nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 65:
Line 65: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Immanuel Velikovsky (view source)
Revision as of 13:59, February 16, 2009
, 13:59, February 16, 2009→Creationists: Further comments after reading Stansfield's paper.
:Agreed TK, it's definitely not all or nothing. But it is about the sources supporting statements in articles. RJJensen knows more about this area than I do, and I don't contest that Religious Creationist view, only that one statement does not make a consensus. But if Stansfield says that Creationist reject Velikovsky, we satisfy all conditions, if we attribute and quote him. --[[User:Eric2009|Eric2009]] 08:40, 16 February 2009 (EST)
:Agreed TK, it's definitely not all or nothing. But it is about the sources supporting statements in articles. RJJensen knows more about this area than I do, and I don't contest that Religious Creationist view, only that one statement does not make a consensus. But if Stansfield says that Creationist reject Velikovsky, we satisfy all conditions, if we attribute and quote him. --[[User:Eric2009|Eric2009]] 08:40, 16 February 2009 (EST)
I've now read the paper that RJJensen kindly e-mailed me, and I have the following comments to make:
* I give little credence to opinions expressed by anti-creationists about creation. However, insofar as in this case they are reporting something that they ''didn't'' expect, it is useful information.
* Stansfield seemed to be trying to have a bit each way (or disagrees with Carl Sagan): Quoting Carl Sagan, he says that "scientists have not given the reasoned response his work calls for" but later says that "for many years, Velikovsky's pseudoscientific theories diverted the efforts of many scientists away from productive research in order to provide scientific arguments (based on empirical evidence and well-established principles of physics) in the popular press against them".
* I accept the factual material that Stansfield documented: that of the three (? see more below) "creationist" (one was actually ID) organisations he investigated, none had anything other than insignificant mentions of Velikovsky.
* Stansfield refers to three "Creationist" organisations: Creation Research Society, Institute for Creation Research, and the Discovery Institute. Why he apparently didn't include Answers In Genesis (AiG) and Creation Ministries International (CMI), two of the biggest ones, is not explained.
* Despite that previous claim, he ''did'' contact AiG, and it was them who directed him to Don DeYoung's comment, so that comment can be taken as being more than just DeYoung's position. (And on matters like this, AiG and CMI would mostly agree.)
* A Google search of CMI's website for "Velikovsky" returns about 35 results, although that doesn't mean that any of them support or use Velikovsky.
* Stansfield's concern seems to be primarily about Velikovsky's ''celestial'' ideas. (See also the quote supposedly[1] from ICR that RJJensen posted.) He didn't mention Velikovsky's redating of Egyptian history, which is the specific area I mentioned above as possibly having some favourable comments from creationists.
* Stansfield, although acknowledging that creationists don't use Velikovsky, admits to not understanding why, so any ''opinions'' he expresses on why should be taken with a grain of salt.
This (Conservapedia) article reads as a specific and definite ''rejection'' of Velikovsky by creationists, just as mainstream scientists ealier rejected Velikovsky. From Stansford's paper, DeYoung's quote, and my own observations, it would seem more accurate to say that creationists ''largely ignore'' Velikovsky rather than specifically ''reject'' him (in the manner that mainstream scientists did).
<small>[1] In the plain-text version that RJJensen sent me, that did not appear to be a direct quote from ICR. Does the formatted version appear otherwise?</small>
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:59, 16 February 2009 (EST)