Talk:Creation science/Archive 20

In-universe sourcing
Hi,

I would like opinions from the regulars on this page about a debate going on at Talk:Astrology. People are arguing that we can't mention responses in astrological journals to an article published in Nature, because the astrological "peer-reviewed" journals are not RS. Some are also arguing that in-universe astrological sources cannot be used at all in the article. I notice that many in-universe sources like this are used here, so I'm hoping for an opinion on this issue. No one is suggesting that in-universe sources be used to refute mainstream sources, just that they be included as attributed material or attributed responses, in the same way they're used in this article.

Posted at Talk:Intelligent design and Talk:Creation Science Talk:Creation–evolution controversy Be— —Critical  19:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Scientific criticism
The statement "Any evidence that runs contrary to that truth must be discarded." has been tagged with a request for a reference of its veracity for months now. I have little doubt that this statement is a common belief. My edit with (I believe) a more truthful statement was reverted. What next? Dan Watts (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I sourced it, changing the word "discard" to "disregard" because discard is already applied in the para to the tentative nature of scientific theory. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Limits
Some scientists (Brand and Roth, perhaps others) who are also Young Earth creationists admit that the question of origins is not for science to resolve. Their assertion is that the idea of a Creator/Designer is beyond science to investigate. However, these creationists/scientists challenge the General Theory of Evolution (origins from a common single cell of life). They assert that this assertion of a common single cell for the origin of life is also beyond the ability of science to investigate. Of course, scientists will investigate. They have recreated the theorized conditions thought necessary for life to happen, but so far no life has been created. Any thoughts? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So a couple of deluded creationists propose that we are too stupid to understand the origin of life? And we're supposed to say "oh you're right, our aggregate education is irrelevant, the imaginary wizard in the sky matters more."  Sorry dude, but that's wrong.  The difference between those idiots and real scientists is that science imagines the possibilities and then attempts to understand it.  You know the whole scientific method.  That's why your imaginary god is limited to very little these days, because science can basically explain everything.  What it can't, I assume it eventually can, because I am open minded.  Brand and Roth, close minded to the core, cannot possibly be real scientists, because they cannot believe their nonexistent god will eventually be unnecessary as science explains the natural universe.  It's simple really.  It takes hard work to be a scientist.  It's lazy and simpleminded to believe that some imaginary being can explain the difficult.  I understand their simple deluded minds. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Woot finally back. I've been watching your talk page since you came back a couple months ago, waiting for you to actually post in article space. Good to see your posts again!   N o f o rmation  Talk  19:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't encourage me. You should see my Facebook page where me and 600 like minded friends troll every Facebook page about creationism, homeopathy, new age religion, and whatever other Pseudoscience out there.  What I've found is that those who promote pseudoscience are essentially simpletons who don't have the intellectual strength to defend their claims without resorting to unfalsifiable methods like "aliens done it", or "we just haven't discovered how water has a memory", or "science is too dogmatic."  They use rhetoric rather than the scientific method.  Of course, DonaldRichardSands rants are wayyyyyyyyyyyyy off topic.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I hope to have a thoughtful discussion with both of you, and others. Perhaps later this evening. Thanks for your thoughts, thus far. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Orangemarlin, you wrote: So a couple of deluded creationists propose that we are too stupid to understand the origin of life? The two scientists I named are quite careful in their discussions. They certainly don't call their fellow scientists "too stupid to understand." The origin of life is probably the biggest mystery remaining unsolved by scientific investigation. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * While the exact sequence of chemical reactions that lead to the establishment of self-replicating cells is and will likely always be a mystery, the science of Abiogenesis is well established. Furthermore, invoking supernatural explanations to fill gaps in scientific understanding is never appropriate as when such a thing is done, you cease scientific discourse and enter the realm of pseudoscience - by definition. It's like when you're watching a TV show and the characters get themselves into some ridiculous situation that you know cannot be dealt with by normal means, and so the director creates some ridiculous supernatural force to fix the problem.  Lost was a good example of this: there was no way to explain any of that show without invoking heaven/god at the end, but that doesn't mean it's a good explanation.   N o f o rmation  Talk  22:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not a professional scientist but I do have some questions, one in particular. If life has never been created from non-life, how can the science of Abiogenesis be well established? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not hold to a God of the gaps perspective. I prefer the concept of "thinking God's thoughts after him."DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As a professional scientist, I have to point out that your question is a bit naive. We have never "created" stars or continents, yet the science of their formation is well developed. Based on the evidence we have, we have some very good ideas about how life arose and evolved, and some viable hypotheses that can be tested. Read the article on Abiogenesis for more details. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Dominus, thanks for helping. When you say, "the science of their formation is well developed" I presume you are referring to observation using the Hubble telescope, etc. and then seeking to explain. What observational evidence is there for abiogenesis? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Donald! This is discussed in the article on Abiogenesis. You are making a fundamental mistake in thinking that observation in science means actually watching it happen. Just like detectives base their conclusions on observation without having been present at the time of the crime, so scientists observe existing evidence to deduce what happened in the past. The "no one observed it" excuse is just another tired creationist canard based on faulty knowledge of what science is and what scientists do. It's meant to convince the naive, and the creationists have an easy time of it considering that scientific literacy is unfortunately not as widespread as it should be in the populaton at large. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comparison to detectives basing their conclusions on observation of the crime scene without having witnessed the crime is a good one, IMO. Of course the detective has a much easier task than a student of origins. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Another line of thought: Scientific theories can be established but they can never be proven, merely tested and corroborated (Popper). As I understand it, scientific inquiry is distinguished from all other types of investigation by its testability, by the falsifiability of its theories. (I have a ways to go before I understand this term, falsifiability). Unfalsifiable theories are unscientific because they cannot be tested. (What are some falsifiable theories regarding abiogenesis?)This does not mean that unscientific theories are wrong, they are just not scientific. The problem with the study of origins, most of it is untestable. In the abiogenesis article there is mention of the development of proteins from basic chemicals. This apparently is considered a breakthrough. Afterall, if proteins can be created than, perhaps, life is next. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No offense, Donald, but this thread has turned into a forum discussion, and should be terminated. Continue reading up on the science aspect. Falsifiability and testability are pretty difficult topics for laymen to understand, and even most scientists have difficulty wrapping their minds around topics dealing with the philosophy of science. If you want to discuss this on a forum, you could try talk.origins . Be prepared to deal with a lot of obnoxious POV warriors on both sides of the fence, though. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No offense taken. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Donald And as philosophy of science is one of my favorite topics, you're welcome at my talk page with questions/comments/insights anytime. I may not always respond quickly (and sometimes not at all if it's finals or something) but I'm usually pretty good with it :). Btw it is finals for the next two weeks so I'll be around sparsely.  N o f o rmation  Talk  03:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * DonaldRichardSands I will break the policy of not using the talk page as a forum, since this certainly is worth it. Asking questions with an open mind is good. You sir, are on the right track! Life has a strict definition in biology. Whereas it is strict it is not exclusive, or inflexible; organisms can show some processes but not all. How many? That is debatable. The current convention on the definition is just that, a convention. Other definitions have been proposed. Answering your question (of abiogenesis); Can life be created artificially? Sure. Can we do it, with the current technology? No. Efiiamagus (talk) 07:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Lacking any prominent WP:SECONDARY source as yet demonstrating that these views are due any particular WP:WEIGHT (even in CS, let alone in the scientific community), or have any particular relevance to this topic, I would suggest that this thread is off-topic for improving this article. I would further point out that there is no singular scientific "question of origins". The questions of the origins of life (abiogenesis), its diversity (Evolutionary biology]]), the Earth (Astrophysics) and the Universe (Cosmology) are very different questions, with very different limitations. Conflating them together demonstrates woefully unscientific thinking. If a reliable secondary source can be found which analyses this conflation within CS, then that would probably be a good topic for inclusion in this article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Massive Change
One single reference is a massive change. Sigh. Dan Watts (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So, what is the wikipedia way to show counterexample evidence to "supplies no tentative hypotheses"? Dan Watts (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You would have to back it up with a very solid reliable source, in his case from the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The source you provided was worthless. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Tentative hypotheses can only come from "the peer-reviewed scientific literature"? This sounds like Catch-22. The claim was that Creation science "supplies no tentative hypotheses". How more accurately can a counter-example be than from a web-site from one of the very groups described? Dan Watts (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Because they are completely non-reliable for anything related to science, per WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. As I said, worthless. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The source was unacceptable for a number of reasons, but it needs be said that there are few situations on wikipedia where we even allow sources be used like "evidence" for (or against) an argument, as was done here. Doing so violates a core policy: no original research.  The policy makes special note that any use here of a primary source (whether peer reviewed or not) as an example "requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation".  This source doesn't even address the claim it was attached to, which is a statement about how creation science is considered in the scientific community.  Professor marginalia (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Unwilling to link scientific status to any evidential warrant, twentieth century demarcationists have been forced into characterizing the ideologies they oppose (whether Marxism, psychoanalysis or creationism) as untestable in principle. Very occasionally, that label is appropriate. But more often than not, the views in question can be tested, have been tested, and have failed those tests. But such failures cannot impugn their (new) scientific status: quite the reverse, by virtue of failing the epistemic tests to which they are subjected, these views guarantee that they satisfy the relevant semantic criteria for scientific status!" [ ] (emphasis in original) Dan Watts (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * fixed. It was obvious to me the claim wasn't from Larson. But irrelevant.  Wdanwatts, as editor on wikipedia you are not invited into the debate.  Neither is anyone else.  We simply write the articles according to the best and most authoritative secondary sources on the topic-we don't rewrite reality here.  You are trying to build a case to defend creation science.  That is not what we do here.  And you likely know as well as anyone else here that the scientific community does not consider creation science a testable premise, which not even this source disputes.  Professor marginalia (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Linking this to illustrate my point - Third paragraph. Humphreys remains original research when used in this manner: the no original research policy was not changed in the interim permitting it now any more than it did back then. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No mention of prominent attempt
@Radiometric dating; would this be the right place to put the a sentence or two on the RATE group? Just wondering. Wekn  reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 15:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Already covered in the Creation geophysics subtopic I believe, with a redirect via RATE. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 18:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Overwhelming
Is there really a point to having "overwhelming consensus" and "generally accepted facts"? Can you point to me the scientific community members who dispute that creation is religion and the age of the earth? Portillo (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a point. The current wording accurately reflects that that there is no substantive scientific dispute on this issue. Watering it down would give the impression that there may be a dispute (but simply one that the Creation Scientists aren't currently winning). The issue is of WP:WEIGHT & WP:GEVAL and not misrepresenting a tsunami as though it were just another wave. The pretence that there is a dispute is the whole rationale behind A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, Teach the Controversy, Evolution, the fossils say no!, etc, etc. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

So theres a difference between saying "the scientific consensus is..." and "the overwhelming consensus is...". A scientific fact is a fact, regardless of whether it is "overwhelming". Portillo (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a difference in emphasis and WP:WEIGHT. And calling a "fact" a "generally accepted fact" removes the spin that many creationists attempt to put on them as 'disputed'. The sole reason that Creation Science exists is to dispute scientific facts and consensus -- so it is hardly unreasonable to emphasise that these disputes are not accepted by the scientific community. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Portillo (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hatnote
Can somebody please tell me how " scientific creationism", the kind explicitly under discussion in this article, might be confused with "a concept about the origin of the soul" or "the movement in Spanish literature"? I would have thought that the adjective would negate any such confusion. The hatnote therefore does strike me as unnecessary here. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, on that basis I've undone my revert, so the hatnote has been removed. The first paragraph does give enough clarification to make it unnecessary. . dave souza, talk 15:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Scientific criticism
I saw nothing in the referenced document which corroborated "Most major religious groups have concluded that the concept of evolution is not at odds with their descriptions of creation and human origins." Why is this reference appropriate? Dan Watts (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. I found another and tightened the claim to fit. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Pseudoscience category
Regarding the recent flurry of edits beginning with this one: to answer "not sure why this category wasn't here before?", it was here before, and remains here as a parent category of Category:Creation science. Further, there is a Pseudoscience navbox template appearing prominently as a colored banner at the bottom of the page. The pseudoscientific nature of the subject is also mentioned, with references, in the lead, so it is definitely not being ignored or suppressed here. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Dubious
From the lede: "Its most vocal proponents are fundamentalist Christians in the United States who seek to prove Biblical inerrancy and nullify the scientific evidence for evolution." I don't like this at all; there is certainly a creationist movement outside the US. See Creation Ministries International, for example. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence does not say that there is no creationist movement outside of the US, or that it is "almost exclusively US". There is nothing dubious in the statement as it stands. You evidently misread it, or read something into it that is not there. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Dominus, I have noted your removal of the dubious tag. I see no problem with your doing so. However, I looked up the Larson citation in Google Books and could not find the assertion that the "most vocal proponents are fundamentalist Christians in the United States who seek to prove Biblical inerrancy and nullify the scientific evidence for evolution." I believe the statement is probably true but is it supported in the citation? I consider this a minor matter. Best regards. drs (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * . drs (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A further note, some of those who are quite outspoken would not say that they support Biblical inerrancy, for example most Adventists will speak of infallibility rather than inerrancy. Several very vocal creationists will not seek to nullify the scientific evidence for evolution. Rather, some who oppose long age, common origin evolution accept all the evidence without trying to nullify it. Again, Adventists go out of there way to say that they accept all the 'evidence' out there. They, and others, say they are interpreting the evidence differently than a common origin evolutionist interprets the data. Anyway, it is better if we can show this assertion of who is most vocal clearly in a citation. drs (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sometimes we think the world revolves around the United States. The perception of the Creation debate has come to this as well, perhaps. Here is quote to help broaden our perceptions:
 * drs (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm sorry, but the movement is just as strong in Australia as it is in the US. Please do not remove the tag again until you've found a citation to prove the assertion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm sorry, but the movement is just as strong in Australia as it is in the US. Please do not remove the tag again until you've found a citation to prove the assertion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please don't forget that creationism is not the same as creation science – the latter specifically relates to attempts to get creationism taught in U.S. public school science classes. We'd need references using the exact term "creation science" for concepts promoted by creationist movements in other countries, plus some assessment of how significant the spin-off of that type of creationism is in Australia, if indeed it uses that term. . dave souza, talk 19:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Creationism is about the belief, whereas creation science is about the use of science to back up the belief, correct? I don't see why we'd have to prove there were attempts to put it in a public school to show that it was widely used; that seems like an unnecessary pidgin-holding. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not quite, anti-evolution creationists have attempted to use their version of science to support their beliefs since Price in the 1920s, but "creation science" was a specific label introduced around 1969 in response to legal arguments about teaching creationism in science classes, when "associates of the Bible-Science Foundation in southern California set up Creation Science, Inc., to prepare creationist textbooks." p. 244 of The Creationists by Ron Numbers, 1993 edition. Morris was soon involved in this issue, using the term in his 1974 handbook Scientific Creationism, and by the mid 1970s the label had been attached to a version of Price's geology. Guess we'd better update the article and show how this developed from The Genesis Flood. . dave souza, talk 22:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And yet I'm willing to believe that Creation Ministries International is part of the Creation Science movement. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The distinction between Creationism and Creation-Science is interesting. However, the issue raised in this section is whether the Larson citation asserts that its "most vocal proponents are fundamentalist Christians in the United States." I could not find it. If the Larson citation does not say it, then we need to find another source that does. drs (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Dave souza, the definition that Creation Science specifically relates to attempts to get creationism taught in U.S. public school science class is too narrow a definition. Note, as part of the second reference in the article, Plavcan is quoted as saying:
 * By Plavcan's definition, Price in the 1920s was a creation scientist. He and many since him believe that when the natural world (science) is correctly understood, it will demonstrate the literal Biblical account of Genesis 1-11. It is conceivable that an advocate of Creation Science could be opposed to such being taught in public schools as a matter of religious liberty in order to preserve the separation of church and state. drs (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Grammar: Plavcan is saying all creation scientists do something, he's not saying everyone who does it is a creation scientist. . . dave souza, talk 22:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Somewhere along the line a claim cited to Larson was "tweaked" improperly implying something more about its "worldwide popularity" now rather than what is was meant in terms of where it came from or achieved "fame" (for lack of a better word). My hunch is that it is still much stronger in the USA than anywhere else (polls suggest as much, anyway) but Larson's wasn't a "current status report" - it was background.
