User talk:Gwilenius

I have added references to the Creation Science article supporting the change to indicate that scientific creationism do not set out to disprove scientific facts. On the contrary, the model uses scientific facts and procedures to support their view, challenging the presuppositions of naturalistic science. There Creation Science and Scientific Creationsim are not the same - Creation science includes all models of creationism, including theistic evolution, gap theory, et. al. while Creation Science does not support any particular model, but emphasizes deficiencies in all of them, including naturalistic evolution (Roth, Ariel A. (1998). "Origins - Linking Science and Scripture." Review and Herald Publishing Association. pp. 339-354.)

I think this article should be updated.


 * I think you should address the objections to your edit at Talk:Creation Science‎, rather than WP:EDITWARing. Also your claim that "Creation science includes all models of creationism, including theistic evolution, gap theory, et. al." is contradicted by the WP:RS literature (e.g. Numbers' The Creationists). Review and Herald Publishing Association is clearly partisan on this issue, so is a questionable source. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)