Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creation geology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS.
The votes were 9 keep, 4 merge, 10 delete. dbenbenn | talk 18:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Creation geology
This page is essentially a repost of material from the previously deleted page Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared. User:Ungtss took most of the material directly from there and simply reposted it in this section. We should be avoiding reposting deleted material. The article as it stands right now reads like a creationist screed and should be deleted. Joshuaschroeder 06:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, not a screed. It describes creation geology claims in a tone appropriate for an encyclopedia. Gazpacho 07:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- or, merge to Flood geology and optionally rename that article to something more encompassing. I enjoy debunking creationism in any forum where it's appropriate; I also fully agree with Philip's comments below. As I said in two previous creationism-related nominations, having an article is not an endorsement. And Megan, no personal attacks, please. Gazpacho 10:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. It presents personal opinions as facts. There may be questions or uncertainties about some of the geological tests but that does not, in any way, validate the alterantive explanation. The arguments for Creationism should stand or fall on their own merits. Weaknesses in the arguments for Physical or Evolutionary Geology do not validate Creationist Geology. Furthermore the failiure to apply the same rigorous debate to theories of Creationist Geology can only serve to bring discredit upon the theory. ping 07:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, reads like screed to me. Wyss 11:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-
- They're a bit screedy as well, aren't they? Wyss 18:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. creation geology is creation geology. if it reads like screed, fix it. but it's encyclopedic, and addresses the issues i think. it's not a repost -- it contains a lot of new information, and some old. PLEASE follow the VOTES FOR DELETION POLICY and only vote for deletion if it meets one of the criteria -- this doesn't meet any of the criteria, except "we don't like it." "We don't like it" is insufficient to delete. we fix that by EDITING. Ungtss 13:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It is an encyclopedic rendering of a possible interperetation of the facts. I would support someone adding a criticisms section if they are concerned that the current rendering is not NPOV enough, but the topic itself is sound regardless of the fact that many people on Wikipedia disagree with the points being discussed. They do represent a distinct and real interperetation that has been posed by various groups, and so this does legitimately warrant a topic to discuss these views. -- EmperorBMA|話す 14:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. It isn't really a repost of the deleted article. For one thing, I think it has existed for a while. However, it is still true that there is very little, if anything, in this article that is not a recap of the same basic creationist arguments to be found in such articles as Creationism and Creation science. If there is something which isn't duplicated elsewhere, that little bit could easily be moved elsewhere. The sections that relate specifically to geology are recaps of the arguments in Flood geology, or arguments about dating techniques which overlap Radiometric dating and Young Earth creationism. Creationism being a notable view, albeit far from mainstream, Wikipedia obviously must cover it. But how many different articles should there be, all pushing basically the same pseudoscientific arguments? Do editors trying to maintain NPOV have to play whack-a-mole in numerous different articles related to creationism? --BM 15:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- i disagree. this page has minimal overlap. creationist views on radiometric dating are covered NOWHERE else, and neither is the material on the antediluvian earth -- this page contains material covered NOWHERE else -- where would suggest we put it? as to whackamole, yes, that's what this is. except we moles aren't giving up:). Ungtss 17:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- What's wrong with them going in Flood geology?Joshuaschroeder 20:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- they're not about the flood. Ungtss 01:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- What's wrong with them going in Flood geology?Joshuaschroeder 20:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with BM. There's obviously a place for this type of information on Wikipedia, but there are plenty of other articles where this same pseudoscience is covered, like Creation science. It's fine to have an article about Chakras for instance, but we don't need separate ones for Heart chakra and Root chakra et al. Katefan0 15:44, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: And redirect to flood geology (I change my vote). 16:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- User:Bensaccount did the five-tilde-typo [1]. dbenbenn | talk 18:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- There's already a Flood geology page. This page doesn't cover more than this. Joshuaschroeder 20:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-
- Delete Offers nothing that isn't covered elsewhere, is insufficiently NPoV, and recycles material earlier successfully VfDed. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, geology is a science, creationism is not. The name of the article is therefore an attempt to mislead. Megan1967 01:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I was tempted to vote delete on the grounds that it could be combined with the Flood geology article, but the latter is already fairly large and this article does cover different material than the Flood geology article. In any case, if they were to be combined, it would probably be best under the title of this article.
