See something you'd like to change or add, but you've never edited an open encyclopædia before? This overview was written to help absolute beginners get started.

Talk:Creation-evolution controversy

From A Storehouse of Knowledge

Jump to: navigation, search
{{#vardefine:Dt|1 February}}
Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"
<stroclass="error">Error:th invalid, time</strong><stroinvalid class="error">Error:th, time</strong>)
{{#vardefine:Dt|29 October}}
Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"
<stroclass="error">Error:th invalid, time</strong><stroinvalid class="error">Error:th, time</strong>)

Contents

latest edits

Caset Luskin ? really ? hardly unbiased source, lawyer for the creationist trying to get into texas. On your other points where are the papers submitted by scientists refuting evolution or any other scientific theory that contradicts creation ? If they have not published then their opinion is simply personal and irrelevant . Have a great day. Hamster (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Wooo, my block has expired. It has been two years now - surely PJR has gotten around to reading The Inflationary Universe by now. Ace McWicked (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Is that a CMI publication? %Sterileevolutionist story telling! 10:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
No, it's real science. Therefore he can't possibly have read it. Ace McWicked (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's see. Hamster is not specific about what he's referring to. The section is headed "latest edits", but the edits I did recently didn't mention Casey Luskin. Further, he offers nothing in rebuttal—he merely tries to impugn the source, and that with a vague allusion to something which doesn't make sense (there's nothing stopping creationists being in Texas). And that's just the first sentence.

He then asks a silly question—silly given that if he knew anything about the issue, he would know where to find such papers. Which he does, actually, except, of course, he dismisses such papers on some pretence that they are not by real scientists or in real journals or something because they are not evolutionary. What was that about the "no true Scotsman" fallacy?

Finally, in response to Ace, he asks a loaded, biased question.

Then Sterile adds his two cents' worth with a loaded, biased question.

Then Ace chimes replies with a slur based on his belief that his particular worldview is self-evidently and indisputably correct, combining that with a slur against me.

Between them, their arguments of substance are:


And that's it! So much for the supposedly rational view. Ho hum.

Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

sorry Philip I thought you were better informed about Mr Luskin, his employment by a creationist organisation involved in publishing text books (through an owned company) and the appearance and lobbying of the Texas school board , not to mention the profits involved if they got their book accepted. Maybe my understanding is incorrect but I did attend the board meetings where he appeared. The texas school board backed off of the changes to science curriculum and the board chairman was not renewed by the state government. (I also attended that session) The state also refused permission for Luskins bosses to award higher degrees ( i believe that was texas) Hamster (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I can not find papers by the people who signed the "dissent from darwin" list in any biology journal. There should be at least one paper from every person who signed the list, so they should be hard to miss. I thought that point was pretty clear in my comment, perhaps I am being too subtle ?
are you aware Philip that almost 60% of the "Steve" list are currently working in biology ? That compares to just under 30% of the dissent list, many of whom do not seem to publish in biology journals. Hamster (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Ace and Sterile can say what they like , we do not consult on comments on your blog.
just curious but how does a site with almost no apparent editing cause a server to shut the site off for three days ? Hamster (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
you should get that world class theologion from youtube , AtheismExamined to write stuff here. Hamster (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Then Ace chimes replies with a slur based on his belief that his particular worldview is self-evidently and indisputably correct Less mine being correct and more yours being provably incorrect. Also based on your complete insistence on arguing about things you know nothing about. Cosmology in this case. Ace McWicked (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

And so the insults continue. Typical of anti-creationists. Of course I know who Luskin is, and he works for an ID organisation, not a creationist one. It seems that I know more than you!

federal court precedent says otherwise Hamster (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm also aware of the Texas case; my comment was, I guess, more to do with your sloppy wording (the creationist trying to get into texas). Creationists and IDers were already in Texas; they were trying to get some balance in their own schools' curriculums. And I guess it's okay for evolutionists who write text books to lobby for evolution? Hmmmm.

sure its proper for scientists to lobby for science in science textbooks. Hamster (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The texas school board backed off of the changes to science curriculum... They didn't go as far as was being proposed, but they did make some changes.

The state also refused permission for Luskins bosses to award higher degrees... Now maybe you've got me here. I wasn't aware that the Discovery Institute awarded (or wanted to award) degrees. You wouldn't be getting confused with the ICR graduate school, would you?

I can not find papers by the people who signed the "dissent from darwin" list in any biology journal. Perhaps you didn't look very hard? And obviously you (who is apparently better informed than me, according to your insult) have forgotten about the controversy with the journal of the Biological Society of Washington?

No, the society fixed that mess and got rid of the guy who broke their standards Hamster (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There should be at least one paper from every person who signed the list, so they should be hard to miss. There you go again, stipulating an arbitrary requirement. As my edits have pointed out, evolutionists do not limit themselves to biologists when trying to show support for evolution. Double standards.

scientists who disagree with a theory publish in the respective journals if they want to get an idea accepted. You claim the disenting people are scientists therefore they will have published their alternative theories in the respective journals. Its a basic definition. Hamster (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

are you aware Philip that almost 60% of the "Steve" list are currently working in biology ? No, I wasn't (not that it changes the basic point). Can you give me a reference for that?

Ace and Sterile can say what they like , we do not consult on comments on your blog. I never said that you did. All I said was that someone added a comment in response. I did, however, make the mistake of attributing Sterile's remark to you, sorry. I've corrected that above.

just curious but how does a site with almost no apparent editing cause a server to shut the site off for three days ? Search engines searching difference pages and the like. I had stopped that before, but for some reason it started again.

robots.txt in the correct folder and limit what links they can follow. Hamster (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

you should get that world class theologion from youtube , AtheismExamined to write stuff here. And then you are back to sarcasm. I note that you have still not made a criticism of substance about my latest edits, nor explained why you brought up Luskin in that context when I hadn't mentioned him.

sarcasm ? no , an honest suggestion to get a theologian to edit your site and spread the word of God. Hamster (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
recent since my last visit of course. Maybe I misread a few edits, roll with it. He seems to be in the page and I am merely pointing out his extreme bias based on millions of dollars at stake to his organisation.Hamster (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Less mine being correct and more yours being provably incorrect. Given that you offered absolutely no argument or evidence in support of your claim, I believe that I was justified in referring to it as your view being "self-evidently and indisputably correct".

Also based on your complete insistence on arguing about things you know nothing about. Cosmology in this case. Yet another slur (given that I do know something about cosmology) and yet again absolutely no arguments of substance in the post.

Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 00:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

"Is that a CMI publication?" is a loaded, biased question? Really? ♥s u Rayment. %Sterileevolutionist story telling! 02:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hamster, the issue I have is that most of your latest comments are heavily dependent on your POV, rather than being rational and objective observations. I'll go through each of them to point out how, but it's not so much the details that I'm responding to as the presumed-but-unargued POV.

federal court precedent says otherwise True, but both biblical creationists and IDers reject that they are the same thing, and this view is also supported by some pro-evolutionists, such as Ronald Numbers (according to here), who wrote what many (evolutionists particularly) consider to be the definitive history of creationism. To support your view that they are the same thing you cite a judge who took most of his decision from a submission from evolutionists, particularly influenced by the very anti-creationist/anti-ID lobby group, the NCSE, who's opinions on such things carries absolutely no weight with me.

sure its proper for scientists to lobby for science in science textbooks. This is blatant question-begging, pure and simple. You accuse one side of doing something improper. I point out that the other side does the same thing. According to you, that's different because they are right! Closely related here is the question-begging view that evolution is science, one of the very things under question.

No, the society fixed that mess and got rid of the guy who broke their standards Let's break that up:

No... Pardon? You claimed that you ...can not find papers by the people who signed the "dissent from darwin" list in any biology journal. I pointed out one that you may have forgotten. You said that No, you hadn't forgotten it. IN THAT CASE YOU LIED BY CLAIMING THAT YOU CAN FIND NO SUCH PAPERS! You DID know of at least that one, but said that you didn't! Why am I supposed to give your comments any credibility when you claim to not be aware of any such papers but you then admit that you knew of one?
the society fixed that mess... Pardon? Fixed that mess? The "fixing" was to partially censor the paper by removing it from their website. It is still, of course, in the printed copies of the journal. So it qualifies for what you said that you couldn't find. The other part of the "fixing" was to bend over backwards in apologising to the evolution lobby. Yet they found no impropriety!
... and got rid of the guy... His departure was nothing to do with the paper; he had already submitted his resignation before this incident.
...who broke their standards He broke no standards, despite the claims and inferences of bigots who want to censor anything that brings the god of evolution into question.

So you have admitted that you knew of such a paper, and tried to excuse not mentioning it on grounds that are blatantly fallacious and POV-related.

scientists who disagree with a theory publish in the respective journals if they want to get an idea accepted. IF the journals are not biased against those views, and there are plenty of examples where good papers (creationist and otherwise) have been denied peer-review publication for reasons other than the quality of the papers.

You claim the disenting people are scientists therefore they will have published their alternative theories in the respective journals. Its a basic definition. And pigs might fly. Evolutionists won't let anti-evolutionary papers be published, then claim that creationism and ID are not science because they are not published, and if they do get published (such as in the BSW Journal discussed above), they cry foul.

sarcasm ? no , an honest suggestion to get a theologian to edit your site and spread the word of God. Hmmmm. I can find no evidence that he is a "world class theologian", but theologian he may be, and I'll accept (for now at least) that it was a genuine suggestion.

recent since my last visit of course. Maybe I misread a few edits, roll with it. Sure, if you admit that you were wrong (which you have sort of implied now). But sans that, the last edit I did citing Luskin was four months ago, and that was not among the most recent edits I have done. Of course I'm not to know when you last visited. So you can hardy expect me to realise that you were talking about edits from four months ago.

He seems to be in the page and I am merely pointing out his extreme bias based on millions of dollars at stake to his organisation. No, you are alleging extreme bias, based on a figure you plucked from the air and ignoring that evolutionists can also make money promoting their views, and in fact get a lot more money (especially off the government) than do creationists and IDers put together. This is another example of you arguing from your POV, where creationists and IDers are automatically suspect while evolutionists get a free pass.

And despite all these comments from you, you still haven't offered any criticism of substance to the article. The jibe about Luskin was simply to impugn his integrity, but without actually offering any refutation of the comments attributed to him. In fact, his comments were on how biased a film was in its treatment of critics of evolution versus evolutionists in Texas, including "making ad hominem attacks against the motives" of those critics, whilst not examining the motives of the evolutionists, and here you are, not pointing out any errors in his claims, but making an ad hominem attack on him whilst ignoring the motives of evolutionists! So rather than offer any refutation, you have actually demonstrated the very point he was making!

