Talk:Jonathan Sarfati/Archive 1

My edits
Some people may disagree with some of my edits, so here's why I did them that way. Brian0918, I see I inadvertantly overwrote your edit; sorry.


 * Removed his chemistry credentials from the opening paragraph. I can't see any way to gracefully insert "person who was trained in, and used to work in, chemistry", and since he hasn't been active in that field for ten years, I think it's peripheral enough to be dropped from the opening. It's still covered in the bio.
 * Dropped the title of his thesis - not terribly interesting except to other chemists, and it's easy enough to find from the external links.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonathan_Sarfati&action=edit&section=2
 * Likewise, his age when he co-authored his first paper isn't terribly relevant to anything.
 * Anyone who can't figure out what blindfold chess is, just by reading the words, can click on the link to find out.
 * Other than that, just making the language flow more smoothly.

Tualha (Talk) 00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Please do not delete data concerning his qualifications. I consider that to be vandalism, and will revert it.  Whether he is practicing as a chemist now does not alter the fact that he has the qualifications; they are relevant as far as his work is concerned.  Whether you agree with his ideas or not, his qualifications are the basis on which he expects to be taken seriously.  I have reverted your edit. David Cannon 00:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm removing "scientist" since he doesn't fit the definition at scientist. -- BRIAN  0918   02:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The PhD committee disagree. Qualifications and degrees do not disappear, and many courts have used non-practicing scientists as expert witness.  Furthermore, Sarfati actually still uses his training in his current field.   If you are so worried about attacking a Wiki definition, Brian0918, why not go after the biochemist designation at Isaac Asimov?  Stop deleting Sarfati's qualifications that are well documented.  It is vandalism and libel. Reverting back to correct information. 138.130.203.178 06:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I feel that the term scientist is problematic within the context of this article. In that same way that once someone has killed a newborn it is reasonable to call them a "baby-killer" even though they aren't killing babies at the time they're being written about, it could be reasonable to call Sarfati a scientist, because once he was. But the difficulty is that his notability is not related to being a scientist, but a creationist who claims credability because he was once a scientist. And creationism doesn't use the scientific method. Josh Parris [|#] 07:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, there's too much simple reversion going on from both ends. Let's try to find an acceptable compromise, shall we? Simply having the word "scientist" in the first paragraph does not strike me as completely unacceptable. He was trained as one and worked as one, and though I personally consider "creation science" to be a very silly and biased form of pseudoscience, I can't make an objective case that his participation in it disqualifies him from being called a scientist. I do still think it's somewhat peripheral for the first paragraph, but I'll stand aside on that point. Let's stop fighting an edit war over one word, for pity's sake.
 * I still maintain that the title of his thesis is a waste of verbiage; again, aside from other chemists, who really needs that level of detail? Could it be that someone here feels the need to exhaustively defend his credentials as a "real scientist"?
 * And please, let's not say "in the secular science literature"! That may be appropriate in his bibliography, where most of his works are decidedly religious in tone and intent, but it's not appropriate here. Science is secular; it deals with objectively verifiable facts, versus religion which deals with faith in things that can't be verified. That's not a criticism of religion, but rather an assertion that never the twain shall meet.
 * My objection to the description of blindfold chess stands. That's what the link is for. We don't explain what chemistry or high-temperature superconductor or Jewish mean; we expect people to follow the link if they need to.
 * Now, I have not yet implemented any of this. It's rather annoying to make changes and simply have them reverted, which I have every reason to expect will happen if I simply put my changes back. So I'll wait for counterarguments, here on the talk page where they belong (as opposed to in the edit summaries, where they don't).
 * Tualha (Talk) 08:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If you look at the edit history, it was an unthinking revert that removed your edits. I think they were perfectly valid. Josh Parris [#] 08:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I should clarify; I wasn't responding to Josh, but to the discussion as a whole. Tualha (Talk) 08:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out, and as logically follows, there will need to be a plethora of edits made to other bios if your (incorrect) assessment is allowed here. Isaac Asimov, for one (at my last review of the article), was listed as a biochemist in the intro.  Scientists who have never used their education in a lab environment, or stopped using it in later life, still have this distinction in their bio intros.  This blatant bias must stop when it pertains to only those who do not practice in mainstream science, preferring to use their education and talents to honour God instead.  No matter what you personally think about creation science, Sarfati has a PhD and used that education in his post-doctorate work, as well as in his present position.  Furthermore, he has been know to tutor others.  Argue all you want about scientific method (which I also dispute that he does, indeed, use), but the final word is that the committee awarded the PhD, so he is a scientist by all rights and that honorific belongs in the intro as it has been allowed for other scientists, regardless of current usage (Newton's dead, do we remove that honour from him?  Especially since he did more with Theology in later life, like Sarfati).  Finally, leaving scientist in is the NPOV as it is backed up with hard evidence, not conjecture about what constitutes 'real' science. 138.130.203.178 00:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand that he had a paper round as a child; should we also insert "paperboy" into his qualifications? Josh Parris [#] 01:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Way to throw petrol on the flames, Josh. Come off it. He earned a doctorate in chemistry and worked in orthodox, mainstream, call-it-what-you-will science for years. He either is or was a scientist, depending on how you want to think of it. There are two questions to be addressed here:
 * First: is he still a "scientist", now that he works exclusively in creation science? Note that the question of whether someone is or is not a "scientist" depends on one's opinion as to what a "scientist" is. Most people would agree that a chemist is. Quite a few would disagree that a creationist is. What is a neutral point of view, here?
 * Second: if the consensus is that he only qualifies as a "scientist" because of his past career as a chemist, and not his current one as a creationist, does that mean that the word "scientist" does not belong in the opening paragraph?
 * Allow me to offer a modest proposal: Let's settle the first point before we take up the second! Tualha (Talk) 01:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * We should be following the definition given on our own article on scientists, which says a scientist "...is a person who is expert in an area of science and who uses scientific methodology in research." Since the words "is" and "uses" are in present tense, not past, and as a creation "scientist", he cannot be said to be following scientific methodology (due to his predetermined unconditional support of the Genesis account, and dependence on the God of Abraham acting to unobservably alter the natural world), so the most we can say is he was a scientist at some point in the past. --  BRIAN  0918   02:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * So, Brian0918, you have no issue with removing biochemist from Issac Asimov? If not, why not?  As I stated, this is setting in motion the removal of titles, regardless of degree, from anyone who left the lab to become an author, or some other noble profession, regardless of how their present work ties back to the degrees they earned.  We must follow through to the logical conclusion, therefore, that sticking to the present tense, as Brian0918 asserts, also removes 'scientist' from anyone who has died, as they are no longer practicing science in the present, regardless of the contributions they made while they were alive.  It's illogical, and as I said, it negates Wikipedia's NPOV to use your adversion to creation science to negate Sarfati's right to the title of scientist earned with his PhD, and confirmed by the committee that awarded the doctorate. Tualha, chemist can be another name for pharmacist, but that is neither here nor there.  The NPOV is that a PhD in physical chemistry gives the title of scientist to the recipient, regardless of current use, or death for that matter.  Deny that creation science is science all you want, but that is another matter not related to this use of scientist. (BTW, I agree with your comment about blindfold chess and made that change.)138.130.203.178 08:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The statement at Isaac Asimov is correct though. He was a biochemist. Another false analogy on your part. As for your statement about "Sarfati's right to the title of scientist earned with his PhD", if you think that's how science works, no wonder this world's in trouble. Please answer this question: what is wrong with being specific: he is a former chemist. That is something of which we can be sure. Why would you prefer ambiguity over specificity? -- BRIAN  0918   12:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Non sequitur. You've hung yourself on your own petard.  Asimov 'was' is past tense, and following your (faulty) reasoning about present tense in scientist, biochemist would have to be removed.138.130.203.178 23:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for not answering my question. Would you care to answer it in your next reply? As for your reply, I don't think anyone is going to fall for that nonsense, sorry. -- BRIAN  0918   23:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, how about this: Sarfati is not notable because of his scientific work, but because of his advocacy of Young Earth creationism. His scientific credentials ought not be in the article introduction.  Thus:
