Talk:Flood geology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flood geology article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
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.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Obvious bias

In reading the article, a bias and indeed contempt is clearly obvious, flying in the face of what should be a neutral and impartial presentation of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VertigoGames (talk • contribs) 08:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please cite specific and substantiated instances of partiality. Vague and unsubstantiated accusations, such as your one above, are "as useful as tits on a bull." Please also read WP:UNDUE. HrafnTalkStalk 08:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I would like to offer my appreciation to Art Carlson and all the other contributors for their discussion on this worthy topic. I understand that what is being discussed here is highly contentious and I would like to strongly encourage all to "do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves" (Philippians 2:3). With this in mind I confess that I am not an expert in these matters, however in my humble opinion I would like to point out an example that I believe may contravene NPOV. I believe that Paragraph 2 typifies an unfairness in tone in this article. In particular I consider phrases such as "routinely been evaluated, refuted and dismissed unequivocally" as "Peacock Terms" (refer WP:APT). Further attributing this refutation and dismissal to the "Scientific Community" in its entirety could be considered a "Weasel Word" (refer WP:AWT) and is in contradiction with WP's own article on Scientific Community where it states that "there are no singular bodies which can be said today to speak for all of science". Such a paragraph biases this article in a number of ways including: (1) implying that Flood Geologists are not members of the Scientific Community therefore making this a de facto debate between faith and science; (2) it asserts a number of opinions as fact (refer WP:ASF) including that Creation views of Flood Geology are false and consequently that currently held evolutionary theories are true. It is my recommendation that this paragraph be deleted and further efforts be made to ensure that a dispassionate and neutral tone be carried throughout this article.Siyrtur (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. Flood geologists are not members of the scientific community, they are members of the Christian apologetics community. Their organisations require acceptance of Statements of Faith. They provide no useful scientific research, merely apologetic arguments for a rigid sectarian religious doctrine.
  2. Flood geology is false. That there was no global Genesis Flood, and that the Earth is billions of years old is well-established science. Per WP:UNDUE, wikipedia should not give undue weight to unsubstantiated and unscientific opinions to the contrary.
  3. None of the words you are complaining about are "peacock terms" in the context of WP:PEACOCK. They are however an accurate characterisation of the shear mind-numbing repetitiveness with which creationist arguments are reused, the complete lack of legitimate evidentiary basis for them, and the thoroughness with which their refutation has been documented (in books, articles, webpages & lectures).

HrafnTalkStalk 14:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well we have evidence for the standard accepted theories in geology, and no evidence or evidence that contradicts the flood geology theories. And well in excess of 99% of all geologists reject flood geology, so I would say that is a pretty clear sign of the position of the "scientific community" on this issue. What NPOV states is that the views must be presented in relation to their prominence. Now the flood geology interpretation of the data is a teeny tiny minority WP:FRINGE view, and by this policy, should be less than 1% of the space in this article. We are more generous than that, but we are just following WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This is not a "geology" article, so the 99% vs 1% doesn't apply here. 99% of all "flood geologists" accept flood geology. Therefore the current "scientific consensus" is the minority/fringe view here. On another tack, Wikipedia is not a science reference - the content should take the general public's views into account to some degree. rossnixon 01:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
By that logic, in an article on 'Flat Earth' we should take the view of Flat-Earth-believers as the 'majority' view. This is an absurd argument. Flood Geology purports to be science, therefore the article should reflect the mainstream scientific view of the topic. Flood Geologists can't have it both ways -- they can't proclaim this (essentially religious) belief to be 'science', and expect it to not be assessed from a scientific viewpoint. HrafnTalkStalk 03:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn I think that you miss the point. Sure the terms I highlighted are not noted specifically in WP:Peacock however that document is not prescriptive. The nature of a “peacock term” is that the word or phrase is not sufficiently specific and that it grandstands about a particular opinion, which is exactly as you have portrayed it. Please be specific! If you have verifiable instances where creation arguments have been put forward and repudiated within legitimate scholarly debate and reported in reputable sources then state that with a valid citation.
Similarly Filll, if you can provide a valid source where 99% of geologists reject flood geology (or even some other percentage) FANTASTIC please put it in the article.
I think that to overcome the inherent contention in this aspect of the discussion perhaps we should confine our descriptions of those in favour of Flood Geology as either Flood Geologists or proponents of Flood Geology. These terms neither infer that they are scientific nor that they are unscientific just that they refer to themselves as Flood Geologists. Similarly when describing an opponent of Flood Geology, if they are a Geologist then describe then as a Geologist, if they are Evolutionary Bologists then describe them as such. Reference to the “Scientific Community” as a collective noun is unhelpful because the term includes those whose expertise has no relevance to this topic (i.e. computer science) nor does it give those whose expertise are relevant sufficient credence.
I also agree with rossnixon about “undue weight”. I believe that if this was an article about the more general topic of “geology” then both Hrafn and Filll would have a legitimate point. However as Flood Geology is the sole topic of this article then its purpose is to describe what the key tenets of Flood Geology are, who the key proponents and opponents are and the context in which it exists. This article is not the place to assert that Flood Geology is true, nor that it is false. My aim in this particular discussion is not to debate which point of view is correct, simply that this article maintains the key policies of WP. If some choose to believe that Flood Geology is true, then good luck to them, if others believe that it is all bunkum then good for them. I believe that as it is hailed in WP:NPOV, “Let the facts speak for themselves”.Siyrtur (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait I think you are missing the point. We have policies and principles on WP that we follow. One of those is WP:FRINGE. Flood geology is definitely a FRINGE subject and topic. And it should be treated accordingly. That means we need a good sized helping of the mainstream views from the relevant discipline in the article. Now you cannot claim that "flood geology" should not be viewed as part of science or geology, when the proponents of "flood geology" have clearly gone out of their way to adopt the terminology of geology and ape the methods of geology, and to claim that geology supports their biblical literalism. By this argument, no belief could ever be described as a FRINGE belief since within their community, it is the majority opinion. That just will not fly. Flood geologists claim that science supports their interpretation of the bible. And mainstream scientists disagree, at least currently. So that should be recognized in this article. That is just reality; it might change in the future, and it was different in the past, but that is current reality. Why would we try to hide that?--Filll (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflicted parallel reply to Filll's]

  • I disagree -- "routinely been evaluated, refuted and dismissed unequivocally" has very specific meaning. They specifically mean (as I mentioned above) "the shear mind-numbing repetitiveness with which creationist arguments are reused, the complete lack of legitimate evidentiary basis for them, and the thoroughness with which their refutation has been documented (in books, articles, webpages & lectures)."
  • You want specifics? Well how about the ENTIRE literature on Geochronology, the ENTIRE literature on plate tectonics, the ENTIRE literature on physical cosmology, and probably dozens of other fields that directly contradict the Flood Geology position. I won't be putting them into the article because to even reference a tiny fraction of them would be longer than the existing article. Please read WP:NPOVFAQ#Making necessary assumptions.
  • We should most certainly present Flood Geologists as "unscientific" -- they are advocating claims that are widely regarded as unscientific, and have been explicitly rejected both by the scientific community (including a long list of Nobel Prize winners) and the United States Supreme Court.
  • The "scientific community" typically defers to the opinions of those that are expert in the field in question. Your argument is therefore wholly specious.
  • I suggest that you read WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience & WP:FRINGE. Flood Geology has been debunked by the scientific community, and any meaningful article must make prominent mention of the fact.

HrafnTalkStalk 14:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I totally agree with you when you state that I cannot claim that "Flood Geology" is not a part of science or geology. In fact if you go back to my original statement I was arguing for their inclusion. Now I also understand that you consider "Flood Geology" as a fringe science topic but WP:Fringe also explicitly states that Creationism (and subsequently Flood Geology as a "prominent subset") should be evaluated on a scientific AND a theological basis (see "Evaluating Scientific and Non-Scientific Claims") and from a theological perspective the belief in a world-wide flood is definitely not a fringe topic. Therefore a clear, dispassionate and BALANCED explanation of the claims for and against the Flood as explored by Flood Geology is necessary.
Hrafn, My, my, you do have a talent for hyperbole! As a compromise I propose the following text in the place of the current version of Para 2:

Flood Geology is one of a number of controversial topics which are regularly debated between evolutionary scientists and creationists. Leading publications espousing Flood Geology include "Answers in Genesis" [1] and "Creation ex Nihili Magazine" [2] whereas the claims of Flood Geology are regularly refuted by leading journals in evolutionary biology, geology and paleontology including "Nature Magazine" [3] and "Science Magazine" [4]. Further complicating the debate is the fact that this controversy is not necessarily divided along religious and scientific lines with a number of churches accepting that a world-wide flood may not have occurred and the scientific community being likewise divided. As observed by the American Science Affiliation "Today's spirited discussion often pits Christian vs. Christian and scientist vs. scientist" [5].

I think this new paragraph recognises the existence of the debate, who the key groups are, and a number of verifiable sources from both sides of the fence. This now allows the interested reader to access the debate from primary and secondary sources where they can make up their own mind. Would you agree?Siyrtur (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that there is no debate, except in the minds of the Creationists. The scientific community is not "similarly divided." It is worth pointing out that the reference you cite for the existence of a debate is an unapologetically Creationist group. Perhaps the proposed addition should be adjusted to reflect this: "Creationist groups such as the American Science Affiliation claim that there is a debate within the scientific community as to the occurrence of a world-wide flood." At least this gives appropriate attribution that the POV being presented is hardly a neutral one. silly rabbit (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Silly rabbit, the proposed paragraph is a gross violation of WP:UNDUE in that it pretends a false equivalence between science and the religious dogma of Creationism. I also object to applying the adjective "evolutionary" to scientists who oppose Creationism, many of whom are not involved in fields that directly deal with "evolutionary" mechanisms. HrafnTalkStalk 16:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


Even in religious circles, those who believe in a literal worldwide flood are a minority, as near as I can determine. So this is a FRINGE belief both scientifically and theologically, at least at the moment.--Filll (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent (2004? 2003?) ABC News poll[1] of 1,011 adults. 60 percent believe in the story of Noah's ark, the global flood, and God's covenant to never destroy the Earth again. Looks more like MAJORITY view! But this will be a minority view if the rest of the english speaking world is surveyed. But "fringe", surely not! rossnixon 01:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It is almost as difficult to justify relying on the viewpoint of the uninformed masses on points of theology as it is on points of science. In dealing with the theological aspects of creationism (which should not attempt to obfuscate its complete lack of scientific foundation), the range of learned theological positions, both opposed to an accepting, should be given WP:DUE weight. A good starting point would be the opinions of Augustine of Hippo on the literal interpretation of Genesis.

Silly Rabbit, WP even has an article Creation-evolution controversy. You can't serious say that there is not an ongoing debate??! I can see that the matter is clearly decided in your mind but yet in the public arena the discussion goes on... With regards to my citation from the ASA, perhaps you need to read it. The ASA is an association of scientists (Science Degree minimum for membership) who state, "The ASA has no official position on evolution; its members hold a diversity of views with varying degrees of intensity". So I totally reject your assessment of the neutrality of this source. My only concession to you and Hrafn on this paragraph would be to substitute "modern secular scientist" as opposed to "evolutionary scientist".
Hrafn, Your reading of WP:Undue is completely inaccurate. "Undue weight" talks of minority views not religion vs science. WP:Fringe in fact states that this subject must consider both the religious and the scientific aspects of this matter equally.
Filll, perhaps you might want to examine the Chapter 4 of the Westminster Confession of Faith [6] which articulates a literal interpretation of Creation. This document is the founding creed upon which all Presbyterian and Reformed Protestant churchs are founded including many independent and Baptist churchs. These churches are mainstream churches therefore the belief in a literal flood could hardly be considered fringe.
Unsigned, I hope my reference to the founding creeds of major churches as a step in the right direction. I think that you are have made a good point in suggesting that the range of 'learned' theological positions should be explored. Siyrtur (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The ASA is explicitly Creationist: 'It should be well known to readers of the Journal ASA that the ASA does not take an official position on controversial questions. Creation is not a controversial question. I have no hestancy in affirming, "We believe in creation," for every ASA member.' [2] Nice try, though. silly rabbit (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, if you would care to read the article on Creation-evolution controversy, you would see that the "controversy" in question is between the scientific consensus on the one hand (coming down nearly unanimously in favor of the modern theory of evolution) and religious zealots on the other hand who espouse a doctrine of creation. There is zero controversy within the scientific mainstream. So, again, nice try, but it isn't going to fly. silly rabbit (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I see not much more in your posts than confusion and ignorance. Molleen Matsumura of the National Center for Science Education found, of Americans in the twelve largest Christian denominations, at least 77% belong to churches that support evolution education (and that at one point, this figure was as high as 89.6%).Matsumura 1998, p. 9 notes that, "Table 1 demonstrates that Americans in the 12 largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education! Indeed, many of the statements in Voices insist quite strongly that evolution must be included in science education and "creation science" must be excluded. Even if we subtract the Southern Baptist Convention, which has changed its view of evolution since McLean v Arkansas and might take a different position now, the percentage those in denominations supporting evolution is still a substantial 77%. Furthermore, many other Christian and non-Christian denominations, including the United Church of Christ and the National Sikh Center, have shown some degree of support for evolution education (as defined by inclusion in 'Voices' or the "Joint Statement")." Matsumura produced her table from a June, 1998 article titled Believers: Dynamic Dozen put out by Religion News Services which in turn cites the 1998 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches. Matsurmura's calculations include the SBC based on a brief they filed in McLean v. Arkansas, where the SBC took a position it has since changed, according to Matsurmura. See also NCSE 2002. These churches include the United Methodist Church, National Baptist Convention, USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), National Baptist Convention of America, African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, and others.

Also, as Steve Sailer points out, it is also not clear how firmly held the public beliefs in creationism are.[7] Most creationist claims require a literal reading of Genesis and a belief in biblical inerrancy. However, not all Americans seem to subscribe to biblical literalism. For example, among the 15% that are evangelical Protestants, only 47.8% believe that the Bible is literally true, and 6.5% believe that the Bible is an ancient book full of history and legends. Only about 11% of Catholics and mainline Protestants believe the Bible is literally true, and only 9% of Jews believe the Torah is literally true. About 20% of Catholics and Protestants reported that the Bible is a book of history and legends, and 52.6% of Jewish respondents felt the same about the Torah. These figures make it clear that a large fraction of Christians and Jews do not subscribe to the necessary beliefs to adopt many creationist principles wholeheartedly.[8]

However, most Christians believe in God as Creator, while also accepting scientific evolution as a natural process.[9] A minority of Christians rejected evolution from its outset as "heresy", but most attempted to reconcile scientific evolution with Biblical accounts of creation.[10] Islam accepts the natural evolution of plants and animals, but the origin of man is contested and no consensus has emerged.[11]

I would also direct you to Clergy Letter Project.

[edit] References

The bottom line is those who believe in biblical literalism are a teeny tiny obscure minority. They are most prominent in the US, but even in the US they are a tiny minority and worldwide, they are nothing; vanishingly small fraction of Christians. Roman Catholicism has explicitly forbid biblical literalism for a long time (decades? centuries?). Origen, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, and Maimonides all explicitly rejected biblical literalism. They are joined by a huge number of others. In scholarly circles, this is not a serious discussion, and has not been one for well over 1000 years.--Filll (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
You may need to look at that bottom line some more. "By any measure, the United States remains a highly religious nation, compared to other developed countries. Its citizens tend to hold more conservative beliefs. For example, the percentage of adults who believe that "the Bible is the actual word of God and it is to be taken literally, word for word" is 5 times higher in the U.S. than in Britain. Church attendance is about 4 times higher in the U.S. than it is in Britain. 1 Similarly, according to one opinion poll, belief that "Human beings developed from earlier species of animals..." is much smaller in the United States (35%) than in other countries (as high as 82%)."[12] Dan Watts (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The whole artical seems fairly one sided and not quite balanced...

That is just an observation. Perhaps this is okay and simply presenting the reality of the situation, or maybe it doesn't appear this way to most individuals. --Emesee (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE & WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience. HrafnTalkStalk 05:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] YECism

The article seems preoccupied with the views of Young Earth Creationism. But surely Old Earthers equally accept the idea of a literal flood? Do they not have any developed theories of flood geology? Just curious. PiCo (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

See Old Earth creationism. Most OECs do not assume a world-wide flood, but rather interpret the Genesis passages to refer to a local flood (global only in the sense of affecting "all the known Earth"). Of course you will find kooks of any description, but most OECs seem to be ready to accept most of science. They are unshaven, but not totally gaga. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Flood geology and YEC have been synonymous throughout their history. Disputes between YEC/OEC within creationist 'scientific' organisations have historically been mainly about whether FG should be an article of faith. HrafnTalkStalk 13:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. That's quite enlightening. PiCo (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)