A stub which just links a few articles together.
- Consider merging with Creationism220.127.116.11 15:58, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
What happened to the long talk page that used to be attached to Creation science? Especially the discussion over using the quote marks in the title? Or was that on a slightly differently titled article? ħuman 20:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, my confusion, that was at Creation Museum. Nevermind... maybe we should drop the quotes here, again, just due to the redirect issue... ħuman 20:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, drop them from the title. They aren't used in the text beyond the first line. WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 20:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
You guys will love this, it's RIGHT off of Conservapedia.. they admit that they intend to lie right in the first sentence: http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/6981/creationscience.png -CenaxKikia
Vatican hijacking science?
Basically, this article is the Vatican claiming the big bang is inline with the Christian Creation Myth. I thought it should be included, and figured this would be the article for it, but wanted to run it by some other folks first. --Logic and Empricism 18:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
... to the upstanding citizen Ham, whom I mistook for Hovind. And sincere apologies to Proxima Centauri. --larron (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Expanding upon the falsifiability section to give a relevant example inline
What I would propose adding to the section:
As an example, suppose someone advanced this creation theory: "The entire universe was created just 10 minutes ago by an omnipotent being, but it was created with all the internal evidence that implied it was billions of years old". That could not even in theory be proved nor, in particular, disproved. So it's outside the realm of science as it is untestable and uninteresting (it implies no measurable much less practical effects on the world we live in). Making the timetable 6000 years ago doesn't change this.
The point is to bring the concept home to lay readers who might lose interest or understanding in the abstractions in the existing section.— Unsigned, by: 18.104.22.168 / talk / contribs
- That's been done. See Last Thursdayism.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Atheistically biased sources
Most sources that provide a definition of science, Creationism, evolution, and pseudoscience tend to have an automatic bias against Creationism, and are atheistic or naturalistic in beliefs. That Creationism isn't scientific is an invalid claim, and atheistic belief systems have hijacked the definition of science. A lot of times instead of attempting to refute what Creationists present, evolutionists attack and mock what is presented and call it "myth" as well as doing the same to those presenting it. Oftentimes outdated science gets presented in an attempt at refutation by evolutionists, without their being aware of it. Not all Creationists reject evolution, which is a false assertion made by wikipedia. Usually, this is never allowed to be addressed by evolutionarily biased sources, and it's appreciated to have the opportunity to do so by this one. Thank you. — Unsigned, by: 22.214.171.124 / talk
- "Most sources that provide a definition of science, Creationism, evolution, and pseudoscience tend to have an automatic bias against Creationism..." No shit Sherlock, that's because Creationism, more specifically YEC, is bullshit. Until it meets the burden of proof it gets rejected. Don't like it? Tough shit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
ye of little faith
Who do so many fundamentalists feel the need to engage in and peddle pseudoscience? Isn't their faith enough for them? — Unsigned, by: 126.96.36.199 / talk / contribs
Questions for the creationists
Why has God set up a system that makes 'scientific explanations without his being present' appear satisfactory (and does not punish those who so believe while they are alive 'to encourage the others')?
Now that scientific worldviews are common - why doesn't God create a brand new species (eg a crocoduck), rather than 'merely recycling/repurposing an existing species' (eg COVID 19)? Anna Livia (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
An idea about the purpose of "creation science"
An insight: I don't think the purpose of this "field" is to refute real science, recruit scientists into creationism, or even convince schools to teach creationism. The creationists would love those things to happen, but they know by now they can't expect them.
Instead, I suspect the objective is confusion, so as to provide cover for creationist education (largely homeschooling), creationist Sunday Schools, and so on. Many people can't tell the difference between real science and a fake that uses a different set of long words. Indeed, the creationists have advantages in popular appeal, via using popular facts (e.g., "Lions and Tigers can interbreed" to imply "Species aren't real"), and their willingness to lie. Sadly, having thought of this myself, I don't think I can add it to the article, since I have no sources. Cathay (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree. The result may well be confusion in the minds of some - but that is not the same as saying it was the objective. I suspect that they honestly believe their nonsense and their objective is simply to perpetuate it.
- You could make the same argument about the flat earth proponents, vaccine deniers or or moon landing skeptics. All these (and many other ) conspiracy theories produce confusion. But that is not the same as saying that it is really their prime objective.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)