 * Dr Jonathan Sarfati (born 1964) is notable for his high profile advocacy of Young Earth creationism, through his work for the Christian apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis (AiG).
 * Josh Parris [#] 04:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Notablity has nothing to do with the fact that it is proper for Sarfati to be identified as the scientist he is. Many people who are not notable for one thing or the other still have that thing included in their intro on Wiki.  As for the scientific method that keeps getting touted, I'd suggesting reading this section that states:
 * Other scientists may start their own research and enter the process at any stage. They might adopt the characterization and formulate their own hypothesis, or they might adopt the hypothesis and deduce their own predictions. Often the experiment is not done by the person who made the prediction and the characterization is based on experiments done by someone else. Published results of experiments can also serve as a hypothesis predicting their own reproducibility.
 * Sarfati is a scientist from the NPOV. That's all there is to it. 138.130.203.178 09:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I'm tired of this crap. Gonna go work on other articles. If everyone here starts seeing and respecting each others' points of view, invite me back. Bye. Tualha (Talk) 10:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If someone born and raised a Christian renounces Christianity and converts to Islam, are they are Christian or a Muslim? I think you can see the parallel I'm trying to draw here. Josh Parris [#] 11:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * What parallel? Sarfati has not renounced being a scientist. 138.130.203.178 12:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I couldn't have said it better myself. I think Josh must be asleep at the wheel; his analogy is faulty.  If someone who has a doctorate in science [a] renounces his qualification and [b] trains as a lawyer, that situation is analogous to a Christian [a] renouncing Christianity and [b] converting to Islam.  But Sarfati *has not* renounced his qualifications.  He may not be practicing in that field - but so what?  My Dad did not "practice" engineering after he retired, but was still registered as one.  I know a qualified lawyer who lectures in history at my old university (she was one of my own lecturers).  By Josh's incomprehensible logic, she's a historian now and no longer a lawyer.  The university doesn't agree: she's still listed with her LLB qualification in their handbook.  *NOT PRACTICING* in the field for which one is academically qualified is not parallel to conversion.  Renouncing or forfeiting the qualification would be.  A more apt parallel would be his conversion from evolution to creationism - but that has nothing to do with his qualifications. David Cannon 12:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Have you even read scientist? As I clearly laid out above (which you ignored), he is not currently (since the article uses the present tense) a scientist because he cannot be said to be following scientific methodology (due to his predetermined unconditional support of the Genesis account, and dependence on the God of Abraham acting to unobservably alter the natural world), so the most we can say is he was a scientist at some point in the past. What I don't understand is why you and the anonymous user are in favor of ambiguity. You're saying he is a scientist now because he was a practicing chemist in the past. Why not just make it clear by saying..... he is a former chemist? Ambiguity is never better than explicitness. --  BRIAN  0918   12:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Please be clear I'm not advocating removing any of the material pertaining to his academic qualifications, nor ignoring his doctorate of philosophy which was obtained by studying and extending science. I'm saying that science's scientific method and Young Earth creationism are mutally exclusive (unlike, say, law and history), and it's his work in this field that's made him notable, not his scientific work. Given that he's moved on from his humble beginings, it would now be reasonable to call Sarfati a pseudoscientist if he must be called anything. Josh Parris [#] 12:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well said. As is stated in the third paragraph of creation science, his work is not scientific, and since it says at scientist that a scientist is someone who uses scientific methodology (present tense), he cannot currently be said to be a scientist. But I'm fine with being specific: he is a former chemist. This is very specific, whereas he is a scientist is highly ambiguous. I'm also fine with being specific on any other article. If the article is on someone who is still alive, and it says he "is a chemist" when he hasn't been one in 20 years, I'm fine with changing that to "is a former chemist", which is more specific. If the article is about someone who has died, we'll already be talking about him in the past tense, so there's no need to change anything. -- BRIAN'  0918   13:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, wrong for the reasons previously stated. Even if you argue for past tense, which I do not, your logic is faulty because that also removes the honour from others, as I outlined above.  Edit them all if you wish to waste your time, but the fact remains that Sarfati is a scientist that uses scientific methodology/scientific method(see paragraph I copied and linked to) as written on Wiki.  This constant changes you insist on making are not content disagreement, but falls under vandalism, which I will report if it continues.138.130.203.178 23:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sure your opinion will be regarded highly. As is clearly written out in the third paragraph of creation science, and as I have written out 3 times already (and you have yet to reply to), Sarfati is not following scientific methodology (due to his predetermined unconditional support of the Genesis account, and dependence on the God of Abraham acting to unobservably alter the natural world). Your previous arguments were all based on me not wanting to alter other articles, but now you say that you are fine with that (as am I). So in summary, you have no argument. --  BRIAN  0918   23:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Alright, now you are committing vandalism. You actually reverted all of my changes, even the ones that corrected the incorrect statement that he was 23, NOT 21, and provided a link to the source. You also reverted my fixing the POV statement of "secular science journal" to "peer-reviewed scientific journal", and you also readded my correction to the incorrect statement that he "published a paper". Authors don't publish papers, they get them published in journals. So, 3 blatant cases of vandalism, and to top it off, your edit summary claims my edits were vandalism. You have been reported. -- BRIAN  0918   23:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Refresh your browser, please, before you claim foul. The link/age had been put back in when I realized it was there (actually 22, since the paper was published before his 23rd birthday).  As I said before, it's been shown that your argument doesn't logically follow.  The definitions you cite include scientists (as I outlined above) such as Sarfati  who follow the scientific method as the Wiki definition outlines.  Your erroneous objection of 'due to his predetermined unconditional support of the Genesis account, and  dependence on the God of Abraham acting to unobservably alter the natural world' includes Issac Newton, and Johannes Kepler who said he was ‘thinking God’s thoughts after Him’.  Furthermore, Sarfati has written that it is a strawman argument to say that, as you imply here, creationists don't believe in natural selection.  I don't see your vandalism on other scientist's articles, asserting your faulty reasoning.  My point was not that I would be 'fine with that', but to rhetorically show you that your sardonic method was biased and illogical.  The point was that you are showing bias and not following the NPOV according to Wiki rules. agapetos_angel 00:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

My Edits
I have done the following:


 * Linked the date October 1.
 * Kept the change of "Kiwi" to "New Zealander".
 * Changed "...is a scientist" to "...is trained as a scientist" (see the page). This, I hope, will not inflame anyone.
 * Removed the word "secular" before the description of the journal Nature. It's not like references to the New York Times should refer to it as "secular" as well.  If someone wants an adjective, reach for "scientific."
 * Deleted "as a research scientist" because Young Earth Creationism is not a part of scientific research.
 * Clarified that the AiG periodicals are reviewed only by people who've signed onto the AiG creationist beliefs; hence, not "peer-reviewed" in the same sense as a scientific journal.

