Talk:Creation science archive 1

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ideological edits are not acceptable Sysop ColinR

I believe that SYSOP ColinR is engaging in ideological removing of material from the Creation science article. I believe we stated in the biases at Wikipedia article that we did not want this to occur at Conservapedia.

I merely added the bolded material in the following material below for the entry which he removed:

An effort to show that scientific evidence is consistent with the account of Creation in the Bible. Creation science is not accepted by most scientists. However, a poll among United States scientists showed approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God.[1] In addition, a survey found that 93% of the scientists who were members of the United States National Academy of Sciences do not believe there is a God. [2]

Conservative 20:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Ummm, your edits are ideological as well (as are mine). I think you mean that ColinR's edits are based on a ideology opposed to the one that Conservapedia adopts, instead of in line with it. Anyway, I've clarified why your edit is relevant, which ColinR apparently didn't understand. Philip J. Rayment 23:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I must strongly disagree with the statement "This is clear evidence of the way the educational system is biased against the teaching of Christianity." which is without any foundation. The fact that religion is not taught in public schools has nothing to do with the fact that a disproportionate amount of scientists do not believe in God. Rather, it suggests that the Christian faith is sufficiently weak that it cannot survive without any extra teaching beside church/sunday school. Arctic Nation 17:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I've removed the sentence. What I believe it meant to refer to was not the teaching of Christianity but the teaching of the creation viewpoint. I considered altering it to that, but it was really just emphasising a point that had already been made, so I figured it might as well come out.
I'm amused by your comment about the Christian faith being weak; what does that say about evolution, that can't survive without it being taught without question in the education system? (That's a rhetorical question; I'm not expecting an answer.)
Philip J. Rayment 23:00, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Just as my comment was sarcastic. I only meant that science (hence, evolution) should be taught in science class and the Bible in church or Sunday school. Besides, isn't the Bible generally taught without question (by comparison with other religions) too? ;) Arctic Nation 11:47, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Now I'm not being rhetorical. Evolution is no more scientific than creation. Both are origins views of different religions (atheism and Christianity, for example). The Bible is not just "religious teaching", but a history of the world, with implications for geology, astronomy, etc. And if you are suggesting that people are not allowed (in Sunday School, etc.) to question the Bible, you are wrong (at least for many Sunday Schools, etc.) Philip J. Rayment 12:20, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm sorry, Mr. Rayment, but creationism is not science. Creationism is a literal reading of the Bible, followed by a selective search for supporting material. There is not a single shred of scientifically acceptable evidence in support of the creationist ideas. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, while being 150 years old, is one of the most controversial and most attacked theories of all time, yet it has never been debunked. I'm going to draw a line towards particle physics for the sake of a good comparison here, so I hope you can follow me: the Standard Model of particle physics is a highly successful theory that describes the interactions between elementary particles. This theory has several flaws, such as the non-inclusion of gravity, a rather large number of free parameters and the need for the existence of an as-of-yet undiscovered particle (the Higgs boson). But despite these problems, the Standard Model is damn good science, capable of explaining almost anything quantum physical. Now, should problems arise that cannot be solved using the Standard Model, the theory will be either changed or adapted so it can, or it will be replaced by another, better theory.
Evolutionary theory is just the same. It is good at explaining where different species come from and how they are related. Some problems still exist, yet the moment Evolution cannot explain something it will be either adapted so it can, or it will be thrown out of the window. Remember Phlogiston: huge scientific theory, able to explain the (hypothesized) properties of combustion, proven to be wrong with a few simple experiments, and subsequently forgotten. This is how science works: something can be right, something can be wrong, and if it's right it will be retained, but if it's wrong it will be superseded. This is also the problem with creationism: it takes the a priori assumption that the Bible is always right, while science is simply about remembering that any given explanation might be wrong. Arctic Nation 16:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
You have made a bald assertion that creationism is not science and offered an opinion on what it is, but you have not explained why it inherently cannot be science. You are also quite wrong that there is not a shred of evidence in support of it. And you are wrong that evolution has never been debunked. Simply repeating the anti-creationist rhetoric does not make it true. Evolution is based on the a priori unfalsifiable assumption of no creator being involved, so is no more scientific than creation. See also my comments here. Philip J. Rayment 23:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
On the contrary, Mr. Rayment, I have made it explicitly clear why creationism is not science: it has no room for error. For a creationist, the Bible is true and must be true no matter what. Science is all about corroborating ideas, hypotheses and theories (here we have that magic word, falsifiability), and discarding everything that turns out to be wrong.
Now, on the need for a creator: the Theory of Evolution makes no claims regarding where life actually came from, simply because there is no scientific consensus (though it points towards abiogenesis), nor does it make any claims regarding the existence of a creator. Also, that an assumption can be explained without the need for a creator does not suddenly make that assumption unscientific. If anything, the need for a creator to explain any idea leads to the problem of proving the existence of that creator. Don't forget that you made a huge reasoning error regarding falsifiability: except in mathematics, one cannot prove a negative. In this case, it is impossible to prove the non-existence of a creator.
To end, I would like to ask you a simple question. The idea we're discussing here is whether creationism is science or not. Being a scientist myself, I have learned that any scientific theory, no matter how elegant, can be wrong, for the simple reason that, again except in mathematics, nothing can be proven to be 100% true. I have no problem admitting this, it's just how it is. With this, I can say that the Theory of Evolution might be wrong and one day, we might develop another, better theory. Now I ask you, Mr. Rayment: can you admit that creationism might be wrong?
You are incorrect that creationism has no room for error, so your supporting evidence for your claim fails. I have been thinking for a while about writing some answers to these kinds of claims in a convenient location that I can refer to, and I have now done so. On your claim of no room for error, see Do creationists have a closed mind on the issue? and on falsifiability, see Is creationism falsifiable?.
Evolution might not make claims for no Creator, but it is based on that principle (naturalism), many evolutionists do reject a creator, and evolution was designed to explain life without invoking a creator. Sure, explaining things without a creator does not make it unscientific, but ruling a creator out of consideration, which is what I was referring to, effectively does.
Where did I make a "huge reasoning error regarding falsifiability"? I know that one cannot prove a negative; I've often said that myself.
Sure, in principle, creationism might be wrong. I don't claim infallibility on that. So what does that prove? That I'm acknowledging that there is room for error, despite your claim to the contrary?
Philip J. Rayment 23:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

