Talk:Creation science/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Disbelieve

I guess we should start using the term scientific original unadulterated “the one that scientist use” science to differentiate it from creation science, but then again you most likely will then call it scientific original unadulterated “the one that scientist use” creation science. LexCorp 07:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

perhaps "mainstream scientist" and "creation scientist" will do for now. Ungtss 17:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I can't say that I am fully satisfied. LexCorp 18:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
clearly. but can you say why? Ungtss 18:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Science is a well established term with a definitive meaning. Thus both "mainstream science" and "creation science" are meaningless terms. You seem to equate "mainstream scientist" and "creation scientist" with those terms but that is not logical. You see, Science is a singular entity, so there are no other sciences. In the other hand scientist are a composite of people and they can be classified as "mainstream scientist" and "creation scientist" or even "mad scientist". The same is not true for science. The confusion arises by the fact that we readily use terms such as physical science or biological science in everyday talk. When in fact the proper way to refer to these is that biology is the field within science that study so and so.
<<Science is a well established term with a definitive meaning.>>
i'm afraid your premise fails. there are two substantively different definitions of science within this context. the definition of science within the mainstream scientific community excludes supernatural and intelligent causes by definition. creation science does not. it defines science in such a way as to allow for both natural and supernatural causes. two substantively different definitions of science. hence, creation science. is that definition FUNCTIONAL or not? that's another question. but wikipedia naming conventions require that organizations and ideas be self-described. creation scientists call it creation science. hence the title. different definition of science, self-described. thoughts? Ungtss 19:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And there lies my problem. By choosing a composite name for a new concept, when the definition of one of those names (namely Science) is close but not equal to that of the new concept, you only achieve confusion (some will even say ill-meaning confusion). Thus defeating the purpose of language (that is easy communication). Even you became confuse by saying: "there are two substantively different definitions of science within this context". No, there is only one, the other is your new concept call "creation science" which is not science. --LexCorp 19:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
<<By choosing a composite name for a new concept, when the definition of one of those names (namely Science) is close but not equal to that of the new concept, you only achieve confusion (some will even say ill-meaning confusion).>>
i'm afraid your premise fails again. creation science is not a new concept. on the contrary, it is a very old one. darwin himself explained the existence of the "first stock" of animals through God's deliberate act of creation. science and creationism of one form or another went hand in hand until the 1950s, when god-driven Orthogenesis lost its last stand against a new "science" grounded in strict philosophical naturalism (otherwise known as atheism). creation science is the old concept. naturalistic science is the new concept. naturalistic science has coopted the definition of science to exclude 3000 years of creation science, and thinks it has always been that way.
<<No, there is only one, the other is your new concept call "creation science" which is not science.>>
this is your pov, not an objective fact for purposes of this article. for my part, i think that the new concept of "science grounded in philosophical naturalism" is subscience, because it can explain some things, but fails to explain Creation at a fundamental level. because of that difference in opinion, the most npov (albeit imperfect) solution is to call it creation science and mainstream science. the alternatives are to take your pov, that this is "science versus nonscience," or my opinion, which is "science versus subscience." if we do either of those, we lose the battle for npov before we even begin. Ungtss 19:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Your last paragraph is true; we will never reach an agreement on this issue. And thus my statement above "I can't say that I am fully satisfied" remains. As for the other bit about science been new or younger than yours "in my POV new" concept, I dispute it and point to the classical Greek philosophers. But as I fear that, neither, we will arrive to an agreement on this. I propose the closure of this discussion. --LexCorp 20:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
agreed. i'd love for perfectly npov terminology, but i'm afraid that none exists:(. thank you for being so objective and reasonable on this touchy issue:). Ungtss 20:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

er, Guys, this is not Usenet. Anyway, it is Wikipedia's policy to use self-identified terms (um see wikipedia:naming conventions(?). So, despite "creation science" being an oxymoron, I am perfectly happy to use the phrase within an article on creationist pseudoscience, and call science proper "mainstream science". In most other articles mainstream science should be referred to simply as science. Dunc|☺ 22:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

and thank you for that, sir:). Ungtss 23:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Right conclusion. Wrong reason. wikipedia:naming conventions SAYS "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". In other words, Wikipedia suggests (not demands) that things be called what they are most often called, whether its an oxymoron or someone's alias like Jeff Gannon or whatever. I can't demand you call my religion Christianity if in general most people DO NOT. "Creation Science" is a well known term and more used for its meaning than any one alternative. So whether its a science or not, wikipedia SUGGESTS that it be called "creation science" as in "Creation science is not a science." (similar to "Antisemitism is not being anti semitic." 4.250.198.221 20:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Creation science as science section

Per ungtss's and RednBlu's suggestion at creationism, I'm incorporating the creation science vis-a-vis mainstream science criticisms here. I'll be working on the creation science and falsifiability section that was already present on the page for accuracy and npov.--FeloniousMonk 18:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The C.S. Lewis bit...

