Talk:Institute for Creation Research

Overtly Biased Editing of Article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is very obvious that this article has been written from an extremely biased point of view. That is to say, that the edits and revisions (and reverts) to this page have ensured it maintains an overtly anti-ICR and anti-creationism point of view. My edits to an entirely neutral point of view have been removed for reasons listed in several incorrect statements ("Argument") of which I will address below ("Reply"):

Argument: Any removal of overtly biased words, inferences, and external opinions is in violation of "relative prominence of opposing views".

1. Reply: I suggest that we place such words, inferences, and external opinions into the "Criticism" section of this article. As I too understand the value in the opposing viewpoint, I believe these are more properly placed into the aforementioned section like has been done since Wikipedia's inception. Furthermore, the page produced by Wikipedia editors denotes arguments of relevance. The many opinions of those who disagree are not what could be considered relevant. Just like the many opinions opposing the Evolution theory of the inception of our universe or the opposing views of Trump or Obama. Just because the ICR appears to be interpreting their research a certain way which makes them the minority, does not therefore mean that the majority opinion becomes relevant. It is merely a matter of proportion (more people happen to disagree). Thus, only relevant rebuttals need be mentioned.
   

Argument: ICR promoted "Fringe theory" and "pseudo-science" media. Terms referenced here.

1. Reply: The scientific methods and processes used by the ICR (from all research publicly available that I could find) are by no means "pseudo-science" or even bordering on the so called "fringe theories" or other terms coined to distinguish real from fake. In fact, even in all the well documented rebuttals to ICR papers, research, and talks there has never been a substantiated argument that the researchers at ICR are using incorrect methods. All the researchers are undisputed SME's in their areas and PhD's from what I could find. There is, however, an abundance of arguments, rebuttals, and writings against ICR's interpretation of their research, but not their methods. Therefore, I don't believe anyone from a strictly logical and unbiased perspective can correctly classify this as pseudo-science. And I do maintain that these relevant arguments and viewpoints should be placed in the "Criticism" section.
   

Fundamentally, I believe this article has been unjustly edited and proper edits reverted. Therefore I open up for discussion, the proper editing of this page to the general community and how we can generate a truly fair and unbiased article on ICR and their rather controversial beliefs. Wikipedia is not for the biased majority to edit in their opinions through subtle inferences, but to present an unbiased article about any topic while also presenting the opposing view in a just and professional manner. I do not believe the current state of this page upholds to any of the guidelines Wikipedia [majority] has set out.


73.217.43.51 (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you read the top of this page. Arbcom has ruled that it is correct to label topics such as these, which are extremely widely considered to be pseudoscience by the scientific community, as pseudoscience. GliderMaven (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you read my full comment above. The labeling of this page is an entirely separate issue. The page resides in the so called "pseudo-science" category on Wikipedia, and that is the way it is now. However, it is the tone and in which this article is written that I have a problem. I skimmed over at least 24 of the other "pseudo-science" pages and none of them come close to being as biased in their tone as this one (including on topics such as alien abductions). So your comment is, while accurate, irrelevant given context. 73.217.43.51 (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

73.217.43.51 Please read generally WP:NPOV and specifically WP:PSCI, WP:UNDUE, WP:FALSEBALANCE. You will see that this article follows Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia follows reliable sources and ICR methods and processes have been found to be pseudoscience by such reliable sources. If you want to counter that view you need to find reliable sources that state that ICR methods and processes are not pseudoscience but are, in fact, scientific. I doubt you will find any. Making assessments about ICR research your self without providing sources is very likely WP:OR. Robynthehode (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Alien abduction is by no means an exemplary article, but it doesn't purport to be actual science in quite the same way that ICR claim to be science, and it is not directly included in the pseudoscience category. GliderMaven (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