 * As editors, we aren't allowed to draw our own conclusions. Price was not a creation scientist-although he may have fit Plavcan's description. Price was a flood geologist.  Why?  That's how it sorts out in the authoritative Real World, according to the real world notables who research, publish, and influence.  Our own "it's conceivables" don't qualify. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is all insane. I've provided an example above of creation science based out of the US, and it is substantial at that. As it stands, the statement is uncited and probably wrong. There is no reason it should stay unless someone here can provide a good citation for it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I tweaked it. According to Numbers, creation science is an American export of sorts, and still predominant (largely via the Kentucky based AiG). Professor marginalia (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But AiG itself is an Australian export having its origins there.Supt. of Printing (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The sequence is that the label "creation science" originated in the U.S. in 1969, as shown by Numbers. The Creation Ministries International article says "In 1977, the Creation Science Association (CSA) was organised in Adelaide, Australia by Dr. Carl Wieland." The Australian version comes later, and looks like a spin-off from the U.S. movement. "In the mid-1990s, Ken Ham, formerly of the Creation Science Foundation and then part of the Institute for Creation Research, formed an autonomous ministry in the United States. This ministry, along with the Australian Creation Science Foundation, were branded Answers in Genesis (AiG); eventually, legally-autonomous Answers in Genesis offices were opened in Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United Kingdom." So AiG is a spin-off of the Australian version, which itself took an American label eight years after the origins in the U.S. .. dave souza, talk 22:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Professor marginalia, your tweaking has improved the citation problem. drs (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * CSA was Australian, but Numbers shows it to explicitly mission itself in the mold of the American CRS and IRC. It later merged with another, more vaguely defined (in Numbers anyway), Australian ministry to become the Australian CSF (with Ken Ham, later re-branded as AiG). With Ken Ham, it is somewhat complicated trying to align him either to the American version creation science or a uniquely Australian version.  Ham left CSF for the ICR, and his popular ICR-based initiative inspired the re-branding of CSF to AiG.  Ham is described in secondary sources as a charismatic popularizer - not a quote unquote "scientist", which the ICR certainly envisioned positioning itself and creation science in the US.  It's also interesting to look at how the AiG and ICR compare today.  The AiG (and Ken Ham) don't even pretend that creation science isn't Genesis literalism rather than science - they don't seem to be bothered by the USA's 1st Amendment while they go out and openly say that evidence must be viewed "through God glasses".  The situation in the USA seems to be unique in that it inspired the creation science movement because the church/state separation there forced the "Genesis" side in a "Genesis v natural science" to resort to a "but this isn't about Genesis, this is about our findings in natural science" emphasis.  Yet Ken Ham seems to have been extremely successful turning it around again, broadening its momentum while freely exposing it to be a purely religious exercise. Australian creation science, according to Numbers, was never encumbered by any "separation" business. In Australia religious teachings in the public schools were legal.  It's an interesting dynamic in terms of writing about creation science - but until we have more in depth sources to work with, there's not much we can do with it here. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am comfortable with the language "It began in the 1960s... in the United States.... It has since developed a sizable religious following in the United States, with creation science ministries branching worldwide." Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked sockpuppets
Mthoodhood and SmittysmithIII blocked as socks of Allenroyboy. I've reverted a couple of their edits where they added content. Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move per request--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Creation Science → Creation science – Hmm, not much of a discussion when this was moved to Creation Science. I don't think creation science is a proper noun, this book doesn't capitalise the science, and neither does the Dover trial. Propose to move this article BACK to "Creation science". GDallimore (Talk) 10:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC) devils advocate by keeping ths S capitol it becomes part of a proper noun. If we keep the S then it kinda reads like Creation "science" if youy catch my drift. Making it lower case adds validity to the word science. I dont think its a major issue but i support the lowercase version as its not my place to take away the validity of the word science. Aperseghin (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support move back to creation science: Ron Numbers uses lower case in The Creationists, and for example McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education uses lower case, as in "Mr. Ellwanger's views on the nature of creation science are entitled to some weight since he personally drafted the model act which became Act 590." . . . dave souza, talk 11:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually agree to an extent, but that's more a problem resulting from the fact that the phrase is non-neutral terminology popularised by a fringe group - but we can't really call the article "creationist abuse of science". It helps that creation wouldn't normally be capitalised either. GDallimore (Talk) 21:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support because it's not a proper noun. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 19:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support No reason for this capitalization. Academic disciplines (which this is, for better or worse) aren't capitalized, though the subject has caused some confusion in the past; many people are probably used to seeing them in contexts such as "Department of Life Science" or "Introduction to Secondary Education." And for alphabet soup junkies, the relevant guideline is WP:CAPS. Should be noncontroversial and subject to an early close. --BDD (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support; it's not a proper noun &c. bobrayner (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - not a proper noun, per the above.--ukexpat (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Add Kitzmiller case to lead
Add to the lead paragraph another court case already in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District Add it at the end of the lead paragraph, after the other two court cases already cited. ````Jay Beckerman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.1.89 (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The Kitzmiller case is mentioned in the "Intelligent design" section. It seems appropriately placed there. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Science
Why is the S in Science capitalised in the title? Shouldn't this page be moved to Creation science? GDallimore (Talk) 22:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No. It is a title. Most if not all writing styles capitalize all the major words in a title. Exceptions include words like of, it, the, etc. Specifically, A.P.A. style uses this practice. APA style (American psychological association) is the standard used by those in the scientific community. Check http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/ EzPz (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily, Wikipedia article titles use sentence case, not title case. See here for discussion around the time the article was moved from "Creation science" to "Creation Science." __ Just plain Bill (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My impression is that Creation Science should always be capitalized even in the text, as it's the name of a movement, not a science... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree.--Charles (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Saltation
Saltation [ref ] or "hopeful monsters", [ref  ] appear to have more scientific credibility than creation science, and these cited papers don't seem to touch on the topic of creation science so that looks like WP:SYN. Have therefore simplified the paragraph to focus on Gould's entirely valid point that creationists invoke "abrupt appearance" to claim that formation of new species requires divine intervention. As he notes, this law-breaking deity is not susceptible to science. . . dave souza, talk 19:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Creation Scientist v. Creationist
The title of this article is "Creation science" not "Creationism". Within the broad range of people who are creationists, many are scientists with doctorates (see: http://creation.com/creation-scientists). To suggest that Creationists are not generally regarded as scientists is avoiding the issue, as it is not a matter of opinion whether some creationists are scientists or not—if they hold a science degree, they are scientists! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supt. of Printing (talk • contribs) 05:16, 26 March 2014‎
 * I agree with you. One might not like it, but it doesn't change the fact. There are also numerous accredited Universities in the United States that have research on the topic. One does not have to agree with them, but still it doesn't out do the fact that there is research in this field, and that there is University education given in this field too. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)wtm
 * I don't even understand this - biologists criticize any creationist who makes the claim "who claim the fossil evidence disproves evolution." - all creationists, including those who are scientists and those who aren't. They do not restrict their criticism to only those who are scientists. Any you are wrong in claiming that anyone with a science degree is a scientist, although that is irrelevant. Dougweller (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The definition of a scientist is "A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences." It does not include the supernatural? Theroadislong (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Dougweller, please see my comment which was for some reason reverted by User: Wtmitchell. As far as I am concerned, this is not a question of personal point of view. Whether you like it or not, there are accredited Universities conducting research on Creation Science (no matter what we all might feel about it), and offering courses on Creation Science as well. At least in the United States, Creation Science has also federal approval as a subject to be taught in schools. Again, many of might not be in favour of this, but still that's the reality here. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (insertion) My removal of that comment was inadvertant an an error on my part. See explanation here. The comment read as follows:


 * Sorry about the confusion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please can you name some of the accredited Universities conducting research on Creation Science, it might be useful to add to the article. Theroadislong (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Something I could found at this instant:
 * Liberty University
 * Bryan College Center for Origin Research
 * Bob Jones University Division of Natural Science
 * Cedarville University Science and Mathematics
 * Earth History Research Center
 * Here are also few quite comprehensive lists about the Creation Colleges/Universities in the United States:
 * http://www.answersingenesis.org/colleges/?cat=college - A list consisting of twelve Creation Colleges/Universities in the U.S.
 * http://www.nwcreation.net/colleges.html - Another list, provided by NW Creation Network, comprehending roughly 67 Creation Universities/Colleges
 * http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/creationist-schools.html - Perhaps the most comprehensive list including about 222 Creation Colleges/Universities across the United States. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * These are not accredited though? Theroadislong (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why? Can you please show me your material? At least the ones I listed there, they all have .edu web address. .edu addresses are only provided to colleges and institutions that are accredited by an agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

FWIW - Yes, seems creationists are not generally regarded as scientists - a creationist with a science degree is not a creation scientist imo - but a "creationist with a science degree" instead - likewise, someone who scientifically studies creation mythology and related supernatural topics is not a creation scientist imo - but a "scientist who studies creation mythology and the supernatural" instead - at least this is my thinking about all this at the moment - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Drbogdan, I understand you might not fancy the state of things, but we can't change the facts that: a) it's a research subject in accredited Universities, b) it's part of the education curriculum in many Universities, and c) it's been aprroved as a subject to be taught in class. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * BRIEF Followup => According to Wiktionary, the definition of "creation science" => "The creation story found in Genesis in the Bible or the Quran, presented by fundamentalist Christians and Muslims as literal scientific truth." - the definition of "creationist" is "A proponent or supporter of creationism" - otoh, there is no definition whatsoever in Wiktionary for "creation scientist" - further, there is no definition whatsoever for "creation scientist" in the Oxford Dictionary - or in the Cambridge Dictionary - other well-regarded dictionaries may not include a definition for "creation scientist" either, I would think - hope this all helps - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Jayaguru-Shishya, you are editing against consensus. This edit has been reverted by 5 different editors. And it is simply not true that biologists reject only those putting forward the idea if they have a science degree or whatever. That was my point. There are well known Creationists who we can all agree are not scientists who make this argument. You misunderstand what I am saying. I am curious though, can you cite this Federal approval to teach Creationism in schools? The curriculum is not controlled by the Federal government but by the states, so I can't see how that would be possible. Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Dougweller, you are right. My bad, it's approved by several states, not by the federal government. I'd like to apologize my careless use of your governmental terminology as a non-American.
 * Anyway, we might be talking a different language here, I think. The reason why I am supporting the term "Creation Scientists" instead of "creationist" is to distinguish the layman supporters from the scholars in the field. I also have to disagree with you when you are saying that biologists criticize any creationist who makes the claim . When it comes to scientific debate, it always takes place between scholars themselves; scientific community does not debate with the public. That's not how the scientific process works; first comes an article, then it has to go through peer-review process in order to be published in an Academic Journal, after that it's open for debate in the Scientific Community where as other scientists try to replicate the results and falsify the thesis etc.. Scientists attacking the public? That's not part of the process.
 * About the consensus, I'd like to remind you that this started as a change FROM creation scientist TO creationist, and therefore creation science should stay until consensus is reached, I think. You also mentioned that there has been 5 different editors reverting the recovery of creation scientist. The discussion has been going on for a very short period of time, and WP:CON is really clear on this one. It says that: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. ... The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others.". Patience I'd like to ask from everybody. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The link Supt. of Printing presents above as evidence says it all: a list of "Creation scientists" in a creationist publication claims such luminaries as "Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineer". No, doesn't really give confidence: does creationist aerospace rely on heavenly uplift? As a reliable source notes, a scientist holding religious conviction doesn't mean they're doing science when they express that conviction, and "Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent." The article still uses the wording "creation scientists" in several places, but this is misleading and should be reworded to avoid giving "equal validity" to these fringe claims. . . `dave souza, talk 19:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - updated *undefined* "creation scientist" wording => to *defined* "creationist" wording instead - per discussion above & related - hopefully, this is *entirely* ok and consistent w/ the present consensus - please rv/mv/ce if otherwise of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You were "updating" a direct quote from a book. I wonder how you could have changed a term used in printed material according to some Wikipedia consensus? Have you remembered to tell the author about this too? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Jayaguru-Shishya - Thank you for your comments - yes, I *entirely* agree - no updating of the undefined wording in direct quotes was performed intentionally - please adjust as needed of course (your comment did not specify a particular instance) - in any case - thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hehe, no problem :D Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Lede too long tag
I reverted the addition of the "lede too long" tag. There have been so many swerves by creationists that it is hard to condense the lede much below what it already is. Some editing would be good, maybe a 20% reduction or so, but the lede is an accurate summary and reasonably concise given the many different diversions it has to cover. Guy (Help!)
 * I disagree (obviously since I added the tag) I think the lead should give a brief description of the article and leave the rest for the sections, otherwise the reader is overwhelmed with information that could easily be moved below. When I find some time I'll try to make that 20% reduction you mention and we can see if we agree on it. Regards.  Gaba  (talk)  22:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems fair to me. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Newsweek's 1987 article quoted in a footnote
By Wikipedia source standards, the info below can't quoted in the article, but it might help inform the editors.

The 1987 Newsweek reporters commented in 2012 regarding that widely referenced, apparently invalid "count" of 700 creation scientists. From the Article, this line: "The scientific community has overwhelmingly rejected the ideas put forth in creation science as lying outside the boundaries of a legitimate science.[5][28][29]" references this: Larson 2004, p. 258. "Virtually no secular scientists accepted the doctrines of creation science; but that did not deter creation scientists from advancing scientific arguments for their position." Martz, Larry; McDaniel, Ann (June 29, 1987). "Keeping God Out of the Classroom" (PDF). Newsweek (New York: Newsweek LLC): 23–24. ISSN 0028-9604. Retrieved 2014-09-18. "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientist) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly.'" Poling 2003, p. 28

Since virtual omniscience would be needed to "count" the number of creation scientists (surveys are used for that purpose), Martz & McDaniel were contacted and they replied to a question about whether that count was actually the membership number of a creationist group, that is, the number of scientists with advanced degrees with the Creation Research Society. "Bob – I wish I had the notes for that story, but I don’t have everything from 25 years ago, and I don’t remember. So sorry that I cannot help you." On April 1, 2013 Larry Martz wrote, "Mr. Enyart, ... I was the New York writer on this story, working from reports from Ann McDaniel and others who weren't named in the byline, along with whatever telephone reporting I did myself. I don't remember which of them came up with that figure, or what its provenance was. It might well have been Ginny Carroll, who was Newsweek's principal reporter on Christian religious affairs; but sad to say, Ginny is dead. Your conjecture seems entirely reasonable, but none of us can confirm it... I think you are probably safe to use your conjecture for the source, along with 'probably.' best, larry martz".

More about this, along with the full text of the Newsweek article, is easily available by Googling it. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (Can I comment on my own post? Don't know. But here goes:) NCSE Also Sees CRSQ as the Source for this "Count": From the anti-creationist group founded by Dr. Eugenie Scott, the National Center for Science Education, Glenn Branch writes, "As for 700, I speculate that it was chosen as the number of members of the Creation Research Society, which requires its voting members to have earned a 'postgraduate degree in a recognized area of science.' Its membership hovers around 700..." Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bob your original research is not a reliable source of information. It is interesting. What is your proposal for an improvement to the article based on reliable sources.

Adding external links
@User:Mann jess ... or others with insight ... I had added to the external links a pointer to CreationWiki .org (maybe should list Rational wiki counter too...))
 * "* CreationWiki main page"

And see it reverted with saying "Doesn't meet WP:EL. . (TW))" -- ??? Gonna need a leeetle more detail -- such as a particular part of WP:EL pages and general idea of what your thinking is a bit, maybe 4 words ?   Since that is a creation science site it seemed to be on topic and seems large/mentioned enough to meet notability to article, and is both actor and location where some of the controversy occurs.  Also seems to meet WP:EL as 3.2 Link to consider and no issue in sections 4.1 thru 4.7 links normally to be avoided, so ... just seeing reasons it belongs at WP:EL, not seeing a reason to delete.)   So I'm going to undo so the puzzle is highlighted and have undo note say "Please detail issue, see TALK" to maybe get more info on what look was and if thought failing still then how it was thought failing and at what part. Markbassett (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:ELNO #12 very explicitly bars open wikis in our external links section. #1 and #2 are also of note. Please don't continue adding links that are barred by our guidelines.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Jess -- thanks for this and the longer note "(Reverted 1 edit by Markbassett (talk): This is very explicitly barred in WP:ELNO #7, among others. (TW))".   I think you're mistaken in ELNO nature and overstating there some, plus below that the ELNO bits specified look okayish as follows.  I'll ask if you have any further thinking on how WP should handle wikis as well -- are you perhaps thinking external wikis should always be by wiki article rather than external link list (unless a specific location needs to be cited) or what  ?
 * No explicit barring a bit inappropriate to say "explicit" or "bar" as ELNO is guidance and explanation and literally "explicit" would mean the word bar appears which it doesn't.  The words actually used are title "normally to be avoided", and header line says what to "generally avoid".  You could assert "contrary to ELNO 7" but to say ELNO "explicitly bars" has a distorted ELNO.
 * 7. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that work only with a specific browser or in a specific country.
 * No prob seen as http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page is a wiki, as web-accessible as Wikipedia is.
 * 12. Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked.
 * Seems okayable at their count 8,575 articles with 5,952 in English, top page history goes back to May 2006, and not fork of the vast bulk of Wikipedia articles. If your focus here was on number of editors being dozens then what number are you having in mind for "substantial" ?  If that was the part of interest, I'll gladly seek a reading on that to help make ELNO precedent more specific.
 * Markbassett (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Creationwiki does not have a substantial number of editors or a substantial history of stability. Stability does not mean "the site has stayed online." Stability refers to the stability of its content. It looks like creationwiki gets around 14 edits to their site a day; that does not meet ELNO #12. Even if that were not the case, it also doesn't contain neutral information extending beyond what we would include in this article (#1), and it provides factually inaccurate material and misleading research (#2). It is absolutely unacceptable as an external link on this or any other WP article (except, perhaps, an article about creationwiki).  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Attributing scientific statements
I updated part of the lead per WP:YESPOV (also intext and psi), but my edit was reverted with the claim that there is some controversy over the statements. Two statements were updated: Within the scientific community, there is no significant disagreement that creation science is not science. The second statement, similarly, is not controversial within the scientific community; biologists by and large do not take creation science seriously. We must follow our policies and not portray these ideas as though they are controversial, or held by less than the majority, within the scientific community. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Creation science has been characterized as a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts
 * According to a popular introductory philosophy of science text, "virtually all professional biologists regard creation science as a sham.

