Talk:Creation science/Archive 21

Again, NPOV, factual errors, etc.
According to Wikipedia's guidelines, it is wikipedia's job to report the facts, not take sides on the issues. It is well and good to say that the majority of the scientific establishment rejects creationism, but when the article goes so far as to overtly call it pseudoscience, that amounts to taking sides! See: WP:NPOV "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." Whether creationism represents pseudoscience or not is an object of debate; it makes no difference that one side is more numerous than the other, Wikipedia still must objectively report there is disagreement, and that one side is in the majority, without actually taking sides. Sorry, this is a travesty.

Additionally, there is a factual error present when the article claims that "Creation science began in the 1960s". That is only true if you ignore the entire history of western science up until the late 1800's! Since creation science is simply science done from a point of view which assumes the Bible is true, or at least that a Creator exists, most all science prior to the popularization of Darwinism would be classified as "creation science". For example, famous astronomer Johannes Kepler wrote, "I was merely thinking God's thoughts after him. Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it benefits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."--Kanbei85 (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

"it makes no difference that one side is more numerous than the other, Wikipedia still must objectively report there is disagreement, and that one side is in the majority"

For an experienced user, you seem to be misquoting Wikipedia policy. Per Fringe theories:
 * "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner."
 * "To determine whether something is pseudoscientific or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, consider this: Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence—which is difficult to explain away—in an effort to create a model that better explains reality. Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence or rigour that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies on attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology while lacking a critical discourse itself (as is common among Biblical creationists), relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence (as for example in parapsychology), or indulges a suspect theoretical premise (such as the claims of water memory made by advocates of homeopathy)."

Creationism does not have "strong scientific evidence" to back it up. On another topic, Darwinism was preceded by previous theories of evolution, such as Lamarckism (Inheritance of acquired characteristics). The main problem was that these theories also contradicted available evidence. For an example: A man acquires great physical strength through physical exercise or due to the nature of his occupation. According to Lamarckism, this trait could be passed down to the man's children or descendants. However, no such inheritance of superior strength has been observed in humans. Dimadick (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Creationism does not have "strong scientific evidence" to back it up.
 * That is the very thing which is under debate. It is a violation of WP:NPOV for articles to take a stand on debates! It must be reported fairly as a debate, and it can be
 * noted that creationists represent a minority position among scientists. (How large or small a minority is also a topic of debate.)
 * you seem to be misquoting Wikipedia policy. Per Fringe theories
 * Actually I applied it directly and properly to the situation. It may well be that there is a contradiction within Wikipedia's policies between so-called 'fringe' policies
 * and NPOV, since calling something pseudoscience is inherently not a neutral statement with regards to the debate. I am not attempting to suggest a misrepresentation
 * of the debate; quite the opposite. I am objecting to the article taking sides in a debate rather than reporting the facts in a neutral fashion.
 * The point is not to give creationism undue weight, but simply not to take sides. It is factually incorrect and non-neutral to say creationists "lack critical discourse", so
 * that also represents a violation of NPOV.--Kanbei85 (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * There is no debate on this subject. There is endless pseudoscience and distraction from those who try to push a fringe point of view. We currently present a neutral view, with due weight. Hunc (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is debate. You cannot wish it out of existance by repetitively claiming, to the exclusion of all blatant evidence to the contrary, that there is "no debate". I am not attempting to push any agenda, I am simply trying to correct egregious instances of bias and failures to adhere to the stated policy of NPOV.--Kanbei85 (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't. A fringe group disagreeing with the overwhelming scientific consensus does not constitute "debate." --tronvillain (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, debate is exactly what it constitutes. The term 'overwhelming' is a subjective one, and the true extent of the number of scientists who disagree with Darwinism is unknown and unquantifiable. NPOV standards still apply regardless. Do not take sides on debates! Again, this is not about giving creationism undue weight. It is about refraining from creating biased, non-neutral language in Wikipedia articles.--Kanbei85 (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseam. Put "pseudoscience" into the archive search box at the top of the page to see results going back more than ten years. The likes of "Teach the Controversy" notwithstanding, there is no productive debate on the subject. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What is it about Wikipedia editors that makes them, by and large, unable to separate their own opinion from fact? "No productive debate", is, again, a statement of opinion. If people such as yourselves were not so hard at work attempting to suppress groups you deem politically incorrect through bias and inaccurate reporting, among other things, there would be much greater amounts of productive debate going on. To say there is no debate is nothing more than propaganda, as the existence of debate is easily demonstrable. --Kanbei85 (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A quick look back through the talk page archives establishes the consensus on this. It's even mentioned at the top of the talk page: A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents Creation science in an unsympathetic light and that criticism is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:


