there were no links to it so I threw one in at Creationism. It doesn't seem useful to me, but then I do not understand why labels such as Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus are universally useful either. I have tried to stay NPOV --Henrygb 00:11, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Why qualify?
I notice that throughout the article, there is the comment (in creationist view). I see no such comment in the page on evolution, even though there are many problems with the conjecture of evolution. Boffey 09:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That is a fair point, and I will explain: the reason I wrote it here is that I made a set of assertions which if left unqualified would have caused surprise and raised POV concerns. I did much the same with universal common descent and the theory of evolution, which was an attempt at balance.
- As another point, I think the article became more unclear after 21 February. Not it has been merged into created kinds.
I removed the Controversial tag as I see no controversy here. --Xyzzyplugh 05:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ==Controversy==
From the article:
In 2004 Richard von Sternberg, a member of the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group, acting in his capacity as editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington accepted for publication a paper by Stephen C. Meyer, Program Director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, causing a storm of controversy [1]. This is the only paper on intelligent design to have appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. [2] Sternberg left the publication shortly afterward, and the society published a statement renouncing the paper.
This has nothing to do with baraminology, so I moved it to the talk page. --Tgr 11:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dishonesty, withholding facts, and NPOV
The article is mostly silent on baraminology's status (or lack thereof) in the science community. This article discusses baraminology as if it were an accepted science, which it most certainly isn't. Not mentioning the fact that the scientific community overwhelmingly rejects creationism (and, a fortiori, baraminology) is a very dishonest portrayal of the issue. It's not a violation of NPOV policy to point out the simple fact that an overwhelming majority of scientists do not see any legitimacy in any creationism-related theory. In fact, portraying it as if it's science when it is widely considered a pseudoscience is taking a non-neutral point of view by deliberately omitting relevant facts. Wje 00:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have added the scientific status of this theory. The major point is that, like all of Creation Science, Baraminology is psuedoscience as defined by the National Academy of Sciences. In addition, no peer reviewed research has been published supporiting this theory. All research has been published in religous journals that do not undergo peer review.--Roland Deschain 00:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Err, do these people claim this is a science?
No part of the article seems to show any Baraminologist people claiming that it is science, the only thing I read coming close is this ReMine person saying that something could be a theory, but cannot be observed or classified, so that doesn't sound like he's saying that this is necessarily science. Then there's the book mentioned which had the word "Biology" in it, but there doesn't seem to be anything in the article saying the writer takes this biology he's advocating as a necessarily scientific biology. Homestarmy 14:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
