Talk:Creation science/Archive 7

Template:TrollWarning

Archives

Still relevant discussions are linked to as well.

Archive 1 - March 2005 - (#Creationism is not science)

Archive 2 - April 2005 - (#Pseudoscience)

Archive 3 - May 2005 - (#Creation science is not natural science or social science)

Archive 4 - June 2005 - (#Massive Edit)

Archive 5 - June 2005

Archive 6 - July 2005

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Creation science

Talk:Scientific creationism (article was merged into this)

NPOV problem

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just came across an article called scientific creationism which appears to be very POV. I have slapped a NPOV message on it and listed several difficulties on the talk page. It could be useful if people here could have a look at it. Barnaby dawson 19:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that article should be either deleted or merged with this one - it appearly to be redundant. --JonGwynne 20:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeeed it is. I have redirected the page to this one. Joshuaschroeder 20:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is a great article! It would be better to redirect Creation Science to Scientific Creationism. Do we want a vote on this? RossNixon 21:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That was an article that is fraught with NPOV problems and contains a lot of misinformation. This article is better from an encyclopedia standpoint. You can initiate a vote if you want, Rossnixon, but realize that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Joshuaschroeder 22:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well there is a lot of good content that may be lost, or will it still easily be accessible? It took a few clicks to find my way to it. RossNixon 01:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Being a redirect its edit history will be accessible. I agree that it should be a redirect. Barnaby dawson 08:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If there is any content that was on that page that isn't covered well on Creation Science, feel free to include it. Joshuaschroeder 12:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The page was reverted from a redirect to the original text. I have reverted back. I suggest if this continues happening to put the page up for VfD. 194.222.190.174 29 June 2005 13:16 (UTC) (This is user:Barnaby dawson. For some reason my account is playing up).

Since scientific creationism is an actual synonym for creation science, it would be best not to VfD it. A Request for comment would probably be better, but there are enough likeminded people here to keep the redirect even without it. Joshuaschroeder 29 June 2005 14:47 (UTC)

Rossnixon keeps making provocative edits trying to remove criticism from the introduction. This is unreasonable. Joshuaschroeder 29 June 2005 22:34 (UTC)

No, I'm just removing the provocative POV statement, which, if required, should be in a following paragraph. That's the usual place for criticism, not in the definition and description by proponents. RossNixon 29 June 2005 23:39 (UTC)

Usual place? Here are some examples:

In the late 19th century the luminiferous aether ("light-bearing aether"), or ether, was a substance postulated to be the medium for the propagation of light. Later theories, including Einstein's Theory of Relativity, demonstrated that an aether did not have to exist, and today the concept is considered "quaint".

The so-called N rays (or N-rays) were a phenomenon described by French scientist René-Prosper Blondlot but subsequently shown to be illusory.

Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy or homoeopathy), from the Greek words homoios (similar) and pathos (suffering), is a system of alternative medicine, notable for its controversial practice of prescribing water-based solutions that do not contain chemically active ingredients. The theory of homeopathy was developed by the Saxon physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843) and first published in 1796. It has a wide and growing popularity in areas where it is practiced today, but neither its empirical nor its theoretical foundation meets the minimum criteria of the scientific establishment.

You're going to have to reevaluate that statement. The edit stands. Joshuaschroeder 30 June 2005 01:57 (UTC)

Agreed. It is vital that important points of view are represented prominantly in articles where they are pertinant. The mainstream scientific view is certainly important enough to warrant immediate attention in any article on the subject of creationism. Before anyone says it I should note that creationism is not of sufficient import to get the same treatment on the page concerning evolution and certainly not on other minor articles on the same topic. User:Barnaby dawson 30 June 2005 09:18 (UTC)

Sorry, can't agree. Falphin, Ec5618, Project2501a and Dunc agree with me, I believe. Your 3 examples were for theories which have been invalidated by the scientific method. Creation Science can not be invalidated by the same method (not repeatable, observable or measureable). RossNixon 30 June 2005 11:18 (UTC)

For the record, I do not agree with you. For the record, I would appreciate if you didn't talk for me. I can talk for myself, thank you very much. Also, please note, you're playing with words, since creation "science" has been invalidated by the scientific record: If you want your hoccus-poccus to be refered as hard science, you should play by the rules. You're not. All you wish to see, is that critisism is removed from the article. Your behaviour belongs under a bridge, not in an encyclopedia that aspires to be scientific and academic. Also, for the record, I do not agree with your edit. I am much more content with Joshuaschroeder's edit and frankly, i'm itching to revert the article back to his edit. and frankly, i just did. Project2501a 30 June 2005 22:39 (UTC)

Let's let the others speak for themselves, okay Rossnixon? None of them have weighed in on the current edit and I don't think that all of them would agree with you. I picked those three ideas because those ideas all still have a small number of vocal proponents who claim that the scientific method hasn't invalidated their pet (homeopathy having more supporters than creation science, I would wager) just like you do. Your explanations have all fallen short of convincing and if you keep up this vandalism I will start an RfC. Joshuaschroeder 30 June 2005 11:51 (UTC)

Your 3 examples may have small number of vocal proponents, but the scientific method has invalidated their claims. Homeopathy has been proven false with recent double-blind, placebocontrolled, randomized clinical trials. I will allow you to state that most scientists believe CS to be pseudoscience (even though I dispute this), but not in the first paragraph. RossNixon 30 June 2005 21:01 (UTC)

Excuse me? Allow me? Jimbo? is that you?

You can dispute all you want, till the sun explodes in 5 billion years, when the facts, then, will be irrelevant, unless we will move earth. Right now, the facts say that noa never got dinosaurs in the ark and that the bible is a work of literature put together by men who had a bone to pick. sheesh. Project2501a 30 June 2005 22:38 (UTC)

It's not for you to dictate terms as to what appears in the intro and what doesn't. That CS claims to be real science while the actual scientific community says it is not isn't just highly pertinent and worthy of inclusion in the intro, but central to understanding the controversy surrounding CS and why its made no inroads in mainstream science. For that reason alone a complete and factual intro will include how scientists view creation science. FeloniousMonk 30 June 2005 21:19 (UTC)

I think adding the opinion of scientists is completely against the rules of NPOV. It is like adding the opinion of rabbis to an article on bacon. A neutral description requires the definitive facts to be stated before any selected POVs. The fact that CS is pseudoscience must be included. Including the opinion of scientists, however, is just another POV. Bensaccount 30 June 2005 21:59 (UTC)

what about bagels? can rabbis give opinions on the ethics of bagels? *snicker* :) Yatalef yavani! Project2501a 30 June 2005 22:38 (UTC)

Your 3 examples may have small number of vocal proponents, but the scientific method has invalidated their claims. Homeopathy has been proven false with recent double-blind, placebocontrolled, randomized clinical trials. I will allow you to state that most scientists believe CS to be pseudoscience (even though I dispute this), but not in the first paragraph.

