Talk:Creation science/Archive 8

"Introduction"
O.K. Brian, if it can be shown that evidence HAS been provided, then will the previous wording be applicable? Dan Watts 02:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Will this be scientific evidence? Joshuaschroeder 02:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I would argue no, on the basis that any theory (concerning such a wide domain) under the sun can muster at least some evidence supporting it. It would be utterly misleading to state that Creation science provides evidence for creationism.  As an encyclopedia we must not only try to stick to verifiable fact but also try to avoid misleading people.  Barnaby dawson 10:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It appears that your position is equivalent to "Let's not let facts clutter a simple explanation. Someone might look at them."  Dan Watts 13:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * when did ostensibly historical written accounts stop being viable scientific evidence which can be viewed as potentially accurate until falsified by the physical evidence? Ungtss 13:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You mean like the way 6-day creation and the global flood are falsified? Joshuaschroeder 13:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Is the Iliad is scientific evidence of Zeus? Bensaccount 13:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * if the accounts have been falsified, then the article should reflect it with facts. if the accounts are unfalsifiable, then the article should reflect it with facts.  instead, a small number of editors who apparently never studied epistemology seem to think that calling it pseudoscience holds some profound meaning and will lead creationists out of their pits of deception.  they also seem to think they can call it both unfalsifiable and falsified, which i find ceaselessly amusing:).  and yes, bensaccount, the iliad is evidence for the existence of Zeus.  The only question left is how reliable you think the evidence is.  nobody seems to be arguing for the existence of Zeus anymore, but creationism is just growing and growing.  genesis holds some credibility which you've as yet been unable to address.  Ungtss 13:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Since when does science accept anecdotal accounts as evidence? Sure, in some fields (such as archaeology), it provides a starting point, but it's never assumed to be correct until falsified by evidence. -- BRIAN  0918   15:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone think I should explain to Ungtss how we don't have any scientific evidence of Zeus? (I don't want to waste my time). The accounts are neither falsified or falsifiable. I don't expect to dig you out of your pit of deception; only to prevent you from dragging others in with you. Bensaccount 13:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * When creation science advocates claim that there was a vapor canopy, parts of this claim are falsifiable and parts are unfalsifiable. If we take the perspective that a vapor canopy would have very well-understood physical effects that would make life impossible on Earth, then we have falsified this idea. However, creation scientists don't mind positing miracles and completely unfalsifiable points about whether high pressure boilers can sustain large animal life by means of divine intervention. That part of the vapor canopy cannot be falsified just like the Omphalos hypothesis. It really is very simple. Creation science tries to use scientific argumentation which, when subjected to the rigor of scientific inquiry, is shown to be lacking, falsified, etc. However, creation science also tries to use completely separate positions that wherever science contradicts their ideas one can always hold out hope that the Deus ex machina screwed up our limitted human understanding. Joshuaschroeder 14:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Would an account of multiple bristlecone pine ring growths in a year's time count as scientific evidence if it included a detailed description of the conditions used to do it? Dan Watts 15:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll bite. How does that provide evidence for creation according to Genesis? -- BRIAN  0918   15:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a nonstarter . Old hat, not even close to being "evidence" for creation science. Joshuaschroeder 16:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Not true. It is controversial, but it IS evidence that such chronologies MAY be wrong. Dan Watts 18:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It isn't evidence that such chronologies may be wrong since they are calibrated using other methods such as C-14 dating. Scientific measurements all have threshholds for error, +/- error bars that are reported. The +/- error bars reported for tree-ring analyses take into account multiple and sometimes no growth ring per year scenarios. Stating that it is "controvesial" is quite an understatement. It is incorrect. Joshuaschroeder 18:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please do not take the bait. -- BRIAN  0918   02:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought that the C-14 calibration used the tree-ring chronology. Was I mistaken? Dan Watts 02:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * They calibrate each other. Think of it in terms of parameter fitting. Whatever model fits both the C-14 and the tree-rings the best is the model that's accepted (with error bars). It's quite easy to figure out. Joshuaschroeder 11:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It is easy to figure out. If Dendrochronology and C-14 measurements are both inputs to a single model, then they are no longer independent measures, and should not be touted as such. Dan Watts 13:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Dendrochronology states "A benefit of dendrochronology is that it makes available specimens of once-living material ... used as a calibration and check of radiocarbon dating. The bristlecone pine ... has been used for this purpose ...." What "other methods" of calibration did you mean Joshua? Dan Watts 18:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't confuse calibration with verification. The physics and assumptions behind radiometric dating while criticized heavily by many creationists who don't actually look at how it is done, is not in dispute. Joshuaschroeder 11:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you have any other method of calibration which takes independent measures and uses them to calibrate each other (and is not taken to task for the action)? Dan Watts 18:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * <>
 * since when are anecdotal accounts seen as evidence? in a little field known as "history."  we base our understanding of many events on anecdotal accounts, which we attempt to fit together with the remaining available evidence.  and when we have an account that doesn't directly conflict with any physical evidence, we call that account, "possibly accurate" until such time as there is hard evidence inconsistent with the account.  the modern tendency to reject ancient accounts out of hand is deeply, deeply anti-scientific.  a rational mind sees them as plausible until falsified.  only a dogmatist sees them as inadmissible out of hand.  Ungtss 17:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. They shouldn't be outright rejected. In history they act as guidance for finding evidence when no other evidence is currently available. They are not accepted as "correct until proven incorrect" however, otherwise for example the legendary founding of Rome wouldn't be considered "legend". There is probably truth in the stories around the founding and the seven original kings as recorded by Livy, such as the Etruscan domination of the city, but it is not generally accepted that the traditional dates of reign and the names and number of the kings are correct, just that they may have been generally representative of a given period. The further back you go, the less likely anecdotal evidence is representative of the truth, especially when no other physical evidence exists. That is why anecdotal evidence is neither considered definitive evidence nor "accurate until evidence proves otherwise". -- BRIAN  0918   17:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% with your conclusion. nothing is definitive unless it can be directly observed or repeated.  the question is, as you noted, credibility.  however, you also said that "the further back you go, the less likely to be true."  why?  shouldn't our criteria be based more on the physical evidence and the quality of the text than the date at which it was written?  seems to me that if texts were written by eyewitnesses and accurately transcribed, the oldest texts would be the best sources, wouldn't you say?  Ungtss 17:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Who were the eyewitnesses of the creation related in Genesis that then wrote down what they saw? -- BRIAN  0918   17:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * that's an excellent question, and i'd like to pursue it in a minute. first things first, tho.  would you agree that if a text shows signs of being intended as hard history rather than mythology, legend or fiction (high textual quality), and the events of the text have not been falsified by physical evidence, that those events can reasonably be seen as possibly historical?  Ungtss 18:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No objective standard for determining when something is "intended" as "hard history rather than mythology" exists. If you want to do some original research and make that up, be my guest. You haven't shown that a 6-day creation week and a global flood are not falsified by physical evidence in any case. This is basically amounting to a wild goose chase in Ungtss' fantasies. Joshuaschroeder 18:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

History is not science. Bensaccount 18:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * yet somehow it still goes on. Ungtss 18:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * if we concede that the events recorded in genesis are at least conceivably historical as recorded, then it seems to me that the question turns on the consistency of the physical evidence with one historical vision or the other. which which story does the evidence more closely align?  is the evidence inconsistent with either story?  that, to me, is a historical/scientific inquiry.  excluding creation science from scientific discourse, on the other hand, is mere fundamentalist ideological garbage.  the creationists have a historical vision.  falsify it if you can, but don't play nonsense games of politics and name-calling ("pseudoscience!  you're pseudoscience!  the majority of scientists think you're wrong!!  nah nah!!  poo poo!").  those games just betray a fear that the creationists might be right after all.  and i firmly believe they are.  Ungtss 18:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Whats ironic is that you use the term "fundamentalist ideological garbage". Whats hypocritical is that you use the term "history/science" after agreeing that history is not science. Bensaccount 19:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No one is conceding that events recorded in Genesis are at least "conceivably" historical any more than the Illiad. You are welcome to believe anything you want to believe, Ungtss. We aren't writing an article to try to convince you or anyone else of a particular belief system. We are trying to describe a belief system (which you happen to ascribe to) within the guidelines of this encyclopedia. I know you think that the cards are stacked against you at Wikipedia, but you can go over to the creation wiki and edit there if you want. Joshuaschroeder 18:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Creation science isn't science because it doesn't follow scientific method. Rather than use Genesis as a basis for starting to explore and figure out what actually happened (which may actually coincide in part with what Genesis actually says), they are interpreting Genesis as correct and infallible, and choosing their explorations such that they can interpret results to coincide exactly with Genesis. Going back to the traditional Roman founding, instead of starting out by saying "it is likely that there were kings in the past, and at least some of them were Etruscan", they are saying "there were exactly 7 kings and they lived... and they were... and any evidence to the contrary is incorrect by definition." -- BRIAN  0918   19:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * (disregarding bensaccount's and schroeder's usual drivel, bensaccount's because it is bizarre and nonsensical as always, and schroeder's because it fundamentally disregards wikipedia policy which does not permit him to state his own opinions as fact, despite his chronic inability to distinguish between the two and hope against hope that all who disagree with him will either go write for an irrelevent wiki or realize that he's a demigod of knowledge.) brian: you've dodged my comments entirely.  if you'd like to dialogue further, please address my comments about the nature of historical inquiry, and the idea that ostensibly historical accounts can reasonably be viewed as historical until such time as they are falsified by physical evidence.  your comments relate to bias and ideology in practice, and that is a valid critique of creationists as scientists, but is also a valid critique of evolutionists as scientists, as mr. gould made very clear.  bias in practice does not invalidate either enterprise in their entirety.  only contrary evidence can do so with any degree of substance.  Ungtss 20:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did answer your question, but it appears the submission didn't go through on Wikipedia. I basically said the same thing Jschroeder did. There is a difference between having a bias one way or another and refusing all evidence contrary to your bias. -- BRIAN  0918   21:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Eyewitness testimony, no matter who makes it, is not scientific evidence. Plenty of contrary evidence to creation science is available and presented. That's the end of the matter. Joshuaschroeder 21:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * brian: sorry i missed the answer. would you agree that there is an important difference between "rejecting all contrary evidence" and "consistently interpretting evidence in accord with one particular paradigm?"  i have never heard a creationist deny a single observable fact under any circumstances.  but they do rather persistently refuse to interpret the evidence in a way contrary to their paradigm.  can you provide either an instance of creationists denying hard facts, or agree that they simply interpret the evidence according to different assumptions?
 * schroeder: all scientific knowledge is eyewitness testimony to those who don't observe it first hand. how do you know that pluto exists?  eyewitness testimony from those who observed it first hand.  think before writing.  thanks.  Ungtss 03:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Peer-review. Joshuaschroeder 11:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * when the observations themselves are unrepeatable, peer review is only of the reports and findings of the scientists making the observations to check for procedure, error, and reasoning in interpretation. it's simply a critical reading of eyewitness accounts.  Ungtss 14:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Systematic observation. They state the method for observing pluto so that anyone can repeat the experiment and get the same results. Now you know what science is. Please limit the personal insults Ungtss. Bensaccount 03:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * so then by your latest criterion for science, the common ancestry of men and apes is not scientific because it cannot be repeated by experiment or systematically observed, because it happened a long time ago. excellent.  please limit your nonsense, bensaccount.  Ungtss 06:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * People have repeated the observations related to common ancestry through peer-review. Joshuaschroeder 11:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * apparently you're unable to distinguish between "repeated observation," which is paradigm-neutral, and "repeated interpretation," which is paradigm-dependent. from this error springs consensus science.  Ungtss 14:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Introduction 2
I have been watching this discussion concerning the introduction with considerable interest. When the discussion came up I dutifully looked up the definition of pseudoscience wikipedia gave and agreed with Joshuaschroeder that this definition did leave no room for point of view. This definition was:


 * Pseudoscience refers to any body of knowledge or practice which purports to be scientific or supported by science but which is judged by the mainstream scientific community to fail to comply with the scientific method.

Since then this page no longer holds a definition that ties the concept down to a group's POV. Having looked online for other definitions I have been completely unable to find a definition that does tie the concept down to the viewpoint of the scientific community. As such I have changed my view and I now think that the status of creation science as pseudoscience is a viewpoint and needs to be attributed. Of course we might argue that the viewpoint is not a serious one and so does not merit consideration and this might hold water concerning the article on evolution. However, the creationist viewpoint must be taken seriously if only in the context of an article on creation science.

I suggest we attribute the view to the scientific community and mention the amicus curiae brief of Edwards v. Aguillard where 72 nobel laureates, 17 state academies of science  and 7 other scientific organizations expressed their opinion that creation science is merely religious dogma. I will change the introduction accordingly. Barnaby dawson 09:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you having trouble telling fact from opinion? It doesn't depend on biased minority groups. If something is a fact, it should not be falsely represented as an opinion. Bensaccount 13:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I've also been following the discussion with interest, but I don't really see the problem here. The pseudoscience article has a very well defined list of attributes that classifies pseudosciences, and creation "science" falls easly on most on them. Why do we need a group's POV when we can be objective ans stick to a clear definition? Nova77 13:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If creation science isn't science, then it is also pseudoscience (since it is presented as science). We've established that it isn't science, so it is pseudoscience. -- BRIAN  0918   13:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that NPOV policy requires us to only state things that are not seriously disputed. This is not the same as stating what is true.  In the context of "creation science" there is a serious dispute as to whether it is pseudoscience.  I regard "creation science" as pseudoscience too and I think we should make it clear that so do a lot of distinguished scientists and commentators.  However, the statement as it stands is clearly POV.  I shall change it back.


 * If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.


 * Before there are retorts along the lines of "But what if we aplied this principle to the moon landings hoax theories..." I should like to say that I do think that this principle should be applied to other pseudosciences. Have a look at Apollo moon landing hoax, holocaust denial,  phrenology and Vedic science.  I note that modern geocentrism has geocentrism down as a pseudoscience without attribution however, I should add that it was Joshuaschroder who added this statement so it cannot be used as a precendent here.  I also note that there are some articles where a subject is described as a pseudoscience (astrology for instance).  However even amongst those who believe in astrology few regard it as scientific.  This is not the case here.  Believers in creation science do regard their enterprise as scientific.  Barnaby dawson 14:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

And do you propose that we no longer clearly state the facts when there are obviosly biased alternatives? Should we pretend that reality no longer exists? Bensaccount 16:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia operates on the basis of NPOV not on the basis of what is true. There are good reasons for this including the following: People disagree on what is true and many people edit wikipedia.


 * I think that "Creation science is regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community" is a strong enough comment. Whilst I agree with you that "creation science" is a pseudoscience and that  this needs to be made clear in the first paragraph I also think that this is achieved in the current version and that the version I reverted was POV.  Barnaby dawson 17:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Please also note that I do think that outside of the context of pages on the topic of "creation science" we should be able to describe "creation science" as a pseudoscience because outside of that context there is no serious dispute. However, it is always going to be the case that a minorities characterization of their viewpoint should be taken seriously when discussing the minorities viewpoint.  Barnaby dawson 17:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You're starting to sound fairly apologetic to this minority. There is no serious dispute. It is a fact that creation science is unscientific and therefore pseudoscience, so stating that some specific group (the scientific community) believes such is incorrect. The standards of the scientific community determine what is science, and so stating that the scientific community thinks it's unscientific is redundant. It is unscientific. -- BRIAN  0918   19:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * a quick glance at npov rules will reveal that wikipedia maintains a policy of n(eutral)pov, rather than s(cientific)pov. attributing conclusions to the scientific community is not only appropriate but absolutely necessary according to the rules of the game.  Ungtss 03:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Stop twisting the rules Ungtss. NPOV says no bias. CS is bias. CS is the problem--not stating facts. Bensaccount 03:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * mark this down, everyone. bensaccount says the topic itself is bias, and the problem itself.  obviously, then, the entire article should be deleted.  thanks for clearing that up for us, bensaccount.  you've helped me see that it's impossible to describe creation science in an npov article, because creation science itself is bias and the problem!  Ungtss 06:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If you will not let it be described fairly by stating the facts.Bensaccount 13:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

another entry
When Creationism is referred to as "pseudoscience" in this article I think this reflects poorly upon Wikipedia. You don't see Britannica and other encyclopedias using this tone which looks unprofessional and immature. I think it should be changed.

7/24/05 kdbuffalo


 * my POV is that CS is pseudoscience.  I think  CS is an abomination. I agree that a fringe minority opinion should not necesarily render everything POV.  Yet, in this case the POV argument becomes quickly circular.  When you narrow the iterested parties to CS advocates and scientific community, then the use of the term "pseudoscience" as a fact is basically POV.  It is CS advocates' POV that it IS science, and scientists POV that it's not. Each makes their argument "by definiation".  Thus the way it's stated now, that the designation of pseudoscience being the opinion of the scientific community is fine, and not POV.  To change it to the previous where "pseudoscience" was presented as fact is IMHO POV in this particular case.  Synaptidude 19:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So we're supposed to deny scientific method/reasoning/evidence because a minority chooses to define their contrary ways as science? How can we state any facts in the entire encyclopedia? -- BRIAN  0918   19:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Firstly context is important. Whether or not a viewpoint should be taken seriously is partly dependent on context.  We are writing an article on "creation science" and as such we should treat the viewpoints of adherents of "creation science" seriously.  This should not in any way detract from our ability to write a neutral article on the subject.  On the other hand I would agree it is the case that elsewhere in wikipedia (where the context is not creationist) we should quite freely refer to "creation science" as pseudoscience.


 * Secondly science is not universally regarded as that which scientists do (or even what they would like to think they are doing). You say "the standards of the scientific community determine what is science".  This is your POV and certainly not one I share.  I would say that those outside the scientific community have influence over what is regarded as science.  For instance I do not regard government funded research as proper science.


 * If you look at the pages on pseudosciences that I mentioned earlier (Apollo moon landing hoax, holocaust denial, phrenology and Vedic science) you will find that all manage quite well without stating outright that these subjects are pseudoscience (or pseudohistory). The original basis for using the word pseudoscience has been shown to be flawed.  Barnaby dawson 21:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Those beliefs aren't held by a significant part of the public, though. In that case, it is easy to get away with not stating that they are unscientific. Also, none of those subjects have "science" in their name (a method of further presenting your ideas as science). Neutrality is fine, but confusing the public by withholding facts is not. The lead section is supposed to summarize the whole article, not act as an introduction. -- BRIAN  0918   03:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * We don't need to pretend facts are opinions to look professional. Bensaccount 21:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * quote of the year. Ungtss 03:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your invaluable contributions. -- BRIAN  0918   03:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * if that was to me, i learned months ago that valuable contributions are instantly reverted on this page, in favor of pov, and have been attempting to find ways around the endless nonsense by discussing and deliberating on talkpages, to preempt stupid edit wars:(. if your comment was to bensaccount, then i'm curious which contributions you're referring to.  Ungtss 06:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, your POV does not necessarily count as a valuable contribution or NPOV, and as such what you see is NPOV is not necessarily NPOV in actuality-- the fundamental flaw of a user-edited NPOV document, made all the more clear by this over-active talk page. Offering POV edits from the other side of the tracks is not the same as making an article neutral. -172.24.72.61

Your welcome--the empty rhetoric of Dawson and Buffalo needed to be summarized--so I did. Bensaccount 03:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * we need to address the fundamental issue here, gentlemen. bensaccount, schroeder, and brian see "creation science is pseudoscience" as a fact beyond dispute, and everyone who disagrees with them as wrong.  barnaby, synaptidude, and kdbuffalo see "creation science is pseudoscience" as a strongly justified pov held by them as well as the vast majority of professional scientists, and which ought to be well represented on the page, and attributed to those who hold it.  then there are a few creationists around, heads full of nonsense, bile, and other wicked things, who actually think creation science holds merit.  now we all know that npov requires that disputed conclusions and facts be attributed.  but a small number of us seem to think that rule doesn't apply, because "creation science is IN FACT pseudoscience," and the fact that the subjects of the article disagree fundamentally with that assertion is totally irrelevent, and thus no reason to attribute the fundamentally disputed conclusion.  they seem to think it's very important not to attribute this conclusion, despite the facts that attribution would be factual, would increase the credibility of the statement by throwing the authority of professional scientists behind it, and would preempt this endless and rather stupid discussion.  i'm at a loss as to the importance of stating "creation science is pseudoscience" as fact rather than conclusion attributed to a credible source, but any alternative fails to last more than 10 minutes on this page.  so what are we to do about this situation?  Ungtss 06:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * While I have seen citations that indicate CS is a pseudoscience, I have yet to see a citation that indicates it isn't. Joshuaschroeder 11:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * you've obviously not read any CS literature. Ungtss 13:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You've obviously not realized that you can not cite a questionable source for information on itself.
 * you've obviously not realized that "questionable" is in the eye of the beholder. Ungtss 14:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I have realized it, in fact, and I have apparently thought about the implications far more than you. If Side A says that Side B is questionable, and Side B says that Side A is questionable, then obviously neither side's view on the other can be taken as fact by default.
 * Before you extrapolate and say that this means "psuedoscience" should not be in this article at all, think about the DEFINITION of pseudoscience. Exactly what qualifies as a pseudoscience is largely defined by the mainstream scientific community, Side A. What's more, you have yet to raise any logical or reasonable objection to CS being a pseudoscience. If you can do something other than revert and cry POV, if you can actually show that creation science is not a "pseudoscience" as defined by Wikipedia, go ahead and put forth your argument. Otherwise, kindly stop complaining. -172.24.72.61

I think CS is pseudoscience, most scientists do too. So we could say 'CS is generally regarded as PS' or 'most scientists regard CS as PS'. But you cannot say 'it is'. Why not, because its advocates do not hold that it is. Let me take a parralel - I do not believe Joseph Smith, Jr's claims to have been visited by an angel - nor do the vast majority people, outside the LDS church. But to name the claims as 'false' or even 'dubious' in an article about the LDS would be POV. To recored that the claims are disputed - or widely disbelieved, would be factual. It is a fact that most people (especially scientists) regard CS as a pseudoscience. But it is clearly a POV that it is. --Doc (?) 00:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The majority of people think that dragonflies can either sting or bite you. They can't, however. Why don't we consider people's opinions in that case as well, and change the article to read "a minority of people say dragonflies are harmless". -- BRIAN  0918   00:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Very clever, but it is a category confusion. The danger of a dragonfly bite is a datum that can be verified or falsified. CS, and evolution for the matter, are interpretations of data, which can be in the opinion of a community more of less likely interpretations of the evidence. I'm not for creation science (it is IMO a highly unlikely, although not logicaly impossible) interpretation of the evidence - but I do think that mainstream science needs to reflect a little more on its epistomology - and it might be a bit more humble. The scientific community has over the years held many things as 'facts', which it has later rejected. See Thomas Kuhn and his theory of the Paradigm shift. --Doc (?) 13:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I actually see what you're saying, and I agree with it in a sense. Specifically, I agree with it in the sense that this article should say nothing about whether or not CS is fallacious or wrong, because as you said there is an extremely slim chance based on questionable interpretion of the data that it is not-- and that's enough of a margin.
 * However, this isn't about the validity of CS. It's about whether or not it is a psuedoscience. "Psuedoscience" has some negative connotations, but calling something a pseudoscience does not mean everything in the field is wrong-- it simply means that that field fits the definition of a psuedoscience. The first archive (March 05) in this discussion does an excellent job of pointing out exactly WHY it is a psuedoscience.
 * As I said before, "psuedoscience" does unfortunately have some negative connotations. However, the definition fits and fits well. "Faith" and "religion" have negative connotations too (at least to some), but that doesn't mean calling them such implies that you are calling them incorrect, and it certainly doesn't mean an article about a faith or religion should state that "some people view it as a (faith,religion)." - SVI, at work (and not working, yes)

Come one, 'pseudo-science' has slightly more negative connotations than 'faith'. Most believers will accept (more or less) the term 'faith' or 'religion' for their worldview. Show me one C.Scientist who will describe his work as pseudoscience? 'Pseudoscience' whatever its 'correct' definition (and words don't ever have one objective definition), feels, and I expect is intended, as a pejorative label! When plenty of other ways can be used to describe its methodology, it is hard to see how this, thrown into the introduction, without any sense that it might be a controversial classification, can be NPOV. --Doc (?) 01:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

No it isn't "category confusion". You may be confused, but that is your own fault. The example given by Brian was quite straightforeward. There is no "data" that supports Creation btw. Bensaccount 14:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You are now categorically confusing creation (inteligent design) with creation science. Data does not support anything without interpretation - 'all data is theory-laden' (Barbour). Anyway I'm unwatching now, enough. --Doc (?) 01:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Possible alternative
In short: CS is based upon religious beliefs that can't be tested scientifically; therefore it is not science. CS does (however) use the scientific method to pick holes in evolution and other mainstream science. RossNixon 09:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Problematic because CS fundamentally does not use the scientific method as shown by the citations we already have in the article. Joshuaschroeder 11:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * A more accurate statement would be: "Creation scientists use God and sophistry to convince the layman that they are representing his religious views in order to trick him into not accepting evolution or other science." You really think authors of CS care about God? They're in it for the money and fame. Since when does faith need proof?   BRIAN  0918   14:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing your ability to see the innermost thoughts of others. Dan Watts 21:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a gift I've been honing since birth. You can acquire it too. Whenever you observe an individual pursuing an endeavor in which their money/recognition increases, assume they are doing it for the money/recognition. Benny Hinn is a perfect example. I'm sure God would approve of his $3.5 million mansion. -- BRIAN  0918   21:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no disagreement with your assessment of Hinn. The subject was CS. Dan Watts 00:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * But Benny Hinn is so fun to talk about... This CS jibba jabba is getting old. -- BRIAN  0918   03:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Benny Hinn is succulent, if slightly gamey. Really, though, it's not fair to generalize about CS theorists in that way. Many creation scientists are otherwise normal (perhaps even intelligent) people who are simply too devoted to their literal interpretations of an aged religious work to acknowledge the hidden doubts that they are ashamed to harbor, and offer theories they know at some level to be imperfect in a desperate attempt to reinforce their beliefs. Others are simply extremely closed-minded, slightly dim people who refuse to let anything penetrate or damage the thick, leaden shells surrounding the beliefs first introduced to them. I could even list non-insulting archetypes of creation scientists if I were to lie.

Current intro
Creation science (also known as scientific creationism or CS), which is regarded by the scientific community as pseudoscience and a misnomer, is an effort to provide arguments and evidence supporting the account of the creation of the universe related in the Bible. It is primarily concerned with providing alternatives to the scientific views on the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, evolution, a global flood and the origin of humanity. Creation science as an organised movement is primarily centered within the United States, although creation science organisations are not unknown in other countries.

