Talk:Institute for Creation Research

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Institute for Creation Research article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Contents 1 History of 24 hr days belief 2 Research? 3 Some Modifications 4 A majority of the early church leaders saw the days of creation being 24 hour periods. 5 Penn and Teller 6 Additional Changes 7 Creationist white wash 8 Publications 9 Redirect from Creation Research Society

[edit] History of 24 hr days belief

An anon deleted info that the 24hr genesis view is the only pre-geology view and I reverted. Augustine didn't believe it [1]. I can find more support. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ephilei (talk • contribs).

[edit] Research?

Since this is the Institute for Creation Research perhaps some information on research should be included. Arbusto 06:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some Modifications

I deleted one sentence because it was taken verbatim from an NCSE publication. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Osnova (talk • contribs).

[edit] A majority of the early church leaders saw the days of creation being 24 hour periods.

A majority of the early church leaders saw the days of creation being 24 hour periods. [2] I don't think ICR's stance is very radicial regarding the controversies and criticism section. ken 05:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Possibly true. However I have removed it. Personal webpages are not reliable sources. We have gone over this before. JoshuaZ 06:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is a radical position. Early Christians were not chosing to believe scripture over science. They would also have been geocentrists and probably flat-earthers, had they chosen to think about it, but modern geocentrists and flat earthers are remarkable. Likewise here. Guettarda 12:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Penn and Teller

More geared to Duane Gish and says little about ICR itself. 66.75.8.138 18:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Mmm. So Gish was representing the ICR, and they were at the ICR museum, examining the ICR's creation "science" exhibits, and yet this has nothing to do with the ICR and is inappropriate for the organization's article. Yes? — coelacan talk — 23:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears we may have been duped. I believe I found the episode, but it seems the only input by Duane Gish is clips that are shown of him speaking, probably from promotional videos. It is actually a small part of the overall episode. There is no personal interaction with Gish himself. (I had pictured, perhaps, some form of panel discussion.) It appears there never was any trip made to ICR as they say that Gish is the President of ICR, a mistake that would be difficult to make if there was any live interaction with ICR staff. The first quote attributed to Gish on wikipedia is correct, but the second quote is wrong. I'm not sure this has as much to do with ICR as originally envisioned. At least those are my thoughts. 66.75.8.138 03:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You wrote the and P & T episode has nothing to do with the ICR. Well, you are flat out wrong. In fact, the ICR tried to sue Penn and Teller. Nothing ever came of it, and Penn and Teller have joked about the barely literate threat they were mailed. PatriotBible 02:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

So it was a spoof of ICR and did not involve any discourse or discussion with ICR itself. It belongs on Penn & Teller's page, not ICR's. 66.75.8.138 01:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A "spoof," what are you talking about? ICR are mad at P & T for being proven wrong. Gish was a representative of the ICR and was filmed at their facilities. PatriotBible 19:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Source? I noticed you removed my ^{[citation needed]} citation. If it was cooperative effort between Penn & Teller and ICR to come and film him, don't you think they might have known he wasn't the President of ICR? 66.75.8.138 19:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits like this aren't going to fly. Don't remove someone's citations from scientific books. PatriotBible 19:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I condensed your edits. The book that you used is still there and still sourced. 66.75.8.138 19:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You removed whole sections, and the detailed history. For example you removed:

For example, a 1986 thesis titled "A Classical Field theory for the Propagation of Light" was approved by Duane Gish and Thomas Barnes, but not by the third committee member Gerald Aarsdma because the thesis was based on pre-Einsteinian physics and "invoked the long dismissed existence of ether".^[1] Furthermore, creationists like Arleton Murray was denied a position for his belief that dinosaurs existed before humans.^[2] Pigliucci explained that much of the material put by the ICR is based on false claims and incorrect data.^[3]

PatriotBible 19:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing your concern. How is this noteworthy? All universities have a board that approves or disapproves disertations. It's already stated in the article that ICR adheres to a starting point of a Biblical world view. How does this particular example add to the ICR page? 66.75.8.138 20:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No respectable science institution use pre-Modern science. That makes it notable. PatriotBible 23:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The limits that ICR puts on scientific inquiry are already discussed, and noted. Bbagot 03:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you will see that the following addresses those issues: "Massimo Pigliucci has criticized ICR for conducting research while requiring students and faculty to sign a promise that their published material will correspond to a literal interepretation of the Bible, thereby excluding any perspectives that don't match a predetermined religious doctorine.[8] He claims this viewpoint led to denying creationist Arleton Murray a position on staff for his belief that dinosaurs existed before humans.[9] and also believes that ICR makes false scientific claims and uses inaccurate data. [10]" 66.75.8.138 20:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You preverted the meaning. No mainstream scientists believes what ICR does is "conducting research." You have removed numerous other details as well. Are you using sock puppets[3]? PatriotBible 23:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I felt the meaning was still accurate. Scientists may believe the results ICR arrives at are ludicrous or that their starting conditions are unscientific, but there is no universal understanding that they don't conduct research. I worked with your edits. If you don't want anyone to touch anything you write, then you don't understand the concept of wikipedia. You, on the other hand, blatantly reverted all of my work without comment, even the areas that didn't touch on your additions. This may be a touchy subject for you, but we are still part of a group effort. Your methods are out of bounds. Bbagot 03:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"Blatantly reverted all of my work without comment" means only one person using sock puppets disagrees with my edits. I did not remove the publications, but I reverted your reinsertation.

