Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 1

Please try to sign your post even with an IP if necessary (Type ~~~~ at the end of your post)

--LexCorp 15:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just want to recommend the person who edited the text and explained her/his edit by saying that the definition of units has no impact on the question whether the speed of light is constant - that this person should re-learn at least basic school physics. The choice of units is critical to assess whether a dimensionful quantity is constant, and acoording to the modern, accurate definition of one meter, the speed of light is simply guaranteed to be 299,792,458 meters per second (exactly). This number is constant in most other units, too, because all other units of length and time are fixed relative to meter and second. There are no better units that you can use (or everyone SHOULD use in order to get confused by these pseudoscientific theories), and there is no other way to avoid this simple argument. --Lumidek 11:17, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

typically based on Jewish and Christian religious fundamentalism. Jewish fundamentalists espousing this literal dating? Very uncharacteristic. Such an unexpected connection deserves a reference to a book or website. Or perhaps 'Jewish' could simply be dropped? Of course Hebrew texts can be used for all manner of interpretations Wetman 22:59, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It's true enough. Jewish and Christian literalists use(d) the same methodology in calculating the date of creation (by relying on the chronology given in the Old Testament). See the article on the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar for details. - ChrisO 12:55, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Should this page be about the debate between old earth and new earth, or should we have a seperate page for that and have this page just state the arguments of young earth creationsists? I highly favor the latter. - SamE 03:07, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

At the current time the page is short enought that, in my opinion, it would be simpler to have both the main points of the pro and anti views on one page. If the page becomes one of those where both sides are competing to get their point of view heard, then we should probably break it off. DJ Clayworth 17:20, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

This shows I should actually look at the page before responding. The page has already got too long. Please also remember that we are an encyclopedia, not a debating society. Don't score points; inform about what the sides think. DJ Clayworth 17:23, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

ICR arguments should go in with the other arguments for a young earth. There is no need to give them a special place. DJ Clayworth 17:27, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I thought evidence should go first, then arguments for each side over the evidence. I just put the ICR title there because there was already a section on "Responses to ICR arguments". You can change it to whatever is appropriate. - SamE 21:15, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Bias

(William M. Connolley 21:37, 2004 May 3 (UTC)) As it stands the page is far too pro-young-earth. I've added some comments in []'s around the ICR section to make a start on rebalancing. But more major work is needed.

The same is true in reverse. The Creationism page has six links about evolution at the bottom of the page, and the Evolution page has no links to creationist sites, like ICR. You can't just say this page is biased without seeing that the evolution page is biased as well. - SamE 17:51, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with the above. Despite not being a believer in Young Earth Creationism I believe that we should allow this page to be about Young Earth Creationism. We should explain their beliefs, why they believe it, and common objections. The page should not become a debating ground. The same is true of Evolution - it should be about evolution, although it should mention common objections, not become an argument about whether evolution is true or not. DJ Clayworth 22:45, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

We could just delete all of the "evidence" and "arguments" sections, and replace it with sections titled, "Young Earth Specifics" (such as exactly how old the earth is) and "Common Objections" (objections, not evidence or arguments against it). We definitely should have several links to young earth sites, ICR (for more info) if we choose not to include the arguments/evidence. However, I have a feeling that that section really can't be fixed without one side getting its way. - SamE 03:22, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

NB - shouldn't the bracketed responses to the ICR arguments be in the following section (which is, after all, headed "response to ICR arguments"). Note also that the bracketed responses seem to show little sitation or backup - isn't it unfair to attack an argument without that backup?

(William M. Connolley 14:30, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)) Sign your comments please (three or four tildes). But to answer: The first [] is around "this is just the Omphalos arg again". That is apparent from the text and needs no ref. The next two *are* ref'ed: to ice core. The next one says this-is-arg-by-analogy. Again, thats simply clear from the text - no ref needed. The next one is about life-would-be-impossible-20kyr-ago. That assertion is unrefferenced, so it seems rather unfair to require the reply to be ref'd.

Sorry about the previous unsigned message. OK - I take on board what you've said about your reasons for not reffing the []'s, but I still think more work could be done there. I'll step aside on that issue though. Please address this: Does the document not already include a section for responses to the ICR standpoint, and should the []'s not be placed there? Cblack 04:46, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 08:32, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)) I agree, there is more work to be done. As to where to put the responses... well. I would say that where the responses are short (as those are) they are better off directly next to the arguments.

Once again this article is descending, as too many Wikipedia articles do, into a discussion board. Please remember a few things:

Just because you disagree with an argument doesn't mean you have to try to oppose it in the article.

Formatting is much better if there are separate sections for each side's arguments rather than trying to mix up the different views in a single paragraph. You can tell if your article is becoming an argument because it starts to ask questions and then answer them (Why is the speed of light constant?).

Don't forget that an encyclopedia is where you go for your facts, not for your opinion. Its a fact that ICR believes such and such, or that mainstream science believes something else; there is no need, in an encyclopedia, to give detailed arguments about why they are wrong. DJ Clayworth 15:27, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:55, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)) Hmmm... there is some truth in that. I will ponder your words.

How are we going to make this article neutral?

This article, quite frankly, reads too much like a peeing contest between the pro-young-earth and the anti-young-earth people. I'm not really sure how to make this some appropriate for an encyclopedia; what I have done is make the bracketed comments no longer come off as someone writing critical margin notes in a library book because they don't like what the book has to say.

For the record, I'm firmly in the old-Earth camp. -- User:samboy

(William M. Connolley 10:44, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)) I take your point. But I've restored some of the previous. Because... well, lets go through a couple:

You changed "This is just the Omphalos theory again." into "Opponents contend that such a theory makes God dishonest.". But it *as* just Omphalos again, so its best to label it as such.

Ice cores: there *is* no evidence for a flood in ice cores. There is no reason to add "appears to be".

And so on. For the record, I'd be happy for it to be less confrontational, but I don't think that adding "opponents say..." helps this.

(William M. Connolley 10:49, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)) Another thought: all the creationist arguments are essentially junk. They are misunderstandings or deliberate twistings (e.g. the magnetic field one). This means that if the page attempts to honestly describe those arguments, it cannot but call them junk, no matter how politely.

I really think we are looking at creationists arguments from the wrong point of view. I think looking at a particular argument and then refuting it is not the correct approach; I think the correct approach is to say that these kinds of arguments exist, and describe how these arguments are, in general, not supported by a honest look at the scientific evidence. I'm thinking it makes sense to put particular arguments (magnetic field, helium in atmosphere, etc.) on another page altogether, and to summarize young earth arguments as something like this:

"Young Earth Creationists feel that mainstream science is mistaken about the age of the earth, and that modern geology, biology, physics, and astronomy give us an erroneous view of the universe. The often times prompte conspiracy theories; they feel that modern scientists first believe there is no God, then make up a universe that doesn't need a God for life to be created. They often times attempt to show that many discliplines of modern science are incorrect by using scientific-sounding arguments. Their scientific-sounding arguments are numerous, and generally take a better understand of certain specialized fields of science than the creationist is willing to have to refute." Can someone else make this have less POV?

I'm trying to not make this an edit war. I will edit the page, but only to add a reference to the Omphalos Hypothesis. -- Samboy

P.S. I think MyRedDice did a really good job presenting the evidence in an objective manner. Samboy 08:43, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Young Earth and Distant Stars

I'm concerned that four responses are given, and they are all described as minority. This cannot be the case! I've removed statements about prevalence, pending resolution of this. Martin 21:34, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Relatavistic stuff looks like one person's POV to me. Who is "the author"? Martin 21:36, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Helium

If the earth is billions of years old, then at present rates (of what?), the amount of helium in the atmosphere should be much, much greater (why?).

People refuting this argument point out that helium escapes to space. (since you can "refute" the argument, could you explain it?)

The diffusion rate of helium from zircon crystals was determined by someone (who?) on the ICR payroll to agree with an ICR prediction. [1] (what relevance does this have to do with graphite?) The results (Which results?) were not replicated by an unaffiliated lab (which lab?).

Reading this... the ICR made a prediction about zircon. An ICR-paid person got results showed this prediction was inaccurate. A non-affiliated lab didn't replicate those results... so their results showed that the ICR prediction was accurate??? And this proves what, exactly? Martin

Rates of radioactive decay presumably, producing alpha particles, aka helium nuclei. If the helium collected in the atmosphere, after four billion years there'd be yeah-much, but there isn't. The answer is that helium (and hydrogen) are light enough, and the Earth's atmosphere is hot enough that a small percentage of helium atoms at the top of the atmosphere are going faster than escape speed and are lost to the Earth.
--wwoods 22:08, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That does at least make the exchange comprehensible. Still, it seems pointless to attempt to presume what YECs might believe, and then refute that. Let's just leave it out for now - I don't believe it adds anything useful. Perhaps someone familiar with the argument will be able to re-add it, appropriate attributed. Martin 22:17, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

defn of evidence

A young earth would require human society to progress from the 'caveman' stage to city-building capability in only a few thousand years.

This does not appear to be "evidence" in any commonly understood use of the term. Martin 21:55, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

White hole cosmology

That text, originally contributed by 62.166.55.122, states that "This theory not only fits the same cosmological data that the Big Bang theory purports to explain, but also includes much data that has never been explained by it, like quantized red shifts."

I don't know much about astrophysics. Does anyone know what is meant by "quantized red shifts"? Certainly the Big Bang theory adequately explains the red-shift of the background radiation from the supposed initial expansion of the universe, but what is meant by "quantized?"

I am uncomfortable with leaving such a claim in the text unless it is better explained and "quantized red shifts" is a verified phenonemon. --Saforrest 17:34, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

The Big Bang model (and the inflationary model, which is different from the Big Bang model) does not claim that the universe "arises from a black hole". whoever said that part was confused or mistaken. -Lethe | Talk

See [2] for information about quantized red shifts. Philip J. Rayment 12:36, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

-- That bit at the beginning seems to be messed up. The page's source seems to have "christians|christianity" and so on, but in the page's text it ends up reading "believed by christianity, jews, and islam, who..."

The page was correctly rendering the source, but the wrong terms were being used. It's now fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. Philip J. Rayment 14:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Modern vs. Mainstream vs. A better term?

