| Revision as of 08:45, 29 December 2010 editHrafn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users40,179 edits WikiProject Creationism← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:30, 31 December 2010 edit undoCallmederek (talk | contribs)345 edits decategorize talk pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 207: | Line 207: | ||
| ::OK, don't pop a vein. Just revert it. I wanted to start some discussion thoough. --] (]) 18:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC) | ::OK, don't pop a vein. Just revert it. I wanted to start some discussion thoough. --] (]) 18:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::You're not wrong to want a discussion. With that said, Pseudoscience and Denialism are two entirely distinct things. Removing one due to having the other would be like proposing ] be removed from the ] article because it is already in the STD category. Secondly, an article about evolution denialism meets the criteria for the denialism category perfectly. You'll see that Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism are already in the category, and rightly so... Evolution is a fact, and is also a better supported theory in the field of science than, say, the authorship of Shakespeare's works is in the field of history. This article is about nothing but an organization which is devoted to denying science in a variety of forms, and it belongs in the denialism category as a result. <span>]<span style="margin:0 5px;font-variant:small-caps;position:relative;top:-6px"><sub>]</sub>|<sub>]</sub></span></span> 21:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC) | :::You're not wrong to want a discussion. With that said, Pseudoscience and Denialism are two entirely distinct things. Removing one due to having the other would be like proposing ] be removed from the ] article because it is already in the STD category. Secondly, an article about evolution denialism meets the criteria for the denialism category perfectly. You'll see that Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism are already in the category, and rightly so... Evolution is a fact, and is also a better supported theory in the field of science than, say, the authorship of Shakespeare's works is in the field of history. This article is about nothing but an organization which is devoted to denying science in a variety of forms, and it belongs in the denialism category as a result. <span>]<span style="margin:0 5px;font-variant:small-caps;position:relative;top:-6px"><sub>]</sub>|<sub>]</sub></span></span> 21:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::::From memory, I recall seeing something in Misplaced Pages guidelines about not 'idly' adding controversial categories to articles (as the anon editor did) - so I have removed it. ]] 02:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC) | ::::From memory, I recall seeing something in Misplaced Pages guidelines about not 'idly' adding controversial categories to articles (as the anon editor did) - so I have removed it. ]] 02:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 12:30, 31 December 2010
| 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | 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. |
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 (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:
If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of Creation science or promote Creation science please do so at talk.origins 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 in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages: Keep on topic |
 | 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. |
 | 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). |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 WP:NOT If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of Creation Science or promote Creation Science please do so at talk.origins 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 WP:V and WP:RS to see what sources meet this requirement) to support a fresh look at the topics. Doing so without such sources may be considered disruption, in accordance with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. |
| 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Moved the article from Creation science to Creation Science
I've boldly moved the article. The lead sentence of the article currently begins, "Creation Science or scientific creationism is the movement within creationism which ...". The name of the movement would be a proper noun, and Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (capitalization) says, "For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper noun that would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence." (emphasis supplied). Accordingly, I've renamed the article. I've left a redirect at Creation science, but that might at some point need to be disambiguated if an article appears on the topic of science as it relates to creation. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- If it is indeed a proper noun, should it be capitalized in the rest of the article? The first line seems to be the only place where both words are capitalized, presently. Other parts of the talk page refer to it being a proper noun rather than an adjective/noun pair (the discussion on whether it is science). Compwhiz797 (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Design and creationism
This phrase imputes an indissoluble connection between "design" and Creationism:
- intelligent design proponents sought to reintroduce the creationist ideas into science classrooms while sidestepping the First Amendment's prohibition
I think it should rather say that the proponents of ID are arguing that nature shows evidence of having been designed as opposed to, say, having come about through natural causes alone. To show a human vs. natural example, a picket fence or barbed wire fence shows signs of having been created by human beings, as opposed to the six-fold symmetry of a snowflake which (we know) regularly comes about naturally.
It is a matter of controversy whether ID is a sort of Creationism, with US courts agreeing with ID opponents that is. On the other hand, there are some vocal and prominent ID supporters who insist that ID merely is an argument that some forms of life have a structure more intricate than any natural cause could bring about.
The dispute lies between those who argue that ID entails creationism in the sense of beginning with a religious faith in a Creator and then (as in Creation Science) looking for scientific evidence to support this religious belief - and those who argue that ID literally is only an argument for "intelligent design" as derived only from physical evidence in fields such as microbiology without beginning with any sort of religious premise.
I wonder if this dispute can be mentioned in the current article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- The claim is historically accurate. The ID "movement" with its Big Tent philosophy predictably will include more diverse views than the Henry Morris stream. However the Panda's and People left a trail a mile wide that it was a creationist idea attempting to sidestep the McLean/Edwards court rulings. With the uncovering of the Wedge Document, and Michael Behe's involvement with Panda's and People, DI's attempts to present ID as a scientific discipline rather than a religiously driven legal/political strategy has failed to get much traction except with religiously motivated creationists whose own creationist beliefs have been excluded from public education by McLean and Edwards. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Science?
I propose this article shall be merged to the Creationism article. How is this science? Science works with the evidence and draws a conclusion from it. Creation "science" works with a conclusion and tries desperately to find evidence for it. --Czop10 (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Creation science is the name given to a certain kind of creationism. Think of it like Donkey Kong-a name for a video game. It may or may not have been intended as "Monkey Kong" at one time, but has never featured a donkey or a monkey--it features an ape. But encyclopedias use the names for things that are used in real life. They don't edit or improve them. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- A lot of this article could be merged into creationism, as it describes generic creationism rather than the specific subset which its proponents called "creation science". We don't seem to have used Lenny Flank's article as a source: as it neatly states, "In response to this ruling and the earlier Epperson Supreme Court decision, the creationist movement made the tactical decision to downplay the religious aspects of creationism, and began to argue that creationism could be supported solely through scientific evidence, without any reference to God or the Bible. Thus was born "creation science" -- it is nothing more than an attempt by the fundamentalists to sneak their religious views into the classroom by pretending that they are really a "science"." . . . dave souza, talk 09:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Czop10, You are completely and utterly wrong. Just because Creation science doesn't obey your narrow-minded Materialist-Secular worldview does not mean that Creation science is not valid. Anyway, nobody proposes that we merge Atheism with Evolution, so why do it here. Dave souza is also mistaken in claiming that fundamentalists "sneak" their religious views into the classroom. The issue of creation vs evolution is two-sided, and neither side is more or less scientific. Also, Creationism and Creation science are not synonymous, the former is the philosophical justification for the validity of the latter.--Axiom 15:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Let me just be blunt. The issue of creation vs evolution is two-sided, but one side - evolution - is more scientific. creationism, for the simple fact that it invokes the supernatural, is by definition, NOT scientific. Anything and everything that invokes the supernatural is, by definition, not scientific because science is the study of the natural world. No supernatural or no science. Period. There's no way around it. In addition, creation scientists do not conduct experiments, create hypotheses, test those hypotheses, or any other sort of activity that represents the scientific method in any way, shape, or form. to claim that creation science is in any way scientific is simply delusional.Farsight001 (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- AFAIK, Creation Science doesn't use the scientific method and doesn't fit the description of a Science as that WP article describes it. It would be a Psuedoscience, as that WP article describes such things. However, what is under discussion here is not whether or not Creation Science is a bona fide scientific discipline alongside such scientific disciplines as Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, etc. What is being discussed here is whether this article should be merged into the Creationism article. Axiom makes a good point that Creationism and Creation Science are not synonymous, describing the former as the philosophical justification for the validity of the latter. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please tell the people at the Creation Research Society this news. Their reports: "Experimental Results of Crowding on the Rate of Asexual Reproduction of the Planarian Dugesia Dorotocephala", "Rapid Deposition of Thin Laminae Sediments", "Seed Germination, Sea Water, And Plant Survival In The Great Flood", "A Demonstration of Marked Species Stability in Enterobacteriaceae", "Deposition of Calcium Carbonate in a Laboratory Situation", "Experiments On Precipitation Brought About By Mixing Brines", "Rapid Growth Of Dripstone Observed", "Surtsey: A Micro-Laboratory For Flood Geology", "A Report Of Activity On The Grasslands Experiment Station For 1983" and "What is the Upward Limit for the Rate of Speleothem Formation?" to name ten, appear to discuss experiments conducted. Perhaps truth trumps bluntness. Dan Watts (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- A thumbnail sketch of scientific method is provided in the article thereon, as follows:
- 1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
- 2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
- 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
- 4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.
