Talk:Creation science: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:17, 17 February 2021 editApokryltaros (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers79,982 edits →I believe that this page does not show a neutral point of view: please read the boilerplates at the top of the talkpage and read the "frequently asked questions" sections first before engaging in WP:SOAPBOX or WP:NOTAFORUM to complain about "unfairness"Tag: Manual revert ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 18:44, 1 December 2024 edit undoLenderthrond (talk \| contribs)27 edits →Scientific Consensus.: ReplyTag: Reply
(44 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Talk header\|noarchives=yes\|search=no}}		{{Talk header\|noarchives=yes\|search=no}}
	{{vital article\|topic=Philosophy\|level=5\|class=B}}
	{{controversial}}		{{controversial}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|1=
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
	{{WikiProject Religion~~\|class=B~~\|importance=High}}		{{WikiProject Religion\|importance=High}}
	{{WikiProject Creationism~~\|class= B~~\|importance=Mid\|Young Earth creationism=yes\|Young Earth creationism-importance=High}}		{{WikiProject Creationism\|importance=Mid\|Young Earth creationism=yes\|Young Earth creationism-importance=High}}
	{{WikiProject Skepticism~~\|class=B~~\|importance=high}}		{{WikiProject Skepticism\|importance=high}}
	}}		}}
			{{ArbComPseudoscience}}

	{{discretionary sanctions\|topic=ps}}
	{\| class="messagebox standard-talk"
	\|-
	\|A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents Creation science in an unsympathetic light and that criticism is too extensive or violates Misplaced Pages's '''Neutral Point of View''' policy (]). The sections of the ] that apply directly to this article are:<br>

	*''']'''<br>
	*''']'''<br>
	*''']'''<br>
	*'''].'''
	\|}
	{{delistedGA\|April 27, 2006\|oldid=50302632}}		{{delistedGA\|April 27, 2006\|oldid=50302632}}
	{{Annual readership}}		{{Annual readership}}
			{{archivebox\|auto=long\|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III\|age=90\|index=Talk:Creation_science/Archives index
	{\| class="messagebox standard-talk"
	\|-
	\|'''Reminder'''
	This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the ''article itself'' and '''not''' the inherent worth of Creation Science. See ]

	If you wish to discuss or debate the ''validity'' of Creation Science or promote Creation Science please do so at or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Misplaced Pages article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

	Please do not re-open topics already discussed without citing reliable sources (please read ] and ] to see what sources meet this requirement) to support a fresh look at the topics. Doing so without such sources may be considered ], in accordance with ].
	\|}
	{{archivebox\|auto=long\|bot=MiszaBot\|age=90\|index=Talk:Creation_science/Archives index
	\|		\|
	*]		*]
Line 80:		Line 60:
	\|archive = Talk:Creation science/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Creation science/Archive %(counter)d
	}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn\|target=Talk:Creation_science/Archives index\|mask=Talk:Creation_science/Archive <#>\|mask1=Talk:Scientific creationism\|leading_zeros=0\|indexhere=yes}}		}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn\|target=Talk:Creation_science/Archives index\|mask=Talk:Creation_science/Archive <#>\|mask1=Talk:Scientific creationism\|leading_zeros=0\|indexhere=yes}}
			{{Broken anchors\|links=
			* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Naturalization vs. supernaturalization) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Naturalization vs. supernaturalization","appear":{"revid":6928666,"parentid":6831424,"timestamp":"2004-10-24T19:29:38Z","replaced_anchors":{"The Supernatural as sovereign over nature":"The supernatural as sovereign over nature","The Supernatural as manifested through nature":"The supernatural as manifested through nature","The Supernatural as a human coping mechanism":"The supernatural as a human coping mechanism","The Supernatural as a higher nature":"The supernatural as a higher nature","Arguments in Favor of Supernaturality":"Arguments in favor of supernaturality","Naturalization vs. Supernaturalization":"Naturalization vs. supernaturalization"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":386598847,"parentid":386597522,"timestamp":"2010-09-23T19:27:01Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
			}}

			== Fallacy ==
	== Disputed - claim these fields "described creation science as a pseudoscientific" ==


	I'm going to be tagging disputed the line discussed above in thread "Yespov, attribution and assail" after the claim about the word "pseudoscientific".

	The line was "Its scientific and skeptical critics assail creation science as a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts."

	The new line claims "Historians, philosophers of science and skeptics have described creation science as a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts."

	The cites of the first version were unchanged in the larger claim.
	As mentioned in the "Yespov" thread above, --
	:* no change in cites occurred to support the larger and broader claim
	:* the line is not (and was not) summarizing from the body -- this seems just free-form writing in the lead area
	:* it was already a bit of liberty and OR to take 4 cites and announce "scientific and skeptical critics", (true but OR)
	:* more than a bit creative to describe their criticisms as "assail... as a pseudoscientific" when the cites shown did not use that word
	:: (and the meaning of "map" was in my opinion also confusing)
	:* but now to project from the old 4 cites a general claim that entire fields have done so ... is failing ]

	The citing of Ruse is worthwhile (for the body at least) since the Ruse-Laudon exchanges about this are fairly famous -- but nowhere did the cite actually describe creation science with the word "pseudoscience", nor did the individual criticism claim an entire field or scientific body position. (Ruse clearly says ACLU produced theologians who say 'religion' and ACLU produced scientists who say 'not science'. Ruse himself criticised points of it for the properties 'explanation and prediction' or 'testability, confirmation, and falsifiability' -- then Laudan clearly differs that the claim of not testable is a woeful fallacy in the Arkansas positions...and so on .... and neither is describing creation science as "pseudoscience".) For this cite, Ruse as author presenting his own developed points might be a ] source, and evidence that someone said it -- but is clearly not a secondary source describing the positions and clearly he was not describing or stating authoritatively the overall community view of the points.

	While I can believe that some individual pieces form folks in this field might he used the word, it has not been shown and seems very unlikely that historians et al do so in general or in professional publications, or that their community bodies use such language.

	Say what they actually say, and say what secondary sources say about things -- but don't say it is described as something by folks that haven't actually said so, nor misportray four individual pieces as authoritative statements by the entire field, OK ?

	Cheers ] (]) 05:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

	:]. Disruption to prove a point. Stop it. ] (]) 07:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

			"The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community"
	::It would be more credible if there was actual cites or substantive discussion ... and clearer if it was a tag, but Bink seems to follow the seagull method of flying in & out and reverts tags without spending more than 10 seconds for any follow up or discounting so I’ll have to put the tag mentioned in here. ] (]) 17:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
	:::I choose not to waste my time engaging the tar baby arguments of trifling piffle about whether there is one or more than one historian who thinks creation science is pseudoscience. Your engagement here is active trolling. Stop it. ] (]) 19:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

			Appeal to consensus, followed by other claims about empiricism, which at basic level is mislabeled given the positions counter point also has no observable evolution.
	===tag provided===
	For clarity, here is the snippet disputed as the cites seem to not actually describe it as pseudoscience. Neither it seems do the community bodies for the fields named. Upon a brief look, there are statements from advocacy orgs, courts, and scientific community bodies... and they reject it with many other descriptions and simply do not describe it as “pseudoscience” in any notable amount.
	:{{tq\| ] and ] have described creation science as a ]{{disputed inline \|Disputed - claim these fields "described creation science as a pseudoscientific" \|date=July 2020}} }}

	~~Cheers~~ ] (]) 17:56, 19 July ~~2020~~ (UTC)		More of why I no longer donate. ] (]) 17:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
			:See ]. Evolution has notably been observed in Lenski's ''E. coli'' long-term experiment, and earlier, in peppered moth coloration during (and after) the Industrial Revolution. I expect this section will soon be deleted as inappropriate forum-style argumentation; I am entirely OK with such deletion. ] (]) 18:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
			:Not a fallacy, except within the motivated reasoning of pseudoscience fans. By your reasoning, we would also have to dismiss the round Earth and the Periodic System of the elements, because both are consensus. --] (]) 06:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
			:Misplaced Pages is not in need of your sad allowance. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. ] (]) 10:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
			:Explained at ]: for Misplaced Pages it's not a fallacy to appeal to authority. ] (]) 11:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