 * NPOV: Pseudoscience
 * NPOV: Undue weight
 * NPOV: Making necessary assumptions
 * NPOV: Giving "equal validity".
 * This argument is pointless. The tags should be removed from the article. --tronvillain (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason this article is frequently flagged for POV is that it is, in fact, a biased article and violates NPOV egregiously by taking sides in a debate.--Kanbei85 (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It isn't.] So endeth the lesson. . . . dave souza, talk 09:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk.origins
Science? == WikiPedia says Talk.origins is a "moderated Usenet discussion forum" ... And I see a few citations in the article. Is it accurate to state that a Usenet discussion forum is being held up as a source of true science? (Sorry, I just laughed so hard I'm going to have to change my shorts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.73.98.161 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * What's even funnier is that there are no citations to Talk.origins. There are however citations to a foundation, TalkOrigins Archive, that's a spin-off from the forum. Doug Weller  talk 15:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

My revert
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_science&diff=prev&oldid=935681574 Reverted because the change made it sound like Creation science actually disproves established science. Pepper Beast   (talk)  02:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If that's how it read to you, then, good revert. Hopefully we can get to something that is a bit smoother than the current wording. jps (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It would help, however, if you could explain which part of the wording made it sound like this. I am trying to figure out how this reads in such a fashion and am having trouble. jps (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit being reinstated rather than BRD - please check thanks
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_science&oldid=prev&diff=814420627 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edaham (talk • contribs) 18:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Adherents claim or creation science itself claims?
This diff, I agree, makes things simpler. But it also has the consequence of metonymyzing "creation science" as the idea itself certainly cannot claim anything -- only the adherents. Still, this may be preferable. If someone can come up with a brilliant way to avoid these syntax and usage issues, I'd be delighted!