I understand this is a touchy subject for your, but don't remove cited work to white wash this groups history. You have not explained a single removal. PatriotBible 06:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Your math is off and I think you will find that ICR being outside the scientific mainstream is boldly presented, but more importantly you are keeping out a publications section that has been in the article since it was first being formed in April 2005. Editors for 21 months, or 20 more months than you have been posting, have kept that section's inclusion as noteworthy. There is something to be said for respecting those who have come before you and their contributions. Removal of time honored information should especially be reached by concensus. Like it or not, a large part of ICR is its publication history. Working with editors is a skill you may wish to employ. Bbagot 20:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You and your sock puppets are the only ones who want to keep it. Demonstrate it is notable. As of now, I fail to see how an internet archive on a fringe group's webpage is worth listing in the middle of the page. PatriotBible 22:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional Changes

Ok group, I've tried to make changes and additions while maintaining the integrity of the article and a neutral viewpoint. If you have any concerns let's talk about them. Thanks 66.75.8.138 23:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There is at least one contradiction I picked up in a quick skim:

"there is no collaboration in research between these groups" and "findings of ICR's recent RATE project, a multi-year collaboration with other YEC organizations to test for evidences of a young earth"

Clearly there is collaboration in research and the prior argument is ill-informed and/or misleading. I won't edit this myself as I have limited knowledge of ICR itself. The background section does not come across as particularly neutral to me.

The collaboration was with other Young Earth Creationist organizations, not mainstream science. Bbagot 03:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to cite it. PatriotBible 06:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesnt the scientific method involve making some prediction, gathering observable evidence, evaluating it and coming to a determination as to the accuracy of your prediction? and doesn ICR "research" involve starting with an absolute belief, filtering out all of the evidence that contradicts that belief and then fabricating some prediction that still fits the remaining evidence? wouldnt it be accurate to say that what they do is antiscience? 66.158.169.70 06:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creationist white wash

Earsed his talk pages. PatriotBible 18:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And how do you feel this relates to the article? Bbagot 20:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Deceit to POV push. PatriotBible 22:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you may find that discussing content is better suited for these areas than what you are doing. Articles come together much better based upon cooperative civility and a wish to understand or at least hear different perspectives than they do from personal attacks. Bbagot 00:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Publications

I noticed that there seems to be an edit war going on over the publication section. I feel it would be imprudent for me to recommend for or against the section's inclusion, since I was the one who added it originally[4], but I feel I should say at least this much: in the event that the wikipedia consensus removes the section for good, at least one sentence should be inserted to mention Acts & Facts (their monthly newsletter which may well be the only thing many of their followers regularly read by them) and a section describing the Impact articles, which I believe may be the most notable aspect of the entire organization. These Impact articles could also easily be used to create and reference a Positions section, which would balance and expand the already existing Criticism section. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 04:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe as the orginal editor of a section that stood in the article for 2 years, that your input is especially valued. I tried to streamline the section as it was a bit wordy, but, as you know, that was deemed to be unsatisfactory. Bbagot 21:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A long list of publications is not needed for an article. In a separate issue, I would ask for the editor who keeps removing material about two housewives founding the ICR to stop it. FGT2 04:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The housewives information was a recent addition and it pushed out information that was already there, and sourced material entered since that time as well. I have put back all sourced material including the housewife claim that you value. Bbagot 21:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't recent, you removed it. It's worded poorly, and your addition gives the same information only in broad, vague terms stating it was started in 1970, when it was started under another name with other people, and later led by just Morris and renamed two years later. If other people are fine with the sentence structure and the repetition then its okay with me. As long as the longer history is included. FGT2 05:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The housewives addition was put in a month ago and removed the information that had been there. I have attempted to be true to all 4 sources on the origins of ICR allowing each to give its view, and that includes the full version that you requested. I can't make them say information that isn't there, so the views of the origins are not going to be uniform, but will be accurate to the positions that each source states. Bbagot 05:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect from Creation Research Society

The Creation Research Society appears to be a different organization. [[5]] Am I missing something or that redirect in error? Radosh 22:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Early in its history that name was applied to ICR. However, that was over 30 years ago. Since CRS is a separate organization, it would appear that redirect is currently unwarranted. Bbagot 06:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the other organization is that notable. I think what would make the most sense is to have a disambig page that notes that term used to refer to the ICR and can also refer to the current organization (anyone have any evidence they are notable?). JoshuaZ 06:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your solution, although it also appears that the editor below has information that implies CRS is notable in its own right. Bbagot 09:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This article says that ICR was begun in 1970. History of creationism says that CRS began in 1963. It would therefore not appear likely that ICR ever used the CRS name. Although the CRS is not as prominent as other organisations, this is due to them being more of a research organisation, rather than a ministry or outreach organisation. They may be the first American creationist organisation (at least one earlier one was the Evolution Protest Movement in Britain) and may be the first if not the only one to require voting members to hold scientific qualifications ("earned postgraduate degree in a recognized area of science"). Philip J. Rayment 10:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are seeing the shortcomings in having a charged topic with an unbalanced number of editors in favor of one viewpoint. And so, we have no choice but to keep information claiming that there was an unnamed Supreme Court case in 1962 that outlawed the teaching of Creationism and led to Henry Morris and 2 housewives forming CRS/ICR in 1970, etc. etc. Bbagot 09:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you've gone slightly OT. The schism story refers to an organization called the Creation Science Research Center (CSRC), which is not the same as the Creation Research Society (CRS). Frankly I'm not sure why POV should enter into this particular discussion at all. I agree with Rayment that CRS should have its own entry, but if it doesn't meet notability standards, it should redirect to the Henry Morris entry instead of this one. Radosh 16:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)