Talk:Young Earth Science (YES)

This page should not be speedy deleted because...
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --This2ShanLip (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

This2ShanLip (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because...
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --This2ShanLip (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

This2ShanLip (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because...
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --This2ShanLip (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

This2ShanLip (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)