- On another note, I again see that a number of people here are voting to delete purely or partly because of their personal POV on the topic (for example, Megan1967, the entry just above this). That such people can't see how much their biases get in the way of NPOV causes me to despair that Wikipedia will never achieve its goal of truly presenting a neutral point of view. As with writing articles, voters should vote on whether the article is suitable for an encyclopedia, not on the basis of their personal POV, no matter how common that POV may be. Philip J. Rayment 06:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Are you claiming that creationism is a science? Science relies on testability of proof. Creationism relies on the written words of the Bible, a book with a religious POV. Faith is not science. You can't ignore the facts. It has nothing to do with claims of my POV. Of course being a christian yourself Philip wouldn't have anything to do with your position now would it.Megan1967 06:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Are you claiming that your POV is undisputed fact? Because it isn't. It doesn't matter what I claim. Creationary scientists do claim that it is as scientific as uniformitarian views, and, although getting it's framework from the Bible, is also based on hard scientific evidence. Those are the facts. Your implied claim that it indisputably not science is simply not true. You may (hypothetically) be right that it is not science, but that is disputed by very many people, including many scientists, so you are, as I said, basing your vote on your POV. Philip J. Rayment 03:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Sign your posts next time Philip. Creationism is not based on "hard scientific evidence". Creationism is based on the writings of the Bible - that is not science, that is faith. I would seriously challenge your statement that "many scientists" support creationism as science. Research does not back up your claim. For example - "Out of the approximately 13,000,000 scientists and engineers in the US alone, less than 5% (some 600,000) are creationists, according to Gallup poll results. However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory [Robinson, 1995]. This means that less than 0.15% of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that's just the US, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1%." see [2]. 0.15% does not equate to "many" Megan1967 07:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I normally do sign my posts (and I have now signed that one). But to get to the point, you are still ignoring that it is a POV that you are using to justify a deletion. Do you dispute that others claim that creationism is based on hard scientific evidence? I don't know why I'm asking—I asked last time and you ignored the question in favour of arguing your POV again. Personally, I would consider even your attempt-to-minimise 700 scientists to be "many" in the sense that it is a non-trivial number. Philip J. Rayment 15:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- And if you think that creationism is not POV, you are sadly mistaken. Creationism takes the view from a religious point, there is nothing scientific about that. You still haven't provided any evidence that creationism is more popular than evolutionary science except from your own POV. Any number provided by any survey wouldn't satisfy you. Megan1967 03:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- What makes you think that I think that creationism is not POV? I'm saying that evolution is also POV, and that you are therefore voting to delete because it doesn't agree with your POV, which is not a valid reason to delete. It is also your opinion that there is nothing scientific about creation. Others disagree. I never claimed that creationism is more popular (although I think that argument can be made with qualifications). Where did you get the idea I was claiming that? Philip J. Rayment 14:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- And if you think that creationism is not POV, you are sadly mistaken. Creationism takes the view from a religious point, there is nothing scientific about that. You still haven't provided any evidence that creationism is more popular than evolutionary science except from your own POV. Any number provided by any survey wouldn't satisfy you. Megan1967 03:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I normally do sign my posts (and I have now signed that one). But to get to the point, you are still ignoring that it is a POV that you are using to justify a deletion. Do you dispute that others claim that creationism is based on hard scientific evidence? I don't know why I'm asking—I asked last time and you ignored the question in favour of arguing your POV again. Personally, I would consider even your attempt-to-minimise 700 scientists to be "many" in the sense that it is a non-trivial number. Philip J. Rayment 15:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Sign your posts next time Philip. Creationism is not based on "hard scientific evidence". Creationism is based on the writings of the Bible - that is not science, that is faith. I would seriously challenge your statement that "many scientists" support creationism as science. Research does not back up your claim. For example - "Out of the approximately 13,000,000 scientists and engineers in the US alone, less than 5% (some 600,000) are creationists, according to Gallup poll results. However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory [Robinson, 1995]. This means that less than 0.15% of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that's just the US, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1%." see [2]. 0.15% does not equate to "many" Megan1967 07:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more. It's not PoV to point out that Creationism isn't a science; the only people who think that it is are the creationists themselves, just as the only people who think that phrenology or Marxism are scientific are phrenologists and Marxists — and that's not enough to make it an open question. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The only people that think evolution is the only correct view are evolutionists. What does that prove? Philip J. Rayment 03:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- And many people once thought that the earth was flat, was created in seven days and was the centre of the solar system, but that still did not make it true. Megan1967 08:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Ignoring that the "flat earth" belief was mainly fiction, you are correct. Many people now think that evolution is true, but that does not make it so. Philip J. Rayment 15:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Do you believe that the earth is flat? Then your arguments are not based on science. At least you have changed your arguments from "few" believe to "many" believe. I believe that is a concession on your part. Megan1967 03:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No, I don't believe that the Earth is flat? Why do you ask? I haven't changed my arguments (and therefore haven't conceded anything). What makes you think that I ever denied that many believed in evolution? Philip J. Rayment 14:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Do you believe that the earth is flat? Then your arguments are not based on science. At least you have changed your arguments from "few" believe to "many" believe. I believe that is a concession on your part. Megan1967 03:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Ignoring that the "flat earth" belief was mainly fiction, you are correct. Many people now think that evolution is true, but that does not make it so. Philip J. Rayment 15:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- And many people once thought that the earth was flat, was created in seven days and was the centre of the solar system, but that still did not make it true. Megan1967 08:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The first paragraph makes it clear that it's considered pseudoscience. what else do you want? the fact is, it EXISTS, just like phrenology. but phrenology isn't up for deletion. why are you voting to delete an article on a topic that exists, and which is flagged as pseudoscience in the intro? Ungtss 13:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If you agree that it is a pseudo-science then Creation Geology is misnamed as such. Creation Pseudogeology maybe. Whatever. Calling it Creation Geology is misleading. Megan1967 02:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps so, but that's what the creationists call it, so the naming convention guidelines are pretty clear that that's what the article ought to be called (if there's an article on it at all). For example, we have an article on the "true Catholic Church" called, yes, true Catholic Church, not because the article should in content or in tone approve of the claims of the subject of the article, but because that's the generally used (self- and otherwise) description. Alai 02:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Creationists may call it that but that doesnt mean the majority call it that or that it is true and correct. Creation Science and Creation Geology are oxymorons. Megan1967 06:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- So you keep asserting, but NPOV is about not claiming something disputed to be true even if you think it is true. If it was, I would be claiming that creation is true, but I for one am prepared to attempt a neutral point of view. Can you? Philip J. Rayment 15:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You are not neutral Philip. I've seen your profile page. It's quite obvious you are not neutral on this. So don't try and pull the wool over anyone's eyes because your public position on creationism is noted. Megan1967 03:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not claiming to be neutral. I'm claiming that you are not neutral either, yet you are basing your vote to delete on your non-neutral POV, which is an invalid reason to vote to delete. How about you address my points instead of attacking me? My position on creationism is, as you say, public. I don't shirk from that. But that is not the point. The point is that your position is also public, and you are invalidly basing your vote on your opinion. How about actually addressing that point instead of stating the obvious about me as though it has some relevance to your invalid vote???? Philip J. Rayment 14:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-
- My vote isn't invalid. You can't make a persons vote invalid because you just so happen not to agree with it. Thank goodness creationists don't run democracies. This vote is on the Creation Geology article not anything else. Faith is not science - you keep asserting that's my POV, well according to Wikipedia articles on what faith is and what science is, I would say that to claim faith is equal to science is not correct, and thus my vote is perfectly valid. Allowing a misleading titled/named article to exist is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- My vote isn't invalid. I said that your reason for your vote is invalid. You can't make a persons vote invalid because you just so happen not to agree with it. But, according to you, disagreeing with the topic is reason for deletion? That is the point that you are still not addressing. Thank goodness creationists don't run democracies. What makes you think they don't? People that believed what the Bible says (i.e. what we would now call creationists) were quite involved with setting up modern democracy. Without them we may not have democracy. But now that you have raised that topic and I have responded, let's not go down that sidetrack. This vote is on the Creation Geology article not anything else. Did I say it was? No. I was saying that your vote on that was for invalid reasons, and you keep on raising other issues instead of sticking to that. Faith is not science - you keep asserting that's my POV... No, I keep asserting that your POV is being invalidly used as justification for voting to delete an article about a different POV. I'm not claiming that faith is science; where did you get that idea from? I would say that to claim faith is equal to science is not correct, and thus my vote is perfectly valid. That's a non-sequitur. Allowing a misleading titled/named article to exist is un-encyclopaedic. But it is merely a POV that it is a misleading title. And even if it is, renaming should be the solution instead of deletion. Philip J. Rayment 14:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- My vote isn't invalid. You can't make a persons vote invalid because you just so happen not to agree with it. Thank goodness creationists don't run democracies. This vote is on the Creation Geology article not anything else. Faith is not science - you keep asserting that's my POV, well according to Wikipedia articles on what faith is and what science is, I would say that to claim faith is equal to science is not correct, and thus my vote is perfectly valid. Allowing a misleading titled/named article to exist is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-
- I'm not claiming to be neutral. I'm claiming that you are not neutral either, yet you are basing your vote to delete on your non-neutral POV, which is an invalid reason to vote to delete. How about you address my points instead of attacking me? My position on creationism is, as you say, public. I don't shirk from that. But that is not the point. The point is that your position is also public, and you are invalidly basing your vote on your opinion. How about actually addressing that point instead of stating the obvious about me as though it has some relevance to your invalid vote???? Philip J. Rayment 14:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You are not neutral Philip. I've seen your profile page. It's quite obvious you are not neutral on this. So don't try and pull the wool over anyone's eyes because your public position on creationism is noted. Megan1967 03:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- So you keep asserting, but NPOV is about not claiming something disputed to be true even if you think it is true. If it was, I would be claiming that creation is true, but I for one am prepared to attempt a neutral point of view. Can you? Philip J. Rayment 15:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Creationists may call it that but that doesnt mean the majority call it that or that it is true and correct. Creation Science and Creation Geology are oxymorons. Megan1967 06:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps so, but that's what the creationists call it, so the naming convention guidelines are pretty clear that that's what the article ought to be called (if there's an article on it at all). For example, we have an article on the "true Catholic Church" called, yes, true Catholic Church, not because the article should in content or in tone approve of the claims of the subject of the article, but because that's the generally used (self- and otherwise) description. Alai 02:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- (my edit coincided with those below)
I don't comb the encyclopedia for articles to delete; when one is proposed, and it's in my sphere of personal or professional interest, I look at it and vote accordingly. In so far as there's any inconsistency in this (and I don't think that there is any), it would apply to most people on most VfDs.
Besides, it's slightly disingenuous to point to the fact that we're told in the first paragraph that the subject is considered to be pseudoscience. Would an article describing at length the theory that all North Americans were intellectually and morally inferior to other nationalities, and accursed by god, be acceptable if it said at the beginning: “This theory is rejected by mainstream thought and considered to be groundless“? A short description of a pseudo-scientific theory is one thing, but a full-length encyclopædia article whose only critical comment is one sentence at the beginning is another. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)- first, your comparison to north american inferiority is rather silly, since almost half the united states population ascribes to this idea, and the MAJORITY of people worldwide ascribe to it, so it's by no means a fringe view. Ungtss 15:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That rather misses my point. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Interesting you should give this hypothetical example, Κυριος Ετητης ;) In America in the 1910s and 20s, the leading evolutionary textbook taught practically the same thing (or specifically, white supremacy) — yet the ACLU went to court to fight for John Scopes' right to teach from this very book:
- That rather misses my point. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- first, your comparison to north american inferiority is rather silly, since almost half the united states population ascribes to this idea, and the MAJORITY of people worldwide ascribe to it, so it's by no means a fringe view. Ungtss 15:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If you agree that it is a pseudo-science then Creation Geology is misnamed as such. Creation Pseudogeology maybe. Whatever. Calling it Creation Geology is misleading. Megan1967 02:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The only people that think evolution is the only correct view are evolutionists. What does that prove? Philip J. Rayment 03:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Are you claiming that your POV is undisputed fact? Because it isn't. It doesn't matter what I claim. Creationary scientists do claim that it is as scientific as uniformitarian views, and, although getting it's framework from the Bible, is also based on hard scientific evidence. Those are the facts. Your implied claim that it indisputably not science is simply not true. You may (hypothetically) be right that it is not science, but that is disputed by very many people, including many scientists, so you are, as I said, basing your vote on your POV. Philip J. Rayment 03:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Are you claiming that creationism is a science? Science relies on testability of proof. Creationism relies on the written words of the Bible, a book with a religious POV. Faith is not science. You can't ignore the facts. It has nothing to do with claims of my POV. Of course being a christian yourself Philip wouldn't have anything to do with your position now would it.Megan1967 06:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- On another note, I again see that a number of people here are voting to delete purely or partly because of their personal POV on the topic (for example, Megan1967, the entry just above this). That such people can't see how much their biases get in the way of NPOV causes me to despair that Wikipedia will never achieve its goal of truly presenting a neutral point of view. As with writing articles, voters should vote on whether the article is suitable for an encyclopedia, not on the basis of their personal POV, no matter how common that POV may be. Philip J. Rayment 06:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the others in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.” (Hunter's Civic Biology pp. 195–196)[3] 138.130.194.229 13:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure why this would bear on the debate... particularly since modern science has basically discredited the idea that different ethnicitics are descended from different species of early man (and, therefore, has discredited the idea that certain races are inherently genetically inferior). Katefan0 14:55, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the others in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.” (Hunter's Civic Biology pp. 195–196)[3] 138.130.194.229 13:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- second, feel free to add the mainstream challenges to the creationist views at the end -- npov provides for that -- nay -- npov DEMANDS that -- but why are you voting to delete an encyclopedic entry describing a particular view of geology? Ungtss 15:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You've ignored most of what I said (and the reason I gave for my vote). In short: a psudo-scientific theory pushed by a geographically restricted (if unfortunately politically powerful) group of religious fundamentalists might warrant a short article; it doesn't warrant one of this length and detail, especially when little mention is made of its status. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- perhaps if your premises were correct, your conclusion would follow. but you of course ignore the entire religion of Islam, which ascribes to a young-earth interpretation of geological phenomena, including the flood. geologically restricted? hardly. dominant in north america, south america, nearly universal in africa and the middle east, all the way through to Indonesia, and at least 5% in Australia. Evolution is the geographically restricted fringe view -- a uniquely Western materialistic phenomenon. Ungtss 18:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- As a religious belief, you're right; as a pseudo-scientific theory, presented as scientific (as it is in the article), you're wrong. And that's the point. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- if religious belief and historical belief were separable in this case, you'd be right. but since this is above all a HISTORICAL belief about a deliberate act of creation, a garden built on a river, and a really big flood, you're wrong. that's my point. divorcing science from religion in this case is rather silly. genesis is either historical or it isn't. Ungtss 13:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Why are you conflating science with history? Even if I thought that Genesis was an historically accurate account of the beginning of the world, that wouldn't mean that I thought that creationism was scientific (it wouldn't even mean that I took Genesis to offer an explanation of the beginning of the world. I wonder if you're aware of what distinguishes science from non-science and pseudoscience? This isn't the place to go into it, but I'd be happy to discuss it somewhere appropriate. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- i'm aware of how the contemporary scientific community defines science and pseudoscience, and that creationism falls within the latter category. of course, i find that definition to be unreasonably narrow, but that's beside the point. the fact that creationism is pseudoscience doesn't change what it is -- and it is primarily a historical argument, based on an ostensibly historical account, and the subsequent interpretation of contemporary phenomena in light of that history. to accept the account as historical is to interpret natural phenomena in light of it. Ungtss 14:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-
- Well, first, it's not just scientists who think of science in that way (many of them religious believers of a less literalist persuasion), but also philosophers of science (and many theologians). But, secondly and more importantly, what do you take the importance of science to be? What distinguishes science from guessing, or choosing the most congenial theory, or just believing what you're told? What's the relationship between the scientific method and justification? Thirdly, and finally, how soon before we fall off the edge of this screen? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-
- lol:). shall we continue here?