As aforementioned (twice now), please read my original comment...because I have read all links you are pointing me too. The article most definitely does not follow any guideline laid out in the articles you have mentioned ( WP:PSCI, WP:UNDUE, WP:FALSEBALANCE ). Now, in very loose terms, of course this article contains all needed components to meet the qualifications. However, there is not an English major or writer of worth that would not agree that this article's tone is extremely biased. That is what I am getting at. As to your points of "pseudo-science", please direct me to substantiated evidence that their methods are indeed falsified or incorrect. And in fact, I think you'll have a hard time proving it, because so far no one does. Need I direct you to the vast amount of undisputed experts in their field such as:

• Willem J. Ouweneel
• Siegfried Scherer
• Dr David R. Humphreys & here
• Forrest Mims
• Dr Keith Wanser

There are many many more such PhDs. And I would remark that no one has good proof against their methods, but rather their interpretation of the methods (at least when it comes to putting the Creation biased on it). So anyway, the focus is on re-writing this article from with a non-biased tone, whilst still ensuring the relevant arguments are documented in their appropriate section (Criticism, etc). And yes, both creationism and the Institute for Creation Research are directly listed in the so called "pseudo-science" section, thus my reasoning that the "pseudo-science" page be cleaned up or removed.

73.217.43.51 (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow, four PhDs? Meanwhile, Project Steve, over 1400, just called Steve. GliderMaven (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The arbcom ruling is clear that what you're asking for isn't going to happen. If something claims to be science, but the overwhelming majority of scientists say, no, then it's not. GliderMaven (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Your point is irrelevant and in the realm of "pseudo-intellectual" and you ignore the point being made. Need I mention the case of Günter Bechly. Regardless, as I have now stated over 3 times...I am not asking for the pseudo-intellectuals at arbcom to reverse their "ruling". I am asking this page be correctly edited in a non-biased tone. So my recommendation is you read what I wrote before commenting irrelevance. 73.217.43.51 (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are perfectly correct, the article and Wikipedia in general, is biased towards science and verifiable knowledge and against unproven and unprovable pseudoscience. GliderMaven (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Again...not relevant nor what my request is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.217.43.51 (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

You are not going to get an unbiased article because Wikipedia quite rightly has a bias for reality and mainstream science, by policy. Theroadislong (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Theroadislong and GliderMaven, you are very clearly missing the point and incorrect. Wikipedia's job is to produce an unbiased and neutral point of view (as mentioned before). I recommend we keep this discussion to relevant suggestions as to fix the tone of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.52.38.59 (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for the reasons already explained. GliderMaven (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

What reasons? Other than being against re-wording the tone due to bias and lack of adherence to guidelines. 73.217.43.51 (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Our policy at neutral point of view calls for a mainstream bias. It does not mean giving equal weight to both sides of a dispute. Your comment about pseudo-intellectuals was pretty funny. And ironic. One thing we aren't going to do and must not do is debate whether this is pseudoscience or not, that's not the purpose of talk pages. Doug Weller talk 21:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Understandable, and as I have continued to say, the discussion of whether it is pseudo-science is an entirely different topic. I am calling for the less overtly biased writing of this without correct formatting (as stated by me above and on the page). The problem is that it directly states "specializes in media promotion of pseudoscientific creation science...", which is in contradiction to all the pages cited beforehand. Meaning I am fine with even saying "specialises in research in various scientific areas, which has been labeled by many as pseudo-scientific". I am not even asking for entire removals, I am asking for NPOV to actually be exercised here. 73.217.43.51 (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Have you considered that maybe the bias isn't in the article, but in how you're reading it? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done it hasn't been labeled pseudoscientific, it IS pseudoscientific by definition! Theroadislong (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, not the issue. And secondly no Ian, because I came to the page already against their fundamental assertions. As I have stated time and time again (apparently to so called editors with a lack of logic and tending towards the pseudo-intellectual), my simple problem is with the heavy bias and overt ant-ICR tone. Imagine if you will, that this article were about the "Institute for Cancer Research", and replace all creation related words with cancer or some such. Or even if the Darwin page leaned heavily towards anti-evolution, I would have a problem with an overtly biased tone. Anyone with a fundamental mastery of English can recognise biased writing when they see it. Take any news outlet, Fox or CNN or CBS. Many "reporters" ask biased questions or have biased tone. So please stick to the original request, and stop with all these pointless tangents regarding a made up word (pseudo-scientific), which one should note, most in the scientific community are against using. Wikipedia however, being a science outlet and journal, has decided to infer upon any page that many of its "editors" deem worthy, this esteemed title. 73.217.43.51 (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

If a hypothetical Institute of Cancer Research was science-based, the current phrasing would be problematic. If they advocated homeopathy or other magical bollocks, though, the current tone would be absolutely fine.