And not related to any of that...

robots.txt in the correct folder and limit what links they can follow. I had done that, but for some reason it was still happening a bit.

Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 16:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I dont think I said biology jounal, just a publication record in scientific journals. Certainly not a big ask for any practising scientists surely ? Hamster (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
yes scientists can get grants from organisations that support scientific research. They can also write books. Creationists can get grants from those who support creation , and do. There is more money going to science research because there are many more scientists than creationists , and many grant recipiants have made discoveries that have either commercial applications, or societal benefits, sometimes both. hat new products have come from creationist research ? Hamster (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I dont think I said biology jounal… You did say biology journal. Just search for the term in this section—it's easy to find.
yes scientists can get grants from organisations that support scientific research. Especially if it a hot topic (such as global warming) and hardly at all if it's considered a waste of time (like ID or creation).

Funding

Creationists can get grants from those who support creation , and do. But why not from governments, which gets money from taxpayers who are in many cases creationists? After all, evolutionist get money from both evolutionists and creationists, because the taxpayers include both. So why should the creationists be forced to support evolutionary research, and the creationists get none of that money?
There is more money going to science research because there are many more scientists than creationists… Utterly false, at least as far as the U.S. is concerned. In the U.S. there are about two million scientists, and about 120 million creationists (40% of a population of 300 million).
…and many grant recipiants have made discoveries that have either commercial applications, or societal benefits, sometimes both. And how many of them involved evolutionary research? After all, creationary scientists doing non-creationary (and non-evolutionary) research do exactly the same (make discoveries that have commercial applications, etc.). Your argument conflates evolution with science.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
so Philip, you are complaining that the average creationist on the street does not get given money by the government for research ?
that's what you comment seems to imply. Hamster (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
the US government is prohibited from supporting any specific religion. Its a constitutional issue. Grant money is difficult to get so those places with a good track record are more likely to get grants, from anyone. (secular science that is) Creation organisations (and ID ) get large blocks of funding from private donors) The US government funds research in all areas, not just biology, and even in areas more in the area of engineering. Why doesnt the Australian government fund CMI research, or do they ? Hamster (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
do we need a venn diagram to show that evolutionists (evolutionary biologists) are not all scientists ? or are you using "methodological naturalism" == "evolutionist" again. Hamster (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The government doesn't just give money away. You have to have something to test, a hypothesis, specific aims. Do you have evidence the creationists are submitting grants for creation science research? Steriledepraved mind! 19:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Uh, Phil - before you complain about lack of funding perhaps you should have a gander at AiG's annual report. Total yearly income topping 21 million with net assets at 19 million. Oh yeah, and they aren't paying tax so why should they be entitled to tax-payer funding? A lot of money for research but they seem more to be interested in producing ham-fisted DVD's. Ace McWicked (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
so Philip, you are complaining that the average creationist on the street does not get given money by the government for research ? Perhaps you can call it complaining; I'm certainly pointing out the issue. And I'm talking about funding for overtly creationist research; not funding for things that don't have an overt bearing on creation, such as the engineering research that you mention.
the US government is prohibited from supporting any specific religion. Creation is based on the Bible, but it's not a "specific religion".
Grant money is difficult to get so those places with a good track record are more likely to get grants, from anyone. There's a fair bit of evidence that funding favours particular popular viewpoints, such as pro-global warming, rather than it being totally objective based on previous outcomes.
(secular science that is) Creation organisations (and ID ) get large blocks of funding from private donors) In the case of creation organisations, and ID as far as I know, this is simply false, depending on what you mean by "large". Compared to funding for evolution-supporting research, it's relatively non-existent.
Why doesnt the Australian government fund CMI research, or do they ? The same reason: bias.
do we need a venn diagram to show that evolutionists (evolutionary biologists) are not all scientists ? or are you using "methodological naturalism" == "evolutionist" again. I don't know what you are referring to here.
The government doesn't just give money away. You have to have something to test, a hypothesis, specific aims. Duh!
Do you have evidence the creationists are submitting grants for creation science research? Do you have any evidence that they would get any if they did? In fact, are you even suggesting that?
you certainly will never get a grant if you dont apply. Some of the grant providers only care about commercially viable research so I doubt they would care who applied if the proposal itself had merit. Hamster (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Uh, Phil - before you complain about lack of funding perhaps you should have a gander at AiG's annual report. Why? What relevance is that to funding for creationist research?
Oh yeah, and they aren't paying tax so why should they be entitled to tax-payer funding? Do schools and universities pay tax? By your logic they shouldn't get tax-payer funding if they don't pay tax. Actually, I think your logic is back to front: why should commercial organisations—i.e. ones that do pay tax—get grants from tax-payers? One of the reasons for giving grants is because the organisation does not have an income stream that they can be expected to use for this purpose (AiG's income is not for that purpose, for the most part at least).
A lot of money for research but they seem more to be interested in producing ham-fisted DVD's. You have not shown that they have a lot of money "for research", in the sense that it was received for that purpose.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 08:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
You are seriously going to complain about creationists lacking funding when creationist organisations rake in money, hand-over-fist, in the millions and have assets topping 20 million? Ace McWicked (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
you certainly will never get a grant if you dont apply. That's obvious, but doesn't answer my question.
Some of the grant providers only care about commercially viable research so I doubt they would care who applied if the proposal itself had merit. First, this doesn't answer the point about tax-payer-sourced funds. Second, it's not likely that any origins research (evolutionary or creationary) would produce commercially-viable results. We are not talking about that sort of research.
You are seriously going to complain about creationists lacking funding when creationist organisations rake in money, hand-over-fist, in the millions and have assets topping 20 million? You are seriously suggesting (a) that this is typical, (b) that this is not an exaggeration in any respect, and (c) that this is significant compared to tax-payer-supported institutions? Pull the other one.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
A) AiG in the USA is the granddaddy of Creationists organisations yet appears to do no research whatsoever with it's enormous budget while IRC is earning nearly half of that but at least puts up a veneer of research. I read somewhere while researching this CMI was also earning well into the millions but can't find the link again.
B) If AiG were exaggerating then they'll be liable for a fine or prosecution given that as a registered charity they have to be audited. Also exaggerating on ones Annual Report is extremely dishonest considering that they receive larges amount of donation. You might want to rethink this Philip.
C) It is very significant if you are going to moan about funding because regardless of what other institutes earn for a niche market with little in the way of competition it is a strikingly large amount of funding. Ace McWicked (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If we're going to play three-year old antics, then technically you did not answer MY question: Do you have evidence the creationists are submitting grants for creation science research? P(getting funding|you don't apply) = 0. Why should I answer yours if you don't answer mine? Steriledepraved mind! 15:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a chemist. Depending on the hypothesis and proposed experiment, I could probably purchase some chemicals if they are of reasonable cost. Is there a chemical or biochemical question you would like answered? Steriledepraved mind! 15:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Could you start giving some statistics ? every university, technical college, corporate or private lab in the US is able to apply for government funding.(ranging from a few thousand to multimillions) You give I think 4 organizations that qualify as leading creationists. Since you don't show they are applying but being rejected how is this relevant ? Hamster (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
A) AiG in the USA is the granddaddy of Creationists organisations… It's actually one of the youngest of the major creationist organisations.
…yet appears to do no research whatsoever with it's enormous budget… It's not a research organisation, and "Enormous" is a relative term. How does it compare to, say, a research university?
…while IRC (sic) is earning nearly half of that but at least puts up a veneer of research. Well, it is the Institute for Creation Research.
I read somewhere while researching this CMI was also earning well into the millions but can't find the link again. It is not.
If AiG were exaggerating… I wasn't claiming that they were exaggerating. I was suggesting that you were exaggerating by describing creationist organisations as "rak[ing] in money, hand-over-fist".
It is very significant if you are going to moan about funding because regardless of what other institutes earn for a niche market with little in the way of competition it is a strikingly large amount of funding. "regardless of what other institutes earn"? In other words, evolutionary research can gorge itself on the public purse, but that's irrelevant to whether or not creationary research can have a few crumbs. On the contrary, it's very relevant. And clearly at one level this is about competition for funding.
If we're going to play three-year old antics… How about not denigrating people you disagree with?
then technically you did not answer MY question: Do you have evidence the creationists are submitting grants for creation science research? … Why should I answer yours if you don't answer mine? Because your question is irrelevant unless my question can be answered in the positive.
Actually, I'm a chemist. Depending on the hypothesis and proposed experiment, I could probably purchase some chemicals if they are of reasonable cost. Is there a chemical or biochemical question you would like answered? That's a bizarre offer, even if well meant. The problem we've been discussing is a lack of funding, yet here you are offering to perform an experiment if it doesn't cost too much. If it didn't cost that much, it would have been done by now.
You give I think 4 organizations that qualify as leading creationists. I typically mention four creationist organisations as examples of leading creationist organisations. I don't claim that they are the only ones. But more to the point, it's not the organisations as such, as they aren't necessarily research organisations. It's the creationary scientists, of which there are many more than four.
Since you don't show they are applying but being rejected how is this relevant ? It's extremely obvious that they almost certainly wouldn't get funding, so how is it relevant whether or not they are applying? This is typical anti-creationist (and anti-ID) claptrap along the same lines of claiming that creationists and IDers don't publish in peer-reviewed publications, then censoring it when they do. You are complaining that they don't apply for funding, knowing full well that if they do they will be rejected. Or can you demonstrate otherwise?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 04:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
AiG is the granddaddy considering size and budget. And it is raking in the money - 21 million. AiG seems more interesting in spending it's money on producing tracts and DVD's to convince people who don't know any better instead of using to do research and convince people who do. Ace McWicked (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it would be the biggest, but "granddaddy" would normally indicate oldest or ancestor. I wasn't saying that you were wrong on that point; rather, I felt it was misleading and that another perspective should be put.
Perhaps you could call income of $21 million "raking in", but then you didn't apply that description just to AiG, but to "creationist organisations" plural, and AiG would not be typical in that regard. I suggested that your comment was exaggeration, but otherwise didn't dispute it, and it wasn't my main point, but I notice that it's about the only point you've responded to.
As for where it spends it, your comment is merely your derogatory opinion, and is itself quite misleading. Many of the people "convinced" by creation ministries are people such as scientists who do "know better", but the arguments put up by creationists are solid and convincing to those with minds open enough to consider them.
It must be tiring being you. Even the use of a word that can be used in a context to mean old or big is up for debate in your mind. A yearly take of 21 million with 19 million in assets is indeed raking it in no matter which way you cut it. But here we are again, debating the merits of a word instead of the larger picture. A least we aren't discussing something wherein the word 'set' is up for debate - given it has 424 different meanings. Nonetheless - not one jot of that money goes towards actually proving or evidencing what is claimed in the material produced by AiG. the arguments put up by creationists are solid and convincing to those with minds open enough to consider them. implying people who don't believe the rubbish piped up creationists organisations is because their minds aren't open now? Welcome to AndyLand. Ace McWicked (talk) 09:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
It must be tiring being you. I could comment, but...
A yearly take of 21 million with 19 million in assets is indeed raking it in no matter which way you cut it. It's all relative. Compared with many other institutions, it's a pittance.
But here we are again, debating the merits of a word instead of the larger picture. I've made various comments on all sorts of matters raised here, but you are concentrating on this one. I made that point previously. Making that charge against me is, well, inventive.
Nonetheless - not one jot of that money goes towards actually proving or evidencing what is claimed in the material produced by AiG. Talking about the larger picture, I've already pointed out that they aren't a research organisation, yet you keep ignoring that.
implying people who don't believe the rubbish piped up creationists organisations is because their minds aren't open now? Welcome to AndyLand Welcome to RW-land, where "rubbish piped up [by] creationists organisations" is taken as a given and thrown about with abandon. But the implication you claim, wasn't my point, which was that people without minds open enough to even consider them won't be convinced, not that everyone who is not convinced has a closed mind. All whales live in the sea does not mean that all that live in the sea are whales. But so what if I was meaning that? How is that any worse than your implication that only people who don't know any better would believe what AiG publishes?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Having actually reviewed grant proposals before, the reviewers don't know who wrote each proposal, they use the criteria for the funding agency which almost always includes the scientific merit. I review on once which proposal no new research, for example, which I[m assuming was rejected.

