Talk:Creation science/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

‹ The template below has been proposed for deletion. See templates for deletion to help reach a consensus on what to do. ›

This discussion page may contain trolling. Before you post any reply, consider how you might minimize the effects of trollish comments. Simply ignoring certain comments may be the best option. If you must respond, a temperate response is always best, whether trolling is suspected or not.

NPOV problem

I just came across an article called scientific creationism which appears to be very POV. I have slapped a NPOV message on it and listed several difficulties on the talk page. It could be useful if people here could have a look at it. Barnaby dawson 19:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that article should be either deleted or merged with this one - it appearly to be redundant. --JonGwynne 20:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeeed it is. I have redirected the page to this one. Joshuaschroeder 20:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is a great article! It would be better to redirect Creation Science to Scientific Creationism. Do we want a vote on this? RossNixon 21:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That was an article that is fraught with NPOV problems and contains a lot of misinformation. This article is better from an encyclopedia standpoint. You can initiate a vote if you want, Rossnixon, but realize that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Joshuaschroeder 22:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well there is a lot of good content that may be lost, or will it still easily be accessible? It took a few clicks to find my way to it. RossNixon 01:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Being a redirect its edit history will be accessible. I agree that it should be a redirect. Barnaby dawson 08:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If there is any content that was on that page that isn't covered well on Creation Science, feel free to include it. Joshuaschroeder 12:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The page was reverted from a redirect to the original text. I have reverted back. I suggest if this continues happening to put the page up for VfD. 194.222.190.174 29 June 2005 13:16 (UTC) (This is user:Barnaby dawson. For some reason my account is playing up).

Since scientific creationism is an actual synonym for creation science, it would be best not to VfD it. A Request for comment would probably be better, but there are enough likeminded people here to keep the redirect even without it. Joshuaschroeder 29 June 2005 14:47 (UTC)

Rossnixon keeps making provocative edits trying to remove criticism from the introduction. This is unreasonable. Joshuaschroeder 29 June 2005 22:34 (UTC)

No, I'm just removing the provocative POV statement, which, if required, should be in a following paragraph. That's the usual place for criticism, not in the definition and description by proponents. RossNixon 29 June 2005 23:39 (UTC)

Usual place? Here are some examples:

In the late 19th century the luminiferous aether ("light-bearing aether"), or ether, was a substance postulated to be the medium for the propagation of light. Later theories, including Einstein's Theory of Relativity, demonstrated that an aether did not have to exist, and today the concept is considered "quaint".

The so-called N rays (or N-rays) were a phenomenon described by French scientist René-Prosper Blondlot but subsequently shown to be illusory.

Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy or homoeopathy), from the Greek words homoios (similar) and pathos (suffering), is a system of alternative medicine, notable for its controversial practice of prescribing water-based solutions that do not contain chemically active ingredients. The theory of homeopathy was developed by the Saxon physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843) and first published in 1796. It has a wide and growing popularity in areas where it is practiced today, but neither its empirical nor its theoretical foundation meets the minimum criteria of the scientific establishment.

You're going to have to reevaluate that statement. The edit stands. Joshuaschroeder 30 June 2005 01:57 (UTC)

Agreed. It is vital that important points of view are represented prominantly in articles where they are pertinant. The mainstream scientific view is certainly important enough to warrant immediate attention in any article on the subject of creationism. Before anyone says it I should note that creationism is not of sufficient import to get the same treatment on the page concerning evolution and certainly not on other minor articles on the same topic. User:Barnaby dawson 30 June 2005 09:18 (UTC)

Sorry, can't agree. Falphin, Ec5618, Project2501a and Dunc agree with me, I believe. Your 3 examples were for theories which have been invalidated by the scientific method. Creation Science can not be invalidated by the same method (not repeatable, observable or measureable). RossNixon 30 June 2005 11:18 (UTC)

For the record, I do not agree with you. For the record, I would appreciate if you didn't talk for me. I can talk for myself, thank you very much. Also, please note, you're playing with words, since creation "science" has been invalidated by the scientific record: If you want your hoccus-poccus to be refered as hard science, you should play by the rules. You're not. All you wish to see, is that critisism is removed from the article. Your behaviour belongs under a bridge, not in an encyclopedia that aspires to be scientific and academic. Also, for the record, I do not agree with your edit. I am much more content with Joshuaschroeder's edit and frankly, i'm itching to revert the article back to his edit. and frankly, i just did. Project2501a 30 June 2005 22:39 (UTC)

Let's let the others speak for themselves, okay Rossnixon? None of them have weighed in on the current edit and I don't think that all of them would agree with you. I picked those three ideas because those ideas all still have a small number of vocal proponents who claim that the scientific method hasn't invalidated their pet (homeopathy having more supporters than creation science, I would wager) just like you do. Your explanations have all fallen short of convincing and if you keep up this vandalism I will start an RfC. Joshuaschroeder 30 June 2005 11:51 (UTC)

Your 3 examples may have small number of vocal proponents, but the scientific method has invalidated their claims. Homeopathy has been proven false with recent double-blind, placebocontrolled, randomized clinical trials. I will allow you to state that most scientists believe CS to be pseudoscience (even though I dispute this), but not in the first paragraph. RossNixon 30 June 2005 21:01 (UTC)

Excuse me? Allow me? Jimbo? is that you?

You can dispute all you want, till the sun explodes in 5 billion years, when the facts, then, will be irrelevant, unless we will move earth. Right now, the facts say that noa never got dinosaurs in the ark and that the bible is a work of literature put together by men who had a bone to pick. sheesh. Project2501a 30 June 2005 22:38 (UTC)

It's not for you to dictate terms as to what appears in the intro and what doesn't. That CS claims to be real science while the actual scientific community says it is not isn't just highly pertinent and worthy of inclusion in the intro, but central to understanding the controversy surrounding CS and why its made no inroads in mainstream science. For that reason alone a complete and factual intro will include how scientists view creation science. FeloniousMonk 30 June 2005 21:19 (UTC)

I think adding the opinion of scientists is completely against the rules of NPOV. It is like adding the opinion of rabbis to an article on bacon. A neutral description requires the definitive facts to be stated before any selected POVs. The fact that CS is pseudoscience must be included. Including the opinion of scientists, however, is just another POV. Bensaccount 30 June 2005 21:59 (UTC)

what about bagels? can rabbis give opinions on the ethics of bagels? *snicker* :) Yatalef yavani! Project2501a 30 June 2005 22:38 (UTC)

Let's see, creation science has a small number of vocal proponents, the scientific method most definitely has invalidated the claims of creation science, and since creation "science" has the word science in it, it makes sense to explain whether it is a science or not in the introductory paragraph which is supposed to describe the term. So I'm unsure as to where you are getting your justification. I think you might want to start a RfC if you want to keep up this POV pushing. Joshuaschroeder 30 June 2005 23:46 (UTC)

You say "most definitely". Please show where Creation Science's belief in "special creation" has been invalidated by repeatable, observable or measureable scientific testing. RossNixon 1 July 2005 01:20 (UTC)

"Special creation" is defined in many ways. If you mean to say where creation science's belief in an Age of the Earth that is only a few thousand years old, maybe you can check the relevent article. Joshuaschroeder 1 July 2005 02:07 (UTC)

As a long-time reader of encyclopedias, I don't think the current first paragraph sounds like an encyclopedia. It seems more interested in making sure nobody takes the subject seriously than it is in explaining the subject.

True, many claims of creation science have been invalidated, as Joshuaschroeder indicates. But creation science makes other claims that, in order to invalidate them according to the scientific method, would require researchers to reoriginate the universe, describe it in a scientific journal, and wait for fellow scientists to repeat the experiment. Mdmcginn 16:40, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

As with many endeavors that are "extra-scientific" there are a variety of claims with a variety of descriptions. The specific claims of creation science are confined to empirical investigation. For those things that require the creation of the entire universe, we have the overarching creationism article which is a belief that isn't necessarily invalidated by the scientific method. Joshuaschroeder 11:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Creation science is pseudoscience

There is nothing wrong with calling creation science a pseudoscience since it fits the definition provided on the page referenced. If anyone has any evidence that it doesn't fit that definition, please present it here. I have editted the introduction accordingly. We cannot keep pandering to minority who unreasonably cling to their own idealized versions of reality. Joshuaschroeder 1 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)

Totally agree with Joshua. Seriously, I got better things to do than revert POV pushers. I got a good mind to start an RfC on the next removal of the word pseudoscience. Project2501a 1 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)

That CS is pseudoscience is a matter deductive reasoning, not opinion. Before anyone rushes to type a hasty refutation, I suggest they adjust the scope of their counter-argument to encompass the definition of pseudoscience and how definitions relate to the law of identity. If they do not understand the previous sentence, I suggest they reconsider typing. FeloniousMonk 1 July 2005 21:49 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is by defintion something not accepted by the scientific community, so saying that "the scientific community calls it pseudoscience" is redundant. It IS pseudoscience, by definition. --brian0918 ™ 1 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Brian gets it. FeloniousMonk 2 July 2005 05:16 (UTC)

Having looked at pseudoscience I agree with Joshuaschroeder. Barnaby dawson 4 July 2005 08:21 (UTC)

I read that the scientists battling creation "science" consider their most important task to be NOT ALLOWING A REDEFINITION OF THE WORD SCIENCE. Keep up the good work, guys. 4.250.177.59 4 July 2005 23:18 (UTC)

Speaking as a scientist, I'd say that in this regard, a scientist's most important job is not allowing the credibility of science or scientific method to be lent to things that are purely matters of religious faith. There is nothing wrong with religious faith. It's just not the same thing as science. The second biggest job of scientists in this regard is to reject the politizing of science that occurs when it is attached to the agenda of one particular part of the political spectrum (e.g. using the guise of "creation science" to change science textbooks' a completely cynical attempt to thrwart constitutional separation of church and state by pretending that divine creation is supported by scientific evidence (which it is not). The thing I find the most funny, is that people of faith who are pushing CS are basically saying "faith is not good enough". As if they themselves, unable to prove the existance of God, feel it necessary to prove his existance by "scientific evidence". I wonder what God thinks about their lack of faith?

As far as this Pseudoscience as a definition for CS goes, "pseudoscience" is being generous, as it implies that there is at least a bit of science in there. Creation Science is anti-science with a misleading name, a wolf in sheeps clothing. But I do disagree that the definition of pseudoscience depends on the opinion of the 'scientific community'. I'll just take the definition in the dictionary. "Pseudo: False; deceptive; sham: example:pseudoscience (American Heritage Dictionary, v4, 2000)". "science: 1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and (not or) theoretical explanation of phenomena.

2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. 3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study

Emphasis and (not or) is mine. So Pseudoscience. Fake-science. CS meets none of the definitions of science, above

Synaptidude 9 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)

Well said. --brian0918 ™ 9 July 2005 02:34 (UTC)

There is something disturbing about being so disparaging in the opening paragraph. It smacks of an agenda, which Synaptidude has clearly laid out. This page (or any in an encyclopedia) should not be about an agenda but rather lay out the facts for the reader. Head over to Adolf Hitler and note how their entry paragraph stands. They do not have modifiers in their wording such as "Adolf Hitler was a genocidal megalomaniac." Even though they could link to the genocide and megalomania pages and say that objectively Hitler fit the description of both. Instead, it is factually presented.

My main worry with the inclusion of the word pseudoscience in the opening paragraph is that it sets a tone for the article that may cause readers to immediately tune out. It sets us up as firmly on one side and colors the rest of the article, factual or not, as biased against the topic. S.N. Hillbrand 9 July 2005 12:26 (UTC)

You don't have to pander to any pre-conceived biases, Hillbrand. Just assume the reader knows nothing about the subject before arriving. Either you state the facts or you don't. If you prefer to selectively omit information, it is best for the reader to seek it elsewhere. Hitler was leader of the Nazi party. Thats a fact, like calling CS pseudoscience. Saying he was a megalomaniac is not a known fact. He may have been one, he may have been insane in another way. We don't know. It would be like calling CS harmful and corrupt. It probably is, but we don't know. Bensaccount 9 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)

I think that there is a difference between your example of Adolf Hitler and the example here. The descriptions of Hitler may be apt, but there is no community-based definition for the term. Pseudoscience is very clear that it is just the scientific community who finds fault with the claims of the psuedoscience -- there is no objective way to define a pseudoscience. If the scientific community didn't exist, then psuedoscience wouldn't exist. Therefore the description is purely subjective and describes a major point about "creation science" -- that is that the creation science itself has been evaluated by the scientific community.