This is absolutely ridiculous. Science, by definition, can't accept a supernatural explanation for a natural phenomenon. Invoking God is a supernatural explanation. No real scientist claims that science proves God doesn't exist (though he or she may personally believe that there is no God), just like no real scientist claims that science proves God does exist. Science can say NOTHING about the supernatural. Therefore "Creation Science" is not possible. Just imagine if science were able to invoke a supernatural explanation for natural phenomena...we wouldn't get anywhere. Anytime we saw something we didn't understand, we'd just simply say "well, the mechanism is God, no point in trying to understand it any more than that." Is that what we want? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scientist3135 (talk) -- 10:19AM, 15 November 2007

"This is absolutely ridiculous.": No it's not.
"Science, by definition, can't accept a supernatural explanation for a natural phenomenon.": Then change the definition! You are correct; science doesn't accept a supernatural explanation by definition, not because of any inherent problem in doing so. Science cannot test the supernatural, but there's no reason it can't "accept a supernatural explanation". Science started because of a Christian worldview, i.e. accepting a supernatural explanation, and for hundreds of years most scientists were happy to accept a supernatural explanation. What's changed? The definition!
"No real scientist claims that science proves God doesn't exist...": I reckon that I could find you some that claim pretty close to that.
"Just imagine if science were able to invoke a supernatural explanation for natural phenomena...we wouldn't get anywhere.": That is contradicted by the fact that early science, based on a belief in the supernatural, did get somewhere.
"Anytime we saw something we didn't understand, we'd just simply say "well, the mechanism is God, no point in trying to understand it any more than that.". There's two problems with that. One, that is not what happens in the cases of scientists who are prepared to accept a supernatural explanation. Two, evolution has a similar problem: evolution has said, "that organ is an evolutionary left-over with no function, there's no point in trying to understand it any more than that." This has actually happened. A creationary scientist will say, "God doesn't make useless stuff, so this organ must have a purpose. Let's find out what it is".
Philip J. Rayment 20:33, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Creation and Science

Philip, you're way off base on the falsifiability issue on your user page. I am glad you concede that creationism is unfalsifiable in the basic premise. However, evolution is actually falsifiable. You have seen a number of examples offered to you as examples that would necessarily falsify evolution - the findings of a human being in the same strata as a dinosaur would blow it out of the water. Homo habilis (do you think it didn't exist?) in the same strata as homo sapiens - ditto. Evolution as a whole can in fact be proven - on the micro level, it occurs every single day in antibiotic laboratories. While creationists attempt to distinguish between micro evolution and macro evolution, the distinction is in fact facetious - both are the same, just occurring over different time scales, and one necessarily implies the other. There is significant, good research on this that shows speciation over time, as well, in the fossil record. While evolution cannot be observed - conceded :-/ - this is hardly a requirement for a scientific theory, since, in a scientifically precise manner, evolution fits the fossil record. Here is another critical distinction between creation science and evolutionary biology - evolutionary biology proceeds from a set of facts, seeking to draw a conclusion, while creation science starts with a conclusion, and looks for facts. Since evolutionary biology is necessarily predicated on a foundational set of facts, it conforms with the fossil record in all circumstances, providing a scientifically precise, consistent, and yet falsifiable explanation for the diversity of life on earth. Penultimately, evolution does not envision "goo-to-you" - it makes no claim to abiogenesis, which is what I assume you're talking about. And it is not presaged on a lack of a creator. Since evolution assumes that life is already extant, it is not in direct conflict with a religious ideal that says, "God created life." I take issue with that idea for my own reasons, but evolution is not specifically incompatible with it, and a God who creates life may be at home in the evolutionary framework. Finally, though, I take serious issue with the "examples" of creation that you leave on your user page. The Grand Canyon example is simply laughable - the Grand Canyon, actually, is proof of an old earth, not vice versa, and no legitimate scientist believes to the contrary. Even the National Parks service, when you go into the Grand Canyon, talks about the old-earth, gradual creation of the Grand Canyon over millions of years, since it rests on firm science. Your "pleiosaur" is similarly laughable! You're referring to the "frilled shark," a species that was thought extinct and bears resemblance to old-world fishes (in the same way the Komodo Dragon bears resemblance to a T-Rex), that was found by a Japanese fishing trawler shortly before it died. It in no way conforms with the body structure of fossil outline of a pleiosaur. And don't get me started on the speed of light changing. Wow. I've measured it myself, with my own two hands, laser pointer, mirror et al - it's not changing. Nor has it ever, as blue shift / red shift would be plainly discernible from space-based telescopes, et al. You need to face facts, Philip. It's fine to believe in creation as a matter of faith, but as a matter of science, it's simply not tenable! And to suggest that you need science to validate your faith is frankly insulting to your faith!-AmesGyo! 00:41, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

AmesG, could you please slow down, read what I've written carefully, and put some paragraph breaks into your massive missive?
Your examples of how evolution could be falsified have already been answered by me here. In a nutshell, there is no reason to think—and good reason to think otherwise—that those things would actually falsify evolution.
Your attempt to claim that evolution is proven is nothing more than equivocation. Demonstrating that there are changes in organisms does not demonstrate that those changes are capable of introducing entirely new organs, etc. Creationists make a different distinction than the fuzzy micro-/macro-evolution one. The distinction is whether the postulated methods of evolution add genetic information or remove it. The evidence is that they remove it, not add it.
I strongly dispute that the fossil record shows evolution. Evolution requires innumerable intermediate forms between, which are totally absent from the fossil record (except when talking about intermediates between, say, two varieties of horse), as admitted by paleontologists.
I have added a section to my creationism page about the claim that creationists start with a conclusion.
Modern definitions of biological evolution do generally exclude abiogenesis, and the "goo-to-you" term was intended (although perhaps poorly) to refer to the postulated original slime of the first living cells, not to non-life.
As for the Grand Canyon, claiming that the example is "laughable" is not in any way a refutation. Instead, your "answer" was laughable because it didn't actually answer the claim. And science is supposed to work on evidence, not authority, yet the remainder of your answer was an argument from authority. And incorrect, I believe, because I believe that there are scientists who believe that the Grand Canyon was formed catastrophically (albeit not from flood run-off).
Your refutations of the plesiosaur and speed of light examples demonstrate that you didn't carefully read what I wrote, because I was not endorsing them. In fact creationary scientists have debunked both of them. And I'm pretty sure that the Japanese fishing trawler found it after it was dead, although that is irrelevant to the present discussion.
I'm yet to stop being amazed at how non-Christians (and even liberal Christians) try to tell me what my faith is supposed to be about. I didn't suggest that I needed science to validate my faith, but faith is based on evidence, not on the absence of evidence, so finding supportive evidence is in no way insulting to faith.
Philip J. Rayment 07:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