			== Which of these six categories does creation science belong to? ==
	:
			{{Collapse\|{{Arbitration ruling on pseudoscience}}}}
			Which does creation science belong to? ] (]) 21:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
			:That's not a list of six categories. Maybe read the article lede; creation science is pseudoscience. ] ] 05:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

			==Changing the word "claims" in the lede to "endeavors"==
	== Problem with verification of first sentence ==
			The current opening sentence states: "Creation science or scientific creationism is a pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible." I argue that the word "claims" should be replaced with "endeavors". Reasons:

			#. Its not precisely accurate. It implies that those who practice Creation Science have already completed what they set out to do. Creation Science practitioners are working towards that goal. As an analogy, the wikipedia page for ] also uses the word "endeavor".
	The first sentence reads: "Creation science or scientific creationism is a pseudoscience, a form of creationism presented without obvious Biblical language but with the claim that special creation and flood geology based on the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis have validity as science." Click on the footnote number 1 and you get taken to another page in Wkipedia - it should take you to the book being cited, otherwise you can't verify the statement. Also, the note claims to be taking this single sentence from pages 268-285 of the book by Numbers - that's far too many pages, a single sentence like this should be verifiable from a single page (or two at most if it overlaps). Also, the statement "creation science is a psudoscience" might be a bit difficult to support - it isn't a science at all, pseudo or other. I'm sure this page had a better intro some years ago.] (]) 02:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
			#. "Claim" is a word to use with extreme care because of the dismissive insinuations that come along with it(see ]). We should avoid even the appearance of POV on Misplaced Pages.
	:So take out the citation—the lede only summarizes the body anyway and doesn't actually need citations. But, it's definitely a pseudoscience (pseudosciences aren't actually sciences). --] (]) 03:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
			#. The word "endeavor" in no way gives Creation Science a sense that it is correct. Nobody is going to come away reading the sentence with the word "endeavor" and think "wow, this might actually be real science"! But with "claim" they might be more likely to come away thinking, "Wow, this was written by a bunch of atheists with a grudge." ] (]) 02:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	::But, looking at the citation, it gives the page numbers, and clicking on those even take you to Google Books. There's no problem with verification. --] (]) 03:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
	:::The definition isn't made anywhere in the body of the article; also there's no link to the book being cited; also the page-range is 17 pages, which is useless. ] (]) 03:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
	:::::There ''is'' a link, though one would not actually be required. And pseudoscience is an accurate summary of the body. --] (]) 03:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
	:] That word was just dropped on 29 April 2020 The Numbers cite was not originally used for that and doesn’t seem a direct support. As to previous, well it got longish a year or so ago, it was short up to 2018, or compare to the 2015 start below.
	:{{tq2\|Creation science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove or reinterpret the scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.}}
	:Cheers ] (]) 05:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
	{{ping\|Achar Sva}} That's how shortened footnotes are supposed to work. See ]. ] (]) 06:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
	:] No it's not. The sfn format is supposed to take you to a Short FootNote (hence the acronym sfn) in a Citations section, where you see the name of the author, the date of publication, and the page number (e.g., Smith (2000) p.100). You click on that and you're taken to the full entry in the Bibliography section, where you find such things as the name of the publisher. There'll be a highlight section in the bibliogrpahy section, either the book name or chapter title (depending on whether the person who set it up used, or not, the chapter-url option), and you click on that and the book opens in a new window (at the page being cited if, again, the person who set it up knew how to edit the url). The steps through citation and bibiography can be short-cut at the point of the initial in-text enty by the data that shows when you hover your cursor - this should show the Bibiliography data, including the highlit portal to the full book. As you'll see, the entry for the first sentence of this article doesn't do that, it takes you to another page of Misplaced Pages instead, because it's incorrectly formatted. Trust me on this, I've been using sfn for over a decade.] (])
	:::Look again. ''None'' of the examples at ] use external links. Also note the sfn style at the article link provided at WP:SRF to "exemplify the use of shortened footnotes", {{oldid\|NBR 224 and 420 Classes\|442508215\|NBR 224 and 420 Classes (13:32, August 1, 2011)}} uses links the same way as the link you are questioning here. The info at WP:SRF does seem less than ideal, but that's what's there – can't blame anyone for following it. ] (]) 20:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
	::Click on the page numbers and it takes you directly to the the Google Books page. Click edit for a minute and you'll be able to see the URL right there. --] (]) 13:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
	:::] says we can use chapters, we can also use a range of pages. You could raise the issue at RSN or the talk page of RS. There's also a whole book ''Cult Archaeology and Creationism: Understanding Pseudoscientific Beliefs about the Past'' used as source 6 - we don't need page numbers for that. I've a copy by the way. ] ] 14:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
	:::My impression is that the gbook links for the pages were clicked on causing confusion, rather than the name "Numbers", that points down at the source. This isn't the {{tl\|sfn}} template (that can also do the same if links are provided for pages) but still a Harvard shortened footnote (in case your editor mode doesn't show it or that you did not notice it): <code><nowiki>{{Harvnb\|Numbers\|2006\|pp=}}</nowiki></code> It's rather common although unnecessary, {{para\|pp\|268–285}} would also work... —]] – 15:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
	::::] - ] It seems even worse since little of that book () seems about science or about creation science and the cite is whole-book vague. The book appears to be a diverse collection including separate topic chapters by sociologists, psychologists, historians... on UFOs and aliens, unexplained mysteries, cults, diffusion, and creationism. So it shows a chapter on CS exists in the same book as one about archaeology — as well as Aztecs and Psychology and miscellaneous — but gives no V that CS about archaeology exists. The bits about Afrocentrism, or a study on college student beliefs, or the chronology of Aztec myths is all very nice but what part of the book is supposed to be saying something about creation science in archaeology is not stated and from here it looks like no part really relates. The chapter 4 on a study of students for “cult archaeology” isn’t tied to it at least, and nothing from this article body ties it in, so I wonder if someone just saw a book title and plugged it in. Cheers ] (]) 23:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
	== "Creation vs. mainstream science in cosmology" listed at ] ==
	]
	A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ]. The discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 03:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

