| Revision as of 14:08, 25 July 2005 editBensaccount (talk | contribs)8,584 edits Replaced troll warning.← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:10, 25 July 2005 edit undoBensaccount (talk | contribs)8,584 edits Replaced latest section.Next edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| ] (article was merged into this) | ] (article was merged into this) | ||
| ==Current intro== | |||
| I see no problem with Barnaby Dawson's current incarnation of the intro. It may be a bit redundant but since pseudoscience itself no longer states where the judgement arises, here it stands. Are there any substantive (that is, factual) disputes with the current form? If not, I wonder where the problem is. ] 11:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *The current version is fine. I wasn't fine with the previous version because it added a sentence that made CS sound like it had provided scientific evidence. --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 13:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **The current version attempts to discredit the subject matter before defining it (analogous to "Racism is an attitude regarded by the majority of clerics as evil and irrational, which,") and then defines it in a way no creation scientist would define it:(. i'm not aware of any other articles that follow this approach. ] 13:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:10, 25 July 2005
Archives
- Still relevant discussions are linked to as well.
Archive 1 - March 2005 - (#Creationism is not science)
Archive 2 - April 2005 - (#Pseudoscience)
Archive 3 - May 2005 - (#Creation science is not natural science or social science)
Archive 4 - June 2005 - (#Massive Edit)
Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Creation science
Talk:Scientific creationism (article was merged into this)
Current intro
I see no problem with Barnaby Dawson's current incarnation of the intro. It may be a bit redundant but since pseudoscience itself no longer states where the judgement arises, here it stands. Are there any substantive (that is, factual) disputes with the current form? If not, I wonder where the problem is. Joshuaschroeder 11:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- The current version is fine. I wasn't fine with the previous version because it added a sentence that made CS sound like it had provided scientific evidence. -- BRIAN0918 13:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- The current version attempts to discredit the subject matter before defining it (analogous to "Racism is an attitude regarded by the majority of clerics as evil and irrational, which,") and then defines it in a way no creation scientist would define it:(. i'm not aware of any other articles that follow this approach. Ungtss 13:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)