Anyway, I'm not going to investigate the conspiracy of the hypothetical rejection of a hypothetical research grant proposal of a hypothetical research idea. I think I'll just go look for the nvisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire in my garage instead. Steriledepraved mind! 12:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Having actually reviewed grant proposals before, the reviewers don't know who wrote each proposal, they use the criteria for the funding agency which almost always includes the scientific merit. Considering that creationism is not considered to have scientific merit, aren't you simply proving my point?
Anyway, I'm not going to investigate the conspiracy of the hypothetical rejection of a hypothetical research grant proposal of a hypothetical research idea. But instead you will invent a straw-man of "conspiracy" and mock my argument whilst failing to actually demonstrate that a creationist proposal could get funded on its merit.
I think I'll just go look for the nvisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire in my garage instead. The fact that you even offer that as an analogy shows that you willingly forget just what is claimed here. The claim includes that (a) God isn't invisible, but appeared to mankind, and (b) the effects of God's actions can be studied.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I missed the part where I proved your point. Are you saying that creation science proposals do not have scientific merit? I mean, that is the point of a scientific granting agency.
For evidence of your claim that there is a conspiracy, I would expect at least one example of a creation scientist who submitted a proposal to a granting agency. The last time I did that it took three tries to two different agencies, with my improving the proposal each time based on the reviewers comments. I do think that one of those times the proposal was rejected because there wasn't enough money, too, but if it's really as biased as you say it is, you should be able to tell from the reviewers comments (I would think). Really, if the conspiracy is a grand as you claim it is, I would expect multiple examples of multiple types of proposals. The information is confidential, but I'm sure you can give me some names to contact to verify the information.
What evidence would you like me to collect for the negative claim that there is not a conspiracy? I suppose I could ask scientist friends if they've ever reviewed a proposal they thought was creationist and if they rejected it because it was creationist, but that seems rather inefficient (and is really finding evidence of your claim), especially if such proposals don't exist. That was my point of the Sagan quote (the chapter for which never explicitly mentions God or atheism, by the way), I'm not sure how I'm to confirm something that doesn't exist. You might as well be asking me to confirm the existence of the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. And why is conspiracy a straw man? It's fairly clear that you think the scientific establishment doesn't fund creation science proposals and that we do it as a group. Perhaps conspiracy is a strong word for it with admitted connotations, but it's pretty much what you are suggesting.
Otherwise, I suggest that you retract your characterization of mainstream scientists until you can provide evidence of your argument, because I find it offensive. Steriledepraved mind! 15:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I missed the part where I proved your point. Are you saying that creation science proposals do not have scientific merit? You essentially proved my point because you think (a) that creationary research is not science, and (b) funding is based on scientific merit. Ergo, creationary research will not get funded even if/when applications are made for funding.
For evidence of your claim that there is a conspiracy,… What claim of conspiracy? I've already pointed out that that's wrong, yet here you go repeating it.
What evidence would you like me to collect for the negative claim …? That creationary research would be considered as scientific, or at least potentially scientific, in principle.
That was my point of the Sagan quote … I'm not sure how I'm to confirm something that doesn't exist. The bias does exist.
And why is conspiracy a straw man? Because, as I've explained numerous times before, I'm not claiming that people are colluding to suppress something that they know to be true. Or they are not colluding to do something they know to be wrong.
Otherwise, I suggest that you retract your characterization of mainstream scientists until you can provide evidence of your argument, because I find it offensive. I have provided evidence in the form of logic that it won't be funded because of bias, and in the article I have provided evidence of bias. And I find it offensive that you think I'm stupid enough to believe that the only reason creationary research won't get funded is because they are not applying for it.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
And I find it offensive that you think I'm stupid enough to believe that the only reason creationary research won't get funded is because they are not applying for it. Oh yeah? Well I'm happy to speak for everyone else and say that we find it offensive that you think we're stupid enough to believe that creationists won't get funding without applying for it. I know you think you're psychic when you read our words in your own way, but let me ask you if you seriously think it's appropriate to stand on a corner with a sign that says "RESEARCH MONEY FOR CREATIONISTS - COME AND GET IT BEFORE THE RAPTURE." You don't tell children they shouldn't play sport because they suck. At best, you've got a few anecdotal stories about rejections, which I suspect are suspect anyway. You know very well that some experiments creationists might propose are actually doable. Like I said, the RATE guys did some, and they were cheap. If you've got a good hypothesis, there's no reason in the world some kind of granting body wouldn't give you money. Perhaps it will be one of the generous creationist outfits generously funding the generous amount of research creationists are proposing. After all, some of it is even cheap! So, stop repeating rubbish conspiracy theories. Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
And I find it offensive that you think I'm stupid enough to believe that the only reason creationary research won't get funded is because they are not applying for it. I didn't say you were stupid. I think it's silly to ask for evidence you know doesn't exist to support an assertion that is unsupportable. And scientific merit as a criterion is a fact of grant writing. Are you suggesting that funds go toward proposals without scientific merit? You also haven't told me what hypothesis you wish to test and what experiments you want to do to confirm it. You are truly getting more and more bizarre in your responses. Steriledepraved mind! 16:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
not all grants are for cutting edge research. I had a grant once that let me do a cleanup job on the machine I ran for carbon dating. A student got a two week trip to the yellowstone area paid for as a geology study. You just need to get the right agency interested. Examples of bias in funding would be rejected funding applications. Multimillion dollar grants are fairly rare in my experiance. The college I worked at ran about $100,000 a year on a good year for 5 - 10 applications. Hamster (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

PS: Does John Hartnett count? His CV indicates funding including one >$900K and he has peer-reviewed publications in secular journals. Steriledepraved mind! 20:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

is he the guy who does work with crystals and timing circuits ? If so thats mainstream so doesn't count as creation science. Its like Ken Miller is catholic, it doesnt affect how he does science. Hamster (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Phil can quibble and equivocate all he likes but it doesn't change the fact that the many millions flowing into places like AiG, the vast sums used to build mega-churches in the United States, the money raised by the Hovinds and Comforts of this world isn't being used to actually fund research (like the RATE guys did). It is very telling. "Evolutionists" scramble to get funding to test their ideas but creationists are happy to merely preach with a tiny sliver going to actually extending their work. They are happy to let others to the work and then criticise but bring nothing to the table themselves. Which is why the rest of the world can it back and say "put up or shut-up". Ace McWicked (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say you were stupid. No, you didn't say it, but you must think it if you expect me to believe that the only reason creationists don't get funding is that they don't apply for it.
I think it's silly to ask for evidence you know doesn't exist to support an assertion that is unsupportable. No, it's not silly. If an assertion is unsupportable then it shouldn't be made. If it is made anyway, then it's legitimate to ask for evidence.
And scientific merit as a criterion is a fact of grant writing. Are you suggesting that funds go toward proposals without scientific merit? No, I'm pointing out that creationism is not normally considered to have scientific merit, so it won't get funding, despite your inferences that it would if only creationists applied for it.
You also haven't told me what hypothesis you wish to test and what experiments you want to do to confirm it. I think I did respond to that. Where did you ask?
You are truly getting more and more bizarre in your responses. Abuse.
not all grants are for cutting edge research. I never suggested otherwise.
Examples of bias in funding would be rejected funding applications. Again—a question that has not been answered—are you suggesting that the only reason creationists don't get funding is that they don't apply? That attitudes towards creationism would play no part?
PS: Does John Hartnett count? I don't know how much of his research could be counted as creationary research (probably none of it would be explicitly creationary research), but to the extent that it could, he would be a rare exception to the rule.
Phil can quibble and equivocate all he likes but it doesn't change the fact that the many millions flowing into places like AiG, the vast sums used to build mega-churches in the United States, the money raised by the Hovinds and Comforts of this world isn't being used to actually fund research (like the RATE guys did). And you can quibble and equivocate all you like but it doesn't change the fact that all the tax dollars taken off both evolutionists and creationists for scientific research and which doesn't go to origins-neutral research goes almost exclusively to pro-evolutionary research. Your point (which is not a valid point because they are not research organisations nor grant-giving organisations nor are most of the donations given for that purpose) doesn't change that point.
It is very telling. Yes it is very telling that evolutionists expect taxpayers to support them, but expect creationists to make do with private support.
They are happy to let others to the work and then criticise but bring nothing to the table themselves. Apart from all their tax dollars gobbled up by the evolutionists. Are you blind to that?
Which is why the rest of the world can [s]it back and say "put up or shut-up". No, it's why I can say that if you think creationists should do that, why shouldn't evolutionists? Why don't evolutionists get all their funding from the likes of the NCSE, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the American Humanists, etc.? After all, that's the sort of thing that you are proposing for creationists. Why the double standards?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
You can assert that your creationists' hypotheses and proposed experiments have merit, but if you don't tell us what they are, it's merely an assertion. What do your creationists propose? Steriledepraved mind! 14:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
So you're not going to tell me where you asked before?
Given that I'm not a creationary scientist who has ever thought of something that I'd like to research, I don't have anything in mind myself, and I don't know specifically what others might have wanted. I do know that I've seen various ones suggest areas for further research, if that's what you might be talking about, although I'd have to hunt them down to quote them to you.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
NCSE annual budget as at 2007: $800,000
AiG: 21 Million.
You are still not getting it. If creationists want tax-supported funding (which AiG does get in a roundabout way of being tax-exempt) then use some of the vast amounts of money flowing in to propose a test, complete it and share the results. If you can overturn evolution expect many millions and a lot of attention. All you are doing is moaning about not getting tax funding but what is being done about it? Even if I were to agree that there was a case of unfairness I would still criticise the creation institutes for doing nothing about it except moan. Put up or shut up. Ace McWicked (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

