Talk:Creation science - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bensaccount (talk | contribs) at 14:20, 25 July 2005 (→Current intro). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:20, 25 July 2005 by Bensaccount (talk | contribs) (→Current intro)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:TrollWarning

"Introduction"

O.K. Brian, if it can be shown that evidence HAS been provided, then will the previous wording be applicable? Dan Watts 02:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Will this be scientific evidence? Joshuaschroeder 02:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I would argue no, on the basis that any theory (concerning such a wide domain) under the sun can muster at least some evidence supporting it. It would be utterly misleading to state that Creation science provides evidence for creationism. As an encyclopedia we must not only try to stick to verifiable fact but also try to avoid misleading people. Barnaby dawson 10:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It appears that your position is equivalent to "Let's not let facts clutter a simple explanation. Someone might look at them." Dan Watts 13:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

when did ostensibly historical written accounts stop being viable scientific evidence which can be viewed as potentially accurate until falsified by the physical evidence? Ungtss 13:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

You mean like the way 6-day creation and the global flood are falsified? Joshuaschroeder 13:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Is the Iliad is scientific evidence of Zeus? Bensaccount 13:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

if the accounts have been falsified, then the article should reflect it with facts. if the accounts are unfalsifiable, then the article should reflect it with facts. instead, a small number of editors who apparently never studied epistemology seem to think that calling it pseudoscience holds some profound meaning and will lead creationists out of their pits of deception. they also seem to think they can call it both unfalsifiable and falsified, which i find ceaselessly amusing:). and yes, bensaccount, the iliad is evidence for the existence of Zeus. The only question left is how reliable you think the evidence is. nobody seems to be arguing for the existence of Zeus anymore, but creationism is just growing and growing. genesis holds some credibility which you've as yet been unable to address. Ungtss 13:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Since when does science accept anecdotal accounts as evidence? Sure, in some fields (such as archaeology), it provides a starting point, but it's never assumed to be correct until falsified by evidence. -- BRIAN0918 15:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone think I should explain to Ungtss how we don't have any scientific evidence of Zeus? (I don't want to waste my time). The accounts are neither falsified or falsifiable. I don't expect to dig you out of your pit of deception; only to prevent you from dragging others in with you. Bensaccount 13:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

When creation science advocates claim that there was a vapor canopy, parts of this claim are falsifiable and parts are unfalsifiable. If we take the perspective that a vapor canopy would have very well-understood physical effects that would make life impossible on Earth, then we have falsified this idea. However, creation scientists don't mind positing miracles and completely unfalsifiable points about whether high pressure boilers can sustain large animal life by means of divine intervention. That part of the vapor canopy cannot be falsified just like the Omphalos hypothesis. It really is very simple. Creation science tries to use scientific argumentation which, when subjected to the rigor of scientific inquiry, is shown to be lacking, falsified, etc. However, creation science also tries to use completely separate positions that wherever science contradicts their ideas one can always hold out hope that the Deus ex machina screwed up our limitted human understanding. Joshuaschroeder 14:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Would an account of multiple bristlecone pine ring growths in a year's time count as scientific evidence if it included a detailed description of the conditions used to do it? Dan Watts 15:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll bite. How does that provide evidence for creation according to Genesis? -- BRIAN0918 15:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It's a nonstarter . Old hat, not even close to being "evidence" for creation science. Joshuaschroeder 16:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Not true. It is controversial, but it IS evidence that such chronologies MAY be wrong. Dan Watts 18:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It isn't evidence that such chronologies may be wrong since they are calibrated using other methods such as C-14 dating. Scientific measurements all have threshholds for error, +/- error bars that are reported. The +/- error bars reported for tree-ring analyses take into account multiple and sometimes no growth ring per year scenarios. Stating that it is "controvesial" is quite an understatement. It is incorrect. Joshuaschroeder 18:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Please do not take the bait. -- BRIAN0918 02:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I thought that the C-14 calibration used the tree-ring chronology. Was I mistaken? Dan Watts 02:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

They calibrate each other. Think of it in terms of parameter fitting. Whatever model fits both the C-14 and the tree-rings the best is the model that's accepted (with error bars). It's quite easy to figure out. Joshuaschroeder 11: 41, 25 July 2005 (UTC); It is easy to figure out. If Dendrochronology and C-14 measurements are both inputs to a single model, then they are no longer independent measures, and should not be touted as such. Dan Watts 13:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Dendrochronology states "A benefit of dendrochronology is that it makes available specimens of once-living material ... used as a calibration and check of radiocarbon dating. The bristlecone pine ... has been used for this purpose ...." What "other methods" of calibration did you mean Joshua? Dan Watts 18:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't confuse calibration with verification. The physics and assumptions behind radiometric dating while criticized heavily by many creationists who don't actually look at how it is done, is not in dispute. Joshuaschroeder 11:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

<<Since when does science accept anecdotal accounts as evidence? Sure, in some fields (such as archaeology), it provides a starting point, but it's never assumed to be correct until falsified by evidence. >>

since when are anecdotal accounts seen as evidence? in a little field known as "history." we base our understanding of many events on anecdotal accounts, which we attempt to fit together with the remaining available evidence. and when we have an account that doesn't directly conflict with any physical evidence, we call that account, "possibly accurate" until such time as there is hard evidence inconsistent with the account. the modern tendency to reject ancient accounts out of hand is deeply, deeply anti-scientific. a rational mind sees them as plausible until falsified. only a dogmatist sees them as inadmissible out of hand. Ungtss 17:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. They shouldn't be outright rejected. In history they act as guidance for finding evidence when no other evidence is currently available. They are not accepted as "correct until proven incorrect" however, otherwise for example the legendary founding of Rome wouldn't be considered "legend". There is probably truth in the stories around the founding and the seven original kings as recorded by Livy, such as the Etruscan domination of the city, but it is not generally accepted that the traditional dates of reign and the names and number of the kings are correct, just that they may have been generally representative of a given period. The further back you go, the less likely anecdotal evidence is representative of the truth, especially when no other physical evidence exists. That is why anecdotal evidence is neither considered definitive evidence nor "accurate until evidence proves otherwise". -- BRIAN0918 17:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree 100% with your conclusion. nothing is definitive unless it can be directly observed or repeated. the question is, as you noted, credibility. however, you also said that "the further back you go, the less likely to be true." why? shouldn't our criteria be based more on the physical evidence and the quality of the text than the date at which it was written? seems to me that if texts were written by eyewitnesses and accurately transcribed, the oldest texts would be the best sources, wouldn't you say? Ungtss 17:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Who were the eyewitnesses of the creation related in Genesis that then wrote down what they saw? -- BRIAN0918 17:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

that's an excellent question, and i'd like to pursue it in a minute. first things first, tho. would you agree that if a text shows signs of being intended as hard history rather than mythology, legend or fiction (high textual quality), and the events of the text have not been falsified by physical evidence, that those events can reasonably be seen as possibly historical? Ungtss 18:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

No objective standard for determining when something is "intended" as "hard history rather than mythology" exists. If you want to do some original research and make that up, be my guest. You haven't shown that a 6-day creation week and a global flood are not falsified by physical evidence in any case. This is basically amounting to a wild goose chase in Ungtss' fantasies. Joshuaschroeder 18:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

History is not science. Bensaccount 18:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

yet somehow it still goes on. Ungtss 18:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

if we concede that the events recorded in genesis are at least conceivably historical as recorded, then it seems to me that the question turns on the consistency of the physical evidence with one historical vision or the other. which which story does the evidence more closely align? is the evidence inconsistent with either story? that, to me, is a historical/scientific inquiry. excluding creation science from scientific discourse, on the other hand, is mere fundamentalist ideological garbage. the creationists have a historical vision. falsify it if you can, but don't play nonsense games of politics and name-calling ("pseudoscience! you're pseudoscience! the majority of scientists think you're wrong!! nah nah!! poo poo!"). those games just betray a fear that the creationists might be right after all. and i firmly believe they are. Ungtss 18:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Whats ironic is that you use the term "fundamentalist ideological garbage". Whats hypocritical is that you use the term "history/science" after agreeing that history is not science. Bensaccount 19:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

No one is conceding that events recorded in Genesis are at least "conceivably" historical any more than the Illiad. You are welcome to believe anything you want to believe, Ungtss. We aren't writing an article to try to convince you or anyone else of a particular belief system. We are trying to describe a belief system (which you happen to ascribe to) within the guidelines of this encyclopedia. I know you think that the cards are stacked against you at Misplaced Pages, but you can go over to the creation wiki and edit there if you want. Joshuaschroeder 18:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Creation science isn't science because it doesn't follow scientific method. Rather than use Genesis as a basis for starting to explore and figure out what actually happened (which may actually coincide in part with what Genesis actually says), they are interpreting Genesis as correct and infallible, and choosing their explorations such that they can interpret results to coincide exactly with Genesis. Going back to the traditional Roman founding, instead of starting out by saying "it is likely that there were kings in the past, and at least some of them were Etruscan", they are saying "there were exactly 7 kings and they lived... and they were... and any evidence to the contrary is incorrect by definition." -- BRIAN0918 19:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

(disregarding bensaccount's and schroeder's usual drivel, bensaccount's because it is bizarre and nonsensical as always, and schroeder's because it fundamentally disregards wikipedia policy which does not permit him to state his own opinions as fact, despite his chronic inability to distinguish between the two and hope against hope that all who disagree with him will either go write for an irrelevent wiki or realize that he's a demigod of knowledge.) brian: you've dodged my comments entirely. if you'd like to dialogue further, please address my comments about the nature of historical inquiry, and the idea that ostensibly historical accounts can reasonably be viewed as historical until such time as they are falsified by physical evidence. your comments relate to bias and ideology in practice, and that is a valid critique of creationists as scientists, but is also a valid critique of evolutionists as scientists, as mr. gould made very clear. bias in practice does not invalidate either enterprise in their entirety. only contrary evidence can do so with any degree of substance. Ungtss 20:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I did answer your question, but it appears the submission didn't go through on Misplaced Pages. I basically said the same thing Jschroeder did. There is a difference between having a bias one way or another and refusing all evidence contrary to your bias. -- BRIAN0918 21:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Eyewitness testimony, no matter who makes it, is not scientific evidence. Plenty of contrary evidence to creation science is available and presented. That's the end of the matter. Joshuaschroeder 21:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

brian: sorry i missed the answer. would you agree that there is an important difference between "rejecting all contrary evidence" and "consistently interpretting evidence in accord with one particular paradigm?" i have never heard a creationist deny a single observable fact under any circumstances. but they do rather persistently refuse to interpret the evidence in a way contrary to their paradigm. can you provide either an instance of creationists denying hard facts, or agree that they simply interpret the evidence according to different assumptions?

schroeder: all scientific knowledge is eyewitness testimony to those who don't observe it first hand. how do you know that pluto exists? eyewitness testimony from those who observed it first hand. think before writing. thanks. Ungtss 03:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Peer-review. Joshuaschroeder 11:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

when the observations themselves are unrepeatable, peer review is only of the reports and findings of the scientists making the observations to check for procedure, error, and reasoning in interpretation. it's simply a critical reading of eyewitness accounts. Ungtss 14:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Systematic observation. They state the method for observing pluto so that anyone can repeat the experiment and get the same results. Now you know what science is. Please limit the personal insults Ungtss. Bensaccount 03:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

so then by your latest criterion for science, the common ancestry of men and apes is not scientific because it cannot be repeated by experiment or systematically observed, because it happened a long time ago. excellent. please limit your nonsense, bensaccount. Ungtss 06:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

People have repeated the observations related to common ancestry through peer-review. Joshuaschroeder 11:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

apparently you're unable to distinguish between "repeated observation," which is paradigm-neutral, and "repeated interpretation," which is paradigm-dependent. from this error springs consensus science. Ungtss 14:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Introduction 2

I have been watching this discussion concerning the introduction with considerable interest. When the discussion came up I dutifully looked up the definition of pseudoscience wikipedia gave and agreed with Joshuaschroeder that this definition did leave no room for point of view. This definition was:

Pseudoscience refers to any body of knowledge or practice which purports to be scientific or supported by science but which is judged by the mainstream scientific community to fail to comply with the scientific method.

Since then this page no longer holds a definition that ties the concept down to a group's POV. Having looked online for other definitions I have been completely unable to find a definition that does tie the concept down to the viewpoint of the scientific community. As such I have changed my view and I now think that the status of creation science as pseudoscience is a viewpoint and needs to be attributed. Of course we might argue that the viewpoint is not a serious one and so does not merit consideration and this might hold water concerning the article on evolution. However, the creationist viewpoint must be taken seriously if only in the context of an article on creation science.

I suggest we attribute the view to the scientific community and mention the amicus curiae brief of Edwards v. Aguillard where 72 nobel laureates, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific organizations expressed their opinion that creation science is merely religious dogma. I will change the introduction accordingly. Barnaby dawson 09:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you having trouble telling fact from opinion? It doesn't depend on biased minority groups. If something is a fact, it should not be falsely represented as an opinion. Bensaccount 13:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I've also been following the discussion with interest, but I don't really see the problem here. The pseudoscience article has a very well defined list of attributes that classifies pseudosciences, and creation "science" falls easly on most on them. Why do we need a group's POV when we can be objective ans stick to a clear definition? Nova77 13:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

If creation science isn't science, then it is also pseudoscience (since it is presented as science). We've established that it isn't science, so it is pseudoscience. -- BRIAN0918 13:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that NPOV policy requires us to only state things that are not seriously disputed. This is not the same as stating what is true. In the context of "creation science" there is a serious dispute as to whether it is pseudoscience. I regard "creation science" as pseudoscience too and I think we should make it clear that so do a lot of distinguished scientists and commentators. However, the statement as it stands is clearly POV. I shall change it back.

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

Before there are retorts along the lines of "But what if we aplied this principle to the moon landings hoax theories..." I should like to say that I do think that this principle should be applied to other pseudosciences. Have a look at Apollo moon landing hoax, holocaust denial, phrenology and Vedic science. I note that modern geocentrism has geocentrism down as a pseudoscience without attribution however, I should add that it was Joshuaschroder who added this statement so it cannot be used as a precendent here. I also note that there are some articles where a subject is described as a pseudoscience (astrology for instance). However even amongst those who believe in astrology few regard it as scientific. This is not the case here. Believers in creation science do regard their enterprise as scientific. Barnaby dawson 14:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

And do you propose that we no longer clearly state the facts when there are obviosly biased alternatives? Should we pretend that reality no longer exists? Bensaccount 16:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages operates on the basis of NPOV not on the basis of what is true. There are good reasons for this including the following: People disagree on what is true and many people edit wikipedia.

I think that "Creation science is regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community" is a strong enough comment. Whilst I agree with you that "creation science" is a pseudoscience and that this needs to be made clear in the first paragraph I also think that this is achieved in the current version and that the version I reverted was POV. Barnaby dawson 17:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Please also note that I do think that outside of the context of pages on the topic of "creation science" we should be able to describe "creation science" as a pseudoscience because outside of that context there is no serious dispute. However, it is always going to be the case that a minorities characterization of their viewpoint should be taken seriously when discussing the minorities viewpoint. Barnaby dawson 17:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

You're starting to sound fairly apologetic to this minority. There is no serious dispute. It is a fact that creation science is unscientific and therefore pseudoscience, so stating that some specific group (the scientific community) believes such is incorrect. The standards of the scientific community determine what is science, and so stating that the scientific community thinks it's unscientific is redundant. It is unscientific. -- BRIAN0918 19:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

a quick glance at npov rules will reveal that wikipedia maintains a policy of n(eutral)pov, rather than s(cientific)pov. attributing conclusions to the scientific community is not only appropriate but absolutely necessary according to the rules of the game. Ungtss 03:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Stop twisting the rules Ungtss. NPOV says no bias. CS is bias. CS is the problem--not stating facts. Bensaccount 03:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

mark this down, everyone. bensaccount says the topic itself is bias, and the problem itself. obviously, then, the entire article should be deleted. thanks for clearing that up for us, bensaccount. you've helped me see that it's impossible to describe creation science in an npov article, because creation science itself is bias and the problem! Ungtss 06:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If you will not let it be described fairly by stating the facts.Bensaccount 13:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

another entry

When Creationism is referred to as "pseudoscience" in this article I think this reflects poorly upon Misplaced Pages . You don't see Britannica and other encyclopedias using this tone which looks unprofessional and immature. I think it should be changed.

7/24/05 kdbuffalo

my POV is that CS is pseudoscience. I think CS is an abomination. I agree that a fringe minority opinion should not necesarily render everything POV. Yet, in this case the POV argument becomes quickly circular. When you narrow the iterested parties to CS advocates and scientific community, then the use of the term "pseudoscience" as a fact is basically POV. It is CS advocates' POV that it IS science, and scientists POV that it's not. Each makes their argument "by definiation". Thus the way it's stated now, that the designation of pseudoscience being the opinion of the scientific community is fine, and not POV. To change it to the previous where "pseudoscience" was presented as fact is IMHO POV in this particular case. Synaptidude 19:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

So we're supposed to deny scientific method/reasoning/evidence because a minority chooses to define their contrary ways as science? How can we state any facts in the entire encyclopedia? -- BRIAN0918 19:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Firstly context is important. Whether or not a viewpoint should be taken seriously is partly dependent on context. We are writing an article on "creation science" and as such we should treat the viewpoints of adherents of "creation science" seriously. This should not in any way detract from our ability to write a neutral article on the subject. On the other hand I would agree it is the case that elsewhere in wikipedia (where the context is not creationist) we should quite freely refer to "creation science" as pseudoscience.

Secondly science is not universally regarded as that which scientists do (or even what they would like to think they are doing). You say "the standards of the scientific community determine what is science". This is your POV and certainly not one I share. I would say that those outside the scientific community have influence over what is regarded as science. For instance I do not regard government funded research as proper science.

If you look at the pages on pseudosciences that I mentioned earlier (Apollo moon landing hoax, holocaust denial, phrenology and Vedic science) you will find that all manage quite well without stating outright that these subjects are pseudoscience (or pseudohistory). The original basis for using the word pseudoscience has been shown to be flawed. Barnaby dawson 21:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Those beliefs aren't held by a significant part of the public, though. In that case, it is easy to get away with not stating that they are unscientific. Also, none of those subjects have "science" in their name (a method of further presenting your ideas as science). Neutrality is fine, but confusing the public by withholding facts is not. The lead section is supposed to summarize the whole article, not act as an introduction. -- BRIAN0918 03:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

We don't need to pretend facts are opinions to look professional. Bensaccount 21:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

quote of the year. Ungtss 03:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your invaluable contributions. -- BRIAN0918 03:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

if that was to me, i learned months ago that valuable contributions are instantly reverted on this page, in favor of pov, and have been attempting to find ways around the endless nonsense by discussing and deliberating on talkpages, to preempt stupid edit wars:(. if your comment was to bensaccount, then i'm curious which contributions you're referring to. Ungtss 06:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome--the empty rhetoric of Dawson and Buffalo needed to be summarized--so I did. Bensaccount 03:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

we need to address the fundamental issue here, gentlemen. bensaccount, schroeder, and brian see "creation science is pseudoscience" as a fact beyond dispute, and everyone who disagrees with them as wrong. barnaby, synaptidude, and kdbuffalo see "creation science is pseudoscience" as a strongly justified pov held by them as well as the vast majority of professional scientists, and which ought to be well represented on the page, and attributed to those who hold it. then there are a few creationists around, heads full of nonsense, bile, and other wicked things, who actually think creation science holds merit. now we all know that npov requires that disputed conclusions and facts be attributed. but a small number of us seem to think that rule doesn't apply, because "creation science is IN FACT pseudoscience," and the fact that the subjects of the article disagree fundamentally with that assertion is totally irrelevent, and thus no reason to attribute the fundamentally disputed conclusion. they seem to think it's very important not to attribute this conclusion, despite the facts that attribution would be factual, would increase the credibility of the statement by throwing the authority of professional scientists behind it, and would preempt this endless and rather stupid discussion. i'm at a loss as to the importance of stating "creation science is pseudoscience" as fact rather than conclusion attributed to a credible source, but any alternative fails to last more than 10 minutes on this page. so what are we to do about this situation? Ungtss 06:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

While I have seen citations that indicate CS is a pseudoscience, I have yet to see a citation that indicates it isn't. Joshuaschroeder 11:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

you've obviously not read any CS literature. Ungtss 13:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Possible alternative

In short: CS is based upon religious beliefs that can't be tested scientifically; therefore it is not science. CS does (however) use the scientific method to pick holes in evolution and other mainstream science. RossNixon 09:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Problematic because CS fundamentally does not use the scientific method as shown by the citations we already have in the article. Joshuaschroeder 11:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Current intro

Creation science (also known as scientific creationism or CS), which is regarded by the scientific community as pseudoscience and a misnomer, is an effort to provide arguments and evidence supporting the account of the creation of the universe related in the Bible. It is primarily concerned with providing alternatives to the scientific views on the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, evolution, a global flood and the origin of humanity. Creation science as an organised movement is primarily centered within the United States, although creation science organisations are not unknown in other countries.

I see no problem with Barnaby Dawson's current incarnation of the intro. It may be a bit redundant but since pseudoscience itself no longer states where the judgement arises, here it stands. Are there any substantive (that is, factual) disputes with the current form? If not, I wonder where the problem is. Joshuaschroeder 11:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The current version is fine. I wasn't fine with the previous version because it added a sentence that made CS sound like it had provided scientific evidence. -- BRIAN0918 13:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- The current version attempts to discredit the subject matter before defining it (analogous to "Racism is an attitude regarded by the majority of clerics as evil and irrational, which,") and then defines it in a way no creation scientist would define it:(. i'm not aware of any other articles that follow this approach. Ungtss 13:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss is right. We must define before we discredit. Bensaccount 14:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

shall we provide both definitions? Ungtss 14:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

"Both"? Bensaccount 14:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Archives

"Introduction"

Introduction 2

another entry

Possible alternative

Current intro