Talk:Creation biology/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

issues

• "see that scientific paradigm as conflicting with their worldview."
  • No creationist will ever say that. they believe that evolution is scientifically false. that's why i made it say, "believe evolution to be scientifically untenable." you deleted it unfairly, without explanation, sir.
• " Biogenesis as a rejection of abiogenesis and other naturalistic explanations for the origin of life is seen as a counterargument to mainstream science."
  • No creationist will ever say that. they believe that biogenesis is a rule of nature, and that it is solid evidence against abiogenesis. "a counterargument to mainstream science?" hilarious. straw man.
• "Teleology, that is, the idea that God designed life with intricate and interconnected components for a purpose, and then determined that they were "good." This runs contrary to the empirical model of modern science which claims that, by definition, there can be no empirically observed instance of supernatural influences in nature, nor is there any universalist evaluative norm by which life can be described as either "good" or "bad"."
  • That is a flat misrepresentation of what teleology is. read teleology. the concept was developed primarily by pagans like plato and aristotle. i corrected it by saying "nature gives evidence of being designed for a purpose." you deleted it.
• "Such argumentation is roundly rejected by evolutionary biologists who offer counterevidence to the idea often in, for example, accounts of the evolution of the eye."
  • This assumes that those accounts hold some validity, while denying accounts AGAINST the evolution of the eye. i deleted it as pov. you returned it.

Come now, Ec, let's not waste each other's time. Ungtss 20:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"many creationists see that scientific paradigm as conflicting with their worldview and scientifically untenable"

i appreciate the effort at a compromise here, believe me. but i can find you a million creationists saying, "evolution is false." can you find me a single one saying, "evolution conflicts with my worldview." ??? Ungtss 21:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Does evolution conflict with your worldview? If not, ask Bensaccount or any other zealot. -- Ec5618 21:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

i'm opposed to it because i think it's wrong. if i thought it was right, i'd change my worldview. to say "creationists disagree with this because it conflicts with their worldview" is to say, "they're too stuck in their ways to deal with reality." maybe that's true, but creationists don't see it that way. we think it's just plain wrong. other than that, i'm very happy with our compromise. thank you. Ungtss 21:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Science and religion

Cut from article:

All of these ideas are heavily criticised.

Why would anyone criticize someone's religion? Who are these critics, anyway?

There's another Wikipedia article that says that scientists and academics are not debating with Creationists. Or is "heavy criticism" not the same as debate? (Just shouting from across the street, I guess ;-) Uncle Ed 22:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

What article ? SOME scientists are not debating with creationists, not all. I know some scientists refuse to appear in live debates with creationists because it gives creationism credibility. It gives support to the notion that a scientific debate is going on about the validity of creationism, which is not the case. -PhDP ^(talk) 20:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience category

I've changed my mind on this. I reverted before because the Creation science category was already under the Pseudoscience category, and it's bad form to list something under both a category and its parent category. However, upon reading again more on the guidelines of categorisation, I see that "exceptions should also be considered when the article subject has a relevance to the parent category that is not expressed by the subcategory's definition." (see WP:CLS). I.e., the term Creation science doesn't immediately signify that it is pseudoscience, which is something very relevant to both the Creation science article and this one. For example, the Astrology article is both under New age and Pseudoscience, even though New age is already under Pseudoscience. Are there any other comments regarding this? GSlicer (t • c) 01:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. Cat's aren't a tree so much as a network. – ornis⚙ 08:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Also in agreement here. (although I'm actually not convinced that Astrology should be under New Age or that New Age should be under Pseudoscience so that may not be the best example. But I suppose that's a matter for another page). JoshuaZ 17:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)