Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 12:14, October 1, 2007
, 12:14, October 1, 2007→Yet more pro-evolution bias on Wikipedia.: two kinds of Creationism
:How is evolution scientific? It follows the scientific method. If new evidence came to light tomorrow debunking it, then that would be the truth. The fact is that creationism cannot be considered scientific;There is no way to test its validity and is not falsifiable. In this context, creationism is not a matter of science - it is a belief structure based on irrational tendancies. Therefore it doesn't belong in a scientific article discussing evolution, unless perhaps noting that some people regard it to be scientific, despite the fact that it is not.
:How is evolution scientific? It follows the scientific method. If new evidence came to light tomorrow debunking it, then that would be the truth. The fact is that creationism cannot be considered scientific;There is no way to test its validity and is not falsifiable. In this context, creationism is not a matter of science - it is a belief structure based on irrational tendancies. Therefore it doesn't belong in a scientific article discussing evolution, unless perhaps noting that some people regard it to be scientific, despite the fact that it is not.
:Creationism belongs and deserves its place in a theological/philosophical article, not in a scientific one. Claiming that it does betrays a most fundamental lack of knoweldge in the scientific method or science in general. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 12:43, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
:Creationism belongs and deserves its place in a theological/philosophical article, not in a scientific one. Claiming that it does betrays a most fundamental lack of knoweldge in the scientific method or science in general. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 12:43, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
:::You are perhaps confusing "creationism" with Young Earth Creationism. Evolutionists often right as if they were unaware of the distinction between young earth and old earth beliefs. So I'll spell it out for you.
:::Young earth creationists limit the maximum age of the [[Earth]] to around 10,000 years, based on their faith in the [[Old Testament]]. Old Earth creationists generally accept the conclusion of geologists (and mainstream biologists) that the Earth is over 1 billion years old - and thus that [[fossils]] provide an accurate historical record of when the various species of life came into being (and sometimes went extinct, like dinosaurs).
:::Old Earth creationism is just as scientific in all respects as [[naturalistic evolution]]. It just doesn't limit causation to the physical plane, any more than archaeologists try to explain the [[Rosetta Stone]] by natural processes such as erosion. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:14, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
::How does evolution follow the scientific method? Where are the experiments showing an evolutionary process in action? New evidence comes to light every year debunking one assumption or another that evolution makes, and yet evolutuion grinds on. You claim that creationism is not falsifiable? Well, whether it is or it isn't (I say that it is, but that's another topic), evolution certainly ''is not'' falsifiable. And if you say that it is, then tell me: what one single fact would convince you that evolution is no longer a tenable proposition?
::How does evolution follow the scientific method? Where are the experiments showing an evolutionary process in action? New evidence comes to light every year debunking one assumption or another that evolution makes, and yet evolutuion grinds on. You claim that creationism is not falsifiable? Well, whether it is or it isn't (I say that it is, but that's another topic), evolution certainly ''is not'' falsifiable. And if you say that it is, then tell me: what one single fact would convince you that evolution is no longer a tenable proposition?