Attempt to disprove scientific facts
I suppose this may seem true to those who oppose Creation Science, but in fact it is blatantly false. For example, if you visit the Creation Museum, you will discover a very strong emphasis in the exhibits on "same facts--different interpretations. The second part of this statement, reinterpreting scientific facts, is correct.  That should stand and the incorrect statement should be deleted, unless someone can provide compelling proof not from what its opponents say about it, but from Creation scientists themselves that show they say they are trying to disprove scientific facts.  Musoniki (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "The Creation Museum's displays and exhibits portray a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative, the Young Earth creationist viewpoint advocated by Answers in Genesis." Yes, a completely unscientific interpretation. --Neil N  <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah! You said just what I am claiming. An interpretation, not an attempt to disprove scientific facts. Musoniki (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And these "interpretations" ignore scientific facts and how science works. Exhibit A. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Creation science is a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts
This statement is judgmental and falls far short of Wikipedia's professed commitment to neutrality. This statement is an opinion and should be labeled as such. Musoniki (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * See WP:NPOV for a description of what "neutral" means on wikipedia. Also see the section WP:YESPOV. "Neutrality" means following the sources, and our sources indicate the statement is wholly correct within the scientific community, so we have to state that, and not as an opinion.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Jess, I disagree. Your sources give their opinion. Could I balance it by giving other examples of professional scientists who hold the opposite opinion? Then readers could "follow the sources" in both cases. Musoniki (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You disagree with what? That NPOV means representing the sources? Or that the sources indicate this is the scientific community's opinion? If the latter, you need to provide sources demonstrating that.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are advocating for a false balance. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

and is viewed by professional biologists as a sham.[8]
This statement is misleading because it sounds like all professional biologists agree. While I will admit that the majority agree, there are a number of professional biologists as well as other scientists in the Creation Science movement. In an attempt to bring some balance to the page, I have given some examples, but my contribution has been immediately reversed numerous times. This causes the page to be unfairly unbalanced in favor of those who oppose Creation Science. It causes people to think that virtually all credible scientists call it pseudo-science. In fact, a majority do, but with a significant number of dissenting scientists who do hold to Creation Science. Even my preliminary list was long, so in an effort to make the point without making it too long, I listed only the degrees of those associated with the movement. Would it help if I gave specific names? Surely the page should not be allowed to stand as it is without balancing it with some of the prime examples of professional scientists who hold this view. Musoniki (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See Project Steve. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Again... sources, please.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you believe that there are many professional scientists that believe that there is valid evidence to scientifically prove creationism the onus is on you to provide the evodence for that since the sources currently used say the opposite.--67.68.209.200 (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

"Fundamentalist Christian"
I am uncomfortable with this word; fundamentalist is specifically mentioned at WP:LABEL as a term to avoid. While I realize fundamentalist Christianity is a term, it's also an unnecessarily broad one. In one meaning of the term, it will encompass evangelical Christianity and charismatic Christianity; in a more traditional sense of the term (i.e., how it was used before the post-modern era), it referred to a movement which was outright hostile to charismatic Christianity.

Perhaps we could change the term to something like "biblical literalist?" I realize that sounds absolutely awful, so I'm open for suggestions. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Our sources consistently use the term "fundamentalist Christian" to describe those who hold a relatively literal view of the Bible. Virtually none of these fundamentalist Christians believes in evolution; a belief in creationism defines them. I see no problem continuing to use the term. No need to change. Binksternet (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You've answered my response by completely ignoring the points I just made, and, ironically, committing exactly the same error I had just pointed out was made in the article. This wouldn't even be so bad if you were factually correct, but you're not: a belief in creationism doesn't in any way define what you're calling a fundamentalist Christian (unless you're defining them in a much more narrow way than the literature I've read defines them... once again, ironically, we're talking about two different terms as used by academia, something which doesn't seem to bother you). And, finally, I'm unimpressed by what I see as an "us vs. them" WP:MASTADON type of thinking to a very real problem that I've brought up. This isn't about "them" the creationists, or "us" the creationists, it's about properly defining them for the encyclopedia. Magog the Ogre 2 (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

So be careful with that approach in articles. Christian Sirolli (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Struck above edit as editor was a sockpuppet. Doug Weller (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Dinosaur Extinction
I'd like to know what do creationist scientists think how dinosaurs have become extinct? They believe that 6.000 years ago, humans lived together with dinosaurs. So how have dinosaurs become extinct, according to them? --212.186.0.108 (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really scientists, probably better described as creation science proponentsists. For your amusement and delight, AiG informs us that "For most creationists, the extinction of the dinosaurs, as well as other extinctions, is not a mystery. In fact, the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other creatures has an easy answer—they simply died in the Genesis Flood (except those dinosaurs likely taken on the Ark, which probably died soon after the Flood)." Rather hilarious, doesn't seem to mention the non-extinction of avian dinosaurs. . . dave souza, talk 22:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, interesting. It's ok when you don't believe it, but please don't mock my religion! The Flood happened and that's proven scientifically, not only by the Bible. And on the ark, there were only "normal" animals, not dinosaurs. And the Avian dinosaurs seemed to extinct, because they couldn't land or find food anywhere when the planet was flooded. Thank you for that information. One could add it into the article. --212.186.0.108 (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please desist from mocking my True Belief that avian dinosaurs are not extinct: check the linky. Many floods have happened, over the millennia. As for what was on the Ark, clearly there are sectarian differences, but if there were no dinosaurs, where did the dove come from eh? The information is a primary source for fringe nonscientific beliefs, so we'd need a good secondary source showing how it's been received by mainstream science if we were include it in the article. . . dave souza, talk 16:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Unbiased Content is a Must!
Why is the inter. to this article sound as if an evolutionist/atheist wrote it. For example, one of the lines say:

A more unbiased way to start off the article would be

Now doesn't that sound more unbiased, as if we are trying to tell the facts instead of biasedly saying it is not factual. It is just as biased to say Evolution is scientifically factual, even though you can't prove evolution with the scientific method. History cannot be easily (if at all) be proven with the scientific method. http://www.icr.org/ has plenty of info on Creation Science. A good reference for the factuality of Creation Science is. Christian Sirolli (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Read WP:NPOV very carefully. Creationism is a fringe concept/belief, and policy says that we present it as such. So if you want to say we are biassed against fringe ideas and are biassed in favor of science, you're right. Doug Weller (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Institute for Creation Research is a partisan advocacy organization established to promote creationism and undermine evolutionary biology. It's the opposite of a good source, and if you're getting your information from that, I suggest you look elsewhere. Morris, its president, is if anything more unreliable - he apparently believes Leviathan was an actual living creature. I suggest you read WP:RS, our reliable sources policy, to see what kinds of sources are actually reliable according to wiki guidelines. Rwenonah (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether it is a good scientific source is one thing, but it definitely can be a good source for getting a "Creation science" viewpoint. In defining what "creation science" is, it's important to use their own sources, and yes of course, independent sources as well. Motmajor (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be arguing for primary sources biased towards this fringe viewpoint: see WP:PSTS and relate that to WP:SOURCES policy: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." A reputation sadly lacking in creationist sources. Note that use of Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves is subject to restrictions, starting with the provision that the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. . . dave souza, talk 21:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for saying "You seem to be arguing", because in fact that is not my intent. I just think that fringe viewpoints still deserve to have some sort of response, even if the majority viewpoint is going to be presented as the accurate one. Motmajor (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Philosophy of science
One of the things that I think will be helpful to incorporate into this article is a discussion concerning the philosophical underpinnings of "creation science". I'm not quite sure how to say it, and my attempts thus far have obviously been reverted. What I am trying to accomplish relates to this article: Philosophy of science. Perhaps someone who has worked on the article for quite some time can chime in and give me some background on whether this has already been discussed. Thanks. Motmajor (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is what you want to pursue, then you would need to read about and then cite sources for both accepted and conventional scientific philosophy, methods, and results, and, also, corresponding philosophy, methods, and results from creation science. Note that creation science is contrary to a very wide and deep set of set of existing philosophical and scientific subjects, some of which are interdependent and others of which stand on their own. Creation science is also contrary to a wide set of religious beliefs outside of those based on literalist interpretations of some ancient Jewish myths. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You know, I may have spoken to soon without getting a better grasp of the entire article. It appears that what I am trying to add here has already been added under the heading "Metaphysical assumptions". Perhaps what I would suggest is that this section on metaphysical assumptions actually be incorporated into the Introduction of the entire article in some fashion (perhaps a little briefer). This is so central to the entire creation science paradigm, that I feel like it fits very naturally as part of the introductory definition of what it IS. You see where I'm going with this? Motmajor (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be heading off into forum-type speculation: please find reliable third-party sources to support any additions you propose, and remember that we have to show minority viewpoints in the context of how they're received by the mainstream. . . . dave souza, talk 21:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case I am not proposing any additions, I'm just saying this section on metaphysical assumptions would do very well as part of the introduction to the article. It's already in the article, just move it up! Motmajor (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

While those within the field would consider their work scientific
I was asked to discuss this addition on the talk page. The comment was "it ... misrepresents the weight of the sources". I understand and totally respect this principle. I disagree that this misrepresents the weight of the sources. Here are some reasons: Please let me know what you think, and I am happy to discuss. Motmajor (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) The other part of the sentence, "The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view", does not have a source cited for this claim. Although it does link to other Wikipedia articles. So if we're going to talk about weight of sources, shouldn't there be a source? There are some sources toward the later part of this sentence, after the semicolon, but those do not appear necessarily to be connected to this claim.
 * 2) Even with my addition, I would argue, the greater weight is still on the latter part of the sentence ("The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community..."). When you say "overwhelming" and "consensus", that clears away any doubt as to what you are trying to conclude. The purpose of adding "While those within the field would consider their work scientific", is simply to create a fuller introduction to the article and allow those within creation science to speak to the definition of their group.
 * 3) This article is intended to describe Creation science (whatever that is), not science in general. Even if Creation science does not qualify as science, that is besides the point when it comes to who has the right to define what creation science IS. In order to define what it is, there are essentially going to be two perspectives on it. There will be the perspective of those within "creation science", and there will be the perspective of those outside of creation science. It is important to hear the voices of both those within and without the creation science "movement", especially as to how the creation science "idea" should be defined. To not allow those who are within creation science even to offer a definition of themselves would be like silencing the homosexual community by saying everyone on the outside should be able to make their own conclusions without even doing basic consultation with those in the LGBT group.
 * It seems superfluous to say that "creation scientists" consider their field scientific. Rwenonah (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But do those within the "Creation science" field have a right to contribute to a definition of their own field? I could care less about whether it is scientific or not, my question is whether they have a right to contribute to a definition of their own identities. Motmajor (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * GSA Today - The evolution of creationism provides a useful overview. Note that "The displays at the Creation Museum in Peterson, Kentucky, USA, explicitly reject reason, branding it the enemy of faith and invoking a centuries-long, ongoing conspiracy of scientists to mislead the faithful about the nature of the world. Despite centuries of geological research that contradicts creationist claims, Gallup tracking polls from 1982 to 2012 have consistently found that more than 40% of Americans believe that God created people fewer than 10,000 years ago (Gallup, 2012)." And, in conclusion, "Geologists assess theories by how well they fit data, and creationists evaluate facts by how well they fit their theories. This simple distinction frames an unbridgeable intellectual rift." Relabelling your faith as science may convince the faithful, but PSCI requires care to show this as a fringe view, giving due weight to science. . . . dave souza, talk 07:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As my comment above, my question is not whether "Creation science" is science or not. I'll leave that up to others to decide. My question is whether "Creation science" sources will be allowed to speak for themselves in this Wikipedia article, or whether only opposing views will be allowed to speak. Motmajor (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As above, WP:PSTS applies, and WP:SOURCES policy requires that we "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." A reputation sadly lacking in creationist sources, and use of Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves is subject to restrictions, starting with the provision that the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. WP:WEIGHT requires that where we show minority views, we have to show how they've been received by the mainstream (my summary, read through the policy). So, comply with these policies.  . . dave souza, talk 21:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Others have decided. Creation science is not science according to reliable sources. Sources that are unreliable as clearly shown by dave souza have no part in Wikipedia. The Wikipedia rules/guidelines are clear - there is no debate in this respect. Creation 'science' supporters can peddle their religious views elsewhere Robynthehode (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Both of you have missed my point entirely, or I was not clear enough. I'm not saying one viewpoint should be represented. And I'm also not saying we should make a "fringe" viewpoint, such as Creation science, look legitimate (in light of the majority viewpoint). Sure, lets make it look as ridiculous as the "reliable" sources say, just as long as Creation science sources are at least allowed to respond to the claims made about it in some fashion. Isn't it only fair that there be allowed some sort of response? Motmajor (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Their response is included to the degree that the acceptance of their views among reliable sources would indicate. Anything more is undue weight. Rwenonah (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I have a qualification in evolution, and as much as evolution is promoted, propagated, and pronounced to the world as fact by scientists, it is at best a theory, a theory with many scientific problems with which I am keenly familiar and with which I can hold hours of debate. It is kind of frustrating that only one side of the paradigm is presented to all young and old, but last time I checked, you need both sides of a scientific paradigm to make an intellectual decision on which is true and which isn't. Creation science (if you just take some time to look into, you will see) has a strong scientific foundation and is not just a bunch of country folk that came out into the modern world and cannot let go of grandma's fireplace stories. To end my comment off, please note, not checking out the other side of the story might leave the seeker at a loss that he/she would have wanted the choice to avoid, what if you are wrong? Please at least study the other side scientifically to be sure, I have certainly done this, have you? Kind Regards. 58.8.149.89 (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC) cornelius
 * Creation science is actual science, Funny April Fool's joke, nice work :) Lipsquid (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Is the date significant? If not, please peruse WP:SOURCES. Thanks, dave souza, talk 21:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Creation science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scicom.lth.se/fmet/myths.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 21:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

separate Young Earth Science (YES) from Creation science
Young Earth Science (YES) is not a duplicate of Creation Science: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Science_(YES)&oldid=642151699 Lucretius and David Hume were not advocates of Creation Science. I know of no supporter of creation science who points to tree rings as evidence of a Young Earth ("Evidence for Yes" section, 3rd ¶).

David B. Kitts (d. 2010) studied under Dobzhansky and G.G. Simpson (the renowned paleontologist) and had been a Professor in the Geology, History of Science and Philosophy departments at the Univ. of Okla. Kitts admitted that Aristotle's biological essentialism, which seems to imply YES ("Implications" section, 1st ¶), was a valid scientific viewpoint (Hall, pp. iii,83,84). Kitts was not in the Creation Science camp and in fact debated such.

G. H. Harper is an atheist (not pro-Creation Science) and supports the "steady state theory of species" which corresponds to the stasis of Essential Types of Life (ETL's) in the YES article (http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ213351). As stated above, biological essentialism fits best with YES. I could add his views to the article if that would help. Harper's thoughts appeared in the School Science Review (UK).