While it is true that many people view the term "pseudoscience" as disparaging it can only be said that this is because they view the scientific community in high regard. Otherwise the reader holds a definition that isn't the same that is provided for by Wikipedia. This is why a lot of creation science advocates want the "mainstream scientific community" qualifier because it casts the term in a ridiculously redundant light -- in other words it does the thinking and definitional constraint for the reader.

If someone comes to this page and wants to learn about creation science, they will learn about creation science. If someone comes to this page and wants to see a balanced treatment of the "sides" then they will see that. But if they come to the page with their own axe to grind, they will find plenty to be upset about whether we include the factual subjective descriptor or not. Joshuaschroeder 9 July 2005 12:48 (UTC)

In regards the Hitler reference, take a look at the Genocide and Megalomania pages. Notice that they state facts that accurately describe the actions of the man. Notice, even, that megalomania lists Hitler as an example. The Hitler page has no need of listing these character traits, true though they may be, because it seeks to show rather than tell the reader.

I disagree that a person needs to view the scientific community with distain (what I think you meant to type) in order to see the term pseudoscience as disparaging. Consider the Oxford American Dictionary's definition of the term: "pseudoscience: a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method." Notice too that pseudoscience specifically notes that the term is perjorative. And it makes no mention of the "Scientific Community."

All that I am saying is that good writing shows rather than tells. Right now, we are telling the reader that Creation Science is pseudoscience. This feels unnecessarily supercilious and degrades the overall quality of the article. S.N. Hillbrand 9 July 2005 14:12 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point as to why creation science the enterprise is different from Hitler the man. Creation science is defined as an endeavor that is extraneous to mainstream science, as such it is by definition a pseudoscience. You can read about it on the page. Hitler is a human being who happens to fit the designations you outlined. Creation science does not exist independent from the science it proports to critique and as such exists as a pseudoscience.

You have also completely misunderstood pseudoscience being a disparaging comment, perhaps because you aren't involved in research into the areas of public perceptions of science. First of all, a dictionary definition is not an authority on a subject, please refer to the Wikipedia article for the reference. Second of all, if pseudoscience is disparaging it is only because science is good and that which is not science is bad. If people are under the impression that the reverse is true than pseudoscience is a complement. This is again the problem that creation science advocates have in wanting to have it both ways: both as an external critique to science and as a way of being a replacement or a "truer" form of science. It is not possible to accomodate such duplicity in an NPOV fashion without paying homage to creationism as a scientific explanation for reality.

The best Wikipedia articles are those that are well referenced, cited, and accurate. The succinct first sentence of this article seems to fit these adjectives. Joshuaschroeder 05:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Joshua, if you read Wikipedia's pseudoscience page, you would note that it actually states that the term is disparaging. Additionally, you might want to note the policy against original research. Wikipedia cannot cite itself as the reference for information. Thus, you might want to find some outside information to support your claims. You don't like the dictionary because it doesn't say what you think it should. Fine. To what else would you appeal?

This gets to the rub of my problem with the intro. Imagine someone without prior information on the subject reading the introduction. Then imagine them getting into a discussion with a supporter of Creation Science. They could assert that Creation Science is a pseudoscience but when pressed as to why they think this, they would have to resort to "because Wikipedia told me so." This is referred to as received wisdom. It requires the reader to accept the information on faith. This is precisely what we should be getting away from.

I agree with Joshuaschroeder that the best Wikipedia articles are well referenced and accurate. Stating that Creation Science is a pseudoscience without showing that it is is not well-referenced and while accurate, it does not provide the reader with any more information other than 'some Wikipedians think that this statement is true'. Let's show the reader that this is true rather than telling them. S.N. Hillbrand 13:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

What part of "Creation science picks and chooses the data it is going to interpret and disregards the data that does not fit with the assumptions of creation science, according to Genesis" is not good enough of a justification for the title of pseudoscience for you? We do show that creation science is a pseudoscience. not in the same paragraph, though. it's two paragraphs down. unless people don't read more than the intro, which in case, i should add it the explaination on the first paragraph. So, it's not "because wikipedia told me so", it's "I didn't read the effing article". When going to debate a supporter of creation science, always have your homework done. Project2501a 15:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

No, stating that "Creation science picks and chooses the data it is going to interpret and disregards the data that does not fit with the assumptions of creation science, according to Genesis" two paragraphs down shouldn't be used to justify the statement. First and foremost because that doesn't match the claim of pseudoscience with our own definitions; it is merely saying that it is shoddy work. We should stake our claim of Creation Science being pseudoscience where we have more room to explain and support why. S.N. Hillbrand 16:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Claiming that self-reference in Wikipedia is original research is nonsense. Start an RfC if you don't believe me. Pseudoscience is defined on the page as: Pseudoscience refers to any body of knowledge or practice which purports to be scientific or supported by science but which is judged to fall outside the domain of science. The standards applied in such judgements vary, but often make reference to scientific method or failure to apply a heuristic such as Occam's Razor. This applies to creation science as a definition. Joshuaschroeder 17:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree that Creation Science is a pseudoscience. I have stated that numerous times. I am only pointing out that making a claim without support degrades the quality of the article and presents our information as biased from the outset. As to the question of original research, please review Original Research, specifically what is excluded from articles. You will find that defining terms is specifically listed. Given a substantive discrepancy between available dictionaries and the Wiki entry, it seems logical to follow the outside source. S.N. Hillbrand 19:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It isn't a claim, but a statement of fact; a pertinent fact that should be in the lead to clarify Creation "science" is indeed not a science; just as using "him" in the Hitler lead clarifies he was a male. It would be irresponsible for any reference material not to state this on the outset; the fact outside sources (who want to make money) don't mention it speaks to political correctness not objectivity. As to explaining that fact, it is done in the article (not in the lead), and it links to definition of pseudoscience; hence we have not been derelict in our responsibilities and we have not burdened an already ludicrously overbloated lead. There is no bias in calling it pseudoscience. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems that our friend Hillbrand should read the original research bit before claiming that I haven't read it. There is no statement there that says that referencing another Wikipedia article by means of linking is "original research". It says that one should not use original research to define terms, but unless Hillbrand is claiming that the article on pseudoscience is itself original research the argument being made is totally moot. Joshuaschroeder 23:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Dude! Chill! The entire existence of the Pseudoscience CS requires circular reasoning! If you deprive them of that, they have nothing! Have a heart ;-) Synaptidude 23:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Right. That is exactly what I am saying. There is a discrepancy between the term's definition and how it is defined on the pseudoscience page. Check out their talk section and you will see that they go over this very issue. While the definition that they came up with is extremely close to accepted definitions, for our purposes, it cannot be considered authoratative.

BTW, please cool the invective. I did not claim you hadn't read the original research. In fact, I asked to to "review" (i.e. read again) a specific section that I thought pertinent to my point. I respect your contributions to this article and appreciate the concern that we not allow it to give undue credence to a pseudoscience. My only contention is that there may be a better way to do it. S.N. Hillbrand 11:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The definition provided on their page is thoroughly researched and does not represent a violation of wikipedia policy as I understand it. Therefore it does not count as being original research and therefore it is fine to link to it as a means to describe the subject at hand. No one is claiming an "authoratative" definition from the article, only that the article provides the context for the factual description in this article. Again, I remind you that creation science has in its very title the word science, without the clarification off-the-bat, there is no contextual clarification for this idea. Joshuaschroeder 12:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the definition "discussion" on Talk:Pseudoscience is not about whether the definition represents original research but what wording is most appropriate. All three of the different definitions they were considering work precisely the same way for our purposes. Joshuaschroeder 12:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Either you state the facts or you don't. It sounds to me like your goal is to obfuscate things. Bensaccount 9 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)

The lead section is for summary. "Creation science is pseudoscience" is about the most accurate summary with which one can come up. Do you have another suggestion about how to summarize what creation science is? --brian0918 ™ 9 July 2005 14:22 (UTC)

I honestly don't care whether the word pseudoscience appears in the first paragraph or not. It is an accurate definition of CS, but it would be NPOV to start out with "CS is the view believed by some that there are grounds for juxtaposing creationist views with science...." I would think you could even write it and leave out the word "actually"; as in "CS is the view actually believed by..." some that..." Synaptidude 9 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)

I care. The only statement that is essential for the reader to know, if nothing else about CS is known, is that CS is pseudoscience. Can you think of something else? It is also useful to give the major subjects of the pseudoscience (ie. origin of universe). CS is not a view btw. Bensaccount 20:51, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Science

Scientists have gone on record saying their most important objective in the creation-evolution debate is to not allow a redefinition of the word "science". ANY theory relying on redefining science is a psudo-science and should be labeled so. If you wish to argue that creation science isn't a psudo-science, science is the place to have (and lose) that argument. Personally, I think most of the arguments between the two camps are are epistemological (nature of knowledge) arguments that science is a process that does not lead to creationist ideas versus ontological (belief or knowledge of existence) arguments trying to justify redefining the axioms of science to include an additional axiom such that the existence of God beomes a conclusion of this newly defined concept of science. The two sides talk past each other mostly. Scientists (real ones) who believe in God typically understand that things can exist without also being scientifically justifyable. I am an atheist myself (used to be a Christian) but science is by definition objective, and does not even pretend to encompass subjective truths that lack objective verification. The subjective experience of conciousness for example can only be dealt with scientifically with objectively verifyable correlates (Who claims to be concious and when. What brain activity occurs at the time and so on.) Noone knows what data is left out of science due to its self defined limits, but to the extent that data is ever able to generate useable predictions, that data becomes part of science itself. Science is therefore the sum of verified objectively useful data. Other nonscientific beliefs such as belief in God can be and are subjectively useful. How real that makes the belief is debateable. 4.250.201.166 8 July 2005 23:10 (UTC)

Ordering Philosophy and theology

The trouble with the philosophy and theology section being put where it is currently is that it isn't only a description, it also contains scientific rebuttals of the basic principles, many of which are substantially covered in the "Scientific criticisms" section. If we're going to have a separate section called "scientific criticism", which I assume would include methodological criticism of all types, then that's where it belongs. The options as I see it are: to have an introductory section which introduces the basic positions of creation science, then a detailed examination and rebuttal in a separate analysis section; or to have the positions and the analysis expounded at the same time, without a separate "criticisms" section. The current version introduces redundancy and would need substantial rewording, always risky on a contentious article. Slac speak up! 6 July 2005 23:24 (UTC)

good point. personally, i think it would be better to eliminate redundancy by folding the criticism into the philosophy + theology, with the criticism sorted by topic and placed in context. the problem with having the whole section as a subsection of criticism is that it's not all criticism, either. what do you say we fold criticism into phil + theo, to address the criticism issue by issue? Ungtss 7 July 2005 19:37 (UTC)

Sounds good. Yeah "criticism" isn't really the right word: it's more sort of a general analysis. But I think that would work.

Criticism of Evolution

No, I am not making one. Rather, under the section "Scientific criticisms of creation science" there is the line "Evolution suffers from this same shortcoming, but most scientists would prefer not to mention this for fear that it would show that Evolution is not in fact a scientific theory either." I do not believe this line shoulld be here for three reasons, but I'd like to list them before deleting it myself.

The line is an attack on evolution, rather than a discussion of creation science. As such, it should be left to fair on its own in evolution, rather than here.
It is a highly POV statement, as written.
It may be factually false. The author is claiming in essence that scientists cannot demonstrate speciation. The links at the bottom of that article provide ample evidence to disprove this claim. Icelight 03:20, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Icelight. You can take out the "may" in your last statement there. The assertion that Theory of Evolution suffers from the same shortcomings as CS is simply false. Factually and demonstrably false. If there is an idea in Biology that has been examined by objective scientific method more than the Theory of Evolution, I'd be interested to hear it. The so-called "shortcomings" claimed by CS'ers come from:
1. a misunderstanding of the word "Theory" in science. "Theory" is one step shy of "Law". Scientists label something a "Theory" when there is nothing left to prove or debate except the details.
  - Actually, no. Theories will never become laws. Theories and laws describe different things, but are both held to be equally valid. --brian0918 ™ 16:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
2. When CS'ers are asked to point specifically to the scientific weaknesses of The Theory of Evolution, they will invariably point to some minor detail that is still being argued. A detail that in no way addesses the validity of the Theory as a whole. The Theory has been bashed by scientists for decades (because that is what scientists do: the try to disprove an idea) and the Theory has met every test.
Again, what I don't understand is this: science is science, faith is faith. Scientists don't generally go around trying to disprove the existence of God. So why would people of faith try to disprove the basis of science? The only logical answer I can come up with is that they have too little faith in their own God, that they have to attack the works of men studying natural fact. Synaptidude 05:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- They are often trying to show that science requires just as much faith as a belief in the supernatural, effectively "religiosifying" (cool word) science for several reasons, notably to require teaching of religious beliefs in the classroom. --brian0918 ™ 16:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, supporting my contention that CS is basically a political movement.