Let's see, creation science has a small number of vocal proponents, the scientific method most definitely has invalidated the claims of creation science, and since creation "science" has the word science in it, it makes sense to explain whether it is a science or not in the introductory paragraph which is supposed to describe the term. So I'm unsure as to where you are getting your justification. I think you might want to start a RfC if you want to keep up this POV pushing. Joshuaschroeder 30 June 2005 23:46 (UTC)

You say "most definitely". Please show where Creation Science's belief in "special creation" has been invalidated by repeatable, observable or measureable scientific testing. RossNixon 1 July 2005 01:20 (UTC)

"Special creation" is defined in many ways. If you mean to say where creation science's belief in an Age of the Earth that is only a few thousand years old, maybe you can check the relevent article. Joshuaschroeder 1 July 2005 02:07 (UTC)

As a long-time reader of encyclopedias, I don't think the current first paragraph sounds like an encyclopedia. It seems more interested in making sure nobody takes the subject seriously than it is in explaining the subject.

True, many claims of creation science have been invalidated, as Joshuaschroeder indicates. But creation science makes other claims that, in order to invalidate them according to the scientific method, would require researchers to reoriginate the universe, describe it in a scientific journal, and wait for fellow scientists to repeat the experiment. Mdmcginn 16:40, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

As with many endeavors that are "extra-scientific" there are a variety of claims with a variety of descriptions. The specific claims of creation science are confined to empirical investigation. For those things that require the creation of the entire universe, we have the overarching creationism article which is a belief that isn't necessarily invalidated by the scientific method. Joshuaschroeder 11:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Creation science is pseudoscience

Latest comment: 20 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

There is nothing wrong with calling creation science a pseudoscience since it fits the definition provided on the page referenced. If anyone has any evidence that it doesn't fit that definition, please present it here. I have editted the introduction accordingly. We cannot keep pandering to minority who unreasonably cling to their own idealized versions of reality. Joshuaschroeder 1 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)

Totally agree with Joshua. Seriously, I got better things to do than revert POV pushers. I got a good mind to start an RfC on the next removal of the word pseudoscience. Project2501a 1 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)

That CS is pseudoscience is a matter deductive reasoning, not opinion. Before anyone rushes to type a hasty refutation, I suggest they adjust the scope of their counter-argument to encompass the definition of pseudoscience and how definitions relate to the law of identity. If they do not understand the previous sentence, I suggest they reconsider typing. FeloniousMonk 1 July 2005 21:49 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is by defintion something not accepted by the scientific community, so saying that "the scientific community calls it pseudoscience" is redundant. It IS pseudoscience, by definition. --brian0918™ 1 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Brian gets it. FeloniousMonk 2 July 2005 05:16 (UTC)

Having looked at pseudoscience I agree with Joshuaschroeder. Barnaby dawson 4 July 2005 08:21 (UTC)

I read that the scientists battling creation "science" consider their most important task to be NOT ALLOWING A REDEFINITION OF THE WORD SCIENCE. Keep up the good work, guys. 4.250.177.59 4 July 2005 23:18 (UTC)

Speaking as a scientist, I'd say that in this regard, a scientist's most important job is not allowing the credibility of science or scientific method to be lent to things that are purely matters of religious faith. There is nothing wrong with religious faith. It's just not the same thing as science. The second biggest job of scientists in this regard is to reject the politizing of science that occurs when it is attached to the agenda of one particular part of the political spectrum (e.g. using the guise of "creation science" to change science textbooks' a completely cynical attempt to thrwart constitutional separation of church and state by pretending that divine creation is supported by scientific evidence (which it is not). The thing I find the most funny, is that people of faith who are pushing CS are basically saying "faith is not good enough". As if they themselves, unable to prove the existance of God, feel it necessary to prove his existance by "scientific evidence". I wonder what God thinks about their lack of faith?

As far as this Pseudoscience as a definition for CS goes, "pseudoscience" is being generous, as it implies that there is at least a bit of science in there. Creation Science is anti-science with a misleading name, a wolf in sheeps clothing. But I do disagree that the definition of pseudoscience depends on the opinion of the 'scientific community'. I'll just take the definition in the dictionary. "Pseudo: False; deceptive; sham: example:pseudoscience (American Heritage Dictionary, v4, 2000)". "science: 1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and (not or) theoretical explanation of phenomena.

2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. 3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study

Emphasis and (not or) is mine. So Pseudoscience. Fake-science. CS meets none of the definitions of science, above

Synaptidude 9 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)

• Well said. --brian0918™ 9 July 2005 02:34 (UTC)

There is something disturbing about being so disparaging in the opening paragraph. It smacks of an agenda, which Synaptidude has clearly laid out. This page (or any in an encyclopedia) should not be about an agenda but rather lay out the facts for the reader. Head over to Adolf Hitler and note how their entry paragraph stands. They do not have modifiers in their wording such as "Adolf Hitler was a genocidal megalomaniac." Even though they could link to the genocide and megalomania pages and say that objectively Hitler fit the description of both. Instead, it is factually presented.

My main worry with the inclusion of the word pseudoscience in the opening paragraph is that it sets a tone for the article that may cause readers to immediately tune out. It sets us up as firmly on one side and colors the rest of the article, factual or not, as biased against the topic. S.N. Hillbrand 9 July 2005 12:26 (UTC)

You don't have to pander to any pre-conceived biases, Hillbrand. Just assume the reader knows nothing about the subject before arriving. Either you state the facts or you don't. If you prefer to selectively omit information, it is best for the reader to seek it elsewhere. Hitler was leader of the Nazi party. Thats a fact, like calling CS pseudoscience. Saying he was a megalomaniac is not a known fact. He may have been one, he may have been insane in another way. We don't know. It would be like calling CS harmful and corrupt. It probably is, but we don't know. Bensaccount 9 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)

I think that there is a difference between your example of Adolf Hitler and the example here. The descriptions of Hitler may be apt, but there is no community-based definition for the term. Pseudoscience is very clear that it is just the scientific community who finds fault with the claims of the psuedoscience -- there is no objective way to define a pseudoscience. If the scientific community didn't exist, then psuedoscience wouldn't exist. Therefore the description is purely subjective and describes a major point about "creation science" -- that is that the creation science itself has been evaluated by the scientific community.