- That does not appear to describe the approach used by the Creation Research Society, who describe themselves on their website as "firmly committed to scientific special creation." Their History and Aims page say that their members "... are committed to full belief in the Biblical record of creation and early history. Thus, they advocate the concept of special creation (as opposed to evolution), both of the universe and of the earth with its complexity of living forms. All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief: ..." (see the aforementioned web page for the details of the statement of belief to which all members are required to subscribe).
- Also see Scientific method#Certainty and myth; which begins by saying, "A scientific theory hinges on empirical findings, and remains subject to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered certain." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- An example "Solution and Deposition of Calcium Carbonate in a Laboratory Situation (IV)" as weighed against the stated scientific method:
- 1. Use your experience: "Consider the problem .... Look for previous explanations. " Long times are generally associated with large stalactite/stalagmite structures. Is this assumption true?
- 2. Form a conjecture: Are measurable rates of CaCO3 precipitation consistent with the above assumption?
- 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: "A tentative model for the formation of limestone, cavern development, and sudden precipitation of stalactites, stalagmites, and dripstones ...."
- 4. Test:
- "Table I. Precipitation of CaCO3 on Strings by Pressure Decrease - Run 1" - 0.40 g/liter H2O/Year
- "Table III. Precipitation of CaCO3 on Strings by Pressure Decrease - Run 2" - 0.03 g/liter H2O/Year
- "Table IV. Precipitation of CaCO3 on Strings by Pressure Decrease - Run 3" - 0.33 g/liter H2O/Year
- "Table V. Precipitation of CaCO3 on Strings by Pressure Decrease - Run 4" - 0.98 g/liter H2O/Year
- Appendix II Rapid Growing Structures in Caves "Three new stalactites had grown and the longest was some longer than 12 . The time since the last photo was taken ... was just over 3 months ago so the growth rate ... would be approximately 4 per month ...."
- Does this appear unscientific, unempirical, unfalsifiable? Dan Watts (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- An example "Solution and Deposition of Calcium Carbonate in a Laboratory Situation (IV)" as weighed against the stated scientific method:
- AFAIK, Creation Science doesn't use the scientific method and doesn't fit the description of a Science as that WP article describes it. It would be a Psuedoscience, as that WP article describes such things. However, what is under discussion here is not whether or not Creation Science is a bona fide scientific discipline alongside such scientific disciplines as Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, etc. What is being discussed here is whether this article should be merged into the Creationism article. Axiom makes a good point that Creationism and Creation Science are not synonymous, describing the former as the philosophical justification for the validity of the latter. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Let me just be blunt. The issue of creation vs evolution is two-sided, but one side - evolution - is more scientific. creationism, for the simple fact that it invokes the supernatural, is by definition, NOT scientific. Anything and everything that invokes the supernatural is, by definition, not scientific because science is the study of the natural world. No supernatural or no science. Period. There's no way around it. In addition, creation scientists do not conduct experiments, create hypotheses, test those hypotheses, or any other sort of activity that represents the scientific method in any way, shape, or form. to claim that creation science is in any way scientific is simply delusional.Farsight001 (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Czop10, You are completely and utterly wrong. Just because Creation science doesn't obey your narrow-minded Materialist-Secular worldview does not mean that Creation science is not valid. Anyway, nobody proposes that we merge Atheism with Evolution, so why do it here. Dave souza is also mistaken in claiming that fundamentalists "sneak" their religious views into the classroom. The issue of creation vs evolution is two-sided, and neither side is more or less scientific. Also, Creationism and Creation science are not synonymous, the former is the philosophical justification for the validity of the latter.--Axiom 15:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
It does indeed appear to be very scientific, the reason being that the part you showed us is real science, it's the real science of growing stalactites in a lab. Unfortunately, as any scientist could tell you, this is insufficient evidence to confirm anything beyond the time it takes a stalactite to grow... in a lab. This has no connection to how caves are actually formed, nor does it invalidate any other preexisting geological evidence of how caves are formed. Scientists use evidence to prove or support claims, claims that are always subject to being refined or outright disregarded, this organization is supposedly dedicated to "science" but is formed of only people who are stated to have beliefs that are in direct conflict with scientific evidence, while some of their research may be valid(like the stalactite thing), their conclusions(that the earth is <10,000 years old) are utterly ridiculous from a scientific perspective. There's only one real scientific community because there's only one universe to make observations of, these people are observing the real world to find evidence to prove that the biblical world that only exists in their heads is the one we live in. Basically, I could write a page about "Wizard Science" and describe where dementors (which are invisible to us muggles) are by analyzing the number of depressed people in an area- the research on the density of people suffering from depression in a population could be useful, but as a dementor finder, it's not. If the fact that only a ridiculously small number of scientists believe in creation "science" does not make creation science any less valid, then wizard science is no less valid if I can get a few other scientists to support it. Just as the Flying Spaghetti Monster is equally valid as a candidate for the "designer" from that ridiculous thing called intelligent design as any other imaginary god is.Hoyt596 (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ah! So the report: "Three new stalactites had grown and the longest was some longer than 12 . The time since the last photo was taken ... was just over 3 months ago so the growth rate ... would be approximately 4 per month ...." has "no connection to how caves are actually formed" or how stalactites grow outside a lab.
- "You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya Dan Watts (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- May I suggest that the question of 'whether creationism is science' is not to be decided on the basis of WP:OR, such as the above -- but one the basis of WP:RS. I would therefore suggest we accept the opinion of 72 NOBEL LAUREATES, 17 STATE ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE, AND 7 OTHER SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS. I would further suggest that this thread be closed. HrafnStalk(P) 18:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
New section needed?
"Creation Science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism, which attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis "
If this is so, shouldn't the article have, somewhere near the top, a brief summary of that narrative, and maybe an overview of current thinking regarding its origins? (By the way, it seems a little tautological to repeat the word Genesis like that). PiCo (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think that, not only are you correct, but the article needs to be overhauled. It would be a big job, but the place to start is the lead. I would prefer that the article spoke more bluntly, so that it was clear from the very start that "creation science" is not a branch of science, or in any way scientific, but rather an attempt to force science to bend to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Had a quick google. Nice definition of CS here; and it seems Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research has a book out, but it gets poor reviews. And Walt Brown of the Centre for Scientific Creation also has a book - I have no idea who's important in creationist circles, unfortunately.PiCo (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- They're not so much circles as triangles. There are only a few organizations, and they're all very well known. In other words, the notion of "scientific creationism" or "creation science" is the creation of a small number of motivated individuals. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Had a quick google. Nice definition of CS here; and it seems Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research has a book out, but it gets poor reviews. And Walt Brown of the Centre for Scientific Creation also has a book - I have no idea who's important in creationist circles, unfortunately.PiCo (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Getting back to the idea of a section on the biblical basis for it, how about this:
Creation science is based on the opening chapters of the book of Genesis. These describe how God calls the world into existence through the power of speech ("God said, 'Let there be light'," etc), calls all the animals and plants into existence, and molds the first man from clay and the first woman from a rib taken from the man's side; a world-wide flood destroys all life except for Noah and his family and representatives of the animals, and Noah becomes the ancestor of the 70 "nations" of the world; the nations live together and speak one language until God disperses them and gives them their different languages. Creation science rarely goes beyond these stories, but the bible also contains a complex internal chronology which places the initial act of creation some six thousand years ago, and creation science therefore frequently attempts to explain history and science within this timeframe.
