User talk:Phantym/Creation science rewrite proposal

← User:Phantym/Creation science rewrite proposal

Comments moved in from Talk:Creation science

This proposed article appears to be a collection of material drawn from creationist websites - complete with spelling mistakes and garbled and invented terms and phrases. Wikipedia is not going to accept material published in “creation science” journals as being on a par with the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Ian Pitchford 19:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It will never fly: the text lacks even a pretense of objectivity or scholarly rigour. It's a collection unsupported assertions and is without even a hint of presenting the actual mainstream scientific criticisms fairly; those times it deign to present the criticisms of scientists, it whitewashes them or offers the usual straw man arguments found on the usual CS websites. The indictments of mainstream science are equally jaundiced and hackneyed: offering as evidence Piltdown Man, etc. It also gets most of the analysis of the philosophy and method of science wrong. Nice try, but it's better suited to CreationWiki, not Wikipedia. FeloniousMonk 20:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The same criticisms could be leveled at the present article, with respect to its straw-man description of creation science, refusal to articulate the reason and philosophy behind it, propensity to illogic, failure to adhere to the rules of npov regarding not stating or implying that a particular point of view is right or wrong. Ungtss 21:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

That rhetoric in itself is a straw man. The current article is factually accurate, well-cited and represents over a year of diligent effort, heated debate, and painfully-reached and hard-won compromise between many editors. I for one am not willing to stand by idly and watch the entire ugly process restarted by ideologically driven creation science POV content replacing the accurate and neutral content already in place.

FeloniousMonk 03:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

the hard fought compromise you that you speak of refers to editing wars in which one user continued to demand that obvious pejoratives were used throughout the entire article. I don't consider those revert duels particularly good example of consensus buildings. Furthermore, the current article does not portray Creation Science accurately because:

1. It does not indicate the existence of actual creation-based models that have given authentic predictions that were later verified. Instead, it continually paints creationist science as pseudo-science, which it clearly is not based on the simple definition of science. If you make models that fit observations, and those models explain phenomena, then you are doing science. If your models make predictions that can be tested, then your models have achieved what everyone wants from a scientific theory. Since there are documented cases of this, the article is not only wildly inaccurate, but absurdly POV on the matter.

2. It fails to represent creation science as a structure of theories that are informed by a collection of postulates different from naturalistic science. Instead it portrays creation science as a body of work meant to prove creation itself, which it is not. This has led to myriad inaccuracies and inappropriate pejorations. It appears that the editors themsleves were not aware of this, and so it is understandable that such errors creep in.

3. It focuses on a deluge of topics that could all be considered reasons to mistrust creation science rather than informing the reader as to the work, goals, progress, and challenges of creation science. In that sense it does not adequate represent the word [or, in this case, phrase] for which it is supposed to be an entry.

Finally, the criticisms that naturalistic scientists have levelled at the various theories come directly [with one exception] from extremely anti-creationist literature and websites. Talkorigins has as its entire goal to debunk creationist challenges based on showing creationists to be scientifically misguided. So your suggestion that I have whitewashed there criticism or made their arguments a straw man are simply inaccurate. I have not stated "Creationists tried to show blah blah blah by doing blah blah but insert mainstream scientist here showed them to be in error because of insert reason here because that would not be NPOV. It might be what you wanted, but it is not NPOV. -Phantym 01:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the old classic evolutionist fallback. "it doesn't matter what you think. i think it's good, so it stays, no matter what reasons or policies are presented which provide basis for an alternative interpretation:(." incidentally, the article is not "the result of over a year of work." It is just over 4 months old. it stood as a redirect for 3 years. Ungtss 19:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

This article is a debated offshoot of the article on creationism

Theory

Ec5618 said that creation being a theory is hardly contended. I am not sure what he means by this. I think most scientists say that special creation is not a theory at all because it is not testible. I believe this is true of both those who believe in creation and those who do not. That is why I found it appropriate to be put in the Postulate section, as it is a motivator for other theories, just as uniformitarianism is a motivator for theories.

Could you please explain a bit more what you meant?

I'm sorry, I seem to have somehow misplaced a word. I wanted to say that evolution's status as a theory is hardly contended.

Any argument I have yet heard to show that evolution is not a theory could just as easily be used to show that gravity is not a theory either, and neither is the rotation of the Earth, nor the roundness of the Earth. These are all theories, though hardly contested.

Most people seem to feel it's quite likely that the Earth is round and revolves around the Sun. Yet we cannot actually prove it. I can't prove I exist. You can talk to me, and under different circumstanses, you could see me, touch me, smell, taste, hear and feel me. Yet you would not be able to prove my existence.

Evolution is a theory, only because its not impossible. Should it become likely, because of new evidence, that both or either of the Genesis accounts of creation was in fact correct, .. well .. science would call creation a theory.

But there would have to be a whole lot of evidence to convince anyone that evolution should not be a theory. -- Ec5618 07:57, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

tangentially related but i think useful point: one of the primary problems with this page has been the difficulty in successfully conveying the distinction between "theory" and "postulate" in such a way that the text is not instantly deleted as pov propaganda. i've found that among those predisposed to accept evolution, philosophical naturalism is not a postulate but a fact, so that science can by definition only work within that framework, and cannot accept the postulation of divine intervention. However, the distinction between postulate and theory and the identification of naturalism as postulate rather than fact is essential to any npov understanding of creation science, because creation science is premised on the belief that creation itself is unfalsifiable, but so are common ancestry and abiogenesis, so that they both stand on equal ground as "origins science." Ec, your insight on how to convey this point in an effective and npov manner that will not be deleted in less than five minutes would be greatly appreciated:). Ungtss 18:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

This proposed article appears to be a collection of material drawn from creationist websites - complete with spelling mistakes and garbled/invented terms and phrases. Wikipedia is not going to accept material published in “creation science” journals as being on a par with the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Ian Pitchford 19:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

If one wishes to discuss the models or theories that creationists espouse, it would seem strange to look elsewhere. There is no meaningful way of discussing creation science without referencing those journals since secular journals typically refuse to publish material that does not conform to their a priori notions. Indeed, deciding that creationist journals are a priori not suitable citations reveals a deep-seeded POV immediately -Phantym 21:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

as anticipated:(. Ungtss 19:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Two major disagreements

I looked at the edit markup and it appears there are two major points of contention discussed by Ec5618

1. The conflation of ambiogenesis with evolution
2. The use of the word theory to describe Creation science

With regard to the first, I do not forsee a problem modifying the article to indicate that evolution itself does not propose an origin of life, but it should be indicated that evolution is strongly tied to abiogenesis in the current paradigm, the two being considered together to philosophically remove any need for a higher being in history.

With regard to the second, in the article it is not said that Creation Science is itself a theory, but rather a paradigm that contains a collection of theories as its underpinnings. Many of those must be given full credit as scientific theories as they have modelled evidence and made predictions that have been later validated. This is why I specified special creation as a postulate rather than a theory.

Phantym 18:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I checked theory in my WordWeb dictionary. One definition is "A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena". RossNixon 23:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Major points

• Focus of creation science: "Principal subjects of interest in scientific creationism are .." Why interest? I am temped to see this as somewhat of a Freudian slip, as no mention is made of research. Indeed, much of creation science seems to focus on attempting to disprove or discredit evolution, instead of actually finding proof of divinity.

I don't see what is so off the mark with that. Creationists see evolution and and old earth as their most significant counter-theories, so it makes perfect sense to attempt to show, via science, that the earth is young.

And it appears that a misconception has been perpetuated. Creation scientists do not, in general, try to prove creation. Just as scientists do not go about trying to prove (in general) uniformitarianism. They attempt to show that the current model science uses is incorrect by showing that neither an old earth nor evolution are supported by modern observation. Phantym

While proving evolution wrong would probably be accepted as an affirmation of creationism, it would prove nothing. If creation scientists truly wanted to show they are right in believing what they do, they whould, I'd imagine, try to find proof of that. -- Ec5618 07:57, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Defining evolution: Indeed, abiogenesis is not evolution. Yet creation scientists such as Kent Hovind define evolution as more generally, for example as "the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.

2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.

3. Matter created life by itself.

4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.

5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

Clearly, this article will need to make a better distinction.

I fully agree. Creationism should be presented in a light consistent with its own beliefs, and so should evolution. Therefore, we should add ambiogenesis as a separate postulate.

• Theory of creationism: I have a great problem with this. While several arguments could be made that according to the definition of theory, evolution is also not a theory, calling creationism a theory goes against the spitit of the word. This theory was not born out of scientific interest, but out of spite. I mean that creation science was only conceived of after science suggested that scripture might be wrong, and was created, basically, for other reason than to dispute that claim. Creation science does not seek to learn more about the universe (though a point could be made that for a creationist, studying creation science might be a way to connect to God). Creation science seeks to win back the hearts and minds of the following creation lost when science apparently disproved it. However scientific the methodology, instrumentation and wording of creation science might be or appear, at the core, creation science was never scientific.

Is it possible that you were making this post before I clarified mine above and then merged it without changing? I do not understand. I clearly state that specific creation is not meant as a thoery in the paradigm of creation science. It is taken as a postulate and used to inform other hypotheses.

Would you feel more comfortable calling the various theories discussed hypotheses? I would be okay with that. The point is, no matter their intention if a model describes current evidence, makes predictions, and then has those predictions verified by experiment, it deserves the same respect any other such model has, regarless of where it stands in public opinion.-- Phantym 21:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• Onesidedness: Even ignoring individual sections or lines showing bias, the article itself shows obvious bias by only representing the arguments used by creation scientists to discredit evolution, without specifying it. Any evidence that allows for the Earth to be young, does not prove creation is the truth, though it leaves very few alternatives. Also, the water canopy, flood geology, and plate tectonics should be mentioned as arguments made by creation scientists over the years.

-- Ec5618 19:48, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

If you would rather have it more clearly stated that Creation Science typically attacks certain basic beliefs in science, such as the age of the earth, age of the universe, or doctrine of evolution, tacitly assuming that the discreditation of these things would suggest creation, that is fine with me. As I said, creationists typically do not attempt to prove creation, they attempt to show that modern observables are more in line with creation and a young earth than against them.

The article does discuss the major challenges to creationism. The most specific challenge regards the age question. That is treated in depth. If you know of other specific challenges that are not included, please feel free to add. There are several challenges to specific parts of creationism, depending on what models one uses, and those challenges have been detailed in the discussion of various models. Also, secular scientists have been quite vigorous in their debunking of various theories, and for every challenge that I could find a criticism of (a criticism that did not clearly misread the original model), I included such criticism, very often with a link for the reader. Many of these links are to blatantly biased, uncivilized attacks, often attacks using poor science themselves, but in the interest of NPOV I have not commented on these. Phantym

The article accurately portrays the general endeavors of creation science. Sections on vapor canopy and other models could be added, so long as the description did them justice. Phantym

Perhaps you should reduce the arguments made by creationists to a categorised list, without passing judgement on them. You should also try to actively avoid everything you cut and pasted. This article was written by you, only you, and you have a limited understanding of the sciences. It is hard for another editor to look at this page and not see fault with it, and since no editor of this page actually fully understands what 'A modified Tolman relation' or what 'Enhanced brightness of SN for Z>1 that fits SN 1997ff findings' signifies, there is little hope of improvement, in my opinion. Hardly anyone will be able to comment on these uselessly complicated concepts.

It is my hope, at this point, to apply some of the suggestions you have made (inadvertently perhaps) in the writing of this article. I like the idea of spending time reviewing individual creation/evolution arguments. -- Ec5618 07:57, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Disclaimer

As a direct method of trying to deal with some of the objectsion, I have placed a disclaimer in the proposal. I hope this helps. Phantym

The disclaimer seems hardly fair.

".. and it is claimed that journals have even pulled support for papers post-approval when it was discovered that one or both of the authors had creationist leanings." Who claims this? Is it relevant in a disclaimer? It seems a little defensive to me.

It is relevant as giving one of many reasons why creationist science is hard to find in "mainstream" literature. One example of someone indicated the persecution faced by those wishing to publish in creationist journals can be found here

"Showing that their beliefs are not incompatible with known observations." That would still be attempting to show, or better Some creation scientists attempt to show that their beliefs are not necessarily incompatible with known observations.

Also, do you realise the implication of stating in your disclaimer that only 'believers' try their hands at creation science?

I am not sure what you are referring to. When I said their beliefs, I refer to the [[axioms] of creationist science. -Phantym

Removed some POV, fixed evolution/ambiogenesis issue

I removed several of the statements that appeared to be my own obvious POV, and I added abiogenesis to the collection of things secular scientists tend to take as postulates.Phantym 00:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

As is mentioned on your Talk page, the correct spelling is abiogenesis (as in non-bio-create or creation out of un-life) not ambiogenesis.

There is much more POV here. I hope you can see that yourself. As a simple example, see User:Phantym/Creation science rewrite proposal#Open Dialogue, which links to 'An Open Letter to Closed Minds', and makes no reference to the reaction from scientists. A much better link might be [1], as it refers to the reception the letter got from the scientific community. You may also want to find the text of an article in the April edition of NewScientist of that year, which all but ridiculed the letter (as part of an April Fools gag). Its text should be included here.

The An Open Letter to Closed Minds is only tangentially related to creationism, and that link only being through the feeling that modern science has too much confidence in its own superstructure. I thought it could be taken for granted that those scientists can be taken to be in the minority. I have searched for any response on the net and have found very little [in fact, almost nothing] from any mainstream science. Sadly, I do not have access to the article you mention.

I think the list of explained phenomena that you mention is the only major chunk I cut and pasted (except some quotes). I have removed them. -Phantym

Newest edits and such

I pared down the number of arguments given by creationists from 15 to 8. I also added a specific argument given against creationism (and one that has caused a bit of embarrassment to the creationist community) in that section.

Currently, every one of the 13 challenges [5 challenges going one way, 8 going the other) contains criticism from the other side as well as articles/links to scientifically perspicuous discussions.

I also added another example in the "finding what they want to find" section, so that there are now 2 examples from each side.

I also removed a bunch of the discussion of cosmlogies, simply giving a link to the relevant article.

The size of the article proper is about 40k now [6k is used up by bibliographic material and the disclaimer]

-Phantym 16:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This version

It reads like a creationist screed with little in the way of actual information and a lot in the way of propaganda and incorrect "facts" being stated. It is generally a good idea to get one's information about science from citations that actually are connected with scientific institutions rather than religious institutions. This kind of propaganda is inappropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia. As the article stands right now, it is much better. Joshuaschroeder 02:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)