jps (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, have rethought the opening sentence on the basis of the cited pages from Numbers: "Creation science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism, presented without overt Biblical language but with the claim that special creation and flood geology based on the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis have validity as science." – diff .  . dave souza, talk 18:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Evolutionary bias
This article is written from an evolutionist's point of view, not from a neutral point of view. It's not fair to both creation and evolution sides. It's only fair to the evolution side, while conservapedia is only fair to the creation side. It shouldn't say "is a pseudoscience," It should say "It's been considered a pseudoscience" to be fair to both sides. It should not start with "Creation science or scientific creationism is a pseudoscience," it should say "is a concept made by Christians in an attempt the reconcile the Bible with science" or something. The evolutionary bias of articles on creation and evolution and the liberal bias of Wikipedia is because most Wikipedia editors are liberal, and not conservative Christian. WorldQuestioneer (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Already addressed most of this at Talk:Institute for Creation Research.
 * Christian attempts to reconcile the Bible with science would be Theistic evolution (such as The BioLogos Foundation). It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative, the Biologos Foundation is thoroughly evangelical.  Also, the Catholic Church (which is about as conservative as you can get) has long since accepted evolution.  It's only a select number of American and American-influenced evangelicals who deny science.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant "attempt to reconcile science with the Genesis account of creation." But you're right. I won't make any comments like this again. Now I'm worried and stressed. There has to be an alternative to Wikipedia that is intermediate between Wikipedia and Conservapedia, maybe fair to all the sides that each of them is, fair to the sides of both of them. But I'm afraid it can't be mentioned here, I probably wouldn't mention it here even if I knew about it. WorldQuestioneer (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The phrase "half-way to Crazy Town" comes to mind.
 * Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, and they say that one side of the "debate" is science and the other is not.
 * If that clashes with your worldview, if for some reason you believe that the situation is less clear, that is your problem, not Wikipedia's. If you want a site that embraces the "I don't know" position, also called "ignorance", that's also your problem. We will not change the rules and rely on unreliable sources instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Attempting to reconcile science with Genesis would still be theistic evolution. Even Augustine of Hippo, who lived just a few centuries after the apostolic era, noted that if science and the Bible appear to conflict, then we're reading the Bible wrong and should find a different interpretation. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WorldQuestioneer, these aren't two equal sides of a coin. Reliable authorities treat evolution as science, and creationism as quackery or religious mumbo jumbo.--Hippeus (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * and even if they were equal sides of a coin, just follow Wikipedia's policies. Theistic evolutionists reinterpret scripture in an attempt to fit it with evolution, while so-called "creation scientists" reinterpret the geologic record in an attempt to fit it with the Genesis account of creation. I am not going into a debate here, as that is not the purpose of the talk page. I should have looked at NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions, and NPOV: Giving "equal validity" before posting on these talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldQuestioneer (talk • contribs)
 * Responding to these aren't two equal sides of a coin with if they were equal sides of a coin indicates that you missed the point. They're NOT equal.  While both theistic evolution and creationism are both interpretations of scripture, the former does so in light of science while the latter only continues as a protest against science.  Theistic evolution is also all-but-doctrine in the Catholic church and readily accepted by most Protestants outside America and many in America, while creationism is pretty much pushed by allies (unwitting or explicit) of anti-science conservative politicians (mostly American).  We do not give "both sides" when the sides are highly unbalanced.  The only reason we include any material about creationism is because mainstream scientific and theological sources have to spend time debunking it.  Also, what did you mean by "I won't make any sections like those three again"...?  I'm aware your last response technically didn't make a new section, but it's still the same problem as creating this section: you are promoting fringe pseudoscience.  You are debating, because otherwise you wouldn't be reinterpreting policy to try to promote pseudoscience.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right. I may be debating. But "reinterpret scripture" and such wasn't rebuking anything. Whether they are equally valid or not which they are not, but even if they were we have to follow Wikipedia's policies. We have to give less weight to creation science and other pseudosciences (like Time cube which I never heard of until I got to Wikipedia), because that's what Wikipedia's policies say. I didn't reinterpret Wikipedia's policies. I won't give points on considering Christianity, I will just follow Wikipedia's policies.WorldQuestioneer (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * User:WorldQuestioneer - well, saying 'pseudoscience' at all seems more a preference of the editors here than the topic or general coverage, and particularly they want to say "is". (It's not just an evolutionary bias, it's a snark bias.)  For what it's worth, I take a vague insult like that at the top as a warning of biased article -- in a two wrongs make an almost-right sense -- and see many questioning the use of the word here or elsewhere.
 * More to the topic though, historically I think Numbers described it as an effort to spot scientific evidence of biblical events, not as an attempt the reconcile the Bible with science.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * MarkbassettI am afraid we have to go with what User:Ian.thomson says.
 * Creation science is not an attempt to reconcile science with the Bible. It is an attempt to map the Genesis account of creation. Theistic evolution and old-Earth creation are the attempts to reconcile the Bible with science. What if the article started with "Creation science is an attempt to map the Genesis account of creation into science"? However, we have to follow Wikipedia's policies, which say to not give equal validity to fringe theories and pseudosciences. Wikipedia's policies say to describe whatever is pseudoscience, as pseudoscience.WorldQuestioneer (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is not a “mapping” of say Genesis 11:10 to a specified science item or field, nor is the CS intent a way to make science happily “reconcile” with creationism. There is no “reconciliation” nor “mapping”, those are poor wording choices.  CS here was largely by Numbers described as someone noting geologic features and stating them to be results of the Flood.   Actual landscape, real scientific geology, but not scientific conclusions. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * See flood geology. Creation science started with religious dogma, both Biblical and the visions of the prophetess, and attempts to find flaws in conventional science with the assumption that creationism can then be given equal validity in "balanced treatment". Which needs better coverage in the article. . . . dave souza, talk 10:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User: MarkBassett and Dave souza That anonymous comment from [IP address redacted] was from me. Oops! In the second sentence of that comment, I meant to say that creation science is an attempt to map the Genesis account of creation into science. I forgot to say "into science." in that sentence. Wikipedia's policies however say to give less weight and less validity to fringe theories and pseudoscience than to the scientific consensus.WorldQuestioneer (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:WorldQuestioneer The phrassing of "mapping" does not make any obvious sense or apparent RS connection. There is not for example a equivalence made of Genesis 11:10 to a particular science field or element, is there ?   I think you mean they try to prove genesis by scientific arguments, but that's not clear from the phrasing.  What does "map" mean here ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Yespov, attribution and assail
When reading "Its scientific and skeptical critics assail creation science as a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts." it is accurate but at the same time reminds me of WP:YESPOV where it's not necessary to attribute it to critics (it's not just a personal opinion). "Assail" may also be misleading: assessing or reporting that the claims are inaccurate is not really an assault... I propose (1) "Creation science is described as a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts." (2) "Creation science attempts to map the Bible into scientific facts, which is considered pseudoscience." or another similar variant. — Paleo Neonate  – 13:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with the point, looking at the cited sources have reworded the sentence as "Historians, philosophers of science and skeptics describe creation science as a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts." diff Hope that's an improvement, . . dave souza, talk 18:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Dave souza The cites only support that things are said (at least shown to by a several authors found), not statements that it is generally called so by such bodies, and the phrasing of it as a universal statement seems a fairly largish exaggeration and a large change from the nature of what the line was.  Historians in large seem off talking about Rome or Napoleon, not CS.   Of the cites - the first is Mark Greener, apparently the freelance medical writer (not a historian, philosopher) and is an article on creationism, not creation science so does not belong at all.  The fourth is the philosopher of science Michael Ruse work "Creation Science is not Science" of 1982, which is a historically notable bit in a series of exchanges with Laudan.  (I've seen modern mention of it as 'I believe that Ruse is adequate, but not thorough in refuting Laudan’s claims.')  I didn't see "mapping" in the cite, but it's not very readable and in his website by that name, it's apparently much different.
 * Conceptual Problems and the Scientific Status of Creation Science
 * Darwinism: Scientific Inference or Philosophical Preference?