I am removing the C.S. Lewis bit from the article, as it seems to violate NPOV. If you disagree, at least consider moving it to a less prominent place in the article. MikeDockery 13:16, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, I just "demoted" it and qualified the last sentence. MikeDockery 13:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

thanks for demoting it instead of deleting it entirely, but what is your ordering scheme? it followed the philosophy section because it demonstrates the philosophy behind the science. now it's all by itself at the end. what's your plan for the order? and why do you think it violates npov, insofar as it simply summarizes lewis's call for creation science? Ungtss 13:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, I am removing it. The problem is it demonstrates only a few things: one) that CS Lewis liked to make ethnic jokes about the Irish, two) that naturalist scientists are metaphorically like an Irishman with two stoves (???), three) that somebody out there (Ungtss, perhaps?) thinks that this is an explanation of creation science. It seems to me to be a complete non-sequitor. As for it "explaining" the philosophy, it isn't encyclopedic to include parables. We're not writing a sacred text here. Explain the concept in simple demonstrative sentences, not in metaphors please. Joshuaschroeder 07:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
i reworked it to be more demonstrative. in the future, mr. schroeder, may i suggest that YOU attempt to rework these ideas in demonstrative terms to your satisfaction, rather than deleting them wholesale? finally, there is no rule against metaphor on wikipedia. Ungtss 14:00, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I reworked it to be less intrusive. Since the entire section makes a single point (that creation science believes that there are things beyond naturalistic explanations) I placed it in the above section and removed most of the superfluous parts of the quote as well as the Irishman stove story altogether. Joshuaschroeder 15:01, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<The problem is it demonstrates only a few things: one) that CS Lewis liked to make ethnic jokes about the Irish, two) that naturalist scientists are metaphorically like an Irishman with two stoves (???), three) that somebody out there (Ungtss, perhaps?) thinks that this is an explanation of creation science. It seems to me to be a complete non-sequitor.>>

the fact that you think it's non-sequitur does NOT JUSTIFY DELETION, SCHROEDER! DON'T BE A PRICK! IF IT'S NON-SEQUITUR IT WILL OBVIOUSLY APPEAR SO TO ANYONE WHO READS IT! YOU ARE NOT THE JUDGE OF EVERYTHING THAT IS TRUE! STOP DELETING THINGS YOU DISAGREE WITH! ARE YOU REALLY PREPARED FOR ANOTHER STUPID EDIT WAR! Ungtss 17:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"DON'T BE A PRICK!" Please. You know better. 4.250.198.221 20:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

but does he? Ungtss 14:00, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As for it "explaining" the philosophy, it isn't encyclopedic to include parables. We're not writing a sacred text here. Explain the concept in simple demonstrative sentences, not in metaphors please. (unsigned)

it is entirely encyclopedic to include parables, when proponents of ideas use parables to explain their ideas, because npov documents views. Ungtss 14:00, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
it IS encyclopedic to explain scientific philosophy in parables if it has been so explained! why do you insist on deleting EVERYTHING WE HAVE TO SAY!? Ungtss 17:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Although it is hard to write a serious straight-faced article about a Mickey Mouse subject, we need not write it in a Mickey Mouse style. :) Dunc|☺ 12:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Can anybody provide a citation that creation science considers one of its founding philosophers to be C.S. Lewis?
Lewis died in 1963, "creation science" was effectively popularised during the 1960s by Henry M. Morris and friends. It's cutting it fine to say the least, and I don't think Lewis was a YEC. He did not like science [1] though its demise, if you believe YECs has been imminent since Darwin. Amateur theologians and evangelists love Lewis because he's like them. Besides which, this is about Creation science which is based on the assumption that the Bible is innerant, not about Untgss' own pov which seems to be that science should embrace the supernatural. Also, searching on AiG website for Lewis turns up a bit, but not a lot. Dunc|☺ 16:55, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with it being deleted...I just held off on taking it off entirely until there could be some discussion about its removal. But it didn't seem to have much relation to the article, except for perhaps being rhetoric that preponents of Creation Science use to explain their philosophy. But since it wasn't clearly marked as such, I think it should be removed until someone can give some citations for its use as Creation Science rhetoric. MikeDockery 08:25, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, found the changes. Looks fine to me. MikeDockery 08:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

POV compromise

In order to stop a revert war, how about accepting the compromise in the second lead paragraph? I strongly maintain that using adjectives like "real science" and "honest science" is POV. So is calling creation science "intellectually dishonest." Not that I think it isn't. Just that its not NPOV to do so. DaveTheRed 17:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I'll accept those changes. Aaarrrggh 23:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Creationism is not science

Creationism is not a science because it does not follow the scientific method:

The scientific method demands that a theory explain observations better than existing theories.
The scientific method demands that theories be falsifiable.
A scientific theory that is contradicted by evidence is discarded.
The scientific method relies on empiric observation.

Creationism fulfulls none of these criteria - instead of accepting that dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, it argues that God put fossils in the ground to test our faith - this violates Occam's razor.

In short, 'Creation science' is to science as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is to democracy.

I has been argued elsewhere that 'Creation science' is a widely recognized term, and as such should be included. I disagree with this - creation science is only recognized by a certain segment of the population - elsewhere the same set of ideas are known as Creationism. Furthermore, what is proper science is not a majority decision - the earth is an oblate spheroid, and it was so even when everybody thought that it was flat.