You really don't have to discuss something that blatantly POV before deciding to remove it. It was likely added by an anonymous vandal at some point and was never reverted. I've removed it. --brian0918 ™ 16:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Just trying to feel my way into a new, somewhat contested, (heh) page for the first time. --Icelight 15:38, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal

Currently, the introduction feels off. I worry that it will encourage people to immediately dismiss the entire article. I recognize that this concern is far from shared by everyone, so perhaps we can find a suitable wording that addresses both ideas. Toward this end, I would submit the following opening:

Creation science (or CS) is a movement that attempts to redefine a number of biological and physical sciences in terms of Abrahamic creationism. Its premise requires several assumptions that do not comply with the scientific method and, as such, is a pseudoscience and a misnomer. It is primarily concerned with issues such as the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, evolution, a global flood and the origin of humanity. Creation science as an organised movement is primarily centered within the United States, although creation science organisations are not unknown in other countries.

Warning: Last paragraph modified by me after Hillbrand. Barnaby dawson 14:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Or, we could just eat the Irish children. S.N. Hillbrand 13:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I think Scottish children taste better (No disrespect to Swift). Note that I have no evidence for this. Barnaby dawson 14:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Mmmm...Salty. S.N. Hillbrand 18:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think "is judged by the mainstream scientific community" is necessary. In how many other articles would we also have to include this phrase, where it is currently assumed that the mainstream scientific community has the valid response? --brian0918 ™ 15:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. What do you think of the current mod? S.N. Hillbrand 18:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The current version, which doesn't have the weasel words, is acceptable. --brian0918 ™ 19:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Your proposal omits the fact that CS is pseudoscience. Selectively omitting information in an attempt to gain more readers is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Bensaccount 16:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Please read again. The statement of it being a pseudoscience is in the second sentence. S.N. Hillbrand 18:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Just another small edit. Barnaby dawson 18:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

IMHOP This proposed version is much better now, but it is still less eloquent than the current version and although CS does try to redefine science, this is not a definititive characteristic. Its more just a side-effect of its attempt to pass for science. Bensaccount 03:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with the proposal. Namely that it says that the reason creation science is a pseudoscience and a misnomer is because it requires "several assumptions". This isn't the only reason it is a psuedoscience and a misnomer. A number of the proposals included in creation science including the flood geology and creationist cosmology proposals are simply pseudoscience because they are nonsense (i.e. contain ridiculously inaccurate and incorrect claims such as a decaying speed of light). These are evaluable completely independent of their assumptions, they are wrong because they propose phenomena for which there is no evidence. Joshuaschroeder 05:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

That is a fair criticism. I will attempt to address this. Would you agree, however, that a decaying speed of light or light being created in transit are assumptions that do not comply with the scientific method? That is really the point I am trying to emphasize, that Creationism's starting assumptions cannot be disproven because they are stated as supernaturual.S.N. Hillbrand 12:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

They actually aren't "assumptions" as much as they are pseudoscientific ideas that are meant to explain other assumptions (specifically associated with the Bible). It is important to realize that while there are assumptions implicit to creation science, creation science is also not "science" for the methodology, evidence, and out-and-out lies. Joshuaschroeder 12:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

So would you say it is a fair statement that the claims Creation Science makes are based on a single, fundamental assumption about the existence of a supernatural entity, that this assumption does not fit the scientific method and for this reason, it cannot be considered a science? S.N. Hillbrand 13:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

While there are claims of creation science based on this assumption, there are also claims of creation science that are made for other reasons (being anti-science, having a limitted understanding of science, poor research, no research, etc.) that make creation science something that should not be considered a science. So it isn't a fair statement because all the problematic claims aren't based on that single fundamental assumption. Joshuaschroeder 13:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

OK. Which claim do you view as that of the majority? Which ones fit the category of significant minority? S.N. Hillbrand 17:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where this "majority/minority" distinction is coming from. We are talking about the claims of creation science, not the claims of people in a two-party system. Joshuaschroeder 21:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Harris Poll / RfC

This poll[1] by Harris Interactive was just released last week. Based on this and the NPOV guidelines, I think that we need to seriously rework the introduction and I withdraw my previous suggestion for the introduction as I now believe that it too is POV.

I think we should take Project2501a up on his/her suggestion and submit an RfC. Here are the key points as I see them:

Currently, we state as fact that "Creation Science is a pseudoscience"
The majority of Americans surveyed by Harris report believing in direct creationism (64%) and an additional 10% report believing in Intelligent Design
NPOV defines a fact as "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute"
- Given the current dispute about Creationism, we need to represent the characterization of Creation Science as a fact about an opinion as in "The majority of scientists believe that Creation Science is a pseudoscience."

Let's see if we can't work this out to an NPOV representation of topic. S.N. Hillbrand 18:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The fact that a majority of Americans believe in Creation and/or intelligent design does not in any way change the fact that CS is pseudoscience. It has no bearing on the definition. A majority of children believe that the tooth fairy is real, but it would not be NPOV to state "The tooth fairy is a fantasy believed by most children" Synaptidude 18:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Pls see the definition of "fact" on the NPOV#A_simple_formulation page. S.N. Hillbrand 19:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

You're forgetting the definition of pseudoscience. Given that definition, creation science is pseudoscience, regardless of public opinion (since the definition of pseudoscience doesn't hinge on the opinions of the public). On the WP:NPOV page, I'm not sure if you're referring to the sentence stating "That a survey produced a certain published result is a fact"; this is not saying that surveys define what a fact is, but rather that the statement "92% said yes" is a fact. --brian0918 ™

19:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to that part, because I assume it is obvious that the results of the survey are not in dispute. Rather, I refer to the definition of fact as "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." I would suggest that the results of the survey show that there is a dispute about whether or not Creation Science is a pseudoscience. Pls note that in pseudoscience they specifically state that adherents often reject the classification. Since the survey shows a majority of Americans believe in Creationism, I think it safe to say that they would reject the label of pseudoscience.

Please also read the borderline case [2] on Wikimedia for additional guidance. S.N. Hillbrand 19:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

We are talking about Creation science, not creationism. Besides, the majority of biologists don't take the American public's collective opinion seriously (ie there is no serious dispute). Again I refer to the definition of pseudoscience, which relies solely on the opinions of the scientific community, not the American community. If you would like to reference a term which relies on the negative opinions of the American public (eg "Contramerican"), then we can say in the article that "creation science is a pseudoscience but is not contramerican". --brian0918 ™

19:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Contramerican? is that a neologism? wow, been out of the US too long. Project2501a 20:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, just made it up as an example. --brian0918 ™ 20:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Response to RfC: It seems to me from reading the volumes of past discussion here about whether or not creation science is a 'pseudoscience', that we are unlikely to reach a consensus. I have a feeling that the continuing debate is shedding more heat than light on the subject. I'm inclined to agree with the sentiments of Richard Dawkins: "By all means let creation science be taught in the schools. It should take all of about 10 minutes to teach it and then children can be allowed to make up their own minds in the face of evidence. For children who study hard and keep an open mind, it seems to me utterly inconceivable that they could conclude anything other than that evolution is true." I think the same applies here - the facts speak for themselves, and the point in the header that 'it is judged by the mainstream scientific community to fail to comply with the scientific method' makes the situation clear enough. I suggest that the words 'a pseudoscience' in the opening sentence contribute no extra useful information to the article. --Keithlard 20:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree; except that I think it relevant that the majority of the scientific community do consider creation science to be pseudoscience. But this is an appeal to authority, and should be clearly set out as such. Banno 12:44, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience" is by definition something judged by the mainstream scientific community to fall outside the domain of science. --brian0918 ™ 21:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

NAY, i say! :D unfortunately, the "children who study hard and keep an open mind" are a minority in today's school system. Not everybody knows the air speed of an unladden swallow, my friend, and the way your average disfranchised student is, they are more likely to go with the flow than think about it. I am of the opinion, that, unlike the Guards in the castle, not everybody has the sense to ask if we are talking about an African swallow or European. "Devil is in the details", the English say. And those details are what the demagaugs(sp) use to twist the public's opinion in their favour. The other way, is to continually change the subject ;) Project2501a 02:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I quite see your point, and I too worry that people who know no better will read about creation science in Wikipedia and assume that gives it some kind of spurious credibility. However, I would rather they read a NPOV article about it here, than a partisan article somewhere else. NPOV is a difficult tightrope to walk, and to me, the words 'is a pseudoscience' topple the article from that tightrope in the very first sentence (as much as I heartily agree with them). We need to reflect all views where possible, and plenty of people (however mistakenly) do not regard it as a pseudoscience. Given the long-running and bitter dispute here, though, I don't see this being resolved by discussion any longer - perhaps it should be put to a vote? Godwin's Law is now in effect, so perhaps it's time. -- Keithlard 10:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

that's your personal conviction, thought. Personal conviction or not, CS is still by definition a pseudoscience. "Plenty"? 35 million baptists are not a lot compared to everybody else. if they feel different, well, it doesn't change the fact one bit; the article does reflect their convictions.

Brian0918, can you cite that definition from somewhere? I can't seem to find it either on the pseudoscience page or in my dictionary. S.N. Hillbrand 01:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The pseudoscience article said that at some point. I'm not sure why it just says "is judged" now. Who's doing the judging now? Anyone? --brian0918 ™

02:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Wiki is an international project. Why would the opinion of just citizens of the US even be relevant? Banno 21:24, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

the opinion of just US citizens is important, because the whole "creation science" sillyness started in the united states. and that is where the heart of the matter is. and that's where the world looks toward to, when they hear about such sillyness in their own back-yard. Project2501a 02:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, Banno. The only reason why the US poll is important is that it shows a substantial number of people hold a certain opinion. Their nationality is unimportant, only that their view be given representation. S.N. Hillbrand 01:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Three things. First I thought the interesting thing written in NPOV#A_simple_formulation was "Whether God exists or not is a question of fact, not a question of value. But as the fact is essentially undiscoverable, so far as anyone knows, whether God exists will usually be couched in terms of opinion or value.

Second thing. A definition of pseudoscience does not depend on the opinion of the scientific community. It depends on the definition of science and the scientific method. CS fails to meet either of those definitions so proclaiming that CS is pseudoscience is a fact, not an opinion.

Third thing. You are confusing creationism and Creation science. Creationism is a belief. A completely legitimate belief. No one is disputing anyone's right to hold that belief. The majority of Americans believe in creationism? Good for them! But Creation Science is not a belief. Creation science is an attempt to have people believe that the biblical account of creation can be proven by the scientific method. But creation science cannot use the scientific method unless 1) The assertions are testable and potentially disprovable, 2) One starts with the data, rather than the conclusion (scientific method does not allow one to "know" the answer first and then proceed to "prove it", and 3) One does not selectively remove data that disproves your hypothesis on the basis that it disproves the hypothesis. None of these conditions (there are more!) can be met by CS, and therefore the fact remains: it is pseudoscience. Its a fact, not an opinion. Synaptidude 01:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Well said, Synaptidude :D . Project2501a 02:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Synaptidude, note the sentence immediately following the one you quoted in NPOV#A_simple_formulation: To state as a fact that "the existence of God is an opinion", while seeming to be sensitive to the issue, implies that there is no fact being discussed (postmodernism or strong agnosticism), or that it is relatively unimportant (secular bias). We have our own biases in this article and need to be aware of them in order to root them out.

Second, you will need to source your definition of pseudoscience. What you are calling its definition is neither in the pseudoscience page nor in my dictionary. Since there is some debate on this point, we can easily put this quote to a source.

Third, I think that your definition of the scientific method is off. There are four important points and they are listed on Scientific Method. I don't disagree that your points are valid and required to good science but I would dispute that their lack makes something definitionally a pseudoscience.

