Talk:Scientific creationism

The article that used to be Scientific creationism was merged with Creationism and then subsequently dropped altogether. The newer article, treating Scientific creationism in particular separate from the ideologic Creation Science should have a different talk page.

However, in the interest of keeping that discussion around in case someone wants to see it, it can be found at Talk for Older Article

Kuiper Belt/Oort Cloud Problem

"Scientists, in response to this known problems, have hypothesized first an Oort Cloud and then a Kuiper Belt, where they hypothesize comets to exist and occasionally fall into our solar system. While neither of these have been found, they have also not been disproven."

This is patently false - while the Oort Cloud remains an unproven hypothesis as far as I know, hundreds of objects have been found that are part of the Kuiper Belt, Sedna being one of them.

This should be clarified.

Postulates Problem

There is a problem with the postulates section of the article. The article states:

"Modern science is founded on several postulates, but the three that are most relevant regarding its difference with creationism are the principal of uniformitarianism and the idea that evolution and ambiogenesis together are completely responsible for all life on earth."

The second and third posulates are completely irrelevant to a field like physics, which should be considered a modern science.

This needs to be clarified.

"Modern Science" is a superstructure of scientific beliefs. Physics might be a modern science without using beliefs directly, but the collection of generally accepted theories today do use them.Phantym

NPOV disputed

The following sections noted after glancing at this article struck me as not being NPOV:

• For those theories described above which are fully scientific, a collection of specific predictions can and have been made. Creation scientists, using a young earth or young universe model, have accurately predicted magnetic fields of other planets prior to our observations [1] , rates of helium diffusion [2], [3] , and radioactive carbon 14 retention in putatively ancient rocks [4].

• • I very much doubt that these statements relate to reality.

The references are given if you wish to verify them. If a paper is published predicting data that no scientist on earth knows yet [such as the magnetic fields of planet prior to their being met by Voyager] it is hard to refute them.Phantym

Three of those links do not work (ICR may have had a change in its website design). The forth is roundly debunked by [[1]] article on talk origins.

• Given the political, religious, and scientific implications of one or the other paradigm being accurate, scientists on both sides have fallen prey to "finding what they are searching for" when investigating evidence for their theories.

• • I for one don't agree that there is symetry between the two sides on this point.

Both mainstream and creationist science is riddled with situations where people were more intent on showing their theory correct than seeking scientific truth. The article simply makes it clear with powerful examples that this is true across the board. Both examples are strong indictments to the communities to which they pertain.

I'm sure some mainstream scientists are inept, corrupt or biased. However, practically all "creation scientists" are. You may not agree with me here but it is certainly not NPOV to say that both sides are equally bad (or imply as much).

• Creation scientists level a collection of claims suggesting that the earth is younger than modern science typically suggests. These attempts have often been denigrated by mainstream scientists. It should be remembered when discussing the relevant criticism and responses that in a debate of 10 people versus 1, the one person must work 100 times as hard (as he has 10 times as many claims to refute and only 1/10 the manpower).

• • This is a biased view of the nature of scientific debate. One person can convince the scientific community if their arguments are good enough.

It would be nice if this were the case, but I don't think human nature allows. Francis Bacon was unable to convince the scientistists of his time that the speed of light is finite. John Snow had mediocre success trying to convince the scientists of his time that germs caused disease rather than "miasma." Semmelweiss had practically no success trying to get doctors to wash their hands before delivering babies for pregnant mothers. Or, for a particularly telling example, consider Einstein's theory of relativity. Even TEN YEARS after he had proposed it, including what I think you will agree are rather good reasons, the scientific community refused to accept it. In 1921 when Einstein received the Nobel prize, relativity was not menationed at all! A more modern example is William Tift's work on quantization of red shift. Proposed and supported with evidence in 1977, it has been verified at least 4 times by separate scientists at Oxford, University of Arizona, Canadian National Research Center, and the Royal Observatory at Edinburgh. The last verification was in 2003, yet scientists still refuse to accept it.