Bringing up the Darwin page is comparing apples and rotten eggs. Evolution is a scientific fact. Young Earth Creationism is not only scientifically false but requires a fundamental rejection of science-based biology to view as plausible. In the face of how scientifically wrong YEC is, YEC becomes theologically questionable as well, unless one adheres to some sort of neo-Gnosticism where Satan can re-write the rules of geology and biology, or else God deliberately lied to us through natural law.

Wikipedia is not a scientific outlet or journal, we just summarize professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without original research. Anyone who knows anything about this site and about scientific journals knows that. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Once again and for the last time, not the issue I am bringing up. So please contribute relevant suggestions on editing this page for a more neutral view. No one here is arguing that evolution is a scientific fact (neither do creationists it would seem)...but please keep this to how we can more neutrally edit the article instead of arguing its content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.217.43.51 (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You never explained how labeling false ideas as such is biased, or how it's biased to point out that ICR's goal is to spread YEC. Wikipedia does not create artificial balance between reality and delusion. The issue you don't want brought up is the crux of the matter: evolution is a scientific fact, young earth creationism is just plain wrong, and any group that pretends that YEC is science is advocating pseudoscience. We don't have to pretend that such groups are merely presenting alternatives. We can, do, and should present such fringe views as as incorrect as they are described in sources if we're going to bother mentioning them at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem here is that the reliable sources, and your opinions are too far apart, so once again, you haven't understood it. You suggested using WP:weasel words like "which has been labeled by many as pseudo-scientific".

To accurately summarise the situation would take something like "which has been labeled by a crushing majority of scientists as pseudo-scientific", and then we could link to the references that say that. That's not what you're asking for, but that would be about the best you're going to get- because that's what the reliable sources say. GliderMaven (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

"Crushing majority" would still be an understatement. "all competent life scientists as well as any physical scientist who isn't feigning willful ignorance out of a superstitious bias in favor of the least educated interpretation of ancient poetry" would be more accurate. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

It is plainly evident that all 3 or 4 commentators here are themselves too biased to see what is actually being requested. The fundamental issue is that you all want to edit based on opinion, and I want it edited based on an apparently stronger command of the English language. However, it has become quite apparent that because the editors that run Wikipedia are so heavily biased (which I guess has been proven time and time again), that they cannot look beyond their own opinion and develop a more neutral, albeit, more professionally written article. This isn't the forum for debating the attempted proofs you bring (I'd be happy to debate at length in the proper forum), so until someone comes forward that can think critically, edit in a non-biased manner, and adhere to the logical and common sense evidently lacking in America, I don't feel the need for debating your personal opinions. ///

73.217.43.51 (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

No, the problem is that you're asking us to not label pseudoscience as such, and then you keep moving the goalposts whenever we point out that the ICR does promote pseudoscience and that we have to point that out. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

To be clearer, go read WP:GEVAL until your eyes bleed. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You are correct that we are far too biased towards science to let you unreasonably water down the plain truths about the status of creationism in the way you clearly want to. GliderMaven (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps searching/replacing "pseudoscience" with "cargo cult science" would fix things.

