Talk:Creation science: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:48, 5 January 2021 editFélix An (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions2,874 edits →The lead section is too long ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 18:44, 1 December 2024 edit undoLenderthrond (talk \| contribs)27 edits →Scientific Consensus.: ReplyTag: Reply
(50 intermediate revisions by 28 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 ==
	== Yespov, attribution and assail ==

	When reading "Its scientific and skeptical critics assail creation science as a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts." it is accurate but at the same time reminds me of ] where it's not necessary to attribute it to critics (it's not just a personal opinion). "Assail" may also be misleading: assessing or reporting that the claims are inaccurate is not really an assault... I propose (1) "Creation science is described as a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts." (2) "Creation science attempts to map the Bible into scientific facts, which is considered pseudoscience." or another similar variant. —]] – 13:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
	:Agree with the point, looking at the cited sources have reworded the sentence as "Historians, ] and ] describe creation science as a ] attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts." Hope that's an improvement, . . ], ] 18:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

	::] The cites only support that things are said (at least shown to by a several authors found), not statements that it is generally called so by such bodies, and the phrasing of it as a universal statement seems a fairly largish exaggeration and a large change from the nature of what the line was. Historians in large seem off talking about Rome or Napoleon, not CS. Of the cites - the first is Mark Greener, apparently the freelance medical writer (not a historian, philosopher) and is an article on creationism, not creation science so does not belong at all. The fourth is the philosopher of science Michael Ruse work "Creation Science is not Science" of 1982, which is a historically notable bit in a series of exchanges with Laudan. (I've seen modern mention of it as 'I believe that Ruse is adequate, but not thorough in refuting Laudan’s claims.') I didn't see "mapping" in the cite, but it's not very readable and in his by that name, it's apparently much different.
	::::*
	::::*

	:: It might do better to note other things -- In the 1981 McLean v Arkansas, Judge William Overton, based on testimony from well-respected scientists and philosophers, ruled that "creation science" is not science because it asserts creation by a supernatural creator, by means of unknown processes that are outside the realm of natural law (and thus not testable or falsifiable by empirical evidence) . The case is noted in the fourth paragraph, but the facts and section seems a bit mangled by posturing instead of just reporting the case.

	:: I will return the line as before, replacing the word "assail" with "assess" as was the request. But even there ... I don't see that "map the bible into scientific facts" is really making sense at "map". As if the effort is simple making a table of which verse is which science ?!? Cheers ] (]) 23:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
	:::Hi Mark, you're giving undue weight by suggesting only a few reject CS as pseudoscience, and oddly enough you seem to be proposing creationist sources: Ruse's contribution to a FTE seminar as published by the FTE isn't going to be the best source, ] (self published?) seems to be a rather dated example of an OEC posing the idea that creation science might be science, he likes it and holds the minority view of rejecting theistic evolution. There are of course historians of creationism, so don't think Rome is relevant. Inclined to think we can improve on "map", please suggest proposed wording on the talk page. . ], ] 22:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

	::::] -- you've responded other than what the poster requested -- and it looks like a new large claim that is both unsupported by ] or article content, and to be an untrue overstatement. The new claim went from noting what critics call it into alleging that entire fields do so, as if generally all people in those categories "have described creation science as a pseudoscience". Obviously the prior cites aren't saying that, the text and facts aren't supporting that, and the legal group of the article is MIA.
	:::: This just isn't a credible statement. Again, most historians are obviously talking about Rome or Napoleon or something not CS at all -- so suggesting they do as a general statement is wrong and while I think saying some do was not the same as "suggesting '''only''' a few reject CS as pseudoscience" is correc, that is indeed the fact and was the prior line for a while. As to philosophers, allow that is just the subfield of 'philosophers of science' but I think even there "suggesting only a few reject CS as pseudoscience" would be correct because that's just not a professional phrasing. As to the article text, the legal view from Arkansas (for the law passed between times Clinton was in office) would be Overton judge ruled firmly that Creation Science is not science, it is religion, and as such has no place in public classrooms; and that in 1987 this whole matter was decided decisively in the same way for the Louisiana case by the Supreme Court.
	::::What we have here was a vague line about skeptics, which although may be OR to say it is something they said as evidenced by cites to some of them. And then we have a wild universal statement -- with cites to a few skeptics who said it and the page cites to things like Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience.... Go back to the way it was or something less excessive please. Cheers ] (]) 19:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