I vote for this page being merged with Creationism. --Spazzm 05:55, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

Well, after reading around Wikipedia to find what is an appropiate content for wikipedia I found that in Wikipedia:Informative it states,
Content on Wikipedia must be informative (that is, containing information), as well as being verifiable and of a neutral point of view. This is because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform.
Information, for the purposes of Wikipedia, is either actionable or interesting.
It gives as an example of what is not appropiate the following,
Alicia's theory that the raindrops falling on her head increase when she's singing in the rain is not actionable, as nobody takes her seriously, and even if they did, it wouldn't be good for much.
Which more or less sums up the majority's view about the neologism "Creation science". Thus I concur it should be merged to Creationism. The problem is how to proceed with the merger. In my opinion first we need to get the greater number of people to concur with this (so anyone willing do it please) then I guess a VfD must proceed and if it results in a merge win then you got it.--LexCorp 04:19, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I vote not to merge. Creationism and Creation Science are not the same thing. Whether or not Creation science is an oxymoron is irrelevent. Let's reexamine your quote
Alicia's theory that the raindrops falling on her head increase when she's singing in the rain is not actionable, as nobody takes her seriously, and even if they did, it wouldn't be good for much.
In this case, there are a lot of people who take creation science seriously. I personally think they are idiots, but that doesn't negate their existance. Creation science exists as a concept believed in by millions of people, and as long as we state in the article that real scientists think that creation science is bunk, then we are NPOV and the article should be kept. DaveTheRed 04:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You may be right but to me it is hard to think of those millions really believing in creation science. I do agree that they do have some notion about what creationism entails, but that knowledge and believe is well removed from this so call "Creation Science" which is a discipline invented to blurr the line between rational and irrational thought. --LexCorp 04:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
According to this poll, 55% of americans believe that humans were created by God and did not evolve. Now there are 255 million people in America, so that works out to about 140 million people. Now I agree that not all of them necesarily believe in creation science, but if even 1% of them do, thats still over a million people. And that's only America. I agree that the name Christian Science was used to intentionally blur the lines between rational and irrational thought. But that doesn't make the concept any less signigicant, or encyclopedic. This should be kept. DaveTheRed 05:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The number of believers is irrelevant - a science is not a science because people believe in it. A science is a science because it adheres to the scientific method. That's the difference between science and religion.
An encyclopedia is primarily concerned with the concise and correct description of words and concepts. Creationism is not a science in the correct meaning of the word.
Example: Some people believe the earth is flat. Does that mean we should have a 'Flat-Earth science' article? Why not? Both flat-earth and creationism contradicts the available evidence. None of them follow the scientific method.
They're both equally qualified to be called 'science'. Or is the difference that the flat-earthers have not (yet) had the audacity of trying to pass themselves off as science?
Creationism and Creation Science are not the same thing.
What's the difference, and why can't it be explained on the Creationism page?--Spazzm 06:05, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

The number of believers is irrelevant

  • No it's not. The more people subscribe to a theory, the more worthy it is of inclusion in an encyclopedia
A theory is only scientific if it meets certain criteria. Popularity is not one of them. I would accept 'Creation Theory'. 'Creation Science' could redirect to it.

science is not a science because people believe in it. A science is a science because it adheres to the scientific method. That's the difference between science and religion.

  • Once again, whether or not creation science is actually a science is irrelavent, as long as we address the inconsistancy in the article. Buffalo wings are neither made of buffalo, nor are they wings. Does that mean we should merge that article with Chicken?
Invalid analogy. Buffalo wings are called Buffalo wings because they were first sold in Buffalo (which is true), not because they pretend to be made from buffaloes (which would be false, since buffaloes do not have wings).
Incidentally, Buffalo wings are made from wings: Buffalo wings are unbreaded chicken wing sections.
Oops. Yeah, I knew they were wings. I should have paid more attention to what I was typing. :-) DaveTheRed 08:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is primarily concerned with the concise and correct description of words and concepts

  • and Creation Science is a concept.
Creationism is a concept. Creation science is an incorrect usage of the word science, and a misleading labelling of the concept.

Does that mean we should have a 'Flat-Earth science' article?

  • No, because no one has ever proposed "Flat-Earth science" as a concept. If someone does, and the notion takes hold with a large group of people, then we should make such an article.
I disagree. 'Flat-earth science' should redirect to 'Flat Earth theories' or somesuch. Additionally, your claim is not totally correct, according to the Flat Earth Society FAQ: Platygæanism is the scientific hypothesis which holds that the Earth is flat or planar in topology. (Emphasis mine). I expect this is a joke, but in this age when creationism can style itself a science and be supported by a leading encyclopedia, who knows?

What's the difference, and why can't it be explained on the Creationism page?