I was the one who changed the intro to say YEC conflicts with "modern scientific views" instead of "mainstream scientific views". A user reverted it and I agree with him, that "modern" is not the best word because it then casts YEC as an antiquated viewpoint. However, mainstream doesn't seem the right term to me as that I think implies that the majority of people accept that view, and I know, for example, that a poll just this week in the U.S. (I'll put the reference here if I can find it) by a major news organization found that more than 50% of Americans (Christian Americans?) believe the account of creation in the Bible to be accurate verbatim, so at least in America (and until that result can be replicated elsewhere), YEC or at least Creationism is what's in the mainstream. Comment please? Jewbacca 04:52, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

As a creationist, I'd love to agree with you. And the point you raise has been mentioned elsewhere recently in a slightly different context. To take the evolutionists' side, creation is the mainstream in the general public, but not in the scientific community. Clearly the majority of scientists (probably through ignorance because they've never really studied the case for creation) are evolutionists. Philip J. Rayment 10:57, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

http://www.icr.org/headlines/skeptical44.html 44% of Americans are solidly skeptical of macro-evolution. Originally in National Geographic Magazine's article "Was Darwin Wrong?" (Nov, 2004)

Problems with Ungtss edit

I was fine with the previous edit. Ungtss' attempt to introduce criticism of mainstream science can only be met in an NPOV standpoint by pointing out the obvious flaws made by those who criticize radiometric dating, geology, and planetary formation models. I fully expect Ungtss to revert. If he does, I will revert to my previous version which was a much better NPOV. If he edits, we will see if we can reach a compromise. Joshuaschroeder 03:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your edits were POV. Saying that "their argument falls flat scientifically" (to just pick one example) is clearly a POV that is not agreed by all.

If science is defined as the sum total of the efforts of those doing science and is defined simply by means of whose data is the best, then this is correct. The real POV is pointing out that the YECs have an opinion that doesn't hold water.Joshuaschroeder 16:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"science is defined as the sum total of the efforts of those doing science" begs the question of who is doing science. "whose data is the best" is subjective, thus a POV. But yes, [claiming] that YECs have an opinion that doesn't hold water is definitely POV, which is what I was saying. I'm glad you agree. Philip J. Rayment 05:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Theories rise or fall on their own merits. It is true that a lot of the models that are proposed by YECs are impossible. Joshuaschroeder 04:01, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's your view. It may also be true. It may also be true that a lot of the models proposed by mainstream scientists are impossible. But the NPOV policy requires us to not assert something as true that is disputed. Philip J. Rayment 13:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just because something is disputed doesn't mean it needs to be couched in disputed terms. People dispute the fact that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. However, they are still wrong and their disputation doesn't detract from the facts. The same applies here. Joshuaschroeder 18:22, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But the idea of Wikipedia's NPOV policy is that it does need to be "couched in disputed terms". Philip J. Rayment 12:57, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow your objection to saying that creationists have developed their own peer-reviewed journals. "Peer-reviewed" refers to a process of review by other scientists in the field, not "the academy".

The problem is that creationists selectively choose their peer-review panels. They aren't academic in that sense (not part of the academy). The "peer-review" process is well-defined as a means for academic publishing and is manifestly NOT used by the creationists.Joshuaschroeder 16:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What do you know about how creationists choose their peer-review panels? Or how anybody else does it, for that matter? Don't all peer-review journals "select" their reviewers? How does choosing them make them not academic? How do you know that the "well-defined" process is not used by creationists? Philip J. Rayment 05:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Curious you should ask this question. I once wrote a poster presented at a AAS conference that answered the question of how creationists choose peer-reviewers as compared to most legitimate journals in the scientific community. What I found was that, for example, the journal "Creation" imposed a faith test on their reviewers. This is not what is normally described as peer-review. Joshuaschroeder 04:01, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why it's curious, but I also note that you haven't answered the question. All you have done is present one requirement for the magazine "Creation" (assuming it is true; how do you know that is the case?). If that's all you know, then you obviously don't know how they select their reviewers, and you therefore have no basis for saying that creationists don't do it properly, and therefore no basis for saying that there journals are not peer-reviewed journals. Philip J. Rayment 13:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I did not use just the journal "Creation", but I looked at every creationist science journal I could find. Each had policies that were markedly different from the academic review policies or the qualification policies of major scientific journals. I'm not going to list them all here, but you can read about them in the talkorigins archive. Joshuaschroeder 18:22, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's avoiding answering the question. If you want to link to an article that addresses the point, fair enough, but throwing an entire web-site at me is not an answer. Philip J. Rayment 12:57, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The removal of "stated" is simply for style. I don't believe that it changes the meaning at all.

Philip J. Rayment 14:44, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am reverting back to a previous version before Ungtss editted in this case. If Ungtss or you want to try to include the information, you're going to have to also include the NPOV facts I pointed out. Joshuaschroeder 16:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

mainstream science

y'know, it seems to me that most of the last section is redundent to the Debate page. i propose we put a single sentence at the bottom -- something to the effect of "The majority of mainstream scientists think young earth creationists are morons. See Creation vs. evolution debate for a more complete discussion." any thoughts? Ungtss 22:00, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All we need is somewhere in the article the statement: "The vast majority of mainstream scientists do not consider Young Earth Creationism viable."

lemme take a stab at that:). Ungtss 04:11, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure scientists, or OECs, or anyone else can condider the Omphalosis Hypothesis non-viable. It's so watertight that it's unfalsifiable. I'd like to say I believe it

as it annoys the hell out of other creationists, and doesn't require any attacks on mainstream science (since scientists are merely reporting on how the world actually appears). But I don't. Shucks.

Exile 22:35, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think this section is important, but could live with it being 1-2 sentences and a link the the debate. In fact, I would prefer that to the irrelevent and quasi-nonsensical (IMHO) paragraph that is currently there. Also, I'm new, and not sure how exactly we are supposed to sign discussion posts like this, so I'll just not.

i agree with you -- it makes little to no sense -- edit as you like:). incidentally, to sign, you do four tildas (little squigglies) in a row. Ungtss 19:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is too much POV getting in to this article

I am just wondering if too much POV is getting in to the article again. In particular, I am a little worried because the article reads like this "YE Creationists belive XXX, but this is nonsense because of YYY". Now, I agree that Creationism is nonsense, and, indeed, have contributed debunkings of creationism to this artical, but I'm wondering or not if it is appropriate for this article to be a list of creation myths debunked. Should the debunking go elsewhere, and have this article be a simple "YE Creationists think the earth is 6,000 years old, as described in Genesis and previously believed by pretty much everyone in Europe. Many think that the essential message of Christianity is diluted if they believe the Earth is any older" etc. etc. etc., and have a link to a page debunking "creation science". Thoughts? Samboy 02:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article as it stands right now needs a whole lot of work. What the article should do is state that the YECs have an idea for the age of the Earth, Flood Geology, the origin of humanity, and the diversification of biology after the flood. I removed large swathes of retelling of the Genesis story because its details are irrelevant to YEC as a critique of science (which is mostly the context of its invocation). For my money, the whole "The distant universe" section should be removed completely or pared down quite substantially. Also, there's nothing on YECs views on science in general or how they voice their opinions. We should also include stuff on the YEC cruises, tours, and museums that are opening up around the country as part of the social phenomenon.

It is my thought that there isn't a whole lot of POV in the article right now. NPOV is about maintaining the healthiest of skepticism, and the criticism that's there should be there. Perhaps it should be organized differently. Joshuaschroeder 02:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

you've made a very interesting point, Samboy -- this is an encyclopedia, after all ... perhaps there should be different articles for "Creationism" and "Critiques of Creationism." i would strongly support your proposal. Ungtss 04:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When an anti-creationist says that an article about creationism is biased towards the anti-creationist side, it is clear that we have a problem. Philip J. Rayment 13:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's gotten a lot better ever since I wrote tha above content. Samboy

<< I removed large swathes of retelling of the Genesis story because its details are irrelevant to YEC as a critique of science (which is mostly the context of its invocation).>>

totally incorrect, sir. creationism is "invoked" as a history of life on earth, and creationists believe that science SUPPORTS their belief, while evolution is pseudoscience. the full story is necessary in order to understand the creationist view of genesis as an unbroken history, and none of the material you deleted appears on the creation according to genesis page, which focuses exclusively on issues of authorship and historicity. your penchant for redefining your opponents' beliefs is difficult to understand. Ungtss 04:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stop whining and start a new article if you think that strongly that the material needs to be in the encyclopedia. The vast majority of what was deleted was simply a rehash of Genesis -- people can read that for themselves. Since Young Earth creationism is the belief that the Earth and life on Earth were created by a direct action of God a relatively short time ago, there is no need to go into the detailed account but only to explain the physical consequences of the belief. The context of YEC is clear: it is meant to be a description of nature, human society, etc. The succinct summary is better. Joshuaschroeder 08:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

funny how all opinions but your own are whining. that section was a DESCRIPTION of what creationists believe happened, in HISTORICAL TERMS. evolutionary creationists believe it was an allegory -- creationists believe there actually was a river at a place named eden, where four rivers met. that is ESSENTIAL to this page. for a man who claims to have studied the debate for eight years, you have remarkably little knowledge about what creationists believe what they believe, and why. why not sit back a little and learn? Ungtss 12:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Passive-Aggressive Editting

Ungtss has started to make a pattern known where he makes a number of controversial edits/reverts and then tacks on a few relatively non-controversial ones at the very end to make reversion awkward. I submit that this is a form of passive-aggressive coersion. The idea is that he makes edits that are controversial first so that when a revert happens he can cry foul. Well, I kept his last edit (being that it was uncontroversial), though it was a pain. I fully imagine Ungtss will plead ignorance to this tactic, but I just want him to be aware that I know what he's doing. Joshuaschroeder 08:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

take your conspiracy theories and go home. you've done the exact same thing repeatedly on this and other pages -- adding spelling corrections to "Science is useless outside the bible." it's not a deliberate plan to waste your time -- it's a function of trying to correct your erroneous edits as efficiently as possible. why not let other boys play at the playground too, eh, son? wikipedia isn't king of the mountain after all? p.s. i'm sorry for making it more difficult for your to mindlessly revert any opinion but your own. Ungtss 12:46, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

cosmology etc

it seems to me that the real problem with the "back and forth" in this article is in the cosmology / astronomy stuff -- shall we move that over to views compared to solve the problem? Ungtss 13:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"this edit is better."

Why? you've said that it's better because the material is covered on creation according to genesis. a quick look at the page reveals that the material is not covered there at all, and never was. you've said that they can go to the bible to read it -- but that doesn't clarify the YOUNG EARTH interpretation of the passage -- the OLD EARTH, DAY-AGE, and ALLEGORICAL reading will be VERY DIFFERENT from this reading. the bible itself doesn't say what young earth creationists say -- young earth creationists have one interpretation of several. so why is it so important for you to delete historical details of the YEC view of history? Ungtss 21:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As it currently stands, the summary outlines the major highlights of the YECs belief that are different from other beliefs. The summary is better. Joshuaschroeder 23:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Compare the two and see. Make comments on things you think were taken out inappropriately and we'll work it out.