While it is true that many people view the term "pseudoscience" as disparaging it can only be said that this is because they view the scientific community in high regard. Otherwise the reader holds a definition that isn't the same that is provided for by Wikipedia. This is why a lot of creation science advocates want the "mainstream scientific community" qualifier because it casts the term in a ridiculously redundant light -- in other words it does the thinking and definitional constraint for the reader.

If someone comes to this page and wants to learn about creation science, they will learn about creation science. If someone comes to this page and wants to see a balanced treatment of the "sides" then they will see that. But if they come to the page with their own axe to grind, they will find plenty to be upset about whether we include the factual subjective descriptor or not. Joshuaschroeder 9 July 2005 12:48 (UTC)

In regards the Hitler reference, take a look at the Genocide and Megalomania pages. Notice that they state facts that accurately describe the actions of the man. Notice, even, that megalomania lists Hitler as an example. The Hitler page has no need of listing these character traits, true though they may be, because it seeks to show rather than tell the reader.

I disagree that a person needs to view the scientific community with distain (what I think you meant to type) in order to see the term pseudoscience as disparaging. Consider the Oxford American Dictionary's definition of the term: "pseudoscience: a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method." Notice too that pseudoscience specifically notes that the term is perjorative. And it makes no mention of the "Scientific Community."

All that I am saying is that good writing shows rather than tells. Right now, we are telling the reader that Creation Science is pseudoscience. This feels unnecessarily supercilious and degrades the overall quality of the article. S.N. Hillbrand 9 July 2005 14:12 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point as to why creation science the enterprise is different from Hitler the man. Creation science is defined as an endeavor that is extraneous to mainstream science, as such it is by definition a pseudoscience. You can read about it on the page. Hitler is a human being who happens to fit the designations you outlined. Creation science does not exist independent from the science it proports to critique and as such exists as a pseudoscience.

You have also completely misunderstood pseudoscience being a disparaging comment, perhaps because you aren't involved in research into the areas of public perceptions of science. First of all, a dictionary definition is not an authority on a subject, please refer to the Wikipedia article for the reference. Second of all, if pseudoscience is disparaging it is only because science is good and that which is not science is bad. If people are under the impression that the reverse is true than pseudoscience is a complement. This is again the problem that creation science advocates have in wanting to have it both ways: both as an external critique to science and as a way of being a replacement or a "truer" form of science. It is not possible to accomodate such duplicity in an NPOV fashion without paying homage to creationism as a scientific explanation for reality.

The best Wikipedia articles are those that are well referenced, cited, and accurate. The succinct first sentence of this article seems to fit these adjectives. Joshuaschroeder 05:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Joshua, if you read Wikipedia's pseudoscience page, you would note that it actually states that the term is disparaging. Additionally, you might want to note the policy against original research. Wikipedia cannot cite itself as the reference for information. Thus, you might want to find some outside information to support your claims. You don't like the dictionary because it doesn't say what you think it should. Fine. To what else would you appeal?

This gets to the rub of my problem with the intro. Imagine someone without prior information on the subject reading the introduction. Then imagine them getting into a discussion with a supporter of Creation Science. They could assert that Creation Science is a pseudoscience but when pressed as to why they think this, they would have to resort to "because Wikipedia told me so." This is referred to as received wisdom. It requires the reader to accept the information on faith. This is precisely what we should be getting away from.

I agree with Joshuaschroeder that the best Wikipedia articles are well referenced and accurate. Stating that Creation Science is a pseudoscience without showing that it is is not well-referenced and while accurate, it does not provide the reader with any more information other than 'some Wikipedians think that this statement is true'. Let's show the reader that this is true rather than telling them. S.N. Hillbrand 13:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

What part of "Creation science picks and chooses the data it is going to interpret and disregards the data that does not fit with the assumptions of creation science, according to Genesis" is not good enough of a justification for the title of pseudoscience for you? We do show that creation science is a pseudoscience. not in the same paragraph, though. it's two paragraphs down. unless people don't read more than the intro, which in case, i should add it the explaination on the first paragraph. So, it's not "because wikipedia told me so", it's "I didn't read the effing article". When going to debate a supporter of creation science, always have your homework done. Project2501a 15:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

No, stating that "Creation science picks and chooses the data it is going to interpret and disregards the data that does not fit with the assumptions of creation science, according to Genesis" two paragraphs down shouldn't be used to justify the statement. First and foremost because that doesn't match the claim of pseudoscience with our own definitions; it is merely saying that it is shoddy work. We should stake our claim of Creation Science being pseudoscience where we have more room to explain and support why. S.N. Hillbrand 16:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Claiming that self-reference in Wikipedia is original research is nonsense. Start an RfC if you don't believe me. Pseudoscience is defined on the page as: Pseudoscience refers to any body of knowledge or practice which purports to be scientific or supported by science but which is judged to fall outside the ___domain of science. The standards applied in such judgements vary, but often make reference to scientific method or failure to apply a heuristic such as Occam's Razor. This applies to creation science as a definition. Joshuaschroeder 17:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree that Creation Science is a pseudoscience. I have stated that numerous times. I am only pointing out that making a claim without support degrades the quality of the article and presents our information as biased from the outset. As to the question of original research, please review Original Research, specifically what is excluded from articles. You will find that defining terms is specifically listed. Given a substantive discrepancy between available dictionaries and the Wiki entry, it seems logical to follow the outside source. S.N. Hillbrand 19:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It isn't a claim, but a statement of fact; a pertinent fact that should be in the lead to clarify Creation "science" is indeed not a science; just as using "him" in the Hitler lead clarifies he was a male. It would be irresponsible for any reference material not to state this on the outset; the fact outside sources (who want to make money) don't mention it speaks to political correctness not objectivity. As to explaining that fact, it is done in the article (not in the lead), and it links to definition of pseudoscience; hence we have not been derelict in our responsibilities and we have not burdened an already ludicrously overbloated lead. There is no bias in calling it pseudoscience. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems that our friend Hillbrand should read the original research bit before claiming that I haven't read it. There is no statement there that says that referencing another Wikipedia article by means of linking is "original research". It says that one should not use original research to define terms, but unless Hillbrand is claiming that the article on pseudoscience is itself original research the argument being made is totally moot. Joshuaschroeder 23:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Dude! Chill! The entire existence of the Pseudoscience CS requires circular reasoning! If you deprive them of that, they have nothing! Have a heart ;-) Synaptidude 23:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Right. That is exactly what I am saying. There is a discrepancy between the term's definition and how it is defined on the pseudoscience page. Check out their talk section and you will see that they go over this very issue. While the definition that they came up with is extremely close to accepted definitions, for our purposes, it cannot be considered authoratative.