	::::: It’s been a couple of days and no response, so I reverted back to the more modest change closer to what was requested. The Souza edit just seemed gone overboard - not what the thread poster asked for ‘remove the word assail’; not what’s in the article; and not supported by something else. If Souza has and wants to add substantial BODY content along these lines he can give it a go, but sensationalism is not the goal of WP or LEAD, so I’d suggest small changes and not dramatic statement writing. Cheers ] (]) 05:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
	:::::] I’ve undone your unrevert, apparently you were ignorant of the TALK and what the long-standing consensus is so began edit warring while throwing out allegation of same. The guide is ], not BOLD automagically wins, and without a new consensus (no Discussion response for the objections) it either goes back to the long-standing version or it would be acceptable to put in the modest minor change that was requested. Either of defacto or minor per request is acceptable — anything else is going to have to note objections existed and work for it. Cheers ] (]) 05:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
	::::::Mark, don't try to insert your POV into the article simply because we tire of engaging with your repetitive posts here on the talk page. We may stop posting responses to you but we aren't looking the other way while you dismantle science. ] (]) 05:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::] thank you for finally coming to TALK, but that’s an absurdly false accusation and not relevant to the topic. The thread here is clearly a request by Paleo to replace the word “assail”. Souza did something else, I objected and reverted to something that only did the request, and then folks who evidently neither read the talk nor BRD came in. Cheers ] (]) 22:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
	::::::{{ping\|MarkBasset}}Don't accuse me of being ignorant of the talkpage discussions when you're the one deliberately confusing other editors ]ning you here for your vociferously tendentious, anti-science POV-mongering for "consensus," especially since the only people you've convinced that Creation Science is undeserving of the apt descriptor "pseudoscience" are the various Trolls For Jesus and Vandals For Jesus who always come to Misplaced Pages to start Trouble For Jesus in the first place.--] (]) 13:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::] thank you for coming to TALK. Ignorant is a factual descriptive of your actions and edit summary - the best AGF I can give for making statements contrary to Paleo’s clear request and my revert TALK is to say it is acting in ignorance. I suggest you reacquire calm and simply look at the request by Paleo, and skip imagining anything more into it. Cheers ] (]) 22:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

	*I have to say, Mark makes a good case here. If the only argument is it is not POV enough then that is a losing one. It already satisfies YESPOV, going so far past it does not improve the article. Then there are the issues that it might not be fully supported in the body. The previous version should be restored until consensus is reached. ] (]) 16:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
	*:The current version '''is''' the previous version.
	*:And he does not make a good point. If {{tq\|most historians are obviously talking about Rome or Napoleon or something not CS at all}} were a valid point, we could not write stuff like "historians date the entire medieval period from approximately 500 to 1500", since only a minority of historians are concerned with dating the medieval period. It should be obvious to anybody that "historians say" never means "every single historian has said" but always means "the historians who concern themselves with the subject say". The same reasoning applies to the other groups.
	*:If you want to delete the sentence and the reliable source, you will have to find non-creationist historians, non-creationist philosophers of science, and non-creationist skeptics who say CS is not a pseudoscience. That would be the only reasonable justification for not writing that those groups say it is. And replacing the groups by the extremely stale "critics say", a hallmark of bad writing and an example of ], is another reason why this will not do. The reader should know that the criticism of creation science does not come from a few random loudmouths with too much time on their hands, sitting in their sofas and blabbing about this and that without rhyme or reason - which "skeptical critics" could mean - but from experts in the fields the creationist want to revolutionize, as well as from experts in researching pseudosciences. --] (]) 18:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
	*::Hello friend, lovely to see you here!{{(:}} Though I must say you are mistaken on a few counts. For example the version previously and was here longer is . Though we could goto the previous, even longer standing version, {{tq\|Creation science is a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.}} The version trying to be edit warred in without observing BRD or Onus is the new stuff. I mean honestly here, it is just piling on to make a POV pushing point. Not encyclopedic or well supported by the body. Much of the lead is already devoted to showing that it is pseudoscience anyhow. The reader is not as dumb as you seem to believe and bludging them over the head repeatedly is just poor writing. I don't think anyone is confused by the previous status quo and cannot see any basis for your arguments because of that. ] (]) 20:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
	*:::{{tq\|Hello friend}} Stop that, creep. We are still not friends, and we won't be anytime soon.
	*:::It is pointless to pick a random, six-months-old version and define everything that happened since as "new stuff". By the same reasoning, you could argue that is the only right one and all the new stuff that happened since then has to go. {{tq\|The version trying to be edit warred in}} is just as random: by the same reasoning you could say it is edit-warred out. That would be closer to the truth if you actually look at the timing of the edits.
	*:::From your superficial reasoning, I get the impression that you are just trawling for reasons you can use to defend the outcome you want, just as people always do when they defend fringe views and try to keep the scientific point of view out. The only reason that actually makes sense is that if something is in the lead, it should also be in the body. But that only means that it should go to the body too. --] (]) 09:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
	*::::Listen pal, I think you have all this pretty wrong here. You could pick tons of points and find the same version. That is how long term stable works. The fact you found a deviation makes no difference. As to the edit warring, I already pointed to the long term version so no idea what you are on about with that argument. Obviously the edit war was the deviate from long term material and as such being edit warred over. Onus and BRD SHOULD decide that but I guess that can be ignored if you feel you like the new version better. Kind of a lame edit war IMO but there you are. Finally your logic on what should be in the lead vs the body is all backwards and POV pusher like. First you write the body and then with that determine the weight for the lead. Listen I get it, it is frustrating being on the wrong end of a fringe POV push as you are right now. That does not mean you should be mean about it though. ] (]) 15:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
	*::::: version from February contains the phrasing in question, starting with "Historians". It has been in the article until Markbassett suddenly started to remove it in June. Usually, everybody would say it is part of a stable version that is edit-warred out: as pointed out by K.e.coffman - ]. But for some reason, you had to check when it was introduced and then randomly define a version before that as the stable version. This is similar to the climate change deniers' trick of picking the outlier year 1998 - which was hotter than every year before and also hotter than the next fifteen years - as the starting point so they can claim the the temperature has gone down and global warming is over. Of all possible starting points, pick the one that proves your position right.
	*:::::What I wanted to point out in my last contribution, but did not seem to get across, was that all the reasoning you used is of the type that can be used to defend a random position, and therefore empty of content: "edit war in", "edit war out" are interchangeable; picking a version from January and calling it "stable", and so on.
	*:::::And now you are continuing in the same vein: claiming I am "on the wrong end of a fringe POV push" could be used in the other direction just the same; rather, it works much better in the other direction, since you are defending the fringe position of the creation scientists. This is the same childish manner of reasoning that windbag in the White House uses: just call your own fake news "news" and the real news "fake news". That kind of bluff does not work out for him either. --] (]) 11:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
	*::::::Who the heck brought up Trump and why does he matter here? Listen I appreciate you are sensitive about this subject but that is no reason to makeup nonsense like this. I am just trying to uphold Misplaced Pages policies and as explained above. I thought we were friends here??? ] (]) 16:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
	*::] The original line is quoted by Paleo in the first line of the thread, and the BOLD edit done is shown by Souza in the second paragraph. The earlier line about “scientists and skeptics” did mild ], having examples of such rather than a cite saying such. The newer line gave no V or body edits for the grander claim and addition of historians to the list. If it wants to claim entire fields say something, a statement by such a scientific body would suit ... and body content rather than LEAD edits not matching the article body. Cheers ] (]) 23:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
	*:::See above. --] (]) 09:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
	*:::@ bassett, the existing text is accurate in showing the majority view among historians and philosophers of science that CS is not science but pseudoscience, accept that even on the basis of ] and we can proceed to improve the wording and sources. The body text needs improvement, the lead is worth tightening as a start fo overall revision. . . ], ] 10:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
	*::::] That’s a nice soapbox speech, but the ] is to summarise the major amounts of the article BODY, and ] requires support. Your claim is not a major amount of the article nor are the prior cites for ‘scientific and skeptic all critics assail creation science’ helping a different and larger claim ‘those entire fields plus historians say this vague insult’. While the poster of this thread was objecting to the word “assail”, and while I also think that was overly dramatic verb choice, I just don’t see that as a request for OR opinionating your own over-dramatics. So either return to the long-standing content or make a more modest replacement of the word “assail” please. If you sincerely want to pursue rewriting a significant amount of article with appropriate V, then please revert yourself and edit lead after that is done, not before. Cheers ] (]) 00:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
	* The arguments about the "long-standing content" are not valid; pls see ]. --] (]) 00:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
	**True it should be called consensus version I suppose. Either way BRD and ONUS should be respected. ] (]) 01:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
	***From the discussion above, it appears to me that does not have consensus. --] (]) 01:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
	****Weird I was just thinking something similar but about version not having consensus. ] (]) 02:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
	{{od}} Regardless of disagreements over consensus, edit meets ] policy which the preceding version did not. There's a clear majority view of historians of science and philosophers of science who have examined the topic that "creation science" is not science, but is pseudoscience. There's also argument over the demarcation problem, whether supernatural explanations are untestable and inherently not science, or testable and have failed testing. Looks like that could be expanded on where directly relevant to the article. so please find good sources and improve its coverage. . . ], ] 09:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
	:] Repeating ‘but I am right’ won’t do — your soapbox is not that nice. The edit did not provide ] and does not ] summarise the major body items, and I do not believe it has ] nor would that supersede ] so it is irrelevant. Kindly acknowledge the dings against your edit. That you the creating editor are instead just TALKing a claim of ] is only continuing ] behaviours. The predates either edit and was fine for a long-standing while. Please demonstrate good practice and move to resolve this in a consensus manner — for example, by you self-reverting to a version predating it all pending further work, or by you making a more restrained one-word change like I offered, or by you having me edit what you can explain suits V and LEAD. Cheers ] (]) 01:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
	::Just stop, Mark. The current version is the consensus, confirmed repeatedly through multiple edit-warring reverts. Your wish to go back to some previous version is fanciful but unrealistic. It's like from past centuries, which will not happen. ] (]) 02:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
	:::] Tsk, you have some pesky facts missing, and your declaration of consensus to cut off discussion is premature -- just the day before two editors above were mentioning not have consensus. Look -- it got BRD reverted for not giving V and does not summarise what the actual body is. WP is supposed to go by ] and should be looking to resolve the issues here. This thread last had me talk to Souza about that so it would be nice if we give him at least another day to see if he maybe proposes some other edits or cites. Cheers ] (]) 06:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
	* Well, it's been a few more days so guess it's time to tag it. Putting in citation needed for "historians" (still don't know how they got stuffed into the mess). The Dispute over rewording the line to claim "described creation science as a pseudoscientific" would be a new thread per tamplate:dispute. ] (]) 04:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
	:::You appear to be stating your intention to disrupt the article because scientific consensus is not supporting your view. See ]. The only dispute we're having is you not liking the neutral version. ] (]) 07:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