The contemporary model of young earth creationism + The material beliefs of young earth creationism

- Young earth creationists take the account of Genesis to be a historical account of the origin of the Earth and life. + Young earth creationists take the account of Genesis to be a historical account of the origin of the Earth and life. (See Creation according to Genesis).

- Genesis reports that God created the Earth in six days, and rested on the seventh. After creating the Earth and all the animals and plants, God planted a Garden with all kinds of trees including the Tree of Life and the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He planted the field in Eden. There, God breathed life into Man—Adam—who named many of the animals and birds; then, God created woman from a rib in Adam's side, and gave her to him. Adam subsequently named her Eve "because she would become the mother of all the living". They were naked, but were not ashamed, and walked and talked with God. + Genesis reports that God created the Earth in six days. According to most YEC accounts, before Fall of man there was no death in the world. The subsequent Genealogies of Genesis record the line of descent from Adam to Noah to Abraham, with the ages at which they had the next in line and the ages at which they died [3]. According to the figures in the genealogies, God sent a global flood 1656 years after he created Adam, but preserved Noah and his family on an ark. The ark was supposedly constructed of a particular dimensions and design, and fit seven (or seven pairs) of each clean animal and two of each unclean animal on it.[4].

- However, Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which they had been instructed not to do; As a result, God removed them from the Garden, forcing Adam to work hard to feed himself and Eve, giving Eve pain in childbirth, and denying them access to the Tree of Life, so that they would die. + Contemporary creationists have asserted that the flood was a combination of radical geological activity and extreme rain. They argue that the land before the flood was much more level, but that extreme geological action during the flood raised mountains to new heights and dropped the sea-bed, so that the water that had covered the land flowed into the sea. Flood geology argues that the fact that 80% of the Earth's crust is covered in deep sedimentary strata is a result of liquefaction after the flood. The detail mechanisms or models of how this works are not offered by any of Flood geology's advocates.

- The Genealogies of Genesis record the line of descent from Adam to Noah to Abraham, with the ages at which they had the next in line and the ages at which they died [5]. + According to the account, after the flood lifespans dropped quickly from an average of 900 years at the time of Noah to an average of 100 by the time of Abraham. Contemporary creationists have suggested that this is due to the effects of the inbreeding that took place after the flood, as only eight people remained. Creationists also assert that all the contemporary species of animals are descended from those original animals on the ark; that the animals adapted to their environments by the process of rapid variation and natural selection. Young Earth Creationists assert that the process of variation and natural selection resulted in a loss of genetic potential. - + - The genealogy reports that Adam lived 130 years before bearing his son Seth, and died at the age of 930. Ages of between 777 and 969 years are reported for all people until Noah (except for Enoch, who didn't die). + - + - According to the account, over time, man became corrupted and filled the Earth with violence. Seeing this, God came to regret having made them. He found one man, Noah, who was just, and walked with God. He determined to end the violence and wickedness of men by sending a flood to wipe out the evil, but preserve Noah and his family on an ark. He instructed Noah to build an ark of gopher wood of particular dimensions and design, and to bring seven (or seven pairs) of each clean animal and two of each unclean animal into the ark.[6]. + - + - According to the figures in the genealogies, God sent the flood 1656 years after he created Adam, in the six hundredth year of Noah's life, "in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month." According to the account, "the fountains of the great deep and windows of heaven broke open," flooding the Earth. Noah was instructed to bring his wife, and his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their wives, for a total of eight people. All other people were to be destroyed. The genealogies indicate that Methuselah, Noah's grandfather, died in the same year as the flood, meaning he could have died in the flood. All his other ancestors were already dead, including his father Lamech, who died five years before the flood. Alternatively, it has been suggested that God waited for Methuselah to die before he sent the flood. + - + - Contemporary creationists assert that the flood was a combination of radical geological activity (the fountains of the great deep opening) and extreme rain. They argue that the land before the flood was much more level, but that extreme geological action during the flood raised mountains to new heights and dropped the sea-bed, so that the water that had covered the land flowed into the sea. Flood geology argues that the fact that 80% of the Earth's crust is covered in deep sedimentary strata is a result of liquefaction after the flood. + - + - According to the account, the rains lasted 40 days, and the waters covered the earth for 150 days, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest upon the mountains of Ar'arat, and in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen. In the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month of Noah's life, the face of the Earth was dry. And in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month of Noah's life, the earth was dry, and God instructed Noah to leave the ark. + - + - From that point, the account indicates that lifespans dropped quickly from an average of 900 years at the time of Noah to an average of 100 by the time of Abraham. Contemporary creationists have suggested that this is due to the effects of the inbreeding that took place after the flood, as only eight people remained. Creationists also assert that all the contemporary species of animals are descended from those original animals on the ark; that the animals adapted to their environments by the process of variation and natural selection. Contrary to the theory of evolution, however, Young Earth Creationists assert that the process of variation and natural selection resulted in a loss of genetic potential.

Joshuaschroeder 23:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

um ...

i think that everything you took out belongs in there, because it provides a great deal of important detail in understanding the scope of creationism. one of the rather stupid evolutionist tactics is stripping creationism down -- saying it's just about "making the earth in 7 days" and conveniently ignoring the rest of genesis.

genesis gives PRECISE dates for the events of the flood, including when the rains began, stopped, etc. it gives precise dimensions for the ark. it gives a detailed genealogy all the way down to abraham, and those genealogies were kept in the temple in jerusalem until the first century ad, when they were destroyed -- those genealogies were used to track the genealogy of jesus back to adam. it gives us precise geography -- telling us WHERE eden was -- at the meeting of four rivers, which it names, and it gives details about where the rivers came from and even what precious metals could be found there.

that detail is the most haunting aspect of genesis. myths don't give detail like that. evolutionists often strip out that detail in an effort to make genesis look mythological and undetailed. you are using this tactic right now, by stripping young earth creationism down and taking out all the reported detail, and you're doing it without justification.

now. i've explained SEVERAL times why i want ALL of that detail in there. you have yet to present a valid argument for taking it out except, "this edit is better" and "your edits are getting tired." cummon, man. why is it appropriate to strip out those parts? Ungtss 13:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think it's Wikipedia's place to say "YECs are wrong" in the creationism article. I think this debate has a place in a Wikipedia article, but not here. Creationism is so prevelent simply because the average American has no idea how the scientific process works, and how uniformism works. Basically, science says "The way things are now is the way things were 6,000 years ago".

In particular, YEC has the problem of those distant stars' light coming here. We know the stars are very distant because of parallax and distance candles. Before I will consider YEC seriously, I want a consistant theory which explains why the light from those distant stars is visible here on Earth. I want a theory that is testable the way any mainstream scientific theory is testable, and that passes said tests. In other words, I want something better than "We have this half-ass theory about how the starlight so far away got here faster than C, but this isn't an issue because of all this other evidence supporting a young earth", which is the best AIG and ICR can come up with. Don't distract me with other claims of how the earth has to be young; give me a working starlight moving faster than C theory and I will start listening to you.

Samboy really shouldn't say what AiG and ICR would say until he has read what they do say! 138.130.194.229 08:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Now, I give the purely atheistic branch of Science the same rap. There is no consistant theory for abiogenesis; to believe abiogenesis happened becuase of random chance is a leap of faith. Samboy 23:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, enough ranting. I like the way things are rearranged. Samboy 10:15, 29 Jan 2005

that detail is the most haunting aspect of genesis. myths don't give detail like that. -- You obviously haven't studied much mythology, Ungtss. Ever read Gilgamesh? Same level of detail. Joshuaschroeder 14:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

does gilgamesh tell exactly what day, month, and year all the events occured of the flood occured? does it have 3000 years of genealogies with names, year they had a son, and year they died? Ungtss 14:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For that, you look to the Sumerian King List Joshuaschroeder 15:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1) the sumerian king list doesn't have precise dates for the beginning of the flood, the end of the rain, the subsiding of the water, or the end of the flood.

2) the sumerian king list lacks a detailed account of the global flood ... although it agrees (with the rest of the world outside modernity) that there was one.

3) genesis, on the other hand, has fantastic detail from start to finish. genesis remains the most detailed Ungtss 15:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And obviously incorrect, as seen from the detail critique of flood mythology.

um ... what are you talking about? Ungtss 17:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See AiG's article Noah’s Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic 138.130.194.229 08:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Amount of detail on the creation narrative

There's rather a lot of detail here on the datings and narrative of the Bible. Isn't this somewhat overkill, since this is a) better and more fully described elsewhere, and b) tying the YEC argument a little too strictly to Biblical literalism? (At least in theory YECs may have some different basis for their belief.) I'd propose to trim this down considerably, with copious linking to take up the slack. Alai 05:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<a) better and more fully described elsewhere>>

where? Ungtss 15:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest that a lot of the material is found in the Genesis article. However, the article as it currently stands is better than it was before. Joshuaschroeder 15:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

it's true that much of it is in Genesis ... but not much of the stuff specifically related to YEC -- i.e. where was eden, timeframes, genealogies, etc. -- stuff to draw out the view of this is HISTORY. many christians read genesis as myth or legend -- but YEC's don't. YEC's have a very SPECIFIC view of genesis, related SPECIFICALLY to its historical implications ... if we had that specific view somewhere else, we could link it ... but i don't know where else it could go:(. Ungtss 15:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What about the material in Genealogies of Genesis and Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar? Don't those cover exactly the points being made here? Alai 16:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<b) tying the YEC argument a little too strictly to Biblical literalism?>>

know any YECs that don't take genesis as literal history? Ungtss 15:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I thought you'd made much the same objection yourself in another context, actually... As it stands, the article-intro merely says: 'composed primarily of Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Christians'. If it's going to focus on those exclusively, it should be clearer on this. And do each of these have exactly the same take on the timeline, or are we concentrating just on the Christians in the later section? Alai 16:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

models and assumptions

why do philosophical naturalism and uniformitarianism quality as models, rather than assumptions? what are the premises, data, or facts that are used to develop these "models?" aren't they better described as a priori assumptions? Ungtss 15:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Naturalism we might need a better word (than either) for, but I think uniformitarianism rises to the level of a model (or a feature of a model) not an assumption. Certainly in geology, uniformitarianism and catatrophism have been batted back and forth several time historically before the former came to be anything like 'received wisdom'. Alai 16:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

but why? if the same strata can be read by two people in terms of catastrophism or uniformitarianism, naturalism or supernaturalism, then doesn't it embody the assumption one brings to the table? Ungtss 19:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It could do, and in some cases, clearly does. But there's no necessitation here. And any number of "mainstream" scientific theories are far from pure uniformitarianism: witness plate tectonics, cosmic inflation, mass extinction, punctuated equilibrium...

