Talk:Creation science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Creation science article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents Creation science in an unsympathetic light and that criticism is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:

If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of Creation science or promote Creation science please do so at talk.origins or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time in accordance with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages: Keep on topic
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Creation science was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: April 27, 2006
 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Reminder

This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Creation Science. See WP:NOT

If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of Creation Science or promote Creation Science please do so at talk.origins or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.
Archive
Archives
2002–2004 
2006-2008 

When archiving this page, please use the cut and paste procedure.

It has been suggested in these archives... 

Contents

[edit] Biology is just science

I agree completely with this edit: [1]. Any suggestion that evolution is philosophical or sociological or some sort of political or religious movement is just ludicrous propaganda pushed by creationists. There is no truth in it.--Filll (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, any "philosophical" aspect that can conceivably be ascribed to the "theory of evolution" is part of the philosophy of science that underlies all scientific endeavour. One might as well talk about the "philosophical aspects" of electrochemistry. HrafnTalkStalk 02:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
What about those aspects of evolutionary theory that are not subject to observation, repetition or falsification? It's not all science, not by a long shot. Removing the word scientific makes it more NPOV. rossnixon 01:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
No. Science does not require "observation" or "repetition". To pretend that it does is a well-known and widely repeated piece of creationist dishonesty (i.e. "bearing false witness" or "lying for Jesus"). Historic sciences typically do not allow direct observation or replication. They are rendered falsifiable by making novel predictions that can be falsified by new observations. An example of this was the Big Bang, which cannot be replicated and could not be directly observed. However its theory predicted the existence of Cosmic microwave background radiation, which was later observed. HrafnTalkStalk 04:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
We can't use the Baconian method or Mill's Methods to show causation concerning the Big Bang and instead uses the weaker Hypothetico-deductive model for such theories. It is a philosophical differentiation to allow (or not) Popper's method as a part of science. Dan Watts (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thus proving why real scientists do not pay any attention to philosophers, who are content to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.--Filll (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah! Who would pay attention to "Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge" by Neils Bohr, or "The World as I See It" by Albert Einstein, or "Physics and Philosophy" by Werner Heisenberg, or "Physical Science and Philosophy" by P.A.M. Dirac in the publication Nature? Let's focus on what real scientists have to say! Dan Watts (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
You are free to believe that philosophy is of crucial importance for science. However, I will note that if you want a PhD in physics at Princeton University or MIT or Caltech, or many other places you dont need a single course in philosophy at the undergraduate or graduate levels. So it is clearly of great importance...--Filll (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


Um the philosophical part of biology is that magic is not allowed. But that is true in all of chemistry and all of physics and all of any science. What parts of biology are not subject to observation? Repetition? Falsification? Speciation has been observed over and over, repetitively. Even fossil evidence for speciation has been repeated multiple times for various species. Hundreds of millions of observations in the laboratory, in the field, in fossils and in the DNA code. You are free to believe whatever you like and to reject knowledge and live in ignorance, but you are not allowed to use force to impose your ignorance on others. Particularly for what are highly suspect purposes. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


I assure you that I am not being forceful. But it appears to me that you are. Evolution is not usually qualified by being called "scientific evolution". Why not stick with the more common "evolution"? How would that express any of my views? rossnixon 01:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I do not stick my nose into religious articles or religious discussions or churches or mosques and tabernacles and rant and rave about how Christianity caused the Holocaust, or claim that fundamental Christianity is one of the most evil concepts ever created and how all evangelical Christians are damned and essentially filthy demons who deserve to be killed on sight, hopefully in the most painful manner possible. I do not hold huge rallies and decry the dirty Pentecostals or Baptists or other evangelicals and say they are not real Americans and should be stripped of their citizenship. I do not lobby my state legislature to tax churches so that I can use the proceeds to visit churches and then lecture the congregations that they are filth and headed to hell, at regular intervals. I do not parade around on the streets telling everyone that they are not allowed to disagree with me since every word out of my mouth is the word of God himself. THAT is forceful, and comparable and equivalent to what the "anti-evolution" groups engage in, in my experience. You see how it creates a bad impression?

Evolution is a polyseme. And the only reason that scientists oppose creationism, creation science and intelligent design is that they target biological evolution. No one in science worries if creation scientists do not like social Darwinism, or some other nonsense that has adopted the rubric of "evolution", even though its provenance is doubtful. It is when creation scientists etc target the science that problems arise.--Filll (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow Filll, you do have some problems. I do feel sorry for you - and I mean this in the 'nicest possible way'. I didn't realise that biological evolution was exempt from criticism, I thought it was meant to be like the other sciences. rossnixon 00:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you expound on this statement Ross? I looked all over and didn't find anyone questioning the existence of gravity and instead advocating that an invisible syrup exists that causes us to stick to the ground. Or anyone claiming that chemistry is completely bunk and there are actually just 4 elements. Could you help me a little on this one? Baegis (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I think most fields would express a legitimate desire not to have to endure dishonest, repetitive, long-since-debunked criticisms. I'm sure if geologists are any less unhappy about enduring the "criticisms" of Flood Geologists, it is simply because said Flood Geologists are less vocal. HrafnTalkStalk 04:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Any "dishonest, repetitive, long-since-debunked" ideas in evolution? Anyone teaching that old 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' canard? Surely not Evolution: Raven & Johnson (2002). besides:
1. Haeckel’s drawings are fake, but they’re not used in recent textbooks.
2. They’re used in recent textbooks, but not as evidence for Darwinian evolution.
3. They’re used as evidence for Darwinian evolution, but it doesn’t matter because there’s lots of other evidence.
4. The drawings aren’t fake.
(Apologies to the original cracked pot defense) Dan Watts (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow how profound. You really have demonstrated that several million scientists and 150 years of work and hundreds of millions of pieces of evidence and several Nobel Prizewinners are completely wrong:[2]. And you did it by looking at some high school textbook written by some hacks. It sure shows those scientists!--Filll (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes the oft-repeated, dishonest, long-since-debunked Haeckel criticism -- exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. You can find a thorough rebuttal of this piece of Creationist trash here. Thanks for proving my point. Oh, and (1)-(4) is (i) putting words into our mouths & (ii) assuming all sorts of unproven (and for the most part fallacious) assertions. They have all the evidentiary value of a fart. HrafnTalkStalk 17:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Biological evolution is criticized all the time, for scientific reasons, not for nonsense made-up fake controversies. For example, the mechanisms and the rate of evolution are controversial. I have no problem with these kinds of controversies and they are appropriate.

However, "fake" controversies like trying to introduce magic into science, or telling falsehoods about the science are annoying, particularly when they are part of an agenda to create a theocracy, and to push one particular religion over others, or to introduce religion into science. That is a totally different kettle of fish. And if you think this is reasonable, then me promoting my own agenda by force in all churches, mosques and synagogues and forcing congregations to pay for it is reasonable too.--Filll (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just read the whole section and I can't see what changes to the page are being disputed, made or suggested. Is there any comment here that has any bearing on the page itself? Otherwise we're just just chatting. WLU (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The disputed change was (back in the dark and distant past) this one. We've wandered off the topic since then. HrafnTalkStalk 18:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I just looked at [3] to see what the "Creation Science" folks are doing; also I dug up their reference 6 [4]. It is a Pyrrhic victory if one dissects the two pieces of work and shows that the creationists missed the point of the Science article, failed to follow further developments (it has been cited by 45 articles on the Web of Science to date) and shows that the Creationists took the material on lungs out of context, and also ignored the millions of years of evolution that allowed the Archaeopteryx to lead to the modern bird. You can't keep up with them. On their same page, the creationists cite a discredited article on feathered dinosaurs (to scoff at) while ignoring more recent work such as in Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences Vol. 33: 277-299 (Volume publication date May 2005)(doi:10.1146/annurev.earth.33.092203.122511). They could cite the Piltdown Man hoax, too - who can keep up with it all? The problem is that while, as has been said above, Astrology has not invaded school astronomy courses, creationists are assailing science curricula. Keep up the good work, everyone, but I would just repeat that since these people only believe the Bible, they are wasting everyone's time trying to prove the Bible is right, or science is wrong. And they are dishonest if they say that science has evidence supporting the Bible. On nearby pages at [5] one sees that Adam never saw a child grow up, and the trees around him in Eden has not sprouted from seeds. (This is reader opinion, but is typical). Some trees were descendants of other trees but the ones in Eden were not. Maybe we should leave it to the courts to handle stuff like that. Carrionluggage (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Adam would see a child grow up... I don't know what they are talking about... Also, there is science that supports the Bible, but not all the arguments people make are correct. That is one of the problems, if one creationist makes an incorrect statement, creationism's reliability goes down. But, if an evolutionist makes an incorrect statement, then the scientific community will challenge it, and the scientist will lose reliability, but not evolution itself. If people would just start using correct arguments... RJRocket53 (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
That is exactly right. When any creationist starts throwing in false and illogical arguements, all creationists become ignoramuses. But I will say that it seems like no scientists will even study creationist material or even seriously consider it. Much work has been done but no one wants to acknowledge it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.76.228 (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My creation theory

I dont consider myself any form of an expert but I feel my idea is agreeable and maybe some of you could prove it for me. I believe that the universe exists to prove its own existence , more to the point nothing cant exist without something to prove it. With further thought i believe in equal amounts and then that would also mean the universe is ever expanding in matter and lack of matter. Or im crazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enmc (talk • contribs) 00:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to discuss ideas or publish original research. Please do not post on the talk page unless you have a concern about the extant version of Creation science. WLU (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Scientific Community

This article seems to oppose creationist scientists to the scientific community in several places. Creationism, however, is part of the scientific community, even though it is not a well-accepted or mainstream part of the scientific community. Perhaps those spots should be changed to "the mainstream scientific community," just to seem less biased. ---G.T.N. (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Creationism is not a science, therefore not a part of the scientific community. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Seconding that creationism is not science, mainstream or fringe. It's an attempt to shoehorn scientific data to hypotheses which are justified by the creation myth. Any scientist in biology who is mainstream in science and publishes, does not support creationism. Physicists and medical doctors don't count. WLU (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You have to differentiate "Creationism" (religious) and "Creation Science" (science with a fundamentalist starting point). rossnixon 23:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Neither is science in my opinion, starting with a 100% unchangeable, non-empirical, non-disprovable set of assumptions is not a science by any definition I know of. So changing it to 'the mainstream scientific community' is inappropriate since it is the entire scientific community within the disciplines that matter. WLU (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, nothing much if anything can be found in "Creation Science" that shows the spirit and method of scientific inquiry. Scientists are always ready to modify or drop their assumptions or entire theories, such as the Phlogiston theory of combustion. The Creationists, under any name, are not. Look at "Answers in Genesis" to see that nothing more is done than to take (often out-of-date) scientific papers and re-interpret or misinterpret them. Carrionluggage (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Creation science is rejected by the scientific community. We have many sources making this clear, although not all are directly in this article and maybe some should be moved over here. The situation is similar to that for a variety of other fringe topics. Wikipedia makes clear what the consensus and majority opinions are per WP:NPOV's undue weight clause among other issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A scientist is one who studies science. Many people look at the world and are led to the conclusion that God created it. That is science as much as evolution is. The scientific method can not be used and is not used with either assumption. Both have to do with historical events. The data we have can be interpreted many different ways. Nobody can do an experiment to test whether evolution or creation took place or could have taken place. If science were to be strictly defined as the following the scientific method to come to conclusions about how the universe works, then neither could be considered science. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you completely ignore millions of articles, tons of observations, years of academic work, lectures out of the ying yang, then yes, there has never been an "experiment" to test evolution. This is not a forum (and neither is the C-E controversey article) for you to air your general grievences with evolution. May I suggest a different venue for that? If you want to contribute to the article, great. If not, there's the door. Baegis (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Is a biologist proclaiming on physics still a scientist? Yes. Should we give a crap what they're saying about physics? No. Would you let a geologist remove your appendix because they're a scientist? No. Relevant expertise is the point, not just 'being a scientist'. WLU (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lacks Empirical support?

So does evolution, and it would seem to me that it's either evolution or creation, and considering the miniscule chances that macroevolution ever actually happened and the lack of any conclusive evidence that it did, this seems the more likely theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.242.184 (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Note to other editors - I've posted a messgae on anon's talk page referring them to Talk:Evolution/FAQ and asking that they review before posting more comments. So let's not bother debating this one. WLU (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section Creation science#Creation science partially renamed as intelligent design

I think this section is confused. It reads like two sections were merged. The quotes given from Pandas and People don't contribute to the point that there was a "renaming", and I'm interested in what the aim was there. There's a big windup but no pitch. I propose the focus on something like "Shift to Big Tent". Describe the textbook wording changes, describe the shying away from ICR-style literalism and young earth creation science and shift to ID curriculum and how it resulted from Edwards. If quotes from Pandas and People are helpful, then can we get better examples to illustrate the renaming? I'm not sure I understand how the point taken from Matzke contributes much here, or the final paragraph in the section which seems to belong somewhere else. Is it talking about ID's big tent, or the literalist, YEC creation scientists or who? Professor marginalia (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's ugly, I agree. But the previous title gave the completely false impression that the entirety of the Creation Science movement renamed themselves ID, when in fact it was a fairly small minority of the pre-existing CS movement at the time (mainly Kenyon & some like minded Creation biologists, as far as I can tell), with a large influx that was not previously associated with Creationism. I think any title needs to convey that this was only a minority (and quite likely not a very large one). I therefore don't think that "shift" is accurate either. Would 'defection' be a better characterisation? HrafnTalkStalk 11:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That's my impression as well, that individuals involved in PoP made changes to their book but most creation scientists stayed put. The relationship between creation science and intelligent design is frequently overstated I think. In a purely definitional sense there's a connection. But the CS movement is highly doctrinal, for example. No big tent there. Figures such as Johnson, Dembski and Behe don't fit within the literalist/YEC/flood geology mold intricately delineated in the CS movement. More accurate to say maybe that IDers such as Johnson adopted strategic plans from lessons learned studying CS courtroom failures, same with PoP publishers when they tweaked their product to attempt to keep it marketable. (It's not unusual for textbook publishers to come to heel like this to satisfy public education regulators-education policy drives textbook content.) It would be good to describe the connections and differences between them more clearly and accurately. I'll delve into the sources I have to see how they frame the relationship. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
How about titling the section 'Intelligent design splits off'? We can start off by mentioning those that were originally CS but moved on post-Edwards, and particularly Kenyon's renaming in Pandas. We then move onto the non-CS reinforcements from Johnson and the 'Ad Hoc Origins Committee' that formed to support him, which formed the basis of the 'Wedge movement'. And at some (which?) stage a number of YECs joining the movement (Paul Nelson being the most notable). However, everything after the CSers "move on" isn't directly about CS any more, so should be covered as briefly as possible. HrafnTalkStalk 15:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. The focus in relating ID and CS should probably concentrate on Kenyon and Thaxton. I came across this written by Numbers: "The contemporary incarnation [of ID] dates from the mid-1980s. In 1984 three Protestant scientists, Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, brought out The Mystery of Life's Origin, in which they attributed the complex process of originating life to a divine Creator. The most striking feature of their book was not its text but its foreword, contributed by Dean H. Kenyon, a Roman Catholic professor of biology at San Francisco State University and the coauthor of a major text on the chemical origins of life. Confessing that he no longer held to naturalistic evolution, Kenyon joined the authors of the book in identifying 'a fundamental flaw' in current theories about the origins of life." The "fundamental flaw" described by Kenyon was his problem with the idea of a chemically triggered primordial "origin of life" leading to the vast complexity of systems found in organisms today. Numbers goes on to say that ID coalesced into a movement proper in the mid 1990s, so maybe we can cover some of the story in the period where they (ID and CS) overlap some. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Radiometric dating

I think the whole galactic chronometer calibration [6] is a distraction, and doubt very much the article spoke to creation science - but am I wrong about that? If it doesn't, it's off topic or original research. I don't see any relevance. The difference in scale between the dates accepted by creation science (10k years) and geologists (approx 5 billion years) is so vast. Does any of the scientific tinkering to calibrate decay rate produce hypothetical values that put us within the proximity of 10K years? Of course not. So what does this research article contribute to this topic? Professor marginalia (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Electron capture can change decay rates by factors large enough (109 for 187Re and change Dysprosium (I think) from unstable to stable) to cover a 5 order of magnitude difference. While there has not been any similar variation seen for other decay modes, the magnitude of change measured is relevant. Dan Watts (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you present a WP:RS attesting to this happening outside a stellar interior? If not, it is largely irrelevant to the question at hand. HrafnTalkStalk 01:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, you posted the reference yourself. Read it. The scientists created the electronless 187Re, and it was not created in a stellar interior. Dan Watts (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
We should not argue over the question of whether something is scientifically plausible or not, but on whether or not creation scientists claim it to be the case. If so, we can document their claims; if not, not. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 02:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
"The scientists created the electronless 187Re" -- this would be an ionised gas, i.e. a plasma, which "typically takes the form of neutral gas-like clouds (e.g. stars)" and thus are not typically observed in nature under planetary conditions (for more than the briefest of moments -- e.g. lightning strikes). They are thus likewise irrelevant for accounting for the age of rocks and fossils found on a planet. With the exception of the TalkOrigins ref, none of these references directly relate alterations of decay rates to creationist claims, and none of them whatsoever give any indication that the necessary conditions might exist for sustained periods under planetary (let alone habitable planetary) conditions -- an absolute necessity for them to be relevant. HrafnTalkStalk 11:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Wdanwatts-this is your argument, not an argument made in the 187Re research study. Rhenium dating techniques are just one type of radiometric decay being explored to develop age estimates, and a relatively new one on the scene. You've offered an argument, and here's mine which I've concluded from britannica. "[187Re decay] shows promise as a means of studying mantle–crust evolution but has displayed only limited potential for isotopic dating", in other words, [7] is one cherry picked study about one cherry picked radiometric scientists have long acknowledged needs much more study to use for reliable dating, and a scheme not even in wide use yet anyway. That means it just lends distracting background noise in this article about creation science. But WP:SYNTH applies here--neither your understanding of the significance to this one research study nor mine matters. Does this study directly address some claim about creation science? If not we can't use it to source a claim here. If you have sources that directly associate this study to claims made in creation science we should use those. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Such as [Creation Matters Vol 6 No.2 page 8] "They discovered that radioactive Dysprosium and Rhenium do decay up to one billion times faster" ? Would that be sufficient? Dan Watts (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Is that a reference to the same study? Bosh is Bosch?? Hmmm, okay. Anyway, none of it is used properly in the article. What's happened is that a claim taken from Isaak has been stretched by inserting commentary or caveat that doesn't come from Isaak and adding WP:SYNTH to Bosch. That isn't describing a controversy or making a claim, it is cobbling an argument over it. Not allowed. I'll edit appropriately. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The Answers in Genesis web page references the 187Re papers as background for the RATE research. What is WP:SYNTH about this?
AiG is not a reliable source for interpretation of scientific findings. Specifically, it is not a WP:RS for claims that the cited results could render radiometric dating inaccurate. The speeding up of radioactive decay is only in terms of ionised plasmas, whereas from what I've read even the temperatures and pressures involved in the creation metamorphic rocks 'resets' the radiometric clock (as does melting the rock as magma) -- therefore these conditions would quite simply not apply to any rock being measured. Because of this, I would expect a solid scientific source linking the cited effect to radiometric dating before I would consider it something that could be added to the article. And by a member of the RATE team's own admission there are no YEC Experimental Geochronologists. HrafnTalkStalk 16:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
AiG is a reliable source for the establishment of the fact that the referenced papers, which show that decay rates can change, form a basis for investigation into other possible modes of decay rate change, e.g. that radioactive decay rates are not immutable, and study of the energy/pressure parameters which define how much the decay rates can change is a (possibly) fruitful avenue of investigation. Q.E.D. Dan Watts (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's a reliable source for the young earth creationist theological position on the matter, and that's it. . . dave souza, talk 17:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(bing!)Indeed, AiG is only a reliable source for what AiG believes, they're not a reliable source for anything else. The sources they cite are hard to track down, it'd be nice to see the original research they spring from. AiG is certainly not a reliable source for an accurate representation of scientific data. This should be portrayed only as AiG believes, not as a serious challenge to radiometric dating. AiG is a fringe source on a fringe topic; something as upsetting as a valid challenge to the use of radiometric dating must surely be discussed in a peer reviewed physics journal somewhere. WLU (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if one would read the references (which have been rendered invisible) the FACTS concerning 187Re could be discussed. Or one could look at the on-line article referenced by Talk-Origins (always acknowledged as RS) (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/decay_rates.html) which states: "Also, a recent paper measures a 0.8% reduction in half-life for Be-7 atoms enclosed within C60 cages." (no extremes of temperature or ionization needed). Dan Watts (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
For us to review the references and say they support, or don't support the creationist argument would be original research and including them can give the impression that they do. To include the commented references is up for discussion (I'm inclined to believe they should be left out for the former reason and that they're somewhat irrelevant to the page unless they specifically and explicitly refer to creationism). The T-O reference is out - a 0.8% reduction in half-life is a far cry from a 10-fold order of magnitude change. Much like medical sources and pages, we can't use primary sources to debunk secondary. WLU (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not talking about editors being judge or jury on the merits of arguments. I am discussing adding references, used by AiG (and CRS) as background for their research, which clearly show that nuclear decay rates can change (necessary conditions and amounts variable). The references are mentioned in AiG (and CRS) papers/websites. The referenced papers are true, properly referenced, actual papers whose contents discuss measured decay rates and their constancy (or lack thereof). Perhaps I misunderstand the basis for the article. I thought that it was to clearly state/display Creation science, both as advertised by its proponents and as reviewed/deconstructed by its detractors. Where there is evidence, for either camp, show it. Please describe what in this approach is non-aligned with the policy of Wikipedia. Dan Watts (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Which makes them suitable for the radio decay page, but only in AiG's opinion does this prove or provide any evidence for young earth creationism. They aren't evidence for the creationist position, only that in certain circumstances does a radio decay rate change. Do they mention creationism? If so, they might be added. The policy they'd be out of keeping with is WP:OR, more specifically, WP:SYNTH - "AiG has claimed radio decay rates can changes AND some of the research has been discussed in reliable sources THEREFORE AiG has a point." AiG only has a point in its own opinion; we referenced that in the citation to the page. The references are in that citation, where readers can refer to them (if they can find them, they seem pretty obscure). WLU (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)