| Revision as of 02:16, 6 January 2021 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,301,988 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Creation science/Archive 21) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:10, 6 January 2021 edit undoජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,480 edits →The lead section is too longTag: 2017 wikitext editorNext edit → | ||
| Line 153: | Line 153: | ||
| 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) | I feel like the lead section should be broken up. It's way too long, and can be split up into headings describing the history, the fact that modern science proves it false, etc. What information should we move "down below" or omit from the lead section? The first paragraph seems like a keeper for sure. ] (]) 22:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC) | ||
| :Agreed. I moved the other paragraphs down to history which now probably means that section needs to be cleaned up as there is a little bit of redundancy there. ] (]) 13:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:10, 6 January 2021
| 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 |
 | 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 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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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: |
 | 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). |
| 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. |
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 WP:RS/AC
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 WP:RSPRIMARY source, and evidence that someone said it -- but is clearly not a secondary source describing the positions and clearly he was not describing or stating authoritatively the overall community view of the points.
While I can believe that some individual pieces form folks in this field might he used the word, it has not been shown and seems very unlikely that historians et al do so in general or in professional publications, or that their community bodies use such language.
Say what they actually say, and say what secondary sources say about things -- but don't say it is described as something by folks that haven't actually said so, nor misportray four individual pieces as authoritative statements by the entire field, OK ?
Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- WP:POINT. Disruption to prove a point. Stop it. Binksternet (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2020 (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. Markbassett (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- I choose not to waste my time engaging the tar baby arguments of trifling piffle about whether there is one or more than one historian who thinks creation science is pseudoscience. Your engagement here is active trolling. Stop it. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2020 (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. Markbassett (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
tag provided
For clarity, here is the snippet disputed as the cites seem to not actually describe it as pseudoscience. Neither it seems do the community bodies for the fields named. Upon a brief look, there are statements from advocacy orgs, courts, and scientific community bodies... and they reject it with many other descriptions and simply do not describe it as “pseudoscience” in any notable amount.
philosophers of science and skeptics have described creation science as a pseudoscientific
Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Problem with verification of first sentence
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.Achar Sva (talk) 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). --tronvillain (talk) 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. --tronvillain (talk) 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. Achar Sva (talk) 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. --tronvillain (talk) 03:33, 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. Achar Sva (talk) 03:30, 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. --tronvillain (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- User:Achar Sva That word was just dropped on 29 April 2020 here 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.
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 Markbassett (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@Achar Sva: That's how shortened footnotes are supposed to work. See WP:SRF. Mojoworker (talk) 06:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Mojoworker 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.Achar Sva (talk)
- Look again. None of the examples at WP:SRF use external links. Also note the sfn style at the article link provided at WP:SRF to "exemplify the use of shortened footnotes", 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. Mojoworker (talk) 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. --tronvillain (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Citing sources 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. Doug Weller talk 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 {{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):
{{Harvnb|Numbers|2006|pp=}}It's rather common although unnecessary,|pp=268–285would also work... —PaleoNeonate – 15:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)- User:Doug Weller - That one sniffs funny. It seems even worse since little of that book (in Amazon) 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 Markbassett (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
"Creation vs. mainstream science in cosmology" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Creation vs. mainstream science in cosmology. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 3#Creation vs. mainstream science in cosmology until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. jps (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Is the Institute of Creation Research a reliable source?
It's a reliable primary source about its views on creation science, but should it be used as an independent secondary source? WorldQuestioneer (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- It is only a source for what creationists of that sort believe. Never for scientific claims. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- It should only be used with proper attribution. It should not be used as a source for straight-up facts. Unlike theistic evolution/evolutionary creation, YEC is pseudoscientific and rejects the scientific evidence for evolution. Félix An (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The lead section is too long
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. Félix An (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. I moved the other paragraphs down to history which now probably means that section needs to be cleaned up as there is a little bit of redundancy there. jps (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Religion articles
- High-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
- B-Class Skepticism articles
- High-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- Delisted good articles