[1] (And you've left answered several questions on other pages. I'm particularly interested in this one.) Otherwise, I await the proposed experiments. Steriledepraved mind! 18:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

NCSE annual budget as at 2007: $800,000 So? Are you saying that evolutionists deserve millions off taxpayers because evolutionists don't financially support evolutionist organisations? How does that make sense?
You are still not getting it. If creationists want tax-supported funding … then use some of the vast amounts of money flowing in to propose a test, complete it and share the results. Pardon? If creationists want tax-supported funding, use their own funding? That's a non-sequitur.
(which AiG does get in a roundabout way of being tax-exempt) Just like the NCSE.
Even if I were to agree that there was a case of unfairness I would still criticise the creation institutes for doing nothing about it except moan. Put up or shut up. What do you expect them to do about it?
Regarding Sterile's question, I was initially going to answer it more directly, but then chose to answer it in a different way. My further answer would be the one that I have since given in my post before this one in this section (at 15:04, 29 October 2013). As for the question on the Evolution talk page, I've yet to get to that. I might go there next.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Pardon? If creationists want tax-supported funding, use their own funding? That's a non-sequitur. No it's not. Saying it is indicates the abysmal depth of your ignorance and refusal to educate yourself. How do scientists get grants? They use existing facilities to work up proposed research according to NIH scientific protocols and ethical guidelines. In other words, the core infrastructure that scientists are using has nothing to with and is not supported by NIH funding. It's paid for by universities or private outfits like the Howard Hughes Institute. The NIH is extremely stingy, as Sterile indicated, with the money it doles out to principal investigators. When I worked in a neuroscience lab doing neurophysiology with extremely expensive reagents and timed pregnant rats we actually had to project what we expected to need. The NIH didn't pay for our any of our lab equipment, or even other things like culture dishes, media, pipette dishes, etc. that we used on the project. We had absurdly expensive microbiology equipment, custom hoods, desiccators, wet and dry incubators, gas, growing media, general lab chemicals, DI filter, Millipore filter, centrifuges, scales (one of them cost more than $3 grand), PCR machine, slots in the liquid nitrogen dewar for our own cell lines and standard cell lines, micropipette puller, Faraday cages, air buffer tables, $10,000+ patch clamping microscopes, dissection scopes, custom micro-manipulators, custom amplifiers, custom perfusion pumps, or any of the other absurdly expensive specialized equipment we needed. Get your facts straight. Your creationists need to set up basic facilities or associate with universities just like everyone else, public or private. Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean "So?". Are you being deliberately dense? If you actually grasped my point at all, in any way, you wouldn't be asking such dense questions. NCSE and AiG are not in anyway comparable. NCSE makes a pittance in comparison and can barely fund itself where as AiG makes massive sums of money. You are moaning and moaning about how awful it is that creationists get no funding yet there are vast sums of money being spent on Noah's Ark replicas, DVD's, flashy youtube videos and mega-churches. AiG has the resources to do large amounts of research but does none - the problem isn't the lack of funds. So stop [deleted by Umpire] complaining to me and complain to your precious creationist organisations because it is their fault, not anyone elses. Ace McWicked (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
No it's not. As stated, it was. What you obviously meant (that is, it's now obvious after further explanation) is that they should start with their own funding before they can expect tax-supported funding. That is not a non-sequitur, but that wasn't what you originally said.
Saying it is indicates the abysmal depth of your ignorance and refusal to educate yourself. Insult is not an argument; it's the resort of someone who doesn't have an argument.
How do scientists get grants? They use existing facilities to work up proposed research … In other words, the core infrastructure that scientists are using has nothing to with and is not supported by NIH funding. It's paid for by universities… Taxpayer-funded universities, perhaps? You've just shot your own argument down.
Get your facts straight. Your creationists need to set up basic facilities or associate with universities just like everyone else, public or private. Yeah, sure. Associate with a university that typically harasses and bullies creationists. And which your mates on the pro-evolutionary side would then bully to break the association? Sure. Now, do you have a sensible argument?
What do you mean "So?". Are you being deliberately dense? No, I'm not being dense, deliberately or otherwise. I mean, what does the NCSE's budget have to do with it? We were talking about scientific funding, and you switch to talking about a lobbying organisation.
NCSE and AiG are not in anyway comparable. Incorrect. They are both non-government organisations that promote their particular views. In fact one was set up specifically to oppose organisations such as the other. They may not be comparable in terms of income, but that does not mean that they are not in anyway comparable.
NCSE makes a pittance in comparison and can barely fund itself where as AiG makes massive sums of money. It's a free world. If the creationists have more people supporting them, that's not something to hold against them.
You are moaning and moaning about how awful it is that creationists get no funding… Actually, I'm not. I'm pointing out that funding is biased. If neither evolutionists nor creationists got government funding, I would not be objecting. It's the bias in the funding, not the lack of funding per se, that I'm highlighting.
… yet there are vast sums of money being spent on Noah's Ark replicas, DVD's, flashy youtube videos and mega-churches. Versus large sums of money being spent on secular museums, pro-evolution television propaganda, and so forth, which puts creationist spending into the shade. But we are not talking about that. We are talking about taxpayer funding of scientific research. That fact that you have to widen the discussion to other things (albeit inconsistently only widening it on the creationist side) shows that you don't have an argument.
AiG has the resources to do large amounts of research but does none - the problem isn't the lack of funds. And Bill Gates and the Howard Hughes Institute have vastly more money to do pro-evolutionary research, so that side doesn't have a lack of funds either, but still feeds on the public purse whilst denying the creationists access.
So stop … complaining to me and complain to your precious creationist organisations because it is their fault, not anyone elses. It's their fault that taxpayer funds are given to evolutionists but not creationists? You've not even attempted to put that argument. Yet that is the crux of the argument that I've been making. To quote someone, "If you actually grasped my point at all", you'd not have sidetracked onto what you think private non-research organisations with vastly smaller sums than the government should do with it, when the discussion was about the bias of government funding.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Funding - part2

Creation is based on the Bible, but it's not a "specific religion". srsly ?

The government doesn't just give money away. You have to have something to test, a hypothesis, specific aims. Duh!

great response. Can you show grant applications that have been rejected with the reason for rejection. The US government does give some grants to pure research on a principle of expanding knowledge. What creation concepts do you propose studying ?

Do you have evidence the creationists are submitting grants for creation science research? Do you have any evidence that they would get any if they did? In fact, are you even suggesting that?

This seems to be asking me to show the acceptance of a not-submitted grant application for an unspecified research program. You say creation science would not be accepted which is an unsupported assertion. Show the evidence that your claim is not mere paranoia. Hamster (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but roll my eyes every time I see Philip repeat this funding nonsense. As creationism is largely not about presenting positive evidence, but for the most part is a negative apologetic as we see here with Philip's and CMI's persistent denialism, I see there's a good reason creationists blow hot air about funding. Here's the thing though. There are lots and lots of experimental methods creationists might use to test certain theories. The RATE guys will tell you that radiometric dating labs only charge a few hundred up to a thousand dollars per sample. A lot of DNA sequences from relevant organisms are readily available online for free online. Sequencing is otherwise pretty cheap. You can set up a PCR system for less than a few grand. You can get your own Western blot system to do qualitative analysis of proteins for a few grand as well. When I investigated class action lawsuits against a pet food manufacturer and a large grocery store chain for adulterated meat food products, I paid something like $350 for an ELISA panel to detect proteins of common food livestock and contaminants. Everything cost less than a few grand. Cheap. Many of the foundational discoveries in science were made by individuals spending their own money. They didn't have millions. They built their instruments and tools by hand. Sheesh. I suspect Tas Walker would tell you that the most expensive part of doing geological research is plane tickets. So why is there more complaining that researching, Philip? Because creationists don't care about evidence. They already know the answers and are unwaiveringly committed to attempting to swat down evidence that refutes their unscientific positions. Creationists obviously care about rhetoric and impugning their enemies, not gathering and analyzing evidence to support their theories. Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
srsly ? Yes seriously.
great response. Can you show grant applications that have been rejected with the reason for rejection. See the discussion with Sterile above.
This seems to be asking me to show the acceptance of a not-submitted grant application for an unspecified research program. No, it's asking if you are even suggesting that they would get funding if they applied for it. Are you? And it's also asking if you have any evidence of that. That's a reasonable question given the strong bias against creationary views in mainstream science.
You say creation science would not be accepted which is an unsupported assertion. Show the evidence that your claim is not mere paranoia. See the discussion with Sterile above.
I can't help but roll my eyes every time I see Philip repeat this funding nonsense. It's not nonsense.
As creationism is largely not about presenting positive evidence, but for the most part is a negative apologetic… False.
…Philip's and CMI's persistent denialism… Vilification.
Here's the thing though. … Everything cost less than a few grand. So now your argument is that creationists don't need funding because research is cheap? Then why do evolutionists need funding? Answer please.
So why is there more complaining that researching, Philip? More baseless assertion. Who says there is?
Because creationists don't care about evidence. More vilification.
They already know the answers… Utter nonsense.
…and are unwaiveringly committed to attempting to swat down evidence that refutes their unscientific positions. That their position is unscientific is more nonsense, and your comment is better applied to evolutionists who bully and suppress views that challenge evolution.
Creationists obviously care about rhetoric and impugning their enemies,… You mean like this post of yours, which does almost nothing but that?
… not gathering and analyzing evidence to support their theories. More nonsense. Apart from some irrelevant comments about some costs, this post was nothing but denigration, vilification, and nonsense.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
So now your argument is that creationists don't need funding because research is cheap? Then why do evolutionists need funding? Answer please. You are being deliberately deceitful in quoting me like this and attempting to put these words in my mouth and I won't stand for it. I was as clear as day that some experiments creationist could do are cheap. What this has to do with "evolutionists" is your dishonesty in putting words in my mouth. Stop it. Nobody treats you like this. Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
You are being deliberately deceitful in quoting me like this and attempting to put these words in my mouth and I won't stand for it. What was being deceitful about that? If that wasn't your point, then what was your point? I never suggested that creationists couldn't afford to do any research (they do do some); my point all along is that they are denied funding from the taxpayer sources that evolutionists have access to.
What this has to do with "evolutionists" is your dishonesty in putting words in my mouth. I wasn't putting words in your mouth—you are falsely accusing me by saying I am—I'm drawing reasonable conclusions from what you said.
Stop it. Nobody treats you like this. You sure about that?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Creationist Lies

Should we have a section about creationists who lie in order to advance their agenda? Ace McWicked (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

And the silly antics Ray Comfort uses? Ace McWicked (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, to the first question, if you can find any (creationists are generally Christians, who value truth, so they tend not to lie). Keep in mind what I wrote here, though.
As for Ray Comfort, we discussed him earlier on this page (now in the archive). I did not categorically rule him out, but did suggest that he didn't qualify (per the link in my previous paragraph).
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
He doesn't qualify because he is a liar? How about Behe? He is a liar too. Ace McWicked (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you should try responding to what I've written instead of to things I haven't written. And be careful with the accusations, else you might earn yourself another block. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Whoops, forgot about this. It isn't an "accusation" - Ray Comfort is a liar. and here's the evidence. Ace McWicked (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Pathetic. First, this is not what anyone would normally consider lying. At worst, it's sloppy production. Second, the video itself makes various disputable claims, and could itself be accused of lying.
  • The narrator refers to Comfort's video as a creationist video. Comfort is a creationist (one that I have concerns about), but there is nothing to indicate that Comfort's video has anything to do with creationism (many of Comfort's videos are not to do with creationism). This is merely an attempt to blacken the name of creationism.
  • The narrator says that "A lot of creationists would probably answer yes to the same question". This is a baseless accusation, and one that I, as a creationist, would reject categorically, as I would reject the premise of not getting caught, as God would know what I did.
  • The narrator goes on, "So Lorenzo comes across as intelligent, rational, and sympathetic to a victim's plight". Saying that he would kill an abusive husband for free makes him seem intelligent and rational??? I don't see how.
  • The narrator's case is based on the question changing from "the husband is a rat, a nasty person who beats up his wife" to "the wife says that her husband is a rat". The narrator puts a spin on the new version, claiming that "the potential victim is no longer a nasty dude beating up his wife". But the new question doesn't say that. If the change to the question constitutes a lie, this claim of the narrator constitutes a lie also. But a better explanation is that the narrator is not claiming that; he's pointing out what is missing from the original question, but putting a spin on it to make it seem like a deliberate change. And similarly, a better explanation of Comfort's question is that he's simply shortened the question for the video. The only real change is from the husband being a nasty person on the say-so of the questioner to him being a nasty person on the basis of the say-so of the wife. There is no hint in the new question that the wife has insufficient reason for making her claim.
  • But there's another aspect that may be in play here. Comfort's videos often follow a format, also used by commercial television producers, of asking the same question of numerous people, but not playing the entire question on the edited program in every case, to save time and repetition. Is that all that is happening here? I can't tell, because the video does not identify Comfort's video and with a quick search I can't find it to check for myself.
  • The narrator makes a false claim deceptive editing has been seen in creationist videos before. It shows clips of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (not a creationist video, so there's another claimant for a lie), but offers no evidence of deceptive editing in that video, and I know of none, despite having checked out claims of such (so another claimant for a lie).
  • One other question I have is how the narrator got the "original" video. I can't help wondering if both versions were included in the final product, which if so kind of undermines the narrator's case.
So, in summary, this is evidence of poor editing at best, not of attempting to be deceptive.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 09:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Did Comfort originally ask different questions of the men interviewed while standing next to each other? Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it isn't a lie - it's just extremely dishonest editing. Glad that was sorted. Ace McWicked (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Asp, can you point me to the original video so that I can attempt to make a fair judgement?
Ace, what's your reasoning for it being "extremely dishonest" rather than just poor editing, if that?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
dunno if Asp is available , so I will give you this from the video description. " Published on May 19, 2013

The editing of the Ben Stein interview with Richard Dawkins is analysed in my video "Golden Crocoduck nominees 2012 (Part 3)" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8btZ0K...

The uncut version of the Comfort interview shown in this video can be found at:

"I would murder for free" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xTLkv...

The dishonestly edited version of the same video is at: "Genius -- the movie" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7pe3_..." Hamster (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

this question Asp, can you point me to the original video so that I can attempt to make a fair judgement? does raise a question about your earlier comments on this point. What have you been basing your claims on if not the original video ? Hamster (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you have evidence the creationists are submitting grants for creation science research? Do you have any evidence that they would get any if they did? In fact, are you even suggesting that? As I replied before you can not get a grant if you do not bother to apply. What evidence do you have that creationist organisations are being rejected for funding on valid research topics ? Hamster (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry - these pages get so long and there is so much meta discussion and Philip's posts typically get longer and longer and longer - reading talk pages here is a real chore. Ace cited the video. I asked you a simple question based on your viewing. You seem to have been making a very serious oversight in defending what I also think is open deceit, so I want to make sure I understand what you were saying. Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
dunno if Asp is available , so I will give you this from the video description.. Thanks. But the case is still not made. For one thing, potholer54 claims that the video was changed because it didn't make the interviewees look bad enough. But it's actually a different video, which simply incorporates clips of the other, with an added voice-over that spans several different clips. There is no evidence of Comfort dishonestly changing the question to make the interviewees look worse.
And perhaps potholer54 should grant himself a Golden Crocoduck award. The rationale in the video about Expelled is, "Dawkins' answers don't make sense to me, so he must have been edited." Sorry, but perhaps the truth is that Dawkins' answers didn't make sense. Further, he says "But of course the conditions that he was given, that he had to come up with some way that ID might have happened, have been cut." In other words, he is saying what he thinks Stein put into his question. Yet near the end of the video, he says "At least my subscribers know that they're not being thrown a straw-man, because I always show them what someone actually says, rather than make up some spurious claim about what they said." WRONG! This video shows him making up what Stein must have said; he does NOT "show them what [Stein] actually says". potholer54 is guilty of making mountains out of molehilss.
this question Asp, can you point me to the original video so that I can attempt to make a fair judgement? does raise a question about your earlier comments on this point. What have you been basing your claims on if not the original video ? On potholer45's critique. That in itself was enough for me to make the points I made above.
You seem to have been making a very serious oversight in defending what I also think is open deceit, so I want to make sure I understand what you were saying. I don't agree that it is "open deceit", and I don't believe the case has been made for that. Given that, what "serious oversight" are you talking about?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 06:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Larry Morans quote

the link for Larry Morans quote is hardly supportive of creationism and he does not explain what he means by "narrow definition of science" . From that article the next line reads" The conflict is between rationalism and superstition and we should be teaching rationalism, and opposing superstition, in every class … that includes science classes." so he is not supporting a valid scientific controversy but rather saying creationism is bad science and superstition. I think this is perilously close to a quote mine. But its your wiki. Hamster (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

the link for Larry Morans quote is hardly supportive of creationism... HOLD THE PRESSES! The anti-creationist myth that creationists only cite other creationists has been shown to be FALSE! Hamster reveals the shocking truth! Therefore anti-creationists will have to change their accusations!
...he does not explain what he means by "narrow definition of science" . So? Does he need to? RW people (i.e., anti-creationists) have said to me "there is no controversy". Anti-creationist Jerry Coyne said "What controversy? It’s not a scientific one...". Commenter Carl said "There is no controversy." Moran replied to Carl, saying that they were wrong: There is a controversy, and it doesn't help calling it a non-scientific one. Therefore, according to Moran, the anti-creationists who say that there is no controversy are wrong, and trying to support that by saying that here is no scientific controversy doesn't really work either. So even without knowing what he meant bye a "narrow definition of science", the point is still clear that he disagrees with the claim. For what it's worth, he's probably meaning that as the (very real) controversy is about a scientific issue, for all intents and purposes, you might as well label it a "scientific controversy".
I think this is perilously close to a quote mine. Ahh, that old term again. So what, exactly, does it mean?
  1. That it's a quote taken out of context (i.e. because it's out of its context the meaning is changed)?
  2. That a creationist has (*shock* *horror*) correctly quoted an evolutionist in a way that an anti-creationist finds uncomfortable, so they try and vilify the creationist?
The problems with No. 1 are (a) if this was the case, describing it as "out of context" sufficiently describes it, yet this was not done, and (b) there was no explanation of how the meaning was changed by it being out of context. Despite Moran obviously not endorsing creationism, the point remains that he agrees that there is a controversy. Not quoting his following sentence doesn't change that point.
So that leaves No. 2. The quote was correct, but you don't like that shows anti-creationists as being wrong, so you try and vilify the creationist. Hardly intellectually honest. But then that's what I've come to expect from anti-creationists.
But its your wiki. And to cap it off, some condescension, implying that if I don't change it, I'm somehow biased or at fault, yet without any attempt to show that the quote is incorrect and without showing that it is out of context.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
not condescension PJR, just a statement of fact. Hamster (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
No, not "just" a statement of fact. It's a statement of fact loaded with connotation.
And, incidentally (following a comment on another talk page), above is another question you haven't answered: So what, exactly, does it mean?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

"Contradictory arguments"

The lumping together of anti-creationists in order to ascribe several positions that are part of a larger discussion that's not even mentioned, which of course will be different in some regards, is such a kindergarten rhetorical strategy that I question the good faith of whoever wrote this. It's at least so unsophisticated that it tends to mislead. What the writer calls "contradictory arguments" made by anti-creationists in general are merely several arguments in a larger philosophical discussion of the demarcation problem that's been going on at least since the Greeks. That alone ought to demonstrate that there are multiple good faith positions under discussion. I realize the idea of prevailing philosophical perspectives evolving is foreign to YECs. Rewriting this section to accurately characterize the nature of these arguments would show that "contradictory" is a false category and so I will be removing it unless someone can come up with an honest justification for treating "evolutionists'" according to a standard that requires them to be monolithic in their approach to this particular question on the philosophy of science. The article should accurately describe what positions thinkers actually take, but should not lump them together to make a general statement that is in every specific case false. For example, any academic writer pitting Judge Overton against Dr. Ruse when both are simply taking different good faith positions on a question that's not susceptible of an objective answer would and should be excoriated for such lazy thinking done solely to score cheap ideological points in what is essentially a strawman non-sequitur. Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I'm following. I think what you are saying is that person A says X, and person B says Y, and X and Y appear to contradict, but A and B are talking about different things in a way that doesn't contradict. Although that would need to be shown, not just asserted, it fails in the cases of three of the examples in the article. In three cases we have person A saying both X and Y. In the remaining (first) case, the one you particularly mention, it is two different groups of people, but you haven't shown that they are talking about different things in a way that doesn't contradict.
Given that, can I similarly accuse you of such lazy thinking done solely to score cheap ideological points?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
No, you can't accuse me of that unless you want me to call you a liar, which you'd be.
Philip, imagine me speaking very slowly when I say this. CMI routinely claims that god claims that "origin science" isn't falsifiable. CMI also attempts to show that specific factual claims made by creationists and mainstream scientists it disagrees with are false. Therefore, CMI itself (and you know this even though you're not being forthright about it because you can't stand criticism) recognizes that specific factual claims made by creationists are subject to falsification. Putting aside whether falsifiability is such an important criterion of what "science" is, you must now admit that CMI itself refutes your claims that there are any contradictions here.
You simply cannot compare the statements of two different people and say that they're contradicting each other as you wish. They're perhaps taking different positions.
As to individual quotes:
  • A judge thinks "creation science" isn't falsifiable. CMI agrees. This to is something you simply can't deny: CMI would claim it's falsified specific factual claims made by creationists it disagrees with. This goes for c-decay, missing days because of Jericho or whatever nonsense, thickness of dust on the moon, etc. These are claims some creationists thought flowed from "creation science," but which are universally accepted as false unless you're a crank.
  • Ruse says "creation science" isn't falsifiable. CMI agrees. He goes on to say that specific factual claims are falsifiable. CMI agrees.
  • You've got Gould speaking of "scientific creationism" generally and saying its not falsifiable. CMI agrees. He then says that specific factual claims are falsifiable and have indeed been falsified. CMI agrees.
  • You've got Prothero making a distinction between supernatural claims, which aren't subject to examination, as CMI admits, because the answer is God did it, and specific paranormal explanations that have been tested so therefore are falsifiable. If you think there's anything untestable about water dousing, prophesy, etc., there's no point in anyone here ever speaking to you again. But, even as CMI admits, specific factual claims are subject to examination and have been been shown to be false. What's the big mystery about this?
So to be clear, not that my personal opinion matters, but I come down on the side of those who accept that certain specific creationist claims are subject to empirical examination and have been shown to be false - the adherence to creationist nonsense that's been shown to be false is what I call pseudoscience. This is consistent with historical approaches. Ptolemy's system was once accepted. It is now known to be false. Defending it is pseudoscientific. God claims are not subject to examination except by revelation, which is worthless as evidence of anything but someone's personal experience.
Reverting. Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
No, you can't accuse me of that unless you want me to call you a liar, which you'd be. Yet your claim was as poor as you claimed mine to be.
CMI routinely claims that god claims that "origin science" isn't falsifiable. Err, no, it doesn't. But perhaps you mis-wrote. We'll try again.
CMI routinely claims that … "origin science" isn't falsifiable. Even this I have to question. Can you supply a reference so I can see what you are referring to?
CMI also attempts to show that specific factual claims made by creationists and mainstream scientists it disagrees with are false. Yes, there are cases in which it does that.
…you can't stand criticism… Utter nonsense. If I couldn't stand it, I would have withdrawn into my shell long ago, the amount I cop.
CMI itself … recognizes that specific factual claims made by creationists are subject to falsification. Yes, as I wrote in origins science.
…CMI itself refutes your claims that there are any contradictions here. No, it does not, and you've not shown it, except by unsubstantiated assertions.
You simply cannot compare the statements of two different people and say that they're contradicting each other as you wish. They're perhaps taking different positions. I can say that, if they are indeed contradicting each other. Which of course they are doing if the are taking different positions!
A judge thinks "creation science" isn't falsifiable. CMI agrees. This to is something you simply can't deny: I do deny that CMI agrees with such a blanket statement. Of course, that is not what you are saying, but that is what the judge was saying about ID (not creationism).
CMI would claim it's falsified specific factual claims made by creationists it disagrees with. Yes, although...
This goes for c-decay, missing days because of Jericho or whatever nonsense, thickness of dust on the moon, etc. These are claims some creationists thought flowed from "creation science," but which are universally accepted as false unless you're a crank. Actually, with regard to c-decay, I think it would be more accurate to say that it says that the argument has too many unanswered problem, rather than it being falsified. And for the missing time, it points out that the claim that NASA has shown it is false, and that there is no way that it could be shown, not that the claim itself has been falsified. Yes, the thickness of the dust on the moon argument has been falsified, because that is about something in the present, not the past, that can be checked.
Ruse says "creation science" isn't falsifiable. CMI agrees. He goes on to say that specific factual claims are falsifiable. CMI agrees. In the referenced article, Ruse does not say that. He says that "evolution does indeed make falsifiable claims … the judge accepted that evolutionary thinking is falsifiable" (my emphasis). He then goes on to say that the judge "accepted that Creation Science is never truly open to check. It is not falsifiable and hence not genuine science" (my emphasis again). So, very clearly, the contrasting claims are that evolution does make falsifiable claims, but creation does not. He is not saying that both theories as a whole are unfalsifiable but that both make some falsifiable claims. Your claim about Ruse is simply false.
You've got Gould speaking of "scientific creationism" generally and saying its not falsifiable. CMI agrees. He then says that specific factual claims are falsifiable and have indeed been falsified. CMI agrees. There is nothing in Gould's comments to say that he is drawing a distinction between creationism in general and specific claims about it. Further, this one is actually a quote from an anti-creationist pointing out the contradiction.
You've got Prothero making a distinction between supernatural claims, which aren't subject to examination, as CMI admits, because the answer is God did it, and specific paranormal explanations that have been tested so therefore are falsifiable. Except that he's not making the distinction. That is in your imagination. Prothero is clearly contradicting himself. In fact Prothero says "once you introduce the supernatural to a scientific hypothesis, there is no way to falsify or test it." (my emphasis). He is not talking about creation as a whole, but about any particular hypothesis that might include the supernatural.
If you think there's anything untestable about water dousing, prophesy, etc., there's no point in anyone here ever speaking to you again. I don't think that; Prothero's claiming that, then contradicting himself.
But, even as CMI admits, specific factual claims are subject to examination and have been been shown to be false. What's the big mystery about this? The "mystery" is that many evolutionists don't admit to this.
I come down on the side of those who accept that certain specific creationist claims are subject to empirical examination and have been shown to be false… Therefore, you must agree that creation cannot be considered unscientific on the grounds that it's unfalsifiable.
…the adherence to creationist nonsense that's been shown to be false is what I call pseudoscience. And what I call nonsense is false claims that it's been shown to be false.
God claims are not subject to examination except by revelation… Yet you've just admitted that, in cases, they can be! You are now contradicting yourself!
…except by revelation, which is worthless as evidence of anything but someone's personal experience. That's another non-sequitur unsubstantiated assertion.
Reverting. Re-reverting, because you've not made your case.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Definition of Creationist / creationism

It would be helpful to have a definative definition of creationist. I dont think it has ever been definined.

Bumba the african vomit God for exsample created the world. Are his followers creationists ?
Is the Discovery Institute a creationist organisation ?
how about Intelligent Design proponents ?
old earthers ?
theistic evolutionists ?
is CMI the only TRUE creationist ?

Hamster (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I dont think it has ever been definined. Ever?? Or not in this article? We don't define every word used, we rely on dictionaries and people understanding English. Not that I'm suggesting that "creationist" doesn't need defining at some point. In some circumstances it does. But the word is normally used of a biblical creationist, so I would suggest that that is the way that it should be understood unless a specific definition or the context indicates otherwise. Is there a use in this article that you think is problematic?
Is the Discovery Institute a creationist organisation ? Not by the normal use of the word, no.
how about Intelligent Design proponents ? In their role as ID proponents, no, not by the normal use of the word. Of course a creationist could also be an ID proponent.
old earthers ? theistic evolutionists ? Not by the normal use, but it is sometimes used of some old-earthers, and much more rarely of theistic evolutionists.
is CMI the only TRUE creationist ? Of course not.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
so creationist means ANY christian who belives in a literaL creation by the christian God ?
Kent Hovind , Eric Hovind and Ray comfort all are creationists.
old earthers No , even though they believe in Genesis, just not the time scale. Hamster (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes to your first line, and yes to the second. Of course I work with some people (not all of them) who are evolutionists. That doesn't mean that they know much about it, but they believe it, so are evolutionists. There is clearly a difference between an "ordinary" creationist (or evolutionist) and someone with enough authority on the topic to be quoted on it, though.
No, it's not correct to say that old earthers are not creationists. What I said is that the way the word is normally used doesn't include them. But sometimes it is used that way.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 01:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Schadewald

what he has said on several occasions is that creationists are winning debates because of their strategy in the debate of having the evolutionist lay out their position and then attacking specific points. When he suggested reversing the roles, ie let creationists go first the creationists started to lose. Hamster (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you supply a reference for that? That is not the same as I have read, but perhaps he did give more than one reason/excuse. In the meantime I'll adjust the wording in the article and put a tag on it.
However, regardless of his opinion as to why the creationists were winning, the point being made is that he agrees that they did win most of the debates.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I'm going to revert the edit instead of adjusting and tagging, because the current text is citing something that Schadewald said in 1982, and I suspect your source is later. That doesn't mean that it can't be added back in when you have a source, but it appears to be incorrect in the context of the current text as referring to 1982. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The point is not that they "did" win unless you like quote mining and obfuscating what "win" actually means. I've never once seen an anti-creationist say that a creationist won anything on the merits. They don't. What I have seen is use of the word "win" to describe the creationist's ability to razzle-dazzle an audience that may even have been bussed in, as CRS did, with lies, bogus rhetoric, fallacies, and mischaracterizations and misrepresentations large and small. "Win" has never been used as you wish to us it. Find one single use of an anti-creationist ever "admitting" a creationist won a debate on the merits. One. Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Philip is your schadewald quote referenced ? oh I see , but no book title, hmm , is that meant to be an IBID entry ? any comment of his as to why they one is particularly relevant, if it changes the understanding of the matter at hand, unless a win is more important than anything else. Could you post the next few sentances, I dont find an online source and my library does not have it. Hamster (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I've never once seen an anti-creationist say that a creationist won anything on the merits. They don't. Of course they won't admit that it's on the merits, and I never suggested otherwise.
What I have seen is use of the word "win" to describe the creationist's ability to razzle-dazzle an audience… No, they won the debates, by a more-convincing argument. Now you can argue that was because the evolutionist was unprepared, or something, but not "razzle-dazzle".
…an audience that may even have been bussed in, as CRS did… Evidence?
…with lies, bogus rhetoric, fallacies, and mischaracterizations and misrepresentations large and small. Unsubstantiated false accusations.
Find one single use of an anti-creationist ever "admitting" a creationist won a debate on the merits. One. First, find one single place I made such a claim.
Reportedly, Schadewald admitted that the creationists were "winning", i.e. convincing a majority of the audience (which is a nonsense claim if they were already die-hard creationists "bussed in"). Of course he wouldn't agree that it was because creationists had the better argument, but as the article said, Schadewald reported that the evolutionists "decided to organise their efforts better", (quoting the article, not Schadewald) implying that a lack of proper organisation (preparedness?) by the evolutionists was what he put it down to. Nobody has suggested that he was admitting that the creationists had a better case to make, so you are attempting to refute a straw-man of your own making.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Hamster, the following is from the reference given:

The future of the debates promises to be even more exciting than the past has been. The reason is that evolutionists are getting organized in order to more effectively respond to the creationist challenge. Writing in the November issue of Science 82, a publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, science journalist Robert Schadewald (who debated Gish on Station WHO, Des Moines, in 1980) believes that because of better preparation and an organized network, evolutionists are beginning to win some of the Morris/Gish debates. This is a rather subjective statement on his part since no attempt is made to determine an official "winner."

Admitting that creationists "won" virtually all of them in the past, Schadewald feels that the turning point was the Morris/Miller debate at Brown University in the Spring of 1981. He states that a small group of evolutionists have formed an informal communications network to exchange information. Miller, whom Schadewald calls "the most successful anti-creationist debater," estimated that about half of his arguments came from that network.

Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
how is asking for a reference from schadewald where he says only what you state a strawman ? You appear to have referenced Lunenow saying what Schadewald said which is not quite as compelling. It does ive me a source to persue for my rememberance of it in the context of strategies, so thanks. Hamster (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
how is asking for a reference from schadewald where he says only what you state a strawman ? I never said it was. I called a strawman yourAsp's claim that I said that Schadewald admitted to creationists winning on the merit of the argument. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
where did I say that explicitely ? Hamster (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
My mistake (based on your mistake)—it was Asp. But he did implicitly claim that I said that, I called that claim a straw-man, then you asked how asking for a reference was a straw-man, despite my reference to a straw-man argument being in my reply to Asp. So, because you misapplied my straw-man reference as referring to you, without checking back, I assumed that it was you that I had made the straw-man reference to. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Weasel word scrub

I propose a weasel word scrub of this article. It's littered with them. Steriledepraved mind! 14:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's my initial audit. I may have missed some.
  • Anti-creationists frequently used to question the credentials of creationists How frequently?
  • Still common is to refer to "scientists" or the "scientific community" as opposed to "creationists" How common?
  • Some anti-creationists will claim to be religiously neutral, or even Christian, despite demonstrating a bias against religion or Christianity. How many is some? What percentage?
  • Evolutionists frequently attempt to apply standards to their critics that they do not apply to themselves, in particular focusing on the supposed motives of critics of evolution whilst ignoring the motives of evolutionists. How frequent is frequently?
  • Many other anti-creationist sources also quote the “1987 estimate” How many?
  • Evolutionists regularly claim that Intelligent Design is merely repackaged creationism How regularly?
  • Rather than stick to debating the issues, some anti-creationists will resort to abusive ad hominem arguments. How many is some?
  • Many formal debates have been held between evolutionists and those that question evolution (both creationists and Intelligent Design advocates), although evolutionists have increasingly refused to take part in such debates. How many?
  • Yet anti-creationists will frequently equate evolution with other scientific endeavours which can be directly studied and measured How frequently?
  • It is common for anti-creationists to claim or imply that creationists reject all of science… How common?
  • Evolutionists frequently use evidence that is not in dispute in order to argue for views that are in dispute How frequently?
  • Anti-creationists frequently create straw man arguments about creationism then knock them down… How frequently?
  • Anti-creationists frequently accuse creationists of "quote mining"… How frequently?
  • Anti-creationists sometimes take issue with the use of the word "evolutionist". How often is sometimes?
  • A common tactic is to point out that religion and evolution are compatible… How common?
  • Similarly, anti-creationists will often quote the claims of prominent Christians How often?
  • A number of atheist and agnostic evolutionists try and involve theistic evolutionists How many is “a number”?

I suggest a major revision, or fact tags will be implemented. Steriledepraved mind! 20:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I've created aSK:Weasel words as a (partial?) response to this. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Having a policy that allows original research does not mean that you've justified anything. Original research still must be sourced. I'll put the fact tags on when I get a chance since you have failed. Or actually, I'll take out the words as they should be unnecessary. Steriledepraved mind! 15:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
It's actually a policy on imprecise terms, and it acknowledges that it may be impractical to always give references.
So you might take out the words? So you would change…
  • Some anti-creationists will claim to be religiously neutral, or even Christian, despite demonstrating a bias against religion or Christianity.
…to…
  • Anti-creationists will claim to be religiously neutral, or even Christian, despite demonstrating a bias against religion or Christianity.
…? Do you really think that's an improvement?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
how about " scientists will oppose creationist beliefs which are contradicted by their research while demonstrating a devotion to their chosen religion ." Hamster (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I do think it's an improvement, since it prevents the creationist from making a false impression. If you can't say it in a straightforward way, then don't say it at all. It is interesting that all of these deal with the anti-creationist side. Steriledepraved mind! 10:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
So limiting it to "some" anticreationists is worse than implying that it's anti-creationists generally? You'll have to explain that one to me, including explaining why someone else shouldn't dispute the broader claim on the grounds of it being incorrect, and explaining why I should see such a change as an attempt to have the entire point removed on the same grounds of it being to broad. As for the claims being from one side, if your side got it's house in order, it wouldn't be so lop-sided. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Time and number-based ambiguities a way of equivocating on the significance of a claim. "Some" mean two or it could been 20,000. Either way it gives the impression that anti-creationists do something, when the relevance to the entire anti-creationist movement might be insignificant (if it's two) or significant (if it's a large number of them). If it's the former, it's dishonest, and hence the term weasel word. Your creationist side hasn't done the hard work of verifying that these are significant, especially in the journals in which theory of evolution is developed (i.e., not at all in the actual profession of biology). Further, as I've said before, not a one of these is about the details of evolution or even about science, and this article continues to be a characterization of people and arguments. Even from a sociological perspective (i.e., what scientists and creation scientists do, and what ideas they have), this article fails. It's insubstantial as an encyclopedia article and bizarre to me that you seem to be so proud of it. Steriledepraved mind! 02:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I would not use the word "some" for two out of 20,000+. I believe that common English usage would indicate a rough scale of such terms, something along the lines of:
  • None
  • Few
  • Some
  • Many
  • Most
  • All
And similar would apply to other words such as "sometimes" and "frequently". So I don't accept that such words give no indication, as you seem to be implying.
…especially in the journals in which theory of evolution is developed (i.e., not at all in the actual profession of biology). The accused is standing before the judge, charged with abusing police with foul language. The accused tries to excuse himself: "I only swore verbally; I didn't swear in a formal letter to the officer. So it shouldn't count". Your argument trying to have us ignore the tactics of evolutionists outside of journals is like that—it's trying to excuse the inexcusable on ridiculous grounds.
Further, as I've said before, not a one of these is about the details of evolution or even about science,… And as I've asked before, so what?
… this article continues to be a characterization of people and arguments. Yep. And it seems that you are ashamed of the tactics of such people, else you wouldn't be trying to sweep it under the carpet.
Even from a sociological perspective (i.e., what scientists and creation scientists do, and what ideas they have), this article fails. It's insubstantial as an encyclopedia article… On the contrary, the article has a a lot of substance.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I work in an academic environment and interact with biologists and biochemists all the time. They teach classes in which they directly and indirectly refer to evolution everyday, and the school has an entire course on evolution. They discuss the evidence in detail, and they discuss other concepts in reference to evolution. It never occurs to them to mention creationism. And there are thousands of biologists that everyday study organisms and refer to evolution, again directly and indirectly, without even the through of creationism crossing their minds. The geologists and astronomers I know are the same way.

That's my context for dealing with "evolutionists." You are my primary creationist contact (and Bradley I suppose, as well). You are frequently rude to others here and to myself. You make assumptions based on what you claim to have encountered, and you write your screed on this page, based on on or two examples, which are really not representative of the scientific community. That's what you called "bigoted." And the frequency and number you do not even bother to justify in any way.

