Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who believed in Biblical creation

Inclusion Criteria

 * note: these comments originally appeared on the main page, but seem to be distinctly tangential to the AfD discussion, and so I moved them to the talk page. -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some support for making a better article. Here are some suggested listing criteria:

TITLE: List of scientists who have expressed belief in a Creator

SCIENTIST: Each scientist included in this list has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the field of natural sciences, broadly construed, and has made a public statement clearly indicating a personal belief that the universe is the creation of a supernatural being.

If, as I suspect, the list is too small, we can expand the criteria to include peer-reviewed articles in areas such as psychology or even engineering (lots of creationist engineers, very few with peer-reviewed pubications).

SECTIONS:

Young Earth creationism (includes Creation science)

Old Earth creationism (includes Gap creationism, Day-Age creationism, and Progressive creationism)

Neo-Creationism (includes Intelligent design)

Theistic evolution

Other (includes Modern geocentrism, Omphalos hypothesis)

(Note: we need a better place to discuss this. I suggest userspace of whoever turns out to be willing to write the article)

Comments? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record, the current consensus seems to be in favor of deleting this article and (if someone is willing to do the work) creating another article on this same broad topic without the flaws that make this one salvageable (fixing all the problems would leave a stub). Here are some quotes supporting this:


 * "I think we should delete the article and create a List of scientists who believe in Biblical creation with tighter inclusion criteria." --A Quest For Knowledge


 * "Keep with heavy pruning ... Just because something was done badly doesn't mean it can't be done with some semblance of intelligence." --Colapeninsula


 * "The topic is certainly notable enough, so I think there is a valid list article here (or at least a list that is similar to this). However, if we are to keep, the reformulated list would definitely need to impose a much more clearly defined and very strict inclusion criteria." --Blueboar


 * "I 100% agree with Blueboar's reasoning here, but I instead come to the conclusion to Delete instead of Keep/Fix because the article as it currently is would have to be thrown out and 100% restarted from scratch. Unless someone agrees to do this work right now, it's better to delete and wait for an editor to create the article at a future date when it's ready" --Zad68


 * "I think this should be deleted without discouraging the creation of some future article without the obvious flaws that this one has" --Guy Macon
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Are we talking about all scientists, living scientists or post-Darwin scientists?TheLongTone (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not just start a page list of creationists? A list of scientists who believe in a creator seems like a WP:IINFO problem (akin to list of scientists with red hair, list of scientists who are left handed, list of scientists who drive hybrids).  If the scientists are not actual creationists (which would probably mean they aren't scientists) then their faith in some sort of creator is pretty tangential to why they are famous, and would be a magnet for creationist POV-pushers ("look!  These people believe in God!  And they're Scientists!  Scientists!  THE BIBLE IS TRUE!!!!11!111!").  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Based upon http://www.counterbalance.net/history/anticreat-frame.html I would say 20th and 21st century only. Before that, Creationism was not well-defined, Darwin's theory had not become scientific orthodoxy, Gregor Mendel's discoveries about how genetic information is passed down were not widely known, we didn't know that genes are located on chromosomes, that genes are responsible for the production of enzymes, that DNA Is the Genetic Material or that DNA Is a Double Helix, etc. These discoveries made rejecting evolution a lot less viable -- there is a lot more established science that you have to reject.


 * As for why scientists, the same arguments were made when List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming was being put together. The opinions of scientists carry more weight. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But those are probably actual scientists working on a scientific problem (with its own POV problems). Creationism isn't science.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh my! WLU makes an excellent point here (wtg WLU!). One that slipped right past me, which I find quite problematic. Creationism isn't science, ergo, using a list of scientists to lend weight to the idea is deceptive. Precisely for the reason Guy Macon stated above, "The opinions of scientists carry more weight". It would be like a list of Presidents who agree that jellybeans are the best candy ever (possibly limited to Reagan only, but that's not my point [[image:smiley.jpg|15px]]). The whole article therefore relies on the false premise that scientists and Creationism are linked. Where is the list of accountants who believe in Creationism? The only list I can think of that would be viable, if you subscribe to my thesis, is a list of Agnostics that agree with Creationism, or possibly Athiests that believe in Creationism (I'm gonna guess that's a short list though). And aren't they advocating "Intelligent Design" these days instead of Creationism anyway? --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 16:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What you suggest goes against Wikipedia's policies, specifically WP:FRINGE, which says


 * "Creation Science – The overwhelming majority of scientists consider this to be pseudoscience and say that it should not be taught in elementary public education. However the very existence of this strong opinion, and vigorous discussion regarding it amongst groups such as scientists, scientific journals, educational institutions, political institutions, and courts of law give the idea itself more than adequate notability to have articles about it on Wikipedia."


 * See http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/CMI_list_of_scientists_alive_today_who_accept_the_biblical_account_of_creation for a "list of scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation", with skeptical comments.