-
- Well, first, it's not just scientists who think of science in that way (many of them religious believers of a less literalist persuasion), but also philosophers of science (and many theologians). But, secondly and more importantly, what do you take the importance of science to be? What distinguishes science from guessing, or choosing the most congenial theory, or just believing what you're told? What's the relationship between the scientific method and justification? Thirdly, and finally, how soon before we fall off the edge of this screen? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-
- i'm aware of how the contemporary scientific community defines science and pseudoscience, and that creationism falls within the latter category. of course, i find that definition to be unreasonably narrow, but that's beside the point. the fact that creationism is pseudoscience doesn't change what it is -- and it is primarily a historical argument, based on an ostensibly historical account, and the subsequent interpretation of contemporary phenomena in light of that history. to accept the account as historical is to interpret natural phenomena in light of it. Ungtss 14:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Why are you conflating science with history? Even if I thought that Genesis was an historically accurate account of the beginning of the world, that wouldn't mean that I thought that creationism was scientific (it wouldn't even mean that I took Genesis to offer an explanation of the beginning of the world. I wonder if you're aware of what distinguishes science from non-science and pseudoscience? This isn't the place to go into it, but I'd be happy to discuss it somewhere appropriate. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- if religious belief and historical belief were separable in this case, you'd be right. but since this is above all a HISTORICAL belief about a deliberate act of creation, a garden built on a river, and a really big flood, you're wrong. that's my point. divorcing science from religion in this case is rather silly. genesis is either historical or it isn't. Ungtss 13:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- As a religious belief, you're right; as a pseudo-scientific theory, presented as scientific (as it is in the article), you're wrong. And that's the point. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- perhaps if your premises were correct, your conclusion would follow. but you of course ignore the entire religion of Islam, which ascribes to a young-earth interpretation of geological phenomena, including the flood. geologically restricted? hardly. dominant in north america, south america, nearly universal in africa and the middle east, all the way through to Indonesia, and at least 5% in Australia. Evolution is the geographically restricted fringe view -- a uniquely Western materialistic phenomenon. Ungtss 18:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You've ignored most of what I said (and the reason I gave for my vote). In short: a psudo-scientific theory pushed by a geographically restricted (if unfortunately politically powerful) group of religious fundamentalists might warrant a short article; it doesn't warrant one of this length and detail, especially when little mention is made of its status. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- second, feel free to add the mainstream challenges to the creationist views at the end -- npov provides for that -- nay -- npov DEMANDS that -- but why are you voting to delete an encyclopedic entry describing a particular view of geology? Ungtss 15:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This vote isn't about whether Creationism is as a science, a pseudoscience, etc. This vote is about whether Creation geology warrants a separate article. If there is enough encyclopedic material on Creation geology that is distinct from the material presented in numerous other articles about creationism, then it should have a separate article, whether Creation geology is science, pseudoscience, or utter kookiness. I don't think there is enough such material, and the proliferation of articles related to creationism seems to be just a POV-motivated attempt to increase its presence in the Wikipedia and make it seem more like valid scientific view. The proliferation of articles also complicates the task of editors who are trying to ensure that creationism is presented in an NPOV manner. So the number of articles on creationism should be reduced, and this one seems like one of the first that can easily be dispensed with since the little material it contains that doesn't overlap other creationism articles can easily be merged with one or more of the others. --BM 14:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'm open to the idea since this ship looks like it's sinking. how do you suggest we do it? Ungtss 14:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- My first take on this is to move the material on antideluvian geology and dating techniques to the "Creation geology" section in Creation science, keeping the link to Flood geology as a separate article. Creation science is currently only 9K in length, so there is plenty of room for expansion. Indeed the Creation geology section of Creation science currently has a "sectstub" tag, calling for the section to be expanded; so this move would also permit that tag to be removed. --BM 16:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That seems to me to be a very sound place to start. I must admit I share a lot of the concerns you raise. There does seems to be at least a strong suggestion that there's a strategy here of "add creationist POV faster than it can be taken out/NPOV'd", so it's a bit rich for said advocates to cry "NPOV foul" when the removal of POV material is supported. Nonetheless, there's no reason material on this topic shouldn't be here, provided it can be put in a NPOV context. (By which I do not mean, 'we've written our creationist POV stuff, add some POV "evolutionist" material and it'll thereby be NPOV.') Alai 18:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- let's put bizarre accusations of strategy to rest, shall we? this page was created to address issues unique to creation geology, and it is absolutely, without a doubt, best addressed here, because:
- 1) it parallels other creation science pages
- 2) putting it in creation science will make creation science ridiculously lopsided on one topic
- 3) it doesn't do any HARM to have this page here -- it's not taking up any space that wouldn't be taken up on another page -- on the contrary, it covers unique material precisely on one topic.
