Talk:Creationism/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Creationism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

new revert war

um ... would you care to justify the revert of an edit which added factual information without deleting anything? Ungtss 22:43, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

great compromise:). thanks for working with me:). Ungtss 02:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

biblical literalism

josh, what relevence do the stats on changing attitudes on biblical literalism and inerrancy have to do with creationism, since creationism is not dependent on either? (evident from the stats, since 1/3 take the bible totally literally, but almost half believe God created us within the last 10k years, leaving roughly 20% of americans who are non-literalist creationists?) Ungtss 04:10, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

a) just because someone believes "God created us within the last 10k years" doesn't make them a creationist.

run that by me again? the belief that God created us doesn't make one a creationist? i'm sure it's convenient for you to equate "creationist" and "biblically literal creationist," but there's no basis for that equation. anybody who believes God created man is a creationist. Ungtss 13:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One could, for example, believe that God created the universe 10K years ago, but believe that the Genesis account is completely incorrect about everything. This would mean that the person wouldn't be a creationist in the sense most used for this article.

that would make them an ID, or non-biblical creationist. Creationist just means "God created." Evolutionary creationist = "god created by evolution." ID creationist = "God created in some way we don't know how or when." But the only think CREATIONISM means is that things were CREATED, no? Ungtss 15:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not in the sense of this article or the linked ones. While a belief in an "amorphous" creationism is given a nod of the head in the introduction, the remainder of the article is about the kind of creationism that you and Phil ascribe to.

seems to me that the best way to approach the article is to start with the amorphous creationism, and then focus on the types of creationism which you and i agree are most vocal and organized. however, just because some creationists are more vocal and organized doesn't mean that nobody else is a "Creationist." Ungtss 15:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

b) creationism and the belief in biblical inerrancy go hand-in-hand as demonstrated by, for example, Henry Morris (considered to be the founder of modern creationism, by many).

again, i'm sure it's very convenient for you to limit the definition of creationism to evangelicals like henry morris, but there's no basis for that equation. it ignores the entire religion of Islam. Ungtss 13:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But Henry Morris and company are those most cited as proponents and are the ones who coined the term. You yourself have cited him from time to time. Those in Islam who are creationists are arguably not as concerned with the issue as the Christians and the Orthodox Jews. It is obviously a very wide community, but the arguments one comes in contact with are more often than not from a biblical inerrant POV.

not the arguments i most often come into contact with:). i grew up in west africa and saudi arabia -- places where creationism exists completely independent of biblical inerrancy. in saudi arabia, in fact, teaching either the bible or evolution are ILLEGAL and will get you BEHEADED. i think we need to take a global perspective here. the West may THINK it's the whole world, but it certainly isn't:). Ungtss 15:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The fact is, though, that few in Saudi Arabia would call their version of the events that lead to the creation of the world as "creationism" without the preaching of Morris and others. I realize that the west isn't the only place where evolution is attacked, but the "creationist" alternative (and indeed the polarization of the issue itself) is a western concept. Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i'll have to disagree with you on that. muslims see a definite polarization of the issue, without morris. very few of them have even HEARD of morris. they think that evolution and materialism are going to be the death of humanity, and they're willing to fly planes into buildings over it. Ungtss 15:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have read plenty of radical Muslim writings. Nowhere do I read that they believ that evolution is going to be the death of humanity. And the materialism they cite isn't the philosophical materialism but "mammonism" generally. Having read the complete works of bin Laden over the summer I can assure you that Al Qaeda, for example, did not attack the US over evolution. Joshuaschroeder 16:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non-sequitur. just because they dispute mammonism generally doesn't mean they don't dispute evolution specifically. The whole picture goes together for them. "Evolution" is just another sick idea to come out of the "Great Satan" -- right up there with the Crusades, Naziism, Communism, Nihilism, and Colonialism. Ask any orthodox muslim what they think of evolution and you'll get the same answer: "Wrong." The point is, they're 6-day, young earth, adam, eve and noah creationists, but not that "fundamentalist biblically-literal christian" caricature the evolutionists love to throw around so much. Creationism is bigger than the bible. a lot bigger. Ungtss 18:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Most radical muslims would dispute the creationism described on these pages just as much as evolution. You are the one with the non-sequitor, not I. Joshuaschroeder 18:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

c) the inclusion is justified. It is meant to document trends within religious views of the natural world. Joshuaschroeder 05:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

how does it document trends within religious views of the natural world? i would answer "not all literal" in that poll, because many things ARE allegorical -- but i STILL think Genesis should be taken literally. your assumption is that creationism stems only from a literal and inerrant view of the bible. you're wrong. Ungtss

I took a stab at addressing the issue more completely. have a look. Ungtss 13:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your stab works well, but there is one problem I see:

Among Biblical creationists, there are a spectrum of views regarding scriptural literalism and inerrancy. Some believe that Bible is absolutely inerrant and should be taken absolutely literally. Others believe the Bible is a historically accurate text, but is not absolutely inerrant, and that parts such as the Genesis creation account were intended to be taken as literal history. Others believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but not everything should be taken literally. Still others believe that the Bible is largely fictitious.

Creationists generally fall into the first two categories: those who believe that bible is inerrant and literally true, and those who believe that Bible is a historical text.

Obviously these two paragraphs contradict each other, or at the very least there is no quantifiable way to show that the last sentence is true. Are you sure that creationists "generally fall into...two categories"? If so, how do you know? I have been trying to find resources and opinions of people that match your take on the issue, Ungtss. I have yet to find anybody but yourself that believes as you do. It looks like you may be treading on original research here. Joshuaschroeder 14:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

how so? if half the us population believes that god created man w/in 10,000 years, but well less than that number believe the bible is literally true, there are a substantial number of people who believe God created Man, but don't believe the bible is literally true. those people are creationists who don't believe in biblical inerrancy. i'm part of that group:). how can we possibly get around that? Ungtss 15:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The poll numbers don't really work that way because the question wasn't posed in such a way. It may be that all the people who believe that the Earth was created 10,000 years ago who don't believe in a literal Bible believe that Genesis itself is literal but the rest of the Bible is fake. Likewise it could be that they believe that the world was created as according to Hindu texts 10,000 years ago -- but obviously they don't accept the bible as historically accurate. We just don't have enough information to arrive at the conclusion you want to make. You, Ungtss, are part of the special group of people who a) don't believe the Bible is inerrant and b) believe the creation account is historically accurate to the extent that you believe that Flood Geology is correct. I really have tried to find a group, an individual, or an organization who holds these two beliefs in as tight tandem as you do. Your current edit makes it sound like this is a large group of people. Without citation, I'm afraid this is simply vanity on your part. Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

we don't have numbers on how MANY people are non-inerrancy creationist, but we have very real evidence that they exist. i think you'll find no reference to literalism in the writings of Behe, Dembski, or Johnson. Given the fact that they exist, even tho we don't have polls, wouldn't you say it's best to include that possibility? wouldn't excluding that group creates a false dichotomy by forcing us to choose between "biblical inerrancy!" and "science!" when there's a third group saying "history!" ??? Ungtss 15:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Behe is a bit of an enigma -- he definitely doesn't think that Genesis is historically accurate at all. Dembski is probably a creationist, but he remains closelipped as to how much of a literal Genesis he accepts. Johnson is the closest to the type you describe, but his advocacy often looks more like a polemic against all of science and I have yet to read where he explicitly rejects biblical inerrancy (in fact, I have read quotes where he explicitly accepts it). So you're going to have to give me more evidence than this. Joshuaschroeder 16:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

why do you need more evidence? we have muslims, we have significantly more people that believe that God created man than believe the bible is literal and inerrant, we have behe, dembski, and johnson, whose arguments for creationism are SEPARATE from inerrancy, regardless of their personal feelings about it, and we have me, right in front of you. there ARE non-biblical-inerrancy creationists around -- lots of them. i'm sorry i don't have a stat, but the page CANNOT deny we exist. Ungtss 18:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is what you wrote: Creationists generally fall into the first two categories: those who believe that bible is inerrant and literally true, and those who believe that Bible is a historical text. This is an unsupported generalization from the very words you wrote above. My beef isn't with the non-controversial statement that there are creationists who aren't believers in biblical inerrancy. My beef is with the statement that the two most general categories are creationists who believe that the Bible inerrant and those who believe that the Bible is a historical text. It is this assertion that is unwarranted. We don't have the evidence right now to show it. You claim that Muslims consider the Bible to be a historical text. I am sorry, but most of what is written by Muslims about the Bible is saying that it is corrupted and not to be trusted. That's hardly an endorsement of the Bible being a historical document. We know that biblical inerrancy has influenced creationism. We also know that there are creationists who are not believers in biblical inerrancy. There may be a group of people who, like yourself, believe that the Bible is an accurate historical account but not necessarily inerrant. I don't know. I can't find anybody but you who has that type of nuanced take, and certainly it doesn't seem reasonable to claim that creationists generally fall into two categories one of which is that one. A statement like "not all creationists believe in biblical inerrancy" should suffice. Joshuaschroeder 18:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For some background on the issue, I quote the Wisconsin-Madison, Dr. Ron Numbers on the history of the term "creationism":

Antievolutionists and Creationists

When the Origin of Species went on sale late in 1859, the term "creationist" commonly designated a person who believed in the special origination of a soul for each human fetus, as opposed to a traducianist, who believed that the souls of children were inherited from their parents. Although Darwin (in private) and his allies occasionally referred to their opponents as "creationists," for about seventy-five years after the publication of his book such adversaries were more typically called "advocates of creation" or, increasingly, "anti-evolutionists." This custom prevailed well into the twentieth century, in large part because antievolutionists remained united far more by their hostility to evolution than by any common commitment to a particular view of creation.

As late as the 1920s antievolutionists chose to dedicate their organizations to "Christian Fundamentals," "Anti-Evolution," and "Anti-False Science," not to creationism. It was not until 1929 that one of George McCready Price’s former students, the Seventh-day Adventist biologist Harold W. Clark, explicitly packaged Price’s new catastrophism as "creationism." In a brief self-published book titled Back to Creationism Clark urged readers to quit simply opposing evolution and to adopt the new "science of creationism," by which he meant Price’s flood geology. For decades to come various Christian groups, from flood geologists to theistic evolutionists, squabbled over which camp most deserved to use the creationist label. However, by the 1980s the flood geologists/scientific creationists had clearly co-opted the term for their distinctive interpretation of earth history.

The Creationist Revival after 1961

For a century after the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) antievolutionists were united almost solely by their antipathy to evolution, not by agreement on the mode of creation. Among Christian Fundamentalists in the twentieth century, three interpretations of Genesis 1 vied for acceptance: (1) the gap theory, which held that the first chapter of Genesis described two creations, the first "in the beginning," at some unspecified time in the distant past, the second about 6,000 years ago, when God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden; (2) the day-age theory, which equated the "days" of Genesis 1 with vast geological ages; and (3) the theory of flood geology, advocated by George McCready Price, which allowed for no life on earth before the Edenic creation and which assigned most of the fossil-bearing rocks to the catastrophic work of Noah’s flood. Until the early 1960s the vast majority of American Fundamentalists who left any record of their views on Genesis embraced either the gap or day-age schemes. Support for flood geology was limited largely to the small Seventh-day Adventist church, of which Price was a member.

This division of loyalties began to change dramatically with the publication in 1961 of The Genesis Flood by John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Henry M. Morris, and the formation two years later of the Creation Research Society (CRS). Whitcomb, an Old Testament scholar, and Morris, a civil engineer, collaborated on an up-to-date presentation of Price’s flood geology that attracted considerable attention in conservative Christian circles. Their argument that science should accommodate revelation rather than vice versa resonated with the sentiments of many concerned Christians, who followed Whitcomb and Morris in jettisoning the gap and day-age theories as unholy compromises with naturalistic science.

In 1963 Morris joined nine other creationists with scientific training to form the CRS, an organization committed to the propagation of young-earth creationism. In the 1920s antievolutionists had lacked a single scientist with so much as a master’s degree in science. Their most impressive scientific authorities were a successful Canadian surgeon, a homeopathic medical-school dropout turned Presbyterian minister, a Seventh-day Adventist college instructor without an earned bachelor’s degree whose most advanced exposure to science had come in a course for elementary-school teachers, and a science professor at a small Fundamentalist college whose highest degree was a master’s awarded for a thesis on the teaching of penmanship in the public schools of two Midwestern towns. In contrast, five of the ten founding members of the CRS had earned Ph.D.’s in the biological sciences at reputable universities, and a sixth held a doctorate in biochemistry. Not all of the founders, however, possessed legitimate credentials. The only geologist in the group fraudulently claimed to have received a master’s degree.

About 1970, in an effort to sell their views as science and gain entry to public-school classrooms, these young-earth creationists renamed their beliefs creation science and dropped the label flood geology. Although two states, Arkansas and Louisiana, eventually passed laws mandating the teaching of creation science whenever evolution science was taught, the U. S. Supreme Court in 1987 ruled that such laws violated the First Amendment to the Constitution, requiring the separation of church and state. Despite this setback, the creation scientists flourished to the point that they virtually co-opted the term creationism for the formerly marginal ideas of Price. Public-opinion polls in the 1990s, though failing to distinguish young- from old-earth creationists, showed that forty-seven percent of Americans, including a quarter of college graduates, professed belief in the recent special creation of the first humans within the past 10,000 years. A hundred and forty years of evolution had left many Americans unconvinced.

we've definitely got a semantic issue here ... were they creationists before they called themselves creationists? before darwin, the biblical account of creation was largely taken for granted. what did creationists call themselves back them? they called themselves "Christians." Along comes Darwin, and the christians that rejected darwin defined themselves as "antievolutionists." but then, later, in order to state their views more positively, they called themselves "Creationists." The only thing that changed is the name. the story hasn't changed a bit. what do you think? Ungtss 15:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I submit that creationism wasn't creationism until they called themselves "creationist". As is stated above, there were many beliefs before creationism that were nebulous and had varying degrees of agreement with a literal (or historical) reading of Genesis. The canon of accepted ideas didn't come into being until the 1920s or so and then really picked up again after 1961. This is the birth of modern creationism.

well then let's call it "modern creationism." King David, Job, Jesus, the Apostle Paul, Augustine, St. Thomas, and Paley were all creationists before "Modern Creationism." but they were still creationists. what would you call them if not creationists? Proto-creationists? Ungtss 15:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't call them anything. It'd be like asking what we would call Julius Ceaser with respect to capitalism -- a "proto-capitalist"? The question doesn't make sense. If an idea or concept isn't around when a person is alive, they aren't connected to it. Joshuaschroeder 16:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

what do you mean the concept wasn't around? "In the Beginning God Created the Heavens and the Earth ... God said, 'Let there by light' ... God planted a garden in eden ... God sent a great flood ... Abraham was the son of Terah." That story hasn't changed in 3000 years. evolving and changing ideas about that creation doesn't change the basic idea. Creationist="God created." Peter read the same Genesis we're reading, and he believed it to be true -- he even warned us about uniformitarianism in 2 peter 3:4-5.

Read the above statements. Just because the roots of a belief are antecedent doesn't mean that they themselves are representative of hte belief. The Bible in and of itself isn't indicative of creationism: there is an interpretation that is creationist. Julius Caeasar promoted free trade in the Roman Empire, that doesn't make him a capitalist because capitalism didn't exist as a concept when he was around. Likewise creationism didn't exist as a concept when the Bible was written. I know you believe that God, etc. are creationists, but history is fairly clear on when the consolidation occurred. Joshuaschroeder 18:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While creationism can refer obliquely to the other definitions we provide in the article, 9 times out of 10, it is refering to the more strict definition and, further, YEC in particular! To not admit this in this encyclopedia article is dishonest.

i think the article should do both -- give a general understanding of creationism, and then "common parlance." Ungtss 18:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The story is really defined by people who accepted a Darwin's explanation and subsequent revisions of the theory of evolution and people who don't. The people who don't weren't united under the banner of creationism until they consolidated their efforts. Therefore, it is important to point out how "creationism" as a modern religious movement sprang out of this.

some would say that evolutionists are united only in their rejection of creationism. Ungtss 15:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree totally. The majority of scientists don't even engage in the "debate" and many would disagree with the term "evolutionist".Joshuaschroeder 16:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

well then we're on even ground:). nobody's debating, everybody thinks they're right, and nobody has a clue what really happened. Good:). Ungtss 18:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to calim that nobody has a clue what really happened. You might as well become a solipsist. Joshuaschroeder 18:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One might even be tempted to claim this is an American phenomenon since the first-past-the-post polling system dominated democratic opinion in this country. The idea is that if you can get more than 50% of the population to agree to something, you automatically win in the United States and other first-past-the-post systems. This encourages the polarization of camps to pro and con, republican and democrat, creationist and evolutionist, etc. That the concept of creationism as a unified idea occurred may simply be a manifestation of this socio-political climate. Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

that's one valid pov which can be represented on the page. but it cannot be presented as facts, because creationists see it in a vastly different light. Ungtss 15:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I really don't think the above is worthy of inclusion because it is my own opinion. Joshuaschroeder 16:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How's that? Ungtss 19:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think we have it. Joshuaschroeder 00:57, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that discussion's just about thrashed the topic out—again! I'm sure we've been through this sort of discussion here before.

And by the way, the problem with first-past-the-post systems is that someone can win with less than 50% of the vote (or alternatively, this possibility tends to discourage multiple candidates so that there are only two candidates offering).

Philip J. Rayment 02:22, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

incomprehension

The article currently says Among the scientific community, the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, and biological evolution are overwhelmingly considered to be the correct description of the origins of nature.

Two of the 3 don't make sense to me. Is this supposed to be the Big Bang, Giant impact theory, and biological evolution ? --DavidCary 20:44, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article currently says the option of teaching creationism in school has never been seriously considered in any Western European country.

This seems incorrect. I've been told that every school, in every European country, not only considered it, but exclusively taught creationism for centuries. It may be true that this option has never been considered in those contries for many years, since year ___N___. I expect N to be sometime after the book The Origin of Species (1859) was published, and before 2004. --DavidCary 20:44, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

well said, and welcome onboard:). i'll make the appropriate changes. Ungtss 20:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is misleading. Schools in Western Europe did not teach what is called "Creationism" now, they taught the biblical creation story. And many also taught things incompatible with a literal interpretation of it at the same time. I don't think the term "Creationism" even makes sense except in contrast to evolution (and sometimes the other scientific disciplines). --Stephan Schulz 21:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

we can dodge the issue by just addressing the situation today. however, mr. schulz's comment seems analogous to saying Lamarckism and Orthogenesis were not actually evolution. the ideas of creationism have evolved, but the basic concept has stayed the same. Ungtss 21:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Creationist arguments

The latest revision says "Creationism may be entirely based on theology (see creationist theology), entirely based on science (but often called pseudoscience by the vast majority of the scientific community who regard evolution as fact; see intelligent design), or on a mixture of both". I don't think this is adequate - most scientist (including this one) do not consider creationism pseudo-science because they consider evolution a fact (although most do), but because of the methods employed ("statements of faith", ignoring vast amounts of evidence, repeating refuted and easily refutable pseudo-facts, and so on). That it produces results in conflict with mainstream science is a symptom of its nature as pseudo science, not the reason for this designation. --Stephan Schulz 23:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

dispute tag

where's the dispute? nobody's mentioned any pov complaints on the talkpage ... what's the problem, alai? Ungtss 22:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the first instance, it flouts the "fill in the edit box" policy; it was as clear as mud why you were deleting this. This IMO a bad thing to do at the best of times, moreso with 'dispute' tags, and moreso still on 'sensistive' topics like this one. Secondly, it was added (albeit in non-canonical form) by the anon user around 6am, 7th Jan, citing 'tone' of the article, and (on the talk page) objecting to the treatment of the PAW poll. I didn't see either of those addressed, on the talk page or otherwise. Alai 04:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1) not sure what the "fill in the edit box policy is."

2) look at the page -- you'll see that the PAW section has been rewritten.

3) "tone" is a meaningless term. what are YOUR specific objections, and why haven't you fixed them yet?

4) what good does a tag ever do anyone, ever? what is it other than a way for people to cop out and say "i hate this!!! it's bad!!! don't listen to them!!!" rather than constructively edit the page to npov standards of quality Ungtss 12:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A tag is good when there is a need to draw attention to a problem that can't be readily fixed. This may be because someone can see a problem, but doesn't have the skills or knowledge (or time) to fix it. However, that doesn't excuse putting a tag and not explaining specifically what the problem is. Philip J. Rayment 02:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Or for where there's an on-going edit war (which is why even the suggestion of a tag-removal edit war is especially unfortunate). Alai 04:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Always fill the summary field" Edit summary#Guidelines This is rather key to the misunderstanding here.
By the person adding the tag, therefore giving the impression there was an 'outstanding issue'. (Pretty shoddy original, BTW.) Perhaps a mistaken impression, but not one you greatly illuminated.
I didn't say I objected to the 'tone', I said that was the reason cited by the person adding the tag.
"I hate tags!!! They're bad!! Delete them unilaterally!!!"? I don't think that's a very useful characterisation. It may not have been the best use in this case, but they have a pretty well-defined and useful role. Alai 04:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

my apologies.
hey -- i just based it on Creation and evolution in public education -- an improvement from the EXTREMELY misleading original. i didn't know they broke it down further, and i'm glad our lovely anon fixed it.
right -- that anon is gone but you readded the tag -- what's the problem?
only if they're backed with the description of specific issues on the talkpage which can be addressed. Ungtss 13:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. This was my principal point, and what's led to this (unexpectly long-running...) exchange.
OK, noted; disapprobation appropriately redirected.
I "re-added" the (now long gone) tag (i.e., reverted your edit) because you removed it without any explanation whatsoever. And said that was what I was doing at the time. I thought we'd covered this.
You need a modicum of consistency here. The addition of the tag certainly wasn't ideally explained, but it was a darn sight better than its removal in that respect. Alai 17:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

With regard to No. 2, I would say that the talk comment about the PAW was his explanation for changing it, rather than an "oustanding issue". It's not obvious that if he changes something then complains about bias that he is complaining about remaining bias in the bit he changed.
With regard to No. 4, you will see that I disagreed with what Ungtss wrote about the usefulness of the tags, but to rise to his defence, I've seen this and/or similar articles repeatedly had NPOV or similar tags stuck on them for unstated or unsupported reasons, and I get the distinct impression that some anti-creationists just insist on sticking NPOV tags on any article that doesn't actually make creationism look bad. Their POV is that creationism is not just wrong, but irrational, and if an article doesn't reflect that, it must be written from a creationary POV and therefore warrants the tags without even the need to find any actual POV statements in it. I know that I've now got to the point that if someone doesn't spell out specific alleged POV problems, I'll readily delete any such tags.

Philip J. Rayment 13:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it was far from clear one way or the other. (And there was no talk, one way or the other.) I can't comment on said impression, but there needs to be some maintenance of editting transparency both ways, otherwise things will descend into "I didn't like your (lack of) explanation, so I'll change it back with even less". Alai 17:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

roman catholics

i corrected the patently false statement that all roman catholics accept evolutionary creationism. it is "more than a hypothesis," but not an official position. Ungtss 15:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The vatican's official position is that it doesn't have an official position, except that under no circumstances does it permit belief in atheistic evolution. [1]

But the vatican does "allow" for:

the Big Bang- as long as it is still ultimately attributed to God and his plan
biological evolution- as long as it received its impetus and guidance of God and ultimate creation is ascribed to him
human evolution- where it allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul.

These seems like salient points to include in the article.--FeloniousMonk 19:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

indeed. well said. Ungtss 19:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

eurosuperiority?

the following was recently added to the page:

<<The level of interest in creationism in the United States is frequently referred to by Europeans who allege that American culture or education are inferior to that of Europe.>>

are we quite serious about allowing this rather bizarre bit of unadulterated european arrogance? Ungtss 04:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What's your objection, that it's arrogant, or that it's unattributed? :/ I don't think it's a very good sentence either, though. If anything I'd have thought the popular stereotype would have been more that (parts of) American culture is characterised by 'religious extremism', but I don't see that popular stereotypes are very pertinent here. (e.g. that Europeans are arrogant, etc... Was this even added by a European?) OTOH, I don't think we ought to see unattribution per se as good grounds for 'delete on sight' (though yes, there's more here, besides that). Alai 21:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<What's your objection, that it's arrogant, or that it's unattributed?>>

a little bit of both, i'm afraid:). if it were attributed, then the arrogance could be placed in its proper context -- at least we'd know WHO was arrogant. but to throw out unverifiable, unattributed statements that "europeans think american culture is inferior because there are lots of creationists running around?" yikes. all this to say nothing of how many americans feel about the europeans they had to bail out after the last european experiment in eugenics turned a little sour. i don't see any reason to go down the road of exploring "who's inferior." Westerners ALWAYS think they're superior. it's in their blood, i fear. Ungtss 21:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anecdotally, I can attest to the veracity of the sentence in question, but I understand people want support before allowing it to stand. To that end I'm offering this to start with [2], [3], [4] and will provide more support as time permits. --FeloniousMonk 00:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anecdotes not withstanding, the sentence is much overly broad. Some Europeans consider the US Creationism debate as a sign that the average level of science education in the US is rather low. This does not translate to a general "inferiority" of culture or education. --Stephan Schulz 00:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree.--FeloniousMonk 00:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Question

Why was the Giant impact theory included in the following sentence?

Among the scientific community, the Big Bang, Giant impact theory, and biological evolution are overwhelmingly considered to be the correct description of the origins of nature.

It is a very narrow theory that describes a vey particular event. I just don't see its relevance here.

Consider the following,

Among the scientific community, the theories of the Big Bang and biological evolution are overwhelmingly considered to be the correct description for the origin of the universe and the evolution of life respectively.

I've taken the liberty of making that change. To maintain the rhetorical harmony of the three element list, I've added abiogenesis (more to the point, because that's often argued to be a separate theory from evolution per se). I can't think why GIT was there. I suppose one could add things like stellar evolution, the formation of the earth, etc, if one wanted to sketch out the whole pathway, but how much detail does one want here? Alai 05:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes abiogenesis makes much more sense. One thing remains. I don't know if it is that I am no native English speaker or that I have a very queer sense of phraseology but the part "origins of nature" sound awful. I think it should be changed to either "correct description of nature" or "correct description of the origins of the universe and life on Earth". --LexCorp 06:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're right, it's rather vague: we could list anything and everything as helping explain the "origins of nature", giant impact theories and otherwise. Your latter suggestion, especially, is nice and focussed, and matches the list as amended, if no-one has any obs... Alai 21:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non-creationist or Anti-creationist link

Whilst I can understand that "anti-creationist links" doesn't sound the best, "non-creationist links" sound to me like neutral sites (if such a thing is possible), whereas at least most of the links are to sites that are overtly anti-creationist. Is there a third way we can go that's better? If not, I'd prefer "anti-creationist links" as being more accurate. Philip J. Rayment 12:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I changed it to "anti-creationist links", but LexCorp considered it too biased to have "anti-creationist links" instead of leaving it as "non-creationist links". He hasn't given any argument why as yet, given the fact that most of the links are indeed anti-creationist stuff.Ethereal 14:12, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

The matter is not so much one of bias but description. Neither is really very descriptive. I propose the external link sections be entitled Creationist resources and Criticisms of creationism, or something of that ilk. --FOo 17:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I do consider "anti-creationist links" biased for the fact that some of the links are merely informatiove and do not even take a view on creationism. I agree with Fubar that we should seek a more descriptive term. Maybe "Divergent views from Creationism" or "Different views from Creationism". --LexCorp 19:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious to know which of the sites you consider to be "merely informative" rather than opposed to creationism, because at a quick glance they all appear to be opposed to creationism to me. Philip J. Rayment 01:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

well, this is one [5] --LexCorp 01:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That one supports the teaching of evolution and rejects the teaching of creation. It claims that evolution is scientific and creationism is not. None of its references and further reading are to pro-creationism resources, but many of them are to anti-creationism resources. It seems as one-sided as most of the others to me. Philip J. Rayment 15:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The site only informs. Does not take sides at all. --LexCorp 16:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about pro/con? "Con-creationist" doesn't sound right, though, I guess.--FeloniousMonk 19:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ow. Ow. Wikipedia:Pro & con lists considered harmful. :) There are more than two sides here; we should be careful to keep that in mind. --FOo 20:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

pro + con lists -- man. if only i'd seen that policy before Views Compared:). Ungtss 20:04, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, it ain't a policy, just a rant of mine I cleaned up and put in the proposed guidelines category. :) --FOo 21:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Some of the links are not anti-creationism just plain informative. --LexCorp 20:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What do people think of Creationist links (as now) and Sites opposed to creationism or Sites critical of creationism? Philip J. Rayment 01:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd be broadly in favour, though I note that one link listed wouldn't really fit, being just a link to "pro-" and "anti-" sites itself. (I dislike "Non-" as being unduly innocuous-sounding, and "Anti-" is overstated and/or ambiguous. (Is that (anti-creation)ist, or anti-(creationist)?) But at least we've on from 'evolutionist'...) Alai 02:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I guess Sites critical of creationism is ok. Consider also Sites with opposing views to creationism. --LexCorp 03:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I really like LexCorp's suggestion Sites critical of creationism. I also support Rayment's suggestion too as my second choice. May I suggest that links that are purely informative/neutral/do take a position/whatever be placed separately either before (my preference) or after the sectarian links.--FeloniousMonk 04:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not mine but Philip's. The fourth entry above this one. Mine is Sites with opposing views to creationism --LexCorp 04:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The fact that they're external links is obvious from the section. So ... how about just Opposing views? --FOo 01:42, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And you are right there. It is just that to me it sounds better with Sites in front. But that is because I am no English native speaker. So Sites can go. Opposing is still opposite and some links are just informative so why no use Diverging views or as FeloniousMonk suggest lets put three section one pro one anti and the othe informative.--LexCorp 01:55, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There, I hope all parties are happy. I did not check the context of the web pages but asumed material was organised in a pro-anti manner. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 10:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

creation science criticism in the intro.

Argh:

1) you noted in an edit summary that one short sentence would be appropriate. but you added three long ones.

2) creationism is not exclusively about creation science -- it is much broader -- so i don't see why we should have extended criticisms of creation science here, particularly in the intro.

3) if you DO want an extended criticism of creation science here, then we need a balancing pro-creationist take on it. do you really wanna go through that here, in the intro of an unrelated article? why not do it all on creation science? Ungtss 16:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1) I didn't say "one short sentence would be appropriate", I said "so a small sentence on it is relevant".

2) I accept that this point is correct, however, the article mentions that "Creationist beliefs may be based on creationist theology, creation science, or a combination of both" therefore making this criticism completely relevant to the article. Equally, the further criticism of 'creation science' could be applied more widely to creationism as a whole. I am referring here to the sentence, "Science uses the scientific method to systematically comprehend reality as it is, whereas 'creation science' begins with an assumption and attempts to find evidence or twist facts to support this original assumption."

3 )It is more a critical approach towards creationism, rather than simply 'creation science' that I am advocating. This article is misleading in that it appears to add totally equal merit to both creationism and evolution. While this may appear to be in the interests of NPOV, the reality is that the actual evidence for evolution is so hugely overwhelming, that to give an impression of equal validity is itself a bias point. Sorry, but the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, creationism is a pseudo-science of no real merit, and this should be quite clear in the article. I accept that an argument putting forward the 'credentials' of creationism is fair and should be included, but the argument against it should not be tamed in order to give the ostensible appearance of neutrality. Aaarrrggh 17:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<I accept that an argument putting forward the 'credentials' of creationism is fair and should be included, but the argument against it should not be tamed in order to give the ostensible appearance of neutrality.>>

i'm not asking that the argument against it be tamed. i'm simply saying that your argument against "creation science" is not properly placed in the intro of creationism, because creationism is much broader. For ONE thing, creationISM allows for EVOLUTIONARY creationism, which is ENTIRELY in accord with science -- why, in an intro to an article about a topic including evolutionary creationism, are you making arguments against creation SCIENCE, when evolutionary creationism is just as prominent, if not moreseo? Ungtss 18:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<Sorry, but the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, creationism is a pseudo-science of no real merit, and this should be quite clear in the article.>>

once again, creationism allows for evolution -- are you telling me evolutionary creationists are violating science? Ungtss 18:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

third, i'm concerned that what you're inserting is a pov -- and a minority pov at that -- so it may be ATTRIBUTED, but may NOT be stated as fact in this npov article. nearly 1/4 of the US population wants creation SCIENCE taught in SCHOOLS as SCIENCE -- is it really appropriate to state as fact what is in reality one opinion among two? Ungtss 18:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

finally, as i'm sure you noted, the battle over that paragraph began as SOON as you inserted it -- you've inserted a VERY controversial pov, and that paragraph will NEVER be acceptable to consensus -- the edit you called "vandalism" is only the beginning. it is BEST, i think, to CONSOLIDATE and ATTRIBUTE that pov, rather than stating it as fact, because MANY MANY MANY people disagree with you, and agree with the edit you called "childish vandalism." indeed ... science starts with the assumption that there are no supernatural events. without evidence of supernatural events, there is no reason to believe in god. when you define science as you do, you're led inevitably to the conclusion that there is no god. this paragraph will be an ENDLESS source of controversy here. PLEASE move it over to creation science where it can be dealt with properly. Ungtss 18:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"are you telling me evolutionary creationists are violating science?" Yes.

well then you think science has disproven the existence of God, which puts you in a TINY minority opinion -- roughly 8% of the US population, and significantly less worldwide. Ungtss 20:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"nearly 1/4 of the US population wants creation SCIENCE taught in SCHOOLS as SCIENCE" This is precisely why it is so important to explain to people exactly why creationism and creation science are both invalid concepts.

once again, that's your pov -- it can be attributed to a source, but NOT stated as fact. npov will not permit that.

"is it really appropriate to state as fact what is in reality one opinion among two?" No, it wouldnt be - if we were dealing with 'one opinion among two'. We are not however, we are dealing with one theory based on the systematic accumulation of overwhelming evidence, and a belief based on something written by people ignorant of modern science over 2000 years ago. Aaarrrggh 20:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

yes, indeed we are. creationism is based on approximately 5000 years of accumulated history, science, and human experience. evolution is recently concocted groundless speculation born of the recent intellectual decay in western civilization. your pov won't fly as npov here, man. i'm sorry:(. Ungtss 20:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What you just stated is PRECISELY a POV. My viewpoint is based on actual evidence, and is verifable and scientifically sound. That is why it is more than simply a point of view. Your viewpoint is based on your belief, not on any actual facts or reality - this is why it IS a point of view.

"Childish Vandalism"

Aaarrrggh: You reverted my edit which said:

Equally, it should be understood that "real science" begins with the assumption that there is no God and discards evidence to the contrary.

This replaced the wording which you placed in the article just before my edit of:

.... since real science is concerned only with naturalistic explanations of empirical phenomena and does not concern itself with supernatural explanations or metaphysical phenomena.

These both say the same thing, but from radically different perspectives. It would have been proper search for a NPOV way of saying the same thing rather than resorting to a juvenile, ad hominem attack, as you did.

Besides, your edits would be more appropriate for an article on "Creation Science" rather than about the subject of Creationism. Creationism is a view of the world, that should have a link to the "Creation Science" article. Creation Science is the proper place to discuss the controversy between it and the Macro Evolution theory. Val42 18:52, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

This was childish vandalism. Show me one example where science has 'discarded ' evidence towards the existence of god. If such evidence existed (which it clearly does not), then it would be wholly UNSCIENTIFIC to discard such evidence. We can perhaps word the changes I made to be slightly less agressive, however the onus should be the same.

And as I stated above, it is not in the interests of neutrality to present this debate as being two sides of equal merit; not when one is based on evidence and the other on fancy. Aaarrrggh 20:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i'm afraid, friend, that your view that creationism is "based on fancy" is only your your pov, and npov does not permit you to force articles to take your pov as fact. the edit was not childish vandalism, but an effort to return the page to npov -- there are too many creationists for that paragraph you've written to ever succeed -- npov will not allow it. Ungtss 20:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your change was infact far more POV than the changes I made. To assert that real science begins with an 'assumption that there is no god' is POV - science just doesn't begin with any assumptions full stop. It starts with nothing and only builds theories upon facts that are subsequently found out. Stating that taking god of the equation is an 'assumption' is pov. Equally, saying that science tries to 'discard' evidence for god is absurd, woefully inacurate, and totally exposes your religious bias. To do such a thing would be wholly unscientific.

It is quite apparent that there are a number of creationists editing this article as you have mentioned - simply because the article is so uncritical towards such an empty and vapid concept. I have added a 'criticism of creationism' section, which not even you can argue is againts the interest of NPOV. This is a fairly short section right now, but I will make efforts to flesh it out at a later point. Aaarrrggh 21:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since you, Aaarrrggh, have stated, in multiple ways, that this article and the one on Creation Science are nothing but POV, then there is no other logical conclusion than for you to make the move for deletion of both of these articles. Since (in your POV), they are nothing but vehicles for POV, they clearly violate Wikipedia policy and should be deleted. I stated it twice so that you wouldn't miss the point. Val42 21:31, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

<<science just doesn't begin with any assumptions full stop.>>

i'm afraid even evolutionists don't believe that tripe. consider:

"There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination." —Daniel Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, 1995.

a brief glance at Philosophy of science will show you that science makes a NUMBER of assumptions -- this dream of purely empirical science is simply a dream. all human thought is grounded in assumptions -- that's inescapable -- the only real question is whether or not our assumptions are meritorious. Ungtss 21:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<To do such a thing would be wholly unscientific. >>

i agree. i find your "science" to be quite unscientific.

please, sir, this is never going to end. you simply cannot state your pov as fact on this page. i will not attribute it to its source, and then add another attributed view from another source. Ungtss 21:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

""There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination." " Did you bother to read that quote? He is referring there to the philisophical value of scientific discoveries, not the scientific discoveries themselves. The value that people make of such discoveries is wholly independent of the actual scientfic discovery itself. Read more slowly - you might learn more.Aaarrrggh 21:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

wrongo. he's arguing that evolution is the fundamental philosophical tenet that makes the entire universe make sense. essentially, "if you don't believe in evolution, nothing makes sense." Well, a theist would similarly say, "if you don't believe in God, nothing makes sense." sorry. Ungtss 21:55, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

well written criticism of creation science on the wrong page.

the new section is great -- but it belongs on creation science, not here! this page doesn't need to have ANYTHING to do with science -- it's just the belief, in the raw. can we please move this section where it belongs? Ungtss 22:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's happening here. I'd written a long explanation of what I'd written, and why, then saved it — and it's disappeared. Moreover, trying again, by clicking on the Edit button for the final section, and I've got a blank edit screen, with no sign of what was already here. Is anyone else having this problem? I hardly dare to save this, in case I've blanked everything else out in the process.

Ah — I did try to save it, and got an Edit Conflict. I'll forget the finely crafted explanation that's gone spinning off into the fathomless void, and just say that I replaced what was there because, though a start, it made some errors about science, metaphysics, etc.

In answer to Ungtss though, I'd only say that, given that my piece answers the section on 'Defences of creationism', either they're both irrelevant or neither is. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i think your piece is excellent -- i only added the defenses section to balance the criticisms section that was added -- now that the criticisms section is growing, i would GLADLY move JUST your piece over to creation science and send mine off into the fathomless void. what do you say? Ungtss 23:16, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yet another Edit conflict; one of us is going to have to draw breath once in a while. Does this (and my new material) count as an adequate response? I think that the criticisms of creationsim are going to be in large part from the standpoint of the person who thinks that science offers us a better chance of finding the truth than accepting the claims of a book, so the stuff about science as a way of truth-discovery is relevant here, i think. I'd originally written:

OK, I've added a bit to bring out the relevance of the criticisms to non-creation-science creationism. It's again just off the top of my head (though based on many years of thinking about and teaching this stuff), so it will need work. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you both have a point here; discussion of creation science isn't really to the point, but if the term is going to be referred to at all, some glossing of it is reasonable, lest this be read as endorsing a scientific basis for creation. A broader difficulty is that the scope of the article is notionally any belief in creator, of any sort (witness it glomping up Creator god recently), which almost any religious person is in theory obliged to sign up to. But the connotations of the term 'Creationism', and much of the body of the article, are much narrower, which makes it tempting to wheel in discussion of creation science. Alai 23:33, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

well ... it's getting there ... i can see your point about distinguishing "the scientific approach." lemme try a gloss here to improve relevence. Ungtss 23:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Neither of those sections are about "Creationism"--in my opinion. It would help if you cited some published article that states your point of view that those ideas have anything to do with "Creationism." 8)) That "Criticisms of Creationism" section appears to me to be thick personal research. I give one interesting nonsensical sentence as an example of that personal research: Thus science is essentially naturalistic; to challenge its naturalism is in fact to challenge its existence. !ÔÔ! Surely science exists whether or not "science is naturalistic" is a true statement! Soviet science in the 1970s was not very naturalistic; it was political rather than naturalistic. And still Soviet science had enough "existence" as you call it to scramble NORAD on a regular basis. 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 23:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

welcome back:). Ungtss 23:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Another two Edit conflicts; third time lucky) This isn't a comment on how you did [this was a response to a remark by Ungtss, which disappeared in one of the Edit conflicts</nowiki>]</nowiki>, and we might end up going back to something of the sort — but I think that this needs to be discussed a bit further before simply removing the Criticisms section. Either the article is going to be a one-sided presentation of the Creationist position, or it's going to include a section explaining the positions of those who reject that position. But such rejections are going to include – indeed, to be dominated by – the sort of criticism that I give in the article. That is, whether or not Creationism claims to be scientific, it's in conflict with what science says, and so the question must be asked: which should we accept? The answer of someone like Thomas Aquinas is clear; we should accept science, because it's based on reason; the Bible isn't therefore wrong, but it needs to be interpreted correctly. The view of the Creationist is to reject the scientific view.

I can (some time tomorrow or Sunday, because I have to get a moderately early night — I have an early start tomorrow) rewrite what I've got in order to lay more stress on this point than on the creation science point, but I think that – unless the article is to be hopelessly PoV – it needs something like this.

(OK, one last response: Rednblu is confusing naturalism vs non- or super-naturalism with rationalism vs non-rationalism. Ever since Kuhn, at least, it's been recognised that science is affected by non-rational (that is, extra-scientific) factors, but that has nothing to do with the question of naturalism. Soviet scientists weren't appealing to god, or spirits, or even the spooky forces of historical materialism. The problem with demanding citations for what I've been saying is that you'll find it in every book on the nature of science. A couple of examples: The Rationality of Science by Bill Newton-Smith, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn, and The Philosophies of Science by Rom Harré.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<The view of the Creationist is to reject the scientific view.>>

this is, i'm afraid, the key premise of your argument which needs elaboration. you can define science as naturalism all day long, but if you can't explain why people who believe God created life and sent a global flood are WRONG, you won't get anywhere with us:). Ungtss 00:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is to misunderstand the issue, but also to emphasise the need for the kind of section we're talking about.

It misunderstands the issue because I'm not trying to take part in a debate with creationists; I'm trying to contribute to the article in order to improve it — to make it fuller and more balanced.
I argue that, as a method of gaining knowledge about the world, science is the best we have — the best that human beings could have; if religious beliefs conflict with science, then the religious beliefs should be reinterpreted or discarded. That is the explanation of why creationists are wrong.
What's odd about all this, of course, is that creationism is relatively new; it had been discarded by thinking Christians by the nineteenth century in favour of more sensible interpretations of the Bible, which didn't conflict with reason. Its current resurgence, in a particularly literalist form, can be traced to the early-twentieth century U.S., and there are all sorts of sociological and psychological explanations for that which the article ought to go into.
I'm not talking about creation science; that's largely just a cynical attempt to bypass U.S. constitutional bars on religion in schools, and it's difficult to believe that even its proponents believe any of the nonsense they spout. I'm talking about creationism itself — a view that is geographically and culturally limited even within the Christian religions.

As I said, I'll try to rework what I wrote in order to bring out the target more clearly, but something like it needs to be there. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:08, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<I'm trying to contribute to the article in order to improve it — to make it fuller and more balanced.>>

i agree with your goal. i'm simply suggesting that the balance would be best improved if it ACTUALLY explained why creationism is inferior, a goal which, i'm afraid, the present piece doesn't attain to.

<<if religious beliefs conflict with science, then the religious beliefs should be reinterpreted or discarded. That is the explanation of why creationists are wrong.>>

here, you are assuming that science has unequivocally proven creationism wrong, without explaining how or why it has done so. i'm afraid consensus science just won't do it. if indeed creationism is unfalsifiable, there is certainly no harm in believing it -- it is only harmful to hold FALSIFIED beliefs ... and i don't believe they've yet been falsified. if you want to write an effective piece, it's gonna have to address that issue. why are we WRONG? Ungtss 17:51, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<What's odd about all this, of course, is that creationism is relatively new; it had been discarded by thinking Christians by the nineteenth century in favour of more sensible interpretations of the Bible, which didn't conflict with reason. Its current resurgence, in a particularly literalist form, can be traced to the early-twentieth century U.S., and there are all sorts of sociological and psychological explanations for that which the article ought to go into.>>

i'm afraid that's plainly untrue. creationism is very, very old, as is evolution. creationism was not discarded in the 19th century, on the contrary, DARWINISM was discarded in favor of a Theistic Orthogenesis model grounded in mendelian genetics (which allowed no room for evolution then or now) that held sway until the 1940s ... Ungtss 17:51, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<I'm not talking about creation science; that's largely just a cynical attempt to bypass U.S. constitutional bars on religion in schools, and it's difficult to believe that even its proponents believe any of the nonsense they spout. I'm talking about creationism itself — a view that is geographically and culturally limited even within the Christian religions.>>

i'm afraid the consistution prohibits either advancing OR inhibiting religion, and teaching evolution VERY clearly inhibits religion, as it tells children, unequivocally, that their religion is wrong. And it does this with my tax dollars. THAT is unconstitutional, friend. Ungtss 17:51, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I'll try to rework what I wrote in order to bring out the target more clearly, but something like it needs to be there. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:08, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The trouble with your POV is that it appeals to god, spirits, and spooky forces that you claim you detect in Creationism. 8)) Any naturalistic approach to Creationism would ignore whether Creationism appeals to the Big Bang, strangeness, the gravitational singularity, or any other spooky forces or not. To naturalistic anthropologists--that is to anthropologists who observe that all ideas whether containing god, spirits, and spooky forces or not are only invented by women and men--Creationism is merely an early woman-invented explanation for how we got there--no more dominated by god, spirits, and spooky forces than is the scientific method. Here is a LINK to what a naturalistic anthropologist actually said about "Creationism." In contrast, your fake citations to Newton-Smith and Kuhn do not even mention "Creationism." So your personal research in the Criticisms of Creationism paragraph is not only wrong but illegitimate. That Creationism is wrong and forced onto the populace by street-corner preachers and a police state does not justify opposing Creationism because of its gods, spirits, and spooky forces. Again, your Criticisms of Creationism paragraph has nothing to do with Creationism. 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 18:35, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be working yourself up into a bit of a rage, but I'll ignore the silliness about 'fake sitations', and point out only that the references were (as I clearly stated) concerned with the nature of science, not with creationism. Actually, that's the only bit of what you write that warrants a reply; I can make little sense of all that stuff about police states, and you clearly haven't understand the points that my (non-personal research) section is making. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<Creationism is merely an early woman-invented explanation for how we got there--no more dominated by god, spirits, and spooky forces than is the scientific method.>>

whoa:). haven't heard that one before:). how many female authors of old testament texts are we aware of:)? Ungtss 21:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I use "woman" generically for women and men--as one would use "man" generically as in "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal." 8)) Also I am recognizing that my grandmother invented all the crazy stories; it was my grandfather who wrote them down and put his name on the title page as author and got the royalty checks. 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 21:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

* hmm ... interesting hypothesis that women made them up and men wrote them down, but one might note it ignores the fact that women were explicitly denied the right to speak in religious services because they were viewed as weak-minded, and in fact abrahamic religions are traditionally VERY male-oriented ... and i'm afraid based on a metaphysical assumption that "women do religion and men do science ..." which may be the case for some religions (like contemporary evangelical christianity) but is quite counterfactual with regard to the ORIGINS of the abrahamic traditions ... and certainly, at the very least, it's unfalsifiable ... Ungtss 22:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Origins? The pattern originated with the ancestors of the chimpanzees. You can see the fundamental pattern that women and men inherited by viewing the chimpanzees. It is the female chimpanzees that do the invention--invention such as of new tools for nut-cracking, fishing for termites, and extracting marrow from the bones of prey. If you watch long enough any wild community of chimpanzees that do not use tools--if the community starts using tools, you will see first a few females copying each other in using the new invention--finally the men start copying the inventions of the women. As far as I know, no one has ever witnessed a male chimpanzee being the first in the community to invent a tool. That is the origins of the abrahamic traditions. 8)) Falsifiability? To falsify: Find a community of wild chimpanzees in which the men invent the tool first. 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 23:04, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Creationism vis-a-vis science sub-section and move

I've relocated the Criticisms of creationism to lower down on the page to allow the presentation of info likely more relevant to creationists themselves first. Feel free to change back if anyone objects.

I also added a sub-section to it addressing creationist claims to scientific mantle. It's important to address this in light of their claims, not least of which is made in the Defenses of Creationism section.--FeloniousMonk 20:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

this is all very good, but it is EXCLUSIVELY related to creation SCIENCE -- why are we deconstructing creation SCIENCE on a page about creationISM? Ungtss 21:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because creationism makes much the same claims as creation science, just without the overt pretense of adhering to the scientific method. Many run-of-the-mill creationists, YECs, OECs, DACs, etc., make explicit statements either to claim the mantle of science for their own views or claim that science is invalid. For example, from the creationism article: "They conclude that creationism is at least as scientifically legitimate as science grounded in philosophical naturalism, and argue further that in their view the evidence strongly supports their viewpoint." They also often assert that science is merely an atheistic conspiracy, something we as of yet have addressed in the article in any depth.--FeloniousMonk 21:47, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the quote you noted was added in response to the growing criticism section -- check the history -- i don't want that there, but i added it to balance the criticism ... i don't want these criticisms OR defenses here at all! they doesn't belong:(! evolutionary creationism ACCEPTS the claims of science, and creation theology is purely metaphysical -- this page covers BOTH of those! why is the page now a pro/con on creation SCIENCE? Ungtss 22:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First, you seem to assume that the only part of science that opposes creationism is evolutionary biology; it isn't. The claim that the universe was created by a supernatural being is antithetical to science in general (and as a philosopher I'd also say that such a claim fails to be an explanation). Secondly, unless you're claiming that there are no objections to creationism (that the only objections are to so-called creation science), why do you object to having them aired in the article? (Oh, and thirdly, I suppose: why are you ignoring the argument that I offered above concerning the relevance of the arguments to creationism? Did they get lost in Rednblu's splutterings?) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:44, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Motion to move the Creation-evolution controversy to the Creation-evolution controversy page

This whole Criticisms of Creationism section no more belongs on the Creationism page than the creationist counterpart of it would belong on the Evolution page. NPOV would require a paragraph or two to summarize the many wonderful details of science's criticisms of creationism that would be presented in all their splendor in the Creation-evolution controversy page. 8))

Hence, I move that the whole Criticisms of Creationism section be moved to the Creation-evolution controversy page with a short summary on the Creationism page with a link to the detail. ---Rednblu | Talk 22:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

seconded. Joshuaschroeder 22:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

thirded:). Ungtss 22:43, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

no. unless... Criticisms of creationism have a place on the creationism page as long as creationists in society, and hence this page, continue to challenge other methods of gaining knowledge and determining truth by asserting creationism's relevancy and alleged superiority. That criticisms belong here is not even an issue to be debated; they do. What is in question here is how much space is going to be devoted to those criticisms. If criticisms, including those with a basis in science since they after all constitute the gravamen of criticisms of creationism, were to be fairly and accurately aired as a section of dedicated to three or four paragraphs, then I'd be willing to consider breaking-out the specific specific arguments to another page. Considering the Creation-evolution controversy page has every probability of going the way of the "Positions of creationist/mainstream scientists compared" page and daughter pages, in other words, deleted, I'm wary of removing this content completely. Just saying it "no more belongs on the Creationism page than the creationist counterpart of it would belong on the Evolution page." is not justification enough. It is all information relevant to creationism and it's role in society and culture.--FeloniousMonk 23:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

support move for exactly the reasons stated in the initial proposal to move. Besides, Wikipedia itself is suggesting that, because of the size of the article, some of it be moved to a different article. Val42 03:09, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Reject. Unless the claim is that there are no criticisms of creationism (which there clearly are), the removal of the section in this article amounts to censoring such criticism, and making the article fundamentally PoV. If the claim is that the criticism belongs on the Creation-evolution controversy page, then so does the article itself. I'd be happy to start a VfD for this page, proposing the merging of its contents with Creation-evolution controversy and making this a redirect — if that's what people want. If they want a separate Creationism page, though, then a brief and general account of the criticisms (and responses) should stay. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reject. As has already been stated above, removing perfectly valid criticism of creationism is itself a POV. It is absolutely fundamental to the NPOV of the article that such criticism be including within the creationism article itself, and not just on the evolution/creationism debate page. Aaarrrggh 13:39, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

framework.

alright, gentlemen, what is the framework for npov here?

1) Mainstream criticisms with no creationist rebuttal (ARGH's idea)

2) Mainstream criticisms with creationist rebuttal (Ungtss's idea)

3) Mainstream criticisms with crestionist rebuttal and point-by point mainstream rebuttal of creationist rebuttal. (Mr. Schroeder's idea).

Thoughts? Ungtss 22:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd think JS's reaction to some horribly POV additions on your part, rather than a scheme of his ex nihilo. What we should have a neutral summary of both POVs, not a battle to get in the last word. Alai 22:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

hey now. my text is in response to some horribly pov additions directly above. i don't want ANY of this here, because it's all personal research essay non-encyclopedic garbage and this article should limit itself to describing creationism rather than trying to debunk it -- i added what i added because i won't let anti-creationist propaganda stand alone. Ungtss 02:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've no doubt you see it that way, and perhaps with a degree of justification. But that's precisely the attitude that means that every article in this grouping a) starts as a creationist screed, b) then turns into an excerpt from talk.origins, c) then eventually if we've very lucky, starts to look somewhat like an encyclopedia article for a while (as this article was for a while), but with the option to devolve to a) or b) at a moment's notice. The remedy for POV isn't "more of the opposite POV"; I know I keep saying this, in my defence, I think it remains true (and not very well adhered to). Alai 03:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let me remark that it would be best to do this: have creationism explicated in detail and have a section devoted to criticism. If creationist editors want to include a rebuttal, they can change the main article to indicate the point that they want. For example, if the creationist article states that "Creationists believe that there is no evidence for macroevolution" and then in mainstream criticism the statement is offered that "Creationists reject the abundant evidence from fossil record for macroevolution." Creationists could respond by changing the original statement rather than starting a whole new section. This is preferable to a point-by-point or adding section-upon-section. Joshuaschroeder 00:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

it's an excellent point, and that's what creation science is for -- the main article there DOES discuss these issues. this article is NOT about creation science -- this section does NOT belong here. this article is a brief summary of creationism, NOT an explication of creation science. this does NOT belong here. Ungtss 02:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Again, creationism makes the same claims as creation science, just without the pretense of adhering to the scientific method. Further, creation science is merely a subset of creationism. As long as creationists make explicit statements deriding and discounting science, balance and NPOV ~~allows for~~ demands an airing of the countervailing viewpoint here.--FeloniousMonk 06:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree totally with what Feloniousmonk mentioned above. The article states that "These creationists hold beliefs that may be based on creationist theology, creation science, or a combination of both". The inference here is that 'creation science' functions to legitimate creationism through providing substance and a 'scientific' foundation for its claims. For this reason, it is entirely appropriate to mention some flaws in creation science in this article.

Also, in response to your statement above,

"alright, gentlemen, what is the framework for npov here?

1) Mainstream criticisms with no creationist rebuttal (ARGH's idea)"

It seems to me that your idea of a NPOV article would involve a creationism article with no criticism of creationism whatsover. I do not mind a creationist rebuttal. The problem I had is with you attacking science under the sub-heading 'Criticisms of creationism".Aaarrrggh 14:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Abrahamic Centered

Amid the controversy over "Creationist Science" vs. "Macro Evolution", a more relevant issue has been lost — that this page is Abrahamic-centered. That is, the page starts out general and gets more specifically oriented towards creationism as considered by the three Abrahamic-originating religions, then the page gets lost in the muck of the above debate. Other than the generalities, spoken of in the first two sections, there is nothing relevant to the creationism of other religions. I'm not talking just about the creation stories of the Norse, Greeks and Romans that we were taught in school, but those of other major religions of the world. How should we go about getting input from these other communities? Val42 03:26, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

The problem with this article in a nutshell...

... is pretty much self-defined, in its very own intro. Observe:

Creationism is generally the belief that the universe was created by a deity, or alternatively by one or more powerful and intelligent beings. Creationism, therefore, is often linked to theistic interpretations of nature, though the creating being need not be a deity. In Europe, North America, South America, Africa, Australia, and the Middle East, the Creator is usually held to be the God of the Abrahamic religions

Grand; so far this must surely be the considerable majority of the world's population. I'm sure most, say, Italians'd agree with this (to pluck an arbitray example from nasty old secular Europe). They wouldn't necessarily have used the term 'creationist' to self-describe, but...

who, creationists believe, created living organisms "after their kind", as described in the biblical book of Genesis.

They do? Suddenly we've gone from almost all Italians, to about four of them.

So my point is simple: is this article defining creationists to be believers in a creator god, as implied by the majority of that paragraph, and by the recent merger of the article of that name? (Probably a very bad idea, in hindsight.) Or is it Abrahamic anti-Evolutionists? We'll never get a coherent article until we square this circle; we'll just (as at present) flip-flop between complaints about atheism and naturalism (which has really nothing to do with anything here) on the one hand, and what rotten science some specific sort of creationism is (of which the same may true, depending on said scope), and the hapless reader will be no wiser than had we just written "ALL YE WHO ENTER HERE, FLAMES WITHIN". Alai 04:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An earlier version of this page had creationism divided into two categories: one) the general category of people who believe in some sort of non-naturalistic/theistic explanation for the origin of life, the universe, and everything, and two, the way it is normally used amongst people who actually bandy the term about. The fact is, most people who describe themselves as creationists are on the Abrahamic anti-Evolutionist boat. I will try to edit the article to make the distinction more clear. Joshuaschroeder 04:57, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is true, but what about people that "believe in a creator god"? Does this make them 'creationists'? I think this is neither clear in the article as such, nor standard use of terminology. A pretty common Abr. (and for Catholics, Vatican-authorised) position would be "yes I believe in a creator god, and yes I believe in evolution, what's all this gunk in this article about pseudo-science vs. materialistic reductionism?" (Yes, I realise that 'evolutionary creationism' is mentioned briefly in the article, but this itself is (doubly!) disputed terminology, and it doesn't work its way into other parts of the article.) Alai 05:36, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Does this make them 'creationists'?It doesn't at all. It's the old problem that A implies B but B doesn't imply A. It would be nice to include an explanation of that. Joshuaschroeder

I think it needs to be made as clear as possible, as soon as possible in the article. The current intro in particular needs to be tightened up considerably, and probably entirely "de-merged" from the Creator god concept. Then we can have a sound basis on which to determine whether to include some of the other material. Alai 07:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Which of course, is exactly what you've done, a couple of hours ago. Sorry, should have checked first. Much, much better, I think. Alai 07:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms section again

I've merged the two sections, omitting material only relevant to creationism as scientific (that might be transferred elsewhere, but I don't think that it belongs here). What's left is a set of criticisms, all found in the philosophical and scientific literature, either directly about creationism or about supernatutalist claims in general), which are relevant centrally to creationism as a theory about the origin (and nature) of the world, not to the claims that it's scientific. There's one aspect that really needs expansion (the point about the nature of explanation), but I need to think about that further, and check more sources, before I do anything. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:52, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Having changed this section, what now needs to be done is to remove all references in the rest of the article to claims that creationism is scientific, or has scientific validity. I assume that no-one can disagree with this, as the main complaint about the criticisms was that they focussed on creationism as science, and so belonged elsewhere. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The People for the American Way Poll

Disregarding the the other biases in the article, I would have to say that quoting the PAW poll as greater than 50% support for teaching creationism is the same as quoting 99% support for teaching Christianity by defining 'teaching Christianity' as 'mentioning the Bible in class.' Historical and philisophical education is vastly different from scientific education.

The Edwards v. Aguillard quote

First, the link to the wiki entry for Edwards v. Aguillard is right there (and I moved the quote there); second, this is in a section that was supposedly moved to a daughter page; it should be short.

I think we can reach a one or two sentence summary that we can agree upon. How about this:

Most recently, the Supreme Court has held in their ruling of Edwards_v._Aguillard that laws concerning theories of origins (even creationist ones) taught in public schools must have a secular purpose and scientific merit, using the test laid down in Lemon_v._Kurtzman.

-Fleacircus 20:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

sounds good ... think you're right about keeping it short ... how about we either cut any reference to evolution or creation (as it is now ... just "a variety"), or list them in parallel (i.e. evolutionistic, creationistic, or any other theory) ... by the way, appreciate the help on weeding out my POV:). Ungtss 21:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What you put up is fine with me. I think it's important to note that the SC decision does give special place to evolution; it is the "prevailing scientific theory" in the first sentence. By my reading the quote is pretty much saying that if creationism wants to get into science class, it needs to be presented and presentable as science.

I have POV too of course.. I don't want to overstep into that either. -Fleacircus 21:28, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

that's the way i read it too -- basically, "listen, creationists -- if you want in the game, quit trying to censor the real scientists (by banning evolution) or subsidizing your own beliefs (by requiring equal time regardless of scientific merit) and COME UP WITH SOMETHING WORTH TEACHING:)." sorry:). end pov rant:). Ungtss 21:42, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The way I see it is belonging on Talk:Creation and evolution in public education. Shall I move this discussion there? CheeseDreams 21:47, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi CheeseDreams... I think this discussion should be linked to over there, but it needs to stay here, even if copied over there.

I'd like to remind everyone on this discussion that they are dealing with someone alleged to be a 'notorious usenet troll' (see that discussion way up above this post.) and that wrapping up good articles with endless disscussion is one of the goals of trolls on wikipedia. This article needs some sort of disclaiming verbiage. Without it it is crackpottery, with it, it can be handled as NPOV without constant reference to who disagrees wihth the theory.Pedant 22:59, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

Cheesdreams: I don't see why you want to move the discussion since it is done. And since we were talking about what should appear on this page, and we reached an agreement, what's the problem? -Fleacircus 18:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Space. CheeseDreams 22:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Creation in Australia

I removed:

Creationism remains a minority position within Australia, closely associated with evangelical fundamentalists such as Fred Nile. It has not received anything near the social or legislative prominence accorded to it within the United States.

The first phrase is redundant, the reference to "evangelical fundamentalists" is (what's the term?) perjorative?, it is no more associated with Fred Nile than many other people, I question whether it has any less social prominence than in the U.S.A, and from what I can gather, it hasn't achieved any legislative prominence in the U.S.A. anyway, with most legislative attempts being rejected. Philip J. Rayment 02:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, the fact that there even is regular discussion about legislative aspects of creation means it has a lot more (legislative) prominence than in any other major industrialized country. One thinge we recently hashed out on the Flood geology page is that most Creation science is not so much rejected by scientist, as ignored, since most scientists (and certainly most scientists outside the US) are not even aware of the fact that this is pushed as a serious scientific position. --Stephan Schulz 14:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If "legislative attempts" and similar are factors in "legislative prominence", then I will probably concede that point, notwithstanding that some years ago there was some sort of requirement to give equal time to creation in Queensland, if I understood that situation adequately. Philip J. Rayment 15:29, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Something went wrong

In the edit of 20:20, 24 Nov 2004, something went wrong. Can somebody figure it out and fix it? ---Rednblu | Talk 06:56, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it's ok now; I changed the Links section from <h4> to ====. Now the sections seem to work. ---Ben Standeven 02:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. ---Rednblu | Talk 20:40, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I formatted the Creationism page in the standard Main Article summary and layout that is used, for example, in the Evolution and Human pages as has been discussed on this TalkPage for over a year. Please refer to the Creationism archives and subsequent discussions if you have any questions. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 21:40, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Summaries of other articles shouldnt be here because it's redundant and can cause inconsistency when one of the pages covering the same subject changes while the other remains unchanged. Grice 10:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Summaries of "Main articles" are the Wikipedia standard, as you can see in the Evolution and Human pages, just for two examples. Can you give me a Wikipedia example of a page where "Summaries of 'Main articles'" was considered by the Wikipedia community to be "redundant and causing inconsistency"? ---Rednblu | Talk 15:16, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Creationism and philosophical naturalism section

I've corrected sentence introducing Phillip E. Johnson to reflect that Phillip Johnson's claims are not general, but highly particular.--FeloniousMonk 06:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Additionally, it would be in the article's interest to add some context around the Phillip E. Johnson bit with some of the opposing viewpoints for balance.--FeloniousMonk 06:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i agree ... in fact, i think that we would do well to make a daughter article that covers this topic in detail with a number of arguments on all sides -- because it really is the heart of the debate, i think. what do you think? Ungtss 14:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does anybody else think this page needs a major reworking?

It seems to me that this page is really poor. There isn't a well-defined use of the term "creationist". The opening paragraph seems to indicate that a creationist is someone who believes in Genesis creation. However, later on there are references to a 1997 Gallup poll that was completely neutral to whether the respondent was a believer in a Judeo-Christian formulation or some other formulation of theism. Furthermore, there are "creationists" who believe such things as the Earth and even the universe was "created" by aliens, for example. Is this a form of creationism? If not, then we should really define what exactly we are talking about. 67.172.158.8 17:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

defining yec

you can't place yec as a straw-man in opposition to science -- that's one pov. the yec folks believe that science SUPPORTS a young earth. to set YEC in "opposition" to science in the first paragraph is pov ... and an especially damaging pov on a page like this. as to the "scientific consensus," it was Karl Popper who said, "I don't believe that success proves anything." Ungtss 00:49, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the UK certainly most people use the term YEC to describe those that assert that the scientific method would back up their beliefs. I'm sure there are those that take the belief without believing in the scientific method but are they common enough to warrant discussion? I reverted to Ungtss' version. Barnaby dawson 16:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are definitely people who are YECs that use evidence other than that from science to back up their assertions. As such, the statement is too narrow to be correct. 67.172.158.8 18:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There seems to be some clamoring for a removal of the statement that most YECs are fundamentalists. This is surprising, because it is definitely one of the primary perspectives of every YEC I've ever met. 67.172.158.8 16:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Fundamentalist" carries connotations and meanings that many if not most YECs disagree with, even if the use of the word is technically correct. Also, many sceptics appear to consider YECs fundamentalist by definition, in which case saying that a YEC is also a fundamentalist is redundant. Philip J. Rayment 01:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have yet to meet a YEC who, when asked, didn't admit to being a fundamentalist. Can you point in the direction of any that are. The only reason that the line was included was to distinguish between those creationists who are not fundamentalists. I will change the term to "biblical literalist"

I won't admit to it, at least not until it is defined. What I said was that it "carries connotations and meaning that ... YECs disagree with". "Fundamentalist" originally meant someone who believed the fundamental truths of the Bible. I have also heard it use to mean a literalist. In popular and media use these days it means a religious extremist, sometimes bordering on a terrorist. Now do you understand why YECs don't like the term applied to them? Philip J. Rayment 02:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i'm pretty much yec and definitely not fundamentalist. i don't believe in inerrancy, i don't believe that only christians get to heaven (in fact, i don't even necessarily believe in heaven), i don't believe God's omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent, and I haven't been to church in 3 years because i think, on the whole, the church is a crock and has been since a generation or two after Jesus. yet i still find genesis to be the most reasonable explanation of our origins, and the teachings of Jesus to be the truest we've ever been blessed with. Ungtss 03:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect to user Ungtss, if he is as he claims then he is in a definite minority with respect to the YEC population. I wonder that user Ungtss is a YEC yet claims that he doesn't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. What evidence from astronomy, for example, do you disbelieve so strongly that Genesis seems to be a more scientific text than an intro astronomy text? Do you actually evaluate the claims of geology, astronomy, chemistry, nuclear physics, etc. and find them wanting? What references do you use to support your claims? Do any of the writers of these references (or anybody else you've met) hold a similar position to your own?

I submit that unless user Ungtss can provide evidence that he is not alone in his opinions and that there is a substantial portion of the YEC community like him, the edit he is promoting is a vanity edit and strictly not permitted in Wikipedia. I will wait three days before changing the edit back to hear from user Ungtss for the evidence. I submit that the vast majority of YECs are believers in biblical literalism if not Christian fundamentalism. 67.172.158.8 17:08, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<I submit that unless user Ungtss can provide evidence that he is not alone in his opinions and that there is a substantial portion of the YEC community like him, the edit he is promoting is a vanity edit and strictly not permitted in Wikipedia.>>

first of all, it is not a vanity edit when i refuse to allow you to associate a belief with a certain people group without citation, especially when i personally do not fit the association, and the association uses politically and religiously charged terms such as "fundamentalist." you are attempting to assert something as fact which i know not to be fact. if you'd like to present a cited, quoted poll showing what percentage of YECs are fundamentalists, go ahead. as it stands, it's just your word against mine. and i won't allow you to state things as fact that i know not to be fact. i am not a fundamentalist, my roommates are not fundamentalist, many personal friends of mine in africa and the middle east are not fundamentalist ... yet somehow we're still YEC. don't tell us we're something we're not. it's strawman, namecalling bs. Ungtss 21:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you both. "Fundamentalist" is a pejorative word, plain and simple. And I don't think any of my YEC friends would appreciate being called one. Samboy 10:58, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fundamentalist is not pejorative in its definition, though it may have pejorative connotations. We can call them "biblical literalists" if you like. 67.172.158.8 17:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<What evidence from astronomy, for example, do you disbelieve so strongly that Genesis seems to be a more scientific text than an intro astronomy text?>>

first, if you take a look at the genesis account, it doesn't claim that God created the universe in 6 days -- in fact, before God created ANYTHING, his "spirit moved over the waters." To my reading, there was something on Earth before God did anything to the Earth, and the days of creation are just God's preparation of a preexisting earth for life. so your "age of the universe models" are irrelevent to my opinion of the date when God did everything he claimed to do to the earth.

This is strictly a different opinion from YEC. Afterall, it doesn't follow from the Ussher-Lighfoot calendar. 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

and who said Ussher was the authority in YEC, any more than Darwin was the authority on evolution? Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

secondly, i find the genesis interpretation (although not necessarily literally 1 day) to be much more reasonable than star and planetary formation models in your "introductory astronomy text," which fail to explain how hydrogen clouds were able to violate the laws of gas in a vaccuum long enough to begin fusion

If you want to know about interstellar gas dynamics, shouldn't you research it? I have been an astronomer for some time and have yet to see a convincing argument that hydrogen clouds "violate" the laws of gas dynamics. By the way, "laws of gas in a vacuum" makes no sense.67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

the laws of gas in a vaccuum simply means "How the Gas laws cause gas to behave in a vaccuum. what's hard about that plain english? Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

without the intervention of an outside force,

There is an outside force -- a lot of them. Sometimes shockwaves cause star formation. Cooling functions allow for clouds to collapse. I'm not sure where the myth of an intractable problem came from.67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i would greatly appreciate some reference to back up your conclusion -- preferably something that explains, blow by blow, exactly what those shockwaves are composed of, and how the nebula failed to obey the Gas laws prior to the explosion long enough to be close enough to explode. consensus from my coursework and research is, "nobody has a friggin' clue." Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

how the disks began to rotate,

See conservation of angular momentum. 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

that doesn't do a thing to explain how the disks began to rotate. Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

how planets of such radically different substance congealed from the same nebula,

See planetary formation models and differentiation of protoplanetary disks. 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i've seen them ... i find them laughable. Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

how we came to have a moon in such perfectly balanced orbit that is currently RECEDING from the Earth,

Typical psuedoscientific claim: [6] 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<The moon is receding at about 3.8 cm/year. Since the moon is 3.85 * 1010 cm from the earth, this is already consistent, within an order of magnitude, with an earth-moon system billions of years old. >>

is that supposed to mean something? i asked how the earth came to have a moon, with the moon so perfectly balanced in orbit, and slowly receding. you gave me a silly conclusory statement that didn't address the issue. Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

how many planets came to rotate the opposite way of all the other planets, how many moons came to revolve the opposite way of other moons.

[7] 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<The "backwards" planets and moons are in no way contrary to the nebular hypothesis. Part of the hypothesis is that the nebula of gas and dust would accrete into planetessimals. Catastrophic collisions between these would be part of planet-building. Such collisions and other natural processes can account for the retrograde planets and moons. >>

is that conclusory crap supposed to impress anybody? how did it HAPPEN? "such collisions and other natural processes can account for the retrograde planets and moons." HOW!? Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I find it most reasonable to believe that a designer or god of some sort arranged our solar system in roughly the order described in Genesis. not necessarily 6 days (although it could well have been), but certainly not the billions of years asserted by these pseudoscientific planetary formation models foisted as fact on an ignorant public by a scientific community bent on supporting its rampant atheistic/agnostic bias against all reason. Ungtss 21:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your POV as to the motivations behind a community of literally tens of thousands in academe is really quite alarmist. Perhaps you should do a more careful bit of research before getting on a shrill high-horse. 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

that's good. ad hominem and no rebuttal. i'm getting to like this. Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<Do you actually evaluate the claims of geology, astronomy, chemistry, nuclear physics, etc. and find them wanting?>>

I find that the empirically observable and verifiable facts of geology, astronomy, chemistry, and nuclear physics (which i have studied at least somewhat, and accept as far as i've studied) show evolutionary models for star, planet, and life formation to be self-contradictory and ridiculous.

But have failed to provide even one example that isn't easily shown to be claptrap. 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

no sir. you've failed to explain any of these pseudoscientific efforts to explain away reality. Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

don't confuse true science with the pseudoscientific speculation of evolutionary origins. i accept the former, and reject the latter. Ungtss 21:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And don't confuse planetary formation with biological evolution. 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

the only thing they have in common is a lot of nonsense. Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<What references do you use to support your claims?>>

foremost, my personal research and common sense.

Really? Does your personal research encompass actually doing the physics in the models that you claim don't work physically? 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

beyond that, the ever-growing body of creationist literature which is based more and more on science and less and less on dogma, as the creationist community finally "grows up" out of its medeival foolishness. Ungtss 21:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Most creationist literature writers are very upfront about the fact that they are NPOV. Moreso than it seems you are willing to be. 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have read Ungtss' comments and remain unimpressed. Here is the Wikipedia definition for YEC:

I have responded to the above claims of Ungtss. I just couldn't let the nonsense keep. User Ungtss truly doesn't have a grasp on the science involved in the popular level "debate" of creationism vs. science. I submit that his attempts to paint himself as having the higher ground are nigh on ridiculous. 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And your attempts to do likewise, whilst making an artificial distinction between "science" and "creationism" are ironic. Philip J. Rayment 13:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Young Earth creationism is the belief that the Earth and life on Earth were created by a direct action of God a relatively short time ago. The belief is held by the Christians, Jews, and Muslims who believe that the ancient Hebrew text of Genesis is a historical account.

There is no account of any claim to science in the first paragraph. I will not take the time to debunk the incorrect science stated by user Ungtss, since he can edit any of the statements in the Wikipedia library if he were really to believe this (for example, he could edit the article on the conservation of angular momentum if he believes that there is no way to get rotation in astrophysical gas clouds), but I have edited the definition to my satisfaction. YEC relies either on a faith-based rejection of modern science (as pseudoscience or as naturalism or as secularism) but is not on the whole necessarily scientific.

As to the claim that there are no references to this, the reasonable thing to do is refer to self-described Young Earth Creationists. Polling makes no sense because the term is self-descriptive. I can refer to any number of websites that reject prevailing scientific notions of astronomy, geology, biology, physics, etc. in favor of Young Earth Creationism. As such, they necessarily reject scientific statements. I can also refer to most Young Earth Creationist literature as accepting a literal interpretation of Genesis. Therefore, I have justified my edits and will continue to maintain the position. 67.172.158.8 02:18, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<YEC relies either on a faith-based rejection of modern science >>

No, this is a misrepresentation.

This is true. There are those that rely on a faith-based rejection of modern science.

Like who? I don't doubt that there are some somewhere, but it is not typical of creationists. Philip J. Rayment 13:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<I can refer to any number of websites that reject prevailing scientific notions of astronomy, geology, biology, physics, etc. in favor of Young Earth Creationism.>>

As Ungtss said, "don't confuse true science with the pseudoscientific speculation of evolutionary origins". YECs reject the uniformitarian assumptions and their consequences in astronomy, etc. They don't reject true science. Philip J. Rayment 02:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<I have edited the definition to my satisfaction.>>

this page is not here for your "satisfaction." it is here for npov. Ungtss 03:06, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I editted it to npov standard. My satisifcation stems from NPOV.

npov is not determined by your satisfaction, but by consensus satisfaction according to the rules of the game. Ungtss 09:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Consensus in science is determined by the rigors of the scientific method, which YEC fails on many accounts. Read the article on science if you don't believe me. 128.138.96.220 20:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

not according the The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Scientific consensus is reached by common ideology, and what scientists have been taught and built their reputations on. scientific revolutions come from outsiders who actually have the guts to apply the scientific method. as to whether or not YEC fails, that's one pov among two, both of which deserve representation on this page. Ungtss 21:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While Kuhn makes valid points, he is not the arbiter of science. The Baconian ideal still stands and that's the scientific method. What Kuhn did was characterize the flavor but not the methodology. 67.172.158.8 17:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

what he did was to describe exactly how and why the scientific community consistently fails to live up to its baconian ideals. Ungtss 19:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Did you read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? Kuhn does no such thing. He takes a functionalist approach to the study and describes how, for example, the history of science and science texts are a misrepresentation of science in practice. There is no description of the scientific community failing to live up to Baconian ideals -- indeed, Kuhn advocates the opposite in his forward. If you have a beef with the scientific community, that's fine, but imposing this belief onto authors who don't share it is a little strange. 67.172.158.8 20:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

he said the "history of science" texts are a misrepresentation of the history of science, because they claim that science is an unbroken line of progression (the baconian ideal) while in fact it's a series of huge jumps by outsiders who buck a scientific community unwilling to think outside the box. Ungtss 21:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The main bit on which I "don't believe you" is the bit that "YEC fails on many accounts". And the article on science says nothing about that. Philip J. Rayment 14:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Take the Age of the Earth article referenced in the definition, if you don't believe me. 67.172.158.8 17:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That article also says nothing like "YEC fails on many accounts". Philip J. Rayment 13:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<As to the claim that there are no references to this, the reasonable thing to do is refer to self-described Young Earth Creationists.>>

then start describing them as they describe themselves: creation scientists.

Not all Young Earth Creationists are creation scientists. Some are simply proponents of of a literal Genesis.

not all evolutionists are scientists either. some of them just believe in the fictional computer-generated missing links they're shown on the discovery channel. Ungtss 09:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Strawman. There isn't any claim in the statement about "evolutionists" being "evolutionary scientists". The statement is about YEC and you claim that they are really "creation scientists". If not all "evolutionists" are scientists that doesn't mean that we can't point out that not all YEC are scientists. 128.138.96.220 20:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

true enough -- but that wasn't what i was trying to argue. i was arguing that you can't put "mainstream scientists" against "biblical literalist fundamentalists." you have to put "mainstream scientists and unemployed discovery-channel watchers" against "creation scientists and snake-handlers." Ungtss 21:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There was no pitting. It was a simple statement about what the group of YECs believe in general. They do reject statements about the age of the Earth. I'm surprised that user Philip doesn't think that the article referencing the age of the Earth is scientific. Perhaps he can tell me what it is if it isn't scientific. If he manages to do that, then I'll agree to keep the editorial removal of the term. Otherwise it's going back in. 67.172.158.8 17:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

the pitting comes in lining up "scientists believe this" and "creationists, who are mostly fundamentalists, believe this." as to whether dating methods are scientific, how do scientists know how much radioactive material was in the rock, originally, in order to calculate the age of the rock? Ungtss 19:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into the scientific debate here. After all, you can read the Age of the Earth article for yourself where the matter belongs anyway. I'm not lining up any "scientists" believe this, "creationists" believe that. It is a fact that creationists reject scientific statements as to the age of the Earth. 67.172.158.8 20:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

it's not a fact that the methods are scientific. it's disputed. the age of the earth article very clearly CALLS them scientific, and then very clearly goes on to explain how a series of failed methods based on silly assumptions (like, "there was no lead in the original rock" by holmes) gave way to still other flawed and unreliable attempts, until it was finally voted on in the 20s by a nearly unanymously atheistic organization,

This is beside the point. First, the unsubstantiated atheistic claim is merely an ad hominem for you to state, but the last sentence in the Age of the Earth article states it all. Just look into how the work was done and evaluated. It's very meticulous and you've obviously not read it.

look. what i'm saying is very simple, and i'd appreciate a direct response instead of this elephant hurling.

The methods are agreed upon and agreed to be free of bias by the people that agree with them. Not by others (i.e. YECs). Philip J. Rayment 13:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

STILL without providing any scientific basis for the assumptions regarding the original level of radiation in the rock.

"Original level of radiation"? You've got to be kidding me. We know what causes radioactivity: it's radionuclei. We know that there are parent and daughter nuclei relationships. None of that is argued. If you are arguing about contamination, you can see this is a silly argument here: [8]

unless you can explain to me how scientists know the relative proportion of radioactive elements in the original rock,

See above.

it is BOGUS for you to call them scientific on a page about people who think they're bs. Ungtss 21:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since I have demonstrated this to be the case, I will revert the edit. 67.172.158.8 21:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<Young Earth creationism is the belief that the Earth and life on Earth were created by a direct action of God a relatively short time ago. The belief is held by the Christians, Jews, and Muslims who believe that the ancient Hebrew text of Genesis is a historical account.>>

i wrote that paragraph, biased fundamentalist that i am. the paragraph contains no reference to science or anti-science, because that is an area of pov dispute -- and this definition was much the same, before you introduced your hackneyed "creationists reject science" pov. if you want that pov in the definition, then you have to allow the creationist pov that they are scientific. if you don't want the creationist pov in the definition, then you've got to cut yours out too. those are the rules of npov. don't address the issue, or address both sides. anything less is bs. Ungtss 03:06, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am willing to live with the current incarnation. However, I will probably edit the YEC article. 67.172.158.8 04:59, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<This is beside the point. First, the unsubstantiated atheistic claim is merely an ad hominem for you to state, but the last sentence in the Age of the Earth article states it all. Just look into how the work was done and evaluated. It's very meticulous and you've obviously not read it.>>

look. what i'm saying is very simple, and i'd appreciate a direct response instead of this elephant hurling. you base your conclusion of the age of the rock on the rate of decay (known), the current element proportion (known), and the original element proportion (unknown). how do you know what the original proportion was, in order to calculate how long the elements have been decaying to arrive at their present level? Ungtss 22:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here is a link: [9] ~

i appreciate the link. from a creationist pov, it fails to answer this objection. Ungtss 22:30, 6 Jan 2005

(UTC)

This objection holds no water:[10]

it holds water to my reading. Ungtss 22:41, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From your site:

Radiometric rock dating, the methodology of determining the date of formation of a rock sample by the well-established rate of decay of the isotopes contained, depends on accurately determination of the starting points, the original concentrations of the isotopes.

From my site:

Isochron methods do not assume that the initial parent or daughter concentrations are known.

In basic radiometric dating, a parent isotope (call it P) decays to a daughter isotope (D) at a predictable rate. The age can be calculated from the ratio daughter isotope to parent isotope in a sample. However, this assumes that you know how much of the daughter isotope was in the sample initially. (It also assumes that neither isotope entered or left the sample.)

With isochron dating, we also measure a different isotope of the same element as the daughter (call it D2), and we take measurements of several different minerals that formed at the same time from the same pool of materials. Instead of assuming a known amount of daughter isotope, we only assume that D / D2 is initially the same in all of the samples. Plotting P / D2 on the x axis and D / D2 on the y axis for several different samples gives a line which is initially horizontal. Over time, as P decays to D, the line remains straight, but its slope increases. The age of the sample can be calculated from the slope, and the initial concentration of the daughter element D is given by where the line meets the y axis. If D / D2 was not initially the same in all samples, the data points would tend to scatter on the isochron diagram, rather than falling on a straight line.

For some radiometric dating techniques, the assumed initial conditions are reasonable.

Potassium-argon dating, for example, assumes that minerals form with no argon in them. Since argon is an inert gas, it will usually be excluded from forming crystals. This assumption can be tested by looking for argon in low-potassium minerals (such as quartz), which would not contain substantial argon daughter products. Ar/Ar dating and K-Ar isochron dating can also identify the presence of initial excess argon.
The concordia method is used on minerals, mostly zircon, that reject lead as they crystalize.
Radiocarbon dating is based on the relative abundance of C14 in the atmosphere when a plant or animal lived. This varies somewhat, but calibration with other techniques (such as dendrochronology) allows the variations to be corrected.
Fission-track dating assumes that newly-solidified minerals will not have fission-tracks in them.

The article is untractable and doesn't deal with the simple explanations provided. It is also the reason I reverted. Joshuaschroeder 23:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i understand that. but you've only quoted the intro to my article, without even considering the length of it on isochron dating.

The general theme of the article and its contents are well-refuted in the previous article quoted. Are you asking for a point-by-point clarification?

<<Potassium-argon dating, for example, assumes that minerals form with no argon in them. Since argon is an inert gas, it will usually be excluded from forming crystals.>>

that assumes the original level of argon in the crystals. it says it's "usually excluded," but doesn't say under what circumstances it is INCLUDED ... or why the rock could not have been CREATED with the argon intact. i'm not saying creationism is right. i'm just saying it has a pov that needs to be articulated on this page. Ungtss 23:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Argon, being a noble gas, cannot form crystals. The only way to get argon in a rock is for it to cool quickly which will in turn not allow for crystal formation. To deny this fact about argon is to question the measured vapor pressure of argon, the laws of chemistry, etc. Joshuaschroeder 23:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

an article about excess argon. whether the article is well-refuted is a matter of point of view. both povs must be represented here. Ungtss 23:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but ICR is incorrect here. The K-Ar measurements that are believable are only done with slow forming crystals which necessarily have no excess Ar. The only way to get excess Ar in a crystal is to form it above at a pressure equivalent to the vapor pressure of Ar at the temperatures required. The phase diagrams for the interior of the Earth (where crystals form -- not in lava flows as the article harps) doesn't allow for this.

It's not a matter of POV when a group is incorrect. There is no problem with K-Ar dating when used incorrectly. And that's, of course, not the sum total of radiometric dating. Joshuaschroeder 01:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you've lost me. You appear to be saying that the only way to get excess Ar in a crystal is for it to be under pressure, as happens deep in the earth. But the examples in the article, which you dismiss as being from lava flows, are therefore not under this pressure and therefore should not have excess argon, but do. What am I missing here?

<<It's not a matter of POV when a group is incorrect.>>

But whether or not they are incorrect is disputed, and therefore a POV! Therefore the article needs to take that POV into account.

Philip J. Rayment 13:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

perhaps if you'd read the article more thoroughly, you would have noticed this:

Further confirmation comes from diamonds, which form in the mantle and are carried by explosive volcanism into the upper crust and to the surface. When Zashu et al. obtained a K-Ar isochron "age" of 6.0±0.3 Ga for 10 Zaire diamonds, it was obvious excess 40Ar* was responsible, because the diamonds could not be older than the earth itself.14 These same diamonds produced 40Ar/39Ar "age" spectra yielding a ~5.7 Ga isochron.15 It was concluded that the 40Ar is an excess component which has no age significance and is found in tiny inclusions of mantle-derived fluid.

cited to:

S. Zashu, M. Ozima and O. Nitoh, "K-Ar Isochron Dating of Zaire Cubic Diamonds," Nature, 323 (1986): pp. 710-712.

15 M. Ozima, S. Zashu, Y. Takigami and G. Turner, "Origin of the Anomalous 40Ar-36Ar Age of Zaire Cubic Diamonds: Excess 40Ar in Pristine Mantle Fluids," Nature, 337 (1989): pp. 226-229.

Ungtss 01:31, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is an old claim, one that was bantered about by Henry Morris. The talkorigins archive has the following to say about the very article you site (4th response down) [11]

Christ Stassen says this about the particular example you give:

I investigated this some time ago and wrote a response (1998) but could not find it in Google news. When I am home I will check my archives there. I think the answer is mixing in this case, and was demonstrated in a followup paper by Ozima by comparing chlorine ratios. But that is just off the top of my head, and it has been five years since I researched this example.

The incremental heating Ar-Ar method was applied in this case, but essentially no argon was released up to the temperature where the whole diamond disintegrated. The result is a plot with basically one data point, which is no better than a straight K-Ar assessment. The 'standard' test for mixing doesn't work on Ar-Ar because of the correction for atmospheric argon.

The YEC's may be right that the result wouldn't have been viewed with as much skepticism if it hadn't been so obviously wrong, however there are plenty of results in accordance with mainstream geology that have been investigated and stood up to equivalent skepticism. And this one example is a non-issue as far as the reliability of isotope dating goes since mixing was demonstrated.

It is funny that the YEC incredulity is not extended to their own ideas as much as they are extended to a single erroneous argon mixing problem. There is no doubt that a preponderance of the evidence is used in geology, and that this is a legitimate use.

To put it another way, there are cataloged literally tens of thousands of isochron datings that give consistent results. I wouldn't expect a YEC to go through each and every one of them, and they don't. Instead they latch on to the anamolies and cry foul. It's a typical creationist tactic that misses the forest for the trees, so to speak. Joshuaschroeder 02:57, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

all of which may be well true -- i'm just here to write an npov article:). my question is, if K/Ar dating is only accurate in slow-forming crystals formed in the mantle, then exactly how much of current rock can be dated accurately by K/Ar? Ungtss 03:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some, not all. Of course, any mineral that has a naturally occuring abundance of potassium is going to be a better radiometer, so to speak. The truth is that there are dozens of isochron methods. See radiometric dating for more. Joshuaschroeder 03:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

thanks:). Ungtss 03:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)