However, while I do not think the statement is inaccurate, I do agree it is probably POV, so I have removed it.

Phantym

I expect that there are many more sections that need to be looked at.

This article currently does not have sufficient critical comment from the mainstream scientific community. I am tempted to put it up for Vfd but first I thought I'd give people a chance to discuss issues and to rewrite the article. Barnaby dawson 18:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why in the world would you put this up for Vfd??? I see no grounds for it. [By the way, Creationism was put up for Vfd earlier and the vote for deletion was roundly beaten].

The article references (with links) about a dozen outside articles of criticism by "Mainstream" scientists. The article furthermore already indicates that mainstream scientists denounce creationism, I don't see what else you would want. Anything more would probably be PoV. The article is well-references and describes the work of creationists as well as specific criticism of that work. It is much less POV than Creation Science or Creationism. Changing the article to be "Mainstream Science's view on Scientific Creationism" seems hardly appropriate.

I am appreciative of the changes and remarks you and others have made recently (as upposed to Joshuaschroder, who has an editing policy much less in line with wikipedia's official guidelines).

Phantym

My problems with this article reach far beyond merely those three points mentioned above. Neither do I think your responses to those points are convincing. I am not prepared to allow such strongly POV material to be manifest on a wikipedia page. I am perfectly happy to have this page as a redirect. I understand that you feel that this article is distinct in subject from creation science however, I do not see the distinction. If you or others continue to repost this POV article then I feel some action is required. In such a case I would like to gain some form of community decision on the issue. Perhaps VfD is not the best way to do this but I would seek some recognised method. I would suggest that you move material from the history of this page into creation science as appropriate and NPOV it in the process. Barnaby dawson 29 June 2005 17:18 (UTC)

Barnaby Dawson has my full support, all pejorative comments from Phantym aside. There seems to be only one person right now who has made a case for why this page should stay and that would be Phantym, but that reasoning is ridiculous. I have, in fact, used the definition provided on this page to help deal with the definition on the creation science page. The topics are absolutely one and the same. As far as I'm concerned, Phantym has invented a neologism to suit his own fancy and allow for an article to exist that is free from editorial control. This was an underhanded technique to try to get an article that was rejected on Wikipedia. It should not be legitimized. Let Phantym join the rest of the editors at creation science if he wants material here included (though most of the material here is covered better on the creation science page). Joshuaschroeder 29 June 2005 17:46 (UTC)

The article has been moved

There is no difference between this subject and creation science. The articles have been merged. Please continue editing on the other page.

Thanks,

Joshuaschroeder 20:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As reported in the article itself, lexicographers see a difference between the two. As this difference is emphasized in the very first paragraph I can hardly see how you could have missed it. See Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary. Phantym

It is strange that you feel that way, Phantym, because you wrote the exact text of this article for Creation Science back in May. See User:Phantym/Creation science rewrite proposal. As I recall, your edits were not accepted there, whereupon you came over here, took off the redirect, which had been in place since March, and pasted in your text. This lexicographic difference you suggest seems awfully convenient. S.N. Hillbrand 28 June 2005 19:48 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience" removed

I have removed the category tag to "Pseudoscience." The term is a pejorative that is both POV and inaccurate. A scientific theory is one that is built upon a model and makes testible predictions. Since there are theories based on creationist postulates that have doen exactly that, it is incorrect to label the field "pseudoscience"

Abiogenesis is not considered pseudoscience, though I fail to see how it contains any falsifiable hypothesis.

Phantym

I will turn this into a redirect again. This page is a shameless attempt to push POV on wikipedia. I don't recognise any difference between this topic and creation science. If you carry on replacing this material I shall submit this page for VfD. 194.222.190.174 29 June 2005 13:13 (UTC) (This is user:Barnaby dawson. For some reason my account is playing up currently).