BTW, please cool the invective. I did not claim you hadn't read the original research. In fact, I asked to to "review" (i.e. read again) a specific section that I thought pertinent to my point. I respect your contributions to this article and appreciate the concern that we not allow it to give undue credence to a pseudoscience. My only contention is that there may be a better way to do it. S.N. Hillbrand 11:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The definition provided on their page is thoroughly researched and does not represent a violation of wikipedia policy as I understand it. Therefore it does not count as being original research and therefore it is fine to link to it as a means to describe the subject at hand. No one is claiming an "authoratative" definition from the article, only that the article provides the context for the factual description in this article. Again, I remind you that creation science has in its very title the word science, without the clarification off-the-bat, there is no contextual clarification for this idea. Joshuaschroeder 12:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the definition "discussion" on Talk:Pseudoscience is not about whether the definition represents original research but what wording is most appropriate. All three of the different definitions they were considering work precisely the same way for our purposes. Joshuaschroeder 12:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Either you state the facts or you don't. It sounds to me like your goal is to obfuscate things. Bensaccount 9 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)

The lead section is for summary. "Creation science is pseudoscience" is about the most accurate summary with which one can come up. Do you have another suggestion about how to summarize what creation science is? --brian0918™ 9 July 2005 14:22 (UTC)

I honestly don't care whether the word pseudoscience appears in the first paragraph or not. It is an accurate definition of CS, but it would be NPOV to start out with "CS is the view believed by some that there are grounds for juxtaposing creationist views with science...." I would think you could even write it and leave out the word "actually"; as in "CS is the view actually believed by..." some that..." Synaptidude 9 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)

I care. The only statement that is essential for the reader to know, if nothing else about CS is known, is that CS is pseudoscience. Can you think of something else? It is also useful to give the major subjects of the pseudoscience (ie. origin of universe). CS is not a view btw. Bensaccount 20:51, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Science

Scientists have gone on record saying their most important objective in the creation-evolution debate is to not allow a redefinition of the word "science". ANY theory relying on redefining science is a psudo-science and should be labeled so. If you wish to argue that creation science isn't a psudo-science, science is the place to have (and lose) that argument. Personally, I think most of the arguments between the two camps are are epistemological (nature of knowledge) arguments that science is a process that does not lead to creationist ideas versus ontological (belief or knowledge of existence) arguments trying to justify redefining the axioms of science to include an additional axiom such that the existence of God beomes a conclusion of this newly defined concept of science. The two sides talk past each other mostly. Scientists (real ones) who believe in God typically understand that things can exist without also being scientifically justifyable. I am an atheist myself (used to be a Christian) but science is by definition objective, and does not even pretend to encompass subjective truths that lack objective verification. The subjective experience of conciousness for example can only be dealt with scientifically with objectively verifyable correlates (Who claims to be concious and when. What brain activity occurs at the time and so on.) Noone knows what data is left out of science due to its self defined limits, but to the extent that data is ever able to generate useable predictions, that data becomes part of science itself. Science is therefore the sum of verified objectively useful data. Other nonscientific beliefs such as belief in God can be and are subjectively useful. How real that makes the belief is debateable. 4.250.201.166 8 July 2005 23:10 (UTC)

Ordering Philosophy and theology

The trouble with the philosophy and theology section being put where it is currently is that it isn't only a description, it also contains scientific rebuttals of the basic principles, many of which are substantially covered in the "Scientific criticisms" section. If we're going to have a separate section called "scientific criticism", which I assume would include methodological criticism of all types, then that's where it belongs. The options as I see it are: to have an introductory section which introduces the basic positions of creation science, then a detailed examination and rebuttal in a separate analysis section; or to have the positions and the analysis expounded at the same time, without a separate "criticisms" section. The current version introduces redundancy and would need substantial rewording, always risky on a contentious article. Slac speak up! 6 July 2005 23:24 (UTC)

good point. personally, i think it would be better to eliminate redundancy by folding the criticism into the philosophy + theology, with the criticism sorted by topic and placed in context. the problem with having the whole section as a subsection of criticism is that it's not all criticism, either. what do you say we fold criticism into phil + theo, to address the criticism issue by issue? Ungtss 7 July 2005 19:37 (UTC)

Sounds good. Yeah "criticism" isn't really the right word: it's more sort of a general analysis. But I think that would work.

Criticism of Evolution

Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

No, I am not making one. Rather, under the section "Scientific criticisms of creation science" there is the line "Evolution suffers from this same shortcoming, but most scientists would prefer not to mention this for fear that it would show that Evolution is not in fact a scientific theory either." I do not believe this line shoulld be here for three reasons, but I'd like to list them before deleting it myself.

1. The line is an attack on evolution, rather than a discussion of creation science. As such, it should be left to fair on its own in evolution, rather than here.
2. It is a highly POV statement, as written.
3. It may be factually false. The author is claiming in essence that scientists cannot demonstrate speciation. The links at the bottom of that article provide ample evidence to disprove this claim. Icelight 03:20, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

   Icelight. You can take out the "may" in your last statement there. The assertion that Theory of Evolution suffers from the same shortcomings as CS is simply false. Factually and demonstrably false. If there is an idea in Biology that has been examined by objective scientific method more than the Theory of Evolution, I'd be interested to hear it. The so-called "shortcomings" claimed by CS'ers come from:

   1. a misunderstanding of the word "Theory" in science. "Theory" is one step shy of "Law". Scientists label something a "Theory" when there is nothing left to prove or debate except the details.
      • Actually, no. Theories will never become laws. Theories and laws describe different things, but are both held to be equally valid. --brian0918™ 16:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
   2. When CS'ers are asked to point specifically to the scientific weaknesses of The Theory of Evolution, they will invariably point to some minor detail that is still being argued. A detail that in no way addesses the validity of the Theory as a whole. The Theory has been bashed by scientists for decades (because that is what scientists do: the try to disprove an idea) and the Theory has met every test.