 * The mere claim that many scientists support creationism is notable, and that is the criteria for inclusion, not whether the claim is true. We can give the opposing view due WP:WEIGHT (by, for example, comparing the list with Project Steve ( http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Project_Steve ), but we are not allowed to suppress the existence of articles on notable subjects on the basis of them not being true. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to make such a list I recommend starting a page in your userspace, e.g. User:Guy Macon\Biblical creation, and inviting all Wikipedians to help you find really reliable sources. Starting from scratch is a good idea in this case. If you do, please leave a link here. Von Restorff (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with starting over - the present article is totally worthless. Not interested in the topic enough to write an article, but interested enough to discuss inclusion criteria. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this stuff gets very complicated very quickly. Why define "scientist" as an author of at least one peer-reviewed article in the field of natural sciences? Is that fair? Why use "(belief in) biblical creation" instead of "personal belief that the universe is the creation of a supernatural being"? I think those are two different things. You'll end up with a List of authors of at least one peer-reviewed article in the field of natural sciences who have made a public statement clearly indicating a personal belief that the universe is the creation of a supernatural being, and I think that name is simply too long. Von Restorff (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the policy, I didn't know that. However, it saddens me to learn that we have a policy that says "Since overwhelming majority of scientists/experts strongly support the concept that this is not science, it is therefore considered to be science", which is what that argument says in this case, doesn't it? Otherwise, it's argued that the policy says "The experts agree that this is pseudo-science, but we should still talk about it here, just not as science", that, I agree with. --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 01:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Some advice: if you use indentation correctly it is much easier to see who you are replying to. Please don't be sad, that is unnecessary, the policy says that some pseudoscientific topics can be worthy of inclusion in our encyclopaedia. Von Restorff (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be included of course, but is that policy saying it should be included "as science"? If not, scientists have no bearing on it, that was my point, and it was my understanding that the policy quoted above was being used to justify it's inclusion as science specifically. --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 06:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to worry about that; we will never have a policy saying pseudoscience should be called science. Von Restorff (talk) 06:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: "please don't take it to overturn the deletes" (on the main page), I would note that the entire discussion above is firmly based on the overwhelming consensus that this AfD should pass and that the present article should be nuked, and the idea (not consensus) that this should not preclude the possibility of someone some time in the future writing a good article on a similar subject. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that 'a good article on a similar subject', at least as proposed above, is inevitably going to run into the same problems as the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming one has - synthesis, and an attempt to create a category regarding people's opinions. On that ground alone, I'd oppose it, unless it could be shown that there was a consistent clear criteria for inclusion provided by a neutral reliable source - we shouldn't be creating yet more lists with made-up criteria. An article about 'modern scientists belief in creationism' might be justifiable, but a list is just asking for problems. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be creating our own version of creationist PR campaigns. A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism et al is going to taint any attempt at such a list. 86.** IP (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely the purpose of creating a new articleis to have an article which does not start off as an advert for creationism. And I think that it should be limited to scientists who are active in arguing for biblical creation rather than beleive in: that way there would be a hope of a clear criterion for inclusion, ie published material on the subject.TheLongTone (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it's an unbalanced list. Because we have one for creationism (but not a similarly-complete one for evolution) it serves to mislead about the relative numbers. 86.** IP (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A list of non-creationist scientists would be impossibly long: the proposed article would surely have to say that it was very much a minority point of view.TheLongTone (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, a list of non-creationist scientists in a field of relevance (biology, geology, paleontology, or a related scientific field) named Steve would be unwieldy - right now, it would have to include 1206 names - . Hipocrite (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And that's my point - if we're only presenting a list of scientists from a minority viewpoint, you basically end up with that view looking much more prominent than it is, because there's nothing to compare it with. A list of 100 creationists looks impressive on its own; it looks pitiful if it followed the Steve list, but we'll only be showing the creationist list. 86.** IP (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The list isn't unbalanced, it's inherently POV, an effort to give more weight to the idea that Creationism (intelligent design, or "academic freedom" or whatever name they make up) is a scientific rather than political and religious position. Make it a list of creationists, fine.  Make it a "list of creationism-believing scientists", you either have nonscientists who do no real research, or nonspecialists who do no research in any field with any relevant expertise.  Leave qualifications out of the entire list, make it an honest list of creationists, include intelligent design proponents, and make sure your sources are better than Henry Morris because he is a known liar when it comes to evolution and its alleged dissidents.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion moved from main page

 * It should probably be noted, though, that most delete votes came after that discussion was well underway; please don't take it to overturn the deletes. 86.** IP (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The "discussion of criteria for potential new article" began at 14:43 on April 14 . A substantial portion of the Delete !votes came before the discussion had begun, let alone was "well underway". -- The Red Pen of Doom  23:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me to be rather beside the point when a discussion regarding another article started - the AfD is for this one, and there seems to be an overwhelming consensus that it isn't policy-compliant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And there's still 5 delete votes after it started, and no keeps. At the least, it has had no effect on beliefs about the encyclopediacy of the article. 86.** IP (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that it's pretty clear that consensus is in favor of deleting this article, but there is support for a List of scientists who believe in Creationism with better inclusion criteria. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we have a List of scientists named Steve who don't believe in Creationism too? Or would that be too large and unwieldy? ;-) There may be some support for lists with made-up criteria for inclusion - but there shouldn't be, if we are going to avoid creating lists out of thin air... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say any such article should be immediately nominated for deletion, and that only if it's not WP:CSDable. 86.** IP (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you have to go on about inapplicable concerns? There's nothing wrong about articles on minority views being in Wikipedia and whether another article exists or not is immaterial. There's plenty enough wrong with this list without going on about other things. Dmcq (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * True - there's "nothing wrong about articles on minority views being in Wikipedia". But that isn't what is being proposed. Instead, the proposal is to pull arbitrary criteria out of a magician's hat to compile a 'list' of people supposedly holding these 'minority views'. Synthesis... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This section has just been moved from the main page, the business about inclusion criteria is the section above. Dmcq (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)