Lastly, remember that a "fact" is required to be something about which there is no serious debate. I'm not certain how we can debate about whether there is a debate. The key points of the debate are listed quite prominently in the article itself. The debate exists, whether we want it to or not. S.N. Hillbrand 12:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

A bit of close analysis

Hillbrand's argument goes like this:

The article claims that creation science is a pseudoscience.
A large number of US adults hold to creationism or intelligent design
An NPOV fact must be largely undisputed
Therefor the present representation is POV

A quick look will show that this is a non sequitur, unless one includes an additional assumption that: the opinion of US adults is what determines if some topic is a pseudoscience. Without that assumption, the conclusion simply does not follow.

But, and this is made clear in pseudoscience, it is not the opinion of US adults that determines if something is a pseudoscience, but the opinion of the scientific community. So Hillbrand's argument fails. Project is also wrong; for the same reason. That Creation Science started in the States does not make the opinion of US citizens any more relevant to the debate than that of a random sample of Croatian Electricians (and before anyone asks, I have nothing against Croatian electricians).

Synaptidude makes three claims. The first, that the existence or otherwise of God is an expression of opinion, seems irrelevant to Hillbrand's argument. What fact is not also an expression of opinion?

Synaptidude also claims that "(The)definition of pseudoscience... depends on the definition of science and the scientific method". A look at Scientific Method shows that there is no one scientific method, rather that "The scientific method is not a recipe". A look at pseudoscience shows that "a clear philosophical distinction between science and pseudoscience is neither possible nor desirable". It appears that it is not possible to clearly differentiate between science and pseudoscience by definition.

I would propose that in the case of resolving this issue, its not really fair to use definitions from Wikipedia itself. Eventually this might be acceptable, but to use one disputed article to support another disputed article is specious. Whoever said they couldn't find "pseudoscience" in the dictionary either looked in the wrong dictionary or just didn't look right. The definition of "pseudo" from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:

  False or counterfeit; fake.

pref.

  1. False; deceptive; sham: pseudoscience.
  2. Apparently similar: pseudocoel.

[Greek, from pseuds, false]

Funny how the dictionary definition of "Pseudo" uses "pseudoscience" as the exemplar use. Synaptidude 17:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Instead, calling creation science a pseudoscience is expressing an opinion, making a value judgement. Now there is nothing wrong with this, it's not even POV, even in the Wiki, provided that one says whose opinion or judgement it is. It should not be hard to find one of the many surveys of the scientific community, or the words of a few eminent scientists, to back up the claim. That is what is needed for the article. Banno 12:36, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

OOOOOOH! Was *that* what was needed? Oh, cool, no problem, let me check some books i got byDonald Knuth (Things a computer scientist never talks about), Stephen Jay Gould's The Selfish Gene, Douglas Hofstader, and Stephen Hawking. I believe those are good enough sources. Gimmie till 12am UTC. Project2501a 16:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You make a good point, however, I think that the implied assumption I make is not that the opinion of US adults is what determines if some topic is a pseudoscience but rather that 74% of US adults constitutes at least a substantial minority opinion. Thus it should be stated as majority opinion rather than fact that Creation Science is a pseudoscience. S.N. Hillbrand 14:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Your argument is based on whether it is largely undisputed, while the policy says that a fact is seriously undisputed. The opinions of Gene Ray aren't taken seriously, and I doubt that scientists take the opinions of the US public seriously (except to acknowledge that it is a serious problem).
You're also trying to claim that creationism is creation science, which it isn't. The poll has no impact on this article. --brian0918 ™ 14:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not want to conflate creationism with creation science, however, I think that there is more than a small amount of overlap. Given that the question asked "How do you think humans came to be?" and only 22% answered "Evolution" while 64% answered "Created directly by God" and 10% answered "Intelligent Design", that makes a direct statement about people's beliefs in the physical processes that created them. That is Creation Science. I would not expand that to say that they also believe in Flood Geology or Young Earth or other such things but it would be difficult to deny any relation between the survey and people's opinions on evolution (mentioned as a key part of CS in the intro).

Could you say what you mean by seriously? I took it to mean, if only Gene Ray and 4 other people believe in Time Cubes, that is not serious. But if the majority of adults in America believe in direct creationism and not evolution, that would be serious. All we need to resolve this is attribution to the statement of CS being a pseudoscience. S.N. Hillbrand 18:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely with your suggestions. Simply referring to the scientific community is less than specific. How much do computer scientists know about speciation? Looks like someone's actually going to have to do some research *gasp* --brian0918 ™

14:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Note to Hillbrand: That 74% represents people who believe in creationism, not creation science. Please cease your attempt to spin statistics.

Note to Banno: Science is different from pseudoscience and it is quite easy to differentiate them. Pseudoscience means unscientific but mistakenly regarded as science. Please clarify where you are having difficulty; do you think it is impossible to define something as unscientific, or do you find it hard to tell if something unscientific is being regarded as science? Bensaccount 15:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It gets a bit hard to follow the thread in this mess, doesn't it. No, Ben; I think that it is possible to come up with an account of what is unscientific, but that such an account would be, obviously, a judgement, and therefore POV. So in stating the judgement, one must cite the source. Saying "Creation science is pseudoscience" is stating an opinion; so it is relevant whose opinion it is. Creation scientists think creation science is science. The National Academy think it isn't. State that, and let the reader decide who's opinion they think the better. Banno 20:35, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Follow up in the new section I created. Bensaccount 21:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Bensaccount 14:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem he's having is who is determining what is unscientific. Since the pseudoscience article leaves out "judged by the scientific community", it seems like anyone can do the judging. We still stick with the scientific community (or "experts") on other articles, so I don't understand why we don't here. This would be comparable to saying that "a poll of all people showed that 95% believe that dragonflies bite or sting people", when in fact that's completely false; I'm sure most entomologists know this. Why should we regard the public opinion here (ignoring the differences between "creationism" and "creation science"), but not in the dragonfly article? --brian0918 ™ 15:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Brian, you've hit my objection spot on. The appellation 'pseudoscience', when stated as fact is a case of special pleading (the first bullet). What we can acurrately state as fact is that "X says Creation Science is a pseudoscience." Where X could be the majority of scientists or the National Academy of Sciences or whatever authority we wish to cite. S.N. Hillbrand 16:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, science does not depend on judgement. You are confusing science with consensus science or belief. Bensaccount 16:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

"science does not depend on judgement" - ?? Banno 20:35, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Science depends on observation never judgement. Bensaccount 21:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not confusing anything. The article on pseudoscience says it is "judged to fall outside the domain of science". I don't necessarily agree with that statement, but that's what it says. --brian0918 ™ 16:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Banno's analysis is correct. CS is by definition a pseudo-science. Every argument claiming otherwise is by necessity a special pleading, a logical fallacy, and hence specious. This has been proved and settled time and again other the months, and promptly resurrected by CS proponents each time. The time has long past for those defending CS to stop wasting other editors time with specious reasoning. FeloniousMonk 16:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't suppose there is any going against the man allowed here, but the Wikipedia definition of a "fact" is flat out ridiculous. Not in dispute? In 1400 that the earth is round was in dispute. However, during that entire dispute, the earth was in fact, round. The 'not in dispute' criterion gives total power to just one crackpot who wants to dispute proven fact. We can all agree that the sun rises in the east, but if some minority of people dispute that, it's not a fact? Synaptidude 17:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Synaptidude about the definition of fact; I looked askance at it myself when I first read it. KathL 06:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, I am really not used to talk pages, so forgive me if I'm putting this in the wrong place, but I forgot to say it before: The poll cited is a poll of 1,000 adults in the US, by telephone. I would say that with the small sample and the self-selection that goes on in telephone polls, this is not really a reference I would want to base any conclusions on. KathL 06:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

drive-by RFC commenter

Creation science (also known as scientific creationism or CS) is a pseudoscientific effort to provide evidence supporting the account of the creation of the universe related in the Bible.

I'd say that since the name of the movement is "creation science" then whether or not it is scientific ought deserve to be in the opening sentence somewhere. Otherwise, the name seems to unfairly establish it as scientific (because it says so), and only later does it get clarified that, no, not really. FuelWagon 00:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

"many" vs "most"

rv, logical fallacy: third world "concervative views" are not near southern baptist conservative views, where Creation "science" originated. Project2501a 02:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Suggested Quote

Here is a suggestion for proper attribution of CS being pseudoscience:

The United States National Academy of Sciences [3] states that Creation Science is a pseudoscience and a misnomer.

-- S.N. Hillbrand 21:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

That source does not refer to creation science, nor does it use the words pseudoscience or misnomer. We cannot attribute this based on this source. -- Ec5618 20:04, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

That page does not, but there is discussion (negative) of CS within the document. I did not see either 'pseudoscience' or 'misnomer,' on the pages that I read. Dan Watts 20:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I dropped an extra 5 in the URL. Here is the correct reference as Synaptidude pointed out [4]. By stating that Creation Science is not science, they have defined it as both a misnomer and pseudoscience. So, I think that the attribution is fair. What say you, Dan? S.N. Hillbrand 20:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I concur that you can, with impunity, state: '"X" states that CS is not science' where X is whatever the (proper) link to NAS is. 'Pseudoscience' and 'misnomer' will need another source. Dan Watts 21:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, how about this then? The official, directly attributable policy of National Academy of Sciences:

"The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested. These observations lead to two fundamental conclusions: the teaching of evolution should be an integral part of science instruction, and creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes."

Source: Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition

Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, ISBN: 0-309-53224-8, 48 pages,National Academy of Sciences Synaptidude 20:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

If you must have a source you may try this link [5] which uses the word 'pseudoscience' (I do not know about 'misnomer'). Dan Watts

Where in the article does it say "creation science" is pseudoscience? (too lazy). --brian0918 ™

21:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Alright, since people seem to agree that we can say "it is in fact not science", which is equivalent to saying "it is not scientific", provided that we link the source, this can be implemented into the article for now by replacing the word "pseudoscientific" with "unscientific", and linking to the source. I'll implement this, and anyone who finds sources for pseudoscientific and misnomer can add on as well. --brian0918 ™ 21:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Brian, the current version does give the impression that there are alternatives to science. I'll take it, though, for the time beign, and i'll keep searching for the pseudoscience quote. 23:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Why CS is unscientific

Creation is a religious belief which (as of yet) there is no way to test. It has nothing to do with the opinion of scientists. Hence there is no need for a citation. Bensaccount 21:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Banno says 'any account of what is unscientific is a judgement'. However, accounting for what is science depends not on personal judgement but by whether it stands up to systematic observation and experiment. Bensaccount 21:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This is not really the place to discuss the pros and cons of methodology. So I will not (I hope) be drawn into an extended discussion of the nature of science. But, in reply to the specific point made by Ben: when it is decided (by whomever) "whether it stands up to systematic observation and experiment" a judgement is made; science necessarily involves making a choice between statements. Judgement - personal or otherwise - is involved. Banno 22:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think including the citation makes the article more informative; the alternative is a blatant statement like the one with which you stared this section, and which is obviously POV. Those who do creation science (mistakenly) think that they are doing science. The best way to show that they are wrong is to show that real scientists do not agree with them; that their specific methods are faulty; that their judgements are biased by their religious dogma; and that their reasoning is faulty - not by hiding behind slogans like "creation science is pseudoscience". Banno 22:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

What the scientist doing the experiment judges is irrelevant. What matters is if the observations support the hypothesis. The scientist can argue that there is no support for gravity but the observation of the apple falling supports it anyways. The problem with trying to argue with Banno, is that he doesn't believe in reality. Bensaccount 23:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

How presumptuous! I am no idealist, and am insulted by that accusation. Answer my argument, if you will; but don't start throwing insults. Banno 23:31, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

To repeat my question, how is it decided that the "observations support the hypothesis" without someone making a judgement? Banno 23:37, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Your answer. Not if it's done correctly. The hypothesis comes first. Predictions are made from the hypothesis. Experiments are done and objective measurements are made. The measurements match the prediction of they don't. Not to say that if a corner is cut, some judgment can't creep into it. That is why the best experiments are done blind. Synaptidude 18:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

As I guessed, this is written as if none of the critiques of Popper ever existed. Banno 21:07, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Do you disagree with science? Do you feel like you have run out of rhetoric? It may occur to you to evoke Popper. Unfortunately for you, way back in archive 2 we agreed that when you attribute your POV to Popper you provide a citation first. Thank you. Bensaccount 23:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you not recall our long discussion on talk:truth? Was it not you who was trying to remove any definition of truth even within context? It is not decided. Either they do or they don't. Who decides that the apple falls due to gravity? -- It is just observed. Bensaccount 23:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh! is that still bothering you? Get over it and move on. As I said, this is not the place. Banno 23:49, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