I see no problem with Barnaby Dawson's current incarnation of the intro. It may be a bit redundant but since pseudoscience itself no longer states where the judgement arises, here it stands. Are there any substantive (that is, factual) disputes with the current form? If not, I wonder where the problem is. Joshuaschroeder 11:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The current version is fine. I wasn't fine with the previous version because it added a sentence that made CS sound like it had provided scientific evidence. -- BRIAN  0918   13:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The current version attempts to discredit the subject matter before defining it (analogous to "Racism is an attitude regarded by the majority of clerics as evil and irrational, which,") and then defines it in a way no creation scientist would define it:(. i'm not aware of any other articles that follow this approach.  Ungtss 13:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It appears the idea of there being actual evidence (found using the scientific method) is too novel to Brian to be included. Barnaby doesn't want any such evidence included because it would be too confusing to the gullible.  Have I misunderstood their positions? Dan Watts 00:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss is right. We must define before we discredit. Bensaccount 14:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * shall we provide both definitions? Ungtss 14:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "Both"? Bensaccount 14:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've rearranged the first sentence to describe the effort then describe its accuracy. I also reworded the 3rd sentence to sound less like a repetition of the first sentence. -- BRIAN  0918   14:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks fine. Barnaby dawson 11:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Saying that something "is regarded by the scientific community as pseudoscience and a misnomer" does not mean it is not science. The qualifying characteristic of science is systematic observation, not consensus. This statement is more misleading than calling CS science. Bensaccount 14:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You trust that your textbook and professor are telling you the truth. I trust the scientific community. I'm not regarding the scientific community as a consensus, but as a living organism that will sort out whatever problems it might have along the way. -- BRIAN  0918   15:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I hope you don't consider yourself a scientist... Bensaccount 15:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what they pay me for anyway. So are you saying that you've failed at adding to the discussion (the only reason one resorts to a personal attack)? -- BRIAN  0918   15:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

...because a scientist should value scientific observations over the consensus of his/her peers. Theres nothing wrong with not being a scientist. Social conformity is also valuable. Bensaccount 15:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I love to conform. -- BRIAN  0918   15:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Thats a fairly vague definition of "scientific community". The term scientific community sounds closer to scientific consensus than scientific observation to me. Bensaccount 15:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Am I wrong? Bensaccount 21:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Request for comment Bensaccount
if anyone is interested in rfcing this rogue editor who has been making the same pov edit to the intro for several months now (creation science is pseudoscience), disregarding consensus and agreement by editors of both sides (and i can pull up abject vandalism going back to last november), please let me know. Ungtss 14:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said before I tend to agree with him. The definition given in pseudoscience is clear. The rest is IMHO chatting. Nova77 00:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Nope; although I am curious about Bensaccount lapse into vandalism. - RoyBoy 800 04:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What vandalism? Don't make accusations if you can't back them up... Bensaccount 14:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * vandalism, and a brief sampling of pov edits and personal attacks on talkpages:

 There are at least two people interested in the rfc, bensaccount, and that's enough to get things rolling. however, i'm sure we all have better things to do than engage in the games of wikipedia politics. i know i certainly do. please, in order to avoid an rfc, cease making edits to the intro which "define" creation science as pseudoscience or explicitly claim it is false (which to you is an undisputable fact, but to the subjects of the article is strongly disputed), and instead attribute it to the scientists who hold that view, who actually hold some credibility. if we can agree to make this simple change in your behavior, there will be no need for an rfc. what do you say? Ungtss 13:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That's merely a collection of random links, none of which are vandalism or POV. I will continue in my attempt to make this article define CS as unscientific or pseudoscience because it would be misleading not to. Bensaccount 14:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon comment
my earlier comment has been archived. I see the article intro has changed and now the debate is on wording. saying something "is" something on an controversial topic will generally lead to revert wars, as an "is" statement is declaring truth, rather than representing a point of view. I suggest using wording that is unassailable, such as "so and so says Creationism science is not science". Yeah, I know it is clunky, but it is also a statement that can be defended against the most rampant partisan editor. Just to get things started, a quick google search found this link. quoting the opening:


 * The National Academy of Sciences declares unequivocally that the tenets of 'creation science' are not supported by scientific evidence, that creationism has no place in a science curriculum at any level and that its teaching would be contrary to the nation's need for a scientifically literate citizenry and for a large, well-informed pool of scientific and technical personnel.

That the sentence doesn't say 'CS is anything', but rather says 'NAS says CS is something' is fairly moot when compared to the overall scheme of things. I hope this helps. FuelWagon 22:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Representing fact as opinion is misleading. Understand? Bensaccount 23:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand a combative tone when I read it. You are bringing your POV into the article. Whether or not CreationScience is pseudoscience is disputed, and therefore will cause a revert war and bad blood on the talk page. Reporting the view of a major scientific community that CreationismScience is pseudoscience is indisputably accurate and not subject to a revert war but by extreme partisan editors (who will generally be outnumbered). The first approach will require eternal diligence by you, mounting a counterattack against any attempts to change one iota of wording. The second will likely survive after you get bored with wikipedia because most people will see the indisputable truth in reporting that point of view. If you find it truly important that the article say "CS is PS" and you have a lifetime to devote to keeping it that way, then by all means, have at it. If you want the article to be just as truthful, but require little or no further input from you, I suggest you find a version that achieves consensus, so that others will defend that version as well. FuelWagon 23:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not CS is pseudoscience is not disputed. Not on this page -- the only discussion here centers around 'an aversion to making factual-sounding statements that could be offensive'. Not in the dictionary -- CS fits the definition of pseudoscience perfectly. And certainly not in the scientific community. Understand? Bensaccount 14:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Something I don't get... how is saying that CS is a pseudoscience POV? I can understand that saying CS is wrong is a POV, I can understand that saying it's "probably wrong" is a POV, I can certainly understand that one's personal view is not to be stuck in an encyclopedia regardless of whether or not the majority supports it .. but from what I can tell, creation science fits the definition of pseudoscience perfectly, at least if Wikipedia's definition of pseudoscience is correct. It simply does not follow scientific tenets (I don't mean it doesn't follow mainstream science, I mean it doesn't have any of the characteristics of a science). That doesn't make it incorrect, that doesn't make it flawed, that shouldn't even imply either (to use an earlier example, Christianity isn't science, but that doesn't make it flawed-- it just makes it, well, something that's not a science, really), but it simply isn't a science. The March '05 discussion points this out quite well, as does the definition of pseudoscience in Wikipedia.
 * Ex.: there ARE people out there who hold that phrenology is a science, not a pseudoscience, and that it follows scientific tents. However, the fact is that it DOES NOT follow scientific tenets-- it fits the definition of a pseudoscience perfectly, and as such it should be classified as such (and is). I realize it's not entirely fair to use a subject that's mostly disproven as an example, but it's the first pseudoscience that comes to mind, and it's a classic example of one at that.
 * The problem, as I see it, is that the word "pseudoscience" has some serious negative connotations. Calling something pseudoscientific implies quackery and serious flaws in the subject, when in actuality all it should say is that the subject appears scientific but is actually not. If there's a way to (briefly) explain that creation science is not a science but that this does not invalidate the subject at all, I'd be happy to go with that. SVI 04:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Creation science/Kdbuffalo's comments - Moved to subpage for ease of viewing talk page. Barnaby dawson 16:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * What an obnoxiously longwinded paste. I suppose I could poke holes in every little section, but the third paragraph of this post makes your entire comment irrelevant.


 * General summary of what's wrong with your logic: basically, you're saying that because you believe atheism is declining (and it is just your belief, the sources you cited are heavily biased), and because you've used your amazing powers of amateur psychology to discover the motives of a group you're generalizing in a situation that you haven't shown exists, this article is POV. I suppose I shouldn't expect much in the way of logic from someone who is unable to evaluate source integrity, but really.


 * But here's the IMPORTANT point: creationism is not creation science. Please click both of those links and read through them fully until you understand. You'll know when you understand because you'll suddenly stop feeling the urge to make long, rambling, irrelevant comments about creationism.


 * On a side note, I mean no offense, but your comment seems alarmingly trollish. If you are not trying to troll, please tone down the content of your comments.
 * SVI 23:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Capitals, bolding and philibustering does not change the fallacy of your premise which SVI has pointed out, twice. And word to the wise; encyclopedia's trying to make money will try their best to be politically correct. Their exclusion of "pseudoscience" does not mean they won't describe creation science as "unscientific attempts to be scientific", which is equivalent; and that assumes they even have an article on "creation science". - RoyBoy 800 04:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Introduction again
I thought we had agreement on this introduction (apart from Bensaccount). Then Bensaccount changed the introduction again. After various edits the introduction hadn't been restored to the previous version.

I have reverted to a version from some time back. If Bensaccount or others continue to change the introduction to remove attribution from the pseudoscience claim then I will place a section NPOV dispute up. I'm tired of all this endless discussion. Barnaby dawson 16:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You don't get to stick a NPOV tag up just because you want to. You have to explain your reasons. Removing yourself from the discussion is not a step in the right direction. If you're tired of discussion, take a break from the page. -- BRIAN  0918   16:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well it's quite clear that myself and several others dispute the NPOV status (in the context of this page) of saying that "creation science" is a pseudoscience. There's plenty of text already up on this talk page as to the reasons.  I'm only saying I'd put up a section NPOV notice to indicate that there was dispute over the introduction.  It's also clear that the dispute is not just a matter of creationists opposing and everyone else rejecting their reasoning.  Several non creationists including myself (an atheist) agree that such a statement is not NPOV (in this context).


 * I would like wikipedia to be viewed as a non-biased and authoritative source. Such obvious bias is very damaging for wikipedia.  Barnaby dawson 17:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * IMHO, a large part of the objection comes from that some editors have an aversion to making factual-sounding statements that could be offensive. The major issue here, as far as I can tell, would be the connotations of the word pseudoscience. No one has even been able to muster the slightest of arguments against creation science fitting the exact definition of pseudoscience (unless you count Mr. Buffalo's long, irrelevant comment dealing with the wrong subject, which I doubt any of us do), but there is a big split over the issue just because calling something pseudoscientific implies that it is incorrect-- which, in and of itself, is an issue, but would certainly classify as POV if it someone put it on the page.


 * So here's my question: although CS does fit the definition of pseudoscience (again, that doesn't make it wrong at all, it just makes it something other than a science) at all, should the intro be edited because calling something a pseudoscience implies that it is incorrect and misguided? In other words, are implications reason enough to change the wording to something slightly less clear and arguably a touch misleading (no offense meant)? SVI 17:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC) (also accidentally posted anonymously earlier, but my clunky writing style is probably obvious enough that I don't need to note that)

IMHO, a large part of the objection comes from that some editors have an aversion to making factual-sounding statements that could be offensive -- SVI hit the nail on the head right there. Creation science is psuedoscientific nonsense. Science must be falsifiable, and any system of thought that requires an omnipotent supreme being, almost by defintion, cannot be falsified (because no matter what the evidence says, a creation scientist can always reply with 'but that's the way god made it'). Therefore, creation "science" is not science. &rarr;Raul654 17:57, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Kdbuffalo rant
ARE ATHIEST AND THEOLOGICALLY LIBERAL BULLY BOYS MAKING THIS A PSEODO ARTICLE

Where are the encyclopedias that call creationism/creation science a psuedoscience? Is this article being dominated by insecure atheist "bully boys"?

Noble scientist Francis Crick said for example, the origin of life is almost a miracle. Creationist merely say that life was a miracle.

Crick also said that biologists must constantly remind themselves that life evolved and was not designed. Where is the balance?

ken 18:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo


 * As I said before, your comments seem a bit angry and trollish. PLEASE tone them down a little. If you find yourself angry, I suggest breathing exercises; if you're not angry, just watch the content of your posts (read ad hominem).


 * Francis Crick won his nobel prize for the discovery of the physical secondary structure of DNA, not philosophy.
 * He put forth this opinion at the same time in his carrer that he wrote "The Astonishing Hypothesis", widely regarded by scientists as being "astonishing" in the sense of being "crazy" rather than "amazing". He was perhaps a little past his prime when he wrote that.
 * But most important, regardless of the above, the word "almost" is key. When a scientist says "almost", it means "not". A miss is as good as a mile where hypotheses are concerned.  So an attempt to equate "almost a miracle" with "a miracle" are basically disingenuous.  Synaptidude 14:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * First: calling CS "creationism/creation science" is an improvement, but it is still incorrect. We are dealing with creation science, NOT creationism.


 * The distinction between CS and creationism is important (and my POV is CS = pseudoscience). Creationism is an a legitimate matter of faith.  CS is pseudoscience.  One shoudn't lump them together as if they are the same.


 * Second: Creation science fits the exact definition of a pseudoscience as defined in any encyclopedia. If you do not understand why, look up "pseudoscience" and/or check the March '05 archive for a full explanation. It has nothing to do with insecurity or bullies, and it has nothing to do with what's wrong and what's right. Creation science simply is not a science. That's not a bad thing (Christianity isn't a science either, does it matter?), it's just a fact.


 * I respectfully ask you to read the above before posting again, and I would also appreciate if you would refrain from unnecessary and rather immature insults. SVI 18:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know about the article being "pseodo," but this page certainly has taken a turn for worse. FeloniousMonk 20:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against." --Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88.
 * Imagine that, Crick thinks the original of life appears miraculous to the unimaginative. I can only assume that while devouring vast quantities of scientific literature you accidentally missed a few words and sentences.  Joe D (t) 21:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not the point. It's entirely possible for large numbers of nice logical scientists to believe that creation of life is miraculous and not adequately explained by current science.  This does not change the fact that creation science fits the definition of pseudoscience.  These are not mutually exclusive. Friday 21:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It is the point, since Kdbuffalo misrepresented Crick's writing in the OP as one of the few pieces of supporting evidence for the claim. Of course there are other points to be made, and others have already made them.  That Crick's comments are not relevant to the NPOV claim is something that should be aimed at the OP.  Joe D (t) 21:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Friday on the main point of this thing, but.. tbh, I can't help but notice that there are an awful lot of these relatively small issues in Mr. Buffalo's (yes, I like saying "Mr. Buffalo") rants. I can't say I'd blame anyone for being distracted by individual logical fallacies and/or out-of-context quotes instead of responding to the post as a whole (looking at the general point or lack thereof) or discounting the whole thing. The only reason I do so is because I'm very tired and _very_ lazy. A smattering of small but offensive errors designed to distract opponents is actually a key ingredient of a troll post, but I prefer to assume the best of Mr. Buffalo (and others)-- I only point this out so that others might understand why Joe D chose to respond to that particular thing. SVI 21:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscience?
Looks like there's been a bit of disagreement over use of this term, as shown by this diff. Both sides claim to be more NPOV. Can everyone agree that creation science does not follow the scientific method? I'm attempting this as a stab at compromise wording. Friday 02:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * From my experience with the dispute, I would say no, because the disputants can't agree on the essential features of the scientific method. Gazpacho 02:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * But surely that issue belongs in Talk:Scientific method, not here? Friday 02:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * We quit talking about the scientific method long ago. Bring your discussions up to date :)   BRIAN  0918   02:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please, you're going to have to contribute more to the current discussion (and not just rehash very old arguments) before making changes like that. Even if the scientific community was consensus/majority-based, which it isn't, the National Academy of Sciences isn't just "some prominent members of the scientific community". This is the understatement of the century. -- BRIAN  0918   02:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * From reading the discussion, I had assumed current debate was over the term "pseudoscience". So I tried to express facts without applying that label.  Out of curiosity, which POV did you think my quickly-reverted edit was pushing?  Friday 03:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Jschroeder's compromise
I'm tending to agree with his latest attempt, and have made some slight modifications to both make the lead clearer and more neutral for everyone. Please discuss it here rather than reverting. We're all open to everyone's concerns. -- BRIAN  0918   03:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hope nobody considers my attempt a revert. I didn't see this til I'd submitted.  Specifically, I thought "As it is established by the scientific community to be wholly unscientific" was a slight overstatement, and I think we can do better.  Friday 03:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Read the discussions already on this page. The NAS says "it is a fact that creation science is not science". Since we default to science/logic/fact in all other articles, I think "established" is a safe compromise. We've already established that "regarded" is regarded by most to be unacceptable. If you don't like established, suggest another synonym on the talk page. -- BRIAN  0918   03:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, had an edit conflict was I was posting this: I'm not happy with my latest either.  "Regarded by the scientific community as unscientific" is more wishy-washy than it needs to be.  Despite the name, it's not actually science, and "regarded" seems to unneccessarily soften that fact.  Not sure how to fix it yet tho.  Sorry if I was too bold and stepped on any toes.  Friday 04:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I imagine that any suggestion I can make has already been made, because I've only read this one page, not all the archives. However, IMO the discussion pages here are unreasonably large.  You probably won't get any fresh input from new editors if everyone is expected to be familiar with the entire history.  However, since I've already made a fool of myself here, I might as well ask a question.  Based on the latest discussion I see just looking at this page, I don't think I was entirely wrong in supposing that the word "pseudoscience" is part of the current problem.  What's wrong with an attempt to avoid the word altogether?  It's clear from the article (and properly so) that this isn't really science.  Since some people consider "pseudoscience" an insult, maybe there'd be less fighting here without that word.  Friday 04:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, from previous edits, I'm fairly certain everyone is fine with just not using this word, since the article is already stuck in that category and linked under See also. "Not science" automatically means "pseudoscience" in this case. Even Bensaccount has opted for "unscientific" before. I do like the wording of this current version though, and think that "pseudoscience" is more acceptable in this form. -- BRIAN  0918   04:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth (very little, no doubt, but I suppose there's no harm in throwing in my two cents), I like this version of the introduction. It clearly establishes the point without implicitly or explicitly insulting the subject at hand, and it does so fairly quickly.

Of course, no one can manage to satisfy the extremists, but I guess that's what the protection notice is for. Er, about that, actually.. how long is it going to stay up? I don't plan to touch the introduction or anything, of course, I just wanted to edit the first paragraph under "Further Reading" for a couple reasons (I don't think "somewhat distorted" should be said without at least a little reasoning/evidence; also, typo). SVI 04:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If you have a special wording that you think is "neutral", post it in talk, or we won't know what you are referring to. By the way, if it ignores the fact that CS is unscientific it is misleading. Bensaccount 15:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The book has very little to do with the actual creation science vs. real science 'debate', afaict. It seems to be mainly a historical look at creation science (its advocates over the years, the sources of many CS beliefs, conflicts between and within creationist groups, etc.). I'm not saying that I believe it's a neutral source, as I have not read it through, but I feel that the the statement about it being distorted should be removed unless/until someone's willing to provide exact (and reasonably comprehensive) information on how it is such. I wouldn't remove the other bits, just the "somewhat distored [sic]" part. SVI 15:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

when in doubt, quote
I don't know why you didn't like my previous quote, but perhaps this one straight from the horse's mouth will be better. From the book "Science and Creationism, A View from the National Acadamy of Sciences", the book says


 * the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested. ... creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes.

There is sufficient rock-solid fact there that can be reported in the article as representing the NAS point of view. Use the second half of the quote if both pieces are too long. but report it as the POV of the NAS, and no one can revert it on the grounds of violating NPOV. FuelWagon 05:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You obviously don't understand how it is more biased to place a critical POV in an intro than to place a definition there. Sorry, I am trying to think of a way of expressing this eloquently, give me some time. Bensaccount 15:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Please read NPOV policy regarding pseudoscience. It directs editors to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view. Your statement that "CS is pseudoscience" is a "view from nowhere", it comes from someone, somwhere. report it. Also note that the above link mentions the difference between a "scientific point of view" and a "neutral point of view." FuelWagon 16:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

If everyone said that you could fly, you would jump off a building. I would not, because I know that there are facts, not just opinions. Bensaccount 04:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

National Academy of Science
I agree wholeheartedly that Creation "Science" is a pseudoscience. A possible criticism of the NAS's view (see quote above) is that the NAS would say that, wouldn't they. It would be better if a body ouside of the science establishment could be quoted. Perhaps some quotes from philosophers of science. Paul Beardsell 12:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree that outside support would be a good thing, but there is nothing wrong with quoting what is basically the supreme scientific authority in this country on their views of CS. It meets the POV standards because it is in the form of "NAS says". Synaptidude 14:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I concur. The NAS is as probably as good an authority as we can find on the subject.  Quotes from other sources in addition would certainly be OK though.  I personally think it would be perfectly NPOV to simply say that creation science is pseudoscience, but some folks don't like that, so a compromise is better than constant fighting. Friday 14:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The NAS is not an authority on CS. The NAS has no more right to comment on it than anyone else, it sets a unfair precidence to allow quotations from unrelated sources. If the NAS can criticize CS on the CS page, why shouldn't we start the evolution page with a criticism from CS? Bensaccount 15:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * NAS is an authority on the difference between science and pseudoscience, are they not? I'd say they're very qualified to judge this.  Friday 15:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That is your POV. I'm sure that CS proponents would see it differently. And when it comes down to it, it can not be known definately who is "an authority". All you can base it on is POV or popular opinion. Bensaccount 15:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Where do we draw the line between when we need to say "[scientific authority] says this is true" and just saying "this is true"? For all other articles, we only say the latter (as opposed to actually referencing every single source within each sentence that is pulled from that source). Why not on this one? Because there is "controversy"? There is no serious controversy, or you'd see debates in the scientific literature about it. WP:NPOV defines a fact as "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute". There are only laypeople who would like to define themselves as being part of science. Again I bring up dragonflies. Most of the public believes they bite/sting, but any entomologist knows they don't. Should the article on dragonflies be changed to state "many prominent entomologists regard dragonflies as harmless"? No, it should say "dragonflies are harmless". This is a fact, just as it is a fact that creation science is not science. This statement isn't based on what the NAS says, but uses the same reasoning they do to come to the conclusion. That the NAS has to tell us "creation science is not science" is not a sign of the NAS's POV, but a sign that the public shouldn't be trusted in handling matters of science; otherwise every biology textbook would have a warning against the dangers of dragonflies. -- BRIAN  0918   15:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, that's a bit of a false analogy. If huge volumes of magazines and books were published asserting that dragonflies did indeed bite, it would be relevant. There really is no easy analogy to creation science in this case -- in no other area that I can think of are the findings of the scientific community contested in such a large-scale and well organzined fashion, except perhaps on global warming issues. On the global warming page, the view of the scientific community is indeed specifically attributed. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:40, 2005 August 4 (UTC)

Can't we all get along?

 * A scientist's view:
 * 1) I am a scientist. As such I strongly feel that CS is an abomination and a complete and cynical misuse of the word "science".  That's my POV (just for context).
 * 2) Having re-read the first paragraph, I find it highly POV. Even though it happens to agree with my POV, it's still POV.
 * 3) Why can't we just use this organization for the first para?
 * 4) Creation science (also known as scientific creationism or CS) is an effort to construct rational arguments for the account of the creation of the universe related in the Bible.  Areas of focus include the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, evolution, a global flood and the origin of humanity. Creation science as an organised movement is primarily centered within the United States, although creation science organisations are not unknown in other countries.  Creation Science is held to be an application of scientific principals by it's adherants, but the mainstream scientific community regards CS as non-scientific.
 * 5) (para 2; The viewpoint of creation scientists): Creation science has its roots in the ongoing effort by creationists to critique modern science's description of natural history while offering a Biblically compatible alternative. As such proponents are found primarily among various denominations of Christianity who describe themselves generally as evangelical, conservative or fundamentalist Christians. However, many Christian churches, including the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic[1], Anglican and Lutheran faiths, have either rejected creation science outright or not insisted on its reception as doctrine, since much of Christian theology, including Liberal theology, considers the Genesis narrative primarily a poetic and allegorical work and not a literal history. While creationist movements also exist in the Baha'i faith, Islam, and Judaism, these movements do not use the phrase creation science to describe their beliefs.
 * 6) para 3; The viewpoint of scientists): The scientific community does not consider creation science to be science, and considers the term creation science itself to be a misnomer. In 1986 seventy two nobel laureates (as well as many American scientific institutions) signed an amicus brief which amongst other things maintained that "creation science" was in fact just religious dogma. When the ideas encompassed by creation science are subjected to the scrutiny of scientific criticism or peer-review, they are found to be lacking in scientific foundation, objective criticism of evidence, and scientific reasoning and method. See scientific criticism of creation science. The National Academy of Sciences of the United States has stated the official policy that "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such..." [3]

Synaptidude 15:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * (note: just to be clear in attribution: most of the above is exactly the text that was there before (I didn't write it). The only change I made was in the first para, where I presented the description of CS in a non-POV way. The opposing POVs are stated at the end of the first paragraph, but they are stated asPOV.  The details of each opposing POV are in the second and third paragraphs.  While I've maintained the three paragraph structure of the existing text, I think it would be just as legitimate to combine the three paragraphs into the first, as long as both POVs are stated, and stated as the opposing POV's.  I think support for the scientific's view that CS is pseudoscience is still strongly supported in this article, but the article leads with a non-POV intro.  The use of the words "an attempt" in the first sentence is critical.  It alerts the reader that there is debate on the legitimacy, which is completely appropriate, because there is.


 * Where do we draw the line between when we need to say "[scientific authority] says this is true" and just saying "this is true"? For all other articles, we only say the latter (as opposed to actually referencing every single source within each sentence that is pulled from that source). Why not on this one? Because there is "controversy"? There is no serious controversy, or you'd see debates in the scientific literature about it. WP:NPOV defines a fact as "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute". There are only laypeople who would like to define themselves as being part of science. Again I bring up dragonflies. Most of the public believes they bite/sting, but any entomologist knows they don't. Should the article on dragonflies be changed to state "many prominent entomologists regard dragonflies as harmless"? No, it should say "dragonflies are harmless". This is a fact, just as it is a fact that creation science is not science. This statement isn't based on what the NAS says, but uses the same reasoning they do to come to the conclusion. That the NAS has to tell us "creation science is not science" is not a sign of the NAS's POV, but a sign that the public shouldn't be trusted in handling matters of science; otherwise every biology textbook would have a warning against the dangers of dragonflies. -- BRIAN  0918   15:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm a newbie, so I may not have the best answer here, but off the top of my head I'd say we draw the line when we get lots of edit warring due to NPOV concerns. Like it or not, many people object to "is" statements, like "CS is pseudoscience".  This is why I suggested "CS does not use scientific method" as a possibly less controversial alternative.  Yes, I wish people were sufficiently educated that nobody objected to "CS is pseudoscience", but obviously people do object. I'm going on the assumption that wording acceptable to both sides is preferable to constant reversions.  Friday 15:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * How is saying "CS does not use scientific method" ANY different from saying "CS is not science" (and thus being able to definitely say that it is science)? -- BRIAN  0918   15:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I like Synaptidude's suggestion for the first paragraph, above. Friday 15:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If we're going to say "the scientific community regards" here, we have to say it for every statement of fact in the entire encyclopedia. -- BRIAN  0918   15:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

And furthermore, since this isn't an article on science, including the opinion of the scientific community here sets a precidence that allows any opinionated group into the intro of any article they happen to disagree with. Bensaccount 15:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Look, if I wanted to, I could argue your assertion that the dragon flys are harmless thing is an assertion not a fact. One could fly into your eye, cause you to lose your balance and fall off a cliff, for example.  One could even bite you, they just generally don't, being herbivores.  But the main difference is that "scientific method" is a philosophy.  It is a philosophy that defines what you need to do to establish something as an observable and reproducible fact, but it itself is still a philosphy (just ask Thomas Kuhn).  Even the definition of what constitutes a "fact" is a matter of philosophy.  If you believe in the scientific method, then CS is pseudoscience.  If you believe in CS and claim to use the scientific method, you are mistaken.  Regardless, I think that my revision still gets across that CS is not accepted by scientists without making it POV by wikipedia's definition of POV. The point is, whether this is POV or not is a judgement call.  My proposed edit takes out the judgement Synaptidude 16:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that "Creation science" isn't claiming to be/use science and scientific methods? They obviously are claiming such, and, as you have yourself stated: If you believe in CS and claim to use the scientific method, you are mistaken. So you must support the article saying "CS is pseudoscience" (since "pseudoscience" is defined as "a system of theories, assumptions, and methods mistakenly regarded as scientific") and therefore "CS is not science". -- BRIAN  0918   16:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * No not at all. What I'm sayinng is that there is a judgement call here.  I'm proposing a compromise that is clearly not POV.  I've removed the judgement.  "If you believe in CS and claim to use the scientific method, you are mistaken." is my POV.  Yes, I agree with the POV that CS is pseudoscience.  In fact, my POV goes further.  I belive that CS does not even qualify as a pseudoscience.  It is, IMHO, religion pure and simple.  But other people here find the introduction as written to be POV, as do I. I agree with that POV.  I'm just trying to find a wording that is clearly not POV.  That is NPOV with no judgement required.  So we state both sides, then we make our argument.  Now that is scientific. Synaptidude 17:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * See the discussion I started below as I don't think this current discussion will take us anywhere new. -- BRIAN  0918   17:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

fine we can argue it here instead, or better yet, not
although I'm not sure why this discussion should go anywhere that the previous jillion ones have not. I'm simply responding to the Edit freeze on the article and it's call for consensus. I'm proposing a specific compromise. Yes, I'm giving a little to the CS POV (I'm letting them have their opinion put alongside the scientific one) - that is what a compromise is. My point is that we can bicker and argue for years on whether this is a "serious" dispute or not. Or we can agree on wording. We will never reach a compromise by argument, that is clear. So what I'm proposing is this:


 * 1) we vote on my proposed wording in the section above. Up or down.
 * 2) 2/3rds majority on either side (up or down) either confirms or kills my proposal
 * 3) less than a 2/3 majority on either side returns us to debate mode.
 * 4) any user who has had a posted opinion in this forum gets one vote.
 * 5) if your opinion is not on this page, but rather in the archive, then make a link to it alongside your vote
 * 6) If my proposed revision is approved by 2/3 majority, it is placed in the article, if not, then someone else write a specically worded compromise text.
 * 7) The vote is open until 1 week from today.  Ends at 12:00 noon wikitime on August 4.


 * 1) It's the only way we are going to reach a consensus.

Vote
It is proposed that active users in this forum vote to approve or disapprove of the text, as it is written by Synaptidude in the section: Can't we all get along?. The vote will occur according to the rules set forth in the section above.

The tally
Yes Synaptidude 17:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Friday 17:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes. (assuming the voting is still ongoing?) RossNixon 02:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

No vote. 1. You only have 240 edits (you have to start somewhere, but initiating final-determination votes isn't where to start) 2. This isn't how consensus works. You might want to look up the definition of "consensus" (and read Consensus). Voting is very unwikilike. You're choosing to not reply to any of my statements under "No serious dispute?", and instead have your unmodified suggestion injected directly into the article, discarding all previous or further discussion??? -- BRIAN  0918   19:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems to me like you're looking for what you think is the perfect solution. Maybe we're just misguided newbies, but at least a couple of us think a compromise should be considered.  To me, the recent edit warring on this article indicates that what we currently have isn't working all that well.  I suspect both sides feel that their arguments have not been answered. Friday 20:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's fine to consider suggestions. It's not fine to start a vote on them as the final word when little or no discussion has been made about these 2-hour-old suggestions. -- BRIAN  0918   20:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

No serious dispute?
WP:NPOV defines a fact as "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute". People who think it is POV to say "creation science is not science" need to show that there is serious dispute about this statement.

To be clear:
 * 1) "Serious dispute" isn't referring to dispute among Wikipedians.
 * 2) "Serious" can't simply refer to the public population (ie, "how many people hold the view"), otherwise, as I've said before, dragonfly would have to be altered to include the misconception that dragonflies can bite/sting. (see Argumentum ad populum and the list of conditions at argumentum ad verecundiam) -- BRIAN  0918   15:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe you've nailed it. "Serious dispute" seems like the sticky wicket here.  People are going to have conflicting ideas on what makes the dispute "serious".  There's no serious dispute in the scientific community, but I think we can agree that many CS advocates would seriously dispute "CS is not science".  We know for sure there is dispute.  I think deciding whether it's sufficiently "serious" is a value judgement. Friday 15:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * See my 2nd "to be clear" note above. -- BRIAN  0918   15:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

What is the consensus about what entails a "serious" dispute then? You cannot define something by saying what it isn't because there are lots of disputes that aren't referring to dispute among Wikipedians or the general population that also aren't serious disputes. For example, a divorce. Joshuaschroeder 20:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I've read the 2nd note several times. However I still think the same thing.  I agree with the user above that different people will consider different things "serious".  You've made it clear what it means to you, but that's not to say every other editor will agree.  Friday 20:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I haven't made it clear what it means to me. All we have to do is come to a consensus about what constitutes serious dispute in this case, and decide where to go from there. The whole debate is based on whether that statement is fact or not, and so whether there is serious dispute to the contrary or not. I simply pointed out that "serious dispute" wasn't referring to Wikipedians so that people wouldn't think we were confining the discussion to what other Wikipedians think. -- BRIAN  0918   20:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the real determinant has to be how many of them are called Steve Dunc|&#9786; 21:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Any Steve Dawkins on the list? :)   BRIAN  0918   21:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Note: That is not the definition of whether something is or is not a fact. It is merely the determinant of whether something should be stated as a fact on Wikipedia. Bensaccount 21:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, fine. If we are going to have to consider the most recent argument before a consensus is reached, then when does that end?  Did you even consider my text?  Or is it just your revisions that require special consideration?  The mere fact that some people can't even stand to have the two ends of the argument placed side by side (the ultimate NPOV solution) means either that they are afraid of even the idea itself, or, that those 'some people' are so POV on the topic that they can't stand to let the other POV even see the light of day.  Which by itself makes the idea pretty controversial (just ask the Kansas school board and their opponents if there is serious dispute about the legitimacy of CS).  If you want to be helpful here, don't tell me that I'm being somehow anti-wiki.  Don't tell me what doesn't constitute a serious dispute, tell me what does.  Don't tell me how you don't reach a consensus, tell me how you do.  I don't think that you are the only one who gets to decide whether or not we try a vote as a way of making a consensus.  Synaptidude 21:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly how this discussion should be going. Would you care to suggest possibilities for what constitutes serious dispute? -- BRIAN  0918   21:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, and BTW? I did read Wikipedia consensus.  The statement therein "In day-to-day Wikipedia practice, e.g. on VfD, consensus means something closer to supermajority, usually a two-thirds majority. In other polls, it has been defined as a 70% majority. In yet other cases, such as approving a request for a person to become an administrator, it is generally considered an 80% majority. In article disputes, consensus is used as if it means anything from genuine consensus to my position; it is possible to see both sides of a back-and-forth revert war claiming a consensus for their version of the article." is the basis for my proposal.  I could quote more of it in support of my action taken, but perhaps you should just read it again. 21:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "In article disputes, consensus is used as if it means anything from genuine consensus to my position;" Genuine consensus means 100% agreement. In any case, your vote 2 hours after posting a totally new version with only 3 replies is ridiculous. Would you care to suggest possibilities for what constitutes serious dispute? --  BRIAN  0918   21:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Voting is not consensus. What is your rush to reach consensus anyways? You just got here, and have yet to offer anything of value to this discussion. Bensaccount 21:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

OK Brian, lets try to argue this out. I don't care how many edits you have or how many edits I have. It seems pretty unwiki to me to decide an issue by anything other than the reasonablness of the argument.
 * The wikipedia standard, as you have pointed out, is no serious dispute. The standard is not stated in the logical form of "if there is serious dispute, then..." but rather in the form "if there is no serious dispute, then...."  Thus, the burden of proof on this argument is to show that there is no serious dispute.
 * So I ask you again, what would constitute no serious dispute in this regard. I already gave you an example, refute it if you wish, but don't just ignore it as if it weren't given.
 * How would you suggest I prove a negative? The burden of proof is obviously on those arguing that the statement is POV to provide ANYTHING suggesting that there is serious dispute. We haven't even gotten to the point of defining serious dispute in this case. -- BRIAN  0918   21:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Brian for making my point here. You can't prove a negative. And yet, the Wikipedia standard is that there be "no serious dispute". How do you prove there is no serious dispute? You can't. And yet, all you've done to this point is to tell us what does not constitute serious dispute. So again, I ask: Don't tell me what doesn't constitute a serious dispute, tell me what does. I've given a few examples below of what seems like serious dispute.

Does any of this constitute "serious dispute"?
1) From: answers.com

"Advocates of creationism have campaigned to have it taught in U.S. public schools along with the theory of evolution, which they dispute. In 1981, a federal judge ruled unconstitutional an Arkansas law requiring the teaching of creationism, holding it to be religious in nature; a similar Louisiana law was overturned in 1982. In 1999, supporters of creationism in Kansas succeeded in removing the requirement that evolution be taught as part of the state's high school biology curriculum, but after several supporters of the measure were not reelected to the state school board that decision was reversed in 2001. Fundamentalist Christians have also opposed the teaching of scientific theories concerning the formation of the universe (see cosmology). See also intelligent design."

It being in the courts seems like serious dispute.

2). The National Academy of Sciences has seen fit to go to the trouble of gathering over 70 Nobel Laureates to assert that creation science is not science.  They must have felt like there was some pretty serious dispute to go to all that trouble.

3) from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/

One of the leading advocates of CS, "Dr." Ken Hovind, is apparently considered something of an embarasment by even some proponents of CS. That seems like a serious dispute.

4) From: http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_intro/creationscience.html

"In their defense, creationists have asserted such things as evolution is not a fact, it is just a theory. Some scientists, such as Carl Sagan, on the other hand, have asserted that evolution is a fact, not a theory. Stephen Jay Gould claims that evolution is both a fact and a theory."

Sounds like some serious dispute goin on there.... Synaptidude 22:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Nice. IMO, it seems clear that "CS is pseudoscience" is both a fact and is seriously disputed.  I still think that "CS does not follow scientific method" may be acceptable to some who balk at saying it's pseudoscience.  On a side note, I'm not sure why the article is protected, it looks to me like there's civilized discussion going on.  Friday 22:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You know, after a while, "serious dispute" is just going to look like a bunch of random letters. That's happening to me right now.
 * No.1 is a point, but you could definitely say that it's just a question of trying to deal with the uneducated and those otherwise not qualified to comment. The disputes of random people holding no relevant qualifications are not relevant in the "serious dispute" deal, and even the Board of Education people (no offense, education folks) count here. Biology teachers don't, but they're not the ones that are making these decisions about what and what not to teach, the unqualified school boards are.
 * No.2 goes back to the "trying to educate the masses" deal. A lot of laypeople think creation science might be worth taking seriously, and scientists do make some attempt (this being in their nature, generally) to educate the population. As was said earlier, popularity doesn't make for facts or serious disputes.
 * No.3 is irrelevant and actually supports the point that creation science isn't a serious deal. If one of the leading advocates is regarded as a joke even by people with the same views, then that makes CS vs. evolution seem a lot less serious, doesn't it? No offense meant, but stating a random semi-related fact and adding "that seems like a serious dispute" doesn't count as evidence for your point at all. All it does is make serious dispute seem more like a jumble of letters. Serious dispute serious dispute serious dispute.
 * No.4 is also irrelevant. Whether evolution is a theory or a fact is largely a semantic and philosophical debate and has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of alternative theories. That applies to all theories, actually.
 * Serious serious dispute dispute. SVI 22:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sign you posts and please slow down! This is a new topic; nobody has argued that we shouldn't say CS is unscientific because it is disputed before. The discussion has until now centered around (in the words of SV) an aversion to making factual-sounding statements that could be offensive. Since you say it is disputed, we need to specify. Ie. CS is based on the unscientific assumption that Creation can be observed or tested. Is this statement disputed? We don't, however, replace it with the exact same thing in opinion form. Bensaccount 22:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So what constitues "serious dipute"? Synaptidude 22:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * or "dispute"? ;=)


