Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 4

Criticism
See that big list of criticisms, why isn't that on the evolution article? Bias, that's why! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.88.239 (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have reliable sources that "criticise evolution", then the place to discuss that is Talk:Evolution. However, be aware that you'll be fighting an uphill battle, since any source you provide will be compared to this document and others, which demonstrate the scientific consensus in favour of evolution. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 16:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What 74.138.88.239 in Park Hills, Ohio does not seem to understand is that there are no criticisms of Evolutionary Biology in science. There may be particular scientists, that agree with biological evolution, who try to strengthen the general theory by questioning specific parts of it, but when one researches the evidence presented that support Evolutionary Biology they find that it is stronger than the theory of gravity of the theory that the Earth goes around the Sun (Heliocetrism).  WHY is creationism criticized; because creationism is not supported by science, there are no scientific theories to explain how  creationism can be considered scientific and there is the FACT that creationism is a religious explanation that verges on being a cult depending on which creationist organizations you are referring to (Christian, Hindu, Native American, Native African, Muslim, Shinto, etc...).


 * If Evolutionary Biology can be criticized why don't you (74.138.88.239) point out some of your critical analysis here? You must know of some or else you would not have posted this message. RiverBissonnette 23:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We may be seeing the end of Darwinism as we know it. Eugene Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, has written a devastating critique of traditional Darwinism in an open-source journal, Biology Direct. Koonin, an evolutionist himself, basically said that all major life forms, with all their complexity, appear suddenly in the record without intermediate forms, and this fact can no longer be denied. His critique is here  rossnixon 04:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh woe, the end is nigh ... again. Creationists have been predicting the "end of Darwinism as we know it" for a century or more -- this prediction must qualify for one of the longest-running pieces of vaporware in history. The 'evidence' that they cite as presaging its imminent demise has ubiquitously turned out to be nothing more than wishful-thinking and gross misinterpretation and/or misrepresentation of new research avenues. The amusing thing is that most of them seem to be blithely unaware that 'Darwinism' (being Darwin's original theory of evolution by natural selection) has long since been superseded by successive forms of the Theory of Evolution. As such, "Darwinism as we know it" (or more precisely "as we knew it") ended a long time ago. HrafnTalkStalk 14:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * RossNixon, before posting evidence it is a good idea to check the source. The source you have quoted is a very pro-evolution article and I'm sure you are very close to outright lying by trying to claim otherwise. The author of this article is a victim of quote mining (one of his referees warns him - you can read it by following the link - that if he keeps the wording it will be on every creationist blog within a couple of hours) something that becomes very obvious if you bothered to read even the abstract. Please keep in mind that the author has spend months working hard on this paper, and it is very rude to slander him in this fashon. P.S. There is no such thing as an "evolutionist" - try evolutionary biologist. Dr v 10:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I remain open minded on this subject but lean towards old creation theories. Instead of stealing ideas such as plate tectonics and continental drift from conventional geology, I would like to see Young Earth researchers spend more time on working on their own theories based on flood hydraulics rather than take pot shots at conventional geology. Another berean 21:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia at its best! Selective criticism research, anyone? 67.186.148.241 03:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Young Earth creationists often suggest that supporters of evolution theory are primarily motivated by atheism. "

And an atheist is a bad thing? That sounds a bit strange to me... Oh well, who cares I am a Pastafarian anyway...