First, as to the argument that evolution starts with a conclusion as well - all sciences, and disciplines, start with basic assumptions as to the structure of the discipline, but not as to the facts to be studied. For example, mathematics assumes the definition of a point, and a line, which are unproveable. History assumes that the past is knowable. Science assumes that the human senses work, as you say, and that natural, consistent laws exist. These are not assumptions as to underlying facts of a question being answered, and are therefore qualifiabily different than assuming a creator. Scientists do not, necessarily, assume "no creator," either. Evolution does not, at least. Second, you're right that the fossil record has gaps in it - after all, only about 1% of organisms that die actually leave fossils. The conditions have to be just right. But every single organism that is so fossilized leaves a record that conforms with the theory of evolution, and further, that 1% is still a lot of evidence. However, science does have to infer from facts, since all of the facts aren't around anymore. Yet the facts do all back up the theory of evolution, and in the abscence of a better theory that explains them all, it'll still hold (creation is not a better theory!). Third, evolution is capable of creating new genetic data. There is no evidence to suggest that it does not! Random mutations occur in all organisms, and the infinite recombinations of DNA suggests that a mutation that switches the coding of a few strands of DNA does create new information, a new mutation that, coupled with natural selection, may just work out. Please see the link from the "evolution" userbox if you want to read more on this subject; it's actually on of the better-documented parts of the theory, with examples like plants evolving cell walls, which were new information, obviously. Finally, I guess I'll have to look at your challenges to the falsifiability of evolution later.-AmesGyo! 08:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Your understanding of falsifiability is pretty bad. For a theory to be falsifiable, ti does not have to cave to the first suggestion of contrary evidence, but it does have to cave to a fully proven example of contrary evidence. Therefore that "human/dinosaur footprint" thing is ridiculous. The "magnet" case never proves why magnetic sensitivity couldn't evolve, except for a 60-year old quote. There's a start.-AmesGyo! 08:35, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Regarding creationists starting with "facts" rather than just basic assumptions, creation and evolution are really a study of history. One can indeed argue that neither can be considered science because neither are subject to the normal methods of science such as observation (you can't see the past), testability (you can't test dinosaurs turning into birds), repeatability (you can't have dinosaurs turning into birds again to see if it works), etc. However, despite that, the study of the past is often referred to as science (especially forensic science), because the methods of science can be used to assist (such as testing the chemical composition of an ancient artifact). But as history, one can rely on historical documents as a source of information. Of course evolutionists won't do this because they have no documents from 65 million years ago, but creationists do, so there is no reason to arbitrarily ignore such evidence simply because it is not pure "science".
No, scientist do not necessarily assume no creator—I didn't say that they did. This is especially true for scientists who are creationists. But many scientists do assume no creator, and many argue that any such Creator is to be ignored as far as doing science is concerned—which is "assuming no creator" for the purposes of doing science.
I didn't just say that the fossil record has gaps. I said that there are not the transitional fossils that are predicted by evolution. Darwin said that this was the strongest objection to his theory, but hoped that, in time, the fossils would be found. Now, 150 years later, and many thousands of fossils later, they are still missing. The fossils that do exist are consistent with the creation model, so even if they are also consistent with the evolution model, it is wrong to claim that they therefore support evolution.
Your claim that evolution is the better theory is merely your opinion, not something that you have demonstrated.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that evolution cannot create new genetic information. First, despite many mutations being observed, none has produced new information. You remind me of the story I heard of the budding politician who asked his assistant if he was still convinced that 98% of the people would vote for him. "Absolutely", the assistant replied, "although it's odd that I keep on running into the other two percent.". If 100% of observed mutations either destroy genetic information or are neutral, it is ludicrous to claim that there is no evidence that it can't happen. Hypothesising that a random change will result in new information is just wishful thinking.
Doing a search for "cell wall" in that evolution article reveals nothing about any evidence for new information. Where does is say that cell walls have been observed evolving?
You criticise me by pointing out that a single example will not disprove evolution. However, you overlook two crucial points:
  • I said this myself, even putting it in bold so that it wouldn't be missed.
  • You are contradicting yourself. You proposed evidence of humans and dinosaurs living together as something that would falsify evolution, yet when I offer an (outdated) example of just that, you claim that it would take more than that!
Sure, the magnet case didn't prove anything. Just like your claims of falsifiability don't prove anything. If that famous, respected, scientist's falsifiability proposal can be so readily dismissed, why should I accept your proposals?
Philip J. Rayment 09:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
One can indeed argue that neither can be considered science because neither are subject to the normal methods of science such as observation (you can't see the past), testability (you can't test dinosaurs turning into birds), repeatability (you can't have dinosaurs turning into birds again to see if it works), etc.
One could indeed argue that, but one would be wrong. Remind me later and I'll put something up about the mathematics of induction. Tsumetai 09:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
He calls out as a parting shot before leaving the room... Philip J. Rayment 09:53, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, but I don't have time for a detailed post right now. The short version is essentially that one can use hypotheses about the past to generate predictions about observables in the present. That gives us observation, and the predictions can be repeatedly tested, which gives us the rest. The inductive reasoning by which we go from successful predictions to support for the hypothesis is precisely the same as with a hypothesis solely regarding the 'present.' One can't consistently reject one without also rejecting the other.
More later.Tsumetai 10:11, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Sounds good, but I doubt that it's as good as it sounds. Philip J. Rayment 11:17, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Philip, the transitional fossils have emerged. The dinosaur/bird connection is one of the strongest, but actually, THE strongest, is in the evolution of humanity, where scientists can trace in unbroken succession from Australopithecus Afarensis to Homo Sapiens, et al. As I have said, the fossil record is sparse by means of physical necessity, but keep in mind that evolution rests atop the fossil record, as the best current explanation for the variation of species. Also, where the fossil record breaks down, DNA often can supply the gaps. DNA evidence has recently emerged making the dinosaur-bird connection even stronger, thus almost obsoleting the need for transitional fossils (that exist anyways). Tsumetai, I trust in your ability to tackle Philip's misunderstanding of empiricism & inductive reasoning as a way of explaining the true scientific framework behind Darwin. As for the falsifiability issue, Philip, I didn't say that your example of the footprints in the same strata was insufficient proof; if it had been real, it probably would have been sufficient proof. But you yourself concede that it was debunked! The possibility of falsification from a sample, later disproved, has no falsification power!-AmesGyo! 10:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm intrigued that you claim that the dinosaur/bird connection is one of the strongest, because not even all evolutionists believe that one.[3]
Similar applies to the human line. I seem to recall reading that every supposed "ape man" had been relegated to a side branch of the family tree. Certainly there is not the smooth sequence of transitional forms that evolution would predict.
Your claim that evolution is the "best current explanation" is an assertion, not evidence.
Similarities between dinosaurs and birds do not show relationship, they show similarity. Similarity can also be explained by a common designer.
We know now that the fossil footprints are not real, but the point was that at the time, the problems with them were unknown, thus they appeared to be a convincing argument (except to those who refused to be convinced, of course), yet they failed to falsify evolution. Besides, that was not the full extent of my rebuttal of the claim of falsifiability.
Philip J. Rayment 11:17, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
There are certainly a few evolutionists who question the dino-bird connection, but I know of none who dispute a more general reptile-bird connection. The question under discussion in the mainstream is not whether birds descended from reptiles, but from which specific group they descended.
My later post will clarify the falsifiability issue as well, incidentally. Short version: there's no such thing as a perfect falsification, and whether or not a given observation is taken as a sufficiently good falsification depends to some extent on context. Tsumetai 11:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I agree that most evolutionists believe that birds descended from reptiles, but that was not what was being discussed. AmesG claimed that the dinosaur/bird connection "is one of the strongest", which I was showing was obviously not all that strong if not even all evolutionists are convinced. And if the dinosaur/bird connection is one of the strongest, what does that say about any other reptile/bird connection. Obviously the evidence is weaker.
Regarding falsification, I'd probably agree with you, but that is my point. If there is no such thing as a perfect falsification, how can any evolutionist claim as an absolute that evolution can be falsified?
Philip J. Rayment 05:39, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Tsumetai, you seem better equipped to deal with this question. However, I will add, Philip, that descent and relation are the same when the relationship spans more than one generation of an animal's life. Therefore the new DNA evidence of evolution is dispositive to creation science :-P-AmesGyo! 23:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Are you still not properly reading what I write? I didn't say anything about "descent and relation". I contrasted similarity and relation. And I can't see how "the new DNA evidence of evolution is dispositive to creation science"; perhaps you had better explain that, because it's not self-evident. Philip J. Rayment 05:39, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Will probably be Friday before I have a chance to get to this, BTW. Tsumetai 05:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Merge proposal

I disagree with merging the content of this article with Creation Science. The latter should be merged with this one. See why here. Philip J. Rayment 22:26, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Can you straighten me out or capitalization? I know that proper nouns should be capitalized, but how about names of ideas, concepts, and fields of study?
If we had a short little page that I could refer to, that would help me a lot. --Ed Poor 08:13, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Until (and unless) we come to terms with the GFDL, we can't copy Wikipedia articles into Conservapedia. --Ed Poor 09:39, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

How many times do we have to have this discussion: there is a lovely article called Scientific Method that explains exactly what is science (falsebility and such) and what is not, no matter what your views are.

Middle Man

I don't know what that comment was responding to, but the Scientific method article is poorly formatted and biased. I'll have to try and remember to fix it up. Philip J. Rayment 23:16, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe I should have included mores sources for the DNA thing, I'll give you that, but the paragraph about the Yucatan crater was entirely correct: a blast that releases the energy of many nuclear weapons simultaneously will cause a massive ecological crisis, there is nothing to debate over there.

I will add more sources and use better phrasing like removing, I'll remove the "abstract concept" line.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Middle Man (talk)

Even if I grant you that it would likely cause a large ecological crisis, that wasn't the only point of dispute. Besides, it's not as simple as that. See this quote from Jimmy Bakker of the University of Colorado Museum, talking about the meteor extinction theory:
The arrogance of these people is simply unbelievable. They know next to nothing about how real animals evolve, live, and become extinct. But, despite their ignorance, the geochemists feel that all you have to do is crank up some fancy machine and you’ve revolutionized science. The real reasons for the dinosaur extinctions have to do with temperature and sea level changes, the spread of diseases by migration and other complex events. In effect, they’re saying this: we high-tech people have all the answers, and you paleontologists are just primitive rockhounds.
Philip J. Rayment 12:47, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

I didn't mention the dinosaurs anywhere, did I? You mean Robbert Bakker, I looked up some info about him: Robbert Bakker meant he did not believe the meteorite was sufficient to wipe out all dinosaurs, he argues it would have taken out most other life as well. He believes there were enough surviving dinosaurs to repopulate, but disease and climate change delivered the final blow, but Bakker doesn't doubt the meteorite impacted and caused major destruction, he only argues it wasn't enough to kill the dinosaurs, this is possible. In fact many of his peers share his view of a combination of disastrous events.

But the dinosaurs were not part of that particular reasoning, I only used the meteor crater to deduce the Earth was at least older than 6000 years (the deduction does not lead to an estimation of the Earth's age, it only sets a lower limit), again, I will add more sources: the magnitude of the blast expressed as 100 million megatons, and the number of Hiroshima bombs that would be equivalent to that, maybe some more stuff too.

Constructive criticism is always welcome though.

Middle Man

Creation Science = Alchemy?

I'd like to bring up the fact that "creation science" is something akin to alchemy. A man in the sky created the rocks, birds and humans and planted rocks that look like bones to test our faith. Can we really equate the belief in genies in the sky with actual fact based science? I, for one, would welcome America to join the rest of the world in pulling their heads out of the dark ages.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evilbred (talk)

What do you mean, the "fact that 'creation science' is something akin to alchemy"? That's not a "fact"; that's your opinion, and one that you've failed to substantiate.
God is not a "man in the sky", and didn't plant "rocks that look like bones to test our faith". If that's what you think creation science is then you have no idea what you are talking about, and therefore have no basis for dismissing it.
The dark ages was no such thing: it was actually a time of considerable progress. But I too wish Americans pulled their heads out of the sand and stopped embracing the atheistic origins myth that is evolution.
Philip J. Rayment 20:29, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Addition requested

I just wanted to edit the second the last paragraph to something like this:

"Creation science is not accepted by most scientists either in terms of its claims or as a science, due to the fact that "Creation Science" cannot be disproved; therefor, it cannot be considered "Science." But it is claimed by creation scientists that this is due mainly to the world views and preconceptions of the scientists, rather than on the basis of scientific evidence":

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zathras (talk)

I've added the reason, but without making it sound like the reason is valid (it's not). Philip J. Rayment 03:53, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Creation Scientists & Employment

This page is a redirect from Creation Scientists. I clicked on that wondering what sort of institutions employ what percentage of creation scientists. For instance, it's my understanding that most professional mathematicians (in the U.S.) who are not employed by colleges and universities work for the federal government. Does anyone have any information like this about creation scientists? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drochld (talk)

Most creation scientists are not employed as creation scientists (just as most evolutionary scientists are not employed as evolutionists), but simply as scientists in whatever field they have their expertise in. See for examples the links here, some of which will mention who the scientist concerned works (or worked) for. Does that answer your question? Philip J. Rayment 10:03, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
What I really want to know is who employs people who would, when asked what they do at work, reply "investigate creation science". So, I would exclude all the scientists who study particular fields of science that aren't creation science, even if they are professional scientists and believe in creation. Drochld 12:26, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Does anybody give that reply? About the only ones who might would be scientists working for creationist organisations, such as Creation Ministries International, Answers in Genesis, and the Institute for Creation Research. Philip J. Rayment 23:59, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
I also wonder how many people are employed by places like Liberty University to study creation from a scientific perspective. Here is one example. Drochld 17:00, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
It appears just from that linked page that he is employed in part to teach science, but yes, also it seems that part of his employment is to do research. But to use him as an example, the answer to your first question would be that he works for a university, and to your second question, he would likely reply that he is teaching as well as researching mosasaurs. Philip J. Rayment 23:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

First sentence sounds bad

I think the first sentence should be changed. Creation science is a systematic attempt to show that supernatural creation of the material universe by God is consistent and compatible with scientific evidence: the underlined part sounds like there is an agenda in Creation science and puts Creation science in a bad light in the eyes of the uninformed. We all (?) know that Evolutionists have an agenda, but still they tell us that "science is neutral and only looking for the truth". Maybe the first sentence should be changed to something along the lines of Creation science is science free of Atheist and Evolutionist bias, showing that supernatural creation of the material universe by God is consistent and compatible with scientific evidence. SilvioB 09:42, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Small grammatical corrections

In the first paragraph, the sentence "Most advocates of creation science believe the earth is approximately 6,000 years." should probably have the word "old" appended to it. Slightly later, the sentence "Creation scientists also assert that the naturalistic processes cannot account for the origin of life and that the theory of evolution cannot account the various kinds of animals and plants." should include the word "for" after "account." In the sentence "Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that speciation occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionist believe is the case." "evolutionist" should be plural.--Benp 10:29, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Is there any way protection of this article could be removed briefly for proofreading? There are a lot of small errors, and it would be more efficient just to correct them, rather than listing them all here. --Benp 10:43, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I've unlocked it (and not just temporarily). Philip J. Rayment 10:47, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks. --Benp 10:54, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

First and Second Law of Thermodynamics

The following sentence strikes me as odd:

In addition, scientists in the discipline of creation science state that the first law of thermodynamics and second law of thermodynamics argue against an eternal universe.

Firstly, it seems out of place at the beginning of the article. I would have thought argument would come later (although I note that a string of other beliefs follow). Secondly, and more importantly, who says that the universe is eternal? I understood the current mainstream scientific view to favour the big bang. --Horace 18:54, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree it's odd (though technically correct). An eternal universe used to be popular, and there are still a few advocates, but most scientists, whether evolutionary or creationary, do believe that the laws of thermodynamics point to a beginning to the universe. I'd support it's removal, at least in its present form and location. Philip J. Rayment 02:31, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

6000 years

In the first paragraph of the article the following sentence appears:

Most advocates of creation science believe the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.

I edited the sentence to insert the word "Christian" before the word "advocates". This was done on the basis that I understood the 6000 year figure to be peculiar to Christians. It was pointed out to me by another editor (who reverted the edit) that there are many advocates of creation science other than Christians ones. He mentioned Muslims (amongst others), so I had a quick look and found the following on this page.

There is considerable room for interpretation within Islam as to the date of the Creation, since there are no explicit statements about it in the Qur'an as there are in the Bible. Other aspects of the Qur'an afford room for interpretation as well. In one place in the Qur'an, a single day is said to correspond to 1000 years, yet in another verse, a day is said to correspond to a period of 50 000 years (Edis 1994). Thus geological time scales do not disturb the Muslim conception of creation.

It seems to me that the introduction might be rewritten to make some distinction between the religions prior to asserting that "most advocates of creation science believe the earth is approximately 6,000 years old". --Horace 19:23, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

I think the logic behind this is that the term "creation science" already implies Christianity. Other religions' creation stories don't really fit into this category. --DRamon 19:43, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Erm, Judaism? Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 19:44, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm not too fussed about this one either way. Although Muslims and Jews are, by definition, creationists, very few of them have really done anything with creation science. As DRamon says, "creation science" already implies Christianity. However, although that's true as a generalisation, there are exceptions, and so perhaps the qualifier that Horace inserted is valid.
As for Horace's edit comment "Science, to be science, must be free of bias", this should be the case, but often isn't the case, hence the phrasing that was there before his edit.
Philip J. Rayment 02:38, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Philip, agree with you in relation to the bias issue. I think that there was a further problem with the wording as it existed prior to my edit however. That is, it was essentially a statement that creation science, in contrast to evolutionary science, is free of bias because it is creation science. It seems to me that it is the way you do it, not the area of study, that determines whether there is bias. You could carry out creation research or evolution research in a biased manner. It just depends on how you carry out the work.
I know people have strong views on these topics. But in writing encyclopedic articles we should not let our own biases lead us into editorializing in this manner. --Horace 18:49, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm not really going to disagree with that, but it's a little misleading, in that when considering the cause of something, atheists are biased because they a priori rule out one possibility (the supernatural), whereas creationists are free to consider either natural or supernatural causes, because they have not a priori ruled out one of the two possibilities. So in that sense at least, creationism is not biased! Philip J. Rayment 23:36, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Advanced Scientific Knowledge

While I don't disagree that many Creation Scientists believe the Bible contains such knowledge, AiG and CMI may not be the best examples to cite. Both of them include this claim on their list of arguments Creationists shouldn't use, arguing that we should read the Bible as it would have been understood in the author's time. Are there other organizations that could be cited instead? --Benp 16:50, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

Christianity and science

Cut from intro:

In addition, Christianity profoundly influenced the development of modern science.

True but unrelated. --Ed Poor Talk 18:45, 2 January 2010 (EST)