Talk:Project Steve

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Origin of name

I reverted JPatt's edit[1] about the origin of the name because it was speculative (the link said the name "may have been chosen" (my emphasis)) for the reason given, and contradicts the official, and plausible, reason, that it was named to honour Stephen Jay Gould. Gould was a very prominent scientist and an anti-creationist and had died the year before, so this official explanation seems entirely likely. Also, the edit claimed that the project was a response to the "not Adam and Steve" line, whereas the reference talked about the name of the project. Philip J. Rayment 21:26, 16 February 2009 (EST)


- Sigh, seems I struck a nerve. The opening sentence contains an allegation not mentioned in the reference. Either the edit should be reverted or another reliable reference should be found. Since the Discovery Institute also has a list of scientists who deny evolution, are they also an organization who should be castigated as illegitimate promoters of science that bully opponents? Why quote mine an obscure scientist when the research he conducted is over seventy years old? How is this relevant to Project Steve?--GinnyS (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2017 (EDT)

The reference is to NSCE, which, of course, is not going to call its campaign a "propaganda" campaign. Calling it a "science" campaign plays right into the hands of evolutionists, who falsely equate evolution with science. With this term, if evolution is science, then the different theories promoted by creation scientists are not science (aka. "pseudoscience"). --1990'sguy (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2017 (EDT)
Then why not find a reputable reference that says Project Steve is propaganda? I am completely unaware of any creationist theories so your assertion doesn’t make much sense. --GinnyS (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2017 (EDT)
I have observed that evolutionists do not bother to take creationists (regardless of what the creationist does) seriously, so they overlook their work. They have no clue that creationists publish papers, graduated from prestigious universities with PhDs, or create scientific theories. Thus, they think looking at some creationist blog counts as seriously examining creation science.
I recommend several sources for this topic:
This is just scratching the surface -- many more examples exist. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2017 (EDT)
It is very hard to take creationists seriously when they talk about creationism, a subject for which there is no credible evidence. I am well aware of the ardent creationists who have graduated from Ivy league institutions. The fact that their opinions about biology do not appear in reputable peer-reviewed science journals is telling. If Dr Brown and Dr Jeanson are so wonderful, why can’t they get their creationist ideas published by reputable science publications? It seems we are straying from the original topic. Why can’t my critics cite a reference that states what is written in the article? I’m not asking for much. --GinnyS (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2017 (EDT)
I have found that talking to many evolutionists is like talking to a brick wall. There is plenty of evidence for a young earth view of the earth, and I can direct you to the websites answersingenesis.org, icr.org, and creation.com. However, whether one accepts creation or evolution depends on their philosophical convictions and presuppositions rather than the amount of evidence that exists.
Creationists do publish in mainstream scientific journals. The reason why not more of tem do is because of secular intolerence for creationists. For example, a peer-reviewed paper that merely mentioned the word "creator" was severely mocked and people called for the journal to be boycotted.[2][3] Additionally, Scientific American was about to hire an experienced science writer who wrote for other notable publications, but refused to hire him after finding out he was a creationist.[4] Do you really think secular journals would let people who believe in a young earth publish papers that give evidence for a young earth (aka. refute everything they were taught in school about how the universe came to be)? Also, see Biblical creation journals. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2017 (EDT)
I couldn’t care less about creationist websites; point me to reputable publications where the writer can present evidence for creationism. It’s that simple. I know creationists publish in mainstream science journals. But I do not know of any mainstream science journal that publishes creationism. Why? Lack of evidence, it’s that simple. Do I ‘think secular journals would let people who believe in a young earth publish papers that give evidence for a young earth’? Of course they would, as long as the researcher provided the evidence. Once again, it’s that simple.--GinnyS (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2017 (EDT)
Many (not all, of course) articles on those websites are essentially research journal papers. Go on an see for yourself (I personally recommend AiG's website). Pick a topic. Besides, there are peer reviewed journals that are run by creationists. Are those not enough for you? These papers are on creationist websites and journals, rather than in a secular journal, because the secular journals are not going to accept anything advocating for creationism (even mentioning the word "creator" in a non-religious sense can get you in hot water). I would like to see an evolutionist actually seriously consider the evidence and arguments of creation science, rather than looking at a 10-year-old blog and a 70-year-old book and then saying there is no evidence. You can't refuse to look at the evidence creationists present and then say there is no evidence. You must at least look at what they have to present if you want to honestly promote evolution. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2017 (EDT)

Please remember the Conservapedia Commandments #1 and #5: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry." JDano (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2017 (EDT)

