RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who became creationists after studying the evidence

List of scientists who became creationists after studying the evidence | Result: Keep

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete

 * 1) This is essentially us No true Scotsman-ing what "studying the evidence" means, and it's been linked to only twice in the last year. 15:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Delete as it stands as it's simply disingenuous (I actually wanted to put it up for deletion myself but you beat me). I'm not against an actual list of scientists who became creationists and pointing out their reasoning flaws (including the non-scientists that are on creationist sites, and labeling them as such). Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Agreed completely with Carpetsmoker. – AOAPJM (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree with the above comments. -gmk7

Keep

 * 1) Save the snark!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Tentatively. Who is excluded from this list, if it were re-conceptualized as "list of natural scientists who became creationists after they got their PhD? Hipocrite (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No idea. But then again, how many natural scientists "became" evolutionists after they got their PhD? 16:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Creationists have lists (see the talk page). Not sure how much is true (SkepticWombat did some digging and most turned out not to be actual scientists), but even if it's all false this page could be a good debunking of such lists. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. Keep and re-conceptualize. Hipocrite (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, the two that were edit warred over that led to this - Charlie Liebert (B.S., M.B.A.)and Gary Parker (B.A., M.S., Ed.D) do not have PhD's. Hipocrite (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Mm, I could support this renamed page. 16:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Tasty snark is tasty. Come now. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep, but I agree that the criteria are a bit unclear - what exactly does it mean to study (especially considering the rather sloppy and wide definition of study and research used by creationists, i.e. including rummaging around on creationist websites and simply regurgitating their PRATTs) and which evidence (once again, creationists have very different standards here) are we referring to, not to mention evidence for what (actual evolution, or the various inept definitions used by creationists)? However, I disagree with the hairy feline tuber that it's essentially a No True Scotsman, because it does offer the possibility of someone building a coherent argument, based on rigorous research/study of the mountains of evidence underpinning evolution etc., for creationism without cherrypicking or similar creationist tactics. Granted, I'm sceptical about the possibility of doing this and haven't seen any such arguments that don't involve such ridiculous tactics as Rube Goldberg'ish scenarios to avoid accepting evolution (i.e. violating Occam's Razor) or outright conspiracy theories to discard unwanted evidence, but keeping the option open for creationists to actually put such an argument together is part of what critical enquiry is all about (and the signal failure of creationists to actually do so is oh so telling...). ScepticWombat (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Keep, maybe bud off a separate article going through common creationist lists with exacting criteria. Categorise by 'not working in scientific research', 'was a creationist and stayed a creationist', 'became a creationist after giving up on a scientific career' and so forth. If that article turns out to be particularly worthwhile, copy it back over this one once we're happy with it. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Keep, and I feel like I should pre-emptively mirror this on my own blog in case it's deleted.