   Again, what I don't understand is this: science is science, faith is faith. Scientists don't generally go around trying to disprove the existence of God. So why would people of faith try to disprove the basis of science? The only logical answer I can come up with is that they have too little faith in their own God, that they have to attack the works of men studying natural fact. Synaptidude 05:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

   • They are often trying to show that science requires just as much faith as a belief in the supernatural, effectively "religiosifying" (cool word) science for several reasons, notably to require teaching of religious beliefs in the classroom. --brian0918™ 16:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, supporting my contention that CS is basically a political movement.

You really don't have to discuss something that blatantly POV before deciding to remove it. It was likely added by an anonymous vandal at some point and was never reverted. I've removed it. --brian0918™ 16:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Just trying to feel my way into a new, somewhat contested, (heh) page for the first time. --Icelight 15:38, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal

Latest comment: 20 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion

Currently, the introduction feels off. I worry that it will encourage people to immediately dismiss the entire article. I recognize that this concern is far from shared by everyone, so perhaps we can find a suitable wording that addresses both ideas. Toward this end, I would submit the following opening:

Creation science (or CS) is a movement that attempts to redefine a number of biological and physical sciences in terms of Abrahamic creationism. Its premise requires several assumptions that do not comply with the scientific method and, as such, is a pseudoscience and a misnomer. It is primarily concerned with issues such as the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, evolution, a global flood and the origin of humanity. Creation science as an organised movement is primarily centered within the United States, although creation science organisations are not unknown in other countries.

Warning: Last paragraph modified by me after Hillbrand. Barnaby dawson 14:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Or, we could just eat the Irish children. S.N. Hillbrand 13:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I think Scottish children taste better (No disrespect to Swift). Note that I have no evidence for this. Barnaby dawson 14:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Mmmm...Salty. S.N. Hillbrand 18:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think "is judged by the mainstream scientific community" is necessary. In how many other articles would we also have to include this phrase, where it is currently assumed that the mainstream scientific community has the valid response? --brian0918™ 15:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. What do you think of the current mod? S.N. Hillbrand 18:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The current version, which doesn't have the weasel words, is acceptable. --brian0918™ 19:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Your proposal omits the fact that CS is pseudoscience. Selectively omitting information in an attempt to gain more readers is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Bensaccount 16:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Please read again. The statement of it being a pseudoscience is in the second sentence. S.N. Hillbrand 18:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Just another small edit. Barnaby dawson 18:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

IMHOP This proposed version is much better now, but it is still less eloquent than the current version and although CS does try to redefine science, this is not a definititive characteristic. Its more just a side-effect of its attempt to pass for science. Bensaccount 03:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with the proposal. Namely that it says that the reason creation science is a pseudoscience and a misnomer is because it requires "several assumptions". This isn't the only reason it is a psuedoscience and a misnomer. A number of the proposals included in creation science including the flood geology and creationist cosmology proposals are simply pseudoscience because they are nonsense (i.e. contain ridiculously inaccurate and incorrect claims such as a decaying speed of light). These are evaluable completely independent of their assumptions, they are wrong because they propose phenomena for which there is no evidence. Joshuaschroeder 05:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

That is a fair criticism. I will attempt to address this. Would you agree, however, that a decaying speed of light or light being created in transit are assumptions that do not comply with the scientific method? That is really the point I am trying to emphasize, that Creationism's starting assumptions cannot be disproven because they are stated as supernaturual.S.N. Hillbrand 12:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

They actually aren't "assumptions" as much as they are pseudoscientific ideas that are meant to explain other assumptions (specifically associated with the Bible). It is important to realize that while there are assumptions implicit to creation science, creation science is also not "science" for the methodology, evidence, and out-and-out lies. Joshuaschroeder 12:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

So would you say it is a fair statement that the claims Creation Science makes are based on a single, fundamental assumption about the existence of a supernatural entity, that this assumption does not fit the scientific method and for this reason, it cannot be considered a science? S.N. Hillbrand 13:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

While there are claims of creation science based on this assumption, there are also claims of creation science that are made for other reasons (being anti-science, having a limitted understanding of science, poor research, no research, etc.) that make creation science something that should not be considered a science. So it isn't a fair statement because all the problematic claims aren't based on that single fundamental assumption. Joshuaschroeder 13:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

OK. Which claim do you view as that of the majority? Which ones fit the category of significant minority? S.N. Hillbrand 17:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where this "majority/minority" distinction is coming from. We are talking about the claims of creation science, not the claims of people in a two-party system. Joshuaschroeder 21:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Harris Poll / RfC

Latest comment: 20 years ago37 comments8 people in discussion

This poll[1] by Harris Interactive was just released last week. Based on this and the NPOV guidelines, I think that we need to seriously rework the introduction and I withdraw my previous suggestion for the introduction as I now believe that it too is POV.

I think we should take Project2501a up on his/her suggestion and submit an RfC. Here are the key points as I see them:

• Currently, we state as fact that "Creation Science is a pseudoscience"
• The majority of Americans surveyed by Harris report believing in direct creationism (64%) and an additional 10% report believing in Intelligent Design
• NPOV defines a fact as "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute"
  • Given the current dispute about Creationism, we need to represent the characterization of Creation Science as a fact about an opinion as in "The majority of scientists believe that Creation Science is a pseudoscience."

Let's see if we can't work this out to an NPOV representation of topic. S.N. Hillbrand 18:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The fact that a majority of Americans believe in Creation and/or intelligent design does not in any way change the fact that CS is pseudoscience. It has no bearing on the definition. A majority of children believe that the tooth fairy is real, but it would not be NPOV to state "The tooth fairy is a fantasy believed by most children" Synaptidude 18:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Pls see the definition of "fact" on the NPOV#A_simple_formulation page. S.N. Hillbrand 19:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

You're forgetting the definition of pseudoscience. Given that definition, creation science is pseudoscience, regardless of public opinion (since the definition of pseudoscience doesn't hinge on the opinions of the public). On the WP:NPOV page, I'm not sure if you're referring to the sentence stating "That a survey produced a certain published result is a fact"; this is not saying that surveys define what a fact is, but rather that the statement "92% said yes" is a fact. --brian0918™   19:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to that part, because I assume it is obvious that the results of the survey are not in dispute. Rather, I refer to the definition of fact as "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." I would suggest that the results of the survey show that there is a dispute about whether or not Creation Science is a pseudoscience. Pls note that in pseudoscience they specifically state that adherents often reject the classification. Since the survey shows a majority of Americans believe in Creationism, I think it safe to say that they would reject the label of pseudoscience.