However, on mature reflection, "principle" may be a better word in context do you like that any better? Alai 20:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

perfect:). Ungtss 20:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Request citation

Can we have a citation for the following sentence? please. They readily quote evolutionists acknowledging the philosophical basis of evolution. --LexCorp 16:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about a citation as such, but here is support:

• AiG here quotes Richard Lewontin doing just that. And a Google search for "Lewontin" on AiG's site produced 76 hits, which appeared to almost always be in reference to Lewontin's comments.
• AiG also quotes Michael Ruse acknowledging that evolution is a religion. A Google search for "Michael Ruse" on AiG's site produced 33 hits, and most appeared to be in reference to that view.

I believe that this is quite enough to support the accuracy of that sentence.

Philip J. Rayment 05:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the quotes, editted text in line with same. Alai 17:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Consequently, I have removed The scientific community however also disputes the above claim. [7] because it was non-specific (which "above claim" exactly?), not required as the paragraph it was referring to is now justified (see my response to LexCorp just above), and not encyclopedic (this is supposed to be an article about YEC, not an article critiquing it). I also changed the word "readily" (see quotation by LexCorp above) to "often", which is less POV ("Readily" says something about their motivation). Philip J. Rayment 06:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's fair enough: I think it was added due to ambiguity about what sort of 'philosophical basis'. Alai 17:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

After Alai edit I feel this portion is NPOV so I am happy with it. Thanks. To make it even better maybe one of the citations could come from another site apart from AiG. But that may just be me been overly cautious. --LexCorp 19:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Answer to "Example of evolutionists claiming creationism is both NOT subject to testing and FAILING testing"

I believe you are refering to this extract from "Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science" by the National Academy of Science:

However, scientists from many fields have examined these ideas and have found them to be scientifically insupportable. For example, evidence for a very young earth is incompatible with many different methods of establishing the age of rocks. Furthermore, because the basic proposals of creation science are not subject to test and verification, these ideas do not meet the criteria for science.

And I believe that your argument is that this is a contradictory statement. This will be true and you will be in the right, if not for the fact that you make the wrong assumption that a hypothesis or claim can only have one element, when in fact it could contain a number of elements. Some of which could be falsified and others which could not. What it really matters is that a hypothesis with central elements that are unfalsifiable could never become a scientific theory --LexCorp 01:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Addition by 220.244.224.8

Philip Quinn, a philosopher of science and quite clearly an anti-creationist, took Stephen Jay Gould to task for self-contradictory "verbal abuse". Quinn argued that Gould couldn't have it both ways̬that creationism is unfalsifiable and that some claims are falsified:

In a recent collection of essays, Stephen Jay Gould claims that "'scientific creationism' is a self-contradictory nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified'. … Ironically, in the next sentence Gould goes on to contradict himself by asserting that "the individual claims are easy enough to refute with a bit of research." Indeed some of them are! But since they are easily refuted by research, they are after all falsifiable and, hence, testable. This glaring inconsistency is the tip-off to the fact that talk about testability and falsifiability functions as verbal abuse and not a serious argument in Gould's anti-creationist polemics. ["The philosopher of science as expert witness", in Cushing, J., Delaney, C.F. & Gutting, G., Science and reality: Recent Work in the Philosophy of Science, University of Notre Dame Press, 1984]

Well, it seems that even the philosopher of science Philip Quinn is confused, at least from what we read in the above paragraph or there has been some miscommunication. In essence Stephen Jay Gould says that scientific creationism cannot be falsified but that individual claims are easy enough to refute with a bit of research. This is clearly an omitted context abuse or obtuse literalism for the part of Philip Quinn . I am sure Stephen Jay Gould meant that "Some individual claims are easy enough to refute with a bit of research." Which renders the whole of the above superfluous.

In the event that I may be the one utterly confused by the above extract, I should point out that no matter what this two gentleman discuss, testability and falsifiability are central to the scientific process and thus this addition is neither a NPOV nor are the apparent conclusions that one can drawn from it (mainly that testability and falsifiability functions as verbal abuse and not a serious argument) factual. --LexCorp 04:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) Edited as for Alai concern. --LexCorp 06:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion, but it's not counter-factual to report someone's views, if they're being put in context and quoted relevantly. (As to the latter: is this article seeking to describe YEC, or to bash SJG et al. at every opportunity?) I'm not familiar with the gent in question, but a brief web-search seems to turn up that's he was (RIP) a philosopher of religion (and yes, of science), a describer of creation science as indeed a science, and a philosophical theist. What's the basis for the description of him as "quite clearly an anti-creationist"? Is that YEC shorthand for "not actually a fully paid up YEC"? Alai 06:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is not NPOV

• Some IP added the following information:

Philip Quinn, a philosopher of science and quite clearly an anti-creationist, took Stephen Jay Gould to task for self-contradictory "verbal abuse". Quinn argued that Gould couldn't have it both ways̬that creationism is unfalsifiable and that some claims are falsified:

In a recent collection of essays, Stephen Jay Gould claims that "'scientific creationism' is a self-contradictory nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified'. … Ironically, in the next sentence Gould goes on to contradict himself by asserting that "the iindividual claims are easy enough to refute with a bit of research." Indeed some of them are! But since they are easily refuted by research, they are after all falsifiable and, hence, testable. This glaring inconsistency is the tip-off to the fact that talk about testability and falsifiability functions as verbal abuse and not a serious argument in Gould's anti-creationist polemics. ["The philosopher of science as expert witness", in Cushing, J., Delaney, C.F. & Gutting, G., Science and reality: Recent Work in the Philosophy of Science, University of Notre Dame Press, 1984]

This is useful information, but is far too POV. Basically, this person puts Stephen Jay Gould to task for claiming that creationism is not science because it isn't testable (or falsifyable), then attacks SJG for pointing out that some YEC (young Earth) claims are falsifyable, and, indeed have been falisified. However, the idea that "God somehow created the universe" is not testable (how are you going to disprove that one), which is a YEC claim. Indeed, Gould was (he's dead now) a Christian himself and hence believed that God created the universe. However, YECs claim other things, like that God created this universe in 4004 B.C., a falsifyable claim (if the universe was created 6000 years ago, then we wouldn't see distant stars in the sky. For us to see distant stars, we need a theory which contradicts all of modern physics and astronomy. Or we make the unscientific and non-falsifyable claim "Well, God must have created the light in transit when making the stars".). Basically, YECs waffle between science (where they claim things which are falsifyable) and non-science (where they claim that somehow we haven't falsified this data, being vague on the "somehow" bit). Gould was right on. If the best arguments YECs can come up with is attacking another Christian, their arguments are quite weak. Samboy 11:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• OK, I put Quinn quote in. Gould a Christian -- you've gotta be kidding. He was a self-professed Marxist and agnostic. And of course Quinn is anti-creationist -- just read the whole article, and even bits I cited. He explicitly said that some creationist claims indeed are easily falsifiable. The point is, Quinn argued, rightly in my view, that you can't have it both ways. EITHER creationism is unfalsifiable OR it is false. This reminds me of G.K. Chesterton's book Orthodoxy -- he was drawn towards Christianity because so many of the atheistic attacks cancelled each other out. E.g. Christianity is too warmongering, and Christianity is too pacifistic. Christianity is anti-women, but Christianity is pathetic because mainly women go to church.

I believe the problem is that you don't quite grasp the fact that a general broad hypothesis like Creationism do contain a large number of claims, some of which are falsiable and some which are not. G.K Cherterton argument is laughable, because in fact Christianity did advocate crusading in the east while preaching and demanding restrain from the feudal class in the west. Thus one can be too pacifistic and too warmongering at the same time, at different times or when different geopolitical theatres are in consideration. The statement that "Christianity is anti-women, but Christianity is pathetic because mainly women go to church" as arguments that cancel each other out is an undeserving of comment non sequitur. Damn, I did comment on it. LexCorp 16:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that these blanket criticisms of Christianity are mutually contrary. Its detractors never said what Lex claimed they might have meant, but were just throwing out abuse hoping that the mud will stick. And now it seems that an evolutionist philosopher has caught out an evolutionist doing it, and the evolutionists want to sweep this under the rug. 138.130.194.229 12:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• OK, I will try to make it more NPOV than it already is, but I will keep it for now.

• Maybe you will, but I wouln't. While I am new to wikipedia, this is perhaps the most clear cut case of axe-grinding I've ever seen here. Any reasonable person (creationist or not) can see that a hypothesis can have both testable and non-testable claims. Furthermore, this isn't even close to NPOV. If you arn't even going to try to be unbiased on a topic, please don't edit its pages. 130.215.226.81 14:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, even if it were writen NPOV, wouldn't it belong on a page for Ghould or Quinn? Not everything any philosopher says about YEC should be on this page. 130.215.226.81 14:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a really easy problem. You have to keep apart the worldview itself and the arguments used to defend it. Every pseudoscience is unfalsifiable, and every pseudoscience uses invalid arguments that can be falsified. Same with creationism. You cannot prove that God did not do it (since God can do everything, every conceivable evidence is in accord with creationism), but most arguments creationists use, trying to show that he did do it are hopelessly incompetent and easily refuted. There is no contradiction at all. Either Quinn said something really stupid or he was quoted out of context (knowing creationism, I guess it was the latter). This leaves the question what to do with such an easily refuted quote. I would suggest keeping it and adding a refutation, but that wouldn't be encyclopedic without a source for the refutation... --Hob Gadling 16:53, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

I have already responded on this page to this line of argument. Here it is again:

The problem regarding falsifiability or otherwise, is that anti-creationists frequently claim, as Gould apparently did, that the creation model is inherently unfalsifiable. That is, they claim that the creation model itself is not science because it's not falsifiable, rather than just claiming that parts are unfalsifiable. And they thus make out that in this way it is different to evolution. So the counter claim that anti-creationists are only claiming that parts are unfalsifiable is special pleading to avoid the fact that they have been caught out. Yes, it is a reasonable position to take, but, frankly, this is the first time that I can recall ever having seen an anti-creationists explicitly make the argument that they are only claiming parts to be unfalsifiable. I believe that the Quinn quote should remain in, and if someone can find a recognised anti-creationist claiming that a Quinn-type argument was wrong because anti-creationists are only claiming that parts are unfalsifiable, that can go in too.

Evolution is so flexible that it can be used to explain almost anything, and that is one reason why it is also unfalsifiable in principle. And if you can be so abusive of creationists, can I be too? Evolutionary arguments are hopelessly incompetent and easily refuted, and anti-creationists quote creationists out of context, refute straw man arguments, and generally have no idea of the creation idea that they argue so vehemently against.

Philip J. Rayment 02:03, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You don't get it. I wasn't talking about "parts". I was talking about "the theory", "the worldview", "the standpoint", "the model" on one side, and "arguments defending it", "lines of evidence", on the other hand. Arguments defending a worldview are not part of the worldview, they are something different. Why don't you just read what I write, instead of replacing it by your own inventions and ascribing them to me? Sorry, but all your rhetorical tricks can't replace logic. --Hob Gadling 17:25, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

My actual wording, as indicated, was copied from elsewhere on the page where I wasn't responding to your post above, so the terminology is a bit different. You say, quite rightly, that you need to keep the worldview separate to the arguments used to defend it. You say that because people normally lump them together. So when people talk about creationism, they are including both the worldview and the arguments used to support that worldview. But they are, as you say, two distinct things, or as I said, two different parts of the whole. So I am talking about the same thing as you, but just using different words. Therefore I am agreeing that the worldview and the arguments supporting it are distinct, but I'm also saying that most anti-creationists don't make that distinction. Instead, they dismiss the arguments supporting the worldview because the worldview itself is unfalsifiable. And that is apparently what Gould did, and Quinn was picking him up on it.

No. Pointing out that a worldview is unfalsifiable is independent of pointing out the mistakes in arguments. One can do both, or one of them. There is nothing wrong with either. --Hob Gadling 11:02, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that they are two different things, and I agree that there is nothing wrong with either. The point is that most critics of creationism use the unfalsifiability aspect to say that it therefore isn't science, in contrast to evolution, when both are worldviews with some science to back them up. Philip J. Rayment 02:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disagree - creationism has no science to back it up. Since that's the whole point of disagreement, you will disagree with that. But if you or Quinn use "creationism has science to back it up" as a justification for an argument, you are begging the question. --Hob Gadling 11:50, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

My point remains, even if I word it differently, that most critics of creationism use the unfalsifiablity aspect to say that it therefore isn't science, in contrast to evolution, when both are worldviews with some scientifics arguments used to support them and which therefore are both falsifiable to that extent. And claiming that there is no science to back up creationism is just silly. Philip J. Rayment 02:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And the other point is that the same applies to evolution. The evolutionary worldview is unfalsifiable, even if many of the arguments used to support it are falsifiable. Yet most anti-creationists will try and make out that creation is qualitatively different to evolution in this regard.

Philip J. Rayment 01:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

False. A static fossil record (dinosaurs in every stratum, trilobites in every stratum, humans in every stratum, grasses in every stratum) would falsify evolution. Also, finding that mysterious mechanism that, according to creationists, prevents mutations from accumulating beyond a certain point would falsify it. --Hob Gadling 11:02, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. It just means that the evolution occurred before the start of the extant fossil record.

Now this is really silly. Evolution is accepted, among a lot of other reasons, because it left traces in the fossil record. If every stratum contained the same species, it would be a severe blow to evolution, and evolutionary biology would sink down to the status of a pseudoscience whose proponents use fantasy instead of facts. --Hob Gadling 11:50, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a severe blow, but not necessarily a fatal one. That is, evolution per se would not thereby be proven false. The idea of evolution was around before the fossil record was known, and the lack of transitional fossils has never been fatal to the theory either. Darwin wrote:

Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

Note that he had faith (believed) that a more complete fossil record would support his idea, because it didn't really support it at the time.

I would argue that proponents of evolution already use fantasy instead of facts. :-)

Philip J. Rayment 02:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Creationists don't propose a mechanism that prevents mutations accumulating beyond a certain point. They say that mutations don't add genetic information, yet despite that claim fitting observation, evolutionists still believe evolution. (Of course they have all sorts of "explanations" for that, which you will probably try and use now to support your belief. :-) ) Philip J. Rayment 02:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The "certain point" is the point where "genetic information is added", whatever that is. And all those fossils of now-extinct animals are factual, whether you accept the implications (life has changed a lot) or not. --Hob Gadling 11:51, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

An inability to form new genetic information is a totally different concept to a limit to accumulating mutations. The only limit to accumulating mutations is when there are enough of them to be fatal.

You show your ignorance of the creation model with your last sentence. Creationists believe that the fossils of now-extinct animals are factual, and accept the implication that life has changed, but disagree that it has evolved from the first living thing to all we have today. Rather, there were numerous created kinds, which each diversified within their kind (a cat kind giving varieties of various large and small cats, for example), and with many of those varieties and some of the kinds going extinct.

Philip J. Rayment 02:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Concern of no NPOV that may rise by other creationists

Young Earth Creationists (YEC), perhaps the largest and most organized group of creationists currently active in America,

Is this well known or verifiable? At should it not be North America?

Consider,

Young Earth Creationists (YEC) is a large and well organized group of creationists currently active in North America,

Ha, what the heck it looks better and more encyclopaedic so I am changing it. Fell free to comment LexCorp 18:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More talk, less revert+abuse, please

Please, people, can I draw your collective attention to:

Wikipedia:Edit summary

Use of edit summaries in disputes

If a content dispute develops, proper use of edit summaries is critical. Edit summaries should accurately summarize the nature of the edit, especially if it may be controversial; if the edit involves reverting previous changes, it should be marked as a revert in the edit summary. However, edit summaries are not the place to carry on debates or negotiation over the content. Doing this will actually exacerbate the situation, because it naturally encourages the other party to respond in the same manner - in other words, by making an edit and using the edit summary - and what might have been productive dialogue instead becomes an edit war. The proper place to discuss changes to article content is on the talk page.

I'm pretty sure that yelling "POV!" and "vandalism!" wasn't what the writer of this guideline had in mind. In the meantime, I'm going to add a dispute tag, since it's pretty clear we have one. (And please don't revert that.) Alai 04:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but this seems like a pretty clear cut case. 220.244.224.8 wants to add a mostly irrelevent (its not really even about YEC, its about Gould's essays) and far from NPOV quote. He has constantly yelled 'Vandals!' but has not even tried to talk about it on this page. I'm reverting again tommorow (used my 1 revert for today) if he doesn't come up with a pretty darn good reason I shouldn't. See above for several reasons why this shouldn't be here. TheAT 05:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree with either of those analyses; I didn't mean for my comment to be of the 'a plague on both your houses' ilk. And yes, I recognise this sort of 'incessant POV push' as being very tiresome to deal with. If 220.* isn't going to make any appropriate defence of his additions then sure, it might as well just be 'reverted on sight', and the tag can go away pretty quickly. Interesting point about the "semi-protection" (or similarly, I suppose, "semi-blocking" IPs (or users)). Alai 06:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Majority vote rules?

If so, then reasonable minority dissent can be quashed by force (the majority can always revert more quickly). That's why it is not necessarily significant that 4 other editors want to remove the Quinn quote. It seems that they want to maintain the POV attack that creation is both unfalsifiable and falsified, and don't want the Quinn quote that shows how illogical they are. I have already made it quite NPOV, but some here just want to quash it. This discussion and their heavy-handedness indicates that they have no real answer to this philosopher. Instead of vandalizing, they should have found some way to restore NPAV by at least some sort of statement about how some creationists argue that the two attacks, unfalsifiable and falsified, cancel each other out. 220.244.224.8 08:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First, I just want to make clear that in my POV reverting an article and notifying in the edit summary that the reasons are stated in the Talk page does not come even close to the definition of vandalizing. I am of the view that every edit is legit as long as a clear reason is given. I would like to point out that for my part I believe I have done exactly that and I also would like to say that I don't feel you have engaged fully in the Talk page discussions. Again you state above that "the POV attack that creation is both unfalsifiable and falsified" and I believe I have given a somewhat convincing argument to refute it by establishing that the statement "creationism is both unfalsifiable and falsified" is a fact, at least as long as creationism is a general broad hypothesis. You may or may not agree with that but common decency in a project like Wikipedia requires that at least you put forward arguments to the contrary (not quotations from "so call" philosophers, which by the way I consider a dubious title for the reason that I believe everyone is a philosopher). Meanwhile, I would like to point out that the comments by 130.215.226.81 and TheAT above about the addition we are discussing being somewhat off-topic have its merits. --LexCorp 15:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

friend, as a creationist who admires your passion for getting the truth out, i must part ways with you on this one particular issue. yes, evolutionists make very stupid arguments all the time, and gould was the master of many of them, including his ludicrous panda's thumb, and this little gem of total illogic. however, sadly, many creationists have said many stupid and illogical things too. The purpose of this article is not to document the stupidity of either side, but to summarize YEC. you're right -- it is totally illogical to say that something is both unfalsifiable and falsified. but for purposes of the ARTICLE, they are saying that "some ideas are unfalsifiable, other ideas are falsified, but nothing is good." there's no logical contradiction there. that's an entirely coherent (although factually incorrect) critique. throwing out an example of one rather stupid evolutionist making a particularly glaring mistake in his desperate attempt to defend his religion against reason, tho true, drags the article off track, i'm afraid. perhaps the quote would be more appropriate in the wikiquote article on this topic? Ungtss 15:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is stupid. Basically, young earth creationists make falsifyable claims, such as "Scientific evidence proves that the universe is 6,000 years old", which flies in the face of the fact that there are a lot of stars well over 6,000 light years away that we can see (if you don't believe they are that far away, look at the article on Parallax and look up "distance candles" or "standard candles" on the web). Once a young earth creationist is confronted with those pesky distant stars, they usually waffle and say something like "God created light in transit so it would look like the universe is really over 6,000 years old" or "Somehow the light got here in 6,000 years", both of which are unfalisfyable claims. So, yes YECs are sometimes scientific (at which point we use science to falsify their theories) and sometimes unscientific (at which point all we can do is point out that the theory is unscientific). Samboy 16:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

None of the leading YECs deny that the there are stars >6000 ly away, and have explicitly affirmed it:[8]

What’s important to note is that there is no way of getting around the fact that the distances to many heavenly bodies are much greater than 6000 ly. In fact, although there are some anomalies in using red shifts as an indicator of distance (see Galaxy-Quasar ‘Connection’ Defies Explanation), vast distances are indisputable, otherwise the huge number of stars in a tiny volume would fry us! So I advise creationists not to quibble too much about measurement uncertainties, and instead use another way of explaining how light could arrive from distant stars. Preferably, creationists should study this chapter of the new Answers Book, How can we see distant stars in a young Universe?