 * Isn't answers.com a copy of Wikipedia? Anyways... First, we are talking about creation science, not creationism. I'm fine with creationism, as are most who believe it, because it is a belief based on faith. Creation science is the exact opposite. It's saying "faith is not enough" and trying to go for more, while most religious people assert that faith is the whole basis of their religion. Whether or not you agree with these statements of mine doesn't matter, because a court case brought up by creationists against evolution has no implications on whether or not creation science is science. In response to the rest of your evidence, we are talking about whether there is serious dispute of the statement that "creation science is not science": 2. The NAS consists of thousands of people; that they decided to say CS is not science is not evidence that the claim "creation science is not science" is disputed. 3. His name is Kent Hovind (not important, but just in case someone tries searching for him), and other CS believers' opinions of him are not evidence that the claim "creation science is not science" is disputed. 3. Again, creationists are not creation "scientists", and debates of evolution have no bearing on the validity of the statement "creation science is not science". On a side note, I'd suggest you read Theory, and understand why the statement "evolution is just a theory, not fact" makes no sense. You'll also realize why Sagan made his statement, and more importantly, why Gould made his.  You have stated that you are a scientist, but from this last statement of yours, I'm confused as to how you could mistake this as dispute. Would you care to elaborate on your scientific background/education? (though I won't think less of you for not, since it's not that important to the discussion) --  BRIAN  0918   22:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you said as far as science goes. I, personally think that CS is not scientific.  I know why Sagan said what he said, I know why Gould said what he said.  I just want to know what constitutes "serious dispute"?  If we can't define serious dispute, then we have no chance.  Please remember, at the base here, all I'm arguing for is to have the first paragraph of the text say "this is what CScientists think" followed by "this is what scientists think".  You can't fully define CS without defining what CS'ers think it is.  That their ideas are ludicrous is beside the point. My background is not relevant.  I only brought it up for the context of "I'm not a creation scientist - far from it".  My opinions don't matter more than anyone else's.  This should all be based on quality of argument. But still - what constitutes a "serious dispute"  if we can't define it, then we are nowhere. Synaptidude 22:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Personally, all I need is for someone to disagree. Agreeing that it might be a fact, but insisting that we shouldn't state it anyways because it is "POV" just doesn't cut it. Bensaccount 22:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I might as well take a stab at it. My effort: "There is serious dispute over a scientific theory or other scientific topic if and only if there are two or more theories / sides to the issue that are advocated or believed by a qualified significant minority or larger qualified portion of the scientific community". I guess that kind of hinges on what a scientific community is. Wikipedia defines it nicely, though, I think. tbh, I think it's a lot clearer than that, since we already have the definition of a science and the definition of creation science. Any one of us, scientist or not, should be able to see that the square peg isn't fitting into the round hole too well. You asked for a definition, though, so that's my best shot.SVI 22:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you (svi)! That forms the basis of having a real discussion. I agree, but I have trouble putting the onus on the scientific community when, as is the case here, the basic dispute is between the scientific community and the non-scientific community. It brooks that no dispute is even possible if one side of the argument gets to decide if there is a dispute or not. Synaptidude 22:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * We are talking about whether there is serious dispute over the statement "creation science is not science". We are not talking about whether there is serious dispute over a scientific theory/topic. And please stick your replies at the right indentation to the right reply. You are independently rendering this talk page unfollowable. And please stop hitting enter so many times. Thanks :) -- BRIAN  0918   22:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As for your statement that it is wrong for the scientific community to decide whether or not there is a dispute, I don't agree at all with that statement: It isn't that the scientific community is an entity that is taking votes to decide these things; rather, it is possible to determine whether or not there is serious dispute by observing the work, interactions, and publications of the scientific community. I think SVI's attempt helps us get to consensus, though. -- BRIAN  0918   22:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If there's a dispute over a scientific issue and the only people on one side of the issue belong to the non-scientific side, it's simply not a serious dispute. People who don't know what they're talking about can express their opinions all day long, but they can not and should not be taken seriously. There's the dragonfly example, and there's phrenology too (as I've said, there are people out there who seriously believe that it works, but the article still calls it a pseudoscience because it is that). This is irrelevant, though. It's not as if the article specifically says "the whole scientific community thinks CS is a joke" or any of that, it simply says that it's a pseudoscience-- which is, as I said, merely a question of noting that the definition and subject match up quite well. Round peg, round hole. SVI 22:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- BRIAN  0918   22:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Dude, I take the dispute from Creation Scientists very seriously. Synaptidude 22:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please stick your replies at the right indentation to the right reply. Thanks. -- BRIAN  0918   22:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * We could argue all day about whether the word "pseudoscience" is perjorative. In my mind, it has that connotation.  In fact, that argument has been had, so let's not have it again.  I'm just trying to get anything that smacks of the perjorative out of the first paragraph.  If the article appears to be biased from the outset, then it's arguments against CS being science are diminished.  Let the creation science viewpoint have its sentence.  The most effective way to banish a stupid idea is to shine light on it.  Synaptidude 23:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC
 * pejorative -sorry, I can't spell.
 * Please stick your replies at the right indentation to the right reply. Thanks. -- BRIAN  0918   22:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm trying - too many edit conflicts.
 * We are not talking about the definition of pseudoscience. That is for the article on pseudoscience. If you need a definition, you need only turn to the dictionary to see that it isn't pejorative. If you're going to claim that calling it "pseudoscience" is pejorative, you have to also say that calling it "not science" is also pejorative, since they are the same thing. In any case, this is not what we are discussing, so please don't get off track. Please stop editing this article to add every little remark you want to make. This is getting ridiculous. Take a break from the article, nothing is going to get edited in the article, and you'll have time to actually collect your thoughts. -- BRIAN  0918   23:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would in fact argue that defining CS as pseudoscience or "not science" is pejorative. I am not adding every little thought I can make. We are having an argument.  A potentially productive one.  From the dictionary: Pseudoscience: Main Entry: *******, Pronunciation: "süd-O-'sI-&n(t)s Function: noun; : a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific —pseu·do·sci·en·tif·ic /-"sI-&n-'tif-ik/ adjective; Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc. Pseudoscience n : an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions
 * the words "erroneously" and "fallacious" in the dictionary definitions define "pseudoscience" as a pejorative.Synaptidude 23:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, this is long. I'm not convinced the discussion can go any further than it already has (probably time and time again.) However, here's something worth remembering: There are scientists in the CS movement. Where do you think they get their scientific sounding explanations? So it's not fair to say that the "only" people on the pro-CS side are not in the scientific community. Also, "pseudoscience" is pejorative, at least sometimes, to some people. Isn't that what got us in this mess? Friday 23:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * People don't like it because they think it is POV, not that it is pejorative. As I said above, if you can say that considering it pseudoscience is pejorative, then you can say considering it not science is also pejorative, since they are the same thing. -- BRIAN  0918   23:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Being pejorative is a form of being POV. In the end, that is all my proposed edit was about.  Removing any potential POV. This whole discussion has been about whether there is serious dispute about whether CS is science.  The definition led to who gets to be serious, whether people on one side of an argument are the only ones who can define whether there is a dispute or not, which led to the example of phrenology, which led to the statement that it was OK to use "pseudoscience" because it was a fact not a pejorative, which leads back to my original assertion that we should get POV out of the first paragraph. Synaptidude 23:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that even if something is a fact, if it is pejorative then it is POV. How can a fact be a POV? -- BRIAN  0918   23:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, and no. I'm arguing that the term "pseudoscience" or "not-scientific" (in the context in which you want to use it) is pejorative.  I'm arguing that a pejorative is by definition, POV (the dictionary definition is:   Disparaging; belittling.  n. A disparaging or belittling word or expression).  I am not arguing that a fact can be pejorative.  I am arguing that "CS=pseudoscience is not a fact, but rather POV under wikipedia's definition, because there is serious dispute about it.  Which brings us full circle back to the beginning of this discussion.  This brings me back to the conclusion that this argument is futile.  This brings me back to the compromise I proposed, which, while you disagreed with the method I chose to evaluate it, you never actually posited an argument against.  What is wrong with my proposed edit? Synaptidude 23:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There are two different issues here: whether or not CS is a pseudoscience, and whether or not calling something a pseudoscience can be seen as offensive. The first answer is very clear (of course it is), the second one much less so. My answers to both would be yes... for the second one, I say yes because some people can and will be offended enough by mere negative connotations (which pseudoscience does have, although to be fair that's because pseudoscientific fields like CS are usually bags of horse droppings), and other people will not know the definition of pseudoscience and assume that it is some sort of insult. If it is possible, I'd like to see it clearly established that CS is unscientific in nice, soothing language. SVI 23:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If you can propose a version that bypasses calling it pseudoscience in favor of explaining how it fails to conform to science, that might be best, provided that you take into careful consideration the problems Bensaccount has had with previous versions, since I think they are valid problems. I do like the layout of Synaptidude's 1-2-3 version, explaining CS first, then... telling the truth, so that should also be taken into consideration. -- BRIAN  0918   00:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah geez Brian. You are being so nice here that I feel like I need to go back and edit out the pejorative tone of my previous post. I agree, should we have a stab at it?  We could start by your editing my previous text or by your proposing a new text.Synaptidude 00:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Problems with the protected intro
As it is established by the scientific community to be unscientific, it can be considered pseudoscience and a misnomer.

This is telling the reader that whether or not something is scientific depends on what the scientific community establishes. This is incorrect; it depends on systematic observation not the scientific community. Bensaccount 23:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining your objection. What would you say to a compromise statement that "Creation science does not follow the scientific method?  Friday 00:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No good. CS follows the scientific method as *equally* as does the grand theory of evolution. RossNixon 02:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Evolution is an issue for another article. I'm trying to make this article better.  Do you really believe that creation science does follow the scientific method?  I strongly suspect that's an unorthodox view; do you have sources to help? Friday 05:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please don't encourage this line of discussion. -- BRIAN  0918   12:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * For those who don't know, RossNixon is a slightly toned-down version of kdbuffalo. -- BRIAN  0918   02:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Good to know. I'd be willing to try to explain why he's mistaken, but I suspect from your comment that this would not be useful.

I agree that Bensaccount has a point. It isn't "established" by the scientific community as being unscientific. It is "called" by the scientific community "unscientific". This "namecalling" is justified through the systematic observations that do not accord with creation science. Joshuaschroeder 12:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Latest attempt
Ok, here is a latest attempt, incorporating SVI's suggestions, Bennsaccount's and Jschroeder's objections, and Synaptidude's layout. Since Wikipedia has traditionally had this layout (explain first, criticize later), we should probably stick to it in whatever final form we come up with. The only thing I have really changed is the third paragraph, so please focus there.


 * 1) Creation science (also known as scientific creationism or CS) is an effort to construct rational arguments for the account of the creation of the universe related in the Bible. Areas of focus include the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, biological evolution, a global flood and the origin of humanity. Creation science as an organized movement is primarily centered within the United States, although creation science organizations are known in other countries.
 * 2) Creation science has its roots in the ongoing effort by young earth creationists to critique modern science's description of natural history while offering a Biblically compatible alternative. As such, proponents are found primarily among various denominations of Christianity who describe themselves generally as evangelical, conservative, or fundamentalist Christians. While creationist movements also exist in the Baha'i faith, Islam, and Judaism, these movements do not use the phrase creation science to describe their beliefs.
 * 3) Efforts in the creation science movement have traditionally been centered around forming arguments against Darwinian evolution, under the pretense that assertions dismissing evolution are promoting young earth creationism. Creation science's unscientific dependence on the God of Abraham renders it unfalsifiable, and its predetermined unconditional support of the Genesis account runs contrary to scientific methodology. Among those of faith, creation science has also been criticized as suggesting that "faith is not good enough", that evidence is needed to believe the Genesis account, and as such has been considered the antithesis of faith in the divine. Many Christian churches, including the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran faiths, have either rejected creation science outright or not insisted on its reception as doctrine, since much of Christian theology, including Liberal Christianity, considers the Genesis narrative primarily a poetic and allegorical work and not a literal history.

I feel this is a step in the direction SVI was suggesting: Clearly establishing CS as unscientific "in nice, soothing language" (since the point is to not get reverted and start another edit war). Because the first two paragraphs are pretty much directly from the article, please focus on the third one. I'm open to any additions/modifications (especially additions to the list of reasons why CS is unscientific). Please list your requested modifications individually below so they can be separately discussed. -- BRIAN  0918   13:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Very nice. Seems neutral and factual to me, without applying labels that are (perhaps wrongly) seen as pejorative. Friday 14:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The intro concludes before we get to the most important point. "Creation science's unscientific dependence on the God of Abraham renders it unfalsifiable, and its predetermined unconditional support of the Genesis account runs contrary to scientific methodology. ". The intro is officially over when it mentions areas of focus (subcategories of CS). After that the reader feels the article has been fully defined. Bensaccount 14:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What if we were to reorder the points like this: Creation science (also known as scientific creationism or CS) is an effort to construct rational arguments for the account of the creation of the universe related in the Bible. Creation science's unscientific dependence on the God of Abraham renders it unfalsifiable, and its predetermined unconditional support of the Genesis account runs contrary to scientific methodology. As an organized movement CS is primarily centered within the United States, although creation science organizations are known in other countries. Areas of focus include the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, biological evolution, a global flood and the origin of humanity. Bensaccount 14:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The point of all of this is to not get reverted and start another edit war. All other articles have a layout of "explain first, criticize later", and the point of the lead section (the entire lead section) is not to define but to summarize the article. Sticking a criticism (no matter if it is a fact) directly into the first paragraph, while the efforts of CS are still being summarized, screws up the flow of the lead section and makes the 2nd sentence look less convincing. Keeping all of the criticisms together is more convincing; as long as they are in the lead section, it doesn't matter where they are placed in the lead section. If you can suggest any other reasons why CS is unscientific, I'll be happy to add them to the third paragraph. -- BRIAN  0918   14:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Putting the most important characteristic of CS into the third paragraph is unacceptable. Bensaccount 14:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That's not a valid objection. Your other objections, against the misrepresentation of science, were valid. This is more of a personal objection. You should give reasons why. -- BRIAN  0918   14:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am just used to all the suggestions here being terrible. On second look, this seems not bad. A little redundant, but some editing could fix that. Bensaccount 14:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to hear any additions/modifications (especially additions to the list of things unscientific about creation science). -- BRIAN  0918   14:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If you check back, I made a very similar statement to "Creation science's unscientific dependence on the God of Abraham renders it unfalsifiable, and its predetermined unconditional support of the Genesis account runs contrary to scientific methodology. ". I think mine was more eloquent, even though it got completely ignored. Bensaccount 15:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't ignore your post. CSers aren't typically concerned with explaining creation itself, despite their name, but to support the account in Genesis. -- BRIAN  0918   15:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Just my 2 cents. I think Bensaccount's wording here is fine, as long as it remains in the 3rd point.
 * To be clear, that's not his wording but mine. He said he made a similar statement higher up in the talk page. -- BRIAN  0918   15:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, I just noticed that. Perhaps he can bring his quote down here so we can evaluate it.Synaptidude 15:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I misformat this, edit conflict everywhere. We seem to have lost the modification suggestion section.  But here's my $0.02: As for list of reasons why CS is unscientic, I'd suggest explaining a few of their unscientific techniques, and then directing people to scientific method to compare with actual science.  This may help reduce undesirable redundacy, and (hopefully) will keep people from fighting in this article about what the scientific method is.  I may be terribly optimistic with this hope, of course. :) Friday 14:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I've already linked to scientific method, using the phrase "scientific methodology" instead to avoid trying to define "the" scientific method (as if there was such a thing). Would you care to suggest any specific additions to the criticisms paragraph? -- BRIAN  0918   14:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I like it, except perhaps that the third paragraph might contain a more strident statement of the unscientific nature of CSI think it would be fine here to say that scientists view CS as pseudoscince. If this sounds inconsistent with my previous suggestions, allow me to clarify.  !) It's not in point #1, which is purely descriptive (as it should be IMHO), 2) As long as it is in the form  "someone says", rather than "it's a fact that", then it's not POV.Synaptidude 15:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do we even need to state that? Bensaccount has been opposed to such statements for misrepresenting how science works. Instead of using an appeal to authority, we should just state the facts about why CS is unscientific, and anyone who doesn't independently come to the conclusion that CS is unscientific probably doesn't much care for science to begin with, and would've probably also deleted any statement specifically saying "CS is unscientific", thus causing another revert war. -- BRIAN  0918   15:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That would be fine too, as long as it said "CS is considered unscientific because ...list of things - as "facty" as you like. Keeps the language "nice and soothing".Synaptidude 15:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't find it soothing. Bensaccount 15:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So do you have any problems with the third paragraph as it is? -- BRIAN  0918   15:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. I like it the way it is. I was merely indicating my position, that should the debate go that way, I would have no problem with ramping up the 'CS is not science' rhetoric, as long as it met the conditions I stated above.  But if we had to vote on it ;-) right now, I'd say Yes(!). Synaptidude 15:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I like it. Each paragraph has a clear purpose (overview, clarification, disc-- err, criticism), and the scientific criticism is phrased such that no one could take it as anything but a statement of facts (no connotations, no pejoratives, nothing). Including criticism from the other side of the tracks is good, too... helps highlight that the paragraph is not about advocating the scientific view, but rather about criticism of the subject. You'll always have some objection from the fringe of the fringe, but the criticism is even-handed and neutrally stated, so I don't see how any such criticism would have any sort of justification. SVI 15:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It looks good to me. I've unprotected the page. &rarr;Raul654 16:09, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Latest attempt implemented, any objections?
Alright, since Raul654 has unprotected the page, I've implemented this latest version, since everyone who has replied thus far is fine with it. If anyone subsequently objects to this change, please keep it on the talk page rather than instituting YARW (yet another revert war). -- BRIAN  0918   16:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * looks good to me!Synaptidude 17:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I actually have a problem with it. What does "rational" mean? Does it mean rational? Does it mean logical? Or does it mean scientific? Joshuaschroeder 22:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Pursuant to this, I have modified the first definitional sentence. Hope this doesn't start an edit war. Joshuaschroeder 22:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. "rational" seems to fit with either of Wikipedia's first two definitions provided. Works for me, though of course whether or not CS is rationally/logically constructed and derived is only marginally more debatable than whether or not it is scientific (it does say EFFORT). Rational could be used as a weak synonym for logical or scientific (depending on what you meant by rational), anyway. What was wrong with it? SVI 22:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If you see on the linkpage for rational, there are no references to scientific. The two are separate concepts.


 * "Rational" is an attempt to avoid using "scientific", which angers anyone in science, even though the sentence doesn't even suggest the arguments are scientific, merely that they are trying to be scientific. In the future, please suggest changes first, see what others say, then decide whether it should be added to the article. That's the natural order of things, and as we've seen, abandoning this leads to disorder. -- BRIAN  0918   22:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I abhor leaving what I consider to be a poor definition on an article page. I will change it if I find it is incorrect. Saying something is attempting to be "rational" is not the same as saying that it tries to use the guise of science. Joshuaschroeder 23:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Will you be so kind as to explain to us hoi polloi what is non-rational in the CS arguments? Dan Watts 23:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The issue is not whether CS is "rational" or "non-rational". The issue is that rational has nothing to do with the content or the criticisms of creation sciecne. The whole point is that creation science is trying to be science and it is trying to modify and reject certain parts of science. Reporting on the attempted "rationality" of arguments is neither encyclopedic nor correct since I have read rambling diatribes by CS proponents that didn't resemble rationality in any sense of the word. But that really isn't the point. CS is correctly defined vis-a-vis science, not rationality. Joshuaschroeder 23:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No offense, but I don't particularly like this new version: "Creation science (also known as scientific creationism or CS) is an effort to construct arguments for the account of the creation of the universe related in the Bible by means of rejecting or modifying parts of modern science." It's true that creation scientists reject a great deal of modern science, but it is also formulated partly on its own without modification of existing theories (in other words, much of the crackpottery is wholly original). Also, clunky, but everything I type is clunky, so I guess I can't really comment there.
 * Why not just say it's "an effort to construct scientific arguments" or, if you're comfortable with being a bit more vague, "logical"? I realize the arguments are neither scientific nor logical, but then it's only an EFFORT to construct such arguments. I actually liked rational, as all the CS proponents I've met seem to think that (and claim that) CS is forumulated following the principles of rationality (although most of them say this in different words, generally offering a rough definition of rationality rather than the exact phrase, and sometimes then calling that the scientific method). SVI 23:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Logic is only cursorly related to science. Take for example the flood geologists positions that the Great Flood laid down geologic layers. This is an argument not based on logic but rather on observations. Similarly "rational" has the same problem of only being related to the way in which scientific deduction (as opposed to induction) is made.
 * Ahhh, okay... I think I get your point now. Sorry. SVI
 * It's not really an effort to construct scientific arguments either as many of the arguments it makes are unscientific (such as when Humphreys claims that God could have set up a peculiar white hole that would mimic cosmological observations).
 * No, the arguments are by and large not scientific at all, but their proponents like to think that they are. I see your point that it's difficult to call something an "effort to produce scientific arguments" when the effort is done with complete disregard for the scientific methods, though. SVI
 * I see your point that a lot of the crackpottery is novel, but I think all of it is done in response to science. To wit, you'll never see a creationist who disputes a scientist who dates a Roman ruin to a time compatible with their worldviews. They don't spend their time making grand theories about how to date the Roman empire using "creation science" because they are only interested in providing alternatives to science when science is opposed to their literal interpretations of Genesis. You'll never see a creation science proponent come up with an idea that is unrelated to origins science through the idealization of creation science. That's because they really do set themselves up as an oppositional group -- not as independent researchers. This is intentional. If science had ruled differently on the subjects they dispute, or if some Bible writer had talked about a Big Bang, evolution, an Old Earth, an Old Universe, and an idealization that the physical world was governed by universal rules, there would be no such thing as creation science. Joshuaschroeder 23:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * They do set themselves up as an oppositional group, but not _everything_ proposed is about why this part of science is wrong or why that part of science needs modification: as you said, a lot of the crackpottery is novel. The current sentence indicates that rejection and modification are the foundations of the subject, when in fact novel crackpot theories and modification of accepted ones are the foundations, and rejection of actual scientific theories is simply something that must be established for novel theories to be accepted. It does seem to focus a lot on rejection of old theories, and you could argue that that is itself a basis, but either way rejection and modification are not the only foundations of the effort. SVI 00:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Everything that the creation science advocate does is only in relation to science ultimately. If science didn't exist, creation science wouldn't. Even when creation science modifies itself (as in barimonlogy conferences) it is ultimately in order to "snub" the mainstream. Joshuaschroeder 02:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Everything that an evolution advocate does is in relation to creation science, in a sense. Extreme example, but in both cases there are theories that are novel material in and of themselves, and only oppose other theories implicitly or to get them out of the way. To me, to say that the arguments themselves are modifications of or rejections of modern scientific theories implies that there is no other content (crackpottish or otherwise) to them. In other words, while it is true that the theories themselves are generally rejections of opposing ones, that does not mean that they are nothing but that. SVI 03:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Everything that an evolution advocate does is in relation to creation science -- not true. Take, for example, the discovery of DNA phylogenetics. Joshuaschroeder 11:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, that's in relation to CS in the sense that it shows a relatively close relationship between, say, humans and chimps, and that the conclusions derived from the data show that the split goes back long before 6ky ago; these findings directly contradict beliefs held by CSists. A theory does not have to explicitly mention opposing, contradictory theories for it to be contradictory / in opposition to them... and a theory being contradictory or in opposition to another does not mean it should be defined merely as a rejection of the other theory. SVI 19:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Joshuaschroeder: something about the dependence thing (third paragraph, second sentence, first clause). If you read the old version carefully, you will notice that it never says the belief in the God of Abraham is unscientific, it says that DEPENDENCE on such a belief is unscientific (which it is). This is actually two points on one: dependence upon a "truth" which is not actually self-evident is not scientific, and something that's unfalsifiable is unscientific. I would be comfortable with removing the first point, as emphasizing it has the possibility to cause a global thermonuclear flame war. How about this: "Creation science's dependence on the God of Abraham renders it unfalsifiable, ..." SVI 23:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I am having a hard time following your point about dependence upon a truth which not actually self-evident. I don't know how to define "self-evident" independent of subjectivity. In other words, to the creationist the "truth" in question really is "self-evident" so they are not in violation of this particular "rule". However, I'm not convinced this is actually a rule. I think what you may be claiming is that dependence on assumptions that are not intrinsically observable is unscientific. This is true, but self-evident means something different entirely. Joshuaschroeder 23:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I'm not quite sure how to put it, but you put it better than me anyway with "I think what you may be claiming is that dependence on assumptions that are not intrinsically observable is unscientific."
 * So basically, what I meant to say is this: reliance on the God of Abraham IS unscientific if that reliance forms the foundation of a theory or science (as it is with creation "science"). It doesn't matter on which aspect or actions of the God of Abraham something relies on; relying on the existence of said god is unscientific to begin with, because it is an assumption that is not intristically observable. SVI 00:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * But "reliance" can mean a lot of things. When some theistic scientists "rely" on God for inspiration their reliance on said God is not necessarily unscientific. Simply relying on God doesn't make one unscientific. What is unscientific is to say that there are observations of a God of the type that acts in the natural world, just as my revised version says. Joshuaschroeder 02:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * See below for clarification. Sorry for poor wording, I guess. SVI

"pose as scientific" (as opposed to rational or logical or whatever) objectionable. That is what CS is. It's trying to use the trappings of science. I think that even supportes of CS would agree that they are trying to give creation a "scientific" basis. But it's just my 2c. I'm don't care that much about this particular issue to argue a change in the aritcle.Synaptidude 00:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I support Jschroeder's latest additions. I knew that it had to be clarified that it wasn't the belief alone that rendered it unscientific, but did not know how to word it. Based on the latest additions to the talk page, in an effort to clarify "rational" without enraging CSers, I've replaced the part about "reject/modify science" with "is an effort to construct scientific arguments..." This isn't saying that their arguments are scientific, but that they are trying to present scientific arguments. -- BRIAN  0918   00:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * wrt the "unscientific dependence ... " part: Surely the dependence on such a belief would render it unscientific alone, and in the original wording that's what's stated. SVI 00:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter because the current version works just as well. If it helps avoid reversions/dispute, it's fine. -- BRIAN  0918   00:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The current version does work, but it appears redundant if you don't see "unscientific dependence on the God of Abraham" and "God of Abraham acting to unobservably alter the natural world renders it unfalsifiable" as separate things that make it unscientific. The sentence structure does put these as separate beliefs, but it's not that clear at first glance to me. Maybe I'm a bit on the dim side for that, but still, if I don't see that without looking carefully then maybe others could have that problem there. SVI 00:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There is actually a difference between the two, though it is very minor. One is just claiming that dependence on God is unscientific, but there are dependences on God that can be incorporated into the scientific method that don't necessarily make what is done unscientific. For example, if a group of scientists prays before doing research, that doesn't make the research they do unscientific -- even if they are "depending" on God. Their research stands on its own -- whether they depended on God or not. In this light, "dependence" on God is entirely neutral. However, positing supernatural causes for naturally observed events is definitely unscientific. Joshuaschroeder 02:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- BRIAN  0918   03:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I must have worded things poorly. I'm not claiming that belief in God is unscientific. I'm saying that when one of the PRINCIPAL ASSUMPTIONS of a "science" or a "scientific theory" is the existence of the God of Abraham (or any other deity, or anything else that is not a proven assumption), that science or theory is not scientific. As such, creation science's dependence on the God of Abraham is unscientific, so saying "creation science's unscientific dependence on the existence of the God of Abraham" is perfectly fair if the reader is to assume that the dependence is unscientific because it is taken for granted in all theories of this "scientific" field. ... Err, IS the statement actually meant to be two points in one ("creation science's dependence on $deity is unscientific" & "creation science's dependence on $deity doing x causes it to be unfalsifiable"), or is it just saying that the dependence on the God of Abraham acting to unobservably alter the natural world causes it to be falsifiable and thus scientific? SVI 03:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's just one statement, not two. I don't know why you're still arguing this. You've made your point. I already understood it, that's why I originally worded the article that way, but if it avoids further disputes, I'm fine with this as well, since they both render creation science unfalsifiable. -- BRIAN  0918   03:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know why there's even something defined as an argument. Apparently, I worded things poorly enough that my point ("the reliance of a scientific theory on an unfounded assumption makes it unscientific") was seen as something else ("belief in or dependence on God in general is unscientific"-- to be clear, I do not agree with this). All I was asking, originally, is if that sentence couldn't be worded better. It reads oddly if you look at it as two points (which I guess I'm not supposed to, sorry), and part of it ("unscientific") is redundant if it is all one point. It's not a big deal at all, but I thought that with all the stuff that went on I'd ask about it on the talk page before touching anything in the article. Sorry for the mess. SVI 03:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is the word "reliance" or "dependence". These words have multiple meanings. In the sense that you are talking about them, relying or depending on God is unscientific. But as the article originally didn't specify what meaning for the words it intended, it is better to be explicit. Joshuaschroeder 11:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand what was wrong with my wording now, and I apologize for that (and yes, I agree with the clarification). I still have that (very minor) objection. The sentence reads oddly if you look at it as two points ("unscientific dependence on the God of Abraham doing X" & "proposing that the God of Abraham acting to unobservably alter the natural world is unfalsifiable"), and if it is only one point then the "unscientific" is redundant (if a theory's unfalsifiable, then it's unscientific). If it is, as Brian said, just one statement, then the unscientific bit should probably be removed (or moved to later on in the sentence, as in "unfalsifiable and thus unscientific" or something)... if it's two, well, no idea. SVI 19:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Just my 2c on all of this (I know you couldn't wait! ;-), I don't agree that anyone connected with science would find a definition of CS as trying to

RossNixon's latest change
RossNixon has changed "under the pretense" to "believing", claiming that the former consists of "weasel words". Obviously the latter is the weasel word, since it is vague and incomplete: arguments against evolution are not arguments for creation because it may be possible for other theories besides evolution to be constructed that account for such arguments. -- BRIAN  0918   02:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "Pretense" implies "Pretending with intention to deceive". This is offensive. Can you think of better

phrasing? Also; AFAIK, there are no other possibilities - it's either some form of creation, or some form of evolution. Someone may well say that aliens planted life here - but that life had to either be created or evolved itself. RossNixon 11:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Problem is, Rossnixon, is that creation science is very particular about how life is "created". It's not good enough that it is created, it had to be created as described in Genesis. If you are interested in the idea that there is "creation" implicit to nature you are really talking about intelligent design. Thus it really is a false dichotomy on this page. Joshuaschroeder 11:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely right. The Big Bang points to some sort of "creation event", although it may take a form completely unlike anything we could've thought up, but Creation science is promoting creation according to Genesis, while any other religion promotes any other form of creation. Thus it's obvious that arguments against evolution are not arguments for creation according to Genesis. It is no wonder that RossNixon chose the most offending definition of "pretense" with which to attack its usage. I might suggest using "false assumption" in its place, but it will no doubt cause revert wars by the ignorant who can't stand seeing "creation science" and "false" in the same sentence. -- BRIAN  0918   19:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point. It's either some form of evolution, or some form of creation (not necessarily the CS version). I'll try a rewrite. RossNixon 05:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This version doesn't seem to flow quite as well, and you could've left the "pretense" bit alone. How about this: "Efforts in the creation science movement have traditionally been centered around forming arguments against Darwinian evolution, under the pretense that assertions dismissing evolution are promoting young earth creationism (dismissal of evolution is promotion for creationism, but not for any particular group's version of creationism)." SVI 06:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * SVI, you do realize who you're talking to, right? RossNixon is a toned-down version of kdbuffalo, and he's tricking you into supporting his nonsense by sounding like he's on your side. A negative against evolution is never a positive for any form of creation; they can both be wrong. (As for creation possibly being wrong: the universe could have existed forever but just changed forms, in the same way that creation's God has to exist forever for the whole thing to work). RossNixon is also assuming that science never changes--that, if a negative were really found against evolution, biologists couldn't figure out where they went wrong and make corrections. This is a ridiculous discussion to go down, and I encourage you to please not feed the trolls. -- BRIAN  0918   16:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Why "pretense"? Is it not possible (probable) that CS would care to discredit evolution whether or not such activity directly support CS? If that is so, where is the "pretending"? If pretense is the true motive, then how about some substantiation.  Or is that too much to ask?  Dan Watts 14:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you be alright with "false assumption", then? It's ridiculous to think that "creation scientists" are out to find evidence for creation according to Genesis but spend all of their time trying to discount evolution. Please answer the question I've asked in this reply. -- BRIAN  0918   16:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So you are suggesting: "Efforts in the creation science movement have traditionally been centered around forming arguments against Darwinian evolution, under the false assumption that assertions dismissing evolution are promoting young earth creationism." While I'm not sure that I agree with the premise, it is the lesser of two evils, and as such, I accept it.  Meanwhile, I will endeavor to catalog CRSQ articles under suitable catagories to have a numerical basis (at least wrt CRS) to compare with the assertion. Dan Watts 17:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The results of counting articles from Volumes 21-41 (1st quarter):
 * Evolution    159  35.3%
 * Geology      145  32.4%
 * Physics       56  12.5%
 * Other         33   7.4%
 * History       20   4.5%
 * Science Theory 19  4.2%
 * Astronomy     16   3.6%


 * Total        448 100.1% (rounding effect)


 * It appears that the "hard" sciences (physics, astronomy, and geology) take up more in the CRSQ than evolution (48.4% to 35.3%). Note: The count was done with volumes at hand. If any Quarterlies were missing, I did not notice.  The totals within each category are probably +/-1.  As usual, I will not hold my breath for wording to change.  Dan Watts 21:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly what wording are you suggesting should change??? -- BRIAN  0918   21:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * How about "centered around forming arguments against Darwinian evolution" for a start? Dan Watts 21:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What are you suggesting it should be changed to? You've shown that articles dealing with evolution outnumber articles dealing with any other specific field. -- BRIAN  0918   22:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I also showed that the subject of evolution is not addressed in a majority of the articles in the CRSQ. How about this: "Efforts in the creation science movement have focused significant effort in forming arguments against Darwinian evolution, under the false assumption that assertions dismissing evolution are promoting young earth creationism."   I will defer discussion of whether or not CS would attempt to dismiss evolution regardless of the aid/hurt done wrt CS. Dan Watts 23:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * While I agree that knocking down the Theory of Evolution is not in any way equivalent to supporting CS, Young Earth or whatever (as you say Brian, they could both be false), it certainly is a prerequisite! Synaptidude 01:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Introduction change
It appears that Lacrimosus has decided that changes to the introduction do not need discussion. Dan Watts 00:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, his edit count is pretty high, so I can forgive him. I've reverted it and suggested to him that he read the last 3-4 archives of the talk page first :)   BRIAN  0918   01:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV flag
I don't know if it's NPOV or not, but I think the intro at least some criticism of creation science to give a balanced/fair/neutral reporting of the topic. Does wikipedia have a policy that intros should or should not include criticism? Does it say all criticism should be at the end of teh article in a subsection? FuelWagon 16:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The introduction should introduce the article and summarize it for a layperson. I think it's rather obvious that, as such, the introduction should include criticism. &rarr;Raul654 17:01, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * The lead section should succinctly summarize (say that 3 times fast) the criticisms, which it currently does. -- BRIAN  0918   17:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I would assert that the claim "dismissing evolution are promoting young earth creationism—an example of a logically false dilemma." is not a mainstream criticism of creation science. Perhaps it should be moved into the body of the article. Criticism should list the largest group criticism of CS first. I'm assuming that would be the scientific community, which means whatever the main criticism that the scientific community has of CS should be in the intro. A 'false dilemma' is not from a large group critical of CS, nor does it represent the main criticism of any group that I know of. It would be a side criticism of a small group, if anything. The next largest critic of CS is religious groups that do not believe in a literal interpretation of genesis is required for their faith, that separate their religious beliefs from their approach to science, etc. FuelWagon 17:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You may want to (re?)read all of the discussion that led up to the current version of the lead section before you decide to completely rewrite it and restart this edit war. If you read that, then you'll realize why we can't cite the scientific community without making science sound like a democratic system (which it isn't), and you'll also realize why your first assertion is incorrect. You may want to also read false dilemma, where this exact situation is given as an example. In any case, with respect to the lead section, you should first propose changes on the discussion page and wait for others' comments, especially since we previously reached a consensus on the current version. -- BRIAN  0918   17:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Please read NPOV policy, specifically the part that says there is no such thing as a "view from nowhere" and the section below it about pseudoscientific topics that clarifies the difference between the "neutral point of view" and the "scientific point of view". Wikipedia policy does NOT say write from a scientific point of view, it says write from neutral point of view, which means report the scientific view as being from science. The notion that logic somehow criticizes Creationism Science is a "view from nowhere". And as I said before, points of view need to be placed in order of popularity. That you think popularity is irrelevant or that science is not a democracy and logic somehow "proves" anything is completely violating wikipedia policy for NPOV. We do not decide "rightness" of a view and deem it "neutral", we report the various points of view and who held that view, and we report them in order of popularity. Reporting the major views also has the advantage that it is irrefutable. "The NAS said this" (link). "CS proponents said that" (link). Whether the group said it or not can easily be checked with the link. Stating "logic is CS's greatest critic" is original research and the point of view of the editor entering the article. Report the major points of view and the statements become irrefutable. That doesn't mean science is a democratic system or not, it means that wikipedia simply reports the major points of view as part of its NPOV policy. FuelWagon 18:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Why the hostility? Where do you get the notion that criticisms should be placed in order of popularity? I say they should be written so that the paragraph flows well. Are you suggesting that the current criticisms are not irrefutable??? I never stated in the article that "logic is CS's greatest critic". You're starting to make little sense. The whole problem we ran into before you showed up was that by stating "NAS says this" we are saying that the NAS determines what is science, which, according to several here, is ridiculous. Instead of saying "NAS says this", if we simply report how the NAS, or any others in science, come to the conclusion that CS is not science, we remove the ambiguity and at the same time solve everyone's concerns. As I already said, keep it on the talk page. The current version was a consensus version, so stop reverting and going against (at least) 8 other people, when all of these points you bring up were already thoroughly debated before. -- BRIAN  0918   18:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no hostility. I'm quoting wikipedia policy on NPOV. Having read up on the policy again, it seems fairly clear that the intro's representation of views counter to creation science does not follow wikipedia's NPOV policy on several counts. Here are some relevant excerpts: FuelWagon 18:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct."


 * "unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them." " Writing unbiasedly can be conceived very well as representing disputes, characterizing them, rather than engaging in them."


 * "If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject,"


 * "Facts are not points of view in and of themselves. So an easy way to avoid making a statement that promotes a point of view is to find a reputable source for a fact and cite the source."


 * "the policy does not say that there even is such a thing as objectivity, a "view from nowhere" such that articles written from that point of view are consequently objectively true"


 * "represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view" "they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy"

In answer to your specific questions: FuelWagon 18:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Why the hostility? Asking people to follow policy is not hostility. Pointing out policy violations is not hostility. FuelWagon 18:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Where do you get the notion that criticisms should be placed in order of popularity? From wikipedia policy on NPOV.FuelWagon 18:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I say they should be written so that the paragraph flows well. Fine. And it needs to follow NPOV policy. FuelWagon 18:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the current criticisms are not irrefutable??? That is irrelevant. NPOV policy says to report different views as views, to report views in order of popularity, that there is no such thing as a "view from nowhere". FuelWagon 18:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Alright, then, would this work for you:
 * Keep the "Efforts" sentence NOT necessarily as a criticism, but as a lead-in to the criticism paragraph (which btw it works really well in that respect).
 * Then say: "There have been several criticisms of creation science." or some variation (please suggest possible variations).
 * Then list the rest of that paragraph.
 * This is about the only way I can think of that could possibly satisfy your needs while not going against everyone else's. -- BRIAN  0918   19:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The "efforts" sentence is not a good "lead in" to criticism. It is a criticism of CS that I'm not sure is even notable. Does anyone criticize CS for their premise that dismissing evolution somehow promotes young earth creationism? It seems a minor criticism at best (CS uses a minor premise which may be invalid) that would go into the body of the article. At worst it is original research with no outside source. Does any major group use this as a main criticism of CS? If not, it shouldn't be the lead sentence for criticism. The NAS POV that CS is unscientific is a major criticism from a large community. That makes a good lead in to the section on criticism. FuelWagon 19:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * First off, why do you keep reverting? We reached a consensus to get the previous version, while you are one person with one opinion of how it all should be (an opinion which goes against several of the previous opinions that were heard in reaching the previous consensus). Stop reverting. Second, I agree that the first point is not that major of a criticism, but it is often central to both CS's work and its criticism. That's why I said it was a good lead-in to the criticisms section. Third, I asked you to provide alternatives to my current layout, not to regurgitate the same old statement that got us into the original edit war. How about this for the 2nd sentence: "There have been several critics of creation science, including the scientific community, which cites..."  and then give the rest of the next sentence. Please don't even bother with claiming this is all original research, it just makes you look like you're choosing to be ignorant in order to claim everything is original research. --  BRIAN  0918   19:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Previous consensus, previous editors, does not lock an article from ever being changed again. This is a wiki. The intro clearly violates NPOV policy, because it not once cites the source of the point of view that Creation Science is "unscientific". Attempts to cite previous consensus is irrelevant. Attempts to claim ownership on the page are against the point of a wiki. commands to "stop reverting" have no authority since I haven't broken policy and my edits are attempting to fix an article in clear violation of policy. An unsourced view violates NPOV. The entire intro makes no mention of any source for the point of view that CS is unscientific, that it commits logical fallicies, etc. And I have no idea why everyone is so attached to the first sentence of the criticism paragraph, when it appears to be non-notable criticism or even original research. There is no justification to keep that sentence. There is no source for the criticism. There are two groups that have two distinct criticisms of CS: the scientific community and christians who don't believe CS. Those are point of views. They are the major points of views. That someone (or some editor) thinks CS has a false premise is minor, unsourced criticism at best, original research at worst. It should either be sourced and put at the end of the intro (or moved to the article body) or if unsourced it should be dropped completely. FuelWagon 20:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for not making any attempt to reach consensus. Way to go against one policy "in favor of" another policy. You can't choose to ignore all previous discussion just to make the same claims that were raised in previous discussion and already thoroughly debated. -- BRIAN  0918   20:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If you want consensus over the long run, get the article to meet NPOV policy. Don't blame me because your previous "consensus" resulted in a version that doesn't even list the source of a major point of view, and instead lists that view as facts, and lists unsourced minor criticism or original research where the main criticisms of the main groups should be listed. Regardless of how much debate you've had, the intro violates NPOV. FuelWagon 20:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I just don't see what the issue is here. CS is unscientific according to the definitions of CS and of science. Repeat and rephrase: CS is not a science because the foundations of CS do not fit with the definition of science. That does not make it wrong or flawed or false at all (plenty of things aren't science!), it merely means that it is not scientific. The evidence and reasoning for this are earlier on this talk page and in all of the archives, as well as in the definition of science. Can you raise a valid objection to that? (Note that repeating "this is POV" and "this has to come from a point of view" is not a valid objection.) SVI 21:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * NPOV policy doesn't work that way. In a disputed topic, the only safe place to report from is by reporting the point of views of teh various sides of the debate. The article even states that some proponents of CS say it is more scientific than evolution. That is enough to dispute any "facts" about absolute definitions, and the article must retreat to reporting points of view. That is the way wikipedia NPOV policy works. Arguing "it doesn't meet the definition of science" ignores the point of view that definition came from and the fact that CS proponents dispute that defintion. You are arguing teh "definition point of view" rather than the "neutral point of view". This is the same as arguing the "scientific point fo view" rather than the "neutral point of view". everything you are arguing is completely against the actual NPOV policy. FuelWagon 21:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Some proponents of CS do not know what the definition of science is. I'm sorry to steal brian's example, but many people believe dragonflies bite you. Does that mean the dragonfly article should state that "many people believe dragonflies can bite you, however prominent entomologists disagree"? No, because dragonflies don't bite, regardless of what those with no education or knowledge on the subject whatsoever would say.


 * This isn't a question of the "scientific point of view". The scientific point of view is generally that CSists are crackpots. The article does not state this, it does not state that CS is false, it says NONE of that. The article states that CS does not fit the definition of science, which it does not. If you have any arguments, please make them logically, by explaining exactly how CS could be a science. SVI 22:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You are arguing something is not scientific from the "definition point of view", and the article is about a point of view that disputes your definition of science. From wikipedia policy, that does not mean you have to give Creation Science "equal validity", NPOV "does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory;, but it does mean that an article about creation science cannot state all criticism as simple fact if Creation Science obviously disputes every single one of those "facts". FuelWagon 22:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "the article is about a point of view that disputes your definition of science" -- is it? Can you tell me, exactly, where the SERIOUS DISPUTE over the definition of science lies? That's really all I want to know, here, there's no need for you to ramble about why criticism from a community's point of view can not be stated as fact (I think everybody agrees with you there, no sense in wasting bandwidth saying it again). SVI 22:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)