 * It might do better to note other things -- In the 1981 McLean v Arkansas, Judge William Overton, based on testimony from well-respected scientists and philosophers, ruled that "creation science" is not science because it asserts creation by a supernatural creator, by means of unknown processes that are outside the realm of natural law (and thus not testable or falsifiable by empirical evidence) Overton1982.   The case is noted in the fourth paragraph, but the facts and section seems a bit mangled by posturing instead of just reporting the case.


 * I will return the line as before, replacing the word "assail" with "assess" as was the request. But even there ... I don't see that "map the bible into scientific facts" is really making sense at "map".  As if the effort is simple making a table of which verse is which science ?!?     Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Mark, you're giving undue weight by suggesting only a few reject CS as pseudoscience, and oddly enough you seem to be proposing creationist sources: Ruse's contribution to a FTE seminar as published by the FTE isn't going to be the best source, J. P. Moreland (self published?) seems to be a rather dated example of an OEC posing the idea that creation science might be science, he likes it and holds the minority view of rejecting theistic evolution. There are of course historians of creationism, so don't think Rome is relevant. Inclined to think we can improve on "map", please suggest proposed wording on the talk page. . dave souza, talk 22:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Dave souza -- you've responded other than what the poster requested -- and it looks like a new large claim that is both unsupported by WP:V or article content, and to be an untrue overstatement.  The new claim went from noting what critics call it into alleging that entire fields do so, as if generally all people in those categories "have described creation science as a pseudoscience".   Obviously the prior cites aren't saying that, the text and facts aren't supporting that, and the legal group of the article is MIA.
 * This just isn't a credible statement. Again, most historians are obviously talking about Rome or Napoleon or something not CS at all -- so suggesting they do as a general statement is wrong and while I think saying some do was not the same as "suggesting only a few reject CS as pseudoscience" is correc, that is indeed the fact and was the prior line for a while.  As to philosophers, allow that is just the subfield of 'philosophers of science' but I think even there "suggesting only a few reject CS as pseudoscience" would be correct because that's just not a professional phrasing.  As to the article text, the legal view from Arkansas (for the law passed between times Clinton was in office) would be  Overton judge ruled firmly that Creation Science is not science, it is religion, and as such has no place in public classrooms; and that in 1987 this whole matter was decided decisively in the same way for the Louisiana case by the Supreme Court.
 * What we have here was a vague line about skeptics, which although may be OR to say it is something they said as evidenced by cites to some of them.  And then we have a wild universal statement -- with cites to a few skeptics who said it and the page cites to things like Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience....   Go back to the way it was or something less excessive please.  Cheers  Markbassett (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It’s been a couple of days and no response, so I reverted back to the more modest change closer to what was requested. The Souza edit just seemed gone overboard - not what the thread poster asked for ‘remove the word assail’; not what’s in the article; and not supported by something else.   If Souza has and wants to add substantial BODY content along these lines he can give it a go, but sensationalism is not the goal of WP or LEAD, so I’d suggest small changes and not dramatic statement writing.  Cheers  Markbassett (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Apokryltaros I’ve undone your unrevert, apparently you were ignorant of the TALK and what the long-standing consensus is so began edit warring while throwing out allegation of same. The guide is WP:BRD, not BOLD automagically wins, and without a new consensus (no Discussion response for the objections) it either goes back to the long-standing version or it would be acceptable to put in the modest minor change that was requested.   Either of defacto or minor per request is acceptable — anything else is going to have to note objections existed and work for it.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Mark, don't try to insert your POV into the article simply because we tire of engaging with your repetitive posts here on the talk page. We may stop posting responses to you but we aren't looking the other way while you dismantle science. Binksternet (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Binksternet thank you for finally coming to TALK, but that’s an absurdly false accusation and not relevant to the topic. The thread here is clearly a request by Paleo to replace the word “assail”.  Souza did something else, I objected and reverted to something that only did the request, and then folks who evidently neither read the talk nor BRD came in.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't accuse me of being ignorant of the talkpage discussions when you're the one deliberately confusing other editors WP:SHUNning you here for your vociferously tendentious, anti-science POV-mongering for "consensus," especially since the only people you've convinced that Creation Science is undeserving of the apt descriptor "pseudoscience" are the various Trolls For Jesus and Vandals For Jesus who always come to Wikipedia to start Trouble For Jesus in the first place.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Apokryltaros thank you for coming to TALK. Ignorant is a factual descriptive of your actions and edit summary - the best AGF I can give for making statements contrary to Paleo’s clear request and my revert TALK is to say it is acting in ignorance.  I suggest you reacquire calm and simply look at the request by Paleo, and skip imagining anything more into it.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of disagreements over consensus, this edit meets WP:GEVAL policy which the preceding version did not. There's a clear majority view of historians of science and philosophers of science who have examined the topic that "creation science" is not science, but is pseudoscience. There's also argument over the demarcation problem, whether supernatural explanations are untestable and inherently not science, or testable and have failed testing. Looks like that could be expanded on where directly relevant to the article. so please find good sources and improve its coverage. . . dave souza, talk 09:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to say, Mark makes a good case here. If the only argument is it is not POV enough then that is a losing one. It already satisfies YESPOV, going so far past it does not improve the article. Then there are the issues that it might not be fully supported in the body. The previous version should be restored until consensus is reached. PackMecEng (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The current version is the previous version.
 * And he does not make a good point. If most historians are obviously talking about Rome or Napoleon or something not CS at all were a valid point, we could not write stuff like "historians date the entire medieval period from approximately 500 to 1500", since only a minority of historians are concerned with dating the medieval period. It should be obvious to anybody that "historians say" never means "every single historian has said" but always means "the historians who concern themselves with the subject say". The same reasoning applies to the other groups.
 * If you want to delete the sentence and the reliable source, you will have to find non-creationist historians, non-creationist philosophers of science, and non-creationist skeptics who say CS is not a pseudoscience. That would be the only reasonable justification for not writing that those groups say it is. And replacing the groups by the extremely stale "critics say", a hallmark of bad writing and an example of WP:WEASEL, is another reason why this will not do. The reader should know that the criticism of creation science does not come from a few random loudmouths with too much time on their hands, sitting in their sofas and blabbing about this and that without rhyme or reason - which "skeptical critics" could mean - but from experts in the fields the creationist want to revolutionize, as well as from experts in researching pseudosciences. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello friend, lovely to see you here!{ Though I must say you are mistaken on a few counts. For example the version previously and was here longer is here. Though we could goto the previous, even longer standing version, Creation science is a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts. The version trying to be edit warred in without observing BRD or Onus is the new stuff. I mean honestly here, it is just piling on to make a POV pushing point. Not encyclopedic or well supported by the body. Much of the lead is already devoted to showing that it is pseudoscience anyhow. The reader is not as dumb as you seem to believe and bludging them over the head repeatedly is just poor writing. I don't think anyone is confused by the previous status quo and cannot see any basis for your arguments because of that. PackMecEng (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello friend Stop that, creep. We are still not friends, and we won't be anytime soon.
 * It is pointless to pick a random, six-months-old version and define everything that happened since as "new stuff". By the same reasoning, you could argue that this is the only right one and all the new stuff that happened since then has to go. The version trying to be edit warred in is just as random: by the same reasoning you could say it is edit-warred out. That would be closer to the truth if you actually look at the timing of the edits.
 * From your superficial reasoning, I get the impression that you are just trawling for reasons you can use to defend the outcome you want, just as people always do when they defend fringe views and try to keep the scientific point of view out. The only reason that actually makes sense is that if something is in the lead, it should also be in the body. But that only means that it should go to the body too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Listen pal, I think you have all this pretty wrong here. You could pick tons of points and find the same version. That is how long term stable works. The fact you found a deviation makes no difference. As to the edit warring, I already pointed to the long term version so no idea what you are on about with that argument. Obviously the edit war was the deviate from long term material and as such being edit warred over. Onus and BRD SHOULD decide that but I guess that can be ignored if you feel you like the new version better. Kind of a lame edit war IMO but there you are. Finally your logic on what should be in the lead vs the body is all backwards and POV pusher like. First you write the body and then with that determine the weight for the lead. Listen I get it, it is frustrating being on the wrong end of a fringe POV push as you are right now. That does not mean you should be mean about it though. PackMecEng (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This version from February contains the phrasing in question, starting with "Historians". It has been in the article until Markbassett suddenly started to remove it in June. Usually, everybody would say it is part of a stable version that is edit-warred out: as pointed out by K.e.coffman - Stable version. But for some reason, you had to check when it was introduced and then randomly define a version before that as the stable version. This is similar to the climate change deniers' trick of picking the outlier year 1998 - which was hotter than every year before and also hotter than the next fifteen years - as the starting point so they can claim the the temperature has gone down and global warming is over. Of all possible starting points, pick the one that proves your position right.
 * What I wanted to point out in my last contribution, but did not seem to get across, was that all the reasoning you used is of the type that can be used to defend a random position, and therefore empty of content: "edit war in", "edit war out" are interchangeable; picking a version from January and calling it "stable", and so on.