Noserider (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

5% of scientists are creationists?
Actually, 5% of scientists are young earth creation scientists according to the poll. If you check the reference I replaced the old reference with you will find that the question was actually do you believe "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." Thus a yes answer would mean that you are actually a young earth creationist. I reworded this part so that it would be more correct.
 * Sorry, the above was me.EMSPhydeaux 03:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really. That's not what the source says, and Catastrophism is compatible with recent Creation of humans. I'd suggest reading Creationism and WP:NOR. . . dave souza, talk 08:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That is exactly what the source says. You can read it for yourself in the reference.   "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." was the exact statement.   This is not original research.  This poll was referenced even before I got here, I simply gave a better link to the information.  I'm not sure what you mean by "Catastrophism", but the time at which humans first existed, according to Radiometric dating, was not near 10,000 years ago.  Anyone who says that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" clearly does not agree with Human Evolution or the age it implies, and is a young earth creationist.  I do not see away of debating this.EMSPhydeaux 15:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Armchair"
There's no need to call George McCready Price (in the Revival section) an "armchair geologist". I have found no listing of that term on Wikipedia. In fact, I think it would be impossible to prove that he never looked at or studied any rocks. On top of that, I think Price easily fits the definition of geologist, which I did find on Wikipedia; "A geologist is a contributor to the science of geology, " Yaki-gaijin 23:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Price was not a "geologist" Price had no formal training as a geologist, beyond "some elementary courses in some of the natural sciences, including some mineralogy" as part of a one-year teacher-training course. In spite of urging from David Starr Jordan, Price did not "undertake some constructive work in Paleontology in the field and in laboratories." The basis for his books was Geology textbooks and documents, not first-hand research -- Jordan described his work as "based on scattered mistakes, omissions, and exceptions to general that anybody familiar with the facts in a general way could not possibly dispute." All this is documented in Ronald Numbers' The Creationists, in which Numbers himself calls Price an "armchair scientist". HrafnTalkStalk 02:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would point out that Numbers is probably the most widely-regarded historian of the Creationist movement. HrafnTalkStalk 02:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk 06:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just keeping you and Wikipedia honest. No need to be a dick about it.Yaki-gaijin 11:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how somebody unfamiliar with Price's credentials or the meaning of the adjective "armchair" can keep anybody "honest" on this -- beyond a dysfunctional "delete anything I don't understand, even if it's referenced" approach. I also fail to see how filling in these crucial holes in your understanding is being "a dick about it." I would strongly suggest that you observe WP:AGF & WP:NPA in the future. HrafnTalkStalk 12:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I never said that I don't understand the meaning of "armchair". So you were filling in imaginary "holes". And the reason I am being picky about the "armchair geologist" thing is because it's really a petty and unnecessary remark in an otherwise solid article. Readers can see that he is an "armchair geologist" from the phrase "based upon reading geological texts and documents, rather than field or laboratory work". I don't see why we need to repeat someone else's childish insults here. It doesn't add anything to the article except a stain of bias and pretentious commentary. Now do you understand why the petty "armchair" insult is not only insignificant, but also damaging? Or are you going to facetiously continue to inform me of the meanings of simple words that I already know? Yaki-gaijin 23:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you "understand the meaning of 'armchair'", then your statement "I have found no listing of ['armchair geologist'] on Wikipedia" was an intentionally misleading attempt to discredit the phrase (if we were restricted to only using phrases with listings on wikipedia, we'd end up with a lot of very strange articles). I assumed good faith and assumed that the root of this was ignorance, not mendacity. I likewise assumed that your grossly incorrect assertion that "Price easily fits the definition of geologist" sprang from ignorance not dishonesty. "Armchair geologist" is a perfectly apt characterisation of Price's complete lack of scientific standing and expertise. It is neither petty nor unnecessary. Ronald Numbers is a widely respected historian of the Creationism movement. To call his apt characterisation of Price "childish insults" is completely uncalled for. "Armchair geologist" is apt, well-cited and well-substantiated -- so there is no possible reason for its deletion, and so reason to continue these histrionics. HrafnTalkStalk 03:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I honestly believe everything I have said, and I was only trying to make the article a little less biased and a little more professional. Thanks for assuming that I was trying to vandalize the article, and a WHOLE LOT of wikilove for calling me a liar. You truly should be lauded for your patience, humility and level-headed manner. Yaki-gaijin 23:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that a geologist is a proffessional who has spent many years (a degree, masters, pHD) specialising in the subject hand has devoted a career to advancing the field. To take this meaning, "armchair" is merely a qualifier indicating that Price was not professionally trained or qualified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.104 (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, this sure sounds familiar
Seems there's another tussel going on over Cat:Pseudoscience once again. And, you know, the Creation Science category is already in the Pseudoscience category now, isn't there something that can be said for avoiding redundancy? Does Evolution have the Biology and Science categories at the bottom? Homestarmy 18:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There wasn't consensus for that one editor, about 6 months ago, for deleting the Pseudoscience category. We all thought it was dumb.  Evolution doesn't require a Biology and Science category because frankly that is well known and understood.  I don't like rude commentary from anonymous vandals.  I think if you provided a legitimate argument, I'd listen.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No opinion really on the matter, but some useful guidelines are Categorization and Categorization and subcategories. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 19:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever Ali. Anyways, the Pseudoscience category does contain Creation Science, but you have to go to that to find YEC.  So it's not clear that YEC is really in the Pseudoscience category.  I think someone is fixing the category, then the rude reversions by the anonymous vandal will stop.  Homestarmy, good catch.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by saying "Whatever Ali." I was just stating the fact that there are Wikipedia guidelines that may help hone in on an answer. It may very well be that the solution is to fix the categories (as you have stated), so that it isn't as redundant, or that this article may fall under the guidelines as an "exception". I wasn't pushing an opinion on the matter, I was giving you more information to help make your decision/discussion easier and more informed. Again, mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 20:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think creation science is psuedoscience, so I'm glad the "creation science" category is in the "psuedoscience" category, but I think our guidelines are clear and logical: no page in creation science should also be in psuedoscience. Categories are there to navigate around similar topics, not to present information to the reader. Atropos 19:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Exceptions should also be considered when the article subject has a relevance to the parent category that is not expressed by the subcategory's definition" (per WP:CLS) HrafnTalkStalk 04:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The Eastern Orthodox view
The Oriental Orthodoxy (Monophysites) should not be confused with the Eastern orthodox churches (Greek, Russian etc.). The Eastern Orthodoxy view should be added to the article as well. Unfortunately I don't have the documentation or the skills necessary to expand the article myself (there are many who do it, but I avoid it). I also know only about the situation in Greece, not other countries. I can still provide some details.

The YEC theory was dominant in the Middle Ages, and therefore it is traceable in the works of some Church fathers, but it was not introduced as a doctrine. They merely used the knowlledge of their era to interprete the Bible. The Byzantine calendar was counting from 5508 BC, as this was supposed to be the world's creation date.

Today the majority of Orthodox biblical scholars reject literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account, as it is considered a derivative of the western scholastic theology. Therefore, the YEC theory is rejected. The six days are viewed as metaphors, since even Genesis (2:4) and the Deuterocanonical book of Sirach (18:1) contain contradictions on this. Many Orthodox theologians state that the book of Genesis just tells "who" made the Universe, but not "how". Some of them could be accounted as supporters of Old Earth Creationism or even of Theistic Evolution, altrough such terminology is not widely used in Greece yet. Of course, there are still conflicts in the Greek church about these issues, but at least the earth's age is not among them. Metropolitan Nikolaos, a Greek Bishop of Mesogaia and Lavreotiki (formely an Astronomer who has worked for NASA and the MIT) has recently stated that "the age of the universe is about 13.7 billion years old" and that "Genesis is not a book of Physics and Biology [to have conflicts with the Evolution theory]".

Farther reading (it's only Greek, sorry): Basil the Great, Homiliae in Hexaemeron, J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 29.; Gregory of Nyssa, Apologia in Hexaemeron, J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, v. 44. (in Koine and Medieval Greek); N. Matsoukas, Dogmatiki kai Symboliki Theologia, v. 2; E. Oikonomou, Semeiologia kai ermineia tis Palaias Diathikis apo to prototypo (in modern Greek). --87.203.96.158 02:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This looks very good. I think we should incorporate some of this information in a daughter article, and also in Dating Creation, if it is not there. Do you have references? Preferably in English? If not, we might have to go with the Greek references but I am a bit uncomfortable with that. --Filll 03:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Me, too, but for classic works (the first two above) it's not necessary to provide an English edition; but the contemporary Orthodox views are expressed in the rest of the works. I can't recall any reference in English right now, apart from the late Seraphim Rose, Genesis, Creation and Early Man. He is a prominent author, but his work isn't representative at all, as it has a more literal approach and supports the YEC, among others. Also this page gives us a testimony about what it seems to be a minority of YEC supporters among the Russian Orthodox community in the U.S. As I previously mentioned, I am more familiar with the status in Greece; I still know that the tendency in the whole Eastern Orthodoxy is to interpete the Genesis' first three books primarily in relation to Salvation, Christology and Eschatology, rathet than to Cosmology, so don't expect total uniformity on issues like YEC, because these are simply considered less significant. Therefore, I could mention many works about the Orthodox views on creation in general, but only very few on creation's date --87.203.96.158 04:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok I added the Byzantine calendar date to Dating Creation with a citation. You seem to have a good handle on this scholarship in this area. It might be a good idea for you to get a userid and help us edit in this area, so we can build this encyclopedia properly. Just a suggestion. --Filll 14:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a good citation, but it refers to the year 5508 as the "formation of Adam and Eve" date and doesn't explicitly mention the Byzantine Calendar. I think I've found a better one (search for "5509" in the text to locate the reference). Since you made this addition, I'll let you decide on any potential changes. By the way, the site you 've used is associated with Greek Old Calendarists, a separate fundamentalist group. For more representative Eastern Orthodox views I would recommend Myriobiblos  (multilingual, with integrated search function).  --85.72.179.107 20:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * PS: Thanks for the suggestion. Somehow I thing I need improvement in some areas prior to becoming a registered user. --85.75.7.167 21:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Accept vs. Believe
It's subtle, but "accepting" something is when a stubborn person relents to overwhelming evidence. The word "believe" is much more neutral. johnpseudo 18:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the word "accept" is a polyseme, and therefore has many meanings with different connotations. And not all have the connotation you suggest. However, I think this is minor enough that it is not worth arguing about when so much else is in a mess here.--Filll 19:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The original longstanding text said "believe". The change to "accept" was smuggled in today by Ed Poor in this edit:  (I use the word "smuggled" because his edit summary didn't mention it: he referred only to another change made at the same time). --Robert Stevens 19:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No smuggling, let's not get nasty. I meant "accept the account" as being true. To avoid misunderstanding - and correct a grammatical mistake - I have used the word belief. --Uncle Ed 21:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

An argument in the intro
Cut from intro:


 * Despite a statement by 68 national and international science academies stating that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, that life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago, and that scientific evidence has never contradicted this, Young Earth creationists (YECs) claim that the lack of support for a Young Earth theory in professional science journals or among professional science organizations is due to discrimination and censorship.

This is an argument that YECs are wrong to ignore the united pronouncements of scientists. This smacks of taking sides between religion and science.

Wouldn't it be better to say that ___% of scientists disagree with the religious belief known as Young Earth Creationism? --Uncle Ed 21:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't an argument about who's right or wrong. It's a statement of the consensus of scientific academies around the world that the evidence for an Old Earth is overwhelming, and a statement that YECs say they're being censored. The text should be restored, perhaps removing the "Despite A, B" format. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 21:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've restored it while discussion continues as a statement on these lines is needed to meet NPOV requirements. Your proposal fails as scientists consider that the arguments are not science and contradict the findings of science, and it's both loaded and inaccurate to claim that they take that position because they are "disagreeing" with a religious belief. ... dave souza, talk 21:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the original text. We are not going to turn these articles into religious recruiting tracts; sorry, but no. However, there are many other wikis that entertain this sort of thing and you are free to go to them.

If we simplify it and give one percentage, which one do we give? (This is addressed at level of support for evolution) There will endless fights about what is a scientist and what is not and what statistics to use and how up to date and reliable they are, and whether scientists are intimidated into silence by some ogres in the science world etc. The problem is, this just arises over and over unless it is slammed and slammed REALLY hard. I can throw another 20 citations at this if you want, and you know I can. However, it is readable now and quite accurate and reasonable well-cited. Leave it alone.--Filll 21:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Dave, I don't know what "your statement fails" means. Are you saying that you personally side with the scientists against the religious believers? --Uncle Ed 23:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What I mean by "Your proposal fails" is that it casts the scientific position as a disagreement over religion belief: modern science is limited to examining that which is empirically testable, religion can and does deal with more intangible areas such as the supernatural. YEC belief posits supernatural interventions which are beyond science, but comes into conflict with science when its adherents dispute empirical findings on religious grounds, claim that things which appear to science to be re result of natural processes have actually been the result of supernatural intervention, or produce what they claim is scientific work which is dismissed by scientific scrutiny. These are all disagreements about science, not about religion. .. dave souza, talk 23:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that clarification. You are apparently saying that "science" consists only of physical science, i.e., the search for physical causes of physical phenomena. Am I hearing you correctly? --Uncle Ed 23:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Science includes more than physical science as defined by that link, and clearly covers biology. behavioural sciences and social sciences. In all cases science is empirical, and employs what has been called methodological naturalism. ... dave souza, talk 08:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am confused here. The entire thrust for decades here by YEC and now ID/DI is to redefine science so it includes the supernatural; i.e., so that we do not limit ourselves to astronomy and astrophysics, but include astrology as well, and all kinds of other "magical" processes for which we have no evidence. Science as it is currently does not include the supernatural. This is verified by all the major scientific professional organizations and has been confirmed in repeated legal engagements. Many creationists of various stripes want to redefine science to include the supernatural, however, which is not what science is. Remember the statements that YEC make against materialism? That is what these statements are referring to, to the best of my understanding...--Filll 00:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the text in question simply needs re-arranging to make it simpler and clearer. Maybe something like this:-


 * Young Earth creationists (YECs) claim that the lack of support for a Young Earth theory in professional science journals or among professional science organizations is due to discrimination and censorship.   However, a statement by 68 national and international science academies states that there is no scientific evidence contradicting the estimated age of the Earth (around 4.5 billion years), or the duration of life on Earth (at least 2.5 billion years).


 * I think that makes it clearer that this is not a question of who thinks who is wrong or why, but of why scientific journals don't publish papers supporting YEC: in a word, evidence. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 01:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

My $.02: I personally don't see what the statement beginning "A statement by 68 national and international science academies ..." (to the end of the paragraph) has to do with the subject at all. Isn't it enough to say that the scientific community thinks it's bunk? I don't think adding statistics on exactly who thinks it's bunk serve any purpose other than beating a dead horse. As for the rest of the paragraph, if you think it will be helpful for the reader to know how old the Earth really is, just link to Age_of_the_Earth. The first sentence, "The overwhelming scientific consensus is that creationist claims have no scientific validity.", and maybe an example or two, ought to be enough (this from a staunch Darwinist, BTW). 70.116.79.119 (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As it stands today (17 NOV)
I came into this because of a mistake in assuming bias by fellow editor Orangemarlin] who, understandably, thought a change in the intro meant a bias on my part. Here's where I came in: An edit posted on [[Special:Recentchanges| Recent changes caught my attention while I was on Vandal Patrol. I swung by to check it out: the last para of the intro had read: The edit that got my attention was by Lgrove who didn't edit summarize but can be assumed to have attempted to address the presumed bias in the statement that the majority of scientists are right despite what the YECs believe. (Despite being a wesal word here.) However, Lgrove changed the order of the para to read this: What this does is swing the presumed bias the other way: now the references 'prove' that there is discrimination on the part of the scientific majority against the YEC minority (when, in fact, a statement of scientific principle that doesn't agree with a faith isn't -by its nature- discrimination, just an apposing view. Since the point of an intro is to introduce the subject, the YECs in this case, I took out the position of the scientists completely, which can be addressed more properly in the body of the article itself: Young Earth creationists (YECs) claim that the lack of support for a Young Earth theory in professional science journals or among professional science organizations is due to discrimination and censorship.    I think this addresses the need to introduce Young earth creationism, without getting sidetracked by ideology (from either side) so early in the article. As I've explained myself in better detail, and hopefully in a manner that will allow both sides see my intent to address this as what makes the article read NPOV, I'll re-attempt the change. Please feel free to address the topic here. Thanks! --LeyteWolfer (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite a statement by 68 national and international science academies stating that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, that life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago, and that scientific evidence has never contradicted this, Young Earth creationists (YECs) claim that the lack of support for a Young Earth theory in professional science journals or among professional science organizations is due to discrimination and censorship.   
 * Young Earth creationists (YECs) claim that the lack of support for a Young Earth theory in professional science journals or among professional science organizations is due to discrimination and censorship.   This is illustrated by a statement of an organization which represents 68 national and international science academies stating that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, that life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago, and that scientific evidence has never contradicted this. 
 * My understanding of NPOV policy is that pseudoscientific claims have to be put in the context of mainstream science, and that the lead should be a self-contained summary of the article. To address this, I've summarised the international science academies statement more completely as a separate paragraph, without saying one or the other is "right" ... dave souza, talk 16:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to change your version, Dave, but I think it can be assumed that the pro-YECs are not going to find it satisfactory. If having a non-biased intro leads people to read the whole article, that's a good thing. Having a biased or weighted intro invites POV edit wars...that's not good for the article. I think everyone would have a better leg to stand on if the intro only explained the basics of the YEC viewpoint and the criticism was dealt with in the body of the article. There are MANY articles on wikipedia that have criticism sections that are not referenced in the intro. I just don't think this serves the greater good. I'm also willing to wage that the entry will be reverted two to three times today alone, based on the emotional investment of both sides (even if they claim rationality). NPOV with a focus on the subject (YEC in this case) is best for the intro and that's best for the article. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The addition is needed to meet the requirements of NPOV: Giving "equal validity", and NPOV: Undue weight which requires that though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. See also NPOV: Pseudoscience regarding the requirement to show majority scientific opinion. .. dave souza, talk 21:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree whole-heartedly. I hold that the policy refers to the article itself, and not the lead and I don't think the lead is the place to put the counter-argument. If it needs to be there, it should only reference the material that will make up the opposing view in the body. For example, if it is in the intro, then no sentance usedin the intro should be repeated in the body (and that goes for the references. In the end, I just don't want to see the articles on wikipedia hurt by mission creep, as the intro becomes the article. (BTW, thanks for discussing this here, rather than in an edit war.) Sincerely, LeyteWolfer (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Empiricism and its limits
Dave and Fill, thank you for your analysis and clarification. There seems to be a sharp clash between the Empiricism of "science" and the desire of religious believers to include the Supernatural as an object of scientific study and research. --Uncle Ed 15:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * YEC beliefs require a deceptive supernatural intervention: a "Trickster God" who has faked all the evidence that contradicts YEC. Why should a Trickster God submit to "scientific study and research"?  If he has the ability and inclination to plant fake fossils, fake endogenous retroviruses and other DNA evidence, fudge radiometric dating, create artificial varves and ice-core layers, fake the light from distant stars, create historical accounts from cultures unaffected by the Flood... then such a phenomenon cannot be investigated scientifically (or indeed by any other means). --Robert Stevens 16:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A very good point. What I like to often point out, is that it is fine if YEC want to believe this. However, what is not ok when they want to impose these beliefs on others using the power of the state etc.--Filll 16:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It goes back to Paley promoting miracles as Evidences of Christianity and his natural theology using a god of the gaps to fend off Enlightenment questioning, leading to a Victorian crisis of faith – "Paradoxically, the success of the Paleyan apologetic was to prove disastrous in the 1860s: it was precisely the argument from design and miracles and prophecies (the "external evidences") that were devastated by the new science and [higher] criticism." Evangelicals had "inculcated belief that religious doubt was in itself sinful. The duty of avoiding doubt, whatever intellectual operations might be needed to accomplish this, was put with characteristically eloquent crudity by Samuel Wilberforce, later Bishop of Oxford: Whilst irreverence and doubt are the object of your greatest fear; whilst you would glady retain a childlike and unquestioning reverence by abasing, if need were, your understanding, rather than gain any knowledge at the hazard of your reverence; you are doubtless in God's hands, and therefore safe... Fly, therefore, rather than contend; fly to known truths. ... In an age that pressed desperately for the answers to all sorts of questions, Wilberforce believed they were better left unasked." An interesting read at ..  dave souza, talk 16:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Dave, this is good stuff and helps provide a possible new direction for the article or at least a few sentences culminating in a link to another article. I gather that YECs desire to "have their cake and eat it too", i.e., preserve their fundamentalist faith in God's Creation while coming to terms with the findings of modern science. Perhaps this veers off into Creation Science or "scientific creationism". --Uncle Ed 17:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a good article and provides a lot of food for thought. It is interesting to read about the response to Paley's arguments at the time, which by now have been largely forgotten. Some of what the author claims I am less sure of, however.

The problem that YECs face is that they want to preserve a particular flavor of biblical literalism (which is usually different than other flavors of biblical literalism espoused by their neighbors, and they conveniently ignore), and somehow accommodate or ignore the evidence that seems to argue against the literal truth of some of the passages that they want to interpret literally.--Filll 17:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Remember, evidence is subject to interpretation, it doesn't "speak for itself". And any particular interpretation is subject to change, especially in historical (non-observational) science. rossnixon 01:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but there are limits, both to legitimate interpretation (beyond which it becomes mere rationalisation) and how far the consensus interpretation changes (they tend very heavily to be refinements rather than wholesale replacements). The various flavours of YEC can be ruled out on both counts, as being far beyond these limits. HrafnTalkStalk 03:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Young Earth Creationists
Does anyone know what happened to the "List of Young Earth Creationists" page? It's listed in the "see also" section of this page, but now links back to this same article. It doesn't seem logical to keep it in the "see also" section if it's just going to link back to the "Young Earth Creationism" article, but I seem to recall an actual list page. Has it been deleted? Yeshuamyking7 (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. The AfD discussion is here: Articles_for_deletion/List_of_famous_young-earth_Creationists. Actually, it looks like that list was just redirected to here. The change was made  here. johnpseudo 22:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion you initially linked to, and have since crossed out, seems to correspond to another article altogether. Several of the people involved in the AfD cite the presence of a "List of Young Earth Creationists" page as a reason to delete the "List of famous young-earth Creationists" page as redundant.  Clearly, then, we're talking about two different pages.


 * In any event, it doesn't seem appropriate to redirect to this page, as nowhere in this article is there a list of young earth creationists. If we're going to eliminate the article through a redirect, should we not include the information from the article in the article to which we're redirecting? Whether we do or not, it seems at least logical to remove the link in the see also section, that is if we're not going to reinstate the separate article.  Yeshuamyking7 (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism: Theological v Scientific
The criticism section is messy IMO.

Firstly, is an allegation of quote mining really a scientific criticism of YEC? "Proponents of YEC are regularly accused of quote mining, the dishonest practice of isolating passages from academic texts that appear to support their claims while deliberately excluding context and conclusions to the contrary."

IMO, this should be in a new section. Perhaps "other criticisms" would be appropriate.

Secondly, the paragraph about light from distant stars is indeed a criticism, but it is far from being theological. IMO it should be moved from theological criticism to scientific criticism. "Another problem is the fact that distant galaxies can be seen. If the universe did not exist until 10,000 years ago, then light from anything farther than 10,000 light-years would not have time to reach us. Most cosmologists accept an inflation model as the likely explanation for the horizon problem. Inflationary models also account for other phenomena, and are in agreement with observations of recent microwave anisotropy satellites. Creationists have also proposed models to explain why we see distant starlight.[59][60] See creationist cosmologies for more information."

Apart from this, the criticism section is still a little messy, but perhaps that's just me.

Thanks, Glooper (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Quote mining among creationists is ubiquitous, and is a misrepresentation of scientific results and statements. As such, this is a legitimate scientific criticism. HrafnTalkStalk 06:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity
WP:SOAP moved to User talk:Chris g79

Yes, and this shows it is not possible on wiki to have an unbiased article, because people keep violating this neutrality. Even neutrality is called SOAP. You have my sincere condoleances but your not stopping me from setting my teeth in this article!Chris g79 (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No Chris, your post was not "neutrality" -- it was a lengthy, off-topic and unsubstantiated rant. It served no purpose whatsoever. Now either make specific recommendations for changes, based upon verifable and reliable sources, or go elsewhere. Any further posts from you that do not meet this standard will be summarily deleted. HrafnTalkStalk 16:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

And what is not objective? Give me one sentence.--Filll (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)