			:MOS:CLAIM doesn't say that we disregard what sources say. If the Creation scientists are CLAIMING that their arguments are scientific when those arguments are not, than the word claim is appropriate. If they are trying to find real scientific arguments that support their beliefs, than you would be correct. We should use what the sources describe this as. ---''']]''' 22:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
	== Is the Institute of Creation Research a reliable source? ==
			:::I want to be clear that my contention has ZERO to do with whether creation science is a valid field of study (its not). Can you point to a source that uses the word "claim"? I'm dubious that's what the sources actually say. ] (]) 23:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
			::::I'm not familiar with the sources in this article; but if you want to change this, you should find what the sources say. ---''']]''' 23:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::::you wrote: "We should use what the sources describe this." That's what I was referring to ] (]) 11:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::We do not even know whether they really endeavor to do that. We do know that they claim to do it. For all we know, they are fully aware that all their reasoning is bogus.
			:::] does not say we should not use the word "claim". It says, {{tq\|To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question}}. And that is exactly what we should be doing because the consensus in science is that all creationist reasoning is crap. Every reason they give is easy to refute for those who know what they are talking about. See . --] (]) 15:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
			::::To be clear, I am not stating that creationist reasoning is good, that is truly not my point. My #1 point, is that the sentence as it currently stands is inaccurate. Creation Science itself is not a claim. Creationism is a claim. Creation Science is an activity trying to prove the claim with pseudoscience. Creation Science is more accurately worded as an endeavor. ] (]) 05:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I see your point, but to change to "endeavor" would also then require rewording the rest of the sentence. They don't endeavor to offer SCIENTIFIC arguments, they endeavor to create and offer scientific SOUNDING or scientific APPEARING arguments.
			:::::I think that there is sometimes a balance between explicit, 100% accurate statements and concise statements, and for the first sentence of the lead, is is better to lean toward concision. ---''']]''' 01:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