 * And now you are continuing in the same vein: claiming I am "on the wrong end of a fringe POV push" could be used in the other direction just the same; rather, it works much better in the other direction, since you are defending the fringe position of the creation scientists. This is the same childish manner of reasoning that windbag in the White House uses: just call your own fake news "news" and the real news "fake news". That kind of bluff does not work out for him either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Who the heck brought up Trump and why does he matter here? Listen I appreciate you are sensitive about this subject but that is no reason to makeup nonsense like this. I am just trying to uphold Wikipedia policies and as explained above. I thought we were friends here??? PackMecEng (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Hob Gadling The original line is quoted by Paleo in the first line of the thread, and the BOLD edit done is shown by Souza in the second paragraph.  The earlier line about “scientists and skeptics” did mild WP:OR, having examples of such rather than a cite saying such.  The newer line gave no V or body edits for the grander claim and addition of historians to the list.  If it wants to claim entire fields say something, a statement by such a scientific body would suit ... and body content rather than LEAD edits not matching the article body.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * See above. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @ bassett, the existing text is accurate in showing the majority view among historians and philosophers of science that CS is not science but pseudoscience, accept that even on the basis of WP:MNA and we can proceed to improve the wording and sources. The body text needs improvement, the lead is worth tightening as a start fo overall revision. . . dave souza, talk 10:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Dave souza That’s a nice soapbox speech, but the WP:LEAD is to summarise the major amounts of the article BODY, and WP:V requires support. Your claim is not a major amount of the article nor are the prior cites for ‘scientific and skeptic all critics assail creation science’ helping a different and larger claim ‘those entire fields plus historians say this vague insult’.   While the poster of this thread was objecting to the word “assail”, and while I also think that was overly dramatic verb choice, I just don’t see that as a request for OR opinionating your own over-dramatics.  So either return to the long-standing content or make a more modest replacement of the word “assail” please.  If you sincerely want to pursue rewriting a significant amount of article with appropriate V, then please revert yourself and edit lead after that is done, not before.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The arguments about the "long-standing content" are not valid; pls see Stable version. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * True it should be called consensus version I suppose. Either way BRD and ONUS should be respected. PackMecEng (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * From the discussion above, it appears to me that this edit does not have consensus. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weird I was just thinking something similar but about this version not having consensus. PackMecEng (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Dave souza Repeating ‘but I am right’ won’t do — your soapbox is not *that* nice. The edit did not provide WP:V and does not WP:LEAD summarise the major body items, and I do not believe it has WP:GEVAL nor would that supersede WP:V so it is irrelevant.   Kindly acknowledge the dings against your edit.  That you the creating editor are instead just TALKing a claim of WP:TRUTH is only continuing WP:BRDWRONG behaviours.   The 17 June 2020 version predates either edit and was fine for a long-standing while.  Please demonstrate good practice and move to resolve this in a consensus manner — for example, by you self-reverting to a version predating it all pending further work, or by you making a more restrained one-word change like I offered, or by you having me edit what you can explain suits V and LEAD.    Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just stop, Mark. The current version is the consensus, confirmed repeatedly through multiple edit-warring reverts. Your wish to go back to some previous version is fanciful but unrealistic. It's like Macedonia hoping to regain all their historic land from past centuries, which will not happen. Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Binksternet Tsk, you have some pesky facts missing, and your declaration of consensus to cut off discussion is premature -- just the day before two editors above were mentioning *not* have consensus.  Look -- it got BRD reverted for not giving V and does not summarise what the actual body is.  WP is supposed to go by WP:VNT and should be looking to resolve the issues here.  This thread last had me talk to Souza about that so it would be nice if we give him at least another day to see if he maybe proposes some other edits or cites.     Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, it's been a few more days so guess it's time to tag it. Putting in citation needed for "historians" (still don't know how they got stuffed into the mess).  The Dispute over rewording the line to claim "described creation science as a pseudoscientific" would be a new thread per tamplate:dispute.  Markbassett (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You appear to be stating your intention to disrupt the article because scientific consensus is not supporting your view. See WP:POINT. The only dispute we're having is you not liking the neutral version. Binksternet (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Binksternet (Next time please ping.)  I am stating the need of recent edit added content for relevant citation, with the appropriate tag.  That was what I mentioned 12 days ago to your post on my talk page.   Feel free to put in a cite, which is after all what the guidance for CN says to do.   Meanwhile, please AGF and CIVIL with regards to tags.  Frankly, the edit looks like just empty posturing in the LEAD off the top of t editor's head without any body content or particular substance behind it ... but if someone can put up an actual historian community announcement that I'm unaware of I'll be quite happy to be shown wrong.  Markbassett (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I will not ping someone who is in an active discussion. It's just more noise, and I'm anti-noise.
 * You and me: we are long past AGF.
 * Your determination to tag the article if you don't get your way is poor sportsmanship. And we have a behavioral guideline that says cut it out. Your pattern is to return to the same argument long after it has concluded, to try and revive your POV. You are wasting the community's time. Binksternet (talk) 07:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, there is a reason why we point out your tendentious editing on a constant basis.--Mr Fink (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Citation needed tag
Your recent editing history at Creation science shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree.