Please also read the borderline case [2] on Wikimedia for additional guidance. S.N. Hillbrand 19:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

We are talking about Creation science, not creationism. Besides, the majority of biologists don't take the American public's collective opinion seriously (ie there is no serious dispute). Again I refer to the definition of pseudoscience, which relies solely on the opinions of the scientific community, not the American community. If you would like to reference a term which relies on the negative opinions of the American public (eg "Contramerican"), then we can say in the article that "creation science is a pseudoscience but is not contramerican". --brian0918™   19:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Contramerican? is that a neologism? wow, been out of the US too long. Project2501a 20:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, just made it up as an example. --brian0918™   20:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Response to RfC: It seems to me from reading the volumes of past discussion here about whether or not creation science is a 'pseudoscience', that we are unlikely to reach a consensus. I have a feeling that the continuing debate is shedding more heat than light on the subject. I'm inclined to agree with the sentiments of Richard Dawkins: "By all means let creation science be taught in the schools. It should take all of about 10 minutes to teach it and then children can be allowed to make up their own minds in the face of evidence. For children who study hard and keep an open mind, it seems to me utterly inconceivable that they could conclude anything other than that evolution is true." I think the same applies here - the facts speak for themselves, and the point in the header that 'it is judged by the mainstream scientific community to fail to comply with the scientific method' makes the situation clear enough. I suggest that the words 'a pseudoscience' in the opening sentence contribute no extra useful information to the article. --Keithlard 20:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree; except that I think it relevant that the majority of the scientific community do consider creation science to be pseudoscience. But this is an appeal to authority, and should be clearly set out as such. Banno 12:44, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

• "Pseudoscience" is by definition something judged by the mainstream scientific community to fall outside the ___domain of science. --brian0918™   21:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

NAY, i say! :D unfortunately, the "children who study hard and keep an open mind" are a minority in today's school system. Not everybody knows the air speed of an unladden swallow, my friend, and the way your average disfranchised student is, they are more likely to go with the flow than think about it. I am of the opinion, that, unlike the Guards in the castle, not everybody has the sense to ask if we are talking about an African swallow or European. "Devil is in the details", the English say. And those details are what the demagaugs(sp) use to twist the public's opinion in their favour. The other way, is to continually change the subject ;) Project2501a 02:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I quite see your point, and I too worry that people who know no better will read about creation science in Wikipedia and assume that gives it some kind of spurious credibility. However, I would rather they read a NPOV article about it here, than a partisan article somewhere else. NPOV is a difficult tightrope to walk, and to me, the words 'is a pseudoscience' topple the article from that tightrope in the very first sentence (as much as I heartily agree with them). We need to reflect all views where possible, and plenty of people (however mistakenly) do not regard it as a pseudoscience. Given the long-running and bitter dispute here, though, I don't see this being resolved by discussion any longer - perhaps it should be put to a vote? Godwin's Law is now in effect, so perhaps it's time. -- Keithlard 10:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

that's your personal conviction, thought. Personal conviction or not, CS is still by definition a pseudoscience. "Plenty"? 35 million baptists are not a lot compared to everybody else. if they feel different, well, it doesn't change the fact one bit; the article does reflect their convictions.

Brian0918, can you cite that definition from somewhere? I can't seem to find it either on the pseudoscience page or in my dictionary. S.N. Hillbrand 01:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The pseudoscience article said that at some point. I'm not sure why it just says "is judged" now. Who's doing the judging now? Anyone? --brian0918™   02:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Wiki is an international project. Why would the opinion of just citizens of the US even be relevant? Banno 21:24, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

the opinion of just US citizens is important, because the whole "creation science" sillyness started in the united states. and that is where the heart of the matter is. and that's where the world looks toward to, when they hear about such sillyness in their own back-yard. Project2501a 02:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, Banno. The only reason why the US poll is important is that it shows a substantial number of people hold a certain opinion. Their nationality is unimportant, only that their view be given representation. S.N. Hillbrand 01:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Three things. First I thought the interesting thing written in NPOV#A_simple_formulation was "Whether God exists or not is a question of fact, not a question of value. But as the fact is essentially undiscoverable, so far as anyone knows, whether God exists will usually be couched in terms of opinion or value.

Second thing. A definition of pseudoscience does not depend on the opinion of the scientific community. It depends on the definition of science and the scientific method. CS fails to meet either of those definitions so proclaiming that CS is pseudoscience is a fact, not an opinion.

Third thing. You are confusing creationism and Creation science. Creationism is a belief. A completely legitimate belief. No one is disputing anyone's right to hold that belief. The majority of Americans believe in creationism? Good for them! But Creation Science is not a belief. Creation science is an attempt to have people believe that the biblical account of creation can be proven by the scientific method. But creation science cannot use the scientific method unless 1) The assertions are testable and potentially disprovable, 2) One starts with the data, rather than the conclusion (scientific method does not allow one to "know" the answer first and then proceed to "prove it", and 3) One does not selectively remove data that disproves your hypothesis on the basis that it disproves the hypothesis. None of these conditions (there are more!) can be met by CS, and therefore the fact remains: it is pseudoscience. Its a fact, not an opinion. Synaptidude 01:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Well said, Synaptidude :D . Project2501a 02:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Synaptidude, note the sentence immediately following the one you quoted in NPOV#A_simple_formulation: To state as a fact that "the existence of God is an opinion", while seeming to be sensitive to the issue, implies that there is no fact being discussed (postmodernism or strong agnosticism), or that it is relatively unimportant (secular bias). We have our own biases in this article and need to be aware of them in order to root them out.

Second, you will need to source your definition of pseudoscience. What you are calling its definition is neither in the pseudoscience page nor in my dictionary. Since there is some debate on this point, we can easily put this quote to a source.

Third, I think that your definition of the scientific method is off. There are four important points and they are listed on Scientific Method. I don't disagree that your points are valid and required to good science but I would dispute that their lack makes something definitionally a pseudoscience.

Lastly, remember that a "fact" is required to be something about which there is no serious debate. I'm not certain how we can debate about whether there is a debate. The key points of the debate are listed quite prominently in the article itself. The debate exists, whether we want it to or not. S.N. Hillbrand 12:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

A bit of close analysis

Hillbrand's argument goes like this:

1. The article claims that creation science is a pseudoscience.
2. A large number of US adults hold to creationism or intelligent design
3. An NPOV fact must be largely undisputed
4. Therefor the present representation is POV

A quick look will show that this is a non sequitur, unless one includes an additional assumption that: the opinion of US adults is what determines if some topic is a pseudoscience. Without that assumption, the conclusion simply does not follow.

But, and this is made clear in pseudoscience, it is not the opinion of US adults that determines if something is a pseudoscience, but the opinion of the scientific community. So Hillbrand's argument fails. Project is also wrong; for the same reason. That Creation Science started in the States does not make the opinion of US citizens any more relevant to the debate than that of a random sample of Croatian Electricians (and before anyone asks, I have nothing against Croatian electricians).

Synaptidude makes three claims. The first, that the existence or otherwise of God is an expression of opinion, seems irrelevant to Hillbrand's argument. What fact is not also an expression of opinion?

Synaptidude also claims that "(The)definition of pseudoscience... depends on the definition of science and the scientific method". A look at Scientific Method shows that there is no one scientific method, rather that "The scientific method is not a recipe". A look at pseudoscience shows that "a clear philosophical distinction between science and pseudoscience is neither possible nor desirable". It appears that it is not possible to clearly differentiate between science and pseudoscience by definition.

I would propose that in the case of resolving this issue, its not really fair to use definitions from Wikipedia itself. Eventually this might be acceptable, but to use one disputed article to support another disputed article is specious. Whoever said they couldn't find "pseudoscience" in the dictionary either looked in the wrong dictionary or just didn't look right. The definition of "pseudo" from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:

  False or counterfeit; fake.

pref.

  1. False; deceptive; sham: pseudoscience.
  2. Apparently similar: pseudocoel.

[Greek, from pseuds, false]

Funny how the dictionary definition of "Pseudo" uses "pseudoscience" as the exemplar use. Synaptidude 17:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Instead, calling creation science a pseudoscience is expressing an opinion, making a value judgement. Now there is nothing wrong with this, it's not even POV, even in the Wiki, provided that one says whose opinion or judgement it is. It should not be hard to find one of the many surveys of the scientific community, or the words of a few eminent scientists, to back up the claim. That is what is needed for the article. Banno 12:36, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

OOOOOOH! Was *that* what was needed? Oh, cool, no problem, let me check some books i got byDonald Knuth (Things a computer scientist never talks about), Stephen Jay Gould's The Selfish Gene, Douglas Hofstader, and Stephen Hawking. I believe those are good enough sources. Gimmie till 12am UTC. Project2501a 16:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You make a good point, however, I think that the implied assumption I make is not that the opinion of US adults is what determines if some topic is a pseudoscience but rather that 74% of US adults constitutes at least a substantial minority opinion. Thus it should be stated as majority opinion rather than fact that Creation Science is a pseudoscience. S.N. Hillbrand 14:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Your argument is based on whether it is largely undisputed, while the policy says that a fact is seriously undisputed. The opinions of Gene Ray aren't taken seriously, and I doubt that scientists take the opinions of the US public seriously (except to acknowledge that it is a serious problem).
2. You're also trying to claim that creationism is creation science, which it isn't. The poll has no impact on this article. --brian0918™   14:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not want to conflate creationism with creation science, however, I think that there is more than a small amount of overlap. Given that the question asked "How do you think humans came to be?" and only 22% answered "Evolution" while 64% answered "Created directly by God" and 10% answered "Intelligent Design", that makes a direct statement about people's beliefs in the physical processes that created them. That is Creation Science. I would not expand that to say that they also believe in Flood Geology or Young Earth or other such things but it would be difficult to deny any relation between the survey and people's opinions on evolution (mentioned as a key part of CS in the intro).

Could you say what you mean by seriously? I took it to mean, if only Gene Ray and 4 other people believe in Time Cubes, that is not serious. But if the majority of adults in America believe in direct creationism and not evolution, that would be serious. All we need to resolve this is attribution to the statement of CS being a pseudoscience. S.N. Hillbrand 18:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely with your suggestions. Simply referring to the scientific community is less than specific. How much do computer scientists know about speciation? Looks like someone's actually going to have to do some research *gasp* --brian0918™   14:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Note to Hillbrand: That 74% represents people who believe in creationism, not creation science. Please cease your attempt to spin statistics.

Note to Banno: Science is different from pseudoscience and it is quite easy to differentiate them. Pseudoscience means unscientific but mistakenly regarded as science. Please clarify where you are having difficulty; do you think it is impossible to define something as unscientific, or do you find it hard to tell if something unscientific is being regarded as science? Bensaccount 15:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It gets a bit hard to follow the thread in this mess, doesn't it. No, Ben; I think that it is possible to come up with an account of what is unscientific, but that such an account would be, obviously, a judgement, and therefore POV. So in stating the judgement, one must cite the source. Saying "Creation science is pseudoscience" is stating an opinion; so it is relevant whose opinion it is. Creation scientists think creation science is science. The National Academy think it isn't. State that, and let the reader decide who's opinion they think the better. Banno 20:35, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Follow up in the new section I created. Bensaccount 21:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Bensaccount 14:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• I think the problem he's having is who is determining what is unscientific. Since the pseudoscience article leaves out "judged by the scientific community", it seems like anyone can do the judging. We still stick with the scientific community (or "experts") on other articles, so I don't understand why we don't here. This would be comparable to saying that "a poll of all people showed that 95% believe that dragonflies bite or sting people", when in fact that's completely false; I'm sure most entomologists know this. Why should we regard the public opinion here (ignoring the differences between "creationism" and "creation science"), but not in the dragonfly article? --brian0918™   15:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Brian, you've hit my objection spot on. The appellation 'pseudoscience', when stated as fact is a case of special pleading (the first bullet). What we can acurrately state as fact is that "X says Creation Science is a pseudoscience." Where X could be the majority of scientists or the National Academy of Sciences or whatever authority we wish to cite. S.N. Hillbrand 16:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, science does not depend on judgement. You are confusing science with consensus science or belief. Bensaccount 16:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