  • Creationism is the belief that god created the universe. Creation Science is a bogus "scientific" theory to justify creationism. Not all creationists believe in creation science. They are different concepts. Merging the two articles would be akin to merging gravity and the law of universal gravitation together. DaveTheRed 07:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Maybe Gravity and the law of universal gravitation should be merged?
The salient point is that some creationists pretend to be scientists, others do not even pretend to care about science. They are not separate idiologies, merely the same ideology in different guises. While it is possible that all creationists are not creation scientists, it is certain that all creation scientists are creationists.
Ideology is not science, and if the mere pretence of adherence to scientific principles is all that separate Creationism and Creation Science, then they should be merged. --Spazzm 07:53, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
Gravity and the law of universal gravitation should definitely not be merged as they are different things. As for your point about same idiologies in separate guises, all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. That does not mean they are the same thing, or that they should be merged. As for Creation scientists, it does not matter if the name is a misnomer. I agree that it is a misnomer. What matters is that
a) Creation science is sufficiently different from creationism that it deserves its own article.
b) Creation science is sufficiently popular that it deserves its own article.
c) Christian science is the name that these people use to refer to the concept.
d) Christian science is also the name people outside of the belief use to refer the concept.
ergo, it does not matter that it is a misnomer. We can state that many people consider it a misnomer in the article, but we should title the article Christian science, because that's what the majority of people call it. Wikipedia is not the place for a crusade to change the name of Christian science. If you didn't like my buffalo wing example, how about another one? Faith healing is a misnomer, because faith healing hasn't been scientifically shown to heal anyone. But that's the name of the article. DaveTheRed 08:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
i) Christian science redirects to Church of Christ, Scientist. Still incorrect, but it's a less misleading name in that scientists can sometimes adopt non-scientific views. In the case of Faith Healing, there isn't a more accurate or more widely recognized name available. Creationism is both more accurate and more widely recognized than Creation science.
ii) The fact that some articles have incorrect, misleading or duplicating titles does not mean we should add more, see Two_wrongs_make_a_right_(fallacy).
iii) Creation science is not a widely accepted term by people who are not themselves Creationists.
iv) WikiPedia is not the place for a crusade to change the meaning of the word 'science'. 'Cristian science' is spread with a political or religious agenda, WikiPedia should not aid in spreading this type of misinformation.
v) 'Healing' does not have a meaning as rigidly defined as 'science' - possibly thanks to misnomers such as 'Faith Healing'.
vi) Squares and rectangles differ in the property most fundamental to them (geometric shape), but 'Creationism' and 'Creation Science' are different names for the same ideology. If there really where Creationists arriving at their conclusion by adhering to the scientific method, the case would be totally different. But there aren't.
vii) Rectangles are really rectangular and squares are really square. Creationism is not really scientific. There are no entries on circular rectangles or triangular squares.
--Spazzm 22:35, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
I agree with Spazzm and I would like to point that the merge option is really a compromise as Creation Science is a neoligism which should really be deleted from Wikipedia. Its inclusion is harming the project as a whole because it deviates it from encyclopedic material into whatever people think is a legit inclusion. The role of a encyclopedia is to diseminate knowledge and terms that blur and confuse the meaning of science do not help. In the end it will be a viability test for a project like Wikipedia. If Creation Science and similar articles remain in the wiki then the collective checks and balances of its users will not be enough to produce a true free factual encyclopedia and so the project will be either modified or deemed as failure.--LexCorp 01:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, lets address this one point at a time.

  • I made a typo with the Christian science mention. I meant Creation science. I need more sleep.
  • I am not arguing that two wrongs make a right. I am arguing that faith healing is the correct title for that article, and by the same token Creation science is the correct name for this article.
faith healing is not a biological process and is also a neologism so you are right it should be removed or moved (I suggest under Christian beliefs) or retitle (I suggest The christian belief of healing throught faith). --LexCorp 05:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree with your assertion that the term "creation science" is not used by people outside of creationism. Most non-creationists who are familiar with the concept will use the term, even if somewhat derisively, because there is a lack of a better term. At wikipedia, we name things as they are called by the majority of people. You and I may think that the name is a misnomer, but to enforce that view through naming conventions is not NPOV.
Those people are falling into the trap of acepting a confusing neologism. Shame on them for not being more cautious. The better term you seem to omit is "creationist beliefs"--LexCorp 05:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There are a broad range of beliefs that fall under the scope of creationism. "Creation science," however, is the particular phenomenon of supporting the literal interpretation of Genesis through pseudoscientific argument. This phenomenon is real, notable, and has no other generally accepted name. Shimmin 03:19, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • creationism and creation science, once again, are not different names for the same ideology. The point of the square/rectangle analogy was to demonstrate that one concept can belong to a subset of another concept, and still be different. In this instance, creationism is the ideology. Creation science is one of many methods of explaning the ideology. This is an important distinction. We can, and should, reference creation science in the creationism article, but the subject of creation science is large enough that it can and should sustain its own article.
You should look up the definition of ideology.--LexCorp 05:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am well aware of the definition of ideology. My point is that just because two thigns share one ideology, does not mean that they are in fact the same thing. DaveTheRed 19:01, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • As stated in the article, creation science goes beyond just stating that god created the universe. It branches off into other things like creation cosmology, creation biology and creation geology. This article is a good place to link all these various branches.
all those branches are no more than statements of beliefs and thus should be moved into "creationist beliefs"--LexCorp 05:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)Insertformulahere
  • Another problem with merging is that it will unnecessarily clutter the Creationism article.
That is your POV, mine is that it will actually improve the Wikipedia.--LexCorp 05:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Creation science is no more of a neologism than Intelligent design, and we have a decent article on that.
We will come back on that one as soon as they start calling it Intelligent abiogenesis or Intelligent evolution.--LexCorp 05:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • To spazzm: I hardly think the inclusion of a Creation science article will spell the complete failure of Wikipedia. If we state in the intro to the article that mainstream science considers the term a misnomer, then how is Wikipedia contributing to this bluring of the lines? I'm having trouble understanding the basis of your objection. Do you object to the misleading name, or to the fact that it is pseudoscience? DaveTheRed 03:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think you are refering to me and not spazzm. One of the assumptions of wikipedia is that the users will maintain it. I question that assumption. My point is that if articles like this (which instead of clarifying information, serve to confuse and blurr well stablished terms) remain in the wikipedia then the objective of obtaining a free factual encyclopedia will fail. The better option is to move all these neologisms to the place where they belong "creatonist beliefs" --LexCorp 05:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I meant you :-). Why do you think wikipedians would not maintain this? The very fact that we are having this discussion is evidence that there are people who pay attention to this article. I think you are underselling the article. I don't think that the article is misleading. It states quite plainly that scientists consider creation science to be unsound science. I don't see how anyone reading this article would come away with the impression that creation science is actually a science. DaveTheRed 07:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Regardless of wether or not wikipedia's readers will be fooled by the title of the article, if we keep the article it will aid in spreading an ideologically motivated lie.
If we keep this article, creationists will be able to say, truthfully, "Major encyclopedias have articles on Creation Science, so at least they take it seriously" - never mind that most of their audience will never bother to check what the article says about 'Cration Science'.
If we keep this article we attract attention to the neologism, trough increased Google hits and so forth, thereby strenghtening it's position in the public consciousness - slowly, insidiously, 'Creation Science' will become the term everybody uses to describe 'Creationism' - despite the fact that it is incorrect. When that happens, science and reason will have lost a little and ignorance will have gained even more.
Creationism is not a science - the number of people who think so is not relevant to this statement, since scientific facts are not subject to majority approval. If a majority of people harbour incorrect ideas about science, is it not the role of a leading encyclopedia to provide factually correct information?
Should we offer clear, concise and correct information or should we pander to any ignoramus with a political axe to grind?
I think the answer is clear.--Spazzm 09:49, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