On a serious note, I did read that opinion piece in American Scientist, and attempting to frame it as "most in the scientific community are against using [the term pseudoscience]" (emphasis added) strikes me as overreach, to put it politely. Rhetorical shenanigans like that leave a whiff of "unreliable disputant" hanging in the air. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No Editing Suggestions?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So after reading all of that above, it is easier to close the discussion and say Wikipedia is "biased towards real science" (which seems to be false dichotomy at best) instead of providing useful edits? I recommend we re-open this and provide useful edits since clearly it is an issue (and having read the article, I can agree, despite completely disagreeing with the content). 104.178.219.128 (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The IP never suggested any useful edits that both fit policy and sourcing.

Wikipedia can, does, and should label pseudoscience as such, as well as point out when some person or group propagates those ideas. The IP's accusations of bias required ignoring either one or both of those points. That's because they just framed their problems of interpretation as an inherent problem in the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry should have logged in... (just noticed I was an IP too lol). I don't mean to start sounding like IPman here, but while convoluted, it doesn't appear that is what they were asking...I do think this could use some changed even if minor. Even to me who agrees on pseudoscience, this page comes across like we're trying to push an agenda or something. Just my thoughts...MrJosephWerzak (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Offering specific suggestions for changing particular bits of text (e.g. "change x to y") is more likely to meet a positive response than meta complaints about things like overall tone. Where would you rewrite it, and how? Just plain Bill (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Logging in (or creating a new account) does not make a difference. It has nothing to do with IP users vs accounts, it was entirely do to with the fact that the IP made no workable suggestions that fit either policy or sources.

The assumption that it had to do with the fact that that the other user was an IP is not how this site works. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why Ian.thomson is focusing on IP vs User, but moving on to a point here: here are my suggested changes:

1. "...media promotion of pseudoscientific creation science... " gets moved/removed, mostly because it is redundant and effectively said in the sentence directly after. And "pseudoscientific creation science" sounds wordy. See below for where I recommend putting "pseudoscientific creation science".
   

1. It rejects evolutionary biology, which it views as a corrupting moral and social influence and threat to religious belief.[6]" becomes "They reject evolutionary biology and promote the pseudoscientific creationist ideology as an explanation of the origin of the world."
   

1. "In a 1995 review ... dealing with creation, evolution, and related topics".[26]" gets moved. This is in the Publications section seems out of place and looks like it belongs i n the Criticism section.
   

Seems like that would clean the article up a bit. MrJosephWerzak (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

This is essentially what I spent the entire section above saying...how is it any different? 73.217.43.51 (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Not sure, but probably because you didn't provide specifics? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ MrJosephWerzak (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Your statement Sorry should have logged in... (just noticed I was an IP too lol) (plus the fact that you created the account just to log in) implies that that mattered. You're the one who put the matter on the table.

Regarding the first suggestion, Creation Science, the literalist interpretation of Genesis, and Young Earth Creationism overlap but aren't 100% identical. Creation Science also takes Old Earth Creationist forms. St Augustine and many other church fathers held what could be described as a non-literalist form of YEC (holding that the world was created around 4000 BC but in one instant instead of over a week). ICR uses pseudoscience to advocate all three and moving "pseudoscience" to the second sentence downplays that. Now, even though Auggie of Hippo believed the world was created in 4000 BC, it would be going too far to add to his article that he "advocated pseudoscience" because there simply wasn't enough data around to make a reasonable guess as to the earth's age (and also he held that the Bible should be interpreted in the light of science, not the other way around). ICR was started well after the point that evolution has been proven and that mainline churches have abandoned the non-poetic interpretation of the poetry in Genesis, to advocate a debunked claim -- pseudoscience is all they're notable for.

As for the second, the ICR itself is the source for the statement that they view acceptance of evolution as a moral danger. There's not much reason to hide or downplay this view, even if some readers might find it laughable.

As for the third, the statement is a summary of the nature of their publications. There's no reason for us to downplay the fact that they're not scientists if they're going to make scientifically debunked claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok...I think you're missing the grammatical point of moving it. And frankly, I'm not going to spend time arguing with you like the above section about what is and is not pseudo-science because that is not the point I'm making here. So your first point doesn't address my first point in moving it for grammatical reasons and ease of reading.

As to your reply to my second point, I actually meant to keep the part you're mentioning in the text and add to it all "and promote the pseudoscientific creationist ideology as an explanation of the origin of the world." So I agree with you there, I just want to move the pseudoscience part to this sentence because it flows better from a grammar perspective.

For your reply to my third point, I agree with you but maintain that it is still better suited for the section where it belongs (criticism). Otherwise, there is no point for the section and all criticism should be scattered throughout. So from a grammatical standpoint, it does nothing to introduce the section so it either needs to be moved to the end of the Pubs section or into the criticism section (where it seems better suited). MrJosephWerzak (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

That ICR advocates pseudoscience is the entire point. That is what they do, that is why we bother having an article on them at all, that's what should be mentioned first. We don't describe John Wayne Gacy first and foremost as "a clown" and then later mention that he killed people, even if he might have seen himself primarily as a clown who secondarily also sometimes murdered people. It's not a grammatical issue at all.

It actually is preferred that criticism be spread throughout the article where possible. However, a lot of what makes this group notable is criticism of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's remember to keep this to improvements and not the topic please. Discussing whether you think making a grammatical change downplays the pseudoscientific nature of the ICR agenda is irrelevant. As far as I can tell the above suggestions have to do with article structuring and I believe they are not unreasonable. Remember, this is NOT A FORUM for discussing the article's topics. 208.54.80.185 (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

You're not a bureaucrat, don't use the "bureaucrat note" template again. You don't seem to understand what WP:NOTFORUM means. "Not a forum" means we're not supposed to have discussions unrelated to article improvement (for example, a thread where people discuss if they're right or wrong with no actual suggestions to be assessed and critiqued). It is not a magic phrase to dismiss assessments about suggestions. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Filed for Dispute

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since it is quite apparent no editor will provide structural or grammatical inputs or non-content bias argument, I have filed this for dispute here WP:DRN. Perhaps this will allow for parties outside of those involved to provide input, since it is obvious no one is going to see past their bias here. With the greatest irony being aside from 73.217.43.51, we all agree about the content and pseudoscientific nature of it. But that should not play into the editing of structure (or content for that matter).
MrJosephWerzak (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems as though that went poorly. But what can you do? Wikipedia and its editors are anti-everything right/christian/etc. Very apparent in these discussions. 73.217.43.51 (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The irony is I don't even agree with the ICR position on virtually anything, but I also don't agree with the way the article is written (bias is clearly evident, just like when you read or watch the news). But I forgot how anti-right or christian things Wikimedia is. Which is sad, mostly because it's unprofessional. But oh well, we tried. Thankfully Universities understand the unreliable and biased nature of Wikipedia ;) MrJosephWerzak (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not anti-Christian. I'm a Christian. Most Christians outside of America aren't YECists.

As for the usual "Wikipedia's not reliable claim" sour grapes -- Wikipedia is not included on its own reliable sourcing guidelines, so no duh. At any rate, university profs who actually know how the site works will tell you that it's a good general reference (there's a distinction between that and an academic one) and that it's not a reliable academic reference if for no other reason that it's not stable. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Criticism vs reviews as a section heading

I don't see how the content of the section can be called reviews. One source is a compendium of position statements on evolution. Another is a book on evolution denial. And one paragraph is about the suggested removal of a book, which is an action. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, whilst realising that criticism sections are not encouraged, to change the title to "Reviews" is just plain weird, the sections are nothing of the sort. Theroadislong (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

What's more, the material that was being moved (the Futuyma statement) is an assessment of the ICR's research and publications. It belongs in the research and publications section.

If it was moved, then the only sources in that section would be primary sources -- and were that the case, I'd argue the material would be WP:UNDUE. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Misattribution in n. 60

"A Visit to the Institute for Creation Research," cited in n. 60, is misattributed to Eugenie C. Scott. The author is Karen Bartelt, as noted at the bottom of the page on ncse.com. Glenn Branch (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Glenn Branch:. The author has been updated. In the future, don't hesitate to do it yourself :-) --McSly (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Evolutionary bias

Shouldn't say "specializes in media promotion of pseudoscientific creation science," it should say same as that but without the "pseudoscientific," to be more fair to both sides. A little later in the article it should mention that it's generally considered a pseudoscience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldQuestioneer (talk • contribs) 22:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@WorldQuestioneer: Wikipedia has no obligation to play "both sides" when one side is utterly rejected by mainstream academia.