"science does not depend on judgement" - ?? Banno 20:35, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Science depends on observation never judgement. Bensaccount 21:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not confusing anything. The article on pseudoscience says it is "judged to fall outside the ___domain of science". I don't necessarily agree with that statement, but that's what it says. --brian0918™   16:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Banno's analysis is correct. CS is by definition a pseudo-science. Every argument claiming otherwise is by necessity a special pleading, a logical fallacy, and hence specious. This has been proved and settled time and again other the months, and promptly resurrected by CS proponents each time. The time has long past for those defending CS to stop wasting other editors time with specious reasoning. FeloniousMonk 16:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't suppose there is any going against the man allowed here, but the Wikipedia definition of a "fact" is flat out ridiculous. Not in dispute? In 1400 that the earth is round was in dispute. However, during that entire dispute, the earth was in fact, round. The 'not in dispute' criterion gives total power to just one crackpot who wants to dispute proven fact. We can all agree that the sun rises in the east, but if some minority of people dispute that, it's not a fact? Synaptidude 17:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Synaptidude about the definition of fact; I looked askance at it myself when I first read it. KathL 06:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, I am really not used to talk pages, so forgive me if I'm putting this in the wrong place, but I forgot to say it before: The poll cited is a poll of 1,000 adults in the US, by telephone. I would say that with the small sample and the self-selection that goes on in telephone polls, this is not really a reference I would want to base any conclusions on. KathL 06:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

"many" vs "most"

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

rv, logical fallacy: third world "concervative views" are not near southern baptist conservative views, where Creation "science" originated. Project2501a 02:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Suggested Quote

Latest comment: 20 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Here is a suggestion for proper attribution of CS being pseudoscience:

The United States National Academy of Sciences [3] states that Creation Science is a pseudoscience and a misnomer.

-- S.N. Hillbrand 21:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

That source does not refer to creation science, nor does it use the words pseudoscience or misnomer. We cannot attribute this based on this source. -- Ec5618 20:04, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

That page does not, but there is discussion (negative) of CS within the document. I did not see either 'pseudoscience' or 'misnomer,' on the pages that I read. Dan Watts 20:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I dropped an extra 5 in the URL. Here is the correct reference as Synaptidude pointed out [4]. By stating that Creation Science is not science, they have defined it as both a misnomer and pseudoscience. So, I think that the attribution is fair. What say you, Dan? S.N. Hillbrand 20:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I concur that you can, with impunity, state: '"X" states that CS is not science' where X is whatever the (proper) link to NAS is. 'Pseudoscience' and 'misnomer' will need another source. Dan Watts 21:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, how about this then? The official, directly attributable policy of National Academy of Sciences:

"The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested. These observations lead to two fundamental conclusions: the teaching of evolution should be an integral part of science instruction, and creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes."

Source: Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition

Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, ISBN: 0-309-53224-8, 48 pages,National Academy of Sciences Synaptidude 20:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

If you must have a source you may try this link [5] which uses the word 'pseudoscience' (I do not know about 'misnomer'). Dan Watts

Where in the article does it say "creation science" is pseudoscience? (too lazy). --brian0918™   21:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Alright, since people seem to agree that we can say "it is in fact not science", which is equivalent to saying "it is not scientific", provided that we link the source, this can be implemented into the article for now by replacing the word "pseudoscientific" with "unscientific", and linking to the source. I'll implement this, and anyone who finds sources for pseudoscientific and misnomer can add on as well. --brian0918™   21:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Brian, the current version does give the impression that there are alternatives to science. I'll take it, though, for the time beign, and i'll keep searching for the pseudoscience quote. 23:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Why CS is unscientific

Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

Creation is a religious belief which (as of yet) there is no way to test. It has nothing to do with the opinion of scientists. Hence there is no need for a citation. Bensaccount 21:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Banno says 'any account of what is unscientific is a judgement'. However, accounting for what is science depends not on personal judgement but by whether it stands up to systematic observation and experiment. Bensaccount 21:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This is not really the place to discuss the pros and cons of methodology. So I will not (I hope) be drawn into an extended discussion of the nature of science. But, in reply to the specific point made by Ben: when it is decided (by whomever) "whether it stands up to systematic observation and experiment" a judgement is made; science necessarily involves making a choice between statements. Judgement - personal or otherwise - is involved. Banno 22:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think including the citation makes the article more informative; the alternative is a blatant statement like the one with which you stared this section, and which is obviously POV. Those who do creation science (mistakenly) think that they are doing science. The best way to show that they are wrong is to show that real scientists do not agree with them; that their specific methods are faulty; that their judgements are biased by their religious dogma; and that their reasoning is faulty - not by hiding behind slogans like "creation science is pseudoscience". Banno 22:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

What the scientist doing the experiment judges is irrelevant. What matters is if the observations support the hypothesis. The scientist can argue that there is no support for gravity but the observation of the apple falling supports it anyways. The problem with trying to argue with Banno, is that he doesn't believe in reality. Bensaccount 23:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

How presumptuous! I am no idealist, and am insulted by that accusation. Answer my argument, if you will; but don't start throwing insults. Banno 23:31, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

To repeat my question, how is it decided that the "observations support the hypothesis" without someone making a judgement? Banno 23:37, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Do you not recall our long discussion on talk:truth? Was it not you who was trying to remove any definition of truth even within context? It is not decided. Either they do or they don't. Who decides that the apple falls due to gravity? -- It is just observed. Bensaccount 23:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh! is that still bothering you? Get over it and move on. As I said, this is not the place. Banno 23:49, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

(isn't it time to do some archiving around here? Banno)

"Psudoscience" accusations are unencyclopedic

Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

To flat out say "Creation science is psudoscience" is unencyclopedic and POV. To say, on the other hand, that "The national science foundation says that creation science is unencyclopedic on page three of the creation science pamphlet" or other well-referenced documentation for this claim is encyclopedic. Samboy 08:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks like the content of this article is getting better. I just added another reference supporting the "Unscientific" claim (The Steve List, namely). Samboy 20:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

While I appreciate your diligence in adhering to some Wikipolicies; unscientific is not an accusation, it is a fact and does not need referencing in the least. If it (creation science) hypothesizes supernatural causes; it does not follow a core tenet of science; which is naturalism. Repeating its unencyclopedic does not make it so and happens to be categorically wrong; whether its in line with Wikipolicy is debatable at best. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The reason I'm being careful is because "unscientific" can be viewed as pejorative if the claim is not backed up. Blindly used, it's like religious conservatives using the word "unbiblical" or "moral decay". Samboy 00:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)