	::] (Next time please ping.) I am stating the need of recent edit added content for relevant citation, with the appropriate tag. That was what I mentioned 12 days ago to your post on my talk page. Feel free to put in a cite, which is after all what the guidance for CN says to do. Meanwhile, please AGF and CIVIL with regards to tags. Frankly, the edit looks like just empty posturing in the LEAD off the top of t editor's head without any body content or particular substance behind it ... but if someone can put up an actual historian community announcement that I'm unaware of I'll be quite happy to be shown wrong. ] (]) 07:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
	:::I will not ping someone who is in an active discussion. It's just more noise, and I'm anti-noise.
	:::You and me: we are long past AGF.
	:::Your determination to tag the article if you don't get your way is poor sportsmanship. ] that says cut it out. Your pattern is to return to the same argument long after it has concluded, to try and revive your POV. You are wasting the community's time. ] (]) 07:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
	:::I mean, there is a reason why we point out your ] on a constant basis.--] (]) 12:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

	===Citation needed tag===
	] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree.

	*If you can provide a ] for the claim, then please add it! If you are not sure how to do this, then ] and ] the "Citation needed" template with enough information to locate the source. You may leave the ] or ] to someone else, or learn more about ]. ] provides a brief introduction on how to reference Misplaced Pages articles.
	*If someone tagged your contributions with a "Citation needed" tag or tags, and you disagree, discuss the matter on the article's ]. The most constructive thing to do in most cases is probably to supply the reference(s) requested, even if you feel the tags are "overdone" or unnecessary.

	Since the CN got immediately reverted contrary to template:cn guidance, I’ll have to provide it for context.
	::{{tq2\|Historians{{cn\|reason=Historian added w/o V of historian or community position see TALK Yespov\|date=July 2020}}, ... have described creation science as a ]}}

	No new cite was provided for the added word “historians”, seems a CN for that part.

	More practically, blocking calls for citations does nothing to improve the consensus or quality of article. All this energy into denialism and vague accusations or threats instead of simply citing what it came from or at least some appropriate V only gives an impression the line cannot provide good V or that no serious effort was made to do an informative TALK. Kindly either give a cite, explain how a cite says it, note a lack in V, propose a different line or caveat your statements as to context. All accusations, denials, indignant claims, etcetera... just are not V. Cheers ] (]) 18:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

	== Evolutionary bias ==

	This article is written from an evolutionist's point of view, not from a neutral point of view. It's not fair to both creation and evolution sides. It's only fair to the evolution side, while conservapedia is only fair to the creation side.
	It shouldn't say "is a pseudoscience," It should say "It's been considered a pseudoscience" to be fair to both sides.
	It should not start with "Creation science or scientific creationism is a pseudoscience," it should say "is a concept made by Christians in an attempt the reconcile the Bible with science" or something.
	The evolutionary bias of articles on creation and evolution and the liberal bias of Misplaced Pages is because most Misplaced Pages editors are liberal, and not conservative Christian.
	] (]) 22:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
	:Already addressed most of this at ].
	:{{ping\|WorldQuestioneer}} Christian attempts to reconcile the Bible with ] would be ] (such as ]). It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative, the Biologos Foundation is thoroughly evangelical. Also, the Catholic Church (which is about as conservative as you can get) has long since accepted evolution. It's only a select number of American and American-influenced evangelicals who deny science. ] (]) 22:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
	::{{ping\|Ian.thomson}} I meant "attempt to reconcile science with the Genesis account of creation." But you're right. I won't make any comments like this again. Now I'm worried and stressed. There has to be an alternative to Misplaced Pages that is intermediate between Misplaced Pages and Conservapedia, maybe fair to all the sides that each of them is, fair to the sides of both of them. But I'm afraid it can't be mentioned here, I probably wouldn't mention it here even if I knew about it. ] (]) 00:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::The phrase "half-way to Crazy Town" comes to mind.
	:::Misplaced Pages relies on reliable sources, and they say that one side of the "debate" is science and the other is not.
	:::If that clashes with your worldview, if for some reason you believe that the situation is less clear, that is your problem, not Misplaced Pages's. If you want a site that embraces the "I don't know" position, also called "ignorance", that's also your problem. We will not change the rules and rely on unreliable sources instead. --] (]) 05:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::{{ping\|WorldQuestioneer}} Attempting to reconcile science with Genesis would still be theistic evolution. Even Augustine of Hippo, who lived just a few centuries after the apostolic era, noted that if science and the Bible appear to conflict, ''then we're reading the Bible wrong and should find a different interpretation.'' ] (]) 10:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::WorldQuestioneer, these aren't two equal sides of a coin. Reliable authorities treat evolution as science, and creationism as quackery or religious mumbo jumbo.--] (]) 11:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::{{ping\|Hippeus}} and {{ping\|Ian.thomson}} even if they were equal sides of a coin, just follow Misplaced Pages's policies. Theistic evolutionists reinterpret scripture in an attempt to fit it with evolution, while so-called "creation scientists" reinterpret the geologic record in an attempt to fit it with the Genesis account of creation. I am not going into a debate here, as that is not the purpose of the talk page. I should have looked at ], ], ], and ] before posting on these talk pages.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
	:::::{{ping\|WorldQuestioneer}} Responding to {{tq\|these aren't two equal sides of a coin}} with {{tq\|if they were equal sides of a coin}} indicates that you missed the point. They're '''NOT''' equal. While both theistic evolution and creationism are both interpretations of scripture, the former does so in light of science while the latter only continues as a protest against science. Theistic evolution is also all-but-doctrine in the Catholic church and readily accepted by most Protestants outside America and many in America, while creationism is pretty much pushed by allies (unwitting or explicit) of anti-science conservative politicians (mostly American). ]. The only reason we include any material about creationism is because mainstream scientific and theological sources have to spend time debunking it. Also, what did you mean by ...? I'm aware your last response ''technically'' didn't make a new section, but it's still the same problem as creating this section: you are promoting fringe pseudoscience. You are debating, because otherwise you wouldn't be reinterpreting policy to try to promote pseudoscience. ] (]) 22:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
	::::::{{ping\|Ian.thomson}} You're right. I may be debating. But "reinterpret scripture" and such wasn't rebuking anything. Whether they are equally valid or not which they are not, but even if they were we have to follow Misplaced Pages's policies. We have to give less weight to creation science and other pseudosciences (like Time cube which I never heard of until I got to Misplaced Pages), because that's what Misplaced Pages's policies say. I didn't reinterpret Misplaced Pages's policies. I won't give points on considering Christianity, I will just follow Misplaced Pages's policies.] (]) 18:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

	:] - well, saying 'pseudoscience' at all seems more a preference of the editors here than the topic or general coverage, and particularly they want to say "is". (It's not just an evolutionary bias, it's a snark bias.) For what it's worth, I take a vague insult like that at the top as a warning of biased article -- in a two wrongs make an almost-right sense -- and see many questioning the use of the word here or elsewhere.
	:More to the topic though, historically I think Numbers described it as an effort to spot scientific evidence of biblical events, not as an attempt the reconcile the Bible with science. Cheers ] (]) 23:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
	::]I am afraid we have to go with what ] says.
	::Creation science is not an attempt to reconcile science with the Bible. It is an attempt to map the Genesis account of creation. Theistic evolution and old-Earth creation are the attempts to reconcile the Bible with science. What if the article started with "Creation science is an attempt to map the Genesis account of creation into science"? However, we have to follow Misplaced Pages's policies, which say to not give equal validity to fringe theories and pseudosciences. Misplaced Pages's policies say to describe whatever is pseudoscience, as pseudoscience.] (]) 18:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
	::: There is not a “mapping” of say Genesis 11:10 to a specified science item or field, nor is the CS intent a way to make science happily “reconcile” with creationism. There is no “reconciliation” nor “mapping”, those are poor wording choices. CS here was largely by Numbers described as someone noting geologic features and stating them to be results of the Flood. Actual landscape, real scientific geology, but not scientific conclusions. Cheers ] (]) 16:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
	::::See ]. Creation science started with religious dogma, both Biblical and the visions of the prophetess, and attempts to find flaws in conventional science with the assumption that creationism can then be given equal validity in "balanced treatment". Which needs better coverage in the article. . . . ], ] 10:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
	:::::] and ] That anonymous comment from '''''''''' was from me. Oops! In the second sentence of that comment, I meant to say that creation science is an attempt to map the Genesis account of creation into science. I forgot to say "into science." in that sentence. Misplaced Pages's policies however say to give less weight and less validity to fringe theories and pseudoscience than to the scientific consensus.] (]) 23:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
	::::::] The phrassing of "mapping" does not make any obvious sense or apparent RS connection. There is not for example a equivalence made of Genesis 11:10 to a particular science field or element, is there ? I think you mean they try to prove genesis by scientific arguments, but that's not clear from the phrasing. What does "map" mean here ? Cheers ] (]) 04:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

	== 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 ?

			"The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community"
	Cheers ] (]) 05:58, 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.
	:]. Disruption to prove a point. Stop it. ] (]) 07:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

			More of why I no longer donate. ] (]) 17:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
	::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)
			: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)
	:::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)
			: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? ==
	===tag provided===
			{{Collapse\|{{Arbitration ruling on pseudoscience}}}}
	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.
			Which does creation science belong to? ] (]) 21:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
	:{{tq\| ] and ] have described creation science as a ]{{disputed inline \|Disputed - claim these fields "described creation science as a pseudoscientific" \|date=July 2020}} }}
			: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"==
	Cheers ] (]) 17:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
			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".
	:
			#. "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.
			#. 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)

			: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)
	== Problem with verification of first sentence ==
			:::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 ==
	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)
	: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)
	::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)

			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
	== Is the Institute of Creation Research a reliable source? ==

			] (]) elrondaragorn ] (]) 20:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
	It's a reliable primary source about its views on creation science, but should it be used as an independent secondary source?
			: 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)
	] (]) 16:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

			== Scientific Consensus. ==
	:It is only a source for what creationists of that sort believe. Never for scientific claims. ] (]) 16:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

			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."
	: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)

			Just wondering if I got this correct. Thank you! ] (]) 23:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
	== The lead section is too long ==

			: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)
	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)
			::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: