Talk:Creation science/Archive 5

Problems with the intro

A couple of points. First, the term "fundamentalist" is not a perjorative term depending on the context. In this context, it refers simply to someone who takes the view that Biblical Creation is fundamentally correct. Referring to people as "conservative" Christians is not factually correct and is unsupported by any evidence. Conservatism is a political viewpoint and the article is about religious views. While it is true that the majority of Fundamentalist Christians are politically conservative, there is nothing to suggest that all of them are. Therefore, describing Fundamentalist Christians as "conservative" is an unsupported claim.

Also, the statement that there are non-Christians who endorse Creation Science is not supported and highly questionable. While it isn't possible to say that all supporters of Creation Science are Christians, there isn't a single shred of evidence provided that even one non-Christian supports it. Until and unless there is, the statement should be considered unsupported and misleading.--JonGwynne 02:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Creation science is supported by a variety of theologically conservative Christians, including Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals/Charismatics and others (and there are significant differences, even if you'd like to mass them all together). The Associated Press, in recognition of the pejorative nature of the term "fundamentalist" as it is often used, says in their stylebook only to use the term for those who use it for themselves. Making this the Wikipedia policy would be a good way to get the NPOV we all desire. Thus I'm removing the POV once again. Pollinator 03:37, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

However, the way the intro is phrased, it implies that non-Christians support CS which is extremely doubtful. Again, "fundamentalist" is not a pejorative term - it is used by Christians to describe themselves. For this reason, it is not POV despite your unsupported insistence to the contrary. --JonGwynne 15:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your rewrite is even more POV than the start. I've therefore reverted it, along with a vandalized link. Pollinator 20:10, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Most POV is the sentence (which I changed) that states that CS rejects information. Specifically CS will reject interpretations of data, but it is highly pejorative to suggest that CS will reject data. Dan Watts 17:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better if you defined the difference. It seems pretty clear and unambiguous that CS supporters reject data - data for example that have to do with the age of the universe.--JonGwynne 19:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you could understand that photons are not rejected as being non-existant. Dan Watts 21:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, your point is? --JonGwynne 18:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My point, elucidated by the example I wrote above: measuring light from distant stars (photons) is DATA. Someone, using Hubble red-shift, "standard candle" apparent brightness objects, etc. converts the measurement (DATA) to an age (THEORY). The CS rejection concerns the THEORY items, not DATA. Was that clear? Dan Watts 20:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, that is much clearer. What I hear you saying is that Creation Science proponents reject the conclusions drawn from data collected by astronomers that strongly suggests that the universe is more than ~6,000 years old and that they reject these conclusions because they conflict with the letter of Genesis? Is my analysis correct? --JonGwynne 01:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Dan Watts 01:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, then what's the problem? The CS advocates are not only rejecting interpretations of data, they're also rejecting data - why? Because they conflict with the writings of people several thousand years ago who didn't have the same understanding of physics and chemistry that we do today. Is my analysis correct? --JonGwynne 00:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What DATA is being rejected? I'm NOT talking about interpretations, but DATA. Measurements. Volts, amps, photons. Dan Watts 01:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about the age of the earth for one thing? Leaving red-shifts aside for a moment, geologists have demonstrated how to determine the age of the earth and while they may not have established the age to absolute precision, they've conclusively demonstrated that however old the earth may be, it is vastly older than Biblical Creationists believe it to be using Genesis as the basis for their claim. In other words, it is simply impossible to take Genesis literally without ignoring some basic facts about how the world works. That's why the Creationists have started coming up with desperate rationalizations like arguing about how long the initial "Seven Days" of creation lasted... These people haven't yet figured out that Genesis is a parable and not meant to be taken literally. --JonGwynne 07:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

O.K., look at the determination of the age of the Earth. "[C. C.] Patterson developed the uranium-lead dating method and, based on lead and uranium isotopic data from the meteorite Canyon Diablo [which is associated with the Barringer Crater ], calculated an age for the Earth of 4.55 billion years." CS takes issue with the assumptions (THEORY) necessary to make the uranium-lead calculated age. CS does not reject the uranium and lead isotopic DATA from the meteorite. Next? Dan Watts 15:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All well and good but to continue to insist that the earth is only ~6,000 years old requires the rejection of data. Even Christian scientists like Dr. Roger Wiens are being forced to disappoint those who want to take Genesis literally by explaining to them how it simply isn't possible. --JonGwynne 00:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No. It requires the rejection of an interpretation of data. The calculation of age for rocks is not data. The calculation of age is (hopefully) based upon data. There is no (known to me) 'timeometer' which measures age. What rejected DATA (density, relative abundances, counts of 'X', etc.) are you speaking of? Dan Watts 15:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All data is subject to interpretation. It's what Hume described as "sensory input" and Kant described as "phenomena". None of them have any meaning except by means of interpretation. When it is said that creationists reject data, it is necessary that they are rejecting interpretation of a phenomenon. Data itself is the interpretation of sensory input. So your playing with semantics is meaningless. Creationists reject both the content of rocks that are dated and the radiometric measurements of the content of those rocks. Thus they reject the data. Joshuaschroeder 16:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I deny that the measured contents of rocks or the radiometric measurements are rejected, but due to the number of times that I have stated it, I will not argue the point any more. Dan Watts 19:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your denial of this fact is noted, but I have seen more than a few creationist sites purporting to show that the way that isotope contents of rocks are measured is wrong. Joshuaschroeder 20:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Assumptions do not make a theory. you're playing with the meaning of the word here.