Oh come on. Guys, this isn't usenet. "Creation science" is not science. That should be obvious to all those except those blinded by faith. But it is a particular and subtle form of young earth creationism that arose during the 1960s and then largely fell away again in the 1980s. Creationism is simply the belief that something was created. It may be based purely on theology (e.g. omphology various forms of deism), or one might mix in a bit of pseudoscience. One form of creationism, intelligent design creationism is based (almost) entirely on pseudoscience. Now, young Earth creationism is the belief that everything was created ~10,000 years ago in seven days, as described in Genesis (i.e. a theological position). Creation science is the attempt to appear to be backed up by the scientific evidence, and involves lots of lying and spinning to try to make it all fit.

"Creation science" is not science, but creationism is more than just creation science. Dunc|☺ 12:31, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Then lets move it into Creationism under a subheading like "form of creationist propaganda" --LexCorp 12:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Spazzm's last post provides an excellent reason why we should keep this article. Spazzm is suggesting that we fight the creationists by not allowing them the legitimacy this article provides. It is not Wikipedia's job to fight for what is right in this world. Wikipedia is here to report on the world from a Neutral point of view. That means having articles on concepts even if we disagree with them. We have an article on white supremacy. Should we remove that article, for fear of lending legitimacy to the neo-nazis? Wikipedia names and writes articles from a neutral point of view, and then lets the reader come to his or her own conclusions. Anything else is POV, and against the spirit of wikipedia. Wikipedia has a policy on Pseudoscience. Please read it and take it into consideration regarding this article. DaveTheRed 18:44, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


After reading wikipedia policy on pseudoscience I concede that the article could be in wikipedia but only after the following inclusion otherwise it will be pov,
The general public considers creation science to be an ideologically and politically motivated propaganda tool to promote the creationists agenda in society by spreding vague, wrong and false information. And that a term like creation science was chosen under the presumption that a term wich contains the word "science" in it will confuse people into believing it has some kind of rational basis or at least been seen as ratinally equal to science. --LexCorp 19:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's a bad idea to generalize about what the "general public" feels about an issue, especially without sources. Find me a respectable poll that states that a solid majority of people believe what you state, and then cite that poll in the sentence. Otherwise, it just comes across as stating your own POV and couching it with weasel words.
Furthermore, even if you found such a source, I would be inclined not to include it in the introductory paragraph. We already have a part of the intro that states mainstream science's view, and we have an entire, rather lengthy section titled "Criticisms of Creation Science as a Science." I would argue that this is enough to demonstrate that Creation Science is not considered science. If you want to add such a claim, the place for it would be in that section, not the intro. DaveTheRed 20:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree it could be rewriten to a more correct statement. But I point out that the paragraph expreses an opinion that has nothing to do with how scoentist see creation science. It is view to describe creation science more fully as a propaganda tool. I will try to edit it to make it clear--LexCorp 20:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This still strikes me as having too many weasel words. Couldn't you place your objections to Creation science in the part of the article devoted to criticism? DaveTheRed 20:48, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


The main argument seems to be that 'Creation science' should be included because it is recognized by a majority of people - is there evidence to support this? Is this term even recognized outside the USA? --Spazzm 05:43, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

