Talk:Creation science/Archive 2

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

Response to RfC

I came here because I saw the RfC listing, and then found the VfD. I voted to keep the article, but with reservations. I repeat most of my comment here, for convenience:

The article needs to deal with the problem that the term "creation science" is itself POV. (I agree with LexCorp that the term is "a neologism whose only purpose is to promote the creationist agenda in society.") We have other articles with such titles. The articles on Poverty pimp and Chickenhawk (politics) both begin by making clear, in the first sentence, that the article title is a phrase chosen to convey a particular POV, rather than a neutral description.

In this article, it's misleading to refer to creation science as "the use of the scientific method to study God's creation." Any scientist who believes in God would say, "That's what I do." Here's a suggested alternative:

"Creation science" is the term used by some proponents of creationism to describe the attempt to develop scientific justification for their views. They often argue against biological evolution and in favor of young earth creationism (the belief that the Earth is much younger than is believed by the scientific establishment).
Opponents consider the term a misleading oxymoron, on the ground that practitioners of "creation science" do not follow the scientific method. These critics allege that the term "creation science" was chosen to purposely blur the distinction between science and religion, thereby undeservedly legitimizing creationism by association to science. Mainstream scientists, including many who believe in God, believe that what is called "creation science" is actually a pseudoscience.

What's now (as I write) the last two sentences of the lead section is valid material, but I'd include it in the body of the article, not the lead. ("Mainstream science does not seek to find answers to fit in with any particular agenda; instead, it sets out to discover and learn about the world as it is through the accumulation of evidence, and through the application of the scientific method. Creation science, on the other hand, begins with the required answer, and attempts to find evidence to fit in with this.") JamesMLane 10:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

well, while I thank you for your suggestion I point out that is does not address the propaganda bit at all.--LexCorp 10:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My suggestion refers only to what should be in the lead section. We always have to resist the temptation to try to say everything in the lead. Instead, it should give the essence of the subject, and help the reader decide whether to read on. For that purpose, I think the propaganda bit is adequately covered by noting the charge that the term "was chosen to purposely blur the distinction between science and religion, thereby undeservedly legitimizing creationism by association to science." If I gave the impression that I was against any fuller development of the idea later in the article, I apologize; I certainly didn't mean that. JamesMLane 11:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The RfC asked if this page should be merged with creationism. I believe it should be, if only because this article repeatedly refers to 'creationism' throughout. If it really is a seperate topic, edit the article accordingly. Dan100 15:24, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

I like James' alternative wording, and would support the change. I do not believe that this should be merged with creationism. It is only natural for Creation science to refer to creationism, because they are intrinsically related. But just because they are related, does not mean they are the same thing. DaveTheRed 19:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I voted to keep this article because I see it as an appropriate "daughter" article to Creationism. It's not at all uncommon that an article covering a broad field can include a lot of detail about one or more aspect of that field. In such cases, it's often appropriate to move much of the detail into a separate article, leaving behind a summary. Some readers who want to know about creationism will be content with learning simply that there are people who try to find scientific justification for young-Earth, anti-evolution theories, but that these efforts are rejected by most scientists. The article on creationism should probably say more than that about creation science, but it shouldn't say nearly so much as is in this article. Readers who want all the detail can come here. Other readers will care about some other aspect of creationism. Keeping most of the "creation science" stuff separate does the readers a service by making it easier for them to find what they want. That's what hyperlinks are for. JamesMLane 21:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The way I see it Creation science is an ideology that belongs under Creationism. If they are different, they are so because of the claim for 'scientificness' - but if Creation Science claims to be a science, it is subject to the No Original Research rule. True, there are provisions under that rule for including original research in other articles where it is relevant - but not as an article by itself. In short, there are two ways of looking at Creation science - either way it does not belong in its own article. The fact that Creation Science is an oxymoron and intentionally misleading doesn't help either, of course. Unfortunately, a lot of people have invested time and energy into this article, and they do not (nor do I, naturally) want to see that go to waste. This is why I propose a merge and redirect to Creationism. --Spazzm 10:11, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

Transubstantiation is an ideology (or doctrine) that belongs under Catholicism. Similarly, Feynman diagrams are a method that belongs under quantum field theory. In each case, the latter topic is broad enough that some of its specific aspects are covered in more detail in daughter articles. The same is true here. JamesMLane 11:34, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I see your point, but transubstantiation is not another term for catholicism. Feynman diagrams are widely published in peer-reviewed scientific publications, so I can't quite see how this applies to this case. Maybe you can explain in greater detail? --Spazzm 12:32, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
Whether it's peer-reviewed is immaterial. The point is that a truly comprehensive presentation of Catholicism would include considerable detail about the doctrine of transubstantiation (along with a description of the canonization process, biographies of all the Popes, and a whole lot of other stuff). It is, in a sense, all one topic, but the information is best presented to the reader in a multitude of different articles, linked appropriately so that each reader can find what he or she wants. There's nothing to be gained by trying to stuff all our information about Catholicism or quantum theory or creationism into one article. See the general approach described in Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Long article layout. If all we had to say was "Some creationists attempt to use scientific concepts to justify their views", then it could be part of Creationism. In this instance, however, we have enough information on the topic (from the proponents' and the opponents' points of view) to warrant a separate article. JamesMLane 13:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see the usefulness of keeping articles short, but this article is already short, and contains almost no real information that's not already on the Creationism page - in fact, this article repeatedly references the creationism page. My point is that transubstaniation, the pope and catholicism may be parts of a whole, but they are not virtually identical. There is, for example, no article on Democratic People's Republic of Korea - it redirects to North Korea - despite the fact that the official name is 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea' and there are many who think of it as a democracy. It could even be argued that 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea' is a concept distinctly separate from the concept of 'North Korea' - a different viewpoint on the same subject. --Spazzm 14:21, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

An important aspect is the classification of Creation Science - is it science or ideology? As I've already pointed out above, either way it does not belong in its own article if the rules are to be followed.

One response to this is to claim that this is a false dichtonomy: Must Creation science be one or the other? Well, can it be neither? That would make it is a political movement, a religion or somesuch - still no different from Creationism.

The only remaining possibility is that it is both - a syntesis of ideology and science, perhaps. The wikipedia rules only allows us to include Creation Science if we acknowledge that it is both science and religion but not bound by the rules of either - thus giving the creationists exactly what they want. --Spazzm 14:35, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

As I read through this article, I come closer and closer to the realization that it needs a lot of work. Part of the problem is that we have a neutrality issue. People from both sides have been inserting their views of creation science without trying to make the two sides mesh together into a coherrant whole. But another part of the problem is that we really don't do enough to define creation science in its own right. For instance, the article states that creation science purports to use science to back up its religious views, but it doesn't actually provide any examples of how they do this. What "scientific" theories have they put up to explain creationism? The only things that I can learn about them from this article is that they believe in creationism, and they like to quote C.S. Lewis. Perhaps if we did a better job of defining them, people like Spazzm would have an easier time understanding why creation science and creationism are not identical. DaveTheRed 20:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How could we examine the validity of creation science from a NPOV?
An evaluation of the scientific evidence would be from a scientific POV by definition, or reduced to vague statements like "most mainstream scientists believe..."
It seems to me that it's impossible to discuss this topic in depth without ending up either validating Creation Science or taking a firm Scientific POV. Creation Science was possibly devised with this in mind, to take advantage of the 'equal validity' of our culture. I think the equal validity clause on the POV page is interesting in that respect - especially the linked cartoon.
Discussing the scientific evidence would be pointless if it is an ideology or faith, so that would mean it's science - again we come up against the No Original Research rule.
The only way to resolve the conundrum is to merge and redirect to Creationism. --Spazzm 00:40, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

I strongly encourage everyone to read this CJR article, linked at the bottom of the NPOV page. It deals with a similar issue as the one we're facing here, albeit from a journalistic, not encyclopedic, perspective. --Spazzm 02:24, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

The gist of Spazzm's article it is that when reporting on pseudoscience, it is important to strike a balance between accuracy and neutrality. I couldn't agree more. This is exactly the heart of the equal validity part of the NPOV page. We do not have to, nor should we, give equal validity to the creation scientists. We should say in a neutral manner what creation scientists believe, and then we should have a large section that explains why the mainstream thinks they are wrong. You stated that it is impossible to discuss creation science without validating it or taking a scientific POV. Why? We have other articles on pseudoscience that manage to balance the two. Wikipedia's policy on pseudoscience states clearly that it is possible to write neutrally on pseudoscience.
I truly don't understand why you think creation science constitutes original research. Nowhere can I find anything that states that something that fails to be scientifically peer-reviewed constitutes original research. Regardless of whether creation science claims to be scientific, a lack of scientific peer review is irrelevant to the issue of whether it is original research. Many pseudosciences claim to be scientific (hence the term pseudoscience), but that does not make them original research. Furthermore, as noted above, the Original research definition stipulates that "research that fails to provide the possibility of reproducible results (e.g. theological or philosophical theories)" are allowable.
So given that creation science a) can be written about neutrally, b) is not original research, c) is not the same as creationism, rather is a subset, d) is a well-known concept, and e) conforms to our naming conventions, on what grounds can you possibly ask for a merge/redirect? DaveTheRed 05:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I've cut and pasted the releavant sentence from the No original research page before, but for clarity, here it is: 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).
In the contect of scientific research, a 'reputable publication' is a peer-reviewed publication.
The exeptions cited above are only valid for inclusion in articles, not as a basis for an entire article.
As I explained above, there's 4 ways of looking at Creation science:
  • It's an ideology, the 'science' part is merely thin veneer. In that case, the only thing separating it from Creationism is the thin veneer - so just as there's no article on Democratic People's Republic of Korea, this too should redirect to the proper term for the concept - North korea or Creationism.
  • It's science - scientific ideas not published in peer-reviewed reputable publications are original research and do not belong on Wikipedia.
  • It's neither science nor ideology - then what is it? Political movement? Religion? It still falls under the Creationism heading.
  • It's both ideology and science, yet not subject to the rules of any of them (especially peer-review) - this is exactly what the Creationists want: To be allowed to pass of their ideology as science while avoiding close scrutiny. This page has clearly shown that close scrutiny of this topic and NPOV is incompatible - any move to refute the claims of scientificness is met with accusations of bias or POV.
Concerning naming conventions: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. (Emphasis mine)
More people call it 'Creationism' than 'Creation science', in my experience. Introducing yet another name for Creationism does not give a reasonable minimum of ambiguity - rather the opposite.
I'm aware that a lot of people have spent time and energy on this page, which is why this is a hard decision, but the fact remains that this page should be merged and redirected to Creationism or possibly History of Creationism. --Spazzm 09:34, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

RFC response. Structurally this should be under the heading of Creationism; this means having a section within that article that explains the role of CS within creationism. Given the amount of duplicated material, that can probably be done without having a separate daughter article (which is only needed when a section in the mother article gets too big). Certainly a merger should be the starting point, and keeping CS separate be contingent on showing that this is not practical. Rd232 15:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is a fifth way of looking at Creation science. You can look at it as a ideologically driven concept that constitutes a subset of creationism. As such it deserves its own article, as per JamesMLane's explaination about daughter articles. The statement that more people call it creationism than creation science is false because they are not the same thing. BTW, the motion to merge this article with creationism is losing heavily on VfD. Some excellent reasons for keeping are being given with each keep vote. DaveTheRed 18:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My response to Rd232 is that I don't see a huge amount of duplication, so I think that a merger would make the Creationism article less valuable to the reader by cluttering it with a lot of material about this one aspect of the subject. Many people will want to read the information that's now in Creationism without getting into this much detail about the attempts to find a scientific justification. JamesMLane 19:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I maintain that the scietific justifications for Creationism belongs under Creationism - if only to point out that there are none. --Spazzm 20:37, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

I have implemented JamesMLane's intro, as I think it adequately summarizes creation science from NPOV. DaveTheRed 01:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vote tally

Keep: 23

Merge: 10

Delete: 1

Uncertain: 2. I'm not certain how to interpret BM's vote - Merge or Keep? Is Guettarda's comment a vote?

Huge victory for Keep, I concede defeat and have removed the notice from the page. Thanks to everyone who helped make this an interesting vote. --Spazzm 02:19, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

quote mine

I removed:

...However, it would seem that the creation-evolution issue is unimportant for most practical science, especially physics and chemistry, and even most biological research:

"The subject of evolution occupies a special, and paradoxical, place within biology as a whole. While the great majority [of] biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. "Evolution" would appear to be the indispensible unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.' (Wilkins, A.S., 2000. Evolutionary processes: a special issue, BioEssays 22:1051­1052).

which continues:

Yet, the marginality of evolutionary biology may be changing. More and more issues in biology, from diverse questions about human nature to the vulnerability of ecosystems, are increasingly seen as reflecting evolutionary events. A spate of popular books on evolution testifies to this development. If we are to fully understand these matters, however, we need to understand the processes of evolution that, ultimately, underlie them. This thematic issue of BioEssays is a survey of these processesÐand the ways they shape the properties of living things, from bacteria to humans. The importance of comprehending the nature of evolutionary processes, in order to make sense of the dynamic properties of biological systems, is particularly well illustrated by three articles in this issue.

(description of articles) ...

As this set of articles illustrate, evolutionary biology is alive and well and extending its domain, as biology enters the 21st century. Covering these developments, and their relevance to different fields of biology, will continue to be one of the major goals of this journal.

Dunc|☺ 18:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(see also claim

Pseudoscience

Creation Science is obviously pseudoscience. To not reveal this would make this article propaganda. Bensaccount 21:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "creation science" is pseudoscience, but this is not the Way of Wikipedia. On a page about evolutionary biology, I wouldn't be prepared to give any discussion whatsoever to creationist arguments, except perhaps for a link on a few key pages to a discussion of the politics surrounding teaching of evolution. But on their own page, CS deserves a more "hands-off" treatment. We don't state as neutral fact that Scientology is a cult or that homeopathy doesn't work, even though they are and it doesn't; similarly, on this page, we set out the arguments in a clear and coherent style and let anyone with half a braincell work out that it's pseudoscience. If they're not convinced by that, stating it more baldly won't bring them round. Reverting. -- ciphergoth 21:59, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
I don't think that telling the truth is "not the Way of Wikipedia". You will have to provide a better reason than that. Bensaccount 15:43, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm embarrassed by my own side here. No, "telling the truth" is not sufficient justification for an edit on Wikipedia. Otherwise NPOV would be impossible - each side would argue that they were justified in making an edit that told the story exactly as they understood it, since that side is "the truth". NPOV is about representing the *debate* fairly, and that means that on a page about CS we have to let CS be presented calmly.
Personally, I have every confidence that no-one not already a believer could come to a well-presented page about CS and come away thinking that there's any merit in the idea. Aren't you confident of that? And what makes you think being more strident will make people more likely to be convinced? -- ciphergoth 17:17, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
I am not on "your side". You think that truth is "not the Way of Wikipedia". I think it is. We are firmly on opposite sides. Bensaccount 19:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please tell me what you think re "Creation science is pseudoscience"

Please refer to my discussion with User:Bensaccount above ("pseudoscience"). Even though I believe that creation science is pseudoscience, I think it's a flagrant violation of Wikipedia's central NPOV policy to start the article "Creation science is pseudoscience which...". I've tried to argue for a calmer tone, but he makes this change daily. I'd be interested to know what other contributors think. In particular, since I doubt creation scientists think it's a good change, I'd be interested to know what others not sympathetic to creation science think. -- ciphergoth 12:41, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's appropriate to have the view that it is pseudoscience within the lead, and attributed to the mainstream scientific community. i agree with you, however, that it is inappropriate for the article to call it pseudoscience, unattributed, and in the first sentence. thank you, sir, for your demonstrably putting npov over your own opinion on the matter:). Ungtss 12:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don't think I can justify reverting his changes once again, but if you revert to your most recent edit, I won't stop you... -- ciphergoth 13:12, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
Another day, another revert:(. Ungtss 13:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it's fair to call it a "revert" when you took the opportunity to water down the second sentence. Have *really* reverted, to your edit before last. I really wanted you to get a first sentence you were happy with, but I feel quite strongly that the second sentence can stay as it is. -- ciphergoth 13:24, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
NPOV is not a security blanket for pseudoscience. The neutral point of view policy states that articles should be written without bias, representing all views fairly. Therefore in applying NPOV to this page, either the page is removed (creation science is bias), or the view is represented fairly (called pseudoscience). Bensaccount 14:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
<<I don't think it's fair to call it a "revert" when you took the opportunity to water down the second sentence.>>
As you wish, friend. i merely tried to fix the incorrect grammar. "science" doesn't have opinions. "scientists" do:(. Ungtss 14:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ciphergoth, I was wondering what you thought of Schroeder's strengthening of the sentence of question so that it states that position as fact, rather than attributed view? Do you think this is appropriate? Ungtss 14:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Creation science is pseudoscience, and we should not be afraid of stating so clearly. If creationists want to dress in the robes of science, let them play the game of science, I say.
However, I do applaud everyone's strict adherence to the NPOV principle. --Spazzm 14:58, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
And the rules of npov don't apply here, i suppose. right. sorry to interfere. carry on. Ungtss 14:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Your retort is too swift for my editing, Ungtss.
--Spazzm 15:01, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
your disregard for npov is too swift for both. an article that states as fact that creationism is pseudoscience (as you're suggesting) directly violates npov. an article that attributes that view to scientific consensus would comply with npov. Ungtss 15:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hypothetically speaking: If it is a fact that creationism is pseudoscience, shouldn't we state this fact? --Spazzm 15:08, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
if it were a fact that was not an object of constant dispute, then yes. but because it is a disputed fact -- disputed by creationists themselves -- it cannot be stated as fact, and must be attributed. not censored, but not stated as fact. simply attributed. that's how npov works. Ungtss 15:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That is insufficient reason to block a pseudoscience label. Bigfoot and UFO (re: extra-terrestrial origins) and perpetual motion (re: dirt cheap energy) researchers dispute labeling their pursuits as pseudoscience; but that's what it is until demonstrated otherwise. They and you have the burden of evidence; there is no reason to give you slack in an encyclopedic setting. - RoyBoy 800 20:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Listen. i said it had to be attributed. that's a simple fact. same with bigfoot. it would be pov to say "this is pseudoscience." it would be npov to say, "most scientists think this is pseudoscience." those are the facts. period. have we all lost our grip? Ungtss 21:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
To put it another way: If a group of people claim that there is a finite number of primes, yet claim to be mathematicians - shouldn't we point to Euclid's Theorem? --Spazzm 15:13, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
Interesting question, but theres's a big difference between analytic and synthetic assertions. I'd say with any kooky belief which has enough believers today that there's a Wikipedia page about it and believers are helping to edit the page about it, I'd try to refrain from saying "this belief is kooky" in favour of dispassionately explaining what is known about it so that anyone can see it's kooky. -- ciphergoth 17:27, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
Defining something as "synthetic" or "analytic" is not as black and white as you might like. Bensaccount 19:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] But is there an article in Wikipedia called "kooky beliefs"? Pseudoscience is an acceptable term, and the determination of whether something is science can be determined without objectively. "Kooky" is subjective, even if you are talking about the Manson family. At the same time, the presence or absence of members of a group editing a page should not be a reason to pussyfoot around...or, taken the other way, we should deal with any group in a sensitive manner (or not) regardless of whether the group has members around to be offended. Guettarda 19:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
there's no pussyfooting about it. you have to attribute criticism of pseudoscience. period. read npov.
No you don't. What is actual science is clearly demarcated by the terms of the scientific method and hence easily determined. By definition anything that does not qualify as science by science's own terms but yet insists that it is science is pseudoscience. Clearly attribution is not required. --FeloniousMonk 23:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
perhaps the definition of pseudoscience would be helpful here. "A pseudoscience is any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which is judged by the mainstream scientific community to fail to comply with the scientific method." also consider the statement, "The possibility of separating out "scientific" from "non-scientific" practices on the basis of methodological distinctions is highly contested in the philosophical and historical community ." judged by the mainstream scientific community. hotly contested. that hotly contested judgment is inherent in the definition, and therefore requires attribution. period. Ungtss 23:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Repeatedly insisting "period" does not a sound argument make. Hotly contested only by those who's theories fail to pass the smell test to qualify as science largely is the complete thought here. Demarcation is not hotly contested within science at all. I've just searched the National Academies of Science publication database and found only two documents that even mention demarcation, but nine that explicitly state that creationism in all forms is not science in any form. That some in the philosophical and historical communities may have issues with how the scientific community has set up its front door to demarcate is a non sequitur. Neither the philosophical nor historical community are the ones practicing science, thus, it is not for them to dictate delineating factors. Effectively, criticisms of that sort have little to no influence over what is considered science by the scientists; yet whether something completely lacks correct application of the scientific method does. --FeloniousMonk 00:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

then attribute your criticism to the NAS. but the NAS does not have a monopoly on reality in an NPOV regime. their views must be attributed, just like everybody else. NPOV, not SPOV. perhaps if you read what came before my "periods", you'd realize that your argument is absolutely indefensible in light of clearly articulated npov principles. Ungtss 00:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of reading what has been said...in applying NPOV to this page, either the page is removed since creation science is inherently biased, or this biased view is represented fairly, which requires admitting it is not science. Bensaccount 01:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, that's BPOV. npov says "creationists say it's this. the nas says it's this." not that npov has an relevence here, i realize. it's much too important to misrepresent or delete views you find dangerous. Ungtss 13:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That made no sense. Where did that quotation come from? Bensaccount 16:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not science; pseudoscience

Placing the Bible beyond question makes it dogma. It doesn't make it pseudoscience. Think about what you are writing, dont just add something because it "sounds neutral". Bensaccount 22:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yours doesn't even sound neutral, and it directly violates npov. Ungtss 23:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Your previous attempt to explain how it violates NPOV was a meaningless phrase and an attempt to quote yourself. Are you even going to bother to try again? And I just said that "sounding neutral" is different from being neutral. The former can be achieved simply by confusing the reader. Bensaccount 23:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Everybody but you knows what i meant above, and they know why you're wrong, so i'm not going to be drawn into another endless dialogue of nonsense with you. there are three editors who disagree with you here. DreamGuy and Gazpacho are supporting NPOV admirably in this case. you are alone, and you are wrong. Ungtss 23:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How does it violate NPOV? Bensaccount 23:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It states a disputed "fact" as fact. when facts are in dispute (and the status of creation science as non-science is disputed by creationists), belief in those "facts" must be attributed to those who hold them. the correct version, supported by all editors on this page but you, attributes the non-science status of creation science to the scientific community. yours incorrectly states it as fact. I will no longer discuss this with you, as you have continually demonstrated an unwillingness to follow the most basic precepts of npov, and prefer to create little gems of nonsense like creating. Ungtss 23:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Disputed or not, a fact is a fact. NPOV does not require facts to be represented as POV. Bensaccount 23:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Q.E.D. Ungtss 23:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Its like saying the fact we landed on the moon must be attributed as Neil Armstrong's POV.Bensaccount 23:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I will not be drawn into endless nonsense with you. if any other editors are interested in npov, they're welcome to revert your nonsense. Fortunately, your violation of npov does no harm, because those who agree with you already agree with you, and those who disagree with you have learned long ago to read through the perpetual failure to distinguish fact and opinion to which you are your ilk are so subject. this discussion is over. Ungtss 23:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Refuse to discuss it, but don't come back later and say it is unfair. Bensaccount 00:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i'll leave that to editors with good sense and the patience to deal with you. Ungtss 00:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Sorry, Bensaccount, but placing the Bible beyond question makes it dogma AND makes it not science. In science, no external reference is ever beyond question. The scientific method is all about throwing out theories when they don't fit the evidence. Creationists don't do that, they throw out the evidence if it doesn;t fit their theory. That's unscientific. The change was not made just because it sounds neutral, it was made because it sounds more neutral AND is factual. DreamGuy 03:29, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Makes it not science. Bensaccount 03:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see how the currently worded intro, which states that most scientists reject Creation science, is flawed and requires a rewrite just to insert the phrase "it is not science." Such a broad statement is certainly POV (even though I'm inclined to agree with it) as it precludes ANY application of the scientific method by such scientists. The current version does not raise POV questions and still gets the point across about it probably not actually being scientific. - Jersyko 04:04, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say we have consensus that Bensaccount's version is too harsh... Jersyko, Gazpacho, myself, and I think Joshuaschneider all agreed to the call it pseudoscience/ do not think it's science version, and I imagine all the various pro-creation types would prefer that one too. We need something like 75% for consensus and we have that by a mile. DreamGuy 04:10, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

one "various pro-creation type" chiming in. Ungtss 04:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ben, it's not just NPOV policy, it's the writing principle of "show, don't tell." It is more informative to say why CS is not regarded as science than to just say it, and the former makes the latter redundant. Gazpacho 04:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course creation science precludes any application of the scientific method. Science is not based on beliefs. Why are you arguing agaist clarity? Bensaccount 04:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Assuming, arguendo, that you are correct, you have to clear another hurdle - the current version does not raise POV questions and still gets the point across about it probably not actually being scientific. - Jersyko 04:50, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

It is not "probably not scientific". That is your POV. It is definately not scientific. I restored the POV banner since you refuse to tell the truth. Bensaccount 04:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's nice. But again, the hurdle still stands . . . Regardless, we have a consensus. - Jersyko 04:55, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

No you have ongoing discussion. Why are you avoiding clarity? Bensaccount 04:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The current version does not raise POV questions because it does not take a stance on whether Creation science is scientific or not, while at the same time casting doubt on its scientific value through the presentation of factual information. Again, the current version does not raise POV questions. I'm sensing some ad hominem in the posts here, so I am going to leave this discussion for awhile and return tomorrow, if it continues till then. - Jersyko 05:03, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

It raises the question: Is this science? This is as POV as it gets. (I should leave this also).Bensaccount 05:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


let's talk about nonsense

consider:

<<Creation science is a term used by creationists describing their efforts to develop scientific justification for their views. It often argues against biological evolution and in favor of young earth creationism.>>

1) movements should be defined on the terms of their proponents, and not on the terms of their critics. the first sentence is in direct violation of this policy. the sentence should read something like, "Creation science, according to its proponents, is the application of the scientific method to study God's creation, and particularly to study the origins of the Earth, life, and humanity." what you have now is equivalent to "supply side economics is a term used by rich people describing their efforts to exploit the poor." Ungtss 03:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So apparently you are saying that creationists do not think that creation science is a term that describes the efforts of creationists to develop scientific justification of their veiws. It can't be because it's not an effort. It can't be because it's a scientific justification for their views. It must be because they think that the scientific justification for their views is already fully developed. But according to the process definition of science, all scientific endeavors are in a constant state of development. So I'm not quite sure where the beef lies. Perhaps you can be a little clearer. I'm afraid your analogy made no sense to me. Joshuaschroeder 05:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ungtuss, I'm sympathetic to your point of view on this one - I'd much rather use a definition given by a self-defined creation scientist. However, your proposed definition is clearly unacceptable, because it would apply to the work of a fervent evolutionary biologist who believed that God created the Big Bang. You need to say something about the way that creation science arises out of the many conflicts between mainstream science and young earth creationism if your definition is to stand for more than one edit. -- ciphergoth 07:51, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

2) <<It often argues against biological evolution and in favor of young earth creationism.>>

cute. and what of old earth creationists, gap creationists, and intelligent design creationists? DOH! Ungtss 03:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Most of these people don't describe their work as "creation science". Joshuaschroeder 05:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edit conflict?

User:Ungtss seems to have a newly found technique for pretending to not edit creationism-related pages. This entails pretending that there is an editting dispute and then placing a twoversions tag on the page. This is, in my opinion, a misuse of the pseudoprotection options that are made available to help handle real disputes rather than allow for parallel pages to be in place indefinitely. As it is, I'm not seeing that there is much of an editting dispute here at all on this page, so I'm removing the tag. Joshuaschroeder 05:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was simply attempting to save you the effort of reverting good edits mindlessly, which has been your "tactic" for months now. okay. if you want the edit dispute, we'll have the edit dispute. i'm changing the intro because it is ridiculously pov, changing the order because creation biology is much more substantial and important than your bogus cosmologies page, and rewriting the biology and geology sections to describe what they are, rather than what they aren't. Ungtss 13:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First sentence

Ungtss, I understand why you're not happy with the first sentence and I support your efforts to find a replacement, but you must come up with a better proposal because your current one isn't going to stand. Any Christian believes that all the Universe is ultimately God's creation - including a Christian who believes in the Big Bang and evolutionary biology - so by this definition, "creation science" is just another word for "science", and evolution and the Big Bang are part of "creation science". You must come up with a description which makes clear what it is that is distinctive about creation science. -- ciphergoth 15:43, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

good point. how about something like: "Creation science, according to its proponents, is an effort to study the origin and early history of the Earth and life on Earth within the framework of the biblical book of Genesis."  ? Ungtss 15:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No because it is not an "effort to study" anything. It is pseudoscience. Bensaccount 16:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This from the genius who created an article entitled Creating.[1] Would you care to justify your reversion of the opener, my fine, intelligent friend? Ungtss 16:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Personal insults aside, I justified it above in the section titled "pseudoscience". Bensaccount 16:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You didn't justify it at all. movements are supposed to be described on the terms of their proponents, not their critics. you are violating that rule. Ungtss 16:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There is no such rule, and if there were it would be called "Wikipedia only allows propaganda". Bensaccount 16:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Getting much closer! But "within the framework of ... Genesis" isn't specific enough. Perhaps try something like "a biblically literal interpretation of the book of Genesis as young earth creationists believe. I'll try an edit along those lines in a second.

Totally inappropriate totally disputed tag

Bensaccount suddenly out of nowhere decided to label the entire article totally dsiputed. No explanation was given for this. We already have clear consensus on the issues he is complaining about, the tag ,makes no sense. So far the only complaint he's given is that he wants to outright put his opinion that it is not a science into the article instead of sticking to explaining that the majority of scientists refer to it as pseudoscience. As that's a pretty poor understanding of how NPOV works and has already been explained to him, and is only one extrmely minor section of the overall article, there's no basis for a totally disputed tag. If he intends to put the tag back he needs to have extrmely clear reasons on the talk page over why it's supposedly totally disputed so we can go through and debate each of the reasons. Unilaterally tagging the page goes against the process for its placement. DreamGuy 06:46, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

The article leads the reader to believe this could be science. This is not true, hence the tag.Bensaccount 15:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is your opinion that it is not true that it could be science. It is my opinion too, for that matter. But there are (unfortunately) a number of people who disagree with that. Your opinion does not get to be Wikipedia's opinion. This is just a simple matter of following NPOV policy. Stating that the overwhelming majority of scientists call it pseudoscience, disagree with it, and consider it religion operating in the guise of science (and everything else that was added recently) is factual, objective, and should be more than enough. It's absolutely ludicrous to throw a totally disputed tag on something because it only points out the the topic is overwhelmingly considered fake by the experts instead of coming right out and calling it fake. That's not what the tag is for. DreamGuy 21:28, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

If it distorts the facts, I add the tag. Bensaccount 22:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But you've proven yourself incapable of separating facts from your own opinions. Not to mention that that particular tag is there for more serious concerns. Even if what you say were true that tag was completely uncalled for. DreamGuy 03:48, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
I said it is a fact that creation science is not a natural science. The reasons in the article are proof of this. The fact that scientists call it pseudoscience is proof of this. The fact that nobody in their right mind would allow creation science to be listed as a natural science is proof of this. You say it is opinion but give no reason. You have not even TRIED to separate facts from opinions. Who has proven themselves incapable of separating facts from opinions? .Bensaccount 05:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quinn quote

Philip Quinn is quoted in the article as saying, in 1984, "In a recent collection of essays, Stephen Jay Gould claims that "'scientific creationism' is a self-contradictory nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified'. … Ironically, in the next sentence Gould goes on to contradict himself by asserting that "the individual claims are easy enough to refute with a bit of research."

The "recent collection of essays" seems to be "Hens' Teeth And Horses' Toes", 1981, and the essay seems to be Evolution as Fact and Theory [2], since it contains the "self-contradictory nonsense phrase" sentence. But the other sentence, alleged by the Quinn quote to be there, is not there. What do we make of that? It's possible that the "next sentence" was there in the first edition of Gould's book (who has it and can look it up? who has Quinn's original?), but it may be just another creationist misquotation, and the '...' in the Quinn quote may signify a change of context. And I'm in favor of removing the whole thing until someone here has found the original Quinn - since it is nothing but hearsay that has gone through the creationist literature filter that will remove any unconfortable qualifiers, contexts, sentence parts, and facts. Probably Quinn said and meant something else entirely. --Hob Gadling 12:40, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Let's gather some facts before we start accusing creationists of false representations, shall we, Hob? same anthology, different essay: Stephen Jay Gould, Quaggas, Coiled Oysters, And Flimsy Fact, reprinted in Hen's Teeth and Horses Toes, pg 384/385 has the offending sentence at least. Ungtss 12:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for finding the quotes. That was not an accusation, it was distrust grown out of experience. And it was justified. The quote as it was, makes Gould look like a fool because he seems to contradict in one sentence what he said in the last. Gould was not that bad a writer - he could make clear what he meant. The omitted sentence makes clear that Gould was talking about two different things in the two essays, namely creation science as a hypothesis in one, and creation scientists' "arguments" in the other. Quinn didn't understand it though.
So, my conclusion is:
  1. The original Quinn quote is based on Quinn's misunderstanding of what Gould was talking about and, strangely enough, about the philosophy of science. Why does a philosopher of science not understand that arguments used by a discipline can have properties (falsifiability) that the discipline itself does not have? Well, even smart people talk a lot of nonsense.
  2. The omission of the middle part further increases the misunderstanding. --Hob Gadling 07:29, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
<<The original Quinn quote is based on Quinn's misunderstanding of what Gould was talking about and, strangely enough, about the philosophy of science.>>
I'm afraid i have to disagree with you. i think Quinn was right on point. But if you'd like to write a refutation to Quinn after the quote identifying your critique, that would certainly be appropriate. you say that individual arguments can have the property of falsifiability, while the discipline does not. i'd argue that no discipline can be falsifiable -- only a theory can. and in a theory, there are certain to be some aspects that are falsifiable and some that are unfalsifiable. one cannot say an entire theory is falsifiable simply because some of the aspects of it are unfalsifiable, if other aspects of it are falsifiable. when some of the aspects are falsifiable, the theory is partly falsifiable.
I will not write a refutation to Quinn, since that would be original research and un-wikipedian. You are right about falsifiability not being applicable to "discipline", but I'd use "hypothesis" instead of "theory" since there is no theory of creation science. But I will not discuss with you since I found that in long hours to be utterly pointless. --Hob Gadling 18:33, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

ultimately, i think that gould is the one making the error. he demonstrates with his "dinosaur track" example that he doesn't know what falsification means. you don't falsify things by finding someone else who interprets the same evidence a different way. you falsify by composing experiments that would prove the principle wrong if it were wrong. he hasn't done that here. he's used one creationist's opinion to disprove another creationist's opinion. that's nonsense:(. Ungtss 12:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

<<The omission of the middle part further increases the misunderstanding.>>
Shall we include it then? Ungtss 12:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

quinn

the "..." in quinn includes the following: "And in another essay in the same collection Gould has this to say about creationists:

They present no testable alternative but fire a volley of rhetorical criticism in the form of unconnected, shaky factual claims -- a potpourri (literally, a rotten pot, in this case) of nonsense that beguiles many people because it masquerades in the guise of fact and trades upon the false prestige of supposedly pure observation."

admittedly, the "..." in this case leads to the false linking of two sentences, but not of two ideas. and it is certainly not a misrepresentation of the text. in the essay, he rips apart the decision in McLean v. Arkansas. he's very clear, over and over, that certain aspects of creationism are falsifiable, and some of those have been falsified, but it is ludicrous to call creationism as a whole unfalsifiable, and then claim to have falsified it.

Sorry that you don't understand it. He does not claim "to have falsified it", he claims that the individual claims are easy to falsify.
"I have an invisible pink unicorn in my room, and I can prove it - my neighbor knows it is there."
"I talked to your neighbor, and he says he never heard of it."
The unicorn itself is unfalsifiable. Nobody can prove it is not there, since it is invisible. But the argument about the neighbor is falsified. Gould did not contradict himself. --Hob Gadling 07:39, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
again, these theories are composed of multiple evidences and parts -- some of them are unfalsifiable, and some are falsifiable. to use your example:
1) unfalsifiable: "the bible told me there was."
2) false: "my neighbor knows the unicorn is there (oh wait, no, he doesn't)"
3) falsifiable without being falsified: "i have magical hoofprints in my carpet (why yes, there are.)
Well, one evidence is unfalsifiable, one is false, but one actually works. is it fair to say that the entire theory is unfalsifiable because one evidence is unfalsifiable (therefore neither evidence for nor against, and one didn't work (which, although not supporting, does not necessarily invalidate the idea), when one evidence still works? that's what quinn's getting it. that's what gould missed.
To illustrate a different way, by your reasoning, common ancestry is unfalsifiable too. the individual claims and arguments can be, but the assertion regarding the actual events cannot. Ungtss 12:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
False. There is no way you can soundly conclude that nonsense from my words. As expected, you didn't understand what I said. So I just changed the article, that makes more sense than discussing with you. --Hob Gadling 18:33, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
I forgot to save last time. Now I changed it. --Hob Gadling 20:34, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Grow up, sir. You ignored my plain reasoning, solid indication that you don't understand either of us. however, your edit to the page is good. Ungtss 22:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

gould

Quinn himself omitted but one sentence from the quote from Quaggas -- the first sentence of the paragraph -- "Against this pattern, creationists employ a destructive, shotgun approach." Then after the section in which he says creationism is untestable, he writes:

"The individual claims are easy enough to refute with a bit of research. Creationists themselves have been forced to retreat from the more embarassing items. Noted creationist Henry Morris, for example, has often cited the supposed footprints of dinosaurs and humans together in rocks of the Paluxy River of Texas. But creationist Leonard Brand attributes some of teh "human" prints to erosion and others to a three-toed dinosaur. He also adds, "We do know that there was a fellow during th Depression who carved tracks."

Poorly written

"nearly all scientists reject it as pseudoscience." If it is rejected as pseudoscience, does that make it science? Bensaccount 15:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

to the scientists who don't reject it as pseudoscience, yes, it does. Ungtss 16:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Pseudoscience" denotes that it is doubiously science, or probably not science (according to the mainstream scientific community), not that it is certainly not scientific. Conversely, it does not mean that it is science either, since it is referred to by most scientists as pseudoscience and the definion of pseudoscience indicates that its scientific value is seriously in doubt. Thus, reffering to it as "science" or "not science" would not comport with the consensus in the scientific community that it is "pseudoscience." - Jersyko 16:41, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

If something is rejected as X, that usually means it is not X. Bensaccount 17:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

rational people attempt to ascertain reality through evidence and reason, not opinion polls. people can be wrong. the elite has been wrong before, and it will be wrong again. the mere fact that most scientists think it's pseudoscience does not make it so. the reasons they think it's pseudoscience may or may not give us good reason to believe it is so. Ungtss 18:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone even have the faintest clue as to what I am saying? Bensaccount 18:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

yes. we all know what you're saying, and we all know you're wrong. Ungtss 18:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Rejected as X" means "judged unacceptable as X". You are saying "creation science is judged uncacceptable as pseudoscience." It may sound neutral, but ambiguity can do that.Bensaccount 18:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

it is neutral, unambiguous, and attributed. furthermore, it's more persuasive. who cares what wikipedia thinks about it? the fact is, scientists think it's pseudoscience. their opinion holds credibility. citing that overwhelming sentiment means something. you're not even helping your own case here, bro. go write an article about another gerund like creating or something. Ungtss 18:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apparently you speak a different language than me. Bensaccount 18:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Than I. Ungtss 18:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Settle down folks. It's not ambiguous to say that it is referred to as pseudoscience and not take a position on whether it is actually scientific or not because the definition of pseudoscience denotes that it is dubious, but not certainly so, that something is scientific. - Jersyko 18:41, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I judge Ungtss unacceptable as a Wikipedian. I reject him as an acceptable member of Wikipedia. Bensaccount 18:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's time for everyone to take some time to cool off. - Jersyko 18:46, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I reject Ungtss as an intelligent human being. I reject him as a decent member of society. Bensaccount 18:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Rejected as X" can mean "Rejected as an example of X", but it can also mean "Rejected as being X". Guettarda 18:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Finally someone understands how ambiguous this is. Now will someone fix this poorly written phrase or should I go on...Bensaccount 18:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I made a change that I hope will be acceptable to everyone. My apologies for misunderstanding your initial concern. - Jersyko 19:04, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
Good work. Ungtss 19:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Like pulling teeth. Bensaccount 02:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
for one so concerned with avoiding ambiguity, your complaints were rather ambiguous themselves. Ungtss 03:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You said you understood. Bensaccount 21:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lack of clarity

The lead paragraph still does not make it clear that this is not science. Bensaccount 02:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, the general consensus among scientists appears to be that Creation science is pseudoscience. The definition of pseudoscience indicates that the scientific value of a discipline is seriously doubted, but not that it is certainly not scientific. Thus, if Wikipedia is to refer to Creation science as "not science," Wikipedia would be going further than the general consensus in the scientific community has gone. Therefore, in the interest of maintaining a neutral point of view, Wikipedia should certainly not refer to Creation science as an objective science, but it also should not refer to it as non-science. By pointing out what the scientific community has to say on the matter, and only what the scientific community has to say, Wikipedia can (properly) include a description of the discipline that casts doubt on its scientific value while remaining NPOV. - Jersyko 03:48, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
You sound like a man who's been at law school for a while:). Ungtss 03:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Apparently not, since I so horribly misunderstood what was going on in our last go-round ;). - Jersyko 03:55, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
You weren't the only one:). Ungtss 12:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is there something you are referring to here that makes you think scientists prefer to call things pseudoscience than not science? Bensaccount 15:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Care to provide us with a little more clarity as to what, exactly, you're saying? Ungtss 18:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Of course. I am asking what leads to your conclusion that scientists don't say creation science is not science. Bensaccount 21:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I know a great number of scientists will tell you it is not science at all, but rather religion or superstition. Pseudoscience covers some things, but this isn't really even pseudoscience but an attempt to pretend there is some scientific basis for creationism. They blatently ignore everything contrary to their "theory", and distort evidence in hopes of pretending there is some support for it. The only reason it is even called "science" is because they want to put it in classrooms, which is something US courts have ruled against repeatedly on the grounds that it is not science at all. Titanium Dragon 19:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you read the article on pseudoscience, you'll discover that it is by definition what you've written above: non-science in the guise of science. Ungtss 19:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscience means not science. Scientists call it a pseudoscience and reject it as religious-based instead of scientifically-based. That's what the article was saying. We can not write it saying that Wikipedia itself calls it not a science, because that's an opinion (albeit an opinion held by the overwhelming majority of scientists), not a fact. Why are people still confused on this? DreamGuy 21:19, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

No we say that it is not science. Just like we say that Armstong, accompanied by Buzz Aldrin, landed the lunar module, "Eagle" on the surface of the moon at 4:17 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. We don't say that "according to Armstrong, he landed..."Bensaccount 21:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And no it is not an opinion, it is a fact. There is a difference. Bensaccount 21:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the difference between opinion and fact is an issue you should explore sometime. Ungtss 22:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you having trouble telling the difference Ungtss? An opinion is a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty. A fact is a concept whose truth can be proved. Bensaccount 01:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

yes. and when there are several definitions of science held by different people, whether something qualifies as science depends on one's definition of science, and is therefore opinion. Ungtss 17:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for finally trying to differentiate fact from opinion. Now we are trying to define rather than to obfuscate. Bensaccount 18:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are we? or are we repeatedly making the same pov edit despite the fact that it directly violates policy and consensus? Ungtss 23:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We are. For example you say that whether something qualifies as science depends on one's definition of science. I provided two specific definitions, natural science & social science, which were concurrently removed by dreamguy (with no reason other than 'POV has to stop'). Do you intend to give a reason why this is POV Dreamguy? Bensaccount 01:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1) <<The term natural science as the way in which different fields of study are defined is determined as much by historical convention as by the present day meaning of the words.>> the term is determined by historical convention and present day meaning -- it is not an immutable definition. convention is a function of opinion, not fact.
2) it's not on the natural science page, but neither is evolution, because the page identifies disciplines, not individual theories.
3) it's not on the social science page, because it's not a social science. Ungtss 01:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. I could take a guess at your meaning but you are going to have to be more specific about why it matters that the definition is conventional.
  2. Creation science is a single theory?
  3. We both agree it is not social science. Bensaccount 01:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

<<Natural science is defined, and whether it is a conventional definition or not is irrelevant.>>

wrong. when definitions are by convention, and the convention is disputed, a judgment based on the disputed convention must be attributed. Ungtss 01:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) (note that bensaccount changed his comments so they no longer reflect the question i answered) -- new answer -- convention is a function of opinion, not fact, because there is nothing absolute or provable about a convention, except that a lot of people have chosen it. Ungtss 02:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

<<Creation science is a single theory?>>

no. neither is evolution. but neither are disciplines. stop talking nonsense. Ungtss 01:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

<<We both agree it is not social science.>>

then don't waste time with arguments you yourself know are stupid. Ungtss 01:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is just a personal insult ridden digressive rant. Bensaccount 01:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

is it? or is it the uncomfortable feeling of logic sinking in? Ungtss 01:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hahaha...Logic....you are kidding right?...did you READ what you wrote? It is convention that the pet that barks is called a dog. If someone decides that the pet that meows will henceforth also be called a dog, nobody will believe them because they call that pet a cat.Bensaccount 01:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If i were french, i'd call it Chien. If i were roman, i'd call it Canis. If i were Russian, I'd call it собака (pronounced sobáka). none of those people would be wrong. the npov article would say, "bensaccount calls this a dog because he's canadian. Ungtss calls it 狗 (pronounced gǒu) because chinese was his first language." Ungtss 02:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why do I bother with examples if you just take the nouns and change the rest to suit yourself. Bensaccount 04:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I used your noun to show you how flawed your argument is. you said that it was a fact that a barking pet was called a dog, and it would be incorrect to call it something else. i showed you that it would not be incorrect to call it something else, because words and definitions are by convention, and are not absolute facts. the same applies in the first paragraph of the article. creationists define science differently. you're wrong, ben. Ungtss 05:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I said it would be incorrect to call it a cat. Anyways, this example is evidently beyond you so lets just focus on the issue. Creation science is not natural science, nobody would list it as this, because it goes against the definition of natural science: sciences that deal with nature. (its not science, and it deals with the supernatural). Bensaccount 05:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

you are using a very naive definition of the supernatural. i define supernatural as events and beings that follow the laws of nature, but follow laws which we as humans do not understand. god is supernatural to us just as airplanes are supernatural to the hottentot -- not because he breaks the laws of nature, but because we don't understand the laws fully enough to understand him. there is nothing unscientific about that. on the contrary, it was arthur c clarke who said, "any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic." how arrogant of us to think that supernatural events are unscientific and/or impossible simply because we don't understand them. we don't even understand gravity. how dare we think we can understand the origin of the universe. anyways. i realize this is lost on you. Ungtss 05:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I inform you that creation does not fit the definition of natural science because it involves the supernatural, so you make up a brand new definition of supernatural. Now the supernatural is "that which is natural". Nice. Bensaccount 16:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

read this and read point number five. You might consider the possibility that there are people in this world who know things you don't. Ungtss 14:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Encarta defines supernatural as something departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature. Unlike you I don't make up my own definitions, I prefer to use those found in dictionaries. Bensaccount 19:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your next move will no doubt be to say Creation is not supernatural (by the Encarta def'n), but I would like you to first admit that you were making up definitions. Bensaccount 21:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"To appear to transcend the laws of nature," Ben. Think. Think real hard. It appears to transcend the laws of nature, because we don't understand how it works. Ungtss 22:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I.e, "supernatural". Q.E.D.. Guettarda 22:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your mistake is thinking that things that appear to transcend the laws of nature actually do transcend them. it's based on the rather ridiculous assumption that we fully understand the laws of nature. things may appear to transcend the laws of nature as we know them, but be fully consistent with the actual laws of nature which we have only begun to explore. Thus, "appear to transcend the laws of nature." Q.E.D. Ungtss 22:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok so you finally admit the definition, so how about apologizing for making things up? And apologize for attributing things to me that I never said while you are at it. Bensaccount 22:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i did not admit it. you are still confused. the encarta definition is my definition. you said "its not science, and it deals with the supernatural." Listen. Science by definition is an effort to understand the supernatural -- the things that appear to transcend the laws of nature. It does not exclude the supernatural. It investigates the supernatural. You, sir, are dead wrong. Ungtss 22:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No you defined supernatural as as "events and beings that follow the laws of nature". You don't seriously think you can convince anyone that this is the same as "appearing to be outside the realm of nature" do you? Bensaccount 22:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No you defined supernatural as as "events and beings that follow the laws of nature". You don't seriously think you can convince anyone that this is the same as "appearing to be outside the realm of nature" do you? Bensaccount 22:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Supernatural events are those that appear to transcend the laws of nature. those may or may not actually violate the laws of nature. there is no reason it is unscientific to investigate things that appear to violate the laws of nature, because if the events actually took place, it is likely that by investigating them, we will come to better understand the laws of nature. There is nothing unscientific about exploring the possibility that Genesis happened as reported, divine action and all. If it happened, then we should try to figure out more about it. if it didn't happen, we should figure out what actually happened. I'm not trying to convince you. i know i never will, and i wouldn't want to because i wouldn't want you arguing my side with your nonsense. the point is this. creationists have a different definition of science than your materialist friends. Ungtss 22:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have gotten sidetracked discussing semantics with someone who thinks science is defined as "an effort to understand the supernatural". Anyways, I rather like the current version of the intro, so I have no further complaints. Bensaccount 22:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

there is nothing semantic about it. science is by definition exploring events which appear to transcend the laws of nature, because the exploration of those phenomena will improve our understanding of nature. you're mixing up science and skepticism. but you're not the only one. Ungtss 22:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, not only do you not know the definition of supernatural or the definition of science but you also don't know the definition of semantics. How do you manage to communicate in daily life? Bensaccount 23:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do quite well, thank you. i have repeatedly demonstrated that science is broader than you're willing to make it -- and in fact your limiting of science to "events which can be explained naturally" is expressly antiscientific, because the scientific endeavor is by definition exploring things that happen that we can't yet understand. Ungtss 23:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, Ungtss, I am not interested in your make-believe definitions. I am here for the articles. Go preach to the other creationists on your talk page, you have no audience here. Bensaccount 23:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mark this down, folks. Popper's definition of science as exploring the unexplained is make-believe. Ungtss 23:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Popper defines science as 'testable' statements. Bensaccount 23:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Popper defines science as the process of turning untestable statements into testable statements by improving the methods and understanding of science -- turning the unfalsifiable into the falsifiable and the metaphysical into the theoretical. Ungtss 23:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure he does.... Bensaccount 23:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

you might try reading him sometime. Ungtss 00:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if Ungtss could name a single supernatural event that has been empirically observed. Is the Pioneer anomaly a supernatural event? How about the Mpemba effect? Joshuaschroeder 00:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Events are supernatural before we understand them, according to encarta. events which "appear to transcend the laws of nature." flying in airplanes is supernatural to some pacific islanders. also cargo cults. so yes, both of your examples. Ungtss 00:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Then most of this discusion is simply a matter of disagreement on the definition of supernatural. Neither Bensaccount nor myself nor most people would agree with your definition of supernatural. I think it's a clever take and certainly is reminiscent of God of the gaps, but it isn't standard, in popular understanding of the term which would conjure up ideas of gods, magic, paranormal and psychic phenomena, etc. You make an interesting case that these things are maybe a matter of perspective, but there's a certain level to which certain beliefs about the supernatural are either falsified or unfalsifiable. For example, there are no Gods living on the top of Mount Olympus. There is no scientific evidence that seems to indicate that Sylvia Browne is talking to the dead. I would tend to disagree with assigning a supernatural designation on the two articles I cited, even though they aren't adequately explained by science, and I have most of the scientific community and probably the majority of people who have ever used the term "supernatural" on my side. That doesn't mean that the term cannot change meanings, it just means that you are currently in the minority for how to apply the term. Joshuaschroeder 00:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My view is articulated in supernatural and omnipotence, point 5. many people use your naive definition of the supernatural, and then combine it with skepticism (that couldn't have happened, because we can't explain it naturally!) in fact, the scientific approach is, "First, did it happen? and if it happened, then how can it be explained?" Recognizing that the two questions are totally separate, and the fact that we can't explain phenomena does not mean they do not exist. As Clarke said, "All sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic." There's nothing new about my definition. it's widely held among creationists. don't make me research it for you. Ungtss 00:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think it may very well be widely held among published creationists. I imagine, though, that your average creationist on the street wouldn't make the distinction if simply asked to define supernatural. However, they could probably be led down the garden path with enough prodding or preaching. Joshuaschroeder 00:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
my concern is only with creationists who know what they're talking about. i don't think your "average evolutionist" walking down the street has the slightest inkling of the philosophy of science. he's simply been led down the garden path. Ungtss 00:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My concern is with people making up definitions and attributing them to Karl Popper. Bensaccount 19:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My concern is with people disputing commonly used definitions, particularly those used in books they haven't read. Ungtss 22:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide a quotation to back that up? Bensaccount 03:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

it wouldn't matter if i did. Ungtss 05:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you can quote Popper as defining science as exploring the unexplained, turning the unfalsifiable into the falsifiable and the metaphysical into the theoretical, it would show you aren't attributing your personal biases to Popper. Bensaccount 12:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ben - people quote Popper all the time, but most people have not read Popper. It would be good if anything attributed to Popper had a reference. I had a rather mistaken impression of "Popperian science" until I started reading his stuff. Guettarda 13:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

well firstly, i didn't quote him, the wording is mine, but, i believe, the idea is his. the best single quote that i think summarizes the view is this: "Science proceeds by conjecture and refutation." Science proceeds by finding experimental ways to test conjectures. Ungtss 13:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In other words, you can't provide a quotation of him defining science the way you said he did, so you are providing a completely unrelated quotation instead. Bensaccount 15:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I told you it wouldn't matter if i provided a quote. You wouldn't understand it anyway. You'd say it was completely unrelated, when in fact, it summarizes a lifetime of popper's work, of which you haven't read two bits. Ungtss 15:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, you didn't cite it, so I can not look it up in context. Secondly, saying that science proceeds by conjecture and refutation is not even remotely similar to saying science proceeds by turning the unfalsifiable into the falsifiable. Bensaccount 15:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First, you didn't ask me to cite it, but you might try reading Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge by Popper. A conjecture is an unfalsifiable guess at a fact or explanation. Science devises and conducts an experiment to attempt to falsify that explanation. If the experiment falsifies the conjecture, it is no longer "unfalsifiable" -- it is now "false." If the experiment does not falsify the conjecture, then the conjecture has gone from being "unfalsifiable" to being "falsifiable" and is now "science." thus, science is the process of moving from an endless list of unfalsifiable guesses to falsifiable science and hypotheses which have been falsified and rejected. Ungtss 21:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the conjecture truly was unfalsifiable then it wouldn't be possible to falsify it. First you make up a definition. Next you attribute your make-believe definition to Popper. Next you provide a completely unrelated quotation and pretend it backs up your fantasy. Next you refuse to cite where you found this quotation but point to a book which may or may not contain it. And finally you make the above statement which seems to lack any logic whatsoever. What next Ungtss? Bensaccount 01:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

conjectures are only falsifiable when we lack the ability to falsify it, because we haven't devised an experiment to do so. scientific knowledge advances with the development of our ability to test our unfalsifiable conjectures, to make them falsifiable. read the book. you might learn something. Ungtss 04:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You are totally confused. Unfalsifiable means unfalsifiable, period. It means: whether it is true or false, there is no logical way, ever, to falsify it. It does not mean some person is too ignorant to do it at the moment. The creationist usage is different, I guess: if a creationist can't explain something, he says it is unexplainable. But in reality he is usually just too ignorant to do it, and real experts have no problem with it. If a real scientist is unable to do something, he will say he is unable to do it, not that it is impossible.
Also, you can't prove something unfalsifiable by trying to falsify it and failing. What you mean by "unfalsifiable" is obviously "not falsified yet" or even "not falsified yet as far as I know". Reading Popper is not enough to understand him, obviously. --Hob Gadling 07:44, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
That is strictly and absolutely incorrect. You might consider reading popper yourself. he says that certain types of psychology (and evolution, in fact) are not science until ways can be devised to test them -- but remain pre-science metaphysical conjectures. This view was furthed by Birch and Elrich in their article "Evolutionary History and Population Biology," Nature, Vol. 214, 22 April 1967, p.352, in which they, evolutionary biologists themselves, argued that evolution had fallen outside the realm of empirical scientists because "nobody can think of ways to test it," and called for a research program to develop ways to test it, and bring it back into the realm of science. Would you care to back up your claim that "ideas are falsifiable and unfalsifiable by their very nature, and not due to our ability or inability to test them?" Ungtss 14:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thats a lot of digressive rhetoric, but it doesn't address the issue raised by Hob and I. Bensaccount 15:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's precise, and slices your nonsense to the core. that's why you're evading. And incidentally, it's "Hob and me." Object of the preposition. Ungtss 21:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What nonsense. What is the subject of the above paragraph? Save your "correct grammar" for the page. All you are doing is trying to piss me off. Bensaccount 22:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

popper's application of falsifiability to psychology and evolution -- saying that theories should be reformulated to take a falsifiable form, and the growth of science by expaning the scopes of that form are central to his definition of falsifiability, which is in dispute. falsifiablity is not a static characteristic. as the tools of science develop, ideas shift from being unfalsifiable to being falsifiable. Ungtss 22:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And we were talking about your using the term "unfalsifiable" when you mean "unfalsified" or "seeminly unfalsifiable to certain people". Hence your rant about something being "strictly and absolutely incorrect" and subsequent rant about "poppers application of falsifiability to psychology and evolution" completely miss the issue raised by Hob and me. Bensaccount 22:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you have anything you would like to change regarding this page? If not, lets just call this quits. Bensaccount 23:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

unfalsifiable is unfalsifiable. if we can't falsify it now, then at the present state of human knowledge, it's unfalsifiable. if someday we come across a means to experimentally test it, then it will become falsifiable. it addressed your point directly. there are a lot of changes i'd like to make to the article, but there are too many people about who fear creationism for them to last any significant period of time. Ungtss 05:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy if you have any valid changes you want made, state them. There is no point in you trolling this talk page with fake definitions if you arent even trying to improve the article. Bensaccount 15:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the point of this discursis was to illustrate to you that there are a number of definitions of science, so that your dogmatic belief that creation science "is not science" is an opinion, not a fact, and must be attributed on the page. I've done that. of course, now the npov violation in the intro has shifted to unattributed accusations of bad process among creationists, which is no better. but that's the way of it. Ungtss 15:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have not shown how it is not a natural science so there is no reason not to put this in the intro. The reasons in the intro show it is not science. The fact that it deals with the supernatural show this. Its deviation from the scientific method show this. Its rejection by all scientists shows this. I could go on. You have nothing. Bensaccount 16:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

see above for the reason i don't edit this page. all of your reasons reflect your definition of science. creation science allows for the supernatural in a subtle sense, does not deviate from the scientific method, and is not rejected by all scientists. but you like your delusion and you'll revert anything that conflicts with it. you actually think smart people believe your nonsense:). Ungtss 16:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No they reflect the standard dictionary definition of natural science. Thus creation science is not a natural science. Bensaccount 16:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

<<The term natural science as the way in which different fields of study are defined is determined as much by historical convention as by the present day meaning of the words.>>

Convention = opinion, not fact. and around and around we go. Ungtss 16:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So we both agree the definition is conventional (like all definitions) and doesn't include creation science. Bensaccount 16:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

because it is conventional, it is possible for there to be multiple definitions. creationists hold to a different convention -- a convention that includes creation science. therefore, both conventions must be attributed. Ungtss 16:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, we use the standard convention. We use words as the majority of people will understand them. We follow the dictionary definition. See you tomorrow Ungtss. Bensaccount 16:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.. Creation scientists do all of the above. they simply compose their theoretical explanations with reference to the recorded history of Genesis. See you tomorrow, for another episode of "Thought control by the ignorant and dogmatic!" Ungtss 16:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Creation science does not involve experimental investigation. Like you say, it constructs its theoretical explanations based on Genesis, rather than on observations. This means it is not science. Bensaccount 14:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

it does do experimental investigation. it simply reads its experimental observations in the context of genesis. whereas a naturalist says "life arose by chemical interactions even tho we don't know how," the creationist says, "God made life because there's a history here saying he did it, and there's no other reasonable explanation." Ungtss 15:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

That is not experimental investigation, that is dogma. Bensaccount 15:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

so is abiogenesis. Ungtss 15:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Abiogensis is not proclaimed as truth, it is a theory, and there is a lot of evidence for it. Creation can not be proven, but is a religious doctrine. There is no evidence for it or against it. But if we both agree that creation science is dogma, and the problem is whether abiogenesis is, this should be taken up on talk:abiogenesis .Bensaccount 15:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
There is no more evidence for abiogenesis than for creation. there are a few guesses as to what might have happened, and when. the accounts of genesis are evidence for creation, just like all history accounts are evidence of the events they claim to record. the only question when dealing with historical accounts is whether those accounts are accurate or not. and for that, you try and find hard evidence inconsistent with the account. and i have yet to see any. Ungtss 15:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no evidence AT ALL for creation. Genesis is not evidence, just like the Iliad is not taken as evidence of Zeus. There is a lot of evidence that supports abiogenesis which is why it is an accepted scientific theory. This is yet another in the long list of reasons why creation science is not science on this page. Bensaccount 15:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Iliad is evidence for the Trojan War. It was accepted as basically true. The question of how true is another one entirely. It might have been exaggerated in parts, it might not have. We don't know. Same rule applies to genesis. all fiction? part fiction? What? Ungtss 15:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

It quite possibly was entirely fictional. This doesn't mean the Iliad has no value to it, it simply means that it is not scientific evidence. I'll see you tomorrow Ungtss. Bensaccount 15:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

So no historical account counts as evidence? An autobiography, for instance, should be tossed entirely? yes. that would be good. we'll cut out the reports of the people who were there, and then rewrite history based entirely on what we think makes sense. That's good. Ungtss 15:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Theistic realism

Can people here working on this article also check out Theistic realism? I'd like to get a consensus from more than the two editors on how to proceed with this. Also, take a look at Talk:theistic realism. Thanks. Joshuaschroeder 01:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've determined along with User:Bensaccount that the theistic realism article deserves a hearing on VfD. Join the discussion there. Joshuaschroeder 23:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

diagrams

Creation science seen as religion in conflict with science
Creation science seen as religion in conflict with science
Creation science seen as alternative interpretations of the evidence based on different philosophical presuppositions
Creation science seen as alternative interpretations of the evidence based on different philosophical presuppositions

dreamguy, you said they were unattractive, clumsy, and unhelpful. attractiveness i can fix. why are they clumsy and unhelpful? I think they allow an easy way to understand the flow of thought in the creationist view -- how things flow from presupposition through science to different conclusions, and how the other one sees the conflict as simply science/religion. Ungtss 00:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Pardon me for saying so, but these diagrams are goddawful. Neither of them do justice to the opinions of either group and the one is more of a statement about what Ungtss believes rather than what creationists believe in general (not all creationists believe in theistic realism, not all supporters of mainstream science deny that God acts in history, etc.) I have removed both from the article. Joshuaschroeder 15:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
it amuses me to hear atheists call things goddawful. means they're not quite over religion yet. Ungtss 15:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
It amuses me to hear creationists call me an atheist. It means they aren't quite over their presuppositions yet. Joshuaschroeder 15:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
pressuppositions or overwhelming evidence? if you do believe in god, then calling something goddawful is a rather bizarre turn of phrase, since god modifies awful in a rather disrespectful way. Perhaps you're a maltheist? Ungtss 16:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
I think you guys are overanalyzing the situation. It is a simple expression that has fallen into common usage. Take "By Jove!" as another example. It is still in use, yet I'd be willing to bet that almost no one who uses it today is a worshipper of the Roman god Jupiter.--JonGwynne 16:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
True enough:). Ungtss 16:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)