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). |
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 |
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)
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)
"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)
Extended content
| ||
---|---|---|
|
Which does creation science belong to? WorldQuestioneer ( talk) 21:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
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:
To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question. And that is exactly what we should be doing because the consensus in science is that all creationist reasoning is crap. Every reason they give is easy to refute for those who know what they are talking about. See An Index to Creationist Claims. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
The article says that certain theories are rejected by mainstream science, but doesn’t explain why. It’s simply states that Whitehole cosmology doesn’t correspond to observed evidence. I’d like to know what the observed evidence is And how Whitehole cosmology would be different if it were true. Just simply stating that you disagree with a theory is not doing your homework in a scientific investigation. I want to know why the theory is wrong. I want a theory that explains how the universe should look if the theory were true And why that evidence is contraindicated from a proper peer reviewed reference, journal if possible. If this is attempting to be scientific and not just arguing back-and-forth. “No, you’re wrong.” The information in this article does an insufficient job of explaining why current theory is accepted by Science are right and the other theory is wrong. Peer reviewed sources Should be included, please
elrondaragorn ( talk) elrondaragorn elrondaragorn ( talk) 20:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
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). |
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 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||
It has been suggested in these archives...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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 |
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)
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)
"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)
Extended content
| ||
---|---|---|
|
Which does creation science belong to? WorldQuestioneer ( talk) 21:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
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:
To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question. And that is exactly what we should be doing because the consensus in science is that all creationist reasoning is crap. Every reason they give is easy to refute for those who know what they are talking about. See An Index to Creationist Claims. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
The article says that certain theories are rejected by mainstream science, but doesn’t explain why. It’s simply states that Whitehole cosmology doesn’t correspond to observed evidence. I’d like to know what the observed evidence is And how Whitehole cosmology would be different if it were true. Just simply stating that you disagree with a theory is not doing your homework in a scientific investigation. I want to know why the theory is wrong. I want a theory that explains how the universe should look if the theory were true And why that evidence is contraindicated from a proper peer reviewed reference, journal if possible. If this is attempting to be scientific and not just arguing back-and-forth. “No, you’re wrong.” The information in this article does an insufficient job of explaining why current theory is accepted by Science are right and the other theory is wrong. Peer reviewed sources Should be included, please
elrondaragorn ( talk) elrondaragorn elrondaragorn ( talk) 20:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)