Something doesn't need to be known by a "majority" of people in order to deserve an encyclopedia article. I doubt a majority of people would recognize the second law of thermodynamics, but that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve an article. As for creation science, a google search for "creation science" returns 201,000 hits[2]. This indicates that the term has a fairly large degree of currency. I can't vouch for whether the term is used outside the US. I suspect it's not unheard of in other countries. But even if it's not, the US is a large country, and the concept certainly has enough currency here to deserve an article. DaveTheRed 06:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If number of google hits is a measure of popularity, then "Creationism" is the more videly used word - more than 3 times as many hits as "creation science".
Above the argument was used that most people recognize "creation science" - I would like to know where that data comes from. Is there a survey of how large a percentage of the USA population refers to it using the term "creation science", for example?
If "creation science" is less widely used than "creationism", "creation science" is a misnomer and both refer to the same ideology (with insignificant variations), they should be merged. The possibility that "creation science" appears to be intentionally misleading is not a mitigating circumstance, see Mentifex below. --Spazzm 07:41, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
We seem to be talking in circles. I've already pointed out that they are not the same thing with "insignificant variations". The terms are not interchangeable. It is possible for two different concepts be ideologically aligned. Why do you not understand this? Since they are different concepts, it does not matter if creationism gets 3 times as many google hits. Over 200,000 hits is still enough to ensure that the term is widely used. DaveTheRed 07:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say we seem to have reached an impasse. This page is nominated for deletion/merging with Creationism. --Spazzm 22:51, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

Guys, "Creation Science " attempts to look at complex structures and assumes that due to their complexity they chould not have happened randomly (1000 monkeys on 1000 typewriters won't ever come up with anything) as opposed to creationism that encompases, both "fundamentalist creationism" (God made the planet as decribed in the bible) and "creation science". Therefore, "creation science" is a type of creationism. You guys with me?

Related

This may be of interested, apropos how crank 'science' has been handled before: Talk:Artificial intelligence discussion on Mentifex

Arthur T. Murray, a.k.a. Mentifex, is a self-described AI researcher who claims to have 'solved' AI. He (or someone who doesn't know better) has repeatedly added his name to the list of prominent AI researchers.

I admit that I am not familiar with Mentifex or Arthur Murray. But from what I can gather, it looks like he was a kooky "researcher" in the AI field. From what I could glean from the discussion, it seems like his article was deleted because a) his mentifex thing wasn't terribly notable, and b) Murray kept vandalizing the page, making it more trouble than it was worth.
I don't really see how either of those points applies to this article. Creation science is fairly notable, and this page doesn't seem to have a vandalism problem. DaveTheRed 06:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Mentifex is fairly notable, just do a Google search. Unfortunately for him, Mentifex is mostly notable for being wildly incorrect - in that respect he's very similar to 'Creation Science'. --Spazzm 07:44, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
He may be wildly incorrect, but that's not why his article was deleted. And Mentifex's modest showing of 790 google hits is nowhere near the 201,000 for creation science. DaveTheRed 08:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If you don't want this article, then list it on WP:VFD and see what happens. Otherwise, stop trolling. Dunc|☺ 09:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Creation Science as propaganda

As per comments made by in DaveTheRed in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Creation science it is important to undertand that this is an article about creationist propaganda so I have updated the page accordingly.--LexCorp 00:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Come now, you're not even trying to be NPOV with that last edit. DaveTheRed 00:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That is the point. The whole basis of this article is POV. And in order to make it NPOV, we have to define creation science as for what it is. I just did that. --LexCorp 00:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How is stating flat out that it is propaganda in the first sentence NPOV when there exist probably millions of people who would disagree? I am reverting again. DaveTheRed 00:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You have a strange fixation about what morons think. A number of people equal to the Earth population or even greater could think creation science is not propaganda and still it will not make it so. Wikipedia is not a democracy and creation science is propaganda, so in order to be factual that is what its definition should be. As a form of respect to the process of the vfd underway I will not edit the page for now. But rest assured that I will push this definition all the way to albitration if necessary. Luckily for you I am about to move house and I won't have internet conection for some time so the dispute will have to wait until then (I don't want to make the change and then disappear due to the move in 2 days as it will look as if I am evading discussion).--LexCorp 01:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
NPOV means taking everones point of view into consideration, even the so-called morons. For the same reason, we can't state in the Young Earth Creationism article that it is flat out wrong, even though it is. Anyway, good luck with the move. DaveTheRed 02:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
So you choose to accept the meaning that creationist believe, but not the correct one, that it is propaganda, that the rest of the earth population knows to be true. Are you impliying that there are more creationist than no creationist in the world? Is that really NPOV to supress the truth because it is offensive to a minority group?--LexCorp 03:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) NOTE: Why did you delete my comment here in the talkPage? That was quite rude
The correct implementation of the NPOV policy is to include the propaganda bit in the intro and then to dedicate a subheading for creationist arguments that dispute that. It is your view it should be the other way and I argue that your way is the POV because creationist are a minority group and should not own the definition of the term.--LexCorp 04:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, your change got deleted because we were editing at the same time. Not deliberate. It's generally a good idea to assume good faith. How is the mainstream scientific view being supressed? It states quite clearly the mainstream view. If you think that the scientific view is somehow being underrepresented, then that is a POV problem, not a reason to merge. DaveTheRed 04:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I was under the impresion that mediawiki alerted you if there was a conflic. Something it has done to me several times but I accept that the system may fail. You seem to think that the propaganda charge is from the scientific community when it is not. The creation science as propaganda is what all no creationist (no just scientist) think so the argument of the scientific community do not enter in it. --LexCorp 04:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Usually the wiki system will catch conflicts, but mistakes are not unheard of. It doesn't matter where the charge of propaganda comes from. Flat out stating that something is propaganda when there exist a significantly large group of people who disagree is POV. Allow me to quote relavant portions of the Neutral Point of View Page:

"The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct."
"Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present."

So while we can state that both mainstrem science and random joe average off the street think that creation science is crap, we can not make flat out statements of truth, falseness or whether it is flat out propaganda. DaveTheRed 04:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

so then is is ok to start the article thus,

Creation science, according to its opponents, is creationist propaganda and ,according to its proponents, is the use of the scientific method to study God's creation. --LexCorp 06:35, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Getting closer. It's generally a good idea to define something as it's viewed by its proponents first, and then how its viewed by its opponents second. For the same reason, we wouldn't start an article on George W. Bush by saying
George W. Bush is widely regarded as a moron, and is also the president of the United States.
The article as it currently stands makes it clear that the majority don't accept it, while still giving its proponents the first mention. I'm not saying this article is currently perfect, but I do want to keep it as neutral as possible. Also, I am not going to continue discussion over this article's neutrality on the VfD page, as this is the more appropriate place for it. DaveTheRed 06:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There is no way of pleasing you. What about,
Creation science, according to its proponents, is the use of the scientific method to study God's creation and, according to its opponents, is creationist propaganda.

The bush example is flawed. While he is a moron no doubt, he is known because he is the president of the US. In the other hand few people will define creation science as the use of the sientific method to study Gos's creation and will know it more readelly as creationist propaganda.--LexCorp 07:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) --LexCorp 07:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you insist on mentioning the propaganada issue in the intro, how about this compromise? The intro is currently split into two paragraphs, one which explains creation science from the point of view of the creationists, and a second paragraph describing the view of the critics. I like this setup because it is both symetrical and neutral. Why don't you insert a sentence in that second paragraph which says that critics consider it propaganda? DaveTheRed 07:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ok I guess that this compromise will improve the article toward a NPOV status so I have update it acordingly.--LexCorp 07:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)Insertformulahere

Original research

Original research is research findings or theories that have not been published in a peer-reviewed scientific publication. According to this definition, Creation science is original research. Wikipedia has a strong policy of not publishing original research. This article should be merged and redirected to Creationism. --Spazzm 01:07, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Please read what Wikipedia considers Original research. It has nothing to do with scientific review. Original research is material that was created solely by the editors of the article with no prexisting presence in the outside world. Since Creation science is well established, it does not constitute original research. DaveTheRed 01:12, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
From the page on Original research: The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". (Emphasis mine) --Spazzm 01:14, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
Reputable publication does not necessarily mean scientific publication. Looking quickly on amazon.com I found this book on creation science published by Master books, a perfectly reputable publishing company. If you don't like that example, there are hundreds more where that came from. DaveTheRed 01:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have not read the book but I assume it states that creation science is creationist propaganda. Doesn't it? If not then it can no really be described as reputable. By the way the policy is quite definitive and maybe we are being to respectfull to suggest a merge instead of a straight delete.--LexCorp 01:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Reputable publication, in the context of science, means peer-reviewed, among other things. A publishing house is concerned about book sales, and rarely perfroms peer-review.
Publication and publisher are not the same thing - a book is not reputable merely becuase it comes from a reputable publisher.
Furthermore, I have some concerns about the 'reputability' of Master Books - via Google: "New Leaf Press and Master Books is a Christian publishing company specializing in creation science, home school, education curriculum, and children’s books..." - in other words, the book is basically self-published. Compare again to Arthur T. Murray: Murray's self-published book on Amazon.com
--Spazzm 01:34, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

The point of the No Original Research rule is to stop me from, say, writing an article about a religion that worships my pet cat. Orignal research is not a valid argument here because the concept of Creation science did not originate with the editors. Rather, creation science has existed in the public domain for quite some time. Even if you don't think the publishers in favor of christian science are reputable, there have been other publications that have been anti-creation science, and we can then use those publications to verify that Creation science is a actual concept. If we interpreted the no original research rule your way, then by your logic we could eliminate aricles on telepathy, faith healing, acupuncture, reiki and every other article we have on pseudosciences. Do you seriously want an encyclopedia that doesn't even mention the existance of pseudoscience? DaveTheRed 01:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again, the point is not to eliminate any mention of Creation science, but to merge it with Creationism. I don't think the validity of this article should hang on wether or not the article has been edited by creationists.
I interpret the Original Research rule as being in place to prevent every miniscule new theory (crackpot or not) from getting its own page.
This article fits the description of Original Research perfectly, hence this article should be merged and redirected to Creationism. --Spazzm 02:02, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
Also you complete ignore the fact that those articles are not propaganda diseminated by a particular group of people to further their agenda into society--LexCorp 03:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Miniscule new theory"??? Any term that gets 201,000 google hits doesn't qualify as miniscule. And its not new either. The idea of creation science has been around since shortly after the scopes monkey trial. It does not fit the Original research criteria because it has existed long before the article did. DaveTheRed 02:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


The age of Creation Science is not relevant - the Original Research definition does not mention age nor does it mention any number of believers that is required for a theory to cease being original research.
The term 'Creation science' presents Creationism as scientific research - and as such it is original research since it has not been published in a peer-reviewed publication. Therefore, it should be merged and redirected to creationism.
Spazzm 02:15, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Quotation from the Original research page:

What may be included in articles

The following are allowable:

  1. listing well-known claims which have few (or possibly just one or two) adherents (e.g. Shakespearean authorship theories or Linus Pauling's advocacy of Vitamin C);
  2. listing notable claims which contradict established axioms, theories, or norms (e.g morphogenetic fields or conspiracy theories);
  3. including research that fails to provide the possibility of reproducible results (e.g. theological or philosophical theories);
  4. citing viewpoints that violate Occam's Razor, the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible (e.g. Phlogiston, Aether).

Creation science fits into criteria 2, 3 and 4. Hence it is not original research. DaveTheRed 02:27, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Indeed, it says "may be included in articles" - not form the basis of their own article. Which is exactly why I propose merging and redirecting to Creationism, not deletion.
The salient point is, I believe, this: Unstable neologisms, and ideas stemming from one individual who is not an authority, or from a small group of such individuals, should either go to "votes for deletion" (because they "fail the test of confirmability", not because they are necessarily false), or should be copyedited out. (Emphasis mine). And before this starts again - no, the number of Google hits is not an accurate extimate of how many believers there are of Creation science. Spazzm 02:40, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
Ah, but the fact that those things are allowed means that it can't be qualified as original research on the grounds you are claiming. And tell me, what makes you think that Creation science is only believed by a small group of individuals? How many people do you think believe in creation science? I think the "small group of individuals" clause is meant to mean 3, 4 or maybe 10 people tops. The number of google hits is an indicator of how popular the term is, and the more popular the term, the more people are likely to believe in it. DaveTheRed 02:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The text does not say that the instances listed are not originial research, rather that they may be allowed despite being original research. So my argument is still valid. Also note that the text does not discuss the number of believers - it discusses the number of individuals it is stemming from. There's a difference. If one takes the creationists seriously, creation science stems from the bible, i.e. the word of God - thus exactly one person. :)
But seriously, I've never met a creation scientist. I have no idea how many there are.
Google hits is not a valid metric for popularity - "Animal Cruelty", for example, generates more than twice as many hits as "creation science". Yet I do not think anyone with a straight face would claim animal cruelty to be very popular. --Spazzm 03:06, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation of original research. I think that those instances listed are examples of things that do not qualify as original research. But for the sake of argument, if your interpretation is correct, you still can't call for a merge on the grounds of original research because those instances are "allowed despite being original research."
The number of believers is important. If only 10 people of no consequence believed it, then it wouldn't be encyclopedic. Also, all ideas originally stem from one or maybe a couple of individuals. Calculus stems from Isaac Newton. Evolution stems from Charles Darwin. Mormonism stems from Joseph Smith. None of these are original research.
I'm tired of arguing this point. I've already listed all the reasons that creation science is not original research, so anything else I say will just be repeating myself. Let's just agree to disagree for now and see what everyone else on VfD thinks. DaveTheRed 03:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Again, I point out that the listed entries are allowed in articles despite being original research, it does not say that they should form the basis of an entire article. Calculus and Evolution are not original research, not because of the number of believers, but because they've been thoroughly peer-reviewed and published - Creation science has not.
Mormonism is not original research because it does not claim to be a scientifc theory. Creation science purports to be a scientific theory.
The number of believers may have something to do with wether a thing is encyclopedic, but it does not influence wether or not it is original research. And wikipedia has a strong policy against original research.
I reiterate that this article should be merged and redirected to Creationism --Spazzm 03:33, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
I do not see where in the Original research article that it says that falsely claiming to be a scientific theory constitutes original research. DaveTheRed 03:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wether the claim is inaccurate or not does not effect the status as original research - it is sufficient that there is a claim. Wether the claim is accurate can only be determined by peer review.
Are you arguing that Creation science should have its own article because it is patently false? --Spazzm 03:47, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
No, I am arguing that just because it is patently false does not make it original research. This is as per your comment "Mormonism is not original research because it does not claim to be a scientifc theory." DaveTheRed 03:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How about this: "Mormonism is not original research because it is not research, nor does it pretend to be." Is that clearer? --Spazzm 03:59, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Original research does not have to be "reasearch" per se. It can be any theory, idea or concept that is made up by the writer and not confirmed anywhere else. That said, you will not change your mind, and neither will I. Let's leave it at that. DaveTheRed 04:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Granted, but non-scientific ideas/concepts/etc are not subject to peer-review (how could they be?) Once the proponents of an idea claim it is scientific, it is subject to the same rules as other scientifc research - that is to say, it is original research until it's been peer-reviewed and published. --Spazzm 04:09, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)