This2ShanLip (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The fundamental problem is one of notability. What reliable secondary sources cover this topic? The only source that seems to actually discuss 'young earth science" is Jay Hall's book, but that book does not appear notable (almost all the Google hits I could find for it came from Amazon). It also appears to be self-published, and looking at the preview on Amazon, it appears to be a little odd.
 * The other problem with the article are you wrote it, is that it sythesises novel ideas from primary sources. That isn't an acceptable way to write Wikipedia articles. Finally, looking at the content, this does just appear to be another retread of creation science. Guettarda (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a really helpful differentiation. I am not a scientist, but I am a believer in what the Bible states. Genesis chapter 1 does not tell us how old the planet Earth is. It does describe the creation of life on earth and when the lights in the sky started to shine, but the planet we live on and even the water was already present, so for those of us who believe that the Bible is a valid document, we are prone to believe in a creator, and even the initial creation of all life forms within a 6 day period (since many life forms are dependent upon eachother) without necessarily believing in a young planet. So thank you for agreeing that we need to keep those views separate.Zohre6 (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This is an old discussion, but all creationist who believe that God created the universe and man at the same time in their current form are young earth creationist. Whether you think it was 10,000 years ago or 500,000 years ago, it doesn't really matter.  Both are equally wrong according to many fields of science.  If a creationist thinks there is a very large gap, (billions of years), between when God created the heavens and the Earth with other forms of animals and then God created man much later, then they can rightfully not be called young earth creationists.  It is also much harder to scientifically dispute this form of creationism.  Otherwise, you are a young earth creationist and don't realize it yet. Lipsquid (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Zohre6, Genesis 1 doesn't tell you how old the Earth is, and neither does Genesis 2, where a second creation of the Earth is described. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Creation science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150115050927/http://www.presbyterianmission.org/ministries/theologyandworship/evolution/ to http://www.presbyterianmission.org/ministries/theologyandworship/evolution/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141222053814/https://prev.dailyherald.com/story/?id=235372 to https://prev.dailyherald.com/story/?id=235372
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130609203040/http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html to http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Creation vs Evolution
I'm sorry. I don't intend to stir up anything, and please don't categorize this as an attack. If this webpage is not biased, then why is it that evolution is stated as fact? Why is Creation stated as an attempt to answer scientific questions through Genesis?


 * Because evolution is a fact. We actually know this is true. Its not conjecture. 59.167.111.154 (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

As quoted Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]

All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences 198.36.94.34 (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

As quoted Creation science or scientific creationism[1] is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative.

I don't see why both articles couldn't simply show the views of either topic and simply leave the rest to the individual to determine on their own. Then there is no chance of misleading anyone.


 * Those quotes are correct: evolution is the origin of all life on earth, and creationism is an attempt to understand that origin through religion instead. The purpose of this page is to inform readers about the vast body of science related to this subject, and not obscure it, or send readers on uninformed intellectual odysseys grounded in ignorance. There are many things that need exploration, and readers will be unable to contribute if they are not appraised of the current state of human knowledge. -Darouet (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Minor clarification, almost certainly abiogenesis is the origin of all life on Earth, evolution is what happens after that, when life develops descent with modification. . . dave souza, talk 19:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

No, even the British Museum, stated on a recent display, that Evolution is a theory. You can only prove something is a fact if you were there at the time and an eye witness. Since that is not true of anyone living, then both Creationism and Evolution are both theories. One is based on assumptions about what we see and calculate, the other is based on a document that has been handed down from ancient times, and as such is no less evidence.Zohre6 (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merry Christmas! For your information and delight, see evolution as fact and theory, and note that theory has a specific meaning in science: it doesn't mean "conjecture" or "belief in sacred text". The meaning in theologies may differ, but this legalistic rebranding of diluvialism clearly isn't science. As the article notes. Happy New Year, when it comes! . . dave souza, talk 19:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * But it sounds logical even though it is nonsense. 00:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * And you can't prove something is a fact just because you 'were there at the time and an eye witness'. Lots of objections to this line of reasoning. Two are: you are mistaken in your observation - that is why scientific experiments are repeated. And another objection is your interpretation of what you observe can be mistaken. All 'fact' has a level of uncertainty but 'facts' derived from repeated and repeatable observations are very likely to result in the best conclusions of what can then be regarded as facts Robynthehode (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

"based on a document that has been handed down from ancient times" And do you believe that all ancient sources are reliable? Have you tried reading anything based on the writings of Ctesias (5th century BC)? Among other incredible claims:
 * "India is heavily populated, more than the rest of the world combined"
 * Indian dogs are the size of lions
 * The martikhora (manticore), a red creature with a face like a man's, three rows of teeth, and a scorpion's sting on its tail.
 * Short, black men called pygmies, who live in the middle of India. Dimadick (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing one aspect of evolution that is observable and repeatable. Trapperjack (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Will one be enough? See E. coli long-term evolution experiment. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Also see evidence of common descent for more. — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, guys. Just had a question. From what I could tell, the experiment with the e.coli only rearranged genetic information already present in the e.coli. Not only that, but it was stated in the article that the bacteria actually lost some genetic information. This seems to be consistent with other examples of microevolution I've read about. If this is the case, how does this fit with macroevolution? Thanks Trapperjack (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please show where it “was stated in the article that the bacteria actually lost some genetic information.“ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also see Talk:Evolution/FAQ Q7 A7 #4, Q6. — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Just a question. This topic (as stated on the top of the page) is HIGYLY controversial. There are arguments from both sides (including scientific ones!), but the article seems to have accepted the evolution side, altough not too much debate seems to have happened (at least not on this talk page). Q: If this topic is so controversial, why not apply the controversial flag to the article? Also, it seems that creationist scientific arguments (like Trapperjack's) are surpressed, and the article takes an evolutionist position, altough several creationist scientific(!) arguments are also available. eg. https://youtube.com/watch?v=YddmGJofbL0. Or why not simply remove the article. Without being profoundly debated (somewhere BEFORE posting this article), why does the article promote crestion science as theology and evolution as science? Bottom line: Accepting a side's view (evolution), and turning a deaf ear to creation scientists' arguments is not very objective... 2A01:36D:113:C3F:7916:4CAA:526B:B763 (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Debate on this talk page has been going on for more than ten years (see the archive links above.) Creation “science” is well-documented as being pseudoscience, simulating the outward form of science without honestly and diligently applying the scientific method. I do not think that Dawkins video shows what you think it shows. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * scientific on one side, pseudoscientific on the other. Just plain Bill is right, we should probably close this per WP:NOTFORUM.  For specific suggestion improvements to the article, please start a new section at the bottom.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would happily see this section closed. It seems to have been started over three years ago, and the recent questions are going over ground that has been covered before. Just plain Bill (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Quote: "Over the course of the experiment, the populations have evolved to specialize on the glucose resource on which they grow. This was first described in 2000, when Cooper and Lenski demonstrated that all populations had experienced decay of unused metabolic functions after 20,000 generations, restricting the range of substances on which the bacteria could grow." I guess maybe this doesn't "clearly" state that information was lost, but it certainly seems to imply that. Trapperjack (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it does not imply anything meaningful about gain or loss of genetic information. WP:NOTFORUM Just plain Bill (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Creationist vs "creationary"
I've run across an editor changing "creationist" to "creationary", claiming that it is the proper adjective. I'm wondering if this is a Creationist usage, AIG seems to use it. Doug Weller talk 10:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * http://www.dictionary.com/browse/creationism?s=t no creationary listed there, it says the proper adjective related form is creationistic.  The word is difficult because creationism has its own definition and related forms that are not all related to the root word creation.  I would change them back, unless he can site a dictionary as a source. Lipsquid (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Anyone mind if I adopt the term? Maybe 'properly' define it, give it some sciencey meaning. Sounds like a great name for the geological period, in which humans originated - but specifically, by non-evolutionary processes, hence the name. And like actual mileage, dates for the Creationary may vary - from YECs to whatever rival brands of expertise. Just seems like a perfect impostor for - the Pliocene / Pleistocene, i.e. key periods of hominid origins - albeit by evolution. Any objections? I wouldn't want to infringe. For good measure - the Creationary, as I'd appropriate it, could be followed in geological time sequence, by - the Tissuary; as in a 'tissue of lies.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akersbp (talk • contribs) 15:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, it may be my turn to be that guy... unless you find a reliable source, it probably won't fly in an encyclopedic context. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that, because the term "evolutionary" is used to describe things related to evolution, the editor changed "creationist" to "creationary". Creationist implies religion, while this article is referring to the science of creation, so creationary could work, I guess2601:644:8580:50D:CCDC:B597:8CFD:4AA (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * We are not here to make up new words. We are here to summarize what reliable sources, primarily third-party sources, have to say about "creation science". Binksternet (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Young-earth creationism and the ID split
Am I right in concluding that creation science is largely (if not entirely) an attempt to justify Young Earth creationism? The article seems to say so, but I'd like to make sure how much (little?) CS has to do with Old Earth creationism. Based on what I've heard about it, in popular lectures and books for laymen, it would seem to be entirely YEC, but is this certain enough for us to say so in the article?

Also, and this is closely related, is Intelligent design (ID) mostly Young Earth or Old Earth, or what? When the ID movement moved away from CS, did they (quietly, perhaps) stop beating the drum for YEC?

More to the point, is ID strictly YEC, or is it a kind of "big tent" creationism? Does it say that the all life on earth is less than 10,000 years old (per YEC), or simply that it could not have come into existence by "unguided" processes? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really: the common thread is anti-evolution creationism. As a way round constitutional restrictions on school science teaching, YECs produced scientific creationism, and commonly used the argument from design. When that suffered court defeats, ID was developed by old earth creationists but kept the same design arguments. Thus ID became a big tent, some proponents OEC and others YEC. See and Timeline of intelligent design. . . dave souza, talk 20:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Creation science attempts to discover arguments for Creation over Evolution. Creation scientists generally look for uncomformities in the geologic column, search for errors with intermediates, and so on. Many universities and museums, usually ones that openly agree with Evolution, have little respect toward Creation science as a science. Creation science exists because evolution contradicts the Bible. For example, the Flood, Creation, and many other parts of Genesis are the basis for the Christian religion. Therefore, evolutionary views such as the Big Bang and the Old Earth view have, of course, resulted in the formation of Creation science.2601:644:8580:50D:CCDC:B597:8CFD:4AA (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * What complete nonsense. Binksternet (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The IP. Doesn’t know what evolution is, and says on theor talk page “ Evolution is an opinion as much as Christianity.” Given their edits at Abeka they also identify it with atheism. Doug Weller  talk 06:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

"evolutionary views such as the Big Bang"

The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution, nor does it concern any aspect of biology. Dimadick (talk) 09:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Religious basis
I rewrote the 'Religious basis' section in an attempt to start adding more citation. However, the edit was reverted. Please explain what I can do to help better cite it. --Jahunsbe (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

This Didn't Have to Be Removed
"However, some more recent Creationist works state that the Creation of the world itself must, however, be accepted by faith and that Creation is therefore not scientific.[19]" Which is a true statement, just check the source

"Creation science attempts to discover arguments for Creation over Evolution. Creation scientists generally look for uncomformities in the geologic column, search for errors with intermediates, and so on. Many universities and museums, usually ones that openly agree with Evolution, have little respect toward Creation science as a science. Creation science exists because evolution contradicts the Bible - the Flood, Creation, and many other parts of Genesis are the basis for the Christian religion. Therefore, evolutionary views such as the Big Bang and the Old Earth view have, of course, resulted in the formation of Creation science." Again, gives the reader an idea about Creation science.

"Creation science argues that, as no person ever saw the Big Bang, we cannot prove or disprove that the Big Bang occurred, and that one must accept evolution by faith.[19] It also states that, since no person ever saw God create the world, creation must also be accepted by faith." There is no reason for this to be removed.73.223.163.36 (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It's ridiculous, the statement you quote, "one must accept evolution by faith." Pure hogwash. Your source, Science: Earth and Space, an 8th grade textbook published by and for Pensacola Christian College, is not a reliable WP:SECONDARY source. Instead it is a fundamentalist Christian creationist source, a textbook supposedly teaching science based on the Bible, which is already a ridiculous notion. Binksternet (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree. If you take the statement in context, it reads "Creation science argues ... one must accept evolution by faith." This is correct, and I would consider the source to probably be ok for a representation of what creation science argues. Writing so one side's opinion is stated like in these paragraphs is the way advocated by writing for the opponent. I would agree that this should be reinstated. —Jahunsbe (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No please read WP:FALSEBALANCE. Theroadislong (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Language such as ”evolutionary views such as the Big Bang” betrays a fundamental misunderstanding; the big bang has to do with cosmology, or astrophysics, while evolution is a biological phenomenon. Apples and oranges don’t begin to capture it; more like nuclear fusion and sunfish. Just plain Bill (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This attempts to misresent pseudoscience practitioners as scientists ("creation scientists") and legitimate science as religion "one must accept evolution by faith", which is wrong and would also introduce WP:FALSEBALANCE. Please read Talk:Evolution/FAQ, scientific method, scientific theory, evolution as fact and theory, evidence of common descent and Wikipedia's policy about pseudoscience.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 06:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Amusigly bonkers claim that "Creation scientists generally look for uncomformities in the geologic column" – like Hutton's Unconformity, perhaps, the ones that did a lot to confirm deep time? . . . dave souza, talk 06:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a statement of what creation science often claims, not what is considered true. —Jahunsbe (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Missing Citations
There are some areas that appear to be missing citations.
 * The entire section 'Religious Basis' has no citations.
 * The second paragraph under 'Metaphysical assumptions' has no citations.
 * Under 'Scientific criticism' "Scientists have considered..." has no citation. There is citations about the court cases, but not rejections by scientists.
 * Under 'Scientific criticism' "Creationism posits supernatural causes which lie outside the realm of..." has no citation.

I added to some of these, but the edit was undone as "evidently not reading the sources, they can go to the talk page if there actually is any unsourced material"

--Jahunsbe (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe not all, but I noticed that various had citations which were just a bit down the paragraph. — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Some of the sections had citations further down which only applied to the end of the paragraph. Also some entire sections were missing citations. --Jahunsbe (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I have added a citation to the first paragraph of 'Scientific Creation'. Citation number 61 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eadams20 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Scientific consensus creation science is a religious view?
I note that two editors I respect are convinced that the scientific consensus is that creation science is a religious view. . I am looking for a source which indicates that scientific consensus actually indicates that creation science is religious. I know that many people who are religious consider creation science to be essentially heretical which is arguably a-religious. Consensus in the scientific community is undoubtably that that creation science approach is pseudoscience. But I cannot find sources which argue that the consensus of scientists is that this pseudoscience is a "religious" perspective -- in fact it seems rather surprising that there would be a consensus as to this idea. Is there a source which indicates as much for this particular political movement of the 1980s/1990s? jps (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The phrasing you link is "The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific, view", which is reasonable as even creationists agree it's religious. It's cited to the NAS which actually says "In 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that creationism is religion, not science," a more nuanced position, and to the ToA copy of the court findings. So, better to say "The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science fails to produce scientific hypotheses, and courts have ruled that is a religious, not a scientific, view". . . dave souza, talk 13:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with your "better to say" wording. Is it okay for us to include that to avoid the pitfalls? jps (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, no doubt the wording can be refined further. I moved the scientific hypotheses link up to the first instance of "hypotheses". . . dave souza, talk 19:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Attack mode of first two paragraphs
The tone of the first two paragraphs are the reason I don't contribute to this website. If I were to edit and make it a more neutral introduction, rather than openly hostile, the edits would surely be reversed. Absolutely Genesis is not comprehensive in explaining all aspects of science; it takes a leap of faith (like every other book does) to put it together. But then, so do many aspects of secular science. A leap of faith involves religiosity: belief in the big bang theory involves a leap of faith; belief in evolution involves a leap of faith. But, some things are perhaps better explained through Genesis, some not so better explained. The documentary "Is Genesis Science?" offers a good basis from a creation science perspective and shows that many more scientists than acknowledged support that position. We all know they are thrashed if they profess anything other than a secular point of view. Ledboots (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read the above in the introductory section..."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)." Theroadislong (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is Genesis History? is an unreliable source, intended as propaganda. "Interviewing thirteen creation scientists, the narrator of the film argues that Genesis portrays real historical events. " Dimadick (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is Genesis History is not intended as, nor does it represent in any sense, propaganda- any moreso than the content of the average show on National Geographic or the Discovery channel! That is just hand-waving which refuses to admit there is real scientific controversy. This is censorship and suppression of competing views.--Kanbei85 (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no scientific controversy. Nothing in the Book of Genesis is historical, it is only a creation myth. "Genesis is perhaps best seen as an example of a creation myth, a type of literature telling of the first appearance of humans, the stories of ancestors and heroes, and the origins of culture, cities and so forth." Dimadick (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Dimadick, it is demonstrably false to say there is no scientific controversy. What more needs to be said? There is scientific controversy, but in this case the side holding the majority position refuses to even do the courtesy of admitting the minority position exists! A type of bullying and censorship. See a partial list of living creation scientists.--Kanbei85 (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)