Just for discussion. PiCo (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- How about:
Creation science is based on the opening chapters of the book of Genesis. These describe how God called the world into existence ("God said, 'Let there be light'," etc), calls all the animals and plants into existence, and molds the first man from clay and the first woman from a rib taken from the man's side; a world-wide flood destroys all non-marine life except for Noah and his family and representatives of the animals, and Noah becomes the ancestor of the 70 "nations" of the world; the nations live together and speak one language until God disperses them by giving them their different languages. Creation science rarely goes beyond these stories, but the bible also contains a complex internal chronology which places the initial act of creation some six thousand years ago, and creation science therefore frequently attempts to explain history and science within this timeframe.
Hi Dan. I've been away for a few days, so no reply till now. Well, it's true that Genesis 6 doesn't list fish among those about to be obliterated for their sins, but I sort of feel we can accept this as a given - I'd let the reader mentally fill in the blank space after "everything" (...except the fish"). PiCo (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hello PiCo. In fact, Genesis 6 doesn't list any sin problem of the birds or the beasts either. They just inhabited the same ecosphere as mankind. Dan Watts (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Denialism
The Category:Denialism may be a bit POV. Pseudoscience is descriptive, but denialism seems to be coming more from someone's perspective. It might be true or not, but it seems to me such a category isn't needed here. Denialism is more for things like Holocaust denialism and AIDS denialism, things that are obviously beyond reason. To people who are raised with this belief, it isn't beyond reason. Because so many people believe it, it isn't obviously wrong, though to some it may seem to be. I don't think the Denialism adds anything here except a tad of POV.
I think Pseudoscience describes the position well enough without the Denialism. --DanielCD (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Anthropologist Didier Fassin defines denialism as "an ideological position whereby one systematically reacts by refusing reality and truth"
- Creationists are unmoved by the wealth of fossil, molecular, and anatomical evidence for evolution…the category appears to be absolutely correct? No matter how many people "believe" something, it doesn't make it true!!! Teapotgeorge 17:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- OK, don't pop a vein. Just revert it. I wanted to start some discussion thoough. --DanielCD (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're not wrong to want a discussion. With that said, Pseudoscience and Denialism are two entirely distinct things. Removing one due to having the other would be like proposing Category:Acronyms be removed from the AIDs article because it is already in the STD category. Secondly, an article about evolution denialism meets the criteria for the denialism category perfectly. You'll see that Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism are already in the category, and rightly so... Evolution is a fact, and is also a better supported theory in the field of science than, say, the authorship of Shakespeare's works is in the field of history. This article is about nothing but an organization which is devoted to denying science in a variety of forms, and it belongs in the denialism category as a result. Jesstalk|edits 21:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- From memory, I recall seeing something in Misplaced Pages guidelines about not 'idly' adding controversial categories to articles (as the anon editor did) - so I have removed it. 02:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you could cite that guideline, that would be helpful. Until then, I don't see any valid objections other than that it is "controversial". Quite a few other pages relating to this article are already in that category. Do you have a solid reason for objecting to it, besides that it wasn't discussed first? Jesstalk|edits 04:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- I find user 's reasoning flawed. I gave a perfectly valid explanation above for re-adding the category, as did user Jesstalk|edits to then remove it because it was added initially by an anon editor is disingenuous. Adding the category Denialism is in no way controversial, the category already includes it's own subcategory of Creation Science! Teapotgeorge 12:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have much to add here except to say that it should be quite obvious why any form of Creationism would be considered denialism. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- As requested, here is the WP guideline from Categorization#What_categories_should_be_created "Categorizations appear on pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossnixon (talk • contribs) @ 01:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that there's any question in the reader's mind about why "creation science" is a form of denialism? Or are you suggesting that there's any genuine controversy here? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- As requested, here is the WP guideline from Categorization#What_categories_should_be_created "Categorizations appear on pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossnixon (talk • contribs) @ 01:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have much to add here except to say that it should be quite obvious why any form of Creationism would be considered denialism. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- I find user 's reasoning flawed. I gave a perfectly valid explanation above for re-adding the category, as did user Jesstalk|edits to then remove it because it was added initially by an anon editor is disingenuous. Adding the category Denialism is in no way controversial, the category already includes it's own subcategory of Creation Science! Teapotgeorge 12:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you could cite that guideline, that would be helpful. Until then, I don't see any valid objections other than that it is "controversial". Quite a few other pages relating to this article are already in that category. Do you have a solid reason for objecting to it, besides that it wasn't discussed first? Jesstalk|edits 04:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
"Many notable scientists..." in 'History and organization' section
I'm removing this paragraph as it:
- Lists a number of scientists who lived before modern geology and biology challenged a literal creation.
- Appears to conflate support for the theological doctrine of creation with the pseudoscientific claims of creationism.
- Cites blatantly sectarian and/or unreliable sources, e.g. Campus Crusade for Christ International,[REDACTED] article
- Cites references too vague to allow verification, e.g. "Johannes Kepler: His Life, His Laws, and Times." NASA./The Religious Affiliation of philosopher and mathematician Rene Descartes. Webpage
HrafnStalk(P) 08:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
MOre areas for creation science?
Just looking at the various branches of creation science, it seems to me that a few areas are missing, and I'm wondering if there are creation science versions of these:
- Archaeology: Since the world began only 6~120k years ago, there isn't room for long paleolithic etc periods in the history of cultures. Radiocarbon and other dating must be a problem. Is there a creation science version of archaeology?
- Linguistics: Since all languages derive from the aftermath of the Tower of Babel, the division into language families seems moot (modern linguistics is essentially an evolutionary model - languages are classified by families etc rather like species etc, and they "evolved" into their present forms).
- Ethnology/anthropology: only 70 "peoples" are allowed, according to the Table of Nations - and the ToN sets certain rules, so that the inhabitants of Canaan have to be "Hamites" (Africans?), not "Semites" - modern ethnologists regard the Canaanites as Semitic in language and culture.
I'm sure there are more, but for those three, are there any CS versions? PiCo (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Haven't seen any -- they may be dumped into the 'too hard' category (too many facts that are too hard to explain from a CS/YEC viewpoint) along with things like population genetics and biogeography. You're welcome to 'dumpster dive' into YEC sites like AiG, ICR & CMI to see if they address any of this however. :) TOA's An Index to Creationist Claims may also be useful. HrafnStalk(P) 10:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Bold changes to lead.
Could we please discuss these first, so as to avoid edit-warring? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Rossnixon, if you have any specific objections, this is the place to make them. Please do not edit-war. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- True. But you are mistaken. I was merely reverting the bold and undiscussed edit of 64.118.22.209. 02:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Every edit is someone else's reversion. Regardless, I would very much appreciate it if you would explain your specific objections. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that you reverted again without a single explanation here shows that you are edit-warring. I suggest that you self-revert immediately. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- No. Editors should support their additions. Forgive me for asking, but you are not the original anonymous editor are you? 02:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, but you're about to violate WP:3RR, so I recommend self-reverting and explaining your objections. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Pot, kettle, black! 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Let's both act like adults, shall we? Give us your reasons. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have given sufficient reason. Go look for it. 02:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Go look for it" is an inadequate response. Post it here; this is not a guessing game. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have given sufficient reason. Go look for it. 02:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Let's both act like adults, shall we? Give us your reasons. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Pot, kettle, black! 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, but you're about to violate WP:3RR, so I recommend self-reverting and explaining your objections. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- No. Editors should support their additions. Forgive me for asking, but you are not the original anonymous editor are you? 02:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that you reverted again without a single explanation here shows that you are edit-warring. I suggest that you self-revert immediately. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Every edit is someone else's reversion. Regardless, I would very much appreciate it if you would explain your specific objections. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
All the fireworks attracted my attention, so I took a look at this. The changes aren't very extensive, so I broke them down point by point.
A. The redlink Genesis creation narratives and the question of whether "it comes" (singular) or "they come" (plural).
- There is a WP article titled Genesis creation narrative (singular) wherein it says, "The opening passages of the Book of Genesis consecutively contain two creation stories." The name of that article could be pluralized as Genesis creation narratives, but I'd suggest leaving it singular (not explicitly pluralizing a singular article name here) so as not to cause unnecessary confusion. "The Genesis creation narrative comes from the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Bible." seems clear enough to me.
B. The question of whether the article needs to point out that the Bible is Christianity's holy scripture.
- I'd say not; it's not something likely to need clarification, and it neglects to mention that the Bible (or portions or specific versions thereof) is holy to some non-Christians as well. That second point re non-Christians is probably not of much concern in this article since (AFAIK, anyhow) Creation Science is exclusively Christian.
C. The question of whether the first creation story describes creation of a flat Earth under a bowl-shaped Heaven.
- Digging around, I found David Presutta (2007), "The Firmament of Heaven", The Biblical Cosmos Versus Modern Cosmology: Why the Bible Is Not the Word of God, Llumina Press, ISBN 9781595268297, which presents a pretty detailed discussion of this which boils down to "yes". On p. 82 "flat" is mentioned as coming from a noun-ized Hebrew verb said to be used for beating or hammering out metal into thin plates or sheets, and as the first-ssense of a dictionary entry for that Hebrew noun; an "upside-down-bowl" is mentioned as a synonym for "vault", and tied to the second-sense dictionary entry for that Hebrew noun.
D. The question of whether the in Genesis chapter two narrative was written by a different author at a much later time period than the story in chapter one.
- I didn't do a lot of reading about this, and I ran into some nonpreviewable pages of the aforementioned book which are apparently relevant. I get the sense from pp. 247-248, however, that the author of that book attributes the chapter 1 account to Luke and the chapter 2 account to Matthew (speaking in the context of the tablet theory of biblical authorship).
I'm not a biblical scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but I think that the above lays out the skeleton for what might be a supportable rewrite for the paragraph at issue. If there are strong editorial opinions that other interpretations should be presented, those interpretations should be given due weight in the article, with supporting sources cited. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Wtmichell, thanks for making breaking down the list of changes and commenting on it. Really, this is something RossNixon should have done, but you were kind to do their job for them. The only thing you couldn't do was read their mind to determine what their motivation was.
- In any case, I'd like to briefly respond to your points.
- A. I'm not sure that pluralizing would cause any significant confusion, but to be frank, I don't feel strongly one way or the other.
- B. Well, there are Jewish and Muslim Creationists, and "Creation Science" is just Creationism under another name. Still, I agree that we can probably drop the remark in parentheses.
- C. I agree that this is both correct and relevant. It belongs in the article.
- D. I'm not sure how significant the tablet theory is, compared to the documentary hypothesis, or whether there's room for it here.
- Thanks again. Hopefully, we can move forward, despite RossNixon's stubborn determination not to cooperate. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- As you know Dylan, I am happy with bold changes provided they are supported by cites to reliable sources. Until then, such proposed changes should remain on talk pages. 02:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Unless you have some specific objection, the above consensus will be enforced. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- "'Creation Science' is just Creationism under another name." I would have to disagree -- 'Creation Science' is (i) creationism promoted under the color of science (i.e. under the pretence of science) and (ii) a loose coalition of YEC proponents of such, most notable for their promotion of flood geology (see Numbers' The Creationists, whose table of different types of creationists uses Flood Geology & Creation Science synonymously). HrafnStalk(P) 02:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- As you know Dylan, I am happy with bold changes provided they are supported by cites to reliable sources. Until then, such proposed changes should remain on talk pages. 02:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'll be traveling starting tomorrow, so I've gone ahead and taken a whack at a rewrite of the paragraph under discussion here. The changes I made and the rationale behind them are:
- I removed the wikilink on the previously redlinked term "Genesis creation narratives". The singular version of this term is wikilinked earlier in the article. I've left the unwikilinked term here singular, as that seemed to me to read more smoothly than if the term were pluralized.
- I put the bit about the flat earth and bowl-shaped heaven back in. It has been in and out as an unsupported assertion; having found the source discussed above supporting the assertion, I added it back in and cited that supporting source.
- I added the info that some theories of biblical authorship suggest that the two genesis creation stories were written at different times by different authors, citing a supporting source for that.
- I removed the final sentence, "For biblical literalists, it incudes the story of original sin." The rest of the paragraph is focused on chapters 1 snd 2 of genesis, and this concerns chapter 3. If material on chapter 3 is added back in, I'd suggest making that a separate paragraph. The phrase "For biblical literalists" has been edited back and forth with an alternative phrase, "For fundamentalist Christians". I would suggest not mentioning either phrase -- the story of original sin is included in chapter 3 regardless of who the reader might be. Also, I'd suggest wikilinking original sin the first time it is mentioned.
- Hopefully, I've struck an acceptable balance here. Feel free to improve what I've done. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think you did a good job implementing what was discussed and the article is better for it.
- The one thing I'm wondering is whether creation science is necessarily of the young-earth flavor. It's plausible, but news to me. Do you know if we have a citation for it somewhere? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- I would call it more a historical accident than a 'necessity'. Creationism has two main areas of disagreement with modern science: geology (and specifically the age of the earth) and biology (specifically evolution). Flood geology is explicitly YEC, and 'creation biology' decamped to the ID movement before having achieved any notoriety under the CS banner. The result is that there is little, if any, work that self-identifies as 'Creation Science' that isn't YEC. HrafnStalk(P) 03:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, so more recent Creationist attempts to look scientific would call themselves "Intelligent Design" and would focus on anti-evolution, right? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, except the YEC/CS/FG effort is still alive and well (Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, etc). They also attack evolution at every opportunity, just don't work so hard as ID at the pretence of offering an 'alternative' to it (Baraminology as an alternative to cladistics would be the only exception to this). Oh, and I just remembered that both CS & ID take an interest in cosmology -- CS from a viewpoint of 'the universe is not billions of years old', ID from the viewpoint of the 'fine tuning' argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrafn (talk • contribs) @ 03:41, 9 November 2010
- Interesting. Looks like the strategy is to evolve to fill all niches. Darwin would have approved. :-) Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oui -- it has been oft commented on that, for a bunch so emphatically opposed to evolution, they seem to do an awful amount of evolving (in response to First Amendment court rulings, as well as to find new niches). HrafnStalk(P) 03:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- All that evolving, and yet they still haven't been able to develop any resistance to Miller's simple argument for the compatibility of Christianity and evolution. Maybe they're right about the impossibility of evolution! Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Their two sticking points appear to be Biblical Inerrancy (never a big issue with Catholics, of which Miller is one) and the historical-Adam-and-Eve/Fall/Original Sin thing. That 'resistance is futile' never seems to stop people futilely trying to resist. HrafnStalk(P) 04:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- As yet another Catholic, I can confirm that we reject sola scriptura. The Church has been around long enough to remember that it's the one that chose which books went into the Bible. Since the Bible is as much a product of the Church as it is its foundation, we do not place it above the living tradition through which we interpret it. End result is that the Pope, for all the claims that he's a hidebound traditionalist, admits to the truth of evolution. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Their two sticking points appear to be Biblical Inerrancy (never a big issue with Catholics, of which Miller is one) and the historical-Adam-and-Eve/Fall/Original Sin thing. That 'resistance is futile' never seems to stop people futilely trying to resist. HrafnStalk(P) 04:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- All that evolving, and yet they still haven't been able to develop any resistance to Miller's simple argument for the compatibility of Christianity and evolution. Maybe they're right about the impossibility of evolution! Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oui -- it has been oft commented on that, for a bunch so emphatically opposed to evolution, they seem to do an awful amount of evolving (in response to First Amendment court rulings, as well as to find new niches). HrafnStalk(P) 03:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Recent changes
I do not agree with the Gwilenius/Rossnixon changes to the lead:
- CSists do in fact attempt to "disprove generally accepted facts" -- RATE would be an obvious example.