You may wish to comment on the particular changes here; be careful not to lump all the changes together. --Peter Kirby 02:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Peter, please see below before making deletions/changes. I have no issue with the date change (although is it more an American formating than Australian/New Zealander).  However, 'is trained as a scientist' is a bad 'correction', akin to trying to say that a doctor is (implied: simply) trained as a doctor.  Sarfati was and is still a scientist beyond 'training'. Furthermore, you can't have it both ways with deleting 'secular' for a secular journal, then claiming lack of peer review because TJ is not secular.  TJ is peer reviewed (by non-AiG scientists as well), and the distinction must stand.  Lastly, regardless of your POV of creation science, Sarfati's employment includes scientific research (as I've outlined below, Sarfati meets this criterion even by Wiki's definition) and his employment title includes 'research scientist'. agapetos_angel 02:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Further, "peer-review" means review by experts in the field, and this is exactly what is done with TJ. AFAIK not all the reviewers have to accept the AiG SoF, and indeed not all articles do. 220.245.180.130 02:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have fixed the date formatting to make it more Australian/New Zealander. I just wanted to get the link to the date in there.  Saying that Sarfati is a scientist is tantamount to saying that Young Earth Creationism is valid science, which is POV.  Saying that Sarfati is trained as a scientist is factual and does not comment on whether his current activities qualify as science.  The only reason you read the implication is because there is a history of edits; if someone is said to be "trained as a historian at Columbia University," such an implication (of: not a historian) is definitely not there.  So I stand by that edit. I will take your own wording and put in the article that "His employment title includes 'research scientist'." (On reflection, such wording doesn't sound kind, with the likely impression of using scare quotes.)  As to whether TJ is "peer-reviewed," if that means that it is reviewed by people who are experts in Young Earth Creationism, then I suppose that can stand. --Peter Kirby 02:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Peter, may I kindly suggest you address separate issues under the separate catagories on TALK, that have already be formated, for ease in discussion? agapetos_angel 03:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I will copy some of my comments to the categories below. --Peter Kirby 03:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC) I see you've already begun discussion below, so I have just responded there. --Peter Kirby 03:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Scientist
It appears the sticking point here is the word "scientist".

Perhaps some precepts ought to be agreed for the discussion to continue: Are these four points acceptable? Josh Parris # 07:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Physical Chemistry is a science
 * 2) Sarfati once studied and practiced Physical Chemistry
 * 3) Young Earth creationism is a pseudoscience
 * 4) Sarfati now studies and practices Young Earth creationism
 * Get real. #3 is obviously the point of debate and can't simply be asserted.  And YEC and physical chemistry are not mutually exclusive. 220.245.180.130 09:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No, #3 is clearly pseudoscience according to any definition. The key is the past tense of #2, i.e. has he clearly contributed somthing physical chemistry with regard to the few papers that any PhD or post-doc student would write as a matter of course.  But has he contributed anything to a higher level?  Is he doing any research now or is he too conveniently too busy spreading the word of God?  Has he got any papers supporting YECism in the peer-reviewed scientific literature?  You are right that YECism is compatible with several "objective sciences" however and there are a handful of people doing real research who do believe in YECism, just not it seems this gentleman. Dunc|&#9786; 13:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nothing pseudoscientific about YEC, unless "science" is redefined as atheism, Duncharris's religion. TJ is peer-reviewed.  And once again, Asimov was listed as a biochemist although he had long ago ceased working as a biochemist when he was writing the sci-fi for which he was most famous. agapetos_angel 14:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * See creation science, talk:pseudoscience for why CS is pseudoscience. My religion &#8212; or rather lack of it &#8212; is irrelevant to that as pseudoscience is something that can be sociologically defined by its recognition by the mainstream scientific community, which includes several Christian scientists.  The Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal is "peer reviewed", by er, other "creation scientists" rather than the mainstream scientific community.  You'd be pressed to find it cited anywhere in the main body of scientific literature as well (oh I know it's really an Evil Atheist Conspiracy but we don't admit that in public do we? oops!)
 * Now, Asimov is dead, so saying he "was a biochemist" is gramatically correct. It seems however that he still managed to do a lot more research than Dr Sarfati.  Nevertheless, Asimov's biography notes both his scientific and literary work.  Now the same can be applied to Dr Sarfati, who has also produced some basic scientific work, but his main contribution to humanity is his theological musings.  But to say that he is doing (present tense) research really requires references, as does saying that he has contributed anything significant to physical chemistry.  So please, cite your sources. Dunc|&#9786; 15:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Many of Sarfati's peer-reviewed articles in TJ cite the very latest scientific research, and explain the data to laypeople and show how it makes better sense from a creationist than a naturalist perspective. Even many of his Creation magazine articles cite the most up-to-date secular scientific research. 138.130.203.178 02:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Why was this comment "re-signed"? It was clearly made by the logged-in User:Agapetos angel, not just someone on the "same network".  Alai 22:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Because comments were erroneously posted under my log-in when the user didn't notice that I wasn't signed out. My mother passed away very suddenly three weeks ago; remembering to log off was the last thing on my mind.--agapetos_angel 11:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * My condolences. Clarification accepted.  You can understand my confusion, if someone makes an edit not simply from the same network, but from the same computer.  Alai 04:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Firstly, using pseudoscience as a pejorative only poisons the well. It remains that the entire premise above is fallacious because it assumes what it is trying to prove. Secondly, using a degree 'out in the field' does not negate validity.  An attorney is still an attorney even if he choses to live off his savings and work exclusively pro bono for a not-for-profit Christian organization.  A psychiatrist is still a psychiatrist if he leaves a large practice to counsel and medicate residents at a halfway house.  A medical doctor is still a doctor if they chose to use their skills as a missionary.  No matter what you personally think of these fields of choice (or career moves), they are each using the skills with which they were educated 'out in the field'.  The doctor would also be accurately called a missionary, but 'doctor' must remain. Likewise, Sarfati is a scientist. Thirdly, the demand by Duncharris is irrational as the fact that someone is a scientist is not decided by popular vote, and it is incumbent on the detractors from the original placement of 'scientist' to prove the case--which they have not done, because, as I've pointed out twice, his current work 'out in the field' fell under the Wiki definition of scientific methodology, which annuls the complaints on this subject. agapetos_angel 23:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

If the third point is excluded, are the above statements acceptable? Josh Parris # 01:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC) I take it that the lack of response indicates acceptance. So of the original four points, only the third is unacceptable. Josh Parris # 06:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Cute. The 'lack of response' is merely the unwillingness to engage a question placed after that question's answer.  When you decide to stop saying 'forest, what forest', perhaps we can have an intelligent dialogue.  agapetos_angel 13:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC) (What part of the entire premise above is fallacious because it assumes what it is trying to prove did you fail to understand?)

I'm sorry, I still don't see any responses here that give me an answer. I was hoping to derive agreement to my original four points so that the debate could be narrowed down to "someone acting as a psuedoscientist now can also be called a scientist if they've been a scientist in the past". It appears that we can't even get that far; perhaps you could suggest what the salient point of contention here is? Josh Parris # 01:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The entire premise of the four points is faulty, as I explained. And the answer to 'tense' is in my 23:44, 5 August 2005 reply.  See below for a more definitive & bulleted answer, since you seem to be overlooking my points in a solid paragraph. agapetos_angel 02:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

So, for example, saying "Physcial Chemistry is a science" is wrong? That premise is faulty? Is that what you mean? Or are you trying to say that there's some hidden meaning and assumptions underlying that statement? Josh Parris # 05:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Tense
It appears another bone of contention is the tense used. I assert the following: Are these four points acceptable? Josh Parris # 01:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Sarfati does not currently practice Physical Chemistry (and has no use for further studies, having obtained his doctorate).
 * 2) Sarfati does not currently teach Physical Chemistry.
 * 3) Sarfati was a chemist.
 * 4) Someone who was a chemist isn't excluded from being a chemist now merely because they aren't acting as one at this time.


 * My answer to this rabbit trail separation of issues, used to obfuscate the issue, is included above agapetos_angel 01:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you must misunderstand me. I'm trying to determine what common understanding we have of "the facts", not confuse anything. I'm trying to minimize the region of conflict, so as to have a focused discussion. Josh Parris # 06:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The answer to tense was given in the previous section, before you added this section and pretended not to see it (your claims of lack of response after my response--check the date/time). It is a rabbit trail, not a 'minimization of region of conflict'.  The issue is that Sarfati's entry correctly stated he is a scientist, falling completely in line with the Wiki definition of scientist, and the detractors of this fact have failed to offer conclusive proof to the contrary, yet keep making deletions that remove the NPOV.agapetos_angel 01:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Determination based on the definition of Scientist
Whether one is a scientist or not is neither a philosophical distinction nor something that can be determined with faulty logic. In an effort to resolve the constant deletions of the designation of scientist on this article, I outline the following.

scientist: ‘’A scientist is a person who is expert in an area of science and who uses scientific methodology in research’’ Therefore, (even) in accordance with the Wiki definitions, Sarfati meets all the criteria of the label scientist. The honorific is the NPOV. agapetos_angel 02:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * A scientist is a person who is expert
 * Sarfati has a PhD
 * in an area of science
 * Sarfati’s PhD meets this requirement
 * and who uses scientific methodology
 * Sarfati’s previous and current employment meets this criterion: 'Other scientists may start their own research and enter the process at any stage. They might adopt the characterization and formulate their own hypothesis, or they might adopt the hypothesis and deduce their own predictions. Often the experiment is not done by the person who made the prediction and the characterization is based on experiments done by someone else. Published results of experiments can also serve as a hypothesis predicting their own reproducibility' Scientific method:Testing and improvement
 * in research
 * Sarfati’s current employment includes work that meets this criterion: 'Research is an active, diligent and systematic process of inquiry in order to discover, interpret or revise facts, events, behaviours, or theories, or to make practical applications with the help of such facts, laws or theories. The term "research" is also used to describe the collection of information about a particular subject'.
 * Peter Kerby stated above 'Saying that Safarti [sic] is a scientist is tantamount to saying that Young Earth Creatinism [sic] is valid science, which is POV. Saying that Safarti [sic] is trained as a scientist is factual and does not comment on whether his current activities qualify as science.  The only reason you read the implication is because there is a history of edits; if someone is said to be "trained as a historian at Columbia University," such an implication (of: not a historian) is definitely not there.  So I stand by that edit.'  Ignoring your apparent ridicule by misspelling Sarfati and Creationism, I would point out that I am ‘trained in science’ but I am in fact a layperson in that field.  Training does not equal expert, evidenced by Sarfati’s PhD, and does not follow the definition of scientist.  The implication you made was clear and did not meet NPOV. agapetos_angel 03:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * #1 it was not ridicule (and if it was--you didn't exactly ignore it), although I see how you got that impression. I dropped one letter (not the requisite two for the cutesy term you allude to) by accident from "Creationism".  And I can only attribute my brain mixup with the spelling of Sarfati with the similar English word safari.  I apologize for that.--
 * #2 Sarfati's Ph.D. is noted in the same sentence. "Trained as a scientist" means that he received the training that a scientist would receive at a university in completion of a doctoral program.  The implication is dropped that Sarfati is currently practicing science at AiG, but the implication is not made that he is currently in a non-scientific profession.  That determination is just not made with the wording I proposed, which is why I proposed it, as a compromise. --Peter Kirby 03:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

