Difference between revisions of "Talk:Project Steve"

Revision as of 21:01, June 30, 2017

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:

• In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood (8th Edition), by Walt Brown (the 9th edition will be coming out soon)
• The work of Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, a Harvard graduate
• Interesting article: Successful Predictions by Creation Scientists

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)

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)

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 Islamic creationist book Atlas of Creation are currently now in London? I do know the Atlas of Creation was promoted via adverts on London buses.

Darwinism is so doomed - so very doomed. Conservative (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2017 (EDT)