- now of course, those who wish to suppress any ideas other than those they consider to be rational will naturally delete this without justification (or pseudojustifications, like "this isn't science!" or "it's pov!" -- if that's the way it's gonna go down, then feel free to integrate this material anywhere you see fit. but don't fool yourself into thinking you're justified. Ungtss 18:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Let's put the unwarranted level of hysteria to rest. I speak from experience, where I've attempted to resolve POV issues in particular articles (notably theistic realism and creation biology). These articles appear with text with no reasonable claim to be NPOV; there then follows endless edit wars and tangential debate on the talk pages, with the general effect of making removal of the POV as long-drawn-out as possible; and then much the same set of authors move on to do the same thing in another page. (Witness in the former case I'm still waiting for the restructuring you undertook to carry out, but you're still activity adding material to other pages.) I'm not suggesting this is reason per se for deletion, but it's pretty frustrating to deal with. (You'll notice I haven't even voted for the deletion of this page, so yelling "unjustified deletion!" at me is pretty, well, unjustified.) And if it's not a 'strategy' it's certainly a 'pattern of behaviour'. If these pages were really aiming at NPOV even in tone, never mind substance, would we really see such lavish use of POV neologisms like "creationary" and "evolutionist"? Alai 19:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That seems to me to be a very sound place to start. I must admit I share a lot of the concerns you raise. There does seems to be at least a strong suggestion that there's a strategy here of "add creationist POV faster than it can be taken out/NPOV'd", so it's a bit rich for said advocates to cry "NPOV foul" when the removal of POV material is supported. Nonetheless, there's no reason material on this topic shouldn't be here, provided it can be put in a NPOV context. (By which I do not mean, 'we've written our creationist POV stuff, add some POV "evolutionist" material and it'll thereby be NPOV.') Alai 18:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- My first take on this is to move the material on antideluvian geology and dating techniques to the "Creation geology" section in Creation science, keeping the link to Flood geology as a separate article. Creation science is currently only 9K in length, so there is plenty of room for expansion. Indeed the Creation geology section of Creation science currently has a "sectstub" tag, calling for the section to be expanded; so this move would also permit that tag to be removed. --BM 16:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'm open to the idea since this ship looks like it's sinking. how do you suggest we do it? Ungtss 14:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- This vote isn't about whether Creationism is as a science, a pseudoscience, etc. This vote is about whether Creation geology warrants a separate article. If there is enough encyclopedic material on Creation geology that is distinct from the material presented in numerous other articles about creationism, then it should have a separate article, whether Creation geology is science, pseudoscience, or utter kookiness. I don't think there is enough such material, and the proliferation of articles related to creationism seems to be just a POV-motivated attempt to increase its presence in the Wikipedia and make it seem more like valid scientific view. The proliferation of articles also complicates the task of editors who are trying to ensure that creationism is presented in an NPOV manner. So the number of articles on creationism should be reduced, and this one seems like one of the first that can easily be dispensed with since the little material it contains that doesn't overlap other creationism articles can easily be merged with one or more of the others. --BM 14:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
- keep or merge but don't delete, this concept needs to be covered somewhere. Kappa 23:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to flood geology. I personally think that creationism is a load of hooey, but that's not at issue here. — Gwalla | Talk 00:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Take a deep breath and vote Keep, for even though it is utter nonsense, it is encyclopedic nonsense, and someone may need to read about it. Merging with flood geology is equally acceptable. Antandrus 03:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, but needs much better NPOV. -Sean Curtin 01:56, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, Definitely keep. Encyclopedias should include as much information as possible, and whether the anti-creationists like it or not, there IS such a thing called creation geology -- whether it was spawned from creationists themselves is irrelevant. It exists and there should be info on it. Infocat 11:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, too less information and too much desinformation. Many facts are simply wrong. -- Moriolis 15:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to flood geology I think 2 articles on creationist 'geology' is duplication although it would fill-out 'flood geology' enough to make that one worth keeping. If Creation biology and Creation anthropology exist as articles Flood geology can as well but perhaps it should be renamed. If it is bias - delete bias bits/edit yerself max rspct 19:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and Delete - merge the relevant information in the various creation science articles and delete. kaal 21:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Not easy to NPOV, but definately salvagable. Keep. --L33tminion | (talk) 22:04, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I notice too much censorship (outright heavy-handed deletion) of anything that comes from creationist or intelligent design sources without trying to deal with the issues. I suspect that when people claim it is "wrong" they really mean it disagrees with naturalistic evolution. 138.130.194.229 12:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-
- Please sign in if you wish your vote to be counted; IP addresses don't get to vote in VfDs. Alai 16:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Well, yes they do. The usual view is that admins will usually assign less weight to an anon. user's vote. Also important is contributions history; this user seems to have made over fifty edits before voting here. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:31, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Hrm, the geat thing about WP policies (and practices) is there's so many of 'em... Someone probably needs to water down Template:Anon, then, which promises "The right to be heard in formal votes and elections, and on pages like votes for deletion", which is over-selling if they have that already. Admittedly, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion is weaker, merely saying "Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith." This could stand to be a whole lot clearer, though that's getting further from the point here. (Though I may also have been to some extent confusing anon votes with unsigned one...) Alai 17:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Not only that, but different admins have very different approches to how VfDs are decided: some simply count the votes, some assess the comments, and so on. All part of life's rich tapestry... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Hrm, the geat thing about WP policies (and practices) is there's so many of 'em... Someone probably needs to water down Template:Anon, then, which promises "The right to be heard in formal votes and elections, and on pages like votes for deletion", which is over-selling if they have that already. Admittedly, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion is weaker, merely saying "Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith." This could stand to be a whole lot clearer, though that's getting further from the point here. (Though I may also have been to some extent confusing anon votes with unsigned one...) Alai 17:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Well, yes they do. The usual view is that admins will usually assign less weight to an anon. user's vote. Also important is contributions history; this user seems to have made over fifty edits before voting here. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:31, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Please sign in if you wish your vote to be counted; IP addresses don't get to vote in VfDs. Alai 16:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge/Delete -Atricle is the usual pure BS spouted by creationists and DOES 'read like a screed'.--Deglr6328 21:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- i can't help but wonder when " pure BS" and "reads like a screed" came to be grounds for deletion. quite simply, they are not. the article is encyclopedic because it describes an extant view. whether it reads like screed or not is a function of editing, not deletion. the above provides absolutely no justification for deletion, except distaste. Ungtss 15:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Gamaliel 03:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, disinformation. Leanne 02:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Administrator, I ask that in deciding whether or not to delete this page, you consider the following facts:
- absolutely none of the reasons presented for deletion qualify as justifications for deletion. On the contrary, they are reasons like "reads like a screed," "disinformation," and "Pure BS." I suggest that these votes are instances of Systemic bias, rather than legitimate and npov votes for deletion. Many people hate creationism just because it is creationism -- but that is NOT a reason to delete the page on the topic. the page is encyclopedic, and covers a geniune extant topic. the fact that it is WRONG does not justify DELETING it, as MANY ideas that are wrong appear on wikipedia. The deletion of this page would be a violation of npov in the face of systemic bias. Ungtss 14:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, this article essentially duplicates existing information which can be found on Creationism and Creation science. JamesBurns 05:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- that is absolutely, unequivocally untrue. there is absolutely no -- NO -- NO duplication. this article is COMPLETELY unique. Ungtss 16:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