 * If you can provide a reliable source for the claim, then please add it! If you are not sure how to do this, then give it your best try and replace the "Citation needed" template with enough information to locate the source. You may leave the copyediting or Wikifying to someone else, or learn more about citing sources on Wikipedia. This beginners' referencing guide for Wikipedia provides a brief introduction on how to reference Wikipedia articles.
 * If someone tagged your contributions with a "Citation needed" tag or tags, and you disagree, discuss the matter on the article's talk page. The most constructive thing to do in most cases is probably to supply the reference(s) requested, even if you feel the tags are "overdone" or unnecessary.

Since the CN got immediately reverted contrary to template:cn guidance, I’ll have to provide it for context.

No new cite was provided for the added word “historians”, seems a CN for that part.

More practically, blocking calls for citations does nothing to improve the consensus or quality of article. All this energy into denialism and vague accusations or threats instead of simply citing what it came from or at least some appropriate V only gives an impression the line cannot provide good V or that no serious effort was made to do an informative TALK. Kindly either give a cite, explain how a cite says it, note a lack in V, propose a different line or caveat your statements as to context. All accusations, denials, indignant claims, etcetera... just are not V. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Disputed - claim these fields "described creation science as a pseudoscientific"
I'm going to be tagging disputed the line discussed above in thread "Yespov, attribution and assail" after the claim about the word "pseudoscientific".

The line was "Its scientific and skeptical critics assail creation science as a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts."

The new line claims "Historians, philosophers of science and skeptics have described creation science as a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts."

The cites of the first version were unchanged in the larger claim. As mentioned in the "Yespov" thread above, --
 * no change in cites occurred to support the larger and broader claim
 * the line is not (and was not) summarizing from the body -- this seems just free-form writing in the lead area
 * it was already a bit of liberty and OR to take 4 cites and announce "scientific and skeptical critics", (true but OR)
 * more than a bit creative to describe their criticisms as "assail... as a pseudoscientific" when the cites shown did not use that word
 * (and the meaning of "map" was in my opinion also confusing)
 * but now to project from the old 4 cites a general claim that entire fields have done so ... is failing WP:RS/AC

The citing of Ruse is worthwhile (for the body at least) since the Ruse-Laudon exchanges about this are fairly famous -- but nowhere did the cite actually describe creation science with the word "pseudoscience", nor did the individual criticism claim an entire field or scientific body position. (Ruse clearly says ACLU produced theologians who say 'religion' and ACLU produced scientists who say 'not science'. Ruse himself criticised points of it for the properties 'explanation and prediction' or 'testability, confirmation, and falsifiability' -- then Laudan clearly *differs* that the claim of not testable is a woeful fallacy in the Arkansas positions...and so on ....  and neither is describing creation science as "pseudoscience".)    For this cite, Ruse as author presenting his own developed points might be a WP:RSPRIMARY source, and evidence that someone said it -- but is clearly not a secondary source describing the positions and clearly he was not describing or stating authoritatively the overall community view of the points.

While I can believe that some individual pieces form folks in this field might he used the word, it has not been shown and seems very unlikely that historians et al do so in general or in professional publications, or that their community bodies use such language.

Say what they actually say, and say what secondary sources say about things -- but don't say it is described as something by folks that haven't actually said so, nor misportray four individual pieces as authoritative statements by the entire field, OK ?

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:POINT. Disruption to prove a point. Stop it. Binksternet (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It would be more credible if there was actual cites or substantive discussion ... and clearer if it was a tag, but Bink seems to follow the seagull method of flying in & out and reverts tags without spending more than 10 seconds for any follow up or discounting so I’ll have to put the tag mentioned in here. Markbassett (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I choose not to waste my time engaging the tar baby arguments of trifling piffle about whether there is one or more than one historian who thinks creation science is pseudoscience. Your engagement here is active trolling. Stop it. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

tag provided
For clarity, here is the snippet disputed as the cites seem to not actually describe it as pseudoscience. Neither it seems do the community bodies for the fields named. Upon a brief look, there are statements from advocacy orgs, courts, and scientific community bodies... and they reject it with many other descriptions and simply do not describe it as “pseudoscience” in any notable amount.
 * philosophers of science and skeptics have described creation science as a pseudoscientific

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)