This webpage even explained parallax. They have also rejected the "light created in transit" idea. Rather, they point out that there is a Light-travel time problem for the big bang as well, the horizon problem, so both sides are in the same boat. 220.244.224.8 08:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i agree with your analysis, but sadly, i don't think that's what gould was saying in his passion to convert the ignorant masses of creationists:(. he said "creationism is unfalsifiable" and "here are some ways creationism has been falsified." wrongo. he makes a broad, sweeping, self-contradictory, and rather stupid argument. as you say, some aspects may be unfalsifiable, and other aspects may be false. that's not what he said, however, and that's what Quinn is pointing out. He said, "the whole thing is unfalsifiable, but certain part of it have been shown to be false." i'm afraid that's impossible:). gould was throwing "unfalsifiability" around with impunity in his polemics, and made a blatent error of scientific philosophy.

but of course, the point remains that YOUR analysis is legitimate -- it is indeed possible that creationism is sometimes unfalsifiable, sometimes false. that's what this page should state, i think, without making particular note of gould's many acts of intellectual laziness and ideological grandstanding (god rest his soul, by the way, i hate to criticize the dead). that's why i think the quote is inappropriate for the page, but perhaps very appropriate from the wikiquote page. Ungtss 16:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

So much happens when I don't look in on this page for a week. The problem regarding falsifiability or otherwise, is that anti-creationists frequently claim, as Gould apparently did, that the creation model is inherently unfalsifiable. That is, they claim that the creation model itself is not science because it's not falsifiable, rather than just claiming that parts are unfalsifiable. And they thus make out that in this way it is different to evolution. So the counter claim that anti-creationists are only claiming that parts are unfalsifiable is special pleading to avoid the fact that they have been caught out. Yes, it is a reasonable position to take, but, frankly, this is the first time that I can recall ever having seen an anti-creationists explicitly make the argument that they are only claiming parts to be unfalsifiable. I believe that the Quinn quote should remain in, and if someone can find a recognised anti-creationist claiming that a Quinn-type argument was wrong because anti-creationists are only claiming that parts are unfalsifiable, that can go in too. Philip J. Rayment 05:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

well said ... you make a good point ... this should be addressed somewhere on the point of "is creationism falsifiable, and if so, HOW falsifiable?" i'd like a section on this somewhere, but i fear with individuals like schroeder about, it would end up looking something like, "No, it's not, and besides that, creationists are retarded!"  :(. Ungtss 05:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention certain other vandals who think they can win simply by deleting challenges to their atheistic religion quicker than they can be reposted.138.130.194.229 16:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ungtss, that would be a good idea, if it's 'doable'. It'd be a hard section to write 'tightly', though, as there's little by way of a 'creation standard model', much less something any large group of creationists would agree 'yes, creationism stands or falls on [this particular hypothesis]'. (Open to correction on this, of course.)

I'm still hoping for substantiation that Quinn is an "anti-creationist" in any useful sense. Certainly he describes some creationist beliefs as having been falsified, but that's very different, since for example YECs are wont to say such things about OECs, and vice versa. Not that I'm suggesting he's a creationist, but I've seen no evidence he's an anti-. Alai 17:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

indeed:(. would you be willing to draft a piece on falsifiability for the Creation science page? something along the lines of:

"creation science is often called unfalsifiable and an oxymoron by members of the mainstream scientific community. falsifiability is the principle that an idea should not be considered to be strictly scientific until it can be falsified. unfalsifiable ideas are therefore not necessarily untrue, but simply beyond the reach of science. Some aspects of creationism are indeed unfalsifiable (for instance, the existence of the garden of eden), just as some aspects of evolutionism are unfalsifiable (for instance, the development of the first protocell from the prebiotic soup).

Some philosophers of science have noted that while some aspects of creation science are inherently unfalsifiable, others are not. They argue that it is self-contradictory to call creation science inherently unfalsifiable, and then seek to falsify it. for instance, (insert Quinn quote). what do you think? Ungtss 16:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that a scientist will say that hypotheses about the origin of life are part of the theory of evolution. To evolutionists the problem of origin of life is well removed from the theory of evolution which only claims that life evolves, once there is life, without giving a mechanism for the creation of life. That is not saying that many of them do not put forward a lot of hypotheses to explain the origin of life (which they clearly do). But saying that those hypotheses are part of the theory of evolution just because the same people that work in the theory of evolution makes them is incorrect and untrue. --LexCorp 19:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

okay, whatever you like. "common ancestry between humans and apes is unfalsifiable." how could one prove that they were either created separately, or evolved from completely separate protocells?" there are plenty of unfalsifiable aspects to evolution -- pick your poison:). Ungtss 19:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, through the palaeontology record is one. Finding life based on a different molecule from DNA in mars is another good indication that DNA implies a common ancestry. Even finding a flaw in the mechanism of DNA that precludes a common ancestry is a way of doing it. I don’t know there must be hundreds. --LexCorp 20:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<Well, through the palaeontology record is one.>>

how could the palaeontological record DISPROVE common ancestry? Ungtss 20:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well by finding two separate lines of ancestry leading to two point of origin chronologically different. That by the way will fit nicely with the bit that god created the animals in a given day and the humans in another. Of course I think that if something like that were true, the palaeontologists would have founded already. --LexCorp 20:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

but how do we know what the points of origin are? even tracking the fossils all the way back to the oldest we can find, the two lines could still be related by some undiscovered common ancestor that just wasn't preserved. how could we definitively show that they are not related, unless we know what the point of origin was? and how can we know the point of origin given the rather shoddy fossil record we've been left? Ungtss 21:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<Finding life based on a different molecule from DNA in mars is another good indication that DNA implies a common ancestry.>>

but wouldn't indicate that monkeys and men necessarily didn't share a common ancestor. Ungtss 20:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Correct, I just said that it will be a good indication that they do share a common ancestor. --LexCorp 20:58, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) Note: I think I got my english wrong here. Lets put it the other way, finding DNA based life on mars would make a good indication that the two origins of life on same planet explained below is more likely than it is believed now --LexCorp 21:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<Even finding a flaw in the mechanism of DNA that precludes a common ancestry is a way of doing it>>

what would that look like? Ungtss 20:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No idea. I am no expert on DNA but what I known is that there is plenty to be understood still about the mechanism in which DNA works. But one could envision that DNA that today looks like could have a common ancestry (as is the case been discussed) one day could be proven to really be separate members of two types of life based on DNA. A bit like saying that maybe there where two instances of origin of life on earth based on DNA and that evidence of these could be found in the DNA. And then of course realising that humans belong to one and apes to the other. Chances of this being factual in my opinion: Nil. But it would be a way to prove it. --LexCorp 20:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

would the profound differences and "remodeling" on chromosomes 4, 9, and 12 do the trick? perhaps the fact that chimps have 5% more genetic information than we? you see the issue here? from a creationist perspective, one might say, "common ancestry has been falsified insofar as it is falsifiable," just as one might say "creation has been falsified insofar as it is falsifiable."

i can see, tho, that using specific examples in this little minisection will lead to a very difficult pov issue of whether particular things are falsifiable or not -- perhaps the proposed section would be better off without them?Ungtss 21:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(#1) For example, a modern animal in an ancient fossil layer, or a fossil 'original kind' with multiple modern features not consistent with a 'primitive' common ancestor. (#2) But this is evidence that they do, you can hardly complain about it existing! The genetic similarity pretty conclusively means that either a) they have a common origin, or b) they have a supernatural original. (Non-naturalistic hypotheses are certainly non-falsifiable) But if it were shown that there was no reasonable sequence of genetic changes that would produce both from a common ancestor, say... (#3) No sequence similarity at all with any another organism, to take an extreme case. Of course, it can also be argued that a common abiogenesis is also not part of 'evolutionary' theory per se, but it'd leave enough EBs with egg on their faces for long enough to cheer the CBs up enormously, I'd imagine. Alai 21:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<For example, a modern animal in an ancient fossil layer>>

if we find modern animals in older strata, doesn't that just push our date for common ancestry back, or push the date of the strata forward? strata cannot be dated by radiometric dating after all ... typically they're dated by the "known dates" of the evolution of those particular species ... if we find a modern animal in an ancient layer, doesn't that just mean that they diverged earlier? Ungtss 21:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<or a fossil 'original kind' with multiple modern features not consistent with a 'primitive' common ancestor. >>

would the dinosaurs do the trick? multiple fossil original kinds with multiple modern features (including bipedalism!) not consistent with any primitive common ancestor? Ungtss 21:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<But if it were shown that there was no reasonable sequence of genetic changes that would produce both from a common ancestor, say... >>

how would one quantify "reasonable?" what degree of improbability? Ungtss 21:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<No sequence similarity at all with any another organism, to take an extreme case.>>

couldn't a great deal of divergence account for the same differences? even if the dna was TOTALLY DIFFERENT, couldn't that just be due to a great deal of normal random variation and selection from a common ancestor? Ungtss 21:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Consider this

(err lets close the above debate is not taking us anywhere and is becaming quite large.)

Changing

Young Earth creationists acknowledge that they base their ideas in part on assumptions of a supernatural creator, but claim that modern evolutionary biology is at odds with select many observations, and where it isn't at odds is largely unfalsifiable and is based on unprovable naturalistic assumptions. In support of this statement they often quote some evolutionary scientists acknowledging a philosophical basis for their belief in evolution.

to

Young Earth creationists acknowledge that they base their ideas in part on assumptions of a supernatural creator, but claim that modern evolutionary biology is at odds with select many observations, and where it isn't at odds is largely unfalsifiable and is based on unprovable naturalistic assumptions. In support of this last statement they often quote some evolutionary scientists acknowledging a philosophical basis for their belief in evolution.

I know I said I was happy with it but I changed my opinion. That is why I am asking for an opinion here and not changing it right away. I don't want to start a POV or NPOV war again. Rationale: Those citations only support the bit about naturalistic assumptions and not the bits about the observations and unfalsifiability. --LexCorp 21:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

sounds good. go for it:). Ungtss 21:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Changes I made to ChrisO's edits

A previous anti-creationist editor insisted on referring to evolution as the "scientific theory of evolution", rather than a neutral "theory of evolution". To provide balance, YECreationism was changed from a "belief" to a "scientific theory". This was subsequently watered down to a "scientific hypothesis". Now ChrisO changed it back to "belief", although he did incorporate a subsequent sentence that supporters considered it a scientific hypothesis. I felt that this was too much watering down, so I have changed that paragraph back to the way it was before his edit.