I concur.--GinnyS (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2017 (EDT)
I believe he was referring to you. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2017 (EDT)
I still believe I complied with the commandments by removing an opinion (propaganda) and updating the number of signatories. I’m complying with the rules yet I’m being given a load of crap. Bizarre.--GinnyS (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2017 (EDT)
In case you did not see, I actually changed the wording a while ago to make it more acceptable for both of us. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2017 (EDT)
I noticed, a lot of fuss was made for such a small change that actually made the article comply with the commandments. The opening sentence is now completely factual and referenced.--GinnyS (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2017 (EDT)
Your change did not comply with the commandments. This project does not promote "science." It promotes a philosophical view of the origin of the earth backed up by scientific evidence -- like creation. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2017 (EDT)
Actually, if we assume that "this project" refers to Conservapedia as a whole, it most emphatically does support and promote science. This can be seen generally in the sheer size of the Science and Physics categories, many articles of which were written by Aschlafly. The Isaac Newton article very specifically illustrates Aschlafly's views on science. The manner in which CP promotes science is a bit out of the mainstream on a few topics, like evolution, cosmology, and relativity, but it fully supports science. SamHB (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2017 (EDT)
SamHB, you misinterpreted my comment. I referred to Project Steve, NOT Conservapedia. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2017 (EDT)
Oh, sorry. In that case I'd say that Project Steve supports science in general and the scientific evidence supporting evolution in particular. I think the "origin of the earth" is cosmology and is outside of Project Steve's area—it is trying to keep a narrow focus. There is no doubt that it opposes Biblical creation, and, for better or worse, does not consider it to be science. SamHB (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2017 (EDT)
By definition the National Center for Science Education promotes science. Under Conservapedia commandments #1 and #5, we are not here to "promote" anything -- we are here to write an encyclopedia. Each of us have our own religious and moral views, but we do not inject them to bias articles. Thank you. JDano (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2017 (EDT)
@JDano: Your "definition" buys right into the hands of evolutionists (I already said this above). By equating their philosophical beliefs as "science" and their organization as promoters as "science", they can then claim the authority to call opposing organizations and philosophies (as well as other scientific theories) as "unscientific" or "pseudoscience". It's the same with the mainstream media. If they can convince people that they are the only reputable source for information (regardless of the validity of that claim), they can call organizations that do not share their liberal bias, such as Breitbart, the Washington Times, and even Fox News, as unreliable and "fake news."
@SamHB (and JDano): Project Steve promotes a particular interpretation of the available scientific evidence -- naturalistic evolution -- and a particular philosophical viewpoitn of how the earth, universe, and people came to be. Calling their particular interpretation "science" is meaningless promotional wording. We might as well call Answers in Genesis (the YEC version of NCSE) or Biologos (the theistic evolutionist version) "promoters of science" due to their support for their particular interpretations. The fact that the NCSE has a better reputation in the eyes of the general public makes no difference. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2017 (EDT)

Project Steve is ultimately an "argument from voting". Voting will cause the death of evolutionism

Project Steve is ultimately an "argument from voting".

Britain is the birthplace of modern evolutionism. And a growing Muslim/evangelical population in Britain could potentially vote evolutionism from being taught in British public schools. Turkey, which is a member of NATO, recently ceased teaching evolutionism in its secondary schools. See also: European desecularization in the 21st century and UK and secularism.

Already in Britain, Muslims are having an impact in terms of what is happening in British public schools when it comes to creationism (see: Richard Dawkins: Muslim parents 'import creationism' into schools, The Telegraph).

Evolutionism is doomed in Europe. Conservative (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2017 (EDT)

Project Steve ‘… is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution".’ Nothing more, it is not an argument from voting. The Turkish Education Ministry basically said Turkish students are too stupid to understand evolution. Wow! Interesting how hard core Christians are in line with fundamentalist Muslims when it comes to science.--GinnyS (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2017 (EDT)
As far as parody, I hope the evolutionists enjoy their parody now because they won't be laughing when evolutionism is voted out of British schools. And if it can and will happen in Britain, which is the birthplace of Darwinism, it can happen anywhere.
Yale Daily News reported in an article entitled White Europeans: An endangered species? that "Without a major shift in the current fertility trends, industrialized Europe will see its native population decline by about three-fourths over the 21st century."[5]
This is rather ironic given that Charles Darwin's most famous book was entitled On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
How many copies of the book Atlas of Creation are currently now in London? I do know the Atlas of Creation was promoted via adverts on London buses.
Evolutionism is so doomed - so very doomed. Conservative (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2017 (EDT)
Let me get this straight, evolution is ‘so doomed - so very doomed’ because white Europeans are an endangered species? You’re basing this ‘fact; on the rhetoric of a Yale freshman? The ‘Atlas of Creation’ being advertized of London buses is relevant in what way to your argument? And this is a coherent argument in your opinion? --GinnyS (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2017 (EDT)

User:GinnyS, like most evolutionists, you are engaging in the fallacy of exclusion. You have yet to address the information at: European desecularization in the 21st century and UK and secularism.

As far as the 21st century, when you factor in the growing evangelical/Muslim populations, the growing political power of Norther Ireland and a declining irreligious population, it certainly points to evolutionism no longer being taught in British schools.

Northern Ireland is pro-creationism being taught in public schools.

Northern Ireland has the highest fertility rate in the UK (1.97 births per woman in 2014). By 2024, the rate is projected to rise to 2.00, still higher than any other UK country.[6]

Political power is often a matter of the number of voters.

Already we can see Northern Ireland gaining in political power. See: Theresa May signs '£1.5 billion' deal with the DUP to prop up her government,

The political power of Northern Ireland will increase with time.

The only thing that could slow this down would be a right-wing government expelling the Muslims out of Britain (But it would not stop it since evangelicals still have a higher fertility rate. Fertility rates have profound changes on societies over time). But if that happened, there is certainly no guarantee that a right-wing government would continue the teaching of evolutionism in British schools. Conservative (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2017 (EDT)

What I find interesting is your appearance of favoring the teaching of creationism by executive fiat instead of relying on evidence. Hey, it takes all kinds.--GinnyS (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2017 (EDT)
User:GinnyS, you wrote: "Let me get this straight, evolution is ‘so doomed - so very doomed’ because white Europeans are an endangered species? You’re basing this ‘fact; on the rhetoric of a Yale freshman?".
Question: When are you going to stop engaging in the fallacy of exclusion? You have yet to address the information at: European desecularization in the 21st century and UK and secularism.
Without evolutionary indoctrination of children in public schools, evolutionism will die on the vine.
Creationism doesn't need to be taught in public schools for it to continue to grow in adherents. Is not the Bible the world's best selling book? Aren't the majority of Muslims creationists? Aren't evangelicals/Muslims seeing rapid growth in the world, while the number of atheists may actually be shrinking or at the very least shrinking as a percentage of the world's population (see: Global atheism statistics). Haven't the most ardent and vocal advocates of evolutionism since WWII been atheists/agnostics (see: Evolution)? Is not the percentage of agnostics in the world expected to shrink in the 21st century (see: Desecularization)?
Evolutionism is very dependent on indoctrination in public schools. That is the achilles' heel of evolutionism. And once evolutionism is voted out of public schools, it will collapse in its number of adherents.
God's creation has the appearance of design because it was designed. Even children in atheistic Japan see the world as designed (see: Argument from beauty). There is no appearance of macroevolution in the world. Japanese children for example do not see the world as non-designed. Evolutionism is so doomed - so utterly doomed. Conservative (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2017 (EDT)
Maybe you could point out where I am engaging in this fallacy. After glancing at the articles you recommended and no doubt wrote, I’d say you are the one who is actually engaging in your favorite fallacy, one look at the references tells me so. As for the alleged evolutionary indoctrination in public schools, evolution will stand and fall on the merits and evidence. This conversation seems endless and pointless and has strayed from the original topic. Good day my good sir/ma’am.--GinnyS (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2017 (EDT)
GinnyS, you wrote, "Maybe you could point out where I am engaging in this fallacy. After glancing at the articles you recommended and no doubt wrote, I’d say you are the one who is actually engaging in your favorite fallacy, one look at the references tells me so."
GinnyS, I don't have online discussions with "glancers". I have discussions with sincere people who wish to engage in dialogues and be reasonably informed about what they are discussing. Conservative (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2017 (EDT)

By the way, the world's most ardent/famous advocate of evolutionism is arguably Richard Dawkins. In 2012, his website began a strong trend of a loss of web traffic (see: Alexa rankings of Richard Dawkins' website).

His rapid loss of influence and web traffic happened about a year after Ms. Magazine cited Conservapedia indicating that the vast majority of his web visitors were men. Afterwards, the Elevatorgate controversy happened and his rapid demise began (the controversy involved a battle between Dawkins and feminists).

Conservapedia's Richard Dawkins article has received over 800,000 views (the counter was reset accidentally). It is one of the most popular sources of information on Richard Dawkins and it points out various cases of his advocacy of pseudoscience and other errata (see: Errors of Richard Dawkins). This is just one more case of the creationism gaining a stronger hand in term of information dissemination.

Global creationism is expanding rapidly and being fueled by demographics, online creationism and various follies of evolutionism being continually debunked (see: Evolution and Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation).

Evolutionism is so incredibly doomed. Conservative (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2017 (EDT)

Please see: Finches, turkeys and evolutionism
Evolutionism is a doomed philosophy. Conservative (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2017 (EDT)
For a person who refuses to discuss things with ‘glancers’, you sure are rather talkative. I forgot to mention another observation when I glanced at your recommend articles; you appear to be using conformation bias in addition to the fallacy of exclusion when writing your articles.--GinnyS (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2017 (EDT)