			== Insufficient information ==
	It's a reliable primary source about its views on creation science, but should it be used as an independent secondary source?
	] (]) 16:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

			The article says that certain theories are rejected by mainstream science, but doesn’t explain why. It’s simply states that Whitehole cosmology doesn’t correspond to observed evidence. I’d like to know what the observed evidence is And how Whitehole cosmology would be different if it were true. Just simply stating that you disagree with a theory is not doing your homework in a scientific investigation. I want to know why the theory is wrong. I want a theory that explains how the universe should look if the theory were true And why that evidence is contraindicated from a proper peer reviewed reference, journal if possible. If this is attempting to be scientific and not just arguing back-and-forth. “No, you’re wrong.” The information in this article does an insufficient job of explaining why current theory is accepted by Science are right and the other theory is wrong. Peer reviewed sources Should be included, please
	:It is only a source for what creationists of that sort believe. Never for scientific claims. ] (]) 16:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

			] (]) elrondaragorn ] (]) 20:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
	:It should only be used with proper attribution. It should not be used as a source for straight-up facts. Unlike theistic evolution/evolutionary creation, YEC is pseudoscientific and rejects the scientific evidence for evolution. ] (]) 22:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
			: Have you read this about ? Have you read the sources in the article where White hole is mentioned? We can't do your work for you. As a ], it doesn't have enough ] for anything but short mention. Those are the rules here. Our content is based on reliable sources, not on fringe and unreliable sources. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 22:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

			== Scientific Consensus. ==
	== The lead section is too long ==

			I am totally new to Misplaced Pages, sorry if I make mistakes. But I read somewhere in ] that, if I understand it correctly, though we must call pseudoscience pseudoscience, we must not make statements of whether it is true or false. Therefore, instead of saying "such and such a theory is false" we should say "the vast majority of scientists reject such a theory" or "this theory is unscientific." Even pseudoscientists agree. For example, on the topic of young earthism, I have a quote from Ken Ham saying "we are the minority."
	I feel like the lead section should be broken up. It's way too long, and can be split up into headings describing the history, the fact that modern science proves it false, etc. What information should we move "down below" or omit from the lead section? The first paragraph seems like a keeper for sure. ] (]) 22:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
	:Agreed. I moved the other paragraphs down to history which now probably means that section needs to be cleaned up as there is a little bit of redundancy there. ] (]) 13:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

			Just wondering if I got this correct. Thank you! ] (]) 23:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
	== Metaphysical Assumptions section ==

			:Mind providing a specific quote for {{tq\|we must not make statements of whether it is true or false}}? I do not believe the section you linked supports that claim, and the relevant policy page clearly states {{tq\|Avoid stating facts as opinions.}} ] (] • ]) 00:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
	Someone removed enough text from the second paragraph of the ''Metaphysical assumptions'' section to drastically alter the meaning of the paragraph. I reverted that edit, and added some refs, citing publications already used as sources in other parts of the article. I didn't review the entire list of references, and may have missed some good ones, though. Any help will be appreciated! Cheers! — ] <b><sup>( ] ] ] )</sup></b> 17:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
			::It says, in section "giving equal validity" That "Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy certainly ''does not'' state, or imply, that we should or must "give equal validity" to minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) views. ''It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers'', but that does not stop us from describing the majority views ''as such'' and using the words of ] to present strong criticisms" ] (]) 18:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::By definition, sources supporting creation science are not ]. See ]. ] (]) 18:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Makes sense. ] (]) 18:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Also note, we don't make statements in the article of whether it is true or false, though we do describe the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. To comply with ] policy, the fringe or pseudoscientific view is clearly described as such, and an explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views is prominently included. Which includes noting that professional biologists have criticized creation science for being unscholarly, and even as a dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences. . . ], ] 10:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:44, 1 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Creation science article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion High‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Creationism: Young Earth creationism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Young Earth creationism task force (assessed as High-importance).

Skepticism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Creation science was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
Review: April 27, 2006. (Reviewed version).

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20	Archive 21

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Creation science
Talk:Scientific creationism (article was merged into this)

It has been suggested in these archives...

The following statements were discussed, not the result of the discussion.

that creation science claims creation is directly observable;
Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#CS assumes Creation is observable

Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#CS does not argue that Creation is observable

Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#Dan's unexplained reversions

Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#observed

Talk:Creation science/Archive 9#Fallacy in intro
that creation science is not a creationist ploy
Talk:Creation science/Archive 8

Talk:Creation science/Archive 1#Creation Science as propaganda
that creation science is not science;
Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#'Creation science is not science'; Fact or View

Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#Yet another vague interpretation of NPOV?

Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#Creation Science advocates disagree whether CS is science

Talk:Creation science/Archive 8#another entry

Talk:Creation science/Archive 5#What is the story of creation?

Talk:Creation science/Archive 4#Creation 'science'

Talk:Creation science/Archive 3#Science and empiricism - Pseudoscience

Talk:Creation science/Archive 3#Creation science is not natural science or social science

Talk:Creation science/Archive 2#Pseudoscience

Talk:Creation science/Archive 1#Disbelieve

Talk:Creation science/Archive 1#Creationism is not science
that science cannot allow for the supernatural
Talk:Creation science/Archive 5#supernatural
that the title is POV, as it suggests CS is science
Talk:Creation science/Archive 9#Incorrect title?

Talk:Creation science/Archive 9#Oh Puleeeeze!

Talk:Creation science/Archive 9#Request for comments: What's in a name? POV or SPOV?

Talk:Creation science/Archive 11#Non-science disclaimer
that criticism should be relegated to a seperate article or section;
Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#Separate Page for Criticisms?
that since evolution is not heavily criticised in its article, neither should CS be;
Talk:Creation science/Archive 9
that since no-one is trained to be a creation scientist, the term does not, should not exist
Talk:Creation science/Archive 9
that the term peer-review is used incorrectly
Talk:Creation science/Archive 13#Peer_review

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

] The anchor (#Naturalization vs. supernaturalization) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Fallacy

"The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community"

Appeal to consensus, followed by other claims about empiricism, which at basic level is mislabeled given the positions counter point also has no observable evolution.

More of why I no longer donate. 98.4.89.168 (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

See Fallacy fallacy. Evolution has notably been observed in Lenski's E. coli long-term experiment, and earlier, in peppered moth coloration during (and after) the Industrial Revolution. I expect this section will soon be deleted as inappropriate forum-style argumentation; I am entirely OK with such deletion. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Not a fallacy, except within the motivated reasoning of pseudoscience fans. By your reasoning, we would also have to dismiss the round Earth and the Periodic System of the elements, because both are consensus. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not in need of your sad allowance. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. 47.44.49.171 (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Explained at WP:VERECUNDIAM: for Misplaced Pages it's not a fallacy to appeal to authority. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Which of these six categories does creation science belong to?

Extended content

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Which does creation science belong to? WorldQuestioneer (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not a list of six categories. Maybe read the article lede; creation science is pseudoscience. PepperBeast (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Changing the word "claims" in the lede to "endeavors"

The current opening sentence states: "Creation science or scientific creationism is a pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible." I argue that the word "claims" should be replaced with "endeavors". Reasons:

. Its not precisely accurate. It implies that those who practice Creation Science have already completed what they set out to do. Creation Science practitioners are working towards that goal. As an analogy, the wikipedia page for Science also uses the word "endeavor".
. "Claim" is a word to use with extreme care because of the dismissive insinuations that come along with it(see MOS:CLAIM). We should avoid even the appearance of POV on Misplaced Pages.
. The word "endeavor" in no way gives Creation Science a sense that it is correct. Nobody is going to come away reading the sentence with the word "endeavor" and think "wow, this might actually be real science"! But with "claim" they might be more likely to come away thinking, "Wow, this was written by a bunch of atheists with a grudge." Epachamo (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

MOS:CLAIM doesn't say that we disregard what sources say. If the Creation scientists are CLAIMING that their arguments are scientific when those arguments are not, than the word claim is appropriate. If they are trying to find real scientific arguments that support their beliefs, than you would be correct. We should use what the sources describe this as. ---Avatar317 22:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I want to be clear that my contention has ZERO to do with whether creation science is a valid field of study (its not). Can you point to a source that uses the word "claim"? I'm dubious that's what the sources actually say. Epachamo (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the sources in this article; but if you want to change this, you should find what the sources say. ---Avatar317 23:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

you wrote: "We should use what the sources describe this." That's what I was referring to Epachamo (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

We do not even know whether they really endeavor to do that. We do know that they claim to do it. For all we know, they are fully aware that all their reasoning is bogus.

MOS:CLAIM does not say we should not use the word "claim". It says, To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question. And that is exactly what we should be doing because the consensus in science is that all creationist reasoning is crap. Every reason they give is easy to refute for those who know what they are talking about. See An Index to Creationist Claims. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not stating that creationist reasoning is good, that is truly not my point. My #1 point, is that the sentence as it currently stands is inaccurate. Creation Science itself is not a claim. Creationism is a claim. Creation Science is an activity trying to prove the claim with pseudoscience. Creation Science is more accurately worded as an endeavor. Epachamo (talk) 05:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I see your point, but to change to "endeavor" would also then require rewording the rest of the sentence. They don't endeavor to offer SCIENTIFIC arguments, they endeavor to create and offer scientific SOUNDING or scientific APPEARING arguments.

I think that there is sometimes a balance between explicit, 100% accurate statements and concise statements, and for the first sentence of the lead, is is better to lean toward concision. ---Avatar317 01:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Insufficient information

The article says that certain theories are rejected by mainstream science, but doesn’t explain why. It’s simply states that Whitehole cosmology doesn’t correspond to observed evidence. I’d like to know what the observed evidence is And how Whitehole cosmology would be different if it were true. Just simply stating that you disagree with a theory is not doing your homework in a scientific investigation. I want to know why the theory is wrong. I want a theory that explains how the universe should look if the theory were true And why that evidence is contraindicated from a proper peer reviewed reference, journal if possible. If this is attempting to be scientific and not just arguing back-and-forth. “No, you’re wrong.” The information in this article does an insufficient job of explaining why current theory is accepted by Science are right and the other theory is wrong. Peer reviewed sources Should be included, please

elrondaragorn (talk) elrondaragorn elrondaragorn (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you read this about White hole cosmology? Have you read the sources in the article where White hole is mentioned? We can't do your work for you. As a fringe theory, it doesn't have enough due weight for anything but short mention. Those are the rules here. Our content is based on reliable sources, not on fringe and unreliable sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Scientific Consensus.

I am totally new to Misplaced Pages, sorry if I make mistakes. But I read somewhere in here that, if I understand it correctly, though we must call pseudoscience pseudoscience, we must not make statements of whether it is true or false. Therefore, instead of saying "such and such a theory is false" we should say "the vast majority of scientists reject such a theory" or "this theory is unscientific." Even pseudoscientists agree. For example, on the topic of young earthism, I have a quote from Ken Ham saying "we are the minority."

Just wondering if I got this correct. Thank you! Lenderthrond (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Mind providing a specific quote for we must not make statements of whether it is true or false? I do not believe the section you linked supports that claim, and the relevant policy page clearly states Avoid stating facts as opinions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

It says, in section "giving equal validity" That "Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we should or must "give equal validity" to minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers, but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such and using the words of reliable sources to present strong criticisms" Lenderthrond (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

By definition, sources supporting creation science are not WP:RS. See WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. Lenderthrond (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Also note, we don't make statements in the article of whether it is true or false, though we do describe the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. To comply with WP:PSCI policy, the fringe or pseudoscientific view is clearly described as such, and an explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views is prominently included. Which includes noting that professional biologists have criticized creation science for being unscholarly, and even as a dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences. . . dave souza, talk 10:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: