Talk:Creation science/Archive 3

Fundamentalism?

Someone always seems to want to add the term to these issues, usually as a derogatory label, but at least one with a quite variable meaning. For NPOV, we should follow the Associated Press guidelines which recognize the pejorative nature of the term in many minds, and only use the term for those who call themselves fundamentalists. I have therefore removed the term, and it should not be included. The rest of the text makes it clear that it refers to Christian with a literal interpretation, which includes a lot of groups that would not label themselves fundamentalists. Pollinator 04:07, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "fundamentalist" is one of those terms that can be seen as derogatory but can also be used as an objective descriptor. When I used it, I mean the literal, objective interpretation - as in someone who subscribes to a literal interpretation of a religious text. I have yet to see any examples of non-fundamentalist Christians who believe in Creation Science. It is, if you will forgive the use of the term, fundamentally a fundamentalist position.--JonGwynne 04:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Creation science is not natural science or social science

Following is a summary of the reasons so far presented as to why creation science is not science:

• Nearly all scientists do not consider it a science at all. The scientific community generally regards it as pseudoscience.
• Rather than investigating and testing open questions it directs its efforts towards confirming the Bible and systematically rejects any interpretation of evidence that would conflict with the Bible.
• Proponents of creation science frequently err in describing what non-creationist theories claim or predict.
• Creation science is not listed as a natural science is any textbook, dictionary, or website that lists the fields of natural science.
• Creationists ignore everything contrary to their "theory", and distort evidence in hopes of pretending there is some support for it.
• The only reason it is even called "science" is because creationists want to put it in classrooms, which is something US courts have ruled against repeatedly on the grounds that it is not science at all.
• Ungtss himself has admitted it is not social science.
• Natural science is the science of nature whereas creation is supernatural.
• Creation science does not involve experimental investigation. It constructs its theoretical explanations based on Genesis, rather than on observations.
• There is no scientific evidence AT ALL for creation. Genesis is not scientific evidence, just like the Iliad is not taken as scientific evidence of Zeus. Bensaccount 15:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

responses

Wasnt sure where to edit. Maybe someone can help. Is having this in the article really objective: "In light of its poor adherence to the standards of the scientific method, creationism, and specifically creation science, can not be said to be scientific. First, its hypothesis/solution is not based on analysis and observation of the empirical world - rather, it comes directly from scriptures. Moreover, as there is no way to test the theory. And lastly, the underlying assumptions of creationism are not open to change." ?

Yes, very. I will move it to the intro. Bensaccount 14:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

---

<<Nearly all scientists do not consider it a science at all. The scientific community generally regards it as pseudoscience.>>

consensus science is fundamentally meaningless. Ungtss 17:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, though this does ask the question, if everyone considers it not science "why is it still called science"?

<<Rather than investigating and testing open questions it directs its efforts towards confirming the Bible and systematically rejects any interpretation of evidence that would conflict with the Bible. >>

where evidence allows for multiple reasonable interpretations, there is nothing unscientific about picking one sympathetic to your presuppositions. it is only unscientific to hold interpretations that are objectively inconsistent with the evidence

No that is jumping to false conclusions based on bias. That is not science.Bensaccount 14:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

<<Proponents of creation science frequently err in describing what non-creationist theories claim or predict.>>

that holds no relation to the scientific nature of creationism -- only the understanding creationists have of evolution.

If it can not make any valid predictions, it is not a valid theory, and keeping it is not scientific. Bensaccount 14:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

<<Creation science is not listed as a natural science is any textbook, dictionary, or website that lists the fields of natural science.>>

first, none of the above exclude creation science by definition either, so the argument proves nothing. secondly, books and websites supporting creation science describe it as natural science. Ungtss 17:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Do they? I would like some proof. Bensaccount 14:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

<<Creationists ignore everything contrary to their "theory", and distort evidence in hopes of pretending there is some support for it.>>

broad ad hominem ungrounded in evidence and unrelated to the scientific nature of creation science -- only related to the scientists.

<<The only reason it is even called "science" is because creationists want to put it in classrooms, which is something US courts have ruled against repeatedly on the grounds that it is not science at all.>>

it's called creation science because creation scientists think it's science.

<<Ungtss himself has admitted it is not social science.>>

evolution is not social science either. this means nothing. Ungtss 17:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

<<Natural science is the science of nature whereas creation is supernatural.>>

the supernatural can be seen as derivative of a fundamental nature of which our universe is only derivative.

There's your make-believe definition of supernatural again. Bensaccount 14:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

<<Creation science does not involve experimental investigation. It constructs its theoretical explanations based on Genesis, rather than on observations.>>

all theories of origins are subject to his critique, since the actual events cannot be observed or repeated. Ungtss 17:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Subject to whose critique? And the criticism is (rightly) that creation science does not invovle experimental investigation -- not that experimental investigation into the matters with which creation science is concerned is impossible. Joshuaschroeder 20:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

typo. "Subject to this critique." there are no experiments to prove or disprove common ancestry. the evidence is interpretted in terms of a paradigm, the evolutionary paradigm, just as the creationist evidence is interpretted in terms of the genesis paradigm. Ungtss 02:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)]

There are no experiments that "prove" anything in science. There is only falsification. The paradigm that is accepted is just the one that does the best job at describing the most things. Certainly there's a lot that the so-called "Genesis paradigm" doesn't explain that mainstream science does explain. Arguably this could be due to the "limited resources" at the disposal of the creationists. Nevertheless, until the Genesis scientific revolution comes, that's the best we can do. So I'm confused at what you are arguing here. Joshuaschroeder 04:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

my argument is simply that his argument does not prove that creation science is not science. your argument does not address that point, so i'll consider it conceded. Ungtss 05:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

See [1] or [2] for just two counterexamples to "[no] experimental investigation". Dan Watts 13:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

<<There is no scientific evidence AT ALL for creation. Genesis is not scientific evidence, just like the Iliad is not taken as scientific evidence of Zeus.>>

tell that to the creationists. Ungtss 17:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The point seems lost in your rebuttal. The Illiad is not scientific evidence for Zeus. If it were, wouldn't we have to report it as such? Likewise creation science is not scientific evidence for creation. Joshuaschroeder 20:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

the iliad is evidence for the Trojan War, and a reasonable source for attempting to learn about the course of events. it is not inerrant. it is not scientific, because it does not involve experiment. but it is useful and should be read critically and considered carefully instead of being discarded entirely. Nobody seriously denies that the trojan war happened. how accurately the text depicts it is another question entirely. Ungtss 02:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The Illiad is not the scientific evidence for the Trojan War happening. For that, you have to look elsewhere. Likewise Genesis is not scientific evidence for creation happening. Joshuaschroeder 04:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

right. but you can use the iliad as a framework for interpretting the physical evidence you come across later. that's how creationists use genesis. a paradigm for interpretting the physical evidence. Ungtss 05:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

How about the evidence that the universe is not steady-state, i.e. it has a beginning? Sounds like scientific evidence of creation to me. Dan Watts 18:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The Big Bang is not evidence for a created beginning, nor is it a "beginning" in any physical sense around us.

That's called the argumentum ad ignorantium. That the universe is not steady-state no more proves that it was created that it proves its origin is the Big Bang. Even less so, actually, since the former cannot pass the razor. FeloniousMonk 20:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the statement being discussed was "no evidence AT ALL for creation." Do you also contend that evidence of a beginning of the universe is NOT evidence of creation (note I did not say 'proof')? Dan Watts 20:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The Big bang is neither evidence of creation nor evidence of lack of creation. It is entirely neutral on the subject, despite the wranglings of those like William Lane Craig. Joshuaschroeder 20:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The evidence that I was referring to was the finiteness of the history of the universe, not the theory of the Big bang. This existence of beginning is necessary, (but not sufficient) for there to have been a creation. Dan Watts 21:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The existence of the "beginning" is allowed by the observations, but the scientific observations that allow for the "finiteness of history" are not equivalent to stating that there was a "beginning". It's a peculiar distinction, to be sure, but since there is no physical model that can be made to allow for a singular point in spacetime, there is no evidence that the supposed "beginning" was a real physical event. It is true to state that there is a way to talk about time as, for example, " today it is 13.7 billion years after the Planck Era, but there is no way to talk about time before that era since we don't have a consistent theory of how the universe worked before then. Oftentimes in popular speech such statements are given the flavor of "the universe is 13.7 billion years old", but really "universe" is shorthand for "universe as we know it". That the universe as we know it is finite in history is indisputable, but that doesn't mean that its beginning is tied into creation, nor does it say anything about whether the sum total of all that ever is and was had a beginning, which is really what the question of creation is. (Unless you are of the peculiar opinion that God only exists to the physical universe that we inhabit.) This is the problem with stating that the finiteness of history is evidence for creation. It is just as much "evidence" as the existence of matter or the thoughts floating around in your head. It isn't considered scientific evidence because it is based in philosophical argumentation rather than empiricism. Joshuaschroeder 21:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Not having a consistent physical model (i.e. physics doesn't handle such singularities) does stymie investigation. Perhaps another way to state my point is by negation. If the universe was known to be infinite in time, then its existence could not (with any reasonableness) be used as evidence of its creation. If evidence is gathered by scientific means, what is the problem with its use in philosophical rhetoric? Dan Watts 21:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

But the universe isn't known to be infinite or finite in time, it is only the current physical universe and the current physical conception of time since the Planck Era that is "known" to be finite. Therefore, the evidence isn't available that there is a beginning or not and so there really is no evidence for creation in that. Joshuaschroeder 04:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

No, the evidence is inconclusive (in this reference frame, totally undecidable) beyond the Planck era, therefore it may be that the universe is finite, therefore this is evidence that creation may have happened. The facts, as we see them, do not rule out creation, so this evidence allows the hypothesis. Q.E.D. Dan Watts 12:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The evidence isn't "inconclusive", it's nonexistent. To take an ultimate lack of evidence as positive evidence for anything is antithetical to how empiricism works. Joshuaschroeder 02:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Argument from ignorance isn't very convincing Dan. Bensaccount 14:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I thought that the subject was evidence, not how much and what type is convincing. (Luke16:31) Dan Watts 15:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Ben, if "Nearly all scientists do not consider it a science at all ... The scientific community generally regards it as pseudoscience." is not enough for you, then I can only assume your goal is to use Wikipedia to "stick it" to the creation science believers. Policy (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox) is very clear that you can't do that. Gazpacho 01:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss has rightly pointed out that consensus science is fundamentally meaningless. Just being rejected by scientists does not make something not science. It does not really mean anything. Thus what the intro says and what I am saying are two entirely different things, and I see no reason why it should "be enough for me". Bensaccount 14:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

What you are saying is your pov and the pov of mainstream scientists. attributing that pov to those who hold it has to be enough for you. Ungtss 14:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

You are confusing POV with fact. It is fact that creation science is not science. Just like it is a fact that we landed on the moon. Also rather than attempting to address many reasons as once, please focus on one reason and we can address it in detail and then move on. It allows people to follow the discussion. Bensaccount 14:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

when the status of creation science as science depends on one's definition of science -- which is a philosophical rather than objective choice, the characterization of creation science as non-science is pov, not fact. just like one person might say "i'm overweight" at 100 pounds, and another might say "i'm overweight" at 300 pounds. when the opinion is grafted into the definition of the term, the use of the term must be attributed. Ungtss 14:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

There isn't any definition of science that can include creation science. Even so, I am willing to compromise and use a definition that is more strictly and conventionally defined. This is why I said creation science is not natural science or social science. I will see you tomorrow Ungtss. Bensaccount 14:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

there is such a definition, and creationists hold to it. i described it to you, and you ignored it. to creationists, science is the documentation and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena. where the phenomena in question cannot be observed first-hand or repeated, theoretical explanations of those phenomena can be made with equal validity within a naturalistic paradigm or a theistic paradigm -- the only question is the accuracy to which the explanation matches the evidence. And if the evidence can be reasonably explained within a genesis paradigm, there is nothing "unscientific" about doing so. Ungtss 21:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Ben, you claim that what you want the article to say is entirely different from what it says, while citing what it says in support of the change? Now I'm really confused. Gazpacho 22:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say that. My points above are a summary of other people's reasons as well as my own. I must admit, however, that I was vaguely under the mistaken impression that consensus science is the same as science, but only briefly. We all make mistakes. Bensaccount 14:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

not quite sure what you mean. all i mean is this: the page cannot say that creation science is not science, because that value judgment depends on one's definition of science, and creationists use a definition of science that includes creationism. Ungtss 01:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

If certain creationists have invented a new language, you will have to make a new language Wikipedia for it. This is the English version and we use the English meanings of words here. Bensaccount 14:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

creationists speak english, too. Ungtss 14:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Then they should know the English meaning of the word science is not "documenting and explaining supernatural phenomena". Bensaccount 14:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

they never said that. science is "documenting and explaining phenomena which occur, whether they are supernatural or not." Ungtss 14:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Better, but still wrong. Even the broadest definition of science includes some mention of observation or experiment. I have come up with a compromise: "Creation science is called science, even though it does not involve any observation or experimentation." See you tomorrow. Bensaccount 14:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

your definition is, as usual, absolutely wrong. there is a great deal of observation and experimentation in creation science. they're writing dozens of papers about specific case studies, and how they are best explained with reference to the flood, observing specified and irreducible complexity, etc. etc. etc. Your arguments are delusional. Ungtss 14:54, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Name one observation of creation or one case study in which it has been repeated in experimentation. Bensaccount 14:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

You're both missing the actual primary reason creation science is by definition pseudoscience: It starts with a premise and a conclusion and seeks to confirm it, and dismisses any evidence or explaination that does not. Contrast that to actual science: a conditional conclusion based on evidence, observation, etc. That creation science is not actual science is not even a synthetic proposition, but an analytic proposition; it is by definition not science. FeloniousMonk 15:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Now that's a place to start. can we identify a cited scholar who has made this argument, so we can attribute actual criticism to those who hold it? Ungtss 15:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Ummm...I'd like to say Popper ;) - but since I complained about unattributed citations to Popper, I suppose I can't. Not until I dig up the source. Guettarda 15:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

i'm not sure if popper ever addressed creationism directly, but i think you'll find him describing the grand theory of evolution thus: "I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme-a possible framework for testable scientific theories." (Popper K.R., "Unended Quest, 1982, p168). this was written two years after his "recantation" of describing natural selection as tautology, an indication that he didn't recant his view on darwinism as a whole. i think it's fair to say that most creationists would characterize creationism in a similar light -- not a theory itself, but a framework for testable theories. Ungtss 15:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I think I misunderstood your question. Guettarda 16:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Off the top of my head I can tell you that the Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences in it's book Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences states this reason explicitly why creation science is not science [3]. There are a number of scientists who have published this view, and I'll cite them here later. FeloniousMonk 16:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

that's good. now perhaps, analytically, we have two dominant views here:

1. evolution is science -- creationism is not.
2. both evolution and creation are metaphysical frameworks which allow for testable theories, but are not falsifiable or strictly "scientific" in and of themselves. Ungtss 16:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, evolution is falsifiable while creation is not. That is why by Popper's definition of science, evolution is science and creation is not. Bensaccount 13:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

if you'd bother to read popper (or even the little snippet above), you'd discover that he didn't think the grand theory of evolution was falsifiable. Ungtss 14:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

And why should we care what Popper thought, or for that matter if evolution is falsifiable? We are talking about Creation science. Bensaccount 14:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

we care because it shows that what you said above was absolutely false. you said, "under popper's definition of science, evolution is science and creation is not." Wrongo. see you tomorrow, genius. Ungtss 14:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I was merely responding to your claims. Ie. if you claimed the moon was made of green cheese, I would say, no it isn't. In relation to this page it has no relevance. Bensaccount 14:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

two errors in your argument this time. First, what i said was true (popper did say that about evolution), and second, it is relevent to this page, because you are setting an unfairly high standard for creation science to qualify for science, which, according to popper, evolution doesn't even reach. Ungtss 20:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

See "Popper and Evolution" by Stephen Brush at the NCSE website [4]. Ian Pitchford 10:53, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

ncse is misrepresenting the facts. the quote i gave above was made in 1982, four years after the alleged "recantation." he recanted the statement that natural selection was a tautology -- not his statement that the grand theory was unfalsifiable. he can't have recanted the latter. he was still saying it four later. and ncse wonders why we don't trust them. their misrepresentations are so obvious sometimes. Ungtss 13:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I find it odd that you should use evolution as a standard for what qualifies as science. True, evolution is the most pervasive principle in biology, regardless of what one philosopher might think about it. It is not the measure of what is or is not science. It is completely irrelevant to this page. Bensaccount 15:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

if evolution is unfalsifiable and yet consdered "science," then falsifiability is not a valid criterion for science. the rigid application of this criterion to creationism thus constitutes a double standard. Ungtss 15:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Popper's quotation is from the section that begins "I have always been extremely interested in the theory of evolution, and very ready to accept evolution as a fact". The rest of the section is about "Darwinism" which Popper seems to use as a synonym for "natural selection" or rather "trial and error elimination". Immediately after the quotation you cite Popper goes on "Yet there is more to it: I also regard Darwinism as an application of what I call 'situational logic'. Darwinism as situational logic can be understood as follows. Let there be a framework, a world of limited constancy, in which there are entities of limited variability. Then some of the entities produced by variation (those which 'fit' into the conditions of the framework) may 'survive' while others (those which clash with the conditions) may be eliminated. Add to this the assumption of the existence of a special framework - a set of perhaps rare and highly individual conditions - in which there can be life or, more especially, self-reproducing but nevertheless variable bodies. Then a situation is given in which the existence of trial and error-elimination, or of Darwinism, becomes not merely applicable, but almost logically necessary. This does not mean that either the framework or the origin of life is necessary." Ian Pitchford 15:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

yes. what you've described is the observable, verifiable, and falsifiable phenomenon of microevolution, with which creationists have no qualm. The debate is over the "framework." does variation and natural selection explain everything, or only some things? And as popper rightly says, the framework in whicih darwinism explains everything and the origin of life are not necessary or falsifiable -- and it is those unneccessary propositions that creationists challenge. did life originate in one cell or a number of discrete created kinds? does variation come primarily from mutation or from genetic entropy? Ungtss 15:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

The theory of evolution isn't just natural selection; evolution doesn't explain everything and no one understands the origin of life. However, evolution is falsifiable science and creationism isn't. Ian Pitchford 16:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

i agree with popper: evolution falsifiable science insofar as it involves "variation and natural selection." However, the majority of claims beyond simple variation and natural selection are not falsifiable and therefore not science. how, for instance, could common ancestry between men and apes be disproven under current scientific knowledge and capabilities? and what hard evidence do we have requiring common ancestry, instead of diverse ancestry? the answer is, "we have none." Ungtss 16:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Popper too, but you've moved on from making philosophical claims to making claims about the scientific evidence. This isn't a forum for such debate, but as with any question about evolution you start with evidence from four broad and deep groups of facts: the geographical distribution of organisms; comparative anatomy (including molecular anatomy); embryological development and the fossil record. All of these have to be mutually consistent. Now which facts can falsify creation science? Ian Pitchford 17:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

let's consider your proposals in turn. what experiment regarding geological distribution of organisms would falsify the grand theory of evolution? how about anatomy? embryological development? fossil record? I propose that any finding in any of these areas can be fit in to the grand theory by adjusting other assumptions, and that there is not a single possible experiment or observation that would disprove the grand theory. can you name one? Ungtss 17:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's not consider each of my proposals in turn because as I said the findings from these domains have to be mutually consistent; therein lies the great explanatory power of the theory and the reason for its resilience, hence the delightful description by Dennett: "It demonstrates its power every day, contributing crucially to the explanation of planet-sized facts of geology and meteorology, through middle-sized facts of ecology and agronomy, down to the latest facts of genetic engineering. It unifies all of biology and the history of our planet into a single grand story. Like Gulliver tied down in Lilliput, it is unbudgeable, not because of some one or two huge chains of argument that might - hope against hope - have weak links in them, but because it is securely tied by hundreds of thousands of threads of evidence anchoring it to virtually every other area of human knowledge." But then creationists know this - if they didn't they wouldn't be trying to undermine systematically not just "Darwinism" but chemistry, physics and geology too and all for what? Not to sustain the possibility of belief in God, but to maintain a collection of cultish beliefs promulgated by a relatively small band of right-wing American Christian fundamentalists. It's truly sad. Ian Pitchford 19:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Fascinating theory! Perhaps a reference to the attempted systematic undermining of chemistry and physics could be supplied. This sounds more interesting than the Illuminati. Dan Watts 20:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

i regret to inform you, mr. pitchford, that you failed to answer my question. you have not yet presented me with a single observation or experiment that would falsify the grand theory. the value in an idea is not what it can explain, but in what it can predict. and a theory cannot meaningfully predict unless it can be falsified. but as yet, it is undisputed that the grand theory is unfalsifiable, just as popper told us. Ungtss 22:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is to discuss changes to the article on Creation science. Your vendetta against evolution is out of place here. Your accusations of "a double standard" are ridiculous. The two things can not be compared. Its like saying astromony holds a double standard because Star Trek is not considered science. Bensaccount 17:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is to discuss changes to the article on creation science. creation science meets all the criteria for demarcation that evolution meets, and is therefore equally "scientific." Ungtss 20:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

As the discussion above concludes (before your off-topic rant), creation doesn't meet any "criteria for demarcation", and it is certainly not scientific. Bensaccount 23:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

apparently we've been reading different threads. or perhaps you haven't been reading at all. Ungtss 02:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't you remember preaching your irrelevant vendetta against evolution? Apparently you thought this was the article on evolution. Next time, check first. Bensaccount 02:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

it is a double standard to say that creation is unscientific, when it's no less falsifiable than evolution. Ungtss 02:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the way science is defined take it up somewhere else. Creation Science is not the place to discuss how scientific evolution is. It would be like discussing it on talk:Star Trek. Go preach it elsewhere Ungtss. Bensaccount 02:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

my problem is with your narrowminded view that there is only one possible definition of science. i'm only "preaching" npov. i know that bothers you. npov isn't acceptable. only bpov will do. Ungtss 02:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I did not ask to hear about your personal problems or about your biased take on NPOV. NPOV disallows your "Creation Science" bias. Take your problems and your vendetta against evolution and leave this page. Bensaccount 02:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

my problem is with your vendetta against creation science. my argument against it is that you are applying a double standard. you're not responding to that argument. you just keep repeating the same nonsense. Ungtss 02:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

You think I have a double standard? For the purpose of this page lets assume evolution is not science. It makes no difference to me here. You want a double standard? How about the fact that you think Creation Science is science, but Star Trek is not? Bensaccount 03:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

is that supposed to mean something? Ungtss 03:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

It implies that you should go preach elsewhere, since your vendetta is irrelevant here. But read it yourself. Its only 4 sentences. Bensaccount 03:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

creation science exists as an alternative to evolutionary science. discussion of evolution is relevent here just as discussion of god is relevent on atheism. try again. Ungtss 03:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

You make no sense. Athiesm isn't theism in the guise of godlessness. How does it have anything to do with religion in the guise of science. Bensaccount 04:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

you're mixing up your categories. i said "discussion of evolution on creation science is like discussion of god on atheism." you said, "atheism isn't theism in the guise of godlessness." but i didn't say "creation science is evolution in the guise of creation science." i said, "it's appropriate to talk about contrasting beliefs on the pages challenging those ideas. Ungtss 04:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

That made no sense at all. When you figure out what it is you are trying to say, try again. Bensaccount 04:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

it made perfect sense. you're mixing up your categories with a false analogy. i said simply that it's appropriate to talk about evolution on this page, since creation science is promoted as an alternative. then you started talking about star trek again. Ungtss 04:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Still makes no sense. Pseudoscience is simply not related to evolution. Bensaccount 04:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

mark this down, folks. creation science has nothing to do with evolution. ben said it, so it's true. Ungtss 04:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Numbers on the religious beliefs of scientists

For the record, a recent survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% of scientists are atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God. Figures from an almost identical survey in 1914 and 1933 show a steady decline in God-belief among scientists. FeloniousMonk 18:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a link to that? Thanks Guettarda 18:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

See: Nature, 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998 'Leading scientists still reject God' [5] Ian Pitchford 19:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

would you support making this fact clear in the text? Ungtss 02:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in this article. Joshuaschroeder 04:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

i think it's highly pertinent. what do other editors think? Ungtss 05:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't strike me as highy pertinent, but I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. It strikes me as something that might belong in the "controversy" article, but I don't have a hard and fast opinion. Can you outline your reasoning? Thanks. Guettarda 13:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

well, since creation science is spoken of in highly religious terms and judged against the "objectivity" on the mainstream community, isn't it pertinent to note the a- to anti- religious demographics of the mainstream scientific community that is rejecting creation science as "religiously motivated anti-science propoganda?" Ungtss 14:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Contrary to what Ungtss would like you to believe, statistics are not facts. They almost always involve some type of spin. The great depression likely influenced the NAS poll. For more info on the nature poll see [[6]]. Bensaccount 14:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

i know, i know. the facts are only what you tell us they are. Ungtss 21:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Scientific Criticism of Creation Science

"Creationism violates the principle of parsimony. Creationism fails to pass Occam's razor. Adding supernatural entities to the equation is not strictly necessary to explain events."

How is adding supernatural entities not strictly necessary to explain the beginning of the universe as we know it? Physics has nothing to say (or even posit as probable) concerning what could have happened during the Plank Era. "The sum of matter and energy in the universe is neither created or destroyed" works pretty well AFTER the Big Bang (to use the current frontrunner in cosmological theories). How can a system that has nothing to say about the absolute beginning of (current) time (as some believe) still exclude the supernatural as not strictly necessary? What evidence shows the lack of strict necessity? Dan Watts 01:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Well...to begin with, Creationism does not limit itself to the Big Bang. Guettarda 23:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

true, but that's not his point. how can it be "unscientific" and "unparsimonious" to allow for a divine creative force that originated the universe at the big bang, when science has no naturalistic alternative? Ungtss 01:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

When there is no scientific explanation, any attempted answer to a question is not considered scientific. This is the criticism of string theory for example which has yet to show itself falsifiable (which could be seen as a "naturalistic alternative" to the supernatural conceit). It is true that science does not preclude the existence of some deity that works in ways we cannot scientifically measure. That does not mean that it is scientific to allow for such a deity. Joshuaschroeder 02:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

right. but just because something is not strictly scientific does not make it useless. unfalsifiable conjectures are useful. science depends on them for its progress. the purpose of science is to explore, evidence, and falsify those conjectures. string theory is a useful guess -- maybe someday we'll be able to explore it when we have the means. Ungtss 00:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Science of course does exclude a deity that works in such ways. It's nonsense to say it doesn't. It excludes anything that is ultimately undemonstrable. Grace Note 05:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Argument from ignorance is worthless, but keep preaching it Ungtss. Its all you have got. Bensaccount 02:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

i'm preaching nothing. i'm saying that naturalism is no better than supernaturalism when neither knows what happened. keep misrepresenting everything i say. it's all you've got. Ungtss 02:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't realize what you are preaching Ungtss. You are trying to impose your idea that because nothing is known, it is scientific to assume creationism. This is argument from ignorance and like the rest of your preaching here, it is worthless.Bensaccount 02:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

perhaps you should attempt to understand what other people are saying before criticizing it. i am not saying that strawman of yours. i am saying that where you don't know what happened, it's no more scientific to assume that it came from natural causes than to assume it came from supernatural. both are epistemologically permissible. i know that's a big word. maybe you should look it up. Ungtss 02:20, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

You must have thought that your argument from ignorance was worth something, otherwise you wouldn't have asked "how it can be unscientific". Should we assume you are just preaching without thinking and your comments have no meaning? Bensaccount 02:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

it's not an argument from ignorance. it's an argument against your ignorance. when you don't know what happened, there's nothing wrong with supernatural conjectures. the only thing that's wrong is thinking you know things you don't know. Ungtss 02:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Lay off the insults Ungtss. We both know that it is argument from ignorance that you are preaching. We were discussing a theoretical situation in which we know nothing. You asked how it could be unscientific to assume creationism. It is unscientific, since your arguments from ignorance are worthless Ungtss. Bensaccount 02:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

i'm not insulting anybody. i'm simply stating a fact you're either dodging or incapable of understanding. science proceeds by conjecture and falsification. there's nothing wrong with conjectures. they're how science proceeds. that's not an argument from ignorance. it's a conjecture, same as evolution. you're wrong again. Ungtss 02:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Lay off the insults. I am sick of your evasion. Do you or don't you think creation becomes a scientific alternative when science has no other alternatives. Bensaccount 02:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

i'm not insulting you. you're just wrong. creation and naturalism are both alternatives when science doesn't know what happened. Ungtss 03:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

So long as you have stopped calling creation a "scientific alternative" and just call it an alternative, I am satisfied. How about an apology for calling me incapable of understanding? Bensaccount 03:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

are you willing to concede that naturalism is not a scientific alternative either when we don't know what happened? Ungtss 03:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

That depends on whether you are suggesting that we cannot know what happened or just do not know what happened. Grace Note 03:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

simply that we do not know. we may come to naturalistic explanations some day, we may come to supernatural explanations someday, or we may come to something else entirely. but right now, at the present moment, presuming naturalistic explanations for inexplicable events is a philosophical position, rather than a scientific one. Ungtss 03:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

In that case, if it's that we do not know, the two are not equivalent. Science is a way of looking at the world, just as religion is. It is a description of the world, not what the world is (I direct my friend Bensaccount to Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and Wittgenstein's caution not to confuse the two). It's a mesh through which we look at the world. There are no God-shaped holes in that mesh. Now creationism may well be right in some sense. It may be that God did create the first lifeform. It may be that He did create the universe. But it will never be part of science to consider that so. BTW, Popper doesn't help you here. Your "conjecture" is unfalsifiable. Popper would reject it on that ground, even if it were scientific. Grace Note 05:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

As i understand it, no conjecture is inherently unfalsifiable. conjectures are only unfalsifiable until we gain the means to falsify them. That is why science proceeds by conjecture and refutation. At the moment, naturalism and theism remain conjectures regarding the ultimate nature of the universe, because neither can be falsified. perhaps someday we will be able to falsify one or the other. until then, we'll have to be content with them as they are: metaphysical frameworks for interpretting reality. Ungtss 00:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Certain conjectures are inherently unfalsifiable. Here's one: at some point in the future, red strawberries will all spontaneously turn purple. Some would argue that theistic explanations of natural events are another conjecture of this type (God in the gaps, you see). Joshuaschroeder 01:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

well ... suppose i had the ability to use a time machine video camera to observe all strawberries in existence from now until there are no more life-sustaining planets in the universe, and i observe them, and i see no color change. i would have then falsified it. of course, i don't have that ability now, so the conjecture is now unfalsifiable. But the progress of science could change that -- develop the means to falsify that conjecture, as well as others. in this way, the conjecture is not inherently falsifiable -- we simply don't have the means to falsify it. Ungtss 01:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Your falsifiability condition is dependent on yet another conjecture that may be described as unfalsifiable -- namely at some point in the future someone will build a time mchine that can survey the full scale of time and space required to falsify the previous conjecture.

To put it another way, if you did build a machine that seemed to do what you claim it did, the person making the conjecture could just claim that you hadn't surveyed the future universe fully and properly -- a "purple strawberry in the gaps" so to speak. Joshuaschroeder 01:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

That's true. but it seems that according to popper, science is always bound by the "your research wasn't good enough it'll be different if you look a little harder" conjecture. all scientific knowledge is provisional, and nothing can be irrevocably proven. but if the time machine guy's willing to let me look through his time machine and let me see all the strawberries myself, i'll be more likely to believe him than the purple-strawberry believer.

in other words, until somebody invents the time machine, the conjectures, "strawberries will turn purple" and "strawberries will not turn purple" are of equal merit. once somebody invents the time machine, then evidence starts mounting for "it never happens" and against "it happens." The "it happens" guy can always say it'll happen if we look harder. but he'll be hardpressed to find followers.

but most importantly, his conjecture does no harm. all he can do is research and research, looking for that purple strawberry. if he never finds it, he never finds it. if he finds it, he finds it. but there's no harm in looking. Ungtss 01:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

There is never any "harm" done by someone who holds to an unfalsifiable conjecture -- or even does research investigating the conjecture, but such research/beliefs can hardly be said to be scientific. The problem is one can create an infinite number of these unfalsifiable conjectures that have no basis in current observations, or, at best, are completely neutral to current observations. The time machine isn't a magical point when evidence starts to mount for this discussion, "evidence" in some sense has been mounting regarding the color of strawberries since we first started recording the color of strawberries. Likewise, the theistic conceit of God acting in the physical universe involves a conjecture which has, in some senses, been falsified to a similar extent but continues to elude ultimate falsification since there is ultimately no test that can be designed which would answer the question once and for all. To make a crude example, those who believed that God threw lightning down from heaven have, by most people's understanding, been falsified. This doesn't falsify God, however, and in some sense doesn't even falsify the conjecture that God creates lightning because there is no test that can be designed to answer the question of the ultimate origin of a lightning strike. In other words, the deity-origins of lightning are an unfalsifiable claim because there is no observation that can be made that would convince a believer that it isn't true. Joshuaschroeder 15:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss, your "conjecture" is unfalsifiable because you do not supply the grounds upon which it can be falsified, a key part of the scientific method pace Popper. When Einstein said that light was bent by gravitational fields, he explained what would falsify that. He said view a fixed star when there is an eclipse and when there is none (so that the relative positions of the earth and sun are different). If the star stays in the same position, the hypothesis is disproved. Your "conjecture" is that there is a God because science cannot explain everything. But when will science have explained everything to your satisfaction? You do not set a test to falsify your "conjecture". There will, as Joshua says, always be another gap for God to fill. Grace Note 03:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

my conjecture is not the simplistic "god of the gaps" conjecture you've described. i am not saying there is a god because science can't explain everything. that would be lunacy. i am saying it is reasonable to believe in a god because the laws of nature do not provide for a naturalistic origin of life. not that science can't explain it. on the contrary, that science has studied it, and found that it is impossible. here are two of my conjectures:

• "the laws of nature do not provide a mechanism for the development of specified complexity and irreducible complexity without the intervention of a designer." here's how it's falsified: demonstrate how it happens in a single case. Show me, first hand, a single instance of the development of new complexity and/or organs in life. don't show me the modification or reformulation of prior functionality. show me new functionality.
• "whales and land mammals are not related." here's how it's falsified: show me the missing link. not fossils with superficial similarities like a similar ankle bone. show me the gradual development of the blowholes. Ungtss 03:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• "fossils and fossil fuels were formed during one or more massive flooding events during which enormous amounts of biological matter was quickly buried under massive amounts of sediment which liquefied and dried." here's how it's falsified: show me fossilization -- show me how it happens, and how it could have happened without a flood. Ungtss 03:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

God no! I'm not getting into it with you. All that happens is you are shown how these things happen and you deny they are in fact what you asked to be shown. There's a never-ending cascade of gaps for your God to hide in. You are shown hips in a whale, you say, no, I want blowholes; you are shown a mechanism for fossilisation, you say, no, that's not the way it was; you are shown that your concept of "specified complexity" is nonsense, and you say, okay, but show me specified complexity. In answer to that last, our theory is that complexity is derived from modification of previously existing material (among other things). Saying "show me something that is not an outcome of modification" is ridiculous. It wouldn't be a proof of our theory. In any case, when creationists are shown the duplication of genetic material leading to "complexity", they say "that's just modification of existing material", as though that were actually a disproof of a theory that all forms are created by descent with modification! Grace Note 04:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

i have no interest in "getting into it" with you. you initiated this conversation and you can terminate it whenever you wish. as to the rest, you've proven my point, i'm afraid. my "god of the gaps" corresponds to your "unknown natural mechanism of the gaps." the point is, there are gaps. to me, the gaps seem to be shaped like the fingerprints of a designer. they seem different to other people. the point is, tho, that they are gaps in our scientific knowledge, and therefore anything we use to fill them is conjecture, not science. to say life came about by abiogenesis is just as much a conjecture as saying it came about by creation. Ungtss 23:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand that it is the creationist's contention that there is absolutely no evidence for abiogenesis. However, having read a number of articles on the subject including the RNA-world hypothesis I have to say I'm mystified by this. What we are dealing with is a set of models that may or may not describe the origin of life -- but all are designed simply to describe and not to pontificate. In actuality, it need not be necessarily seen in conflict with "creationism" at all in at least a very general sense because there is no step-by-step process yet observed that would prove exactly how life came to be -- and even if there were, such a process doesn't rule out the deity as pointed out above. In fact, all forms of "Abrahamic creationism" involve the abiogenesis conceit in some form: that is basically that there was once non-life and then there was life and the matter that made up the life came from things that were formerly not alive. Science doesn't say that you cannot believe in God causing life to come about, just as it doesn't say that you cannot believe in God causing the universe to come about. All abiogenesis is trying to do is to describe the way life emerged from non-life. So the dichotomy you are painting seems rather false to me. Abiogenesis is simply describing the origin of life while creationist ideas are saying WHY life came to be and through what "purpose" -- questions that are not covered in scientific abiogenesis models. Joshuaschroeder 03:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

science doesn't know how life came to be. it has some conjectures, including rna world etc. but it cannot observe it, it cannot repeat it, and it cannot definitively say how it happened. naturalistic abiogenesis models are conjecture. Secondly, the creationist conjecture is much more than "why" life was created. it is a conjecture that life was created by an intelligent designer in multiple forms, and the first man and woman were named adam and eve, and adam lived 930 years and then he died. Ungtss 03:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The RNA-World Hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis. No one claimed it to be anything more than that. It is a falisifiable conjecture.

The creationists who claim that life was created by an intelligent designer in multiple forms are making claims that are arguably unfalsifiable (to prove otherwise, please describe a tractable observation or test that would falsify the claims). Those that claim that the first woman and man were Adam and Eve cannot be verified for obvious reasons. That Adam lived for 930 years is stating that lifeforms exist or existed that live that long. Obviously this is a claim that is rejected by modern science. Joshuaschroeder 04:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

i am not saying that claiming a designer is falsifiable science. i am saying that both ID and naturalistic abiogenesis are unfalsifiable conjectures about the origin of life, because neither can be observed, repeated or comprehensively explained at the moment. I am saying that you are holding creationism to a double standard by dismissing it as unfalsifiable when naturalistic abiogenesis models are also unfalsifiable, because the origin of life has not been observed. you said that naturalistic abiogenesis is falsifiable. i'd ask, "how?" how, under the present level of scientific knowledge and experimental capacity, could a naturalistic origin for life be falsified? i contend that it cannot be. i contend that any guesses about the origin of life are simply guesses, because we have no way to observe the events and thus falsify the other possibilities. i contend that the historicity of adam and eve are similarly unfalsifiable, but not necessarily false. the fact that "most scientists reject it," although often used as tho it actually meant something, is patently meaningless consensus science without experiment to back up the rejection with science. Ungtss 18:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

As I pointed out, the age of Adam at 930 years is rejected for good reason and creationists have no empirical evidence to the contrary. So when creationists accept ideas that are based not on empirical data but rather on their own faith, that is contrary to science. This is in contrast to models of abiogenesis which have evidence supporting them (e.g. chemical evolution observed in the lab). One can falsify parts of abiogenesis just as one falsifies parts of any scientific concept. For example, they have falsified a particular kind of protein evolution. There are plenty of observations and experiments that show that no animal life form can live for 930 years. It would be good of you to get your head out of the sand. 18:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

i am not going to continue going around in circles with you. you are holding creationism to a double standard. just because one form of abiogenesis has been falsified does not mean there is another kind that is falsifiable and yet not falsified. in fact, there isn't. every type that has been tested has failed. so naturalistic abiogenesis has been falsified insofar as it is falsifiable. amazing what passes for reason among scientists today.

"just because one form of abiogenesis has been falsified does not mean there is another kind that is falsifiable and yet not falsified." --> as stated above, this makes no sense. The idea that the universe didn't always contain life and that matter that was once non-living became living is the statement that abiogenesis makes. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't see how it is controversial at all -- in fact creationists, as pointed out above, believe in a kind of abiogenesis. In fact, abiogenesis is the most neutral form of framework one can work from with respect to this argument, most creationist arguments that aren't explicitly anti-scientific (like a 930 year old Adam) would have to agree with the most basic outline of its telling. To claim that "every type that has been tested has failed" is simply a lie or misinformation about what abiogenesis research is setting out to do. It would be best for those who are as unfamiliar with science as Ungtss is be dilligently watched for contributions that are bascially untrue or lies. Joshuaschroeder 20:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

more stuff

Of course naturalism is not a scientific alternative. Why would it be? It is just a belief. This is just more evasion. Bensaccount 03:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

no, it's not evasion. it's a criterion for demarcation for science. if you don't know how stuff works, your guesses are not science, they're conjecture that may come to be science with research. evolution and creation science both fall under that category. Ungtss 04:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

So you have ceased argument from ignorance and have started again with your misplaced vendetta against evolution? How about this time we compare creation science to star trek. What makes Creation science and star trek fiction? Bensaccount 04:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

why is it that you're unwilling to discuss evolution on this page, but so very willing to discuss star trek? consider relevence. Ungtss 04:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek is as relevant to evolution as creation science. Star Trek makes claims about the future which may or may not come true. Creation science (like the Flintstones) makes claims about the past which are scientifically incorrect. Bensaccount 04:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

now, which claims are scientifically correct, insofar as "scientifically incorrect" is defined in popperian terms. which claims of creation science have been proven wrong? Ungtss 04:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Who cares about Popper. Forget Popper Ungtss. He is not your ally. I have taught you enough for one day. You will either have to learn the rest yourself or wait till a later time. Bensaccount 04:32, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Mark this down, folks. Bensaccount says, "Forget Popper." Ungtss 04:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Mark it down with an asterisk. Ungtss' obsession with Karl Popper will resurface again and again. Bensaccount 21:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

it pays to be obsessed with people who demonstrate knowledge and reason. you learn stuff. Ungtss 23:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude. We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of love and gentleness; how many bodies were burned alive with the genuinely kind intention of saving souls from the eternal fire of hell. Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve. -- Karl Popper. Bensaccount 02:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

if only you and your evolutionist friends understood the true import of his words. "whenever evolution appears to you as the only possible theory, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve." Creationism is that other theory. the one you prefer to pretend doesn't exist, because it scares you. the one you prefer to expose to the fires of inquisition.Ungtss 02:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Evolution is not the only theory, there are other falsifiable theories such as gradualism and uniformitarianism (which have been falsified). Creationism is not a theory, but ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIER! Bensaccount 02:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

so gradualism and uniformitarianism have been falsified, eh? Ungtss 02:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I meant lamark's theory (we were discussing alternate theories to evolution so obviously I didn't mean geological theories). It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood. -- Karl Popper. I do admit I should have been more specific in this case given your need to digress at any given chance. Bensaccount 03:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

 Bensaccount 03:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

<<I meant lamark's theory>>

that's quite a typo. you typed "gradualism and uniformitarian" when you meant "lamarckism?" and somehow it's my fault you made such a ridiculous and glaring error and won't admit it? in any event, lamarckism was a theory of evolution. creationism is the only widely-held alternative to evolution, and that's why you can't bear to acknowledge it as an alternative. Ungtss 03:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I clarified what I meant but if you prefer to argue against my typos be my guest. Creationism is not an alternate to evolution because it is a belief, not a scientific theory. Bensaccount 19:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

be·lief n. "Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something." scientific theories are also beliefs insofar as they involve the "mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something." Try again. Ungtss 19:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

You obviously don't know what science is. Bensaccount 19:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

mark this down, folks: one cannot hold a belief in scientific theories -- for instance, one cannot believe that evolution is true. furthermore, anyone who believes otherwise "obviously doesn't know what science is." so let it be written, so let it be done. Ungtss 19:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

still more stuff

<"i am not saying that claiming a designer is falsifiable science. i am saying that both ID and naturalistic abiogenesis are unfalsifiable conjectures about the origin of life, because neither can be observed, repeated or comprehensively explained at the moment"-- Ungtss>

This claim is nonsense for two reasons:
1) Falsifiability does not require direct observation. There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify abiogenesis/evolution. For example:

• a static fossil record;
• true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids, centaurs and jackalopes);
• a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
• observations of organisms being created.

2) This claim, coming from creationists, is absurd, since almost all creationism is nothing more than (unsubstantiated) claims that evolution has been falsified.

FeloniousMonk 18:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

since the topic at hand was abiogenesis, i will stick to it. <<1)a static fossil record>>

the first problem with this is definition: what exactly would a static fossil record look like? identical burial depths of all fossils, worldwide? secondly, even if such a fossil record were found, it would not falsify naturalistic abiogenesis in favor of another type of abiogenesis, because it's entirely possible that life came about by natural means, but didn't leave any fossils for a long time.

<<true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids, centaurs and jackalopes);>>

this has no relation to naturalistic abiogenesis. Ungtss 19:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

<<a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;>>

this has no relation to abiogenesis.

<<observations of organisms being created.>>

this would not falsify the claim that life also originates naturalistically -- it would just allow that life can be both created and arise naturally. Ungtss 19:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

2) This claim, coming from creationists, is absurd, since almost all creationism is nothing more than (unsubstantiated) claims that evolution has been falsified.

the creationist claim is that evolution has been falsified insofar as it is falsifiable. that's not absurd. Ungtss 19:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately you have shown yourself to be unable to understand the conventional definition of evolution, or science. You claim it is falsified but you repeatedly prove you don't even know what it is.Bensaccount 19:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

are you literate? i said, "it has been falsified insofar as it is falsifiable." Ungtss 19:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Which means that in every way that it is falsifiable (ie. does guppy size change in response to predators?) It has been falsified (it does not). This is simply incorrect. Bensaccount 19:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

we're not talking about variation and natural selection here -- those are not an issue of dispute -- everybody agrees. we're talking about historical claims to common ancestry and macroevolution. those have been falsified insofar as they are falsifiable. Ungtss 19:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, you have shown yourself to be unable to understand the conventional definition of evolution, or science. You claim it is falsified but you repeatedly prove you don't even know what it is. Bensaccount 19:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

an old cliche about pots and kettles comes to mind. Ungtss 19:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

A spurious creationist claim comes to mind (see Kent Hovind's ridiculous definition of evolution). Bensaccount 19:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

excellent digression. shift to ad hominem to avoid admission every single thing you have said in this discussion has been either totally wrong or totally irrelevent. Ungtss 20:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Digression is not excellent, but shift away if you must. Bensaccount 20:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

it's your digression. you've gone from telling me i'm misdefining evolution to vague complaints about some guy i've never heard of. FM's argument was at least relevent. Ungtss 20:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Kent Hovind has his own Wikipedia article. Read it, you are very much like him, in your complete inability to understand the conventional definition of evolution. Bensaccount 20:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

if you say so. Ungtss 20:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comment

if i were to rfc mr. bensaccount regarding his persistent vandalism of this page, wouldn't any of the other editors here join me? Ungtss 19:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I have not done any vandalism, and all my edits were in good faith and well explained. For a list of personal attacks by Ungtss on this page see: Wikipedia talk: Requests for comment/Ungtss Bensaccount 19:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

good faith. right. anybody interested? [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Ungtss 19:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

"Rejected as X" can mean "Rejected as an example of X", but it can also mean "Rejected as being X". You refused to understand this, so I offered up some examples which helped you to catch on. This ultimately resulted in a less ambiguous phrase being used in the intro to the article. Bensaccount 19:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

you personally insulted me in your example. don't complain about my passing observations on the quality of your argument. the point is, you are consistently forcing your pov onto this page against multiple editors, and, when necessary, vandalizing it. Ungtss 19:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I have a question Ungtss. Why do you keep repeatedly showing that link wher I tell you similarity and relationship are synonyms. What exactly are you trying to accomplish? Bensaccount 19:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

i'm pointing out that you said, "Similarity and relationship are synonyms, moron." Not only did you personally attack me, but you did it while being totally, utterly wrong. Ungtss 19:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Not according to the thesaurus. I apologized, by the way and am still waiting for your apology. Bensaccount 20:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

i have nothing to apologize for. Ungtss 20:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

You have unapologetically leveled personal attacks against me on multiple occasions. Should we start to make a list? Joshuaschroeder 20:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Your innocence is an inspiration to us all. ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIER! Bensaccount 20:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

when the soldiers of fundamentalism come around, the soldiers of christ stand with soldiers of all stripes, jewish, muslim, atheist, hindu, buddhist, or cofucion, to continue the struggle for reason against the forces of nonsense. Ungtss 20:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Im glad you don't stand against the Buddists. Their disbelieve in creation is as equal in worth and validity as your beliefs. I wonder if you would add athiests to that list. Bensaccount 20:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

atheists are on the list. i've met some fantastic, wonderful, and reasonable evolutionists and atheists in my time. i consider it to be a very respectable, reasonable, and ethical point of view. i've also met bigots and hatemongers who peddle their nonsense under the guise of atheism. those people give atheists a bad name. Ungtss 20:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

to avoid burial

if i were to rfc mr. bensaccount for his persistent vandalism and pov pushing on this page, would anyone join me? Ungtss 20:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I would offer a counter rfc that you also engage in persistent vandalism and pov pushing on theistic realism. Joshuaschroeder 20:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

i think you'd have a hard time finding a second involved in the conflict there. Ungtss 20:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

So if bensaccount wants to respond with rfc on Ungtss (in general) he can sign on the one already started and we will be underway. Joshuaschroeder 20:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

he is not involved in an edit dispute with me. there are no failed attempts to resolve any conflict, because there is no conflict. not liking people is no basis for rfc. if it were, your last one would have worked. Ungtss 20:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Seems like vexatious litigation to me; I see no merit in the claim that bensaccount is a vandal, in fact quite the contrary. But I do see sufficient evidence in your history to support a cause of action for mendacious, POV campaigning across any number of creationism-related articles that ties up other editors for weeks rebutting ill-founded arguments and editing blatantly POV content. An RFC for that and your at times nasty attitude toward other editors would have merit in my opinion, and I would be interested in reading official comment on that history. FeloniousMonk 20:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

i see that impartiality has once against fallen by the wayside. rfc requires failed attempts to resolve an edit conflict. i am involved in no edit conflicts. anticreationist bigotry aside, there is no basis for an rfc against me. bensaccount, on the other hand, has been repeatedly forcing his pov into the intro against almost a dozen editors over the course of a month. that, to me, is rfc material. but if nobody else is interested, i'll pass. Ungtss 20:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

What question would the RFC seek to resolve? Seems to me that you two are just competing for the last word. Gazpacho 23:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

oh i'm not concerned with the talkpage -- i meant his repeated editing of the intro for his pov, and today's deletion of the template, calling it a "word association." Ungtss 23:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Note that until now, Ungtss hasn't even discussed his reversion of that edit. Basically Ungtss is rfcing me to avoid having to explain his reversions. Bensaccount 19:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

reality, please. i rfced no one. i asked if anyone was interested in rfcing you for your continued campaign of nonsense on this page. nobody's interested. no rfc. Ungtss 19:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

You seem interested, so go ahead. It will give me a chance to list your personal attacks on other talk pages, while you can link to those synonyms again. Bensaccount 19:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Allegations of science

Rossnixon wants to remove the "allegedly" claim from the statement about sediments being laid down in Noah's time. Since it is clear that flood geology is rejected by the vast majority of people who study the subject for reasons that are not adequately addressed by the proponents of a great flood, the allegation is an important modifier. To claim that there is only an "appearance" of light travel time is equally ridiculous. If we're going to have scientific claims, we need to maintain an empirical and neutral view of them. Joshuaschroeder 15:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

perhaps the rule of attribution should be applied to both sides to prevent pov? Ungtss 15:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

You cannot always attribute a scientific fact in a meaningful way. That many galaxies are millions of light years away and that they light was in transit all that time is common knowledge in the astronomical community, for example, and cannot be attributed to a single author. Joshuaschroeder 17:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

nobody's asking to "always attribute scientific facts." we are asking to have disputed "scientific facts" attributed on pages describing the dispute. Ungtss 17:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

As pointed out above, the light travel times for galaxies is not a disputed scientific fact. Joshuaschroeder 20:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

i am not talking about galaxy light-travel times. i am talking about other issues which are disputed, such as the many disputed facts stated as "facts" in the criticism section. Ungtss 23:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's all well and good, but this section as described in the opening is about the edits made by Rossnixon, not about your problems with the criticism section. If you have problems with attribution in the criticism section, start a new talk section. Joshuaschroeder 21:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

this section is about attribution. you demanded that creationist claims to attributed. i requested that evolutionist claims be attributed too. then you went on another tangent about galaxy light times. i repeat the question: shall the rule of attribution be applied to both sides? Ungtss 22:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. Falphin 22:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

You think it would be a good idea to attribute the notion of the universality of the speed of light? Would you accept Einstein? Grace Note 06:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I do agree with the majority of Einstein's theories but I'm not sure what you're getting at. Falphin 23:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying that if you insist that the notion of the universality of the speed of light is attributed to a particular scientist, will Einstein do? He insisted on it. His theory of relativity depended on it. Grace Note 00:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

There's more to it than that. The speed of light being the speed limit for the universe was developed by many scientists such as Maxwell and [Lorentz]]. It's application to cosmology was effected by Lemaitre, Freidmann, Gamow, and others. The distance of objectes was established by many including Leavitt, Hubble, Tully-Fisher, and other discoveries made on the cosmic distance ladder. It is not the purview of this article to detail the great amount of information on this phenomenon. It is a simple fact that can be stated as such. Joshuaschroeder 14:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Two errors. first, the universality of the speed of light today is not in dispute by anyone that i'm aware of, so that can be stated as fact without all of mr. schroeder's names. however, the universality of the speed of light through time is currently an object of dispute, as ABC News reported on August 7th 2002:

"A team of Australian scientists has proposed that the speed of light may not be a constant, a revolutionary idea that could unseat one of the most cherished laws of modern physics -- Einstein's theory of relativity. The team, led by theoretical physicist Paul Davies of Sydney's Macquarie University, say it is possible that the speed of light has slowed over billions of years. ... The suggestion that the speed of light can change is based on data collected by UNSW astronomer John Webb, who posed a conundrum when he found that light from a distant quasar, a star-like object, had absorbed the wrong type of photons from interstellar clouds on its 12 billion year journey to earth. ... The discrepancy could only be explained if either the electron charge, or the speed of light, had changed. ... 'But two of the cherished laws of the universe are the law that electron charge shall not change and that the speed of light shall not change, so whichever way you look at it we're in trouble,' Davies said ...". Ungtss 14:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

So your claim to consensus science is out the window. The answer to this manufactured conundrum is simple: state the univerality of the speed of light now as a fact, but attribute the universality of the speed of light over time. Ungtss 14:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

And herein lies the problem. Creationists, like Ungtss, who know very little about the science they are trying to criticize latch on to research that is completely irrelevent to the points being made. Of course, creationists are convinced that there is no such thing as consensus on anything with which they disagree, even if they are completely unqualified to make such an assessment. They rely on news briefs to "prove their points" because they are unable or unwilling to look at the scientific papers and texts on the subjects they are criticizing.

To wit, the change in the speed of light has to be less than 1 in 10000000 over the entire history of the observable universe (from the CMB on). Yes, there are observational constraints on the speed of light changing over this history. Does this belong in the article? Absolutely not. Creationists like Barry Setterfield try to have a decaying speed of light in a magnitude range which is absolutely not supported by the theoretical physicists the news report has quoted. There are definitely people who are fiddling with fundamental constants in extreme regimes. Nobody except for creationists make claims that the speed of light has changed enough to allow for a thousand year old universe. Creationists who do not know about science do not have any place putting errors into articles. Joshuaschroeder 16:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The term "constant" is constantly in flux - constants are ust agreeable standards of measurement for observable phenomenon which are then used to base intuited and calculated theories of relationships, which in turn are related back to the observable testing. AIUI, the gravity "constant" is also theorised to have some variance depending on the topology of that particular area of the universe. IAC, Science never claims that a "constant" is either absolute nor divine - perhaps theres an arrogant aspect of scientists which does see such things as laws - in turn this percieved arrogance naturally invites criticism. Much of it may be directed not toward science itself, but toward the perception that science's claims of "constants" assert themselves to be absolutes. Of course religion and faith can't reasonably claim absolutes either - they must point to God in the same way that science points to the "infinite" and the "great unknown." The nature of the scientific rebellion against religious dogma is the rejection of religious claims of absolutes. That said, all people of religious conviction tend to be mutually agreeable on the factual nature of the religious experience, and therefore the validity of spirituality. Dogma arises from claims that particular cultural-religious doctrines are more valid than others, and it is in this claim that religions are weakest. So while some will consent and affirm to the truth of a spiritual reality, they will not extend such affirmation to any claims of a particular reality - particularly in general, non-religious discourse such as this. So, "creationist" counterargument rests almost entirely on an the counterlclaim that science's "absolutes" aren't. I tend to agree with both criticisms. -SV|t 18:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

All well and good, Stevertigo, but Ungtss' haphazard means of stating which part of science needed "attribution" and which didn't isn't answered by your philosophical essay. We can wrangle over whether it is really possible to know "anything", but that's not what Ungtss is saying and therefore attribution of every empirical observation is unnecessary. By the way, your attempt to formulate how constants work in science is a bit shortsighted. A lot of the "constants" that are used in science are used because they are measured to be appropraite to the regime investigated. For example, the speed of light is constant in the observable universe to the CMB (and beyond) in both time and space. This isn't simply an "assertion", it is something which is measured to be true. Joshuaschroeder 21:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

mr. schroeder, there is nothing in your comments but baseless ad hominem that deserves no response. i'm simply suggesting that because the constancy of the speed of light over time is disputed, its constancy should not be stated as fact on this page, but should instead be attributed. you have yet to provide any decent reason why it shouldn't. you never do. Ungtss 03:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

"the constancy of the speed of light over time is disputed" --> Not for the last 13 billion years it isn't. No scientist disputes that the change in the last 13 billion years was less than one part in 10⁷. So tell us, Ungtss, what needs attributing? Joshuaschroeder 05:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

the idea that there were 13 billion years needs attributing, because it is disputed by those described on this page. Ungtss 22:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Attribution is here: Age of the universe. That's better than any creationist can do. Joshuaschroeder 00:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule

Once again, Ungtss has broken the 3 revert rule. He has graciously numbered his reverts in the article history. Bensaccount 02:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

3 are permitted. i reverted 3 times. no rule violated. Ungtss 02:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Any reverting is unappropriate. I am not vandalising, and you have not discussed what is wrong with my changes. Bensaccount 02:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

reverting is appropriate for blatant pov pushing. you are engaging in that behavior, and have been for a month, by asserting your pov as fact in the intro, a flagrant violation of npov. but the evolutionist editors of this page don't have the courage to put npov ahead of their own bias, for fear that people might not see things as clearly as they do, so it continues. Ungtss 02:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Unless you can specifically address the changes instead of making these vague ad hominems you should cease your mindless reversion. Bensaccount 02:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Christ, what a lot of bullshit. Im going to take a long vacation from Wikipedia now. Bensaccount 03:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Science and empiricism - Pseudoscience

You cannot say that science relies on empirical claims, because very much of it doesn't. Mathematics, for instance, quite clearly does not. Much of it is reasoned a priori from axioms. Geometry, in particular, is not determined empirically. More to the point, much of science consists of the attempt to find a posteriori justification for hypotheses. Clearly, science actually depends on the making of the hypotheses (which are often a priori) just as much as it does on the making of observations. A great deal of evolutionary theory is made by deduction from observation, rather than inductively from empirical evidence. Creationists often (spuriously) attack it on that basis. They suggest that science should be purely empirical -- you can see Ungtss doing so here. But of course it isn't. I invite you to present a Euclidean triangle from nature.

As for suggesting it is seen by most of science as a pseudoscience, this is just ugly POV. You can source people's saying so and this is acceptable, but bald, weaselly statements are not acceptable. The stuff about its being an oxymoron is just snide. You are making a judgement, and worse, making it seem as though Wikipedia makes the judgement itself. I do share that judgement but I can't see how the endless disputes over creationism here on Wikipedia can be resolved if the pro-science side will not be fair. Grace Note 00:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Mathematics is not a science, it is (as you noted) a system derived from certain basic axioms. Math is a powerful tool in modern science, but is not, itself, scientific. As such it can't be used as an example of a priori reasoning in science, except insofar as science assumes "mathematics can be used to describe the universe." Geometry is a branch of math, and hence is also not scientific in and of itself (although, once we've derived several geometries, we might use science to try to discover which seems to best represent our universe. empirically.) While it's true that science makes some a priori assumptions, so does every epistemological method; this doesn't demonstrate that science doesn't rely on empirical data. Deduction and induction both have their place in science, so pointing out that both are used in evolutionary theory doesn't really seem relevant. Also, merely because a posteriori justifications are used does not mean that science doesn't rely on empirical evidence. At best, I think you can get a link to Confirmation holism in with that point.

If you're really serious in contending that science doesn't rely on empirical data, a better place for you to start the discussion might be at the Philosophy of science page, which is fairly comprehensive and starts with Empiricism as its first main point. As for the pseudoscience part, I agree with you partly. I tried to do something similar to your suggestion by adding Stephen Jay Gould and Michael Ruse's names to the paragraph to fix it a bit, but it was immediately reverted with the message "nearly all" doesn't require examples. Maybe you can think of a better way, but I don't think the intro can be considered a fair representation if it doesn't even mention the allegations of pseudoscience. As it stands, the topic of pseudoscience doesn't seem to be mentioned until the section on falsiability. Incidentally, that section uses the word oxymoron again. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 01:55, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

You know, I switched off at "Mathematics is not a science". I prefer Einstein's view to yours.

That science relies on a priori assumptions rather does prove that it doesn't entirely rely on empirical data. Neither as a process does it entirely rely on empiricism. As I pointed out, a great deal of its process involves a priori reasoning, which may or may not be confirmed by observation. The philosophy of science page takes a view of science that accords with one particular idea of what science is but it's very narrow. In any case, Wikipedia articles are not particularly good sources for understanding any concepts, this one especially. Grace Note 06:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi GraceNote. I disagree with your take on the problem of defining creation science as a pseudoscience. All creationism starts with a conclusion, thus by definition none of it can be part of the scientific method. That creation science does not meet the criteria to qualify as actual science is self-evident, not some arbitrary POV or personal judgment. Proving that CS is not science because it contradicts science's central tenets is a simple matter of deductive reasoning. It does not rely on an interpretation of evidence resulting in a POV.

Science is concerned only with naturalistic explanations and does not concern itself with supernatural explanations. Creation scientists claim that Genesis is the word of God and thus infallibly true. This conclusion violates the central concepts in the philosophy of science. The criteria for demarcating between science and pseudoscience is unambiguous. Creation science does not qualify as actual science.

Despite how you portray this, I see the issue as not so much a matter pro-science gang denying creationists their use of the term 'science', but rather an insistence on semantical precision; an insistence on accurately and factually defining the term science and what qualifies as science. FeloniousMonk 02:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

FM, I don't disagree with you. I agree that creation science is a pseudoscience, if that. But that's my opinion. Do you not get that Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be composites of the opinions of their editors? A lot of science starts with a conclusion in any case. It is the refusal to accept evidence that does not accord with it that is the problem. Grace Note 06:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

in response to monk: your comments fail to address the issue. starting with a conclusion is not contrary to the scientific method. it is only unscientific to hold views once they have been falsified. further, science is concerned with explanations, and to exclude supernatural explanations as per se invalid is not only unneccessary ... it's unscientific. science should not exclude any possible explanations by definition. instead, it should seek to explore all possible explanations. Ungtss 03:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

As I've noted before your understanding of the scientific method seems a bit thin. Starting with a conclusion and accepting only evidence that supports your conclusion (the CS method as stated in the article and elsewhere) certainly violates the tenets of the scientific method and the philosophy of science. Claiming it doesn't is nonsense. "Scientific explanations are tentative. Explanations can and do change. There are no scientific truths in an absolute sense." [14] This clearly precludes the conclusion made by those that hold that all origins are explained in Genesis, such as that in creation science. FeloniousMonk 04:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

by that reasoning, science also precludes the conclusion that all origins are explained by evolution. Ungtss 04:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the theory of evolution has changed significantly from Darwin's first assertions to the current modern evolutionary synthesis puts the lie to that line of reasoning. Evolution, like other genuine theories, evolved with the discovery of new evidence and understandings. FeloniousMonk 05:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

the mechanism evolved, but the theory remained unchanged. universal common ancestry was a foregone conclusion among evolutionists long before darwin. they've simply spent the last 300 years trying to justify their belief with the trappings of science. further, creation science has evolved a great deal as well over the past 50 years ... as witnessed by the development of competing theories of the age of the earth and flood geology ... and the rise of ID ... so i'm afraid your argument loses from both sides. nice try tho. Ungtss 21:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The article was correct as it stood prior to GN's edit, which I've corrected and added an attribution. There's no basis for the claim that creation science is not science is just a POV that needs to be attributed. That CS is not science is a fact verifiable by applying the most of basic logic and semantical precision. CS was ruled not science by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987. FeloniousMonk 04:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

two irrefutable trump cards: "it's obvious," and "the supreme court said it." i wonder that the supreme court came to be the arbiter of what is science and what is not. they've certainly tried to decide who was human and who was not. Dred Scott v. Sandford.

Incidentally, the quote regarding the 87 case absolutely misrepresents the holding. nowhere did the court say that creation was religion, not science. nowhere. Ungtss 04:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh really? [15] Mentions creation science specifically. Cease with the straw men. It's no surprise that the Supreme Court would side with The National Academy of Sciences and nearly every other major scientific organization in stating explicitly that creation science is not science. Scientific creationism is considered a pseudoscience by a large number of credible and significant scientific organizations. That you refuse to accept that fact, along with all proofs that it is indeed well-founded is no reason for you to continue to waste our time with this specious line of reasoning and straw men arguments. FeloniousMonk 04:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, "oh really." Nowhere in that text doe sthe supreme court hold that creation science is "religion, not science." nowhere. it says that the purpose of that law was to promote a particular religious doctrine. and they were right. that was a horrible law. but they never said that "creation science is not science." try and find it. you can't. it's imaginary. further, your repeated proof by assertion and unreasoned "you're wrong!!!" arguments go nowhere. what you are doing to this page, sir, is wrong. Ungtss 04:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, another straw man from you. Where do you keep them all? The Court found thatby advancing the religious belief that God created humankind, which is embraced by the term "creation science", the act impermissibly endorses religion. In addition, the Court found that the provision of a comprehensive science education is undermined when it is forbidden to teach evolution except when creation science is also taught:

• "Forbidding the teaching of evolution when creation science is not also taught undermines the provision of a comprehensive scientific education."
• "A law intended to maximize the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of science instruction would encourage the teaching of all scientific theories about human origins. Instead, this Act has the distinctly different purpose of discrediting evolution by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creationism. Pp. 586-589."
• "The legislative history demonstrates that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the state legislature, embraces this religious teaching."
• "The Act's primary purpose was to change the public school science curriculum to provide persuasive advantage to a particular religious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of evolution in its entirety. Thus, the Act is designed either to promote the theory of creation science that embodies a particular religious tenet or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects."

All found here.

I'll accept your retraction now. FeloniousMonk 04:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

perhaps a little legal education would help you. a holding is when a court makes an explicit ruling or decision on an issue. holdings must be explicit, and they must be related directly to the merits of the case. If they are. you cannot "read" a holding "into" a decision -- and that, my friend, is what you're doing. the court did not hold that creation science is not science, because it did not say "creation science is not science." it said that creation science encompassess a religious idea. nobody's arguing that. creation scientists say it is both religion and science. the supreme court made no holding to the contrary. absolutely none. you're seeing what you want to see, but you're not seeing what is there. i would appreciate it if you would explicitly admit that you're wrong in this case so that we can move on. Ungtss 14:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Nice dodge. Now you're just quibbling over whether it's a holding or a decision. You went from saying "nowhere did the court say that creation was religion, not science." to "the court did not hold that creation science is not science." The fact remains that the Supreme Court ruling contains these two statements, they are explicit and unambiguous:

• "The legislative history demonstrates that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the state legislature, embraces this religious teaching."
• "The Act's primary purpose was to change the public school science curriculum to provide persuasive advantage to a particular religious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of evolution in its entirety. Thus, the Act is designed either to promote the theory of creation science that embodies a particular religious tenet or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects."

FeloniousMonk 14:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

it's not a dodge at all. the quote says the supreme court "held" that creation science was religion, not science. where is that in the text? where does the court say that? Nowhere. it's not a holding, a decision, of even dicta. it's a figment of the imagination. evolutionists specialize in those. the above quotes do not make that statement. the first says that "creation science" embraces a religious teaching. indeed it does. the second says that the primary purpose of the act was to promote the teaching of creation science that embodies a religious tenet or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects. the court is absolutely right. but the court does not say what you wish it says -- nowhere does it say that creation science is religion, not science. nowhere. Ungtss 21:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Careful with your accusations, they can be considered a form of personal attack, and I'd hate to have to take action to defend my right to participate. FeloniousMonk 04:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

take your oblique threats and go home. your "right to participate" is unchallenged or affected by me. since i know creationists are secondary citizens on wikipedia, i'm letting your bad edits stand until somebody with some sense (hopefully an evolutionist with good sense) comes along to correct them. Ungtss 14:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Now you suggest I leave? Stop with your nastiness. It does you nor your position no favors. That fact that you challenged my right to participate is a matter of record now, above. I wouldn't have to respond to if you hadn't made it. FeloniousMonk 14:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

um, your imagination is acting up again. you threatened to "take action to defend your right to participate." i told you to take your threats and go home. nobody's challenging your right to participate. i'm challenging your perceived right to force your pov onto this page. Ungtss 21:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Unreasoned you say? How's this for reasoning... What makes scientific creationism pseudoscience is that it attempts to pass itself off as science even though it shares none of the essential characteristics of scientific theorizing. Creation science and the conclusion it starts from will forever remain unchanged as a theory. From it arise no empirical predictions that can be used to test the theory. The text that is its basis (the Bible) is taken to be irrefutable. Hence creation science as a theory is taken to be irrefutable. And it assumes a priori that there can be no evidence that will ever falsify it. FeloniousMonk 05:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

<<What makes scientific creationism pseudoscience is that it attempts to pass itself off as science even though it shares none of the essential characteristics of scientific theorizing.>>

self-referential. "what makes it pseudoscience is that it pretends to be science ... but it's not." meaningless. Ungtss 14:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

<<Creation science and the conclusion it starts from will forever remain unchanged as a theory.>>

factually incorrect. theories of creation have changed a great deal -- particularly related to baraminology. a Refined Baramin Concept. read the article. they refute older baraminology arguments, and develop a new system for defining their own. beyond that, change is not necessary for scientific inquiry. when the inquiry finds the answer, there's no reason for change. so your argument is both factually incorrect and ultimately irrelevent.

<<From it arise no empirical predictions that can be used to test the theory.>>

predictions: irreducible complexity, specified complexity, and uncrossable boundaries among created kinds. creation science says that evolution takes place within boundaries, and states that the boundaries are uncrossable. all the evolutionists have to do is break down those boundaries. they can't. Ungtss 14:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

<<The text that is its basis (the Bible) is taken to be irrefutable. >>

only by the dogmatists. a growing number of creationists are rejecting inerrancy in favor of historical inquiry. particularly in ID. and further, even if it were so, it would be irrelevent -- there is nothing unscientific about taking a book as an irrefutable source, unless the source can be successfully refuted. creation scientists think that physical evidence SUPPORTS genesis. so you're wrong again. Ungtss 14:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, so rhetorical hyperbole and the presuppositions of creation scientists and their benighted beliefs trump semantical precision, valid deductive reasoning, and the scientific method, the philosophy of science. Your arguments here are profoundly uncompelling. FeloniousMonk 14:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

i suppose the above is supposed to mean something. however, given that it simply dismisses without comment, it is worse than uncompelling: it is utterly meaningless. but beyond that, i am not here to convince you -- i am simply here to prevent silliness from going unanswered, so that anyone with an open mind and the patience to wade through this nonsense will have access to another point of view. Ungtss 21:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)