It appeared deliberate, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept the apology. Again, “trained as a scientist” implies layperson status and Sarfati’s PhD means he achieved expert status. Regardless of whether you put PhD in the same sentence or not, it would definitely be a compromise (of the negative connotation) to agree to faulty wording that includes mutually exclusive terminology. As stated above, both ‘sides’ have agreed that the definition of scientist, ‘a person who is expert in an area of science and who uses scientific methodology in research’, is basically accurate. I have not proposed any faulty logic or played word games, but rather have show that the criteria have been met, and that the title of scientist is, therefore, the NPOV. agapetos_angel 04:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The phrase "trained as a scientist" certainly does not imply layperson status.   Such an implication is not there. --Peter Kirby 04:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Regardless of usage of that phrase in other instances, it is a detraction in this context, and was certainly used with the implication of layperson status. Even aside from that, it is unnecessary 'fluff', because the PhD designation on its own indicates that there was training involved.  agapetos_angel 04:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It does not imply layperson status. The context is the page displayed, and I don't see how you can argue that it is a detraction in context, given that it is never used to say "X is a layperson" in all the occurences of the phrase that I have read. Can you demonstrate that the phrase has the real connotation of the person who is "trained as a scientist" being a layperson? I have the evidence of my own intent (to which you don't have direct access as I do) and the examples of the usage given. --Peter Kirby 04:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree (re: implication), and have no clue what you were trying to say in that final sentence. However, if you insist that I outline my examination of each of your links: (1) Ashworth ('trained as a scientist' #1) is described as a scientist here and even here, an extension of your own source.  (2) Sankey ('trained as a scientist' #2) cannot be properly addressed as his link was broken.  (3) Savage ('trained as a scientist' #3) is a self-described title (his blurb from the link you supplied was copied from his website).   If self-description is an allowable guideline in your view, please explain how it is neutral to remove/replace scientist on Sarfati’s article?  Furthermore, do you intend to make a new article entitled ‘trained as a scientist’ on Wikipedia?  What will be your NPOV qualifications to designate that someone falls in that category rather than the terse designation of ‘scientist’? agapetos_angel 08:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you agree that saying Sarfati is a scientist implies that the Young Earth Creationism writing involves a scientific field of research, i.e. that YEC is proper science? --Peter Kirby 04:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I do not agree that it implies anything, but rather that it states fact and conforms to the definition of scientist. agapetos_angel 04:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You have already stated that it does imply something, i.e., that he is "a person who is expert in an area of science and who uses scientific methodology in research." If he is using scientific methodology in research that argues for Young Earth Creationism, does that imply that Young Earth Creationism is a scientific field of research? --Peter Kirby 04:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I said nothing of the sort regarding any implication, and you mentioned YEC writing, not me. I have supported the pre-existing definition & designation of scientist.  Again, as I said below, the onus is on you to prove otherwise. agapetos_angel 05:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Re: "I said nothing of the sort regarding any implication"--you stated that this was the definition of scientist being used. Re: "You mentioned YEC writing"--look at his publications on Wikipedia.  They are YEC writing. (You did not answer the question.)--Peter Kirby 05:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Please read the 'history' section of the actual article, where Brian0918 stated "we dont use outside dictionaries to define our words. see Scientist". Re: "YEC writings" How do publications negate education/employment/honorific? Newton wrote more about theology than he wrote about science. ("You did not answer the question." -- see 04:31, 9 August 2005)agapetos_angel 08:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I missed your answer on whether you are saying that Sarfati is not a person who is expert in an area of science and who uses scientific methodology in research. I'll be happy to answer your question after you answer mine. agapetos_angel 04:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that Sarfati uses scientific methodology in his recent writing. I am open to being convinced that he does. So, what is your answer? --Peter Kirby 04:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Please cite your sources that proves your 'belief' (i.e., bias, and therefore, POV). agapetos_angel 04:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Clearly you misread me. I stated what I do not believe and asked to be convinced that it is true.  This is, after all, your case for claiming Sarfati as being a scientist. --Peter Kirby 04:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I did not misread you. My discussion points are merely to support the pre-existing title.  The designation of scientist was present before you removed it.  Therefore, the onus is on the detractor to prove why it is not the NPOV, and it cannot be based on your 'belief' system.  agapetos_angel 04:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The 'not' there indicates non-belief, the opposite of belief. It is your belief that Sarfati is conductng research using scientific methodology.  The article implies that by terming him a scientist.  Can you support the point here that Sarfati uses scientific methodology? --Peter Kirby 04:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's try again. All the 'not' there indicates is that you are saying that 'scientist' is not the NPOV (from saying that you 'do not believe that Sarfati uses scientific methodology in his recent writing'--emphasis mine). Scientist was the original designation. Therefore, you are the detractor, and the onus is on you to prove why it does not belong there.  You have not cited your sources, but merely made a deletion on what you have admitted it your 'belief' (bias).  (Life calls, back tomorrow or the next day as time permits)agapetos_angel 05:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I "admit" nothing. You are being argumentative here and display an unsophisticated understanding of the word "believe" (n.b., "knowledge" is defined as "justified true belief") as well as a grammatically incorrect understanding of the usage of negation in that sentence (saying what I don't believe says nothing about what I do believe).  I understand your point about the person making a change having to justify that change.  My justification is that it is POV because it implies that he uses scientific methodology in arguing that Young Earth Creationism is true, which is to say that YEC is proper science, and that is POV.  I don't have to prove something false to point out that it is POV. --Peter Kirby 05:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It is neither 'argumentative' nor an ‘unsophisticated understanding of the word "believe"' to point out that the contextual understanding of your words (‘I do not believe that Sarfati uses scientific methodology in his recent writing’) without any supporting documentation being offered, indicated to me that it was bias rather than knowledge being asserted. However, after rereading this section, I would like to note that your point is moot in relation to the discussion, anyway.  According to Brian0918, the definition of scientist on Wiki is the one we have to use (see the history on the actual article, as I mentioned above).  Therefore, the use of scientific methodology in ‘research’ is the determining factor, not in writings (Newton wrote more about theology than science) or in YEC belief/arguing (Pasteur argued against Darwinism in favour of the Creator). agapetos_angel 08:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Picking check boxes can be done from one column or the other, but not both! Sarfati was a scientist, and now is a psuedoscientist. The linguist trick you're trying to apply is to broaden the term "Physical Chemist" to "scientist" so as to lend credability to his work as a pseudoscientist. He was a Physical Chemist, he was a scientist, he is a pseudoscientist. Josh Parris # 05:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice table, but an unsupported 'nope' in that column does not show how Sarfati lacks scientific methodology in his ‘research’ . agapetos_angel 08:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As a contribution to solving the problem from my isolated island of calm, it appears that the dispute is whether he should be labelled as a "scientist" or not. Why can't we just describe what he has done and what he does, and let the reader decide whether he is a scientist or not?  Surely what he has done is more important than the label?  There is no dispute about the underlying facts:  that he has a PhD in chemistry and has published research in mainstream journals, and that he now writes and talks about young earth creationism.


 * Alternatively, the article could simply say that his status as a scientist is disputed. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Because the only reason given to date for the removal of the designation (which (1) Sarfati uses himself, (2) his employers use as a job description, (3) is printed on his business card, (4) is indicated in the books that include articles on him, (5) has been used in newspaper articles about him, (6) which is the indicator for others meeting the same criteria, (7) etc.) has been that he is a YEC and argues/writes from that viewpoint. As I said above, Brian0918 indicated that the Wiki definition of scientist was the guideline, and the detractors have not shown how that definition has not been met except to point out Sarfati's arguments/writings, neither of which (as for Newton and Pasteur) have any bearing on this issue.  It is a bias POV that attempts to invalidate education and expertise based on the person’s personal beliefs, arguments, and writings. agapetos_angel 08:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * A section entitled 'Criticism’ might be an acceptable solution, if the detractors will leave the pre-existing title of scientist in the intro alone, and if, as in other articles, the NPOV is presented by delineating the criticism and the answer to the criticism in that section. agapetos_angel 08:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Birthdate
Does anyone have a more precise date for his birth? Josh Parris # 12:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1 October 1964; making correction agapetos_angel 01:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh, several of us are editing the date around in circles at the same time. Either format is fine by me agapetos_angel 03:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with either format too. Not sure why it should be an issue, except to make sure that the link is there.  I do understand the Day/Month/Year format used in most countries and that is fine with me. --Peter Kirby 03:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Kiwi
Sarfati holds dual national status, both Aussie and Kiwi, which means he is as much one as the other (and in fact, spent more of his life in New Zealand--from when he moved to NZ as a child until 1996 when he moved back to Australia). Duncharris, please do not remove Kiwi from the into again, especially without referencing why the deletion would be appropriate. Deleting important content is NOT copyediting! agapetos_angel 01:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Some New Zealanders consider Kiwi a derogatory term, besides which it is slang. New Zelander is a more appropriate term. Josh Parris # 01:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In my experience, most New Zealanders are happy to call themselves "Kiwis".220.245.180.130 01:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, most are happy with the term. Some aren't.  It's slang and thus non-encyclopedic. Josh Parris # 01:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with the correction to New Zealander agapetos_angel 02:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Period after Doctor
This is a minor point. Is there any reference on whether it is Wikipedia-style to put the period after "Dr"? --Peter Kirby 03:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but most of the civilized world does not use a fullstop after contractions, such as Dr and Mr agapetos_angel 04:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Usage is mixed, but a quick glance at Google seems to me to indicate that the period after "Dr" is more common (at least) on the Internet. --Peter Kirby 04:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Random Internet websites are not the best resource for examining proper punctuation. I would suggest the Oxford English Dictionary.  However, it's not really a sticking point with me, personally.  I would merely point out that Australia and New Zealand use British formatting, rather than American, and perhaps that should be the deciding vote, if Wikipedia doesn't have a definitive style guide. agapetos_angel 04:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If it is actually British formatting, then it is okay with me (and, I think, with Wikipedia). --Peter Kirby 04:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Most of the English-speaking world omits a period if the abbreviation is the first and last letter of the word but not otherwise (doctor = Dr while editor = ed.). It also applies to plurals derived from them -- Doctors = Drs while editors = eds. 220.245.180.130 08:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

"Criticism" section
Discuss the new "criticism" section (not my idea) here. --Peter Kirby 09:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The link to young earth creationism (under Criticisms of Young Earth creationism) states that scientist think it is pseudoscience; placing it here merely poisons the well. (BTW, deletions were not made 'under the guise of copyedit'--those were true copyedits if you examine the differences. I reworded the section prior to the copyedits, including making 'deletions' where we appeared to be arguing more than representing the NPOV.--agapetos_angel 01:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Poisoning the well applies if adverse information is stated about a person with the intent of discrediting what she or he is about to say. The sentence "Young Earth Creationism and the arguments for it are associated with pseudoscience in the majority view of scientists" is not adverse information about J. Sarfati.  It is a statement of the view of those who criticize J. Sarfati and Young Earth Creationism.  It is NPOV to describe the actual views of large numbers of critics under the heading of "Criticism," particularly if those are critics are the majority of the scientific community who weigh in on the matter.  Since this is not poisoning the well, it is relevant information, and it is NPOV as worded, I am putting the sentence back in under the "criticism" section. --Peter Kirby 02:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Science is not decided by majority vote. There is also no such thing as scientific consensus &#8212; as Michael Chrichton put it[http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html


 * I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.


 * Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.


 * There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.


 * In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.


 * In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compellng evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.


 * There is no shortage of other examples. ....


 * Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. 220.245.180.130 02:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Nobody has stated that "science is decided by majority vote", nor does the sentence in question. I am reverting the unjustified edit and ask that it be justified here.  As Agapetos_angel has said, the burden is on the detractor to justify the deletion of information. --Peter Kirby 02:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The whole point of the 'criticism' section was to achieve NPOV, leaving the pre-existing appellation (thanks, I was looking for that word before) of scientist intact, while explaining/answering its criticisms. I assert that your addition (which is already found under the link of YEC) is really an unnecessary redundancy because it poisons in the well by attempting to discredit Sarfati directly by placing it in his article.  Now, I've left that bit for now, and countered it *again* with the supporter's answer, to the criticism of adherence to Biblical creation, by showing a hostile witness admitting to the adherence to materialism in science.  If you insist on including the criticism, then I must insist that it is NPOV to include an answer to that criticism.  I'd prefer to leave them both out as they might be construed as arguing rather than NPOV.  What is your justification for deleting the quote? --agapetos_angel 02:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The sentence written is relevant to the question of criticism of Sarfati and his status as a scientist; they say that he participates in pseudoscience. Regarding the other sentence, it is a false generalization to say that critics support an a priori adherence to materialism in science.  If you would like to put in "Some supporters attribute the majority view of scientists on evolution [or, against YEC] to a presupposition of materialism in the practice of science," with or without citation, that is not objectionable to me.  I will note in Talk here that a number of the critics of Young Earth Creationism do not hold materialist presuppositions.  There should be a link to a wikipage on materialism/physicalism to explain what it is (in distinction to Madonna's brand of materialism). --Peter Kirby 02:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually they do hold to materialism for all practical purposes when it comes to origins. 220.245.180.130 03:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That's an opinion. "They," those who are critics of Young Earth Creationism, are not a monolithic group. --Peter Kirby 03:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that 220.245.180.130 was pointing out that 'the majority of the scientific community who weigh in on the matter' shows a decision by majority vote, and offering justification of the deletion. --agapetos_angel 02:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Since this is a "Criticism" section, the criticism of a majority of scientists that YEC is pseudoscience is relevant, at least when stated as the view of this group (scientists). Noting that a view, even a majority view, exists is not a decision in favor of the majority view on behalf of the Wikipedia (do you need examples to support this?). --Peter Kirby 02:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Peter, before you revert/delete again, would you please note (by checking the revisions) that I left your point intact (regardless of my disagreement with it). Meanwhile, you are removing my answer to that point without support. --agapetos_angel 02:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC) (Peter, why did you delete my entry!?!)
 * Thanks for rewording and leaving intact the point I wrote. I have left intact and reworded the point you wrote, reworded to make it more clear what it is answering (the majority view point) and making it sound more like the opinion of supporters and not undisputed fact. --Peter Kirby 03:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 'an a priori adherence to materialism' is part of the quote, and therefore, is NPOV as I wrote it. I'll include the (forgotten) quote marks and fix it. --agapetos_angel 03:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have now left the quote intact. I made some rephrasing of the section (see edit summaries). --Peter Kirby 03:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 'Material causes' (linked to materialism) is the correct wording --agapetos_angel 04:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm ready to leave the article alone for now. --Peter Kirby 04:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The length of the Criticism / Scientist section is growing beyond that appropriate for an article of this size and distracting energy from actually improving the biography. Is there a way to trim the whole thing down while preserving the POV of both sides? Could we just say whether he's acting as a scientist or not depends on whether one considers Young Earth creationism a science? Josh Parris # 08:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Why is the "supporter" paragraph of Criticism growing longer and longer? --Peter Kirby 05:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Wordiness. Hopefully it's better now --agapetos_angel 07:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * By that reasoning, Newton would not qualify as a scientist.138.130.196.179 02:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * By any reasonable reasoning, Newton was a scientist and a pseudoscientist. And I don't think 'reasonable' here is contingent on whether one's a YEC.  (And isn't entirely to do with hindight, either.)  But hasn't this topic been done to death, already?  Alai 05:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

A request for mediation was filed
Agapetos_angel filed a request for mediation yesterday. The page says to note any request for mediation here, so I've done so now for Agapetos_angel. I've also questioned, on that page, whether it is necessary at this point. I am happy enough with the "Criticism" section of the article. --Peter Kirby 05:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * My request for mediation was due to the actions of others who were making deletions without compromise, unlike the 'happy medium' we reached together with give and take on both sides to attempt to reach a NPOV. Mediation may still be necessary those other parties continue in that same manner. --agapetos_angel 06:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Brian and Duncharris have both blatantly violated the Wikipedia rules: Minor edits: "Marking a real change as a minor edit is considered bad behavior, and even more so if it involves the deletion of some text." It is especially unconscionable as they are Sysops who should know better, and both have resorted to heavy-handed banning of creationist who have tried to undo their biased and sometimes illegal editing.  They are not fit to be Sysops.138.130.200.165 00:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Anatomy of a lead section
Various authors have been working specifically to push the POV that Dr Sarfati is a scientist operating within the scientific community and within the scientific method who supports YECism. YECism is therefore mainstream, and. nothing could be further from the trust. Rather, as has been shown above and I will now demonstrate, the lead section and if anything is lenient on him because it fails to mention the demonstrable nonsense.
 * You are deleting (under the guise of 'minor edits', in violation of Wiki rules) a pre-existing appellation, one which cannot be determined by your negative POV, but is rather incumbent on Sarfati's education and employment. Therefore, it is NPOV to relay that he is a scientist; I agreed on a compromise with the criticism section because there are detractors, and it is NPOV to state same. --agapetos_angel 05:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Nationality

 * Dr Jonathan Sarfati (born 1964) is a nationality foo

(Apparently he has dual citizenship so we can leave this as Australian or Australian-New Zealand or maybe even Antipodean); this is minor point.


 * Why is this even a 'minor point'? He is a dual national (with family in both countries, as well as around the world).  It would not be proper to call a Canadian-American -> a North American.  What would you call a dual national with Chinese-American citizenships? A worldan? An Earthling?  Furthermore, it is proper to list the residence of the person as the last nationality, hence NZ/Australian.  Additionaly, he is married to a Yank, so any natural children could have Kiwi/Yank/Aussie citizenship by birth.  The world is a melting pot. --agapetos_angel 05:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Main descriptor

 * ''Foo is a ...

Is he a notable scientist? No, he fails the professor test and has done no more that thousands of other people with PhDs, and has done nothing extraordinary within science. Most notably he has done nothing within science that supports creationism.
 * The professor test states: 'If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included.' This is a criterion for inclusion of a biography, not within a biography. 'Nothing extraordinary' is not part of the criteria for scientist and 'done nothing within science that supports creationism' is a POV, and futhermore has no bearing on his appellation of scientist. --agapetos_angel 05:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

He is notable for two reasons; (1) because he is a Young earth creationist author, (2) because he is good at chess. Therefore, "Young earth creationist author and chess master" is a good descriptor of him.
 * He is an author, full stop. He has been the author of a variety of subjects, including Ethics, Morality, Theology, Philosophy--such as his next book, co-authored with Michael Bott. The 'descriptor' you call 'good' is an inaccurate jumble.  --agapetos_angel 05:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

NB: it is also stated that he is an "editor" in addition to being an author; presumably on the basis that he is an editor of a book, though I think that is adequately covered by the word "author".


 * He's an editor of Creation and Technical Journal. --Peter Kirby 01:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, but I still think author covers that sufficiently, "magazine editor" is a possibility; "journal editor" and one might start to have to explain the special nature of the peer-review process that the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal goes through. Dunc|&#9786; 02:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Authors and editors have two different functions; he has done/is doing both. --agapetos_angel 05:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I concur that inserting "scientist" in the lead is POV; it's asserting his legitimacy as such in the face of crticism discussed within the article that he is not, as is misleading as to the nature of his "job". If you want to source someone (JS included) as asserting his status as a science then fine, but do it in some sort of context, not just as an authorial flat-out statement of fact. Alai 18:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The benefit of the doubt should be given to one with a Ph.D. in science, with publications in unquestioned scientific literature, and who still writes about unquestioned science. 138.130.203.178 20:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Good gracious. He (along with Ken Ham) is known for writing the most unscientific religious diatribes against science of all the YECists.  So, tell us, what "unquestioned science" has he been writing about? Dunc|&#9786; 20:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * More assertions by the religious atheist Harris who uses evolution as a pseudo-intellectual justification for his faith.  Sarfati is still better qualified than Harris, and there is far more real science (i.e. observational/operational) in many of his articles than by most evolutionists.  This should be very to find.  Here's one, his arguments against (relying on his expertise in spectroscopy and research of opthalmologists) the absurd claim that the eye is poorly designed because of its backwardly wired retina, promoted by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Kenneth Miller Argument: ‘Bad design’ is evidence of leftovers from evolution 138.130.200.46 23:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * To use ad hominem arguments to and about another editor, while lurking behind a series of anon addresses, seems to me to be especially unreasonable. I'd ask you to desist from these jibes, and from editting rhetorical points into the article itself.  To describe someone a scientist is not a matter of qualifications (which are in any case stated in the article), but of activity.  Does he experiment?  Does he produce scientific theories?  Being a "science writer" (if he's quite that) or a "commentator on science" is not the same thing as being a working scientist, regardless of qualifications.  Alai 02:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you deny that Duncharris violated Wikiquette by marking deletions of text as "minor"? What about people like Dawkins or retired physics professor Lawrence Lerner who attack creation?  Do you claim that they are not scientists because they no longer experiment?  138 is right to point out that there is noargument while Dawkins and Miller are scientific for advancing this argument.  Is S. Wroe being any more scientific than Sarfati when Wroe claims that a tooth shows poor design while Sarfati claims it is good design because it works extremely well Rats! A toothless argument for evolution?  There is no more scientific basis for asserting "no design" than "design" — this is outside the scope of operational science.220.245.180.131 04:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you aware of the distinction between criticism, and argumentum ad hominem? Please indicate where I asserted DH was completely blameless in all matters.  However, asserting that he's unworthy to edit this article on the grounds that he's an atheist, PhD-free, and a computer programmer is "bang out of order".  And doing so at an anon ip address is thoroughly ironic, to boot.  As for the term:  "A scientist is a person who is expert in an area of science and who uses scientific methodology in research."  Do you think that JS qualifies by that definition?  (Note:  "uses", not "once used".)  Alai 04:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course he qualifies. 138 gave some examples.  And yes, I do think that Harris is out of order to judge a more highly qualified scientist as a non-scientist.220.245.180.131 09:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 'Benefit of the doubt' is not in concordance with NPOV; if it's in doubt, we report the doubt, not the facts as some people would like them to be.  His PhD is documented;  his publications are documented:  readers for whom that's sufficient to connote 'scientist' can conclude that for themselves.  I see no evidence that his "job" is in any sense "doing science", so why would anyone want to describe him as such, other than for purposing of hyping his standing?  Alai 05:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Additional information
Next comes the additional information. His background in physical chemistry is worth mentioning. The only other useful link that might be worked in there is to "creation science", the specific form of YECism that Dr Sarfati supports. There might be worth mentioning that creation science is pseudoscience because
 * Both the criticism section and the YEC link talks about pseudoscience. It is not necessary to add it elsewhere, and is being used as a POV to discredit Sarfati.  Your disagreement with creation science is POV, not NPOV biographical of this scientist. --agapetos_angel 05:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Now that brings us onto the criticism section on the page, which is rather bad because I feel it reflects discussion on this page about how he is not a scientist rather than the reason why he is not a scientist (i.e. he does not follow the scientific method). Dr Sarfati's science is simply non-existent. Dunc|&#9786; 01:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Not that Duncharris would know science from sciatica. Of course, a cursory glance of Dr Sarfati's writings would show that he knows a lot about science and keeps up to date with the latest research.  Duncharris's objection is that Sarfati draws conclusions that contradict Duncharris's atheistic religion. 220.245.180.130 03:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Criticism sections are to report the POV of the critic, not to make judgments on either side. Both sides are accurately reported, the critics got in pseudoscience and lack of scientific method, and the supporters answered the critics.  I would personally (POV) call Spong a heretic, for example, but would better point out what critics say and why.  (NB, for all the whinging here over length and contents of Sarfati's intro, Spong's intro includes where he went to public (assumedly primary) school, and outlines things *about* his writing, rather than leaving that to the biographical sections. This is a good illustration of precedence on wiki for lengthy intros, and how claims of 'fluff' and 'length' are sleight of hand tactics of the detrators to hide the bias POV that they are trying to assert.--agapetos_angel 05:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
Use of the word "pseudoscience" is inflammatory at worst, and POV at best. The Young Earth creationism article uses the term, that doesn't make it right - it only means that POV-pushers have succeeded in getting the article biased their way. If you want to say that those who do not hold to it consider it to be a pseudoscience, I will not object, but for the ARTICLE to call it that, I will not accept and will keep on reverting. David Cannon 11:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It's especially absurd that one of the most vocal is Duncan Harris, a computer programmer without science qualifications. He is also a sysop who blatantly violated Wikiquette by deleting text and marking it as a minor edit.71.100.184.44 23:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Sciences create falsifiable theories. Young Earth creationism offers none. It is not a science. Josh Parris # 07:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Josh, please learn about real philosophy of science rather than parrot naive falsificationism. Besides, you can't complain that YEC is not falsifiable then turn around (as Gould and the NAS have done) and proclaim that many of its tenets are false.138.130.200.46 23:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If you must complain, I have a degree in biology from a leading British university. I did concentrate on evolutionary biology.  That I am also a computer programmer is because I'm a bioinformatician - I use computers to manipulate biological data, particularly genomics data, which can be used to study evolution.  I haven't done a PhD yet, but may do in the future. Dunc|&#9786; 19:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Top-posting anon comment moved
What appalling bigotry and arrogant display of condescending rhetoric I've just read in this exchange below. One can be a scientist and still not accept the THEORY of evolution. The scientific method is about testing observables and coming up with theories that match the data in a repeatable fashion which can be verified by others. To say that since one takes information from the Bible to inform their presuppositions thus invalidates any subsequent scientific work following those assumptions is fatuous in the extreme. We all have presuppositions and starting points for our beliefs: whether they be scientific or meta physical. There is a growing number of scientists with NO religious affiliation who are finding serious flaws with evolutionary theory. But the mainstream establishment of science reacts in what well may be characterized as a knee jerk very defensive posture when dealing with such criticisms. This is not uncommon in the history of science. Teach evolution - fine. But also teach problems with it. And don't dismiss those who have honestly and with a solid scientific method arrived at differing conclusions as being "non-scientists" and their work "pseudo-science". That is intellectually dishonest and psychologically infantile.

Zach

Posted by User:172.149.159.73, 08:41, 24 August 2005. Moved to keep some semblance of thread order on this page. Alai 19:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Unsupported allegation removed
Unsupported allegation of banning (or even membership!) to Theologyweb was posted in article. Removed --agapetos_angel 00:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well Sarfati is known for his large ego and for being excessively rude. Dunc|&#9786; 00:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well pot, meet kettle. Dunc would never be rude to anyone would he, and he is the epitome of humility. 220.245.180.130 05:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * He is - or was - at Theologyweb with the username "Socrates" and it appears he did indeed get banned for trolling. See ,  as examples.  I'll try to find the theology web thing as well, once I've worked out how to search their forums properly. Dunc|&#9786; 00:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Talk origins is hardly a proper primary source to prove these allegations of membership and/or banning. Reverting for improper sourcing and unsupported allegation. (Furthermore, theologyweb admin never disclose real names of members (privacy statement), so any allegations can only be considered guesswork, which could subject someone to libel charges for printing what they cannot prove is true.) agapetos_angel 05:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * And the allegation came from the troll "70.182.0.5" who also wrote such gems as "the idiot himself", which should have resulted in a stern warning from an admin like Duncharis, not trying to find support in the Internet rumor mill for the accusations.220.245.180.130 05:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * ITs an internet rumor that he was under the username Socrates, the proof is very poor. A similar example is people believing Matt Slick to be the other Matt that works at CARM. 12.220.47.145 21:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Doesn't stop Duncharris from trying to push this rumor, this time from a bulletin board. Good grief! 58.162.246.25 07:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Biblical Creation
I was under the impression that Sarfati was against Day-age creationism, an interpretation of Creation according to Genesis; his position was that Young Earth creationism is the correct interpretation of Creation according to Genesis. Is it not more accurate to link the opening paragraph to Young Earth creationism than Creation according to Genesis? And why hide the link behind Biblical creation, for which there is no article? Josh Parris # 05:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably right that it's a more accurate link, Josh. But it's hard to dispute that creation according to Genesis really is YEC. What do you care anyway, since you obviously don't believe Genesis anyway.138.130.196.179 08:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sarfati is YECist in the traditional sense. The YECis don't think you can interpret the Bible, hence why AiG call their position a "plain reading".  Yet Ross and others do believe in creationism based on the Bible with their particular interpretation of it, which could be construed as Biblical creationism.  So there are two POVs there, but AiG's "plain reading" is probably the best way to phrase it. Dunc|&#9786; 18:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually Dunc, YECs do believe that we can interpret the Bible, as stated on the Answers in Genesis page (in fact citing something Sarfati himself wrote):
 * Answers in Genesis describes their biblical hermeneutical method as "plain" (or sometimes "grammatical-historical") and why they believe it is more precise than "literal":


 * "Simply put, our bottom line is that the proper interpretation of Scripture is to take it “plainly”, meaning “as the author intended it to be understood by the original audience”. This incorporates a literal interpretation of a literal context, poetic interpretation of poetic context, etc. This is covered in depth in the article Should Genesis be taken literally?
 * "E.g., with Genesis, we can tell it is meant to be historic narrative because it has all the grammatical features of Hebrew narrative, e.g., the first verb is a qatal (historic perfect), and the verbs that move the narrative forward are wayyiqtols (waw consecutives); it contains many “accusative particles” that mark the objects of verbs; and terms are often carefully defined." 138.130.196.179 00:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

TJ and peer review
This is getting tedious. TJ is not peer reviewed in the commonly understood sense of the word. Although it is "peer reviewed" by fellow creation scientists, it is not peer-reviewed by mainstream scientists. Its findings do not even come close to what is accepted in mainstream biology, geology or astronomy. If AiG could publish in mainstream journals they would, it would give them huge kudos.

We had a similar discussion at talk:Answers in Genesis a while ago. It presently states:

In 1984, CSF started the Ex Nihilo Technical Journal for more in-depth analysis of creation issues. It was later renamed Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal then simply TJ. TJ is a refereed journal, reviewed by members of the creationist community who share the same beliefs [1].

Now, if you must insist of having it peer-reviewed it is not NPOV to fail to mention that these peers are not "those who share the same beliefs". Dunc|&#9786; 18:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Having seen this on Requests for Comments, I agree entirely with Duncharris' assement and wording. --G Rutter 21:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It is irrelevant. AiG has claimed that non-creationists have reviewed articles, and they would probably know better than Duncharris about their own peer review.  However, most establishment journals allow only materialist peer review in articles pertaining to origins. 203.213.77.138 07:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)