Wikipedia is "biased" toward science in the same way that it's "biased" toward a Spherical Earth that revolves around the sun. Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution. The theory of evolution describes established facts, and plenty of Christians (including evangelicals) have realized that science help us understand the metaphysical poetry of Genesis rather blinding assuming Genesis must be a bland scientific hypothesis.

If Young Earth Creationism wasn't utter hogwash, it would find support outside from a variety of religions. And yet the only individuals advocating YEC are followers of the very closely related Abrahamic religions (and the Jewish and Muslim membership would realistically be described as "token"). No atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, agnostics, or anyone else supports YEC. If the world was observably only 6000 years old, then you'd have Buddhist and Hindu YECers who would claim that YEC proves that our world is an illusion, Shintoists fitting the Japanese creation myth and Taoists fitting Chinese creation myths within that time frame with no difficulty, UFO religions arguing that that's when Ancient astronauts created an old looking earth wholesale 6000 years ago -- but it's mostly Fundamentalist Christians and a few token Jews and Muslims who argue that the world is only 6000 years old. Atheists who accept evolution would be balanced out by YECer deists and even atheists who regard The World as Will and Representation. The reason that non-Abrahamic religionists reject YEC is not religious or "evolutionary" bias, it's the same reason that many followers of Abrahamic religions accept Theistic evolution... Ian.thomson (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

YEC is not "utterly rejected" by the scientific community! https://www.discovery.org/m/2019/02/A-Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-020419.pdf https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx SPC1234 (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

SPC1234, an extensive majority of scientists have refuted YEC. See Young Earth creationism § Scientific refutation. Perryprog (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Perryprog: 1) I did not necessarily attempt to refute the claim that the majority of scientists have refuted YEC, I simply stated that is not utterly rejected, and I provided a list of around a thousand scientists who do not agree to show it is not "utterly rejected" by mainstream academia. I did not dispute the fact about the vast majority of scientists discrediting YEC.

2) Though I agree that the majority of scientists discredit YEC, the part of the article which you linked has no hyperlinked sources to verify its claim.

SPC1234 (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

If that "list of around a thousand scientists who do not agree" comes from A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, it is hardly a robust reliable source. See also Project Steve. N.B. science is not done by acclamation. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

JustPlainBill: I am not claiming by any means that the majority of scientists support YEC, I am just providing an admittedly short list of some respectable and well informed scientists who do not agree.

Also, I know of Project Steve, and have actually read part of it. While I think that they are wrong, I respect their opinions.

Also, I am not claiming that science is done by, as you say, acclamation, for if it was then, certainly, Evolution theory would win. I am simply claiming that YEC is not "utterly rejected", and provided some proof for that claim and that claim alone. SPC1234 (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The Discovery Institut does not care about YEC. They try to distance themselves from YEC, and their Dissent list is not about supporting YEC. The Gallup link is about YEC, but it is not about scientists, it is about the general populace. So, neither link comes even close to evidence for your claim "YEC is not "utterly rejected" by the scientific community".

Even if you had found one single "respectable and well informed scientist" who believes in Young-Earth Creationism, which you did not: If the only objection to the utter rejection of YEC by science is that some of the religious fundamentalists who adhere to it without having any valid reasons happen to be scientists in some field or other, then it is still utterly rejected. Those people do not matter. If they had valid reasons, those would matter. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Henry M. Morris III deceased, Dec. 2020

ICR has announced the death of CEO (sic) Henry M. Morris—son of founder Henry M. Morris—today, December 12, 2020. He had been scheduled to retire at the end of the month JohndanR (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I've added a sentence on this, with the obit from ICR as a source. Grayfell (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)