Problem with verification of first sentence
The first sentence reads: "Creation science or scientific creationism is a pseudoscience, a form of creationism presented without obvious Biblical language but with the claim that special creation and flood geology based on the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis have validity as science.[1]" Click on the footnote number 1 and you get taken to another page in Wkipedia - it should take you to the book being cited, otherwise you can't verify the statement. Also, the note claims to be taking this single sentence from pages 268-285 of the book by Numbers - that's far too many pages, a single sentence like this should be verifiable from a single page (or two at most if it overlaps). Also, the statement "creation science is a psudoscience" might be a bit difficult to support - it isn't a science at all, pseudo or other. I'm sure this page had a better intro some years ago.Achar Sva (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So take out the citation—the lede only summarizes the body anyway and doesn't actually need citations. But, it's definitely a pseudoscience (pseudosciences aren't actually sciences). --tronvillain (talk) 03:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But, looking at the citation, it gives the page numbers, and clicking on those even take you to Google Books. There's no problem with verification. --tronvillain (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The definition isn't made anywhere in the body of the article; also there's no link to the book being cited; also the page-range is 17 pages, which is useless. Achar Sva (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a link, though one would not actually be required. And pseudoscience is an accurate summary of the body. --tronvillain (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Achar Sva That word was just dropped on 29 April 2020 here  The Numbers cite was not originally used for that and doesn’t seem a direct support.   As to previous, well it got longish a year or so ago, it was short up to 2018, or compare to the 2015 start below.
 * Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

That's how shortened footnotes are supposed to work. See WP:SRF. Mojoworker (talk) 06:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Mojoworker No it's not. The sfn format is supposed to take you to a Short FootNote (hence the acronym sfn) in a Citations section, where you see the name of the author, the date of publication, and the page number (e.g., Smith (2000) p.100). You click on that and you're taken to the full entry in the Bibliography section, where you find such things as the name of the publisher. There'll be a highlight section in the bibliogrpahy section, either the book name or chapter title (depending on whether the person who set it up used, or not, the chapter-url option), and you click on that and the book opens in a new window (at the page being cited if, again, the person who set it up knew how to edit the url). The steps through citation and bibiography can be short-cut at the point of the initial in-text enty by the data that shows when you hover your cursor - this should show the Bibiliography data, including the highlit portal to the full book. As you'll see, the entry for the first sentence of this article doesn't do that, it takes you to another page of Wikipedia instead, because it's incorrectly formatted. Trust me on this, I've been using sfn for over a decade.Achar Sva (talk)
 * Look again. None of the examples at WP:SRF use external links. Also note the sfn style at the article link provided at WP:SRF to "exemplify the use of shortened footnotes", uses links the same way as the link you are questioning here. The info at WP:SRF does seem less than ideal, but that's what's there – can't blame anyone for following it. Mojoworker (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Click on the page numbers and it takes you directly to the the Google Books page. Click edit for a minute and you'll be able to see the URL right there. --tronvillain (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Citing sources says we can use chapters, we can also use a range of pages. You could raise the issue at RSN or the talk page of RS. There's also a whole book Cult Archaeology and Creationism: Understanding Pseudoscientific Beliefs about the Past used as source 6 - we don't need page numbers for that. I've a copy by the way. Doug Weller  talk 14:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My impression is that the gbook links for the pages were clicked on causing confusion, rather than the name "Numbers", that points down at the source. This isn't the sfn template (that can also do the same if links are provided for pages) but still a Harvard shortened footnote (in case your editor mode doesn't show it or that you did not notice it):    It's rather common although unnecessary, 268–285 would also work...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 15:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Doug Weller - That one sniffs funny. It seems even worse since little of that book (in Amazon) seems about science or about creation science and the cite is whole-book vague. The book appears to be a diverse collection including separate topic chapters by sociologists, psychologists, historians...  on UFOs and aliens, unexplained mysteries, cults, diffusion, and creationism.  So it shows a chapter on CS exists in the same book as one about archaeology — as well as Aztecs and Psychology and miscellaneous — but gives no V that CS *about* archaeology exists.  The bits about Afrocentrism, or a study on college student beliefs, or the chronology of Aztec myths is all very nice but what part of the book is supposed to be saying something about creation science in archaeology is not stated and from here it looks like no part really relates.   The chapter 4 on a study of students for “cult archaeology” isn’t tied to it at least, and nothing from this article body ties it in, so I wonder if someone just saw a book title and plugged it in.    Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

"Creation vs. mainstream science in cosmology" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Creation vs. mainstream science in cosmology. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. jps (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Is the Institute of Creation Research a reliable source?
It's a reliable primary source about its views on creation science, but should it be used as an independent secondary source? WorldQuestioneer (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It is only a source for what creationists of that sort believe. Never for scientific claims. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It should only be used with proper attribution. It should not be used as a source for straight-up facts. Unlike theistic evolution/evolutionary creation, YEC is pseudoscientific and rejects the scientific evidence for evolution. Félix An (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)