- That much of the material altered was part of a direct quote from Plavcan -- so should not be altered unless evidence is presented that he was misquoted.
- It is a violation of both WP:SELFPUB ("unduly self-serving") & WP:DUE to use Morris' self-description of CS's methods (which is compounded by offering a lengthy quote).
HrafnStalk(P) 02:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree, RATE is not an example of Creation Scientists "disproving" scientific facts - RATE makes use of the exact same data sets as naturalistic scientists, use the same methodologies to collect their data, and the same methods to interpret their data (L. Vardiman, A. Snelling, E. Chaffin. (2005). Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth. Institute for Creation Research. El Cajon, CA.) Facts are data, not the conclusions of that data. Saying the earth is billions of years old is not a fact, it is a conclusion based on interpretation of factual data in light of a particular decay model based on the presumption of uniformitarianism. Creation scientists interpret factual data based on teh presumption of Creationism - neither of which can be proven, and therefore neither position can be proven. Additionally, I have cited the president of the Institute for Creation Research himself as stating the purpose of Scientific Creationism is to use scientific facts to present evidence of origins in a manner at least as effective as evolutionary theory. (H. Morris. (2009). Scientific Creationism. Master Books. Green Forest, AR. P.3). Therefore, to say that Creation Scientists disprove scientific facts just because ONE reference is cited is clearly false because it is a logical fallacy called "hasty generalization." I am suggesting to change the word "disprove" to "challenge," because it is more accurate and closer to the truth. Otherwise, would some one counter my argument and provide a good explanation as to why it should be asserted that "creation science," implying ALL creation scientists, attempt to disprove scientific facts, when this is indeed not the case?
- I will apologize for changing the quote - that was not my intention. This is the first time I have contributed and the edit screen looked like it was part of the text, not a citation with a quote. Will you please define "lengthy quote?" How was it "more lengthy" than Ref. 1? Finally, Morris is an authority in Scientific Creationism, and his viewpoint is accepted by peers and therefore there is nothing wrong with his "self-description," which is more an observation. Also, this viewpoint is fully supported by others such as Dr. Ariel Roth and the RATE team. Please, eliminate the bias in this article and include all perspectives. I will emphasize once again that not all creation scientists attempt to disprove scientific facts, and have conclusively demonstrated this.Gwilenius (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- "I disagree, RATE is not an example of Creation Scientists "disproving" scientific facts - RATE makes use of the exact same data sets as naturalistic scientists, use the same methodologies to collect their data, and the same methods to interpret their data (L. Vardiman, A. Snelling, E. Chaffin. (2005)." No. "RATE makes use of the" anomalous results of a small group of YECs untrained in experimental geochronology, and extrapolates from this that large, previously-undocumented and theoretically-unexplainable variations in nuclear decay rates are possible. A more reasonable conclusion is that they simply cocked up their experiments.
- I would further point out that the "data sets naturalistic scientists" includes a considerable body of experimental and observational data demonstrating that it is extremely difficult to alter nuclear decay rates, even by an extremely small amount, and even under extreme conditions. I would be curious as to how RATE "makes use of" that particular set of data. HrafnStalk(P) 06:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Saying the earth is billions of years old is not a fact" -- it is very close to one. Uniformity of nuclear decay is however a fact.
- "Creation scientists interpret factual data based on teh presumption of Creationism" -- Creation 'Scientists' cherry-pick data to fit their presumption.
- I would further point out that basing work "on teh presumption of Creationism" whose main conclusion is an attempt to prove "teh presumption of Creationism" is the fallacy of begging the question, and thus logically invalid. HrafnStalk(P) 05:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Henry M. Morris was a crank with little scientific training and no scientific or scholarly credibility. The book was published by the organisation he created, ICR, which also lacks scientific or scholarly credibility. It is the very epitome of WP:SELFPUB. I see no more reason to give any more credence to his self-assessment than to Gene Ray's assessment of his Time Cube theories. The same applies, to a lesser or greater extent, to "Dr. Ariel Roth and the RATE team".
- Please read WP:DUE, and particularly the statement: "However, such pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view." This means that minority self-assessments should not be accepted at face value.
- "I disagree, RATE is not an example of Creation Scientists "disproving" scientific facts - RATE makes use of the exact same data sets as naturalistic scientists, use the same methodologies to collect their data, and the same methods to interpret their data (L. Vardiman, A. Snelling, E. Chaffin. (2005)." No. "RATE makes use of the" anomalous results of a small group of YECs untrained in experimental geochronology, and extrapolates from this that large, previously-undocumented and theoretically-unexplainable variations in nuclear decay rates are possible. A more reasonable conclusion is that they simply cocked up their experiments.
- HrafnStalk(P) 04:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I would conclude by stating that your entire argument is premised on giving equal validity to Creation Science versus the Scientific consensus. Misplaced Pages explicitly rejects this premise. HrafnStalk(P) 05:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- 1) Perhaps you should read the reference I provided. The data RATE uses is described in detail. Every branch of science "cherry-picks" the data to some degree.
- 2) Possessing an engineering degree is lacking scientific training? Who made that determination? Resorting to ad hominen attacks is hardly a counter-argument. Who's opinion are you citing which claims ICR has no scientific credibility? Biased reports from the NSF? Biased consensus from mainstream science?
- 3) The consensus is not always correct.
- 4) My point is this - stating that creation science, and implying all creation scientists, attempt to disprove facts of science is a lie and the wording should be changed. I have provided sufficient evidence that not all creation scientsts resort to these tactics, your opinions aside. As a whole, this article is not a "neutral" represntation of Creation Science, as it immediately makes the false generalization that CS rejects science.
- If Misplaced Pages rejects giving equal validity, then WP is in and of itself biased. Perhaps this is why WP is forbidden to be used as research material in many educational institutions.Gwilenius (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have -- I wrote the Creation geophysics section on RATE. Their report is however nearly 700 pages long. Please point to where you believe they have established, on the basis of "the exact same data sets as naturalistic scientists" (as opposed to their own malformed experiments) that nuclear decay rates are highly variable. "Every branch of science 'cherry-picks' the data to some degree." Only to the "degree" that they expect to be laughed out of the building -- doing so is considered scientific malfeasance.
- Engineers are trained to build things, scientists to discover things -- two very different things. "Who made that determination?" determined that CS lacked any merit. Pointing out that somebody who (i) lacks any relevant scientific training, & (ii) makes claims rejected by the scientific community over a century before he was born, is not a WP:RS is hardly an ad hominem. Choosing sources means evaluating their credibility.
- The consensus may not be always correct, but it is more times than it is not -- and the amount of error by which it is wrong by, even when it is wrong, has shrunk precipitously in the last century.
- The majority scientific viewpoint is that CS is worthless pseudoscience. Misplaced Pages is required to give WP:DUE weight to that view. And it is forbidden to accept its proponents self-assessments (the only sources from which you have presented "evidence") at face value.
- HrafnStalk(P) 07:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
'History and organization' section
The start of this section (everything before the 2nd paragraph of 'Twentieth century creationism') appears to be on the history of creationism (which already has its own article), rather than the history of Creation Science. A more relevant history should cover scriptural geologists, George McCready Price (who gets only a bare mention, and possibly Harry Rimmer) -- i.e. CS's antecedents in making purportedly-scientific claims in support of creationism, before moving onto the birth of modern CS/Flood Geology with Morris & Whitcoomb. HrafnStalk(P) 07:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I would further note that most of 'Modern religious affiliations' (in fact everything after the first paragraph) has little (and in most cases nothing) to do with that subject. HrafnStalk(P) 07:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I have just tagged this section, for spending too much space talking about the history of creationism generally, and not enough space talking about the history of Creation Science specifically. HrafnStalk(P) 03:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- I would also like to add there should be a structure or maybe a concept map for Creation Science, since not all models are equivalent. Does theistic evolution classify? What about the Gap theory model, or Deistic evolution? These are all "creation science" models of certain degrees, but what of scientific creationism? Is scientific creationism a model, or a means? Are fundamental creationists scientific creationists, or are they religious zealots? Creationism is the widest classification, Creation Science includes the various models which use some degree of scientific methodology, and scientific creationism uses pure science to provide evidence for creation, just like scientific naturalism uses pure science to provide evidence for evolution (Ariel A. Roth. (1998). Origins - Linking Science and Scripture. Review and Herald Publishing Association. Hagerstown, MD. pp.339-351)
- Gwilenius (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Does theistic evolution classify?" No -- TE scientists have a long record of opposing Creationism, including Creation Science. "What about the Gap theory model..." -- probably not as, AFAIK, no purportedly scientific claims were made to promote GT at the expense of orthodox geology. GT was an attempt to accommodate geological knowledge within a framework of Biblical Inerrancy. As far as a definition of CS, I offer Numbers(2006) p269: "By the mid-1970s the advocates of flood geology, such as Morris and Moore, had securely attached the synonymous tags 'creation science' and 'scientific creationism' to the Bible-based views of George McCready Price. This relabeling reflected more than euphemistic preference; it signified a major tactical shift among strict six-day creationists." It is clear from this that Creation Science = Scientific Creationism = Flood Geology = a subset of YEC. HrafnStalk(P) 05:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- OED defines 'Creation Science' as "chiefly U.S., science teaching based on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Book of Genesis, incorporating a creation of the universe, the individual creation of plant and animal species, and a catastrophic theory of geology." HrafnStalk(P) 06:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not at all convinced that this wholesale removal is a good idea. Dylan Flaherty 14:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please point to how the material was relevant to this article (as it discussed a period before Creation Science came into existence, and made no mention of CS). After a month, I got no negative response (or even a relevant response) to my suggestion, so I observed WP:SILENCE and went ahead. HrafnStalk(P) 15:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- The issue is that Creation Science is just a more recent relabeling for Creationism, so the history of the former must include the history of the latter. Dylan Flaherty 15:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Creation science is not just a relabeling of creationism-it's a subset within creationism. Creation science purports to be a naturalistic, scientific discipline whose results are consistent with special creation. Since virtually all creation scientists are creationists working from set precepts that they either cannot or will not allow to be falsified empirically, the discipline doesn't succeed as being a true scientific discipline--but it's the "science" angle characterizes this strain of creationism.
- I wrote much of the history section but might agree with Hrafn's point. It was intended to present the history in terms of those chief religious figures who tried to apply scientific or naturalistic evidence of creation with Biblical interpretation of creation, and vice versa. These historical antecedents were identified in the texts I cited. But Price was overshadowed too much-he's clearly the most significant as the "founding father" of 20th century creation science. Where to draw lines is handled differently by different sources. Many consider "strains" like evolving branches of thought in creationism, fuzzy sets that some ways intersect (e.g. intelligent design intersects creation science, and creation science intersects YEC) and other ways don't (e.g. ID's foremost scientist, biochemist Behe, overlaps with creation science but does not overlap with YEC). Others consider them more as separate box-like categories (e.g. creation science stems from Henry Morris, a fundamentalist/evangelical YEC movement, with ID an independent movement, led DI, having its own box.) Similarly, sources differ to what degree they associate today's creation science with historical attempts to interpret or verify creation doctrine naturalistically or empirically. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Rodsgarden
@Rodsgarden: You need to realize that any thing published by any creationists on any topic is an "unreliable source" by definition on Misplaced Pages. _AshforkAZ (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that creationists are not allowed to speak for themselves in Misplaced Pages, even in the article on Creation Science, but their opponents are allowed to put words in their mouths and misrepresent what they actually teach. It was easy to see the bias in the article, but I had hoped that I could at least correct a glaring error in the article. Is Misplaced Pages that prejudiced against creation science that it refuses to consider an opposing viewpoint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodsgarden (talk • contribs) 01:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not at all. Creationist sources are authoritative on the matter of what Creationist sources say, and this may well be relevant in some articles. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- To be blunt, the creationist big wigs are habitual lying sacks of crap blatantly contravening the commands of Christ through their intentional dishonesty. We can, actually, report what they say, but it would need to be balanced/countered by the truth. Creation science is not an "opposing viewpoint" like gradualism and punctuated equillibrium might be in evolution. You need to recognize this first and foremost. Creation science is just plain crap - like trying to convince people 2+2=22 instead of 4 and creating a whole method of algebra based on that false premise, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
- In regards to your edit specifically, while those quotes are what those people say in the public eye, they have failed to learn from the Nixon administration and retain their private conversations, which inevitably leak and reveal an entirely different belief and intent that they don't want their followers to know of. The Wedge Strategy, while not associated with the people you are citing, is perhaps the most famous example of Creationists' real intentions being leaked.Farsight001 (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- @Rodsgarden: Exactly! Farsight is typical editor on WP. Misplaced Pages is not about truth, but about who has "reliable" sources. You need secondary 'reliable' sources, not primary 'unreliable' sources. All publications by Creationists about creationism are 'unreliable' primary sources. All 'reliable' secondary sources are anti-creation, published by anti-creationists. There are no neutral sources in the creation/evolution issue. And that explains the tone of all the articles on this issue. That's why Creation-wiki was started. _AshforkAZ (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth" -- if you don't like that, then you're welcome to find some other online encyclopedia to edit. (ii) The dogmatic utterances of a hydraulic engineer and a theologian are most certainly not WP:RS on the subject of geology, or what is or isn't good science. Anybody expecting Misplaced Pages to accept such really needs a reality check! HrafnStalk(P) 02:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- @Rodsgarden: Exactly! Farsight is typical editor on WP. Misplaced Pages is not about truth, but about who has "reliable" sources. You need secondary 'reliable' sources, not primary 'unreliable' sources. All publications by Creationists about creationism are 'unreliable' primary sources. All 'reliable' secondary sources are anti-creation, published by anti-creationists. There are no neutral sources in the creation/evolution issue. And that explains the tone of all the articles on this issue. That's why Creation-wiki was started. _AshforkAZ (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Creationists sources would, almost exclusively, be classified as "Self-published or questionable sources", per WP:QS & WP:SPS. WP:SELFPUB therefore applies:
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
- the material is not unduly self-serving;
- it does not involve claims about third parties;
- it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
- there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
- the article is not based primarily on such sources.
I would point out that much of creationist self-characterisation would be considered "unduly self-serving", including the claim that they "only question the assumption of uniformity of rates of geological and other processes," because "the original enunciation of the uniformitarian doctrine by Hutton, Playfair and Lyell insisted also that the rates had never changed."
WP:DUE, WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE & WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE also apply to articles about creationism. HrafnStalk(P) 02:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- @Rodsgarden: See.... One or more of these disqualifiers are applied to all material published by creationists, resulting in a one-sided presentation. _AshforkAZ (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Are you going to participate in the discussion and respond the the substance of what we say, or ignore/mock it, continue to make derisive comments about us like we're not here, and be generally unhelpful? Because if you are, policy also dictates that we can simply delete your comments. Contribute, or don't post.Farsight001 (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am being helpful. I'm explaining to Rodsgarden how things work on WP. That way he can avoid posting material that will be deleted. And save editors time and effort deleting it. _AshforkAZ (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- You and I and probably everyone who reads this knows that if that is your opinion, then the derisive comments are completely unneccesary, and your "explanation" (which I really don't find much of one. It's just bickering, not explaining) would be better served on his talk page, not here, as this page is for discussion of article improvement only. You're posting it here more than just to "explain" to him. I'm not stupid.Farsight001 (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am being helpful. I'm explaining to Rodsgarden how things work on WP. That way he can avoid posting material that will be deleted. And save editors time and effort deleting it. _AshforkAZ (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Are you going to participate in the discussion and respond the the substance of what we say, or ignore/mock it, continue to make derisive comments about us like we're not here, and be generally unhelpful? Because if you are, policy also dictates that we can simply delete your comments. Contribute, or don't post.Farsight001 (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- @Rodsgarden: See.... One or more of these disqualifiers are applied to all material published by creationists, resulting in a one-sided presentation. _AshforkAZ (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- "@Rodsgarden: See.... One or more of these disqualifiers are applied to all material published by creationists, resulting in a one-sided presentation." Translation: I, AshforkAZ, demand that Misplaced Pages ignore WP:DUE, WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE & WP:RS and include the inexpert and dogmatic claims of a hydraulic engineer and a theologian, on the subjects of geology and philosophy of science, as though they had equal validity to the expert opinions of genuine experts in this field. Have a WP:TROUT and get a clue. HrafnStalk(P) 03:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I would further point out that nearly every purveyor of WP:FRINGE & WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE theories or claims is a self-appointed expert on the subject (often accepted by those subscribing to these claims) -- this does not mean that Misplaced Pages is under any obligation to treat them as WP:RS -- quite the opposite. HrafnStalk(P) 03:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I merely stated cold, hard facts, no opinions. And I'm not asking WP to change it's good policies. I was simply explaining how things work here concerning Creation materials to a newbe. I really don't care about dead Mr. Henry Morris. _AshforkAZ (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- No. You "merely stated" your opinion that failing to include this obviously inexpert & self-serving material rendered the article "a one-sided presentation." No factual content whatsoever. HrafnStalk(P) 03:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I merely stated cold, hard facts, no opinions. And I'm not asking WP to change it's good policies. I was simply explaining how things work here concerning Creation materials to a newbe. I really don't care about dead Mr. Henry Morris. _AshforkAZ (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I would further point out that nearly every purveyor of WP:FRINGE & WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE theories or claims is a self-appointed expert on the subject (often accepted by those subscribing to these claims) -- this does not mean that Misplaced Pages is under any obligation to treat them as WP:RS -- quite the opposite. HrafnStalk(P) 03:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that this topic has been discussed to death, and that the relevant policies have been brought to everybody's attention. If anybody disagrees with the current consensus, that Creationist 'experts' are WP:QS and/or WP:SPS, then they are welcome to appeal this consensus to the relevant noticeboards: WP:RSN & WP:FTN. (I should however point out that these noticeboards may be no more willing to reopen the issue than this talkpage is -- this is to a considerable extent flogging a dead horse.) HrafnStalk(P) 03:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- The whole point of this section was to point out to Rodsgarden the futility of trying to post creationist materials and why. As to if the article one-sided: Hey. The experts have spoken. That's all we need to know. _AshforkAZ (talk) 04:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- You made no attempt to direct Rodsgarden to the policies that made his attempts futile -- giving the impression that the exclusion of the material was capricious or arbitrary (which in turn would give the false impression that a more forcefully-argued defence of the material might prove successful). HrafnStalk(P) 04:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
A direct answer to Rodsgarden's comment can in fact be found at WP:FRINGE#Independent sources:
The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse.
HrafnStalk(P) 05:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
As the one who started this discussion, I want to thank everyone for explaining to me how Misplaced Pages really works. I was puzzled by your comment, Dylan, "Creationist sources are authoritative on the matter of what Creationist sources say, and this may well be relevant in some articles." If a quote from the founders of creation science about creation science is not relevant to an article about creation science, what is? But, it was helpful to discover that all quotations by creationists about their own beliefs are considered "questionable source" and "self serving" while the misrepresentations of their beliefs by their opponents are not. I had hoped that I could make the article about Creation Science to conform closer to the ideal expressed under Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of View "Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." But it appears that the editors' bias against Creation Science will not allow it. Rodsgarden (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're missing what people have been trying to say to you, Rod - that this article IS in compliance with NPOV policy. You just don't understand NPOV policy.Farsight001 (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- What Dylan meant was that Creationist sources are acceptable as a source for their own views (with attribution), but not for information "about third parties" or "events not directly related to the source". HrafnStalk(P) 09:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Is the objection to my edit that I quoted what the creationists said about Hutton, Playfair and Lyell's views because they are third parties? If I dropped the second quote about them and only included the first quote about what the founders of creation science actually believe, would that be acceptable. After all, it is a clarification of what their own views actually are, not the misrepresentation about their views taken from Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd edition. Rodsgarden (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- That would be acceptable, provided we then explain that there isn't actually an assumption regarding uniformity as they claim. Failure to do that would make it misleading.Farsight001 (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Is the objection to my edit that I quoted what the creationists said about Hutton, Playfair and Lyell's views because they are third parties? If I dropped the second quote about them and only included the first quote about what the founders of creation science actually believe, would that be acceptable. After all, it is a clarification of what their own views actually are, not the misrepresentation about their views taken from Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd edition. Rodsgarden (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- That is one of them. I would also question (i) how "question the assumption of uniformity of rates of geological and other processes" differs from "reject one of the fundamental principles of modern geology (and of modern science generally): uniformitarianism", and whether this 'questioning' has any valid basis (or is simply "unduly self-serving"). These sorts of word-games is why "independent reliable sources" are preferred in such situations. (As a minor aside, starting the sentence with "However" also violates WP:WTA.) HrafnStalk(P) 10:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- "However" don't tell Professor Irwin Corey. Dan Watts (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't know that he was a Misplaced Pages editor. But thanks for trying to find obscurantist humour in my week-old comment. HrafnStalk(P) 02:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've also found a book that says of this ("only question the assumption...") quote: "Because geologists also question substantive uniformitarian assumptions, creationist criticism of the principle of uniformitarianism is, in part, a strawman." HrafnStalk(P) 11:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- <ec> Another couple of issues – if the foundational book of the modern creation science movement does indeed "only question the assumption of uniformity of rates of geological and other processes," then it doesn't question the modern formulation of uniformitarianism, nor to a large extent is it true that "the original enunciation of the uniformitarian doctrine by Hutton, Playfair and Lyell insisted also that the rates had never changed", even though that may be a common misunderstanding. According to Gould, even Hutton's view of uniformity of rate allowed for major events such as floods, earthquakes, and eruptions, though these catastrophes were thought by him to be strictly local. He apparently considered, in particular, that the whole earth is never convulsed at once. As it says in our article. Modern science does allow the whole earth to have been convulsed at once in its formative period, and incorporates aspects of Catastrophism. Though that article's a bit inaccurate, must attend to that some day. . dave souza, talk 11:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've also found a book that says of this ("only question the assumption...") quote: "Because geologists also question substantive uniformitarian assumptions, creationist criticism of the principle of uniformitarianism is, in part, a strawman." HrafnStalk(P) 11:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
- Hrafn, There is an important difference between "rejecting" and "questioning." Rejecting implies the belief that everything about uniformitarianism is wrong. Questioning implies the belief that some parts of uniformitarianism may be wrong and need to be re-evaluated. Here is what Whitcomb and Morris said in "The Genesis Flood". "It seems quite obvious that a misrepresentation of the authors' position on the doctrine of uniformitarianism continues to persist in some quarters. So far from holding that this doctrine, which underlies much of modern scientific theory, is totally invalid, the authors have insisted that 'The priniple of uniformity in present processes is both scientific and Scriptural (Gen.8:22), but comes into conflict with Biblical revelation when utilized to deny the possibility of past or future miraculous suspension or alteration of the processes by their Creator.'" (page xxiii) "We only question the assumption of uniformity of rates of geological and other processes." (page xxvii)
- The book gives several examples of geologic features in the past which are not being produced presently: the great lava flows of the Columbia Plateau cover 200,000 square miles, p. 138; mountains contain gigantic faults, folds and thrusts, p. 139; continental ice sheets covered 4,000,000 square miles of North America and 2,000,000 square miles of Europe, p. 143; geosynclines contain 40,000 foot deep layers of sediments all deposited in shallow water, p. 147-148; fossil graveyards, p. 155-161; peat bogs grading down into repeated layers of coal, p.162-165. None of these geological features are being currently being produced.
- So, Whitcomb and Morris do not reject uniformitarianism, but they do question its interpretation in the field of historical geology. They give ample evidence for questioning the doctrine that present rates of geological processes have produced all the geologic features of the past. The article quotes an opponent who clearly misrepresents what the founders of Creation Science actually believe, so the quote should be removed or a clarifying note should be added. Rodsgarden (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strawman. That is not, and never has been, a "doctrine" in science. The beliefs of the founders of CS are at odds with scientific uniformitarianism, as shown by a reliable third party source. Your claim that "None of these geological features are being currently being produced" lacks any scientific backing, and indeed your quote about "the possibility of past or future miraculous suspension or alteration of the processes by their Creator" indicates CS proposing rejection of science when it "comes into conflict with Biblical revelation". . . dave souza, talk 10:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hrafn, There is an important difference between "rejecting" and "questioning." Rejecting implies the belief that everything about uniformitarianism is wrong. Questioning implies the belief that some parts of uniformitarianism may be wrong and need to be re-evaluated. Here is what Whitcomb and Morris said in "The Genesis Flood". "It seems quite obvious that a misrepresentation of the authors' position on the doctrine of uniformitarianism continues to persist in some quarters. So far from holding that this doctrine, which underlies much of modern scientific theory, is totally invalid, the authors have insisted that 'The priniple of uniformity in present processes is both scientific and Scriptural (Gen.8:22), but comes into conflict with Biblical revelation when utilized to deny the possibility of past or future miraculous suspension or alteration of the processes by their Creator.'" (page xxiii) "We only question the assumption of uniformity of rates of geological and other processes." (page xxvii)
- Claiming "...the possibility of past or future miraculous suspension or alteration of the processes by their Creator" as an explanation = rejection, not only of uniformitarianism, but of the scientific method.
- "Questioning" it in this manner, whenever it conflicts with their religious dogma, both guts uniformitarianism of any scientific utility, and is also functionally equivalent to "rejecting" it.
- "The book gives several examples of geologic features in the past which are not being produced presently..." that are absolutely irrelevant to the issue at hand, and do nothing whatsoever to do with dating geological formations. Nothing in geology suggests that lava will flow unceasingly, nothing in geology suggests that mountains will rise unceasingly, nothing in geology suggests that ice-sheets never melt. (12km-deep geosynclines seems far-fetched -- I would need credible evidence of their existence before I commented upon them. You have offered no evidence why the existence of peat-bogs conflicts with, even a strawman version of, uniformitarianism.) All of this only conflicts with a ridiculously naive strawman version of "uniformitarianism". I must therefore conclude that your hydraulic engineer and your theologian either know jack-shit about geology, or are lying about it (but then that's been the scientific hypothesis about creationism since at least Stephen Jay Gould's time).
- Whitcomb and Morris were dishonest charlatans pretending that, by ostensibly only rejecting a nonsensical version of uniformitarianism that no geologist accepts, they had in some way disproved the billions-of-years-old age of the Earth. This is why scientists, and Misplaced Pages, generally view creationists as bald-faced liars , whose self-assessments should rarely be accepted at face value!
- HrafnStalk(P) 10:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- To be fair, in Misplaced Pages terms creationists of the literal varieties hold tiny minority or fringe views on a number of subjects, particularly science, and such views are presented in strict accordance with WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, as well as with WP:PSCI where relevant as in the case of fludde geology. We may view them as living in an alternative tiny minority reality and making statements which are self-contradictory or easily falsified, but whether they are liars is a difficult question and we lack the mind reading powers to determine if that's the case. . . dave souza, talk 12:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Courts generally make little differentiation between intentional action, and the result of wilful negligence -- nor does that difference make much difference in how much credence WP should put in their statements. However, I've altered my original statement to reflect this alternative. HrafnStalk(P) 12:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
But in accordance with what principles of modern uniformitarian geology may one assert that such a vast body of water could have covered the entire Near East for a year? And further, by what principles of geology may one assert that six thousand years of weathering would be sufficient to eradicate the specific evidence for such a flood?
Such, apparently contradictory or equivocal, passages are why we need reliable independent sources to interpret them. To be blunt, I (and Misplaced Pages with me), no more accept Creationists' 'I accept uniformitarianism except ..." statements at face value, than I do their 'I accept evolution except ' statements. HrafnStalk(P) 11:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's a good point that reliable third party sources are required to evaluate the significance or indeed the interpretation of creationist claims. . . dave souza, talk 12:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Hrafn, before I respond to your last post, can you verify that you included the quotation from "The Genesis Flood" p. 113 as evidence that creationists reject uniformitarianism. I do not want to misrepresent your meaning. Rodsgarden (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I was presenting it as evidence that any claim that Morris and Whitcoomb make that they do not reject uniformitarianism is equivocal and/or contradicted by other passages, and that therefore (i) such non-rejections should not be taken at face value, (ii) that such equivocal non-rejections should be taken as "unduly self-serving" and (iii) that a reliable independent source is required to filter this equivication/contradiction and associated word-games out and explicate their substantive position. Dave and I already demonstrated, above, that their claimed (strawman) differences with uniformitarianism do not present a legitimate basis for disputing geology's timescales. HrafnStalk(P) 03:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Need section about use of the word science
In other fields not sciences, the word is appended nonetheless. In other true scienecss the term is appended also. Natural and biology science. Library science is not a science but usage of the term science is not a controversy as much as it is in the verbal construction Creation Science.
Perhaps it is the attempt to treat an unscientific campaign with a coat of scientific paint or primer.Lingust (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- (i) Such a section would require WP:RSs that address the use of the word "Science" in "Creation Science directly. (ii) I think the point would be better made by including a more prominent and more forceful statement of the scientific community's view in the lead. HrafnStalk(P) 06:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Delisted good articles
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Religion articles
- Unknown-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- B-Class Creationism articles
- Mid-importance Creationism articles
- B-Class Young Earth creationism articles
- High-importance Young Earth creationism articles
- Young Earth creationism articles
- WikiProject Creationism articles
- Unassessed Skepticism articles
- Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles