1,019
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 547:
Line 547: + + Line 572:
Line 574: + +
→Creationist Scientists - Oxymoron
::::::::Gladly! Just let me dig out the appropriate articles and re-read them. I'll start a new section for it, so that it doesn't get lost here. Do you think it would be better here or on my Talk page? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:28, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Gladly! Just let me dig out the appropriate articles and re-read them. I'll start a new section for it, so that it doesn't get lost here. Do you think it would be better here or on my Talk page? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:28, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::It wouldn't have anything to do with dinosaurs, so on your talk page would seem the best. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::It wouldn't have anything to do with dinosaurs, so on your talk page would seem the best. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::I've [[User_talk:Tsumetai/TJ|started a page]] for it here. I'm off out for dinner soon, so I've just linked to the relevant articles so that everyone can get caught up in the meantime. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:'''How do we define "scientist" in a neutral way?''' It's not a degree, it's not a licensed profession... I think we have to fall back on self-description. If a creationist calls himself a scientist, he is... whether anyone likes it or not. But there might be a case for ''qualifying'' the description in the ''least obtrusive possible'' way. For example, if a person is described as a "creation scientist," the phrase should be footnoted with a reference to a biographical profile of the person in which they self-describe or are described as a "scientist."
:'''How do we define "scientist" in a neutral way?''' It's not a degree, it's not a licensed profession... I think we have to fall back on self-description. If a creationist calls himself a scientist, he is... whether anyone likes it or not. But there might be a case for ''qualifying'' the description in the ''least obtrusive possible'' way. For example, if a person is described as a "creation scientist," the phrase should be footnoted with a reference to a biographical profile of the person in which they self-describe or are described as a "scientist."
::::::You're making my point for me. Evolution is just evolution, regardless of whether or not one believes in God. Just like every other scientific theory. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:28, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::You're making my point for me. Evolution is just evolution, regardless of whether or not one believes in God. Just like every other scientific theory. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:28, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::How have I "made the point" that it is scientific; that it is testable (the basic idea, not specific details)? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::How have I "made the point" that it is scientific; that it is testable (the basic idea, not specific details)? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Think we're talking at cross purposes. I meant that your comment seems to support my point that evolution is no more based on naturalism than any other scientific theory. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::I just don't see how you can use the term "scientist" when creationism involves no science and cannot be tested. I would also think that, for all the venom that is slung at science by the supporters of Creationism, that they wouldn't want that label attached to their cause.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 10:58, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::I just don't see how you can use the term "scientist" when creationism involves no science and cannot be tested. I would also think that, for all the venom that is slung at science by the supporters of Creationism, that they wouldn't want that label attached to their cause.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 10:58, 26 March 2007 (EDT)