JonGwynne is right of course - "creation scientists" reject all conclusions in the mainstream peer-reviewed scientific literature incompatible with their views. I've amended the wording accordingly. Wikipedia is about the real world, not about the situation as this or any other cult would define it. Ian Pitchford 12:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter — 'tis the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning." - Mark Twain [1]. The difference between rejecting data and rejecting interpretations OF data is at least that large. What JonGwynne wrote is wrong. However, even though I personally don't care for the choice of the word "knowledge" in the sentence in question, I will not challenge (nor change) the sentence as it stands. Dan Watts 14:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above was written before JonGwynne's latest change. I retract my decision on the sentence as JonGwynne has left it. Dan Watts 20:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "Its proponents are mostly conservative Christians, although there are other supporters" is completely unacceptable. Here's why: First, it is inaccurate. Describing fundamentalist Christians as "conservative" is inaccurate. Not all of them are conservative. Besides, conservatism is a political qualifier, not a religious one. Second, the phrasing implies that there are supportes of Creation Science other than Christians and that is a highly questionable assertion without any support. Therefore, I have removed it (again). Please do not reinstate it unless you can provide support for these highly questionably claims.--JonGwynne 00:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Newest rewrite proposal

I have edited the /Phantym rewrite proposal to remove about half of the challenges to evolutionism. I also added a challenge to creationism by evolutionists [there are now 5]. Those 13 represent the most prominent issues on both sides, and every one of them has criticism from the opposite side as well as an article linked discussing the issue in more detail from a scientific perspective.

I also removed some unneded stuff, like the discussion of creationist cosmologies, which is duplicated in the main article.

I could see cut some more things down. For example, the main issues could be articles in and of themselves, and that process could be achieved without too much difficulty.

I have also changed the section discussing how scientists on both sides have been quick to find evidence supproting their theories, in some cases too quick. That section is now labelled "finding what they are looking for" and has two examples from each side now.

Note that the rewrite contains approx. half of the current article within it.

-Phantym

Why are you still here. Shouldn't you be off ripping up textbooks somewhere? Bensaccount

Why are you attacking Phantym? Isn't that considered bad form? Dan Watts 19:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bad form is spreading propaganda without any regard for reality. I am merely suggesting an alternate activity, which I am sure you and Phantym would enjoy more. Bensaccount 19:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What's the problem with calling Fundamentalist Christians Fundamentalist Christians?

Why do some people object to this? --JonGwynne 07:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It has become a derisive label, especially following the rise of fundamentalist islam. It is covers only some of the Christian groups who believe in Creation and the Bible. A "broader" term is "evangelicals" or "conservative Christians". (so I've changed it to that). RossNixon 08:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who cares if it isn't "PC"? The fact is that it is an accurate description of a group of people. You know how I know this? Because these people refer to themselves as Fundamentalist Christians. It isn't a dirty word in all situations. --JonGwynne 19:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ross is right, but there's more, as I've already explained. Why the frenetic desire to place a label? 99% of the time, when people try to apply the label, they have little real idea of what a fundamentalist Christian is. The three main groups in this arena are Evangelicals (including those within "mainline" churches), Pentecostals, and Fundamentalists, but there are others as well. Some Jews are young earth creationists, as are some Muslims. Then again, some Evangelicals are old earth creationists, and some are evolutionary creationists, neither of which would advocate "creation science," as it's commonly understood. The real question is, why are you so compulsive about pigeonholing? Pollinator 09:04, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

This is an encylopedia article - it is all about putting labels on things. --JonGwynne 19:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stop wasting everyones time Pollinator. We all know you think your interpretation of every word in the sacred texts is literal truth. It is only a matter of time until you say so straight out. Why beat around the bush? Bensaccount 23:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please shut up, Bensaccount. Attacking people is frowned upon on Wikipedia. And Pollinator's personal feelings should not matter. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Any editor should be aware of his or her own POV.

As an aside, Bensaccount, would you be willing to initiate banning procedures yourself, or are you honestly expecting someone else to bother. -- Ec5618 23:25, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I no longer wish to be banned, as I am enjoying making some progressive edits to the intro. And Pollinators personal feelings (ie that fundamentalists are being "pigeonholed") don't matter at all, since they are unfounded and biased. Bensaccount 23:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stick to Wikipedia:Civility or you'll find your comments simply get deleted.

I sure hope not. Deleting other people's commnents is simple censorship and completely unacceptable conduct here on the disussion board. If I find any situations in which one person deletes or modifies the statements of another, I'll revert it with some stern admonishments of the guilty party. *EVERYONE* gets their say here and no one has the right to censor it. The only person who gets to modify or delete a statement is the person who made it. --JonGwynne 19:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not if they are breaking Wikipedia's rules. If you have a problem with that, you need to take it to the policy pages and argue the case for changing the policy. Joe D (t) 20:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Show me where it explicitly says in wikipedia policy that one user is allowed to censor another user if they don't like what that user says. The only way this talk page works is if everything gets to have their say freely - that includes statements that other people may find objectionable. --JonGwynne 15:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Read above, again, carefully, and stop wasting time with straw men. Joe D (t) 16:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You'll notice that I don't delete your rude and pompous statements - why? Because it simply isn't appropriate. --JonGwynne 05:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, since you're so attached to the straw man I'll leave you to it, but before I do, I'll leave you with the thought that deliberately mischaracterising somebody's argument (or not even bothering to read what somebody has said before replying, whichever it is) is rude, and, when the original comments are there for everybody to see that they bear no resemblance to your reply, is bewilderingly pointless. Joe D (t) 14:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now, onto fundamentalism. While this particular use of the word may or may not be correct, I think Fundamentalist Christianity (in the original rather than more general use) needs to be mentioned, because it has always been amoungst the most vociferous anti-evolution groups. I have read several authors on this matter claim that without the Fundamentalist movement creationism would be much less of an issue than it is today, and I'll try and look up the references for the claim sometime this week (Julian Huxley and Daniel Dennett's names come to mind). Joe D (t) 23:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see that a lot of people have strong feeling about this subject, but so far no one has made anything even approaching a convincing case that it is wrong to call Fundamentalist Christians by the name they have given themselves. Also, it is compeltely valid to mention Fundamentalist Christianity in this page. Since there is already an article about it in wikipedia, to not link this article to it would be wrong.--JonGwynne 19:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no particular problem with the current wording (but I am also used to reading what Bensaccount writes concerning me). If someone believes the current wording to be inaccurate, then perhaps that issue should be discussed. Dan Watts 20:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with the accuracy of the current wording. I do have a problem with the intended meaning of the line. Since this line is supposed to describe, in a nutshell, where 'Creation science's' proponents can be found, I slightly object to the current wording, as I feel it should also mention the fact that even within these groups, many people do not believe in CS. -- Ec5618 20:32, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'll take a stab at that. --JonGwynne 15:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the same reason that many people object to being called an evolutionist. It has a lot of negative connotations surrounding it. Falphin 23:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Though it is true that some proponents of Creation science call themselves 'Fundamentalist Christians', in my experience, most do not. 'Fundamentalist' does have a negative connotation to many people and therefore should probably be avoided in blanket statements such as those often used here. Like some people have pointed out, there are more brands of Christians that support Creation science, such as Evangelicals and Pentecostals. The most public proponents of Creation science do not call themselves 'Fundamentalist'; rather, that is a label given them by critics. istill316 16:04, 14 Jun 2005 (EST)

So what's the problem of calling bugs, bugs?

The responses to the above section on fundamentalists show that, for at least one person, there are subtlties too difficult to grasp. Perhaps it can be explained by analogy. A child, an illiterate, or a pesticide salesman might be able to get away with equating insects and bugs. But not a Wikipedia editor...a Wikipedia editor would speak of Hemiptera (the bugs) and the many other orders of insects. Now I don't know if a dragonfly (of Odonata), or a bee (of Hymenoptera) would be insulted by being called a "bug" but even more important, neither of them is a bug. Fundamentalists are a part of young earth creationism and the closely related creation science, and a few are quite vocal about it, but they are not the only group that has representatives that adhere to this view; in fact, they probably are not the majority. The current wording of the article now admits a variety, so I have left it alone. Pollinator 17:16, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

These are the YECists. You don't expect them to know any biology do you? Dunc|☺ 18:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A special note to Ben

What gives you the right to assume things about my beliefs that I have not stated? Note carefully that I have never edited the content of creation science, except to challenge the innacurate characterization of who advocates it. Did you hear that, or is that too subtle for you? Pollinator 17:16, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I base this assumption on your past contributions.

No you didn't. You based it on your own jumping to a conclusion. I've seen it in some young journalists, who only half listen as they interview a news source, then go back to the office and write the story they had in their mind beforehand.

Also, note the context of the remark. I was trying to get you to stop beating around the bush and make your point. Generally it seems your remarks were merely attempting to avoid any objective description. Bensaccount 21:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope. I was trying to make things more accurate and clear, but you did not want to listen. I was telling you that there are many varieties of insects, some of which would threaten the survival of humankind, if we managed to exterminate them. You were saying, "If it has six legs and it moves, it's a detestable 'bug,' (or shall we say: hellfire-and-brimstone-bible-thumper?) and it must be squashed."

My wish for you is that you gain some maturity, learn to listen, learn to distiguish among the great variety that exists, and learn to form opinions only after you've learned the facts. Pollinator 00:51, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I am not mature? I don't listen? I don't distiguish among variety? I form opinions not based on facts? Make all the assumptions you want Pollinator. This is not a newspaper report, and my comment was addressed to you, so if it was incorrect you merely could have corrected me. Currently, I still stand by my assumption. It would be quite easy for you to state your own beliefs and put this all to rest. And yes, CS advocates often do think their interpretation of every word in the sacred texts is literal truth. That is almost the definition of CS. So yes calling them fundamentalists (among other things) is objective. As for your musing about bugs...stop beating around the bush. Bensaccount 01:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a place for this kind of discussion. Please take your petty squabling there: WP:SB -- Ec5618 08:57, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Careful with your edit summaries

"Serial vandal" is not an acceptable term to describe other editors whose opinions you disagree with; it is considered a form of personal attack. And no, just because you may find any particular editor disagreeable is not in itself justification for labeling them a 'vandal.' FeloniousMonk 22:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as this comment seems to be addressed to me, I will respond. I did call Bensaccount a 'serial vandal', only after he had repeatedly vandalised the main article. He had replaced sections of the article with nonsense. I see no problem with calling a serial vandal, a serial vandal. Had this 'other editor' disagreed, and had he taken his disagreement to the Talk page, there would have been no problem. Unless, of course, he had vandalised the Talk page.

I will continue to call vandals vandals, and repeat offenders serial vandals. It is my silent hope that such clarity in wording will attract administrators. -- Ec5618 22:54, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Others have used the term in recent edit histories as well. If I remember correctly, no personal attacks is a policy, whereas discuss your edits/reverts first is a guideline. Nor does choosing to not discuss on the Talk page constitute vandalism. See: WP:Vandalism, WP:Civility. You may want to reconsider your stance; your wish that your choice of words will attract administrators will likely come true if you continue, but not likely in the way you hope. FeloniousMonk 23:31, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but have you taken a look at these edits? Replacing the intro with

• "Creation science (or CS) is an attempt to change belief into science via persistent propaganda."
• "Creation science (or CS) is creationism that is falsely portrayed as science by its proponents."
• "Creation science (or CS) is an amusing phenomenon in which certain religious zealots attempt to cite material to support their patent nonsense, while ignoring as much of the material's context as possible."
• and other, less subtle insults.

This is vandalism. I do not disagree with his edits, they are clearly not intended for serious review. Bensaccount was vandalising. As an example, replacing the contents of the article on peadophilia with "My next door neighbour likes babies" is also vandalising. Or don't you agree? -- Ec5618 00:14, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

That's not vandalism. Those are WP:NPOV violations, and perhaps violations of WP:Point as well. It doesn't make him a vandal. Again, read WP:Vandalism, particularly the section 'What vandalism is not.' Look, I started this subsection not to support BA's efforts or to chastise or castigate you or RN, but as a kindly word of caution that calling what BA does vandalism can be considered a personal attack. You see, I've had to have this explained to me once or twice as well. FeloniousMonk 01:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

perhaps the energy spent instructing editors on the finer points of the official wikipedia definition of "vandalism" would be better spent instructing bensaccount to cease his endless nonsense. Ungtss 03:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You'd prefer someone else's endless nonsense? BA's been an good contributor in the past. Though I don't approve of BA's recent method, I can understand how he may have come to this point given the frequency the creationism articles are contested by new arrivals with ideological axes to grind, ready to re-argue each point and reluctant to read the archives (Ec5618, who seems reasonable enough, being the rare exception). I chalk up BA's short fuse to combat fatigue. FeloniousMonk 05:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

you are evading the argument. we agree that bensaccount is making inappropriate edits. why are you investing your efforts in making sure everybody knows the technical definition of vandalism, and making no noticeable efforts to get bensaccount to stop his extremely inappropriate and destructive edits to this page, while consistently defending him. you are holding bensaccount and everyone else to vastly different standards. Bensaccount is damaging the page. people call that vandalism. your response: "it's not TECHNICALLY vandalism, so don't call him a vandal." meanwhile the destructive edits continue. it is extremely unjust, and illustrates the cause of the chronic problems on this page. bensaccount entered the fray here by redirecting the controversy page to ignorance. his purposes here have been clear from the beginning. welcome to the painful world of impartiality. Ungtss 17:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You choosing to impugn my motives by tarring me with the brush of partiality does not say anything about my actual motives yet tells us a lot about yours. Editors involved in conflict are banned or blocked less for violating WP:NPOV than they are for WP:Civility. Does anyone doubt that if BA were kept off the article by those using "serial vandal" as a justification that he'd not seek official remedy? That was my motive for speaking out against about the misuse of the term. I thank you to not again question my motives: Assume good faith. FeloniousMonk 19:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i said nothing about your motives. you're imagining things and trying to drag things off topic. i asked, very simply, a question you are continually avoiding: "Why are you more concerned with making sure nobody uses a less-than-precise definition of vandalism than making sure he stops making destructive and pov edits to the page?" let me put this a different way: "Why are you describing Bensaccount's ridiculous edits as "battle exhausation" when you yourself know that this edits are so much nonsense?" as to "assume good faith," that is a rebuttable presumption. i met bensaccount over 6 months ago after he redirected the "controversy" page to ignorance, and repeatedly called me a moron because i don't think similarity and relationship are synonyms. The next 6 months continually gave me absolutely no reason to believe he has any interest in improving this page. his most recent bit of nonsense involved saying, "Somebody ban me, I'm tired of wikipedia." I ask you, after 6 months of this little boy's nonsense, why do you insist i assume good faith despite infinitely manifest evidence to the contrary? Insight into your true motives would be greatly appreciated, lest i impugn your self-perception with reality. Ungtss 20:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I answered your question already. Other than to say that and to suggest that you're out of line, you get the last word. FeloniousMonk 20:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i didn't see the answer. i'm not after the last word. i'm after the answer to my question. bensaccount is being "kept of the article" because of his vile edits. the description of him as a vandal is incidental, although often true. if this article is ever to work, the priority has to be on excluding edits (whether technically vandalous of not) like those to which bensaccount has been subjecting creationism pages for half a year. Ungtss 20:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A good test: If a creationist editor had a spate of reverts and edits like Ben, would that be "vandalism?"Pollinator 03:41, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

It's still not vandalism. Again, see WP:Vandalism. There have been examples least as often, if not more so, of the situation being reversed at various creationism articles. FeloniousMonk 05:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alright, maybe technically Bensaccount isn't vandalising, as "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." and we should always asume good faith. Nevertheless, his methods we destructive, rather than constructive, and I will obviously continue to revert them. -- Ec5618 07:55, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

And rightly so. Thanks for taking my caution at face value and not assuming bad faith on my part. FeloniousMonk 19:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wrongly so. CS is creationist pseudoscience. The best (only) attempt to convince me otherwise was made by Dan, and failed miserably. Lammert's "experiment" is obviously just propaganda. Growing a tree with extra rings does not call into question the reliability of dendrochronology. Bensaccount 23:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We are not here to convince you. You seek to make a change, if anything, you should convince us. I for one, will listen to any constructive comment you make. -- Ec5618 00:12, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's your position (which I share BTW) that's earning you reverts, but your method. There are better ways to make your point and have it actually remain on the page because it will be so apparent as to be easily defensible.

As one who has inveighed not just against trolls, but troll enablers, I hope that you will not turn me into one here, BA. FeloniousMonk 00:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps there are others that would grade my attempt differently. See [2] for more information on the tree-ring saga. Dan Watts 01:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If your attempt was to show that Lammerts did not falsely claim that extra tree rings could appear, I'll agree. If your attempt was to show that dendrochronology is unreliable, I don't think you have. To be fair, I haven't read every source you (both) provided. But I still feel that the chances of great numbers of additional rings appearing in trees around the world, are pretty slim. The environmental conditions would have to be pretty extreme, and I do think that Occam's razor suggests it's unlikely. -- Ec5618 09:13, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the focus was on the reliability of Bristlecone pines (which only grow in the arid regions of six western states) for dendrochronology. Currently, other dendrochronologies may fend for themselves, although beyond the bristlecone pine, only some european oak (bog) dendrochronologies get to 4000BC. Dan Watts 13:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps that was the focus for you. I feel that Bensaccount trying to prove that this creationist was destroying or misusing science.

I am still not convinced there is the slightest change that trees could appear much older than they actually are. Would you be convinced that the earth is older than a few thousand years if a fossilised or otherwise preserved tree was found, with a younger tree growing within it? Suppose the newer tree were cut down and was found to have 7000 rings. -- Ec5618 19:35, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

It is fortunate that I am only attempting to show information. Why deal in suppositions? There are many interesting things that EXIST. Talk from those things. Show evidence. (By the way, apparently the European oak chronologies were not continuous, as of what information I have seen - but the situation may have changed by now. If not, then Bristlecone still is the longest continuous dendrochronology - as popularly reckoned.) Dan Watts 21:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Intro bias?

Bensaccount has made the following edits to the intro, which I quickly reverted. Nevertheless, the suggestion has been made that these next lines specifically were POV.

"Creation science is based on the belief that scientists should permit positing supernatural events where naturalistic explanations are believed to be inadequate. Proponents believe that Creation according to Genesis is historically accurate and/or inerrant and that the observable physical evidence is more fully consistent with the account of Genesis than with generally accepted theories of biological evolution and planet formation."

"As such, they interpret physical evidence within the framework of a literal and historical interpretation of Creation according to Genesis and reject all mainstream scientific knowledge at odds with this view."

Are these lines biased? Are they disinformation? If so, how? -- Ec5618 00:12, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

The first question to ask isn't "are they biased?" but, "are they accurate?". And, by "accurate", I mean do they tell the whole truth? Do they? If not, then it doesn't matter whether they're biased or not. If so, then how can they be biased? Those who feel that the truth is biased are laboring under a bias of their own. Wouldn't you agree? --JonGwynne 19:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look @ the 1st sentence: "Creation science is based on the belief that scientists should permit positing supernatural events where naturalistic explanations are believed to be inadequate."

It is disinformation. It makes the following false assumptions:

1. That science permits or dissallows theories based on whether or not they are supernatural.
2. That scientists favour explanations that are naturalistic (without God).

These are incorrect, and if you want them in here, you are going to have to stop hiding them in this mess of disinformation. You have to say "CS proponents think that science disallows God." or "CS proponents think that scientisits operate by judging whether something is supernatural." Preferrably just delete this mess of disinformation. Bensaccount 04:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for seriously rejoining the effort. ".. scientists should permit positing supernatural events .." A question for you: Does science not usually dismiss supernatural claims? Does science not strive for explanation without invoking a supernatural wildcard?

I agree with you in that science doesn't seek to exclude divinity. More to the point perhaps, many scientists don't, as many scientists are religious. Evolution, to many people including scientists, does not preclude the notion of divinity.

Perhaps the wording should make it clear that science doesn't strictly seek to disprove the supernatural. Do note that it has inadvertently 'disproven' supernatural events such as the near-death-experience. -- Ec5618 12:24, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

supernatural

<<Were scientists to conclude that a supernatural explanation is correct, it would be impossible even in principle to distinguish between one supernatural explanation and another; thus determining the correct supernatural explanation among many is again impossible.>>

thank you, FM, for your great contributions here, which contribute greatly toward npov. in the name of improving clarity, i have a couple questions. in particular, i'm not quite clear how the above sentence fits into the context of the section. you said immediately before this that if something occurs, it would essentially be "natural." so if scientists were to determine that a supernatural explanation is correct, wouldn't they simply be concluding that "something happened but we don't understand it?" why, then, would they be unable to discriminate between supernatural explanations? further, don't the two clauses in the above sentence contradict each other? "If scientists were to determine one supernatural explanation was correct ... determining the correct supernatural explanation among many is again impossible." huh? Ungtss 00:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a good question. I think the confusion is caused by my poor choice of words. Are either of these more clear?

1. Were scientists to accept that a supernatural explanation is correct, it would be impossible even in principle to distinguish between one supernatural explanation and another; thus determining the correct supernatural explanation among many is again impossible.
2. Even if scientists were to conclude that a supernatural explanation is correct, it would be impossible even in principle to distinguish between one supernatural explanation and another; thus determining the correct supernatural explanation among many is again impossible.

Do you have a preference which is used? FeloniousMonk 00:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

excellent:). much much clearer -- no preference -- either makes that point much clearer. my second question is this: you said in the beginning of the paragraph that it's difficult to give "supernatural" a meaningful definition. absolutely:). this makes it very difficult to understand what you mean by "supernatural" in the rest of the section -- are supernatural events indeed "natural things that appear like magic to us," or are they violations of the laws of nature itself? or something else? could you clarify which definition of supernatural you are using in the rest of the section? Ungtss 00:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The definition of supernatural that is used within the mainstream scientific community and applies here is: not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material. FeloniousMonk 17:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

excellent. that's the core disagreement here. to define the supernatural as that which does not exist in nature and to define God as supernatural is to define God as not existing in nature. A=B; B=C; Therefore A=C. The definitions make atheism logically unavoidable. A theistic realist defines the supernatural as that which occurs which defies our scientific knowledge, and define God as supernatural. That makes the existence of God at least plausible. Question for further clarification on the page: how is your definition of "supernatural" meaningful in any way, when it simply defines supernatural entities as "non-existent?" Further, how can we claim to define entities as supernatural/non-existent, when our knowledge of the universe is so miserably inadequate? Ungtss 22:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should imply that mainstream science doesn't allow supernatural explanations without explaining what those are and why mainstream science often rejects them.

It is true that most explanations that are generally thought of as "supernatural" are rejected by science, however I don't think that this is because they are "supernatural" explanations but because they fail occams razor. If I posit the theory that my washing up is done by fairies my theory fails not because it is a supernatural explanation but because any extension of my theory that explained the existence of fairies would by necessity be much more complicated (especially if I insisted that the fairies were made from "magic" rather than from matter (I would have to explain the laws of magic and how it interacts with matter)). It is at least conceivable that my theory gain enough evidence to make it the dominant theory without filling in those details thouroughly and then we'd have a "supernatural" theory that was acceptable science. Of course due to its short comings the theory would need a lot of data to back it up.

The point is if we take a "supernatural" explanation to be one which requires a complete and radical rewrite of basic physical laws then generally "supernatural" explanations are not preffered by occam's razor. However, they are still valid theories.

There is an additional problem of moving goal posts as any "supernatural" theory that becomes to be considered plausible by mainstream science is no longer considered "supernatural" but just wacky. Personally I can't see any way of pinning down a meaning for supernatural in such a way as to systematically disallow supernatural explanations. Barnaby dawson 08:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

agreed. the thing about parsimony, tho, is that it only applies when events can be fully explained. if a question remains open (for instance, what started the big bang) then parsimony does not apply -- because we do not have a closed loop of assumptions to prefer to the supernatural explanation. occam's razor only works to shave off assumptions unneccessary to comprehensively explain things, but does not shave off assumptions when we're as-yet-unable to comprehensively explain them. that's another issue that i think we should address ... the creationist view that since there are many open questions about the specifics of the development of life (such as irreducible complexity, macroevolution, and specified complexity), occam's razor does not cut off any potential explanation. i'll take a stab at that this afternoon. Ungtss 13:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree with that point. It is always possible to estimate the complexity necessary to fill in any current gaps in understanding. Suppose your theory says that the clock on my wall is powered by the energy from the slow fall of a weight and my theory states that the clock is powered by the absorbsion of highly energetic tachyons emitted by aliens to fuel government licensed instruments. Suppose furthermore that we have not made enough observations to disprove either theory. Suppose that neither theory fully explain the operation of the clock as they don't explain how the hands are moved in the clock. Occam's razor still does prefer one explanation over the other. Barnaby dawson 21:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

,I don't think we should imply that mainstream science doesn't allow supernatural explanations without explaining what those are and why mainstream science often rejects them> I've already done this — read the first and last paragraphs of the subsectionScience_and_the_supernatural. FeloniousMonk 17:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed that is good work. Barnaby dawson 21:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The word "supernatural" is a code word for "I don't understand how it works and I don't want to understand because that understanding may conflict with what I believe to be true" --JonGwynne 05:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

you say that ascribing things to the supernatural is a means of avoiding the exploration of the issues. if that were the case in this context, would creationists and ID proponents be spending millions trying desperately to study, understand, and evidence it? Ungtss 14:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course they would, because they're not interested in facts but rather in protecting themselves from facts. It is a defense mechanism. p.s. "evidence" isn't a verb, it is a noun.  ;-> --JonGwynne 02:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

propaganda

please, mr. pitchford, be a good chap and behave like felonious monk. do not delete text because you think it is propaganda. it is a point of view, attributed to those who hold it. if you think it's wrong, address why, afterward. deletion is censorship. i will be placing the attributed point of view back on the page now. please edit appropriately. thank you. Ungtss 15:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not a point of view, as worded it's a false claim. --Ian Pitchford 15:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

everything in the text is appropriately attributed. nothing in the text states or implies that anything said is actually true. if it be a false claim, then attribute the true rebuttal. please. that's how the game is played here. Ungtss 15:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Claiming that X explains everything and that X requires no explanation is not a contribution to knowledge, it's a rhetorical device used as a thought-terminating clichè. --Ian Pitchford 15:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

that would look great as a rebuttal, immediately after the argument. if you want to persuade, you have to let the other side say his piece, and then tear it to bits. i have no objection to that. Ungtss 16:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe if the page was meant to be the text of an argument. Please remember that we are attempting to write an encyclopedia article here not carry out an argument.

more on parsimony

<<They also argue that creationism as an explanation is not an affirmative proposition. For an explanation to be an affirmative proposition it must tell why something is one way instead of an alternative way.>>

can you elaborate a bit as to why this is so? for instance, how does the proposition "man and apes evolved from a common ancestor" meet your criterion of "telling why something is one way instead of an alternative?" Ungtss 19:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As it says an explanation tells us why something is one way instead of an alternative way. As an explanation, theory of evolution (which posits that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor) attempts to account for a broad range of phenomena/evidence. As an explanation its propositional quality is determined by the fact that by explaining one class of things it also explains phenomena/evidence of some other class. Thus, evolutionary theory is the framework tying together all of biology, and in turn explains peripheral topics like fossils, biogeography, etc. Mainstream science holds that evolution provides a framework for biology, and which can support other useful scientific advances, whereas creationism has been around for millennia and has not yet contributed a practical framework for further advances in any useful, meaningful way. FeloniousMonk 22:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i'm afraid i don't see the answer to my question in the above -- can you clarify: how does the specific explanation "man and apes evolved from a common ancestor" tell why things are one way and not the other -- that is, "man and apes were created separately?" why does your position meet the criterion but mine fail it? Ungtss 00:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I was explaining why evolutionary theory was an affirmative proposition, which is only one half of the story, because I thought the other half was self-evident. Evolutionary theory, being part of science, precludes any supernatural mechanisms. Conversely, creation science only precludes naturalistic mechanisms as a first cause, which must always be God. Therefore, evolutionary theory excludes creationism in all forms whereas CS allows for some naturalism. I may rewrite those sentences that refer to affirmative proposition as I'm not happy with the way they read. FeloniousMonk 17:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

sounds like a plan. when you do, can you explain how "evolutionary theory, being part of science, precludes any supernatural mechanisms?" since evolutionary theory is an explanatory framework, i fail to understand how the mere existence of one explanatory framework precludes the possibility of another. i fail to see how saying "man and apes evolved from a common ancestor" means that humans and apes could not have been created separately. Ungtss 18:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The statement "creationism is an unnecessary entity" seems to go against the idea that if it were true, then there could be evidence that the earth (and its neighbors) is (are) not very old. Evidence such as questions (valid?) of the accuracy of bristlecone dendrochronology, or of the age of lunar craters, given the most probable viscosity of the lunar basalt (and the associated time for a crater to remain under the lunar gravity). Dan Watts 21:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is the story of creation?

I'm sorry for this rather ranting post. I have tried to be as open minded and neutral as I could possible be, and I still strive for that. However, looking over some creationist sites has left me wondering wether creation science is not just a well funded lie. I've been reading a few sites on creationism (AiG and creationism.org and the like), and they seem very inconsistent on anything but the big picture. They all agree that Noah built an Ark to escape a flood, they all agree that the Grand Canyon could have been formed in this flood.

A few claims I found:

• One author claims that Noah's ark would not have had to carry much or any food, as the animals would go into hibernation or estivation[3]. He claims that hibernation is induced by lack of nutrition, while he glosses over the fact that very few animals actually hibernate, and that these few animals spend weeks or months building a layer of fat.
• Another author continues with this notion of hibernation, but acknowledges that the idea of all animals going into hibernation is improbable.[4]

• This same author posits that the Ark would probably have carried compressed and dried foodstuffs, and probably a lot of concentrated food. Concentrated food. Concentrated food.

• And he states that the Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits, and claims Genesis 6:15 as his source. These values are only valid if one assumes the Ark was a perfect box. While Genesis does include measurements, to assume that the Ark was not shaped like a boat at all seems odd. To assume that such a structure could be built out of wood millenia ago seems incredible.

• Finally he claims that the Ark didn't need to carry many animals at all. It needed only carry a pair of Equines, from which current horses, zebras and donkeys 'descended'. Note that he didn't use the word 'evolved'. His statement hinges on his assertion that horses and zebras are the same species. To make his point that the current definition of a species (a group of organisms which can interbreed and produce fertile offspring) is not reliable, he says:

"However, most of the so-called species (obviously all the extinct ones) have not been tested to see what they can or cannot mate with."

Is he actually claiming that scientists should have tried to pair all animals, to see what would happen? Dolphins and hedgehogs? Humans and catfish? It seems to me, that this is a non-stuble way of trying to discredit science. "'So-called' species havn't even been tested by scientists. Why believe science?"

• John Morris, Ph.D., 'a former professor in geological engineering', claims that the Grand Canyon could have been formed in a single event, because such things are not unheard of. He cites an example of a small canyon, forming in sand and clay, in just a few days, due to rainwater. I fail to see the relevance of this analogy, as everyone knows that mild rain can easily wash away a sandcastle, but can not be observed destroying stone.[5]

Most of these comments seem aimed at spreading doubt about evolution through underhanded means. "Great minds of the past had no difficulty with the concept of a young earth shaped and reshaped by catastrophic forces, especially the upheavals associated with Noah’s Flood." Great minds used to believe the Earth was flat. The author must have known that, but chose to include this comment, for effect. This statement comes across as a logical fallacy (appeal to authority).

I'm not sure what the purpose of my post is, and I know that strictly it has little to do with the article, but I feel rather let down by the 'creation sciences'. If this is the best they can do, or if this is the sort of garbage they 'teach' people through their websites, I have little choice but to agree with Bensaccount: Creation science may be a true effort, but its fruits are unreliable, and its most prominent advocates dishonest. If so, the article should reflect that. -- Ec5618 12:24, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to the reality of creation science, Ec.

The problem is, of course, that as soon as you start to describe creation science for what it really is, the creationists who believe in it will start crying foul. They will claim one of the following: 1) your valid criticisms represent original research, 2) your valid criticisms are uncited, 3) even if there are valid criticisms of the "theories", the "theories" themselves should be represented without criticism in order to maintain some "NPOV" that the creationists seem to think represents special protection for their nonsense.

I just reverted a huge amount of crap in Creationist cosmologies where some rather rabid creationists had inserted all manner of nonsense about cosmology in general and certain creationist believers in particular. Not content to have the ideas presented and roundly shown to be extremely problematic, these people prefer to see inaccurate and incomplete "critiques" of mainstream science serve as the meat of the article. The reason for this is that this is the modus operendi of creationists and creation science proponents: to criticize science to make themselves feel better in their beliefs. Consistency is impossible for them because there is no agreed-upon threshhold for determining when empricism and logic should be used to back up their statements and when the bible should be used. Thus you come up with bizarre claims like certain "scientists" demanding the ark was a box while other "scientists" claim that it only "approximated" a box. That the ark existed, however, is something that cannot be debated in "creation science" because it is necessarily assumed to be true by means of scriptural authority.

Therein lies the rub. Creationists have used the idealization of "creation science" for decades now to confuse the issue that they really have a problem when it comes to the skeptical inquiry that is science. Since they have little to no way to consistently defend their rabid believe in literalism (or historicity, as Ungtss likes to call it), they have created for themselves an invented world and a ready-made repository of nonsense to cite as a means to weasle themselves out of any corner their contradictory beliefs get them into. The "NPOV" thing to do is call creation science what it is: a basic sham-outfit to distract from the major problems that rejection of empirical science imposes on a worldview.

-Joshuaschroeder 13:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'Concerning the Grand Canyon'

Here is a possible analogy using not rain, but running water. See [6], especially Figure 4 on page 7. Dan Watts

First of all, great source. Great concept. The source talks of a spillway tunnel used at Hoover Dam. A short excerpt:

"The damage was thought to initiate at a “misalignment” of the tunnel invert just above the elbow. The damage was caused by high velocity flow passing over the roughness and leading to bubble formation (similar to boiling water) in the flow. When the bubbles collapsed, high energy shock waves were generated damaging the concrete. This phenomena is referred to as cavitation formation and damage."

This would show that water, under high pressure, and at high speed (thus at low pressure, courtesy of Bernoulli's principle) can cause microfractures and in time, can quickly erode a rough surface. And while this effect requires need high pressure and extreme speed, this story does grant some level of credibility to the notion of Flood geology. I would like to point out though that most concepts of Flood geology assert that the Earth had few features prior to the flood, which begs the question: 'how would such high pressure and speed have been possible?'

Also, you must admit that the AiG source was useless, from a scientific point of view. And it is a bit silly that I had to hear of this decent source from you. Shouldn't AiG have used this source, instead of resorting to telling tales of simple but useless science experiments? -- Ec5618 13:49, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have no (well, maybe little) knowledge of AiG, and would ask you to peruse the Creation Research Society website as an alternative. I really do not know what research is done at AiG. Dan Watts 15:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I asked you several direct questions. I gave you a chance to speak ill of AiG, or this specific example. You could have admitted that the AiG source is useless, from a scientific point of view. You could have admitted that the 'high pressure and high speed' required for the fact erosion mentioned above present 'a bit of a puzzle'. You chose not to, citing 'lack of background knowledge'. Why? Work with me here.

I am now perusing http://creationresearch.org as per your suggestion, and I'll admit, I havn't found gaping logical fallacies or false claims in the few minutes I have been reading. -- Ec5618 15:31, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for not answering all of your questions, not that I am any authority. Yes, I agree that the AiG article you pointed out has little (if any) scientifically useful information on Grand Canyon formation. As for high velocity, (I assume that the interaction of a high-velocity stream with any solid body could generate sufficient force) a possible driver would be orogeny during the year following the flood itself. If the pre-flood earth had little vertical contrast, then tides could travel without much abatement by continents (if the whole earth's surface was under water). Any tectonic tilting could interact with the (pre-existing) flow to cause 'local' disturbances. That is one possible mechanism. Dan Watts 16:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't have time for a longwinded comment. Let me suffice by noting that the tides would hardly be capable of causing extreme water speeds, even on a flat Earth. Also, plate tectonics are also contested by creation science, I believe, so invoking them might be controversial. -- Ec5618 16:45, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

The extreme speeds would be due to the interaction of the tidal flow with (controversial) plate tectonics driven orogeny. Hurriedly, Dan Watts 16:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All this discussion is irrelevent because it is just the speculation of Dan Watts as to how creation scientists might try to post-justify their beliefs in flood geology. None of this belongs on this page and it certainly doesn't qualify as actual science. Joshuaschroeder 18:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All this discussion is irrelevent because it is just the speculation both sides. None of this is science, it's just origins theories which are not proveable by either side. And what's with all the anti-creationist sentiment? Did a creation science advocate run over your cat? This is my first post so if I'm breaking some rules here let me know.hawnsa 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anti-creationist is different than anti-creation science. As for the latter, people generally dislike liars. Bensaccount 21:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The discussion on this section should probably cease. It has little to do with discussion of the article's content. ~~~~ 19:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)