(isn't it time to do some archiving around here? Banno)

"Pseudoscience" accusations are unencyclopedic

To flat out say "Creation science is pseudoscience" is unencyclopedic and POV. To say, on the other hand, that "The national science foundation says that creation science is unencyclopedic on page three of the creation science pamphlet" or other well-referenced documentation for this claim is encyclopedic. Samboy 08:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks like the content of this article is getting better. I just added another reference supporting the "Unscientific" claim (The Steve List, namely). Samboy 20:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

While I appreciate your diligence in adhering to some Wikipolicies; unscientific is not an accusation, it is a fact and does not need referencing in the least. If it (creation science) hypothesizes supernatural causes; it does not follow a core tenet of science; which is naturalism. Repeating its unencyclopedic does not make it so and happens to be categorically wrong; whether its in line with Wikipolicy is debatable at best. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The reason I'm being careful is because "unscientific" can be viewed as pejorative if the claim is not backed up. Blindly used, it's like religious conservatives using the word "unbiblical" or "moral decay". Samboy 00:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's say there was a group that believed 2+2=5, and I decided to write an article on their belief. Would it be incorrect for me to characterize the belief as "illogical"? --brian0918 ™

00:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree (with Brian0918). We can state something as fact so long as there is no serious dispute. There is no serious dispute over whether creation science is pseudoscience. No matter how much creationists would like to say there is. Barnaby dawson 07:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps that could be qualified, by saying that the 'a priori' assumptions are not scientific. RossNixon 10:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

A priori assumptions are fine. What's not fine is ignoring the enormous collection of facts contrary to those assumptions. --brian0918 ™

12:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Samboy has a good point. There is nothing wrong with providing a source for the accusation. Just because we know something is true, doesn't mean that everyone knows this. Our knowledge should be based on fact. If we present these facts, rather than just stating what we know, then everyone gets to share the knowledge and the article becomes worthy of an encyclopedia. S.N. Hillbrand 13:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Just because we provide a source in the references doesn't mean we should fill up the article with footnotes. And it is not POV to state the fact of creation science being psuedoscientific, no matter how much apologists like Samboy protest. Joshuaschroeder 13:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to include footnotes, simply because it'll cut down on the number of simple reversions or claims of POV. As for "filling up the article with footnotes", if you think that's bad, you should see Norman Borlaug. :) brian0918 ™

13:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Let me put it a different way: the introductory paragraph of an article should be considered common knowledge and it is improper to footnote such a thing. Joshuaschroeder 13:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Cite sources#When there is no factual dispute. --brian0918 ™

15:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Reference doesn't provide the support you claim it does. I added a comment on this on the page you linked to Talk page. The problem is that there is editorial standard and then there is this idea that "everything should be cited". This is not something that is encyclopedic. Joshuaschroeder 15:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm talking about the unscientific claim, not the pseudoscience claim. We're not even talking about those claims, we're talking about when things should be cited, so please stop going off on tangents. --brian0918 ™

15:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Note to Christopherparham: the fact that something is currently disputed isn't valid justification for it being deleted from an article. Wikipedia doesn't endorse disputed content either way until consensus is reached to keep or remove it. --brian0918 ™ 15:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Like it or not, many mainstream figures dispute that creation science is pseudoscience or unscientific. The fact that you or I or anyone else would describe it as pseudoscience makes this disputed. Thus the claims should be sourced to those who are making them. See: WP:CITE. I'm not sure why this is such a problem for some users, but given their willingness to de-reference Wikipedia, I automatically question their motives in this other dispute. Removing the references is a destructive edit so I have no problem simply reverting it along with other unsourced additions. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:17, 2005 July 18 (UTC)

I'm talking about dispute on Wikipedia, not dispute in the scientific community. Also, referring to something as pseudoscientific doesn't necessarily mean it is currently disputed in the community; there have been past efforts which are currently considered pseudoscientific and not endorsed by anyone. You do realize I'm for providing sources, right? --brian0918 ™

15:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Can you tell us which mainstream figures dispute this? Referencing a set of guidelines that is far from complete is not justification for your sweeping idea of changes. This is very problematic. Joshuaschroeder 15:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

e.g., Jerry Falwell, various members of the Kansas state board of education -- many prominent figures on the Christian right in the U.S. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:27, 2005 July 18 (UTC)

Since when are they pursued when considering what is or isn't science. --brian0918 ™

15:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Brian -- sorry if that came off as a response specifically to you, it was a general comment to you as well as the other editors. I don't take a position on the pseudoscience debate, except that removing the sourced version of this claim (I agree that unscientific and pseudoscience are effectively the same in this context) in favor of the unsourced version makes no sense. I don't think I was removing any information, because the point that CS is unscientific was still made. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:34, 2005 July 18 (UTC)

I have added a comment on Wikipedia talk:Cite sources that I think needs to be addressed. If we are saying that a specific group claims something to be unscientific I can understand the need for a citation, but a general knowledge fact that can be referenced to dozens if not hundreds of reputable sources should not, in my humble opinion, be cited because that serves as a sort of endorsement of a particular reference over others. This is the problem I have, and I think it is one that is not well dealt with by Wikipedia guidelines and certainly is not covered in policy. I think proper editorial style for citations is best (basically they are to be used to support a particular opinion, controversial fact/claim, or to prevent plaigarism -- otherwise no citation should be used). Joshuaschroeder 15:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

To be clear, the fact that is well-sourced is that creation science is not science, although I think it can easily be argued that this also means it is pseudoscience, provided that it is presented as science (with a name like "creation science", I'm not sure how that could be contested). --brian0918 ™

15:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Citing the obvious is simply unnecessary. This recent obsession with citation is nothing more than a way of selectively removing facts without providing any reason. Bensaccount 15:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we may be splitting some meaningless hairs here. While we have two references for the claim that creation science is unscientific, I can point to a number of other attacks on creation science specific claims and endeavors in general by the likes of Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, etc. who basically state that creation science (or creationism, "scientific creationism", or whatever name-of-the-month term the creationists were fond of at the time) is alternatively pseudoscience, bad science, junk science, cargo cult science, Lysenkoism, etc. That there are maybe a dozen references to this is not worthy of citation, for to be perfectly unbiased in citing this we'd have an introduction that rambled on and on. I think we should move the relevent comment about what the NAS says about creation science to the body of the article and keep a very short and clear introduction so that people who are just stopping by for a quick read don't have to be bogged down in the mire of citations and proper attribution of points that are made by so many different groups/people. Joshuaschroeder 15:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I think I'm starting to agree with you. Damn you and your effective use of persuasion! --brian0918 ™

15:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no real point in adding that CS is pseudoscience, considering that it is already stated that it is not science. Pseudoscience is already linked under See Also, and it's in the pseudoscience category. --brian0918 ™

15:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Just because there are other links to pseudoscience on the page doesn't mean there is no point to describing the endeavor in typical definitional form (that is, it is part of the general category of "pseudoscience" and is in particular the one that serves creationism). Please also do not keep referencing me to that guidelines page. I have included my comment on the other page and will now look at rearranging the introduction of the article. Joshuaschroeder 15:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't a response to you, but to Bensaccount, and I've removed the link to the guideline page. --brian0918 ™

15:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and 'not science' seem to be essentially the same thing. The only difference is that the former is regarded as science. Bensaccount 16:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Response to Samboy: At the top of this section, Samboy writes:

To flat out say "Creation science is pseudoscience" is unencyclopedic and POV. To say, on the other hand, that "The national science foundation says that creation science is unencyclopedic on page three of the creation science pamphlet" or other well-referenced documentation for this claim is encyclopedic.

In many other contexts, I would agree with this approach. It's appropriate for something like "George W. Bush is a war criminal." In this instance, however, "pseudoscience" isn't the equivalent of saying "garbage" or "wrong" -- it's the equivalent of saying "is presented as a science but doesn't meet the criteria of the scientific establishment". For example, I wouldn't be surprised if a poll found that a significant minority (or maybe even a majority) of Americans agreed with the statement, "Behaviorism is an aspect of Freudian psychoanalysis." So what? That's not a view that's worth respecting here. It's just a mistake. Behaviorism may or may not be correct, but it's not part of psychoanalysis; creation science may or may not be correct, but it's not part of orthodox science.

On the other hand, the foregoing point, derived from the meaning of "pseudoscience", might not be immediately evident to all readers. In this version of the lead section, the term "pseudoscientific" is introduced in the first sentence, but the elaboration of the meaning of that term doesn't come until the third paragraph. I have some concern that this arrangement isn't completely fair to the creationists, although, of course, "pseudoscience" is wikilinked at its first occurrence, so the explanation is immediately available to anyone who wants it. Otherwise, I think the approach in the version I linked to is basically sound. JamesMLane 09:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

See the Pseudoscience entry at WP:NPOV. In general, Wikipedia isn't apologetic to unscientific/minority views such as this. -- BRIAN0918 14:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Response to JamesMLane:

An equivalent to pseudoscience was given as:

"... is presented as a science but doesn't meet the criteria of the scientific establishment."

Since many are concerned about it, the above quote could be put in and the term pseudoscience would be used in paragraph three instead of the first sentence. RLee1185

Previous posters were concerned that the claim that it was pseudoscience was unfounded. If they still feel that way, I doubt they're going to care if it's in the first sentence or the third paragraph. -- BRIAN0918 14:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
The trouble with that wording is that the term "pseudoscience", while unknown to many readers, is quite well known to many others, and conveys considerable information in just that one word. We could combine the term with the explanation, along the lines of: "...is a pseudoscience (in that it is presented as a science but doesn't meet the criteria of the scientific establishment)." JamesMLane 14:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- That looks a little messy. If people want to know what pseudoscience is, they can click on the word. -- BRIAN0918 14:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Rearranged intro

Here is the intro as it now stands, paragraph by paragraph:

Definition, topics studied, movement scope (geographically)
Creation: where creation science developed through religious arguments, which religions accept it and which don't.
Science: what the scientists have to say about all this
Foundations: assumptions of creation science against naturalism in favor of supernatural explanations where appropriate.

I am considering adding some things to the last paragraph about the fact that a lot of creation science is so outlandish as to be not even worthy of consideration of scientists (such as polonium haloes or vapor canopies).

-- Joshuaschroeder 16:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your changes, although I'm confused about something. If we can definitely say that creation science is pseudoscience (ie that it is not science), why do we then have to say that [insert authority here] considers it to not be science, and considers the term to be a misnomer? --brian0918 ™ 16:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

- Because pseudoscience is defined in terms of authority considerations. This is explicitly stated on the pseudoscience page. Pseudoscience means something that has been judged by the scientific community to not be science, though it packages itself as such. Joshuaschroeder 16:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  - Actually, the current version of pseudoscience doesn't say that. --brian0918 ™ 16:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  - The problem with this definition is that it is circular. The scientific community, presumably, consists of those who do science. If creation scientists are part of the scientific community, then there must not be a consensus in the scientific community that CS is not scientific. But to exclude creation scientists from the scientific community, we would have to assume a priori that CS is not science. That is the advantage of attributing the claim to a specific body, rather than the vague "scientific community" which creation scientists could just as well claim to be a part of. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:48, 2005 July 18 (UTC)
    - Herein lies the rub. There are no people who are parts of the scientific community who engage in creation science as a scientific discipline. In particular, no major journals publish works that are explicitly or implicitly related to creation science. There are people who have degrees in science and engineering and even some practicing scientists that believe in creation science, but these people do not pursue this in their jobs but rather as an extracurricular promotion. Those people that are full time advocates of creation science are not part of the scientific community in that they do not interact with the rest of the community doing work in the same subject areas. Joshuaschroeder 18:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    - It isn't circular. You've simply chosen a way to make it look circular. There are rules about testability and whatnot (see Pseudoscience), and for those in the scientific community, that's not a problem. For creation "scientists", however, it is, because it would mean that you would have to construct a testable hypothesis, and that you would have to include data contrary to your a priori assumptions. Since they are not willing to do this, their efforts are not scientific. BRIAN0918 19:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I might put this point another way. Do we need to attribute scientific arguments? Do we need to say that Maxwell's Equations are scientific with a citation just because there are some wackos out there who believe that they have magnetic monopoles in their basement? Or can we simply describe a duck as a duck and leave it at that? This is not a controversial claim from a scientific perspective. Joshuaschroeder 18:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Maxwell's equations aren't a good example. divB=0 is the result of the lack of evidence for magnetic monopoles, not a derivation. IIRC, even string theory suggests/requires/doesnt-rule-out their existence. BRIAN0918 19:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- The point is, the lack of observational evidence for magnetic monopoles is stated as a simple fact on the page just as the lack of evidence for creation science is stated as a simple fact on this page. Joshuaschroeder 19:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  - Agreed. I brought up this point before, that we don't discuss every other article in terms of "mainstream science believes", but simply state it as fact. That's why I changed your statement from "the scientific community believes it to be a misnomer" to "it is a misnomer". BRIAN0918 19:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I find it difficult to imagine why sources would be a bad thing for information. Especially given that the link to pseudoscience specifically states that there is no definite rule for determining what is categorized as pseudoscientific. Let's give it as information rather than opinion. S.N. Hillbrand 23:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Sources are fine, just not in the lead section. The lead section is supposed to summarize the article. The article is where the references should go, not in the lead section. -- BRIAN0918 00:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Per this, I have reverted the edit. We need to avoid repeating ourselves in the lead section. To that end, Hillbrand, if you want to change the first paragraph please do it in a way that preserves the integrity of the rest of the introduction. If you want to see the sources, please include them in the main body of the article. Thanks. Joshuaschroeder 01:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Right, my mistake there. Thanks for the correction. Now, if we could just get the pseudoscientific adjective in the right place. Out of curiosity, after the RfC, did you notice anyone suggesting keeping the phrasing? Or are you of the mindset that those opinions do not count? S.N. Hillbrand 01:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I actually saw very little in the way of discussion and no one specifically addressing the problems and points being made with talk posts and the modified introductions that were tried along the way. I am not married to the idea of keeping the "pseudoscientific" adjective or the phrasing, but I have yet to see a compromise that addresses the issues I and others have pointed out. Joshuaschroeder 02:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that the article on pseudoscience has been undergiong major changes lately, many of them by the same people that are editing this article. This means that we should refer to outside sources for the definition of pseudoscience. Try [[6]]. There is a definite rule for determining what is pseudoscience. It is something presented as science but unscientific. Bensaccount 02:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. That could help us all work from the same terms. Do you have a suggestion for which one to use? Incidentally, it may also be useful to review the definitions of Creation Science [7] as well. S.N. Hillbrand 17:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy and theology section

Should be deleted. I think it is full of nonsense weasel words and arguments that are not necessarily indicative of creation science or its opponents. I say we make a clean break and delete the section. Anybody want to see anything preserved? Joshuaschroeder 21:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The entire section, including the 5 sub sections? or just the 2 paragraphs at the top? -- BRIAN0918 21:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The entire section. Joshuaschroeder 23:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

It is very long. But deleting it gets rid of too much useful info. I don't propose editing it down myself; but would like at least the first paragraph of the first part kept. RossNixon 01:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I can see keeping the first two paragraphs of the section in some modified form. Any other objections? Joshuaschroeder 02:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Get rid of the whole thing. Even the first two paragraphs are just fluff from both sides. -- BRIAN0918 02:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Although the two paragraphs are not entirely incorrect, they have nothing to do with philosophy or theology. They are basically just empty words. The entire section seems without merit to me. Bensaccount 02:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with the above. Removal of the section in its entirety does not seem to be problematic from an informational standpoint. If people think some valuable information is missing, please let us know. Joshuaschroeder 06:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality

Excuse-me, guys, but this article is not encyclopedical at all. It is rather injurious.

You say that there aren't real creationist scientists. Look here: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2568&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News.html

You say that there are no creationist scientists outside the US. Really? http://www.creationresearch.org/organizations/Belgium.htm

You play with "pseudoscientific" word. You know what, ye evolutionists? Please make one cell in a laboratory, and then we'll say that YOUR theory is scientific!!!!!!!!!

Another BIG lie: you say that «many Christian churches, including the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic[1], Anglican and Lutheran faiths, have either rejected creation science outright or not insisted on its reception as doctrine». This is FALSE. Please read here the OFFICIAL position of the Roman Catholic church, expressed in the "Humani gerenis" of Pius XII: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Moreover, all the Eastern Orthodox churches support creationism. http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/breviews/dfoley/seraphim.html

You say that «The scientific community does not consider creation science to be science, and considers the term creation science itself to be a misnomer.» Huh? And what is for you the "scientific community"? Black people, aren't they really human, just because white people didn't beleive it for a while?

What are your "generally accepted theories of biological evolution and natural history." Generally accepted? What do you mean by "generally"?

And y don't you recognize that your evolution theory ingendered fascism and genocides?

This article is a shit. Excuse-me, but this is the reallity.

wa:Waelsch | fr:Waelsch | ro:Waelsch

The above not not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Civility. Barnaby dawson 14:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The Discovery Institute is not a reliable source for accurate, objective information. It is a creationist organization aggressively pushing a political and social agenda. It, as a matter of policy misrepresents research, what little of its own there is and that of others, and obfuscates its' agenda and strategy. The claim that fascism and genocides were caused by the theory of evolution is specious; it is pure creationist propaganda, and counts the Discovery Institute as one of those who find it useful. Pope Pius XII' position, stated in 1950, was negated in 1996 by Pope John Paul II, who said "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth." [8] FeloniousMonk 15:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Erroneous Monk ;-) the motives/reliability/accuracy/agenda etc you attribute (without evidence) to the Discovery Institute; could equally apply to the NAS and other Christophobic groups. My point is that it is practically impossible for groups (or individuals) to be completely objective. So, for balance, either include such accusations against both groups; or (preferably) neither! RossNixon 10:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The NAS is Christophobic? If you look at the National Academy of Sciences page versus the Discovery Institute page I think you'll see where FM is coming from. Joshuaschroeder 10:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

You may be trolling but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt

I doubt that the article is injurious. Could you give a list of points you found unencyclopediac?
Philip Skell is not a Creationist Scientist. He is a (retired) Chemist opposed to evolution, a biological concept. As a biologist, he is not a scientist as he has no more training than any other layperson.
The Creation Science movement is centered in US, we say specifically that organizations are not unknown in other countries.
Artificial cells are being produced today [9].
This point has been addressed by FM quite well
Click on the term "scientific community" to find out the parameters. We also cite the NAS. I would challenge you to cite a significant minority of the scientific community that disagrees with that statement.
Generally accepted is another way of saying that the vast majority of evidence supports the theory and there are no contradictions to the theory in evidence.
The last two points are probably best ignored.

S.N. Hillbrand 18:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Why would you even respond to trolls and their personal attacks? Do you like perpetuating garbage? -- BRIAN0918 03:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I maintain hope that anyone can be drawn into a useful discussion. I would prefer to have one start to question his/her assumptions than drive ten away. After all, if the only people who accept this article are non-Creationists, then I think we have failed. S.N. Hillbrand 13:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

If you continue to mistake Creationists for Creation science proponents, we can't have any useful discussion at all. Bensaccount 16:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

From Waelsch's comments, I think it safe to assume that he is a creationist. Besides, look up Creation Science in a dictionary [10], [11], [12], [13], it might be informative. S.N. Hillbrand 17:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The difference between CS and creationism is that creationism doesn't present itself as science. If you won't acknowledge this it makes discussion very hard. Bensaccount 13:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscience reference

I have decided to be bold and delete the word pseudoscientific from the introductory paragraph. While scientists (of whom I consider myself one) are in agreement that Scientific Creationism is a pseudoscience, to make that statement as fact is stating the most widely held POV as a neutral POV. The fact that scientists characterize Scientific Creationism as a pseudoscience is not a POV but a fact, as the NAS report indicates. I have moved the word pseudoscience to the scientific criticisms. I disagree completely with Scientific Creationism, but I think we need to give it what little due it deserves. It is a minority POV and should be recognized as one. Robert McClenon 18:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for going against all the discussion on the talk page. I've decided to be bold and undo your deletion. :) BRIAN0918 18:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

That is your privilege. I won't start a revert war, although I disagree. Robert McClenon 18:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

That's an odd way of putting it, Brian. The majority of posters are actually against the word but these potential editors are successfully chased off by a series of insulting comments. I appreciate your civility in this but the argument doesn't hold water. S.N. Hillbrand 19:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

McClenon's personal disagreement is not enough. He has to explain his edits beyond the "this is POV" buzzword. I'm glad you noticed that people are being chased off by insulting comments. Please refrain from making any more derogatory statements about Creationists Hillbrand (see "Even Creationists" above). Bensaccount 19:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I did not think of the comment as derogatory, but I bow to your take on this and have edited my comment. Hopefully it will cease to be a point of contention for you. As to the POV comment, it remains that in borderline cases, citing is prefered on Wikipedia [14].S.N. Hillbrand 00:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not quite sure S.N. Hillbrand or Bensaccount are saying. I think that using the word pseudoscientific in the introduction as a statement of fact is inappropriate. I think that Scientific Creationism is a pseudoscience, but its adherents disagree. If the statement is made in the introduction, then it should be sourced with a direct link to the NAS report. Robert McClenon 22:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

welcome, mr. mclenon. you're absolutely right. disputed claims must be attributed, rather than stated as fact, and the pseudoscientific status of creation science is disputed by the very subjects of the article. unfortunately, there is a small contingent of people around here who have little better to do than blockade npov on this page, and a large contingent of people less reasonable than yourself who permit it to continue. Ungtss 22:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Whether adherent agree that something is a pseudoscience or not is not the issue since pseudoscience is necessarily defined not by adherents but rather by people who are in the scientific community. Joshuaschroeder 22:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Luckily we are more interested in getting the correct information than hearing CS propaganda, so we are not required to misrepresent facts as opinions. Bensaccount 13:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Removing the word "pseudoscience" from the introduction

As I have stated many times, if people want it removed, they should address the points that the word in place tries to address:

From a definitional standpoint, creation science is a pseudoscience. Is there another generalized category to which creation science belongs that we can use that is as illustrative as this? Remember, creation science is not science, but uses the guise of science to back-up its arguments. It is almost the perfect example of pseudoscience.
By having "science" in the name of the article, it is only natural that we address whether it is science or not from the get-go.
There is no major dispute among the editors that creation science is a pseudoscience. The page on pseudoscience seems to do a good job describing creation science. If people want to know what editors of Wikipedia mean by pseudoscience they can click. Why is a one-word, linked reference considered so problematic?
As per the definition of pseudoscience and a number of references to a number of scientific authorities on the subject, creation science can be considered pseudoscience. So the point is referenced and NPOV. Where's the problem?
An introduction should be succinct and summary nature. This one word takes care of a lot of issues and problems. How is that "unencyclopedic"?
Adherents dispute the term is not worthy of consideration since pseudoscience by definition has a dispute the term associated with it. It is as if we are saying from the get-go that it is not considered science, though the adherents dispute that which is absolutely what pseudoscience means!

--Joshuaschroeder 03:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

for the record, oh wise one: from your definitional standpoint, it is a pseudoscience. from the definitional standpoint of the people this article is about, it is the true science, and evolutionary biology is pseudoscience. just people you fancy yourself right in all things doesn't mean you can write articles reflecting your opinions. where opinions differ, all opinions must be attributed. evolutionary biologists think creation science is pseudoscience. creation scientists think evolutionary biology is pseudoscience. it's clear and simple. all the same information is provided, but it's provided in an npov way that preempts all dispute on the topic. it's this fundamentalism of yours that prevents this page from moving forward, and causes creationists to see your belief in evolution as dogma, rather than science. a true scientist would not be dogmatic, nor would we perpetually violate the rules of fair play. he would attribute his views, and back them up with facts. curious to me how you are unable or unwilling to do that, but more than willing to make sure everybody knows what you think. Ungtss 13:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

As stated very clearly, pseudoscience by definition implies that the advocates of the pseudoscience believe it to be actual science and points that are opposed to it in mainstream science are considered unscientific. As for the rest of your invectives, they are not worthy of response. Joshuaschroeder 13:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

"Mainstream science"

I removed "mainstream" from "mainstream science" as there isn't any other form of science. "Mainstream" on its own is an understandable concept, but "mainstream science" isn't. I still suggest using "science" since it's science we're talking about, and replacing that with "mainstream" seems weasely. -- BRIAN0918 13:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree with the statement that all science is mainstream. There exist divergent currents in many scientific theories. Consider the debate between dark matter and modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND). There are a definite minority of scientists who are researching MOND as opposed to dark matter. Thus, it would be correct to state that dark matter is "mainstream science" while MOND is not. In biology, consider the debate between the mainstream punctuated equilibrium and the non-mainstream phyletic gradualism. I think that keeping "mainstream science" would imply that there are scientists on the fringe that may disagree. S.N. Hillbrand 16:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

A dichotomy might be made between mainstream and fringe science if one was so inclined. CS is neither, so don't imply it. Bensaccount 16:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't imply that CS is science at all; it is a movement or an idea, take your pick. My examples were individual theories. I stated them only to note that science can be fractured and is not by definition a monolithic entity. Therefore, it makes sense to include the "mainstream" distinction. S.N. Hillbrand 17:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You're fracturing science for no reason. These are all valid, testable scientific theories (not "theories" in the normal use of the word). They are science, regardless of whether they provide the most accurate results fitting all the data. "Creation science" on the other hand, doesn't even operate on scientific principles. It is not science and all of science is inherently different from it. -- BRIAN0918 03:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

CS operates on the same principals as "origins science" in evolutionism. They are equally scientific, or equally pseudoscientific. RossNixon 10:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Origins science makes testable statements such as "Staphylococcus aureus will develop resistance to any widely-applied antibiotic." The emergence in the last 45 years of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bears this out. S.N. Hillbrand 13:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Not what I thought 'origins science' was!??? I call that 'natural selection'. RossNixon 03:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Creation being unobserved and unobservable, makes CS neither mainstream science nor fringe science. Since it still is presented as science, it is called pseudoscience. Bensaccount 13:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

So it is roughly similar to string theory wrt observational measurements? Dan Watts 14:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe if your only knowledge of string theory comes from that Elegant Universe book or TV show. String theory has since seen an expansion in understanding and presented testable predictions. -- BRIAN0918 15:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

That is partially correct. String Theory makes many predictions that are observable and verifiable. Unfortunately, those are merely the ones that coincide with prior theories. Currently, string theory makes no predictions that are both unique and verifiable. It has, however, led to a vast expansion in a number of mathematical fields and, in that sense, is quite distinct from CS. LHC may or may not help us because there is nothing which predicts that we will even be able to "see" an extra dimension, should it exist. So, LHC may verify part of the theory but a negative result would be inconclusive.S.N. Hillbrand 17:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to CMB measurements. What other theories coincide with this prediction? -- BRIAN0918 17:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The prediction of transplanckian corrections to the CMB is certainly unique to string theory (and spin-offs). However, as noted in the article, it is currently not falsifiable. If we don't see it, it may be because string theory is incorrect or because the scale of perturbations is too small. And we won't know which. Incidentally, WMAP has been running now for 3 years without seeing this.S.N. Hillbrand 19:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

As with all cutting edge theories, their predictions lie just outside current measuring abilities. As the article linked states, future improvements over WMAP will be able to see this. -- BRIAN0918 19:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not really that they are outside of measuring abilities, it may not even be possible in theory to see the disturbance [15], [16]. It all depends on constants that we don't know and might not exist. S.N. Hillbrand 00:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually with the LHC it will be possible to verify a part of the string theory, by trying to generate atomic-level black holes and see if these extra dimensions really exist. Nova77 15:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

"Introduction"

O.K. Brian, if it can be shown that evidence HAS been provided, then will the previous wording be applicable? Dan Watts 02:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Will this be scientific evidence? Joshuaschroeder 02:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I would argue no, on the basis that any theory (concerning such a wide domain) under the sun can muster at least some evidence supporting it. It would be utterly misleading to state that Creation science provides evidence for creationism. As an encyclopedia we must not only try to stick to verifiable fact but also try to avoid misleading people. Barnaby dawson 10:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It appears that your position is equivalent to "Let's not let facts clutter a simple explanation. Someone might look at them." Dan Watts 13:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

when did ostensibly historical written accounts stop being viable scientific evidence which can be viewed as potentially accurate until falsified by the physical evidence? Ungtss 13:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

You mean like the way 6-day creation and the global flood are falsified? Joshuaschroeder 13:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Is the Iliad is scientific evidence of Zeus? Bensaccount 13:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

if the accounts have been falsified, then the article should reflect it with facts. if the accounts are unfalsifiable, then the article should reflect it with facts. instead, a small number of editors who apparently never studied epistemology seem to think that calling it pseudoscience holds some profound meaning and will lead creationists out of their pits of deception. they also seem to think they can call it both unfalsifiable and falsified, which i find ceaselessly amusing:). and yes, bensaccount, the iliad is evidence for the existence of Zeus. The only question left is how reliable you think the evidence is. nobody seems to be arguing for the existence of Zeus anymore, but creationism is just growing and growing. genesis holds some credibility which you've as yet been unable to address. Ungtss 13:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Since when does science accept anecdotal accounts as evidence? Sure, in some fields (such as archaeology), it provides a starting point, but it's never assumed to be correct until falsified by evidence. -- BRIAN0918 15:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone think I should explain to Ungtss how we don't have any scientific evidence of Zeus? (I don't want to waste my time). The accounts are neither falsified or falsifiable. I don't expect to dig you out of your pit of deception; only to prevent you from dragging others in with you. Bensaccount 13:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

When creation science advocates claim that there was a vapor canopy, parts of this claim are falsifiable and parts are unfalsifiable. If we take the perspective that a vapor canopy would have very well-understood physical effects that would make life impossible on Earth, then we have falsified this idea. However, creation scientists don't mind positing miracles and completely unfalsifiable points about whether high pressure boilers can sustain large animal life by means of divine intervention. That part of the vapor canopy cannot be falsified just like the Omphalos hypothesis. It really is very simple. Creation science tries to use scientific argumentation which, when subjected to the rigor of scientific inquiry, is shown to be lacking, falsified, etc. However, creation science also tries to use completely separate positions that wherever science contradicts their ideas one can always hold out hope that the Deus ex machina screwed up our limitted human understanding. Joshuaschroeder 14:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Would an account of multiple bristlecone pine ring growths in a year's time count as scientific evidence if it included a detailed description of the conditions used to do it? Dan Watts 15:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll bite. How does that provide evidence for creation according to Genesis? -- BRIAN0918 15:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It's a nonstarter [17]. Old hat, not even close to being "evidence" for creation science. Joshuaschroeder 16:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Not true. It is controversial, but it IS evidence that such chronologies MAY be wrong. Dan Watts 18:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It isn't evidence that such chronologies may be wrong since they are calibrated using other methods such as C-14 dating. Scientific measurements all have threshholds for error, +/- error bars that are reported. The +/- error bars reported for tree-ring analyses take into account multiple and sometimes no growth ring per year scenarios. Stating that it is "controvesial" is quite an understatement. It is incorrect. Joshuaschroeder 18:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Please do not take the bait. -- BRIAN0918 02:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I thought that the C-14 calibration used the tree-ring chronology. Was I mistaken? Dan Watts 02:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

They calibrate each other. Think of it in terms of parameter fitting. Whatever model fits both the C-14 and the tree-rings the best is the model that's accepted (with error bars). It's quite easy to figure out. Joshuaschroeder 11: 41, 25 July 2005 (UTC); It is easy to figure out. If Dendrochronology and C-14 measurements are both inputs to a single model, then they are no longer independent measures, and should not be touted as such. Dan Watts 13:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Dendrochronology states "A benefit of dendrochronology is that it makes available specimens of once-living material ... used as a calibration and check of radiocarbon dating. The bristlecone pine ... has been used for this purpose ...." What "other methods" of calibration did you mean Joshua? Dan Watts 18:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't confuse calibration with verification. The physics and assumptions behind radiometric dating while criticized heavily by many creationists who don't actually look at how it is done, is not in dispute. Joshuaschroeder 11:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

<<Since when does science accept anecdotal accounts as evidence? Sure, in some fields (such as archaeology), it provides a starting point, but it's never assumed to be correct until falsified by evidence. >>

since when are anecdotal accounts seen as evidence? in a little field known as "history." we base our understanding of many events on anecdotal accounts, which we attempt to fit together with the remaining available evidence. and when we have an account that doesn't directly conflict with any physical evidence, we call that account, "possibly accurate" until such time as there is hard evidence inconsistent with the account. the modern tendency to reject ancient accounts out of hand is deeply, deeply anti-scientific. a rational mind sees them as plausible until falsified. only a dogmatist sees them as inadmissible out of hand. Ungtss 17:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. They shouldn't be outright rejected. In history they act as guidance for finding evidence when no other evidence is currently available. They are not accepted as "correct until proven incorrect" however, otherwise for example the legendary founding of Rome wouldn't be considered "legend". There is probably truth in the stories around the founding and the seven original kings as recorded by Livy, such as the Etruscan domination of the city, but it is not generally accepted that the traditional dates of reign and the names and number of the kings are correct, just that they may have been generally representative of a given period. The further back you go, the less likely anecdotal evidence is representative of the truth, especially when no other physical evidence exists. That is why anecdotal evidence is neither considered definitive evidence nor "accurate until evidence proves otherwise". -- BRIAN0918 17:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree 100% with your conclusion. nothing is definitive unless it can be directly observed or repeated. the question is, as you noted, credibility. however, you also said that "the further back you go, the less likely to be true." why? shouldn't our criteria be based more on the physical evidence and the quality of the text than the date at which it was written? seems to me that if texts were written by eyewitnesses and accurately transcribed, the oldest texts would be the best sources, wouldn't you say? Ungtss 17:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Who were the eyewitnesses of the creation related in Genesis that then wrote down what they saw? -- BRIAN0918 17:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

that's an excellent question, and i'd like to pursue it in a minute. first things first, tho. would you agree that if a text shows signs of being intended as hard history rather than mythology, legend or fiction (high textual quality), and the events of the text have not been falsified by physical evidence, that those events can reasonably be seen as possibly historical? Ungtss 18:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

No objective standard for determining when something is "intended" as "hard history rather than mythology" exists. If you want to do some original research and make that up, be my guest. You haven't shown that a 6-day creation week and a global flood are not falsified by physical evidence in any case. This is basically amounting to a wild goose chase in Ungtss' fantasies. Joshuaschroeder 18:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

History is not science. Bensaccount 18:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

yet somehow it still goes on. Ungtss 18:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

if we concede that the events recorded in genesis are at least conceivably historical as recorded, then it seems to me that the question turns on the consistency of the physical evidence with one historical vision or the other. which which story does the evidence more closely align? is the evidence inconsistent with either story? that, to me, is a historical/scientific inquiry. excluding creation science from scientific discourse, on the other hand, is mere fundamentalist ideological garbage. the creationists have a historical vision. falsify it if you can, but don't play nonsense games of politics and name-calling ("pseudoscience! you're pseudoscience! the majority of scientists think you're wrong!! nah nah!! poo poo!"). those games just betray a fear that the creationists might be right after all. and i firmly believe they are. Ungtss 18:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Whats ironic is that you use the term "fundamentalist ideological garbage". Whats hypocritical is that you use the term "history/science" after agreeing that history is not science. Bensaccount 19:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

No one is conceding that events recorded in Genesis are at least "conceivably" historical any more than the Illiad. You are welcome to believe anything you want to believe, Ungtss. We aren't writing an article to try to convince you or anyone else of a particular belief system. We are trying to describe a belief system (which you happen to ascribe to) within the guidelines of this encyclopedia. I know you think that the cards are stacked against you at Wikipedia, but you can go over to the creation wiki and edit there if you want. Joshuaschroeder 18:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Creation science isn't science because it doesn't follow scientific method. Rather than use Genesis as a basis for starting to explore and figure out what actually happened (which may actually coincide in part with what Genesis actually says), they are interpreting Genesis as correct and infallible, and choosing their explorations such that they can interpret results to coincide exactly with Genesis. Going back to the traditional Roman founding, instead of starting out by saying "it is likely that there were kings in the past, and at least some of them were Etruscan", they are saying "there were exactly 7 kings and they lived... and they were... and any evidence to the contrary is incorrect by definition." -- BRIAN0918 19:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

(disregarding bensaccount's and schroeder's usual drivel, bensaccount's because it is bizarre and nonsensical as always, and schroeder's because it fundamentally disregards wikipedia policy which does not permit him to state his own opinions as fact, despite his chronic inability to distinguish between the two and hope against hope that all who disagree with him will either go write for an irrelevent wiki or realize that he's a demigod of knowledge.) brian: you've dodged my comments entirely. if you'd like to dialogue further, please address my comments about the nature of historical inquiry, and the idea that ostensibly historical accounts can reasonably be viewed as historical until such time as they are falsified by physical evidence. your comments relate to bias and ideology in practice, and that is a valid critique of creationists as scientists, but is also a valid critique of evolutionists as scientists, as mr. gould made very clear. bias in practice does not invalidate either enterprise in their entirety. only contrary evidence can do so with any degree of substance. Ungtss 20:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I did answer your question, but it appears the submission didn't go through on Wikipedia. I basically said the same thing Jschroeder did. There is a difference between having a bias one way or another and refusing all evidence contrary to your bias. -- BRIAN0918 21:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Eyewitness testimony, no matter who makes it, is not scientific evidence. Plenty of contrary evidence to creation science is available and presented. That's the end of the matter. Joshuaschroeder 21:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

brian: sorry i missed the answer. would you agree that there is an important difference between "rejecting all contrary evidence" and "consistently interpretting evidence in accord with one particular paradigm?" i have never heard a creationist deny a single observable fact under any circumstances. but they do rather persistently refuse to interpret the evidence in a way contrary to their paradigm. can you provide either an instance of creationists denying hard facts, or agree that they simply interpret the evidence according to different assumptions?

schroeder: all scientific knowledge is eyewitness testimony to those who don't observe it first hand. how do you know that pluto exists? eyewitness testimony from those who observed it first hand. think before writing. thanks. Ungtss 03:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Peer-review. Joshuaschroeder 11:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

when the observations themselves are unrepeatable, peer review is only of the reports and findings of the scientists making the observations to check for procedure, error, and reasoning in interpretation. it's simply a critical reading of eyewitness accounts. Ungtss 14:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Systematic observation. They state the method for observing pluto so that anyone can repeat the experiment and get the same results. Now you know what science is. Please limit the personal insults Ungtss. Bensaccount 03:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

so then by your latest criterion for science, the common ancestry of men and apes is not scientific because it cannot be repeated by experiment or systematically observed, because it happened a long time ago. excellent. please limit your nonsense, bensaccount. Ungtss 06:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

People have repeated the observations related to common ancestry through peer-review. Joshuaschroeder 11:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

apparently you're unable to distinguish between "repeated observation," which is paradigm-neutral, and "repeated interpretation," which is paradigm-dependent. from this error springs consensus science. Ungtss 14:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Introduction 2

I have been watching this discussion concerning the introduction with considerable interest. When the discussion came up I dutifully looked up the definition of pseudoscience wikipedia gave and agreed with Joshuaschroeder that this definition did leave no room for point of view. This definition was:

Pseudoscience refers to any body of knowledge or practice which purports to be scientific or supported by science but which is judged by the mainstream scientific community to fail to comply with the scientific method.

Since then this page no longer holds a definition that ties the concept down to a group's POV. Having looked online for other definitions I have been completely unable to find a definition that does tie the concept down to the viewpoint of the scientific community. As such I have changed my view and I now think that the status of creation science as pseudoscience is a viewpoint and needs to be attributed. Of course we might argue that the viewpoint is not a serious one and so does not merit consideration and this might hold water concerning the article on evolution. However, the creationist viewpoint must be taken seriously if only in the context of an article on creation science.

I suggest we attribute the view to the scientific community and mention the amicus curiae brief of Edwards v. Aguillard where 72 nobel laureates, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific organizations expressed their opinion that creation science is merely religious dogma. I will change the introduction accordingly. Barnaby dawson 09:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you having trouble telling fact from opinion? It doesn't depend on biased minority groups. If something is a fact, it should not be falsely represented as an opinion. Bensaccount 13:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I've also been following the discussion with interest, but I don't really see the problem here. The pseudoscience article has a very well defined list of attributes that classifies pseudosciences, and creation "science" falls easly on most on them. Why do we need a group's POV when we can be objective ans stick to a clear definition? Nova77 13:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

If creation science isn't science, then it is also pseudoscience (since it is presented as science). We've established that it isn't science, so it is pseudoscience. -- BRIAN0918 13:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that NPOV policy requires us to only state things that are not seriously disputed. This is not the same as stating what is true. In the context of "creation science" there is a serious dispute as to whether it is pseudoscience. I regard "creation science" as pseudoscience too and I think we should make it clear that so do a lot of distinguished scientists and commentators. However, the statement as it stands is clearly POV. I shall change it back.

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

Before there are retorts along the lines of "But what if we aplied this principle to the moon landings hoax theories..." I should like to say that I do think that this principle should be applied to other pseudosciences. Have a look at Apollo moon landing hoax, holocaust denial, phrenology and Vedic science. I note that modern geocentrism has geocentrism down as a pseudoscience without attribution however, I should add that it was Joshuaschroder who added this statement so it cannot be used as a precendent here. I also note that there are some articles where a subject is described as a pseudoscience (astrology for instance). However even amongst those who believe in astrology few regard it as scientific. This is not the case here. Believers in creation science do regard their enterprise as scientific. Barnaby dawson 14:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

And do you propose that we no longer clearly state the facts when there are obviosly biased alternatives? Should we pretend that reality no longer exists? Bensaccount 16:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates on the basis of NPOV not on the basis of what is true. There are good reasons for this including the following: People disagree on what is true and many people edit wikipedia.

I think that "Creation science is regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community" is a strong enough comment. Whilst I agree with you that "creation science" is a pseudoscience and that this needs to be made clear in the first paragraph I also think that this is achieved in the current version and that the version I reverted was POV. Barnaby dawson 17:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Please also note that I do think that outside of the context of pages on the topic of "creation science" we should be able to describe "creation science" as a pseudoscience because outside of that context there is no serious dispute. However, it is always going to be the case that a minorities characterization of their viewpoint should be taken seriously when discussing the minorities viewpoint. Barnaby dawson 17:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

You're starting to sound fairly apologetic to this minority. There is no serious dispute. It is a fact that creation science is unscientific and therefore pseudoscience, so stating that some specific group (the scientific community) believes such is incorrect. The standards of the scientific community determine what is science, and so stating that the scientific community thinks it's unscientific is redundant. It is unscientific. -- BRIAN0918 19:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

a quick glance at npov rules will reveal that wikipedia maintains a policy of n(eutral)pov, rather than s(cientific)pov. attributing conclusions to the scientific community is not only appropriate but absolutely necessary according to the rules of the game. Ungtss 03:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Stop twisting the rules Ungtss. NPOV says no bias. CS is bias. CS is the problem--not stating facts. Bensaccount 03:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

mark this down, everyone. bensaccount says the topic itself is bias, and the problem itself. obviously, then, the entire article should be deleted. thanks for clearing that up for us, bensaccount. you've helped me see that it's impossible to describe creation science in an npov article, because creation science itself is bias and the problem! Ungtss 06:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If you will not let it be described fairly by stating the facts.Bensaccount 13:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

another entry

When Creationism is referred to as "pseudoscience" in this article I think this reflects poorly upon Wikipedia . You don't see Britannica and other encyclopedias using this tone which looks unprofessional and immature. I think it should be changed.

7/24/05 kdbuffalo

my POV is that CS is pseudoscience. I think CS is an abomination. I agree that a fringe minority opinion should not necesarily render everything POV. Yet, in this case the POV argument becomes quickly circular. When you narrow the iterested parties to CS advocates and scientific community, then the use of the term "pseudoscience" as a fact is basically POV. It is CS advocates' POV that it IS science, and scientists POV that it's not. Each makes their argument "by definiation". Thus the way it's stated now, that the designation of pseudoscience being the opinion of the scientific community is fine, and not POV. To change it to the previous where "pseudoscience" was presented as fact is IMHO POV in this particular case. Synaptidude 19:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

So we're supposed to deny scientific method/reasoning/evidence because a minority chooses to define their contrary ways as science? How can we state any facts in the entire encyclopedia? -- BRIAN0918 19:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Firstly context is important. Whether or not a viewpoint should be taken seriously is partly dependent on context. We are writing an article on "creation science" and as such we should treat the viewpoints of adherents of "creation science" seriously. This should not in any way detract from our ability to write a neutral article on the subject. On the other hand I would agree it is the case that elsewhere in wikipedia (where the context is not creationist) we should quite freely refer to "creation science" as pseudoscience.

Secondly science is not universally regarded as that which scientists do (or even what they would like to think they are doing). You say "the standards of the scientific community determine what is science". This is your POV and certainly not one I share. I would say that those outside the scientific community have influence over what is regarded as science. For instance I do not regard government funded research as proper science.

If you look at the pages on pseudosciences that I mentioned earlier (Apollo moon landing hoax, holocaust denial, phrenology and Vedic science) you will find that all manage quite well without stating outright that these subjects are pseudoscience (or pseudohistory). The original basis for using the word pseudoscience has been shown to be flawed. Barnaby dawson 21:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Those beliefs aren't held by a significant part of the public, though. In that case, it is easy to get away with not stating that they are unscientific. Also, none of those subjects have "science" in their name (a method of further presenting your ideas as science). Neutrality is fine, but confusing the public by withholding facts is not. The lead section is supposed to summarize the whole article, not act as an introduction. -- BRIAN0918 03:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

We don't need to pretend facts are opinions to look professional. Bensaccount 21:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

quote of the year. Ungtss 03:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your invaluable contributions. -- BRIAN0918 03:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

if that was to me, i learned months ago that valuable contributions are instantly reverted on this page, in favor of pov, and have been attempting to find ways around the endless nonsense by discussing and deliberating on talkpages, to preempt stupid edit wars:(. if your comment was to bensaccount, then i'm curious which contributions you're referring to. Ungtss 06:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome--the empty rhetoric of Dawson and Buffalo needed to be summarized--so I did. Bensaccount 03:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

we need to address the fundamental issue here, gentlemen. bensaccount, schroeder, and brian see "creation science is pseudoscience" as a fact beyond dispute, and everyone who disagrees with them as wrong. barnaby, synaptidude, and kdbuffalo see "creation science is pseudoscience" as a strongly justified pov held by them as well as the vast majority of professional scientists, and which ought to be well represented on the page, and attributed to those who hold it. then there are a few creationists around, heads full of nonsense, bile, and other wicked things, who actually think creation science holds merit. now we all know that npov requires that disputed conclusions and facts be attributed. but a small number of us seem to think that rule doesn't apply, because "creation science is IN FACT pseudoscience," and the fact that the subjects of the article disagree fundamentally with that assertion is totally irrelevent, and thus no reason to attribute the fundamentally disputed conclusion. they seem to think it's very important not to attribute this conclusion, despite the facts that attribution would be factual, would increase the credibility of the statement by throwing the authority of professional scientists behind it, and would preempt this endless and rather stupid discussion. i'm at a loss as to the importance of stating "creation science is pseudoscience" as fact rather than conclusion attributed to a credible source, but any alternative fails to last more than 10 minutes on this page. so what are we to do about this situation? Ungtss 06:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

While I have seen citations that indicate CS is a pseudoscience, I have yet to see a citation that indicates it isn't. Joshuaschroeder 11:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

you've obviously not read any CS literature. Ungtss 13:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Possible alternative

In short: CS is based upon religious beliefs that can't be tested scientifically; therefore it is not science. CS does (however) use the scientific method to pick holes in evolution and other mainstream science. RossNixon 09:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Problematic because CS fundamentally does not use the scientific method as shown by the citations we already have in the article. Joshuaschroeder 11:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Current intro

I see no problem with Barnaby Dawson's current incarnation of the intro. It may be a bit redundant but since pseudoscience itself no longer states where the judgement arises, here it stands. Are there any substantive (that is, factual) disputes with the current form? If not, I wonder where the problem is. Joshuaschroeder 11:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The current version is fine. I wasn't fine with the previous version because it added a sentence that made CS sound like it had provided scientific evidence. -- BRIAN0918 13:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- The current version attempts to discredit the subject matter before defining it (analogous to "Racism is an attitude regarded by the majority of clerics as evil and irrational, which,") and then defines it in a way no creation scientist would define it:(. i'm not aware of any other articles that follow this approach. Ungtss 13:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/e/Talk%7ECreation_science_Archive_7_154f.html"

Categories: Talk archives | Discussion pages which may contain trolling