Talk:Creation science
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Creation science article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
 | Creation science was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. Review: April 27, 2006. (Reviewed version). |
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
The lead section is too long edit
I feel like the lead section should be broken up. It's way too long, and can be split up into headings describing the history, the fact that modern science proves it false, etc. What information should we move "down below" or omit from the lead section? The first paragraph seems like a keeper for sure. Félix An (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Metaphysical Assumptions section edit
Someone removed enough text from the second paragraph of the Metaphysical assumptions section to drastically alter the meaning of the paragraph. I reverted that edit, and added some refs, citing publications already used as sources in other parts of the article. I didn't review the entire list of references, and may have missed some good ones, though. Any help will be appreciated! Cheers! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 17:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Fallacy edit
"The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community"
Appeal to consensus, followed by other claims about empiricism, which at basic level is mislabeled given the positions counter point also has no observable evolution.
More of why I no longer donate. 98.4.89.168 (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- See Fallacy fallacy. Evolution has notably been observed in Lenski's E. coli long-term experiment, and earlier, in peppered moth coloration during (and after) the Industrial Revolution. I expect this section will soon be deleted as inappropriate forum-style argumentation; I am entirely OK with such deletion. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Not a fallacy, except within the motivated reasoning of pseudoscience fans. By your reasoning, we would also have to dismiss the round Earth and the Periodic System of the elements, because both are consensus. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not in need of your sad allowance. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. 47.44.49.171 (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Explained at WP:VERECUNDIAM: for Wikipedia it's not a fallacy to appeal to authority. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Which of these six categories does creation science belong to? edit
Extended content
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Which does creation science belong to? WorldQuestioneer (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- That's not a list of six categories. Maybe read the article lede; creation science is pseudoscience. PepperBeast (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Changing the word "claims" in the lede to "endeavors" edit
The current opening sentence states: "Creation science or scientific creationism is a pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible." I argue that the word "claims" should be replaced with "endeavors". Reasons:
- . Its not precisely accurate. It implies that those who practice Creation Science have already completed what they set out to do. Creation Science practitioners are working towards that goal. As an analogy, the wikipedia page for Science also uses the word "endeavor".
- . "Claim" is a word to use with extreme care because of the dismissive insinuations that come along with it(see MOS:CLAIM). We should avoid even the appearance of POV on Wikipedia.
- . The word "endeavor" in no way gives Creation Science a sense that it is correct. Nobody is going to come away reading the sentence with the word "endeavor" and think "wow, this might actually be real science"! But with "claim" they might be more likely to come away thinking, "Wow, this was written by a bunch of atheists with a grudge." Epachamo (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)