I think it's worth differentiating YECism from creation science - people believed in YECism long before there was such as thing as science or the scientific method. I'm sure that someone like Ussher probably wouldn't have dreamt of trying to explain creation through the invocation of physical processes (albeit divinely directed ones). Joshuaschroeder has come up with a better form of words than either yours or mine which I think properly represents the position that it's a very old belief which has relatively recently spawned a hypothesis. -- ChrisO 16:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, we're back to these queries about definitions. I agree that Ussher believed that God created the Earth, and I agree (of course) that Ussher thought that occurred about 4000 BC. Does that mean that he (and others back then) can be described as YECs? In one sense (agreement on beliefs), definitely. Does that mean that Young Earth Creationism is that old? Debatable. To put the opposing view, almost no-one back then believed in an "old" (i.e. billions of years) Earth. So back then he would not have been described as a YEC. Young-earth creationism, like creation science, is a response to the billions-of-years claims of uniformitarian scientists.

Actually, some of the early theologians such as Origen and Augustine explicitly denounced pagan old-earth belief, and Newton rejected Manetho's Egyptian chronology because it placed the first dynasty before the Flood. This is important to note when reading certain progressive creationists who mendaciously claim that the day-age theory was the norm, and when reading other revisionist who try to turn the Church Fathers into proto-evolutionists.220.244.224.8 08:16, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Probably more as an aside, would Ussher "have dreamt of trying to explain creation through the invocation of physical processes"? I'm not sure what you are getting at, but to the extent that modern YECs do, why not? Contemporaries of his were using science to explain God's creation.

Philip J. Rayment 02:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Still worth pointing out that the vast majority of Christian commentators believed in a young earth, and some such as Origen and Augustine explicitly denounced long-age beliefs of pagan philosophers. There is some revisionism within the church to portray the Church Fathers as believers in long creation days or even as closet evolutionists. This is just nonsense. 138.130.192.82 09:18, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alternatively, I would be happy for evolution to be changed back to just being called a "theory" instead of a "scientific theory", which term suggests that evolution is "scientific" as opposed to creation not being so. Of course this distinction is disputed, so is a POV. His sentence on YECreationism being considered a hypothesis was immediately followed by a disclaimer that this is disputed. That may be so, but this is an article about YECreationism, not an article criticising it, so having a criticism so high up in the article is not appropriate.

He also changed "the Age of the Earth" to "the scientifically accepted Age of the Earth", inserting a POV that is opposed to YECreationism. The former wording is neutral.

Perhaps "generally scientifically accepted", then? I think it's reasonable to note that very few mainstream scientists accept the YECist view. -- ChrisO 16:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So you believe that rather than the age of 4.5 billion years as determined by a variety of methods including radiometric dating (emphasis added) is not already sufficient to indicate this view that most people would be aware of anyway? I would consider ever your suggested wording as overkill. Philip J. Rayment 02:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On a more positive note, I did appreciate his change of "YEC" to "YECs" (that has bugged me for a while), and his improved wording relating to Ussher. I did a (the?) previous form of that wording but was never happy with it.

The inclusion of YEC opinion of ID was appropriate, but too strong. YECs are critical of IDers not taking a stand on some issues, but they don't "denounce" ID. Also, ID is seen as creationism by anti-creationists, who love to lump them both in the same basket, but both IDers reject the creationism tag and YECs, as indicated, see it as something distinctly different. Therefore saying that it is "widely seen" as an alternative form of creationism was misleading. Finally, I don't know that ID as a movement formally supports an ancient Earth (although probably most individuals in the movement do), so I changed "accepts" to "generally accepts". Philip J. Rayment 15:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough! -- ChrisO 16:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deleted sentence

I deleted the following sentence:

Contrary to the theory of evolution, however, Young Earth Creationists assert that the process of variation and natural selection resulted in a loss of genetic information.

The reason for this is because evolution allows for a "loss" of "genetic information" in the development of the biosphere. I'm not sure how or why this statement even got included in the article in the first place. Joshuaschroeder 17:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't see this comment before I reinstated the sentence. I have now changed it to say a "net loss". It got included to provide information on how YECreationism differs from evolution. Philip J. Rayment 14:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is also incorrect. One can have a "net loss" of information. YECs differ from evolution because they believe that the evolutionary timescales are not correct and that mechanisms are unbelievable. While YECs may claim that they provide for a "net loss" of information and evolution doesn't, this is a triply POV claim -- first of all claiming that there is a measurable information associated with biological structrures, secondly claiming that they only allow for a loss of such information, and thirdly that evolution doesn't allow for a loss of such evolution. This is way too far out on a limb to be acceptable in NPOV style. Joshuaschroeder 15:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The hypothetical original single-celled organism obviously had no genetic information for hair, eyes, lungs, wings, etc. Yet many creatures do today. Even if there is some disagreement about the precise method of measurement, surely it is nonsense to dispute that this represents a net gain in information. Philip J. Rayment 01:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also removed the following:

Notable exception are organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis..

These two organization are not immune from the criticism leveled against creationists in the article. Joshuaschroeder 17:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think the entire paragraph could come out, but I accept that there may be some creationists for whom it is true. But the problem is that creationists are frequently accused of basing their beliefs on the Bible (i.e. that is their philosophical assumption) and statements of faith or similar from AiG and ICR are quoted in support of that claim, yet we have in this paragraph the claim that such creationists are evasive about their own philosophical assumptions! Both cannot be true, unless one applies to one subset and the other applies to another subset. If the accurate exception is not noted, the entire paragraph should be removed. Philip J. Rayment 14:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is about specific claims that creationists are often evasive. For example, if you asked a creationist (even one from AiG or ICR) point-blank why evolution didn't happen, you'll get a panople of answers, few of which will actually be referenced to the faith-based assumptions. This is in stark contrast to those mainstream proponents who will point to empiricism and the scientific method as the reasons for accepting evolution. Joshuaschroeder 15:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I assume that you mean "panoply"? But your assertion is wrong. They often point to their Biblical basis. And yes, this—not your claim—is in stark contrast to evolutionists who will usually not acknowledge their own philosophical assumptions. Philip J. Rayment 01:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, if you read specific articles on incredulity about, say, the Big Bang, they aren't explicit about their assumptions at all. The edit stands.

Lots of bald assertions by this atheist about what ICR or AiG would do, yet it's apparently for the leading evolutionists to downplay their rabid atheistic views (and this applies to churchian evolutionists whose philosophy is indistinguishable from atheism for all practical purposes). So this POV edit falls. 220.244.224.9 14:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Schroeder is being unreasonable to expect AiG to mention its biblical basis in every article, when it is so plain in their SoF and web page. In fact, AiG is far more honest than the many atheists who are leaders in evolutionary thought in being up front with their religious bias. 220.244.224.9 01:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Phil's problematic edits

Here are a list of Phil's edits which have been reverted:

"age of 4.5 billion years as determined by a variety of scientific methods including radiometric dating. " --> "age of 4.5 billion years as determined by a variety of methods including radiometric dating."" -- It is not POV to state that radiometric dating is a scientific method for dating the Earth.

--> "It should be noted however that many scientist argue that far from being a faith position, it is a believe based on rationally choosing the most likely explanation based on the avaible current scientific knowledge." -- First of all "many" is an exaggeration and the most likely explanation by the most number of people familiar with the evidence is that the YEC idea is wrong.

I introduced that. Maybe my english was not good but I was refering to evolution. Consider,

"It should be noted however that many scientist argue that far from being a faith position, the belief that the theory of evolution is a correct explanation of the natural processes it describes is a believe based on rationally choosing the most likely explanation based on the avaible current scientific knowledge."--LexCorp 03:39, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Seems better. I will reinclude it. Joshuaschroeder 03:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lexcorp is an outspoken atheist, yet tries to delude us (and perhaps himself) that this doesn't affect his objectivity about evolution, which Dawkins said made it "possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." 220.244.224.9 01:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Young Earth Creationists assert that the process of variation and natural selection resulted in a net loss of genetic information, while neither providing a way to measure genetic information nor explaining explicitly how their ideas are different from those presented by evolutionists." --> "Young Earth Creationists assert that the process of variation and natural selection resulted in a net loss of genetic information, as opposed to what they argue is the net gain in genetic information required to go from the hypothetical original single-celled life form to the vast variety of life that exists today." --> This doesn't address the issue of how they argue for the gain in genetic information. Either they have a developed argument or they do not. I tried to take the statement out before. That would be an acceptable compromise in my opinion.

"For example, while the major creationist organizations, Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis both explicitly publish their statements of faith, they rely on argumentation in their presentations and articles that makes it seem they are completely empirical in their own work." --> "Notable exception are organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis.." -- completely unacceptable. It is pointed out that many of ICR's and AiG's articles are full of innuendo and uncorroborated statements that are based on hidden assumptions. --- Joshuaschroeder

Schroeder won't be happy till anything other than his dogmatic atheist POV is allowed in this article. 220.244.224.9 14:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think all of his recent edits are reasonable, actually. TheAT 00:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense -- he is making all sorts of assertions yet he doesn't know what he's talking about, and he's blind to his own bias. Rayment is trying to make the article so it is ABOUT YEC, but a lot of antitheists won't be happy unless it's a critique.

It is a plain statement of fact that AiG is up front about its assumptions. Look at the top of its web page UPHOLDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE FROM THE VERY FIRST VERSE. Consult its statement of faith. Nothing hidden there. Where is the evidence of being "full of innuendo and uncorroborated statements"? AiG articles are very well referenced.220.244.224.9 01:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really 'up' on my creationist organizations, so I went and looked. While I have no idea who you are, 220...9, I think that if you go and read even one article from that site (I looked at the Creationist Museum) you would see what Joshua means. There might be an argument to be made, but unreasonable, Joshua is not.

Also, this 'Evolutionists are Atheists' trip you are on has to stop. It is blatently false, and not worthy of an encylopedia. I'm using my reverts for today. TheAT 02:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It happens to be true. I bet it is true of you too. And there is no way I will lie down and let Schroeder make his innuendoes without challenge - he is basically calling creationist organisations "liars". Go and read the front page, and right at the top in capital letters is AiG's biblical assumptions up front.

It is NOT true. I, for one, am an 'evolutionist' and not an atheist. I am a member of one of the 'major' religons. I have had 5 biology professors in the past 3 years. All evolutionist (obviously, being bio professors). Only one was agnostic, the other 4 were religous. It really is just not true. The fact that you see 'those sneaky atheists' everywere speaks volumes as to your POV. As for AiG, read some of their articles. Seriously. They have all sorts of assertions that things are 'scientific' when they only are if you subscribe to the 'faith-based' scientific meathod. I will say that perhaps we need a sentence that shows there are places and people who are very up-front. But saying AiG always is shows that you havn't spent the 5 minutes I did. TheAT 04:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Spend some time proving it, rather than asserting it. And theistic evolution for all practical purposes is indistinguishable from atheistic evolution. It basically states that God created by a means that makes Him unnecessary. It's very like the farmer who exchanges a tractor for his horse but still insists that the horse is somehow invisibly pulling his plough, although anyone can see that the tractor has replaced the horse entirely — see The horse and the tractor.138.130.201.112 16:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The 'hostile witness' sentence makes no sence; I'd revert it immediatly if I didn't not want an edit war. This is getting stupid.TheAT 03:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What don't you understand? I will try to clear it up. This was a very POV attack accusing creationists of dishonesty, and you don't want to allow them to defend themselves?

No, whats going on here (as I see it) is this: Guy A picks a quote that they can use to support their argument. Guy B says that this is 'quote mining.' Guy A says that thats what you do to hostile witnesses (which, BTW, it isn't). Its a pointless argument, and sounds like bickering in an encyclopedia. TheAT 04:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. Why should Guy B's accusation be the last word, when it's highly debatable and inflammatory.220.244.224.10 04:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Creationists argue...

There's no way this stands any chance of becoming a reasonable article if even the most cautiously worded statements about mainstream scientific consensus or observable fact (much less active criticism of creationism) are going to be suffixed with creationist "rebuttal" in every instance. It just invites retaliation in kind, and before you know it: wham, talk.origins. Especially bad is when we get criticism that "evolutionists" are atheists, followed by a demonstration that they're not (all), then a throwaway they they might as well be. If we occasionally stop to think, "if I floated this across the desk of a Britannica sub-editor, would I get blue-penciled?" (or fired, frankly) we might end up in better shape. Alai 02:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's just not on to cast aspersions without giving the response of those who are the subject of the article!! It is also a fact that most leading evolutionists are atheists. Take it up with William Provine of Cornell who said that one can mix religion with evolution only if the religion was for all practical purposes indistinguisable from atheism. The evolutionary churches are not really independent witnesses because they have simply swallowed the atheists' worldview of naturalism, and tried to downplay it by calling it "methodological". 220.244.224.9 04:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So the recipe for a "balanced" article is point-counterpoint, point-counterpoint, ad infinitum? Or just so long as creationists "get the last word", as it's "their article"? That's wouldn't fly at the EB, and if WP is to be taken remotely seriously, it ought not to fly here. There shouldn't be "aspersions" in the first place. However, you have a rather broad definition of the same, it seems to me. The views of the majority of "evolutionists" (a shockingly POV term in the first place) do not somehow adhere by association to anyone who isn't a YEC. You're free to cite someone asserting the contrary, but please, not in the debating class format on the brink of of which the article is teetering. Alai 04:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting sick of this quote mining accusation and evolutionists censoring out any challenge to this. 203.213.77.138 10:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I like the big axe edits by Samboy quite a bit. Should make it more NPOV and more encyclopedic. Not sure I like the removal of 'Mainstream Scientists' in favor of 'some'. It should be made clear that the 'some' are mainstream scientists. TheAT 04:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Considering that "Scientists" is a high-status symbol of intelligence (Creationists do not call scientists scientists, but "Evolutionists"), I think the use of the word "Scientist" conveys a "Yeah, smart people know these YECs are a bunch of country hicks who don't know anything". For the record, I think that Young Earth Creationists are country hicks who don't know anything about science :). But I'm trying to be objective about what I put in the Wiki; what do you think is a NPOV of wording for opponents of creationism? Samboy 04:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know; but if we found something, I'd think the article was good enough to be left. I think that huge axe was just what the topic needed. Suggestions? TheAT 04:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Ph.D. scientists at AiG would leave Samboy's scientific knowledge in the dust, but I agree about POV.

"Some" is just too vague, as well as weasel wording. Who are "some"? It also implies that opposition to YECism is merely a factional viewpoint, rather than the majority and mainstream view that it really is. -- ChrisO 08:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

47% of Americans believe in YECism; I think it is important, as an objective encyclopedia, to come up with a NPOV name for people who are not YECs. Actually, I don't think the entire peeing contest about whether YEC is true or not belongs to be in this article at all, but will accept the peeing contest with as little POV wording as possible. It is very important that we do not belittle YECs. Down that path lies a neverending edit war. Samboy 08:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The number of Americans who believe in YECism is irrelevant to the article - this isn't about YECism in America, nor is Wikipedia solely about America! I should have said "majority and mainstream view in science". The opinion of the general public about what is or isn't scientific is also frankly irrelevant, as it isn't the general public who do the research and formulate the theories. In any case, I've simply used the word "critics" through most of the section, but retained "mainstream scientists" where the principal source of the criticism is from that quarter. -- ChrisO 09:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think "Critics" is a very good word. I have also restored a detailed Judeo-Christian-Muslim creation account (perhaps we should link to an article about different mythological creation accounts before this pretty story) which was here on Feb 1st and somehow got horribly mutilated since then. I think the Genesis creation account makes for a very pretty story. I think, by showing what YECs really believe, we can let people come up with their own conclusions. It's not science, and I think the story makes that clear without directly attacking creationists or making such people seem more confrontational than they really are. (such people tend to be uptight, but that's for another day) Samboy 09:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And, oh, I also like the paragraph you added about how any 19th century science contradicts YECism. That's a nice touch. Samboy 09:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The interesting thing is that YECism was abandoned in the 19th century almost entirely on geological grounds alone - this was well before Darwinian evolution, modern physics and astronomy, and of course molecular and genetic biology, had been established. If YECism were to be restored to mainstream science, it would have to overturn a huge number of findings across a very wide range of science. -- ChrisO 11:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not so -- they were strongly influenced by Endarkenment philosophy. Hutton made this clear:

"the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle’ (emphasis added, cited in Arthur Holmes, Principles of Physical Geology, pp. 43–44, 1965.)

Too many churchians crave academic respect over Scripture, so fell in line, although the Scriptural Geologists resisted this trend on both biblical and scientific grounds [9] 220.244.224.9 05:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Enlightenment philosophy was only part of it. A much stronger element was the fact that many aspects of the YEC account couldn't be substantiated through physical evidence - indeed, the physical evidence proved that important YEC events, such as the Great Flood, never happened. The Reverend William Buckland pointed this out as long ago as 1837:

Some have attempted to ascribe the formation of all the stratified rocks to the effects of the Mosaic Deluge; an opinion which is irreconcileable with the enormous thickness and almost infinite subdivisions of these strata, and with the numerous and regular successions which they contain of the remains of animals and vegetables, differing more and more widely from existing species, as the strata in which we find them are placed at greater depths. The fact that a large proportion of these remains belong to extinct genera, and almost all of them to extinct species, that lived and multiplied and died on or near the spots where they are now found, shows that the strata in which they occur were deposited slowly and gradually, during long periods of time, and at widely distant intervals.

(Buckland, Geology and Mineralogy Considered With Reference to Natural Theology, 1837) -- ChrisO 11:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Buckland was bluffed by the deists Hutton and Lyell, who explicltly admitted their philosphical biases. So Buckland first tried to restrict the Flood to a surficial gravel layer, then retracted it. But the Scriptural Geologists responded to a lot of the alleged evidence that Buckland, Hutton and Lyell adduced as evidence against the Flood, and argued that it was consistent with it. E.g. George Fairholme (1789–1846) argued that many dry valleys that must have been scooped out by much larger volumes of water than are seen today, yet they are networked, indicating that they were formed around the same time. Fairholme also pointed out what are now commonly called polystrate fossil trees, indicating that the layers were laid down quickly before the trunk had a chance to rot away. He also noted the flatness of the layers and ephemeral markings such as ripple marks, indicating there was very little time of erosion between layers.220.244.224.10 04:52, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have also restored a detailed Judeo-Christian-Muslim creation account (perhaps we should link to an article about different mythological creation accounts before this pretty story) which was here on Feb 1st and somehow got horribly mutilated since then. I think the Genesis creation account makes for a very pretty story.

As the one who removed the account in the first place, I can say that I don't object to the "pretty story" being included per say, but it is highly distracting and doesn't get to the meat of what YECs believe. I think this "pretty story" would better to be included in some fashion in the article Creation according to Genesis.

The point of this article should be to boil down the nuts and bolts of what creationists believe, not recount a Bible story that is, while significant, mostly embellishment on fundamental precepts. Joshuaschroeder 17:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The pretty story is exactly what creationists believe. Two creationists worked on adding it and I supported their inclusion. I'm going to contact the creationists in question and see if one of them will re-include the story. I do not think it is encyclopedic to have an article on creationism dominated by people who are not creationists; any more than I think it is appropriate for the article on evolution be written only by young earth creationists. Samboy 18:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just because I don't agree with the topic doesn't mean I cannot be NPOV when I edit it. And in reality, the pretty story isn't "exactly" what creationists or even all YECs believe, but it is one interpretation of one group of YECs. What we have up now is much more general and less distracting. Joshuaschroeder 03:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do we really need to recount the Genesis story? Couldn't we just link across to the article on Genesis? -- ChrisO 11:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. If the story were comprehensive in that Genesis article or rather [[Creation according to G

Headline text

enesis]], and made into a subsection, it could be linked directly from here, and thus make this article shorter. 220.244.224.10 04:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Compatibility of evolution and religion

I've just made a number of edits to the article, but I think only one will be controversial: the removal of the Provine quote about evolution and religion being incompatible. It's not that I think the quote is false - in fact, if you want a quote along these lines, there's a much more strongly-worded quote along these lines at the beginning of Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" - but that it read extremely weirdly in context. And not just because of use of words like "evolutionist", which have no place in such an article. I don't think it proves what you think it proves, but in any case if it belongs anywhere it belongs in an article more specifically about creationism-evolution controversy.

Please, if you really want the quote in there, don't just blindly revert; think about how to make it fit. -- ciphergoth 09:31, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

Evidence???

Most YECs today argue that Adam did not have a navel Also, most YECs, in contrast with Gosse, posit that not only is the Earth young but the scientific data supports that view

According to the quote I pulled out from above they talk about the scientific data that supports their view on science and history. Shouldn't some of that evidence be presented in the article? I don't know what copyright rules Aig has, but perhaps some of there arguments should be presented on here in order to give the article a more complete feel. Falphin 02:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)