Can you guess who I am ashamed of (or more properly, embarrassed by) in this case? Steriledepraved mind! 17:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I would imagine, because its what my students had to do, that when you wrote a paper you qualify in a footnote any terms like often, frequently, or some with an actual statistic. A dictionary defines "some" as "an unspecified number or amount of people or things." with a few saying "generally a small group" which implies at least 3. That's potentially misleading in a phrase like "some scientists believe the moon is made of cheese". A percentage or finite number , or a number that can be looked up is preferable. Something like all the scientists at CMI believe in a literal biblical creation approx 6000 years ago. An encyclopedia should endeavor always to avoid any ambiguity because generally those people looking up the article are not knowledgeable about the subject, and we don't want them confused (just my opinion) Hamster (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I work in an academic environment … It never occurs to them to mention creationism. Okay. So?
You are my primary creationist contact… Which just goes to show how sheltered you are from creationism. Or perhaps you know other creationists but don't realise it?
You are frequently rude to others here and to myself. Try looking on your side of the fence. I'm a saint compared to the abuse I cop.
You make assumptions based on what you claim to have encountered,… "claim"? You question my integrity without offering a shred of evidence that I haven't actually encountered what I say I have.
based on on[e] or two examples, which are really not representative of the scientific community. Many of the comments do not claim to be "representative of the scientific community". On the contrary, many refer to "anti-creationists", which is only a subset of evolutionists.
That's what you called "bigoted." Demonstrate where I call evolutionists as a whole "bigoted", or anyone bigoted without demonstrating that they are. And I thought that you were referring to the article, in which I don't refer to anyone as bigoted. You accuse me of misrepresenting ordinary evolutionists, but here you are misrepresenting me.
And the frequency and number you do not even bother to justify in any way. What should I do? Give the impression that they are isolated cases, when they are not? Not mention the problem at all unless I can put a figure on it? How about your side cleans up its act before criticising me for pointing out the tactics that your side engages it?
I would imagine, because its what my students had to do, that when you wrote a paper you qualify in a footnote any terms like often, frequently, or some with an actual statistic. And if I don't have an "actual statistic", do you want me to pretend that the problem doesn't exist?
That's potentially misleading in a phrase like "some scientists believe the moon is made of cheese". Just as well I don't make that claim then, isn't it?
An encyclopedia should endeavor always to avoid any ambiguity because generally those people looking up the article are not knowledgeable about the subject, and we don't want them confused (just my opinion) True, so how do you propose to reduce ambiguity without some research on the topic to produce some actual figures?
Of course, there is also the point that nobody here has come up with much in the way of evidence of leading creationists behaving badly like the anti-creationists. That should tell you something, but you seem too concerned with blaming the victim (the creationists) for pointing out what they have to put up with from the anti-creationists.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I was being too subtle. I was saying that you are acting out bigotry, the way you define bigotry. What I and others are also expressing is a fascination and frustration about why you feel necessary to slime evolutionists, when the content of evolution and creationism is more important for "winning" the debate. While you may think it "puffs up" the creationist movement, it really just makes you look petty. Do you really want to describe your opponents as fallacy-using buffoons, or do you want to actually discuss facts and scientific theories? Most of aSK and in particular this article would seem to indicate that former.
The actions of nearly all "professional" creationist are far more focused on antics rather than developing testable hypotheses and positive claims. (The amount of money being raised to make a model Ark could well fund a research group for several years. The obsession with Dawkins not answering the question in no ways allows the creationist to define information, which you still have not done.) I'm sure if I put that in the article, you'd scrub it out; however, it's as justified as your claims. Anyway, the problem have been shown and you've only refuted with the intellectual equivalent of a three-year old's "not-uh." (On the contrary, the article has a a lot of substance, is an unsupported assertion if I've ever heard one.) Steriledepraved mind! 16:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
"leading creationists", theres that term again. Has it ever been defined ? just who are these people ? Kent and Eric Hovind, Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort all seem to have been disqualified. Perhaps Philip Johnson ? William Dembski ? Hamster (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I was saying that you are acting out bigotry, the way you define bigotry. How so?
What I and others are also expressing is a fascination and frustration about why you feel necessary to slime evolutionists, when the content of evolution and creationism is more important for "winning" the debate. Perhaps I should ask you why so many anticreationists feel it necessary to slime creationists. And by "slime", what I mean is ridicule, vilification, and denigration, not merely documenting such underhanded tactics as I am doing. And part of "winning" the debate is understanding the underhanded tactics that some employ.
it really just makes you look petty. That sounds like the pot calling the kettle black (referring to sides, not all individuals of a side).
Do you really want to describe your opponents as fallacy-using buffoons, or do you want to actually discuss facts and scientific theories? If you had any consistency, you'd take the anti-creationists using those fallacies to task for their tactics. But it seems that you'd rather criticise me for pointing out their tactics than them for using them.
…or do you want to actually discuss facts and scientific theories? You seem to think that I can't do both.
Most of aSK and in particular this article would seem to indicate that former. I reject that most of aSK (at least the non-talk pages) do indicate that).
The actions of nearly all "professional" creationist are far more focused on antics rather than developing testable hypotheses and positive claims. Unless you are using "antics" extremely broadly, I reject that.
(The amount of money being raised to make a model Ark could well fund a research group for several years. I assume that you are referring to the full-size "model" proposed for the Ark Park. First, I expect that the plan is that this is in investment, in that it will generate revenue that will repay its costs. Second, if this is not the case, then I would likely agree that it's not a wise use of the money. Third, most likely most of the money is being given specifically for that, and it would therefore be unethical to divert that money to something else, such as research.
The obsession with Dawkins not answering the question in no ways allows the creationist to define information, which you still have not done.) It is false to say that it has not been done.
("On the contrary, the article has a a lot of substance," is an unsupported assertion if I've ever heard one.) It's no more unsupported that the assertion that it was rebutting.
"leading creationists", theres that term again. Has it ever been defined ? Of course.
  • "They seem to fit Philips definition of leading creationists."—Hamster, 2nd March 2010.[2]
  • "When I referred to "leading creationists", I was using the definition I gave here."—me. In reply: "OK found the TRUE creationists."—Hamster, 12th October 2010[3].
  • "…given that the leading creationists overwhelmingly reject this proposal"—me. In reply: "got that list of acceptable creationists ?"—Hamster. I replied "See talk:Creation-evolution controversy#Author's comments", 7th June 2010[4]
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Discovery Institute

I refer to Kitzmiller v Dover where a federal court judge ruled ID to be creationism. I think federal supreme court cases are adequate to make the point. I will also offer the DI wedge document and the history of their site as support. A Governing Goal is stated as "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." There is also the claim from Dembski that ID is (paraphrase) the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory. Surely an odd thing for a scientific theory to claim ? Hamster (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

So if the judge had ruled that ID was scientific, you'd simply accept that because the judge ruled it (and it wasn't the Supreme Court, by the way)?
There is also the claim from Dembski that ID is (paraphrase) the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory. Surely an odd thing for a scientific theory to claim ? So which was it. Is it claimed by Dembski, or by the the theory of intelligent design? There is a difference, which I have pointed out (again) in the last few days.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
ID isn't a theory in the scientific sense, just in the "well, gosh, let's bounce around an idea" sense. Steriledepraved mind! 15:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
where is there a clear statement of ID theory ? Do you want all the quotes where the proponents themselves admit they havent got a cohesive theory. That quote of Dembskis is one of the leading ID proponents stating what ID is. why would any theory claim its the Logos of anyone ? Hamster (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
i fixed the thing above, I get confused about the regional federal courts.
yes if the Judge had ruled that the actions of the defendants was constitutional it would have been accepted , thats how courts work. I suspect that any legal avenues for judicial review would have been taken and perhaps parents taking kids out of that school district but thats there right, isn't it. Hamster (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
ID isn't a theory in the scientific sense, just in the "well, gosh, let's bounce around an idea" sense. Bald assertion.
where is there a clear statement of ID theory ? How about at intelligent design?
That quote of Dembskis is one of the leading ID proponents stating what ID is. It is? Why do you say that?
yes if the Judge had ruled that the actions of the defendants was constitutional it would have been accepted , thats how courts work. That wasn't the question.
suspect that any legal avenues for judicial review would have been taken and perhaps parents taking kids out of that school district but thats there right, isn't it. Just as it is my right to dispute the judge's decision, okay?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
no Philip, you are confusing a non-involved person with only third hand knowledge at best and some biased media reports at worst rather than a party to the action claiming his legal rights to redress a greivance. As I pointed out none of the actual witnesses filed a complaint of judicial misconduct. (Behe and the other guy). The others from DI had no standing since they withdrew from the case as expert witnesses. I dont remember if the Judge allowed their written reports to remain in evidence or not. Hamster (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Long response needed to be clear.
::::yes if the Judge had ruled that the actions of the defendants was constitutional it would have been accepted , thats how courts work. That wasn't the question.
your question {{tq|: So if the judge had ruled that ID was scientific, you'd simply accept that because the judge ruled it (and it wasn't the Supreme Court, by the way)?
my reply yes if the Judge had ruled that the actions of the defendants was constitutional it would have been accepted , thats how courts work.
what exactly are you complaining about ? The validity of ID as science was not the relevant issue to the case. The judge explained in extreme detail what he evaluated, what his findings were and why the defendants failed to show their actions were constitutional. The judges comments on ID was based largely on Barbra Forests testimony that showed the Book "Pandas" was clearly a creationist text from its drafts and that shortly after a Supreme court case, it became an ID book by the mechanism of a global replacement of the word creation(ist) with Intelligent design (proponent). The judge ruled that the material to be read to students was motivated by religion, had no secular purpose, and that the text suggested to students (originally to be a textbook) could not seperate itself from its creationist origin.
perhaps the judge could have ruled less comprehensively, but his reasons are clearly documented, and the point is well made that the ID proponents declined to testify. Do you believe, after reading the transcripts, the judges decision and the expert reports, that he should have done something different being in mind his ruling only applies in a small portion of the united states (i think just the Dover area school board) as to ID in a science classroom ?
Hamster (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
You can disagree with a judge in Pennsylvania all you want, or any judge anywhere. I am sure Judge Jones cares, except for the threats against his wife and kids. You wouldn't threaten to rape his daughters and burn his house down with his wife and kids in it would you. Or similar threat against Tammy Kitzmiller and her kids ? All made by the "good God fearing christians" in the area. (and that is a fact - professional information sources) Hamster (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
you are confusing a non-involved person with only third hand knowledge at best and some biased media reports at worst rather than a party to the action claiming his legal rights to redress a greivance. What, specifically, is that a reply to?
As I pointed out none of the actual witnesses filed a complaint of judicial misconduct. (Behe and the other guy). And I suggested an alternative reason why.
my reply Yes, that was your reply, but as I said, it didn't answer the question. More below.
The judge explained … why the defendants failed to show their actions were constitutional. Agreed. And that is what your reply was about—the actions of the defendants in the case. But it wasn't what my question was about.
The validity of ID as science was not the relevant issue to the case. But it is what you were talking about (I refer to Kitzmiller v Dover where a federal court judge ruled ID to be creationism.), and what I was asking about. You cited the judge as an authority, but now you try and say that he wasn't really talking about that! You can't have it both ways. How about answering the question instead of evading it?
The judges comments on ID was based largely on Barbra Forests testimony that showed the Book "Pandas" was clearly a creationist text from its drafts and that shortly after a Supreme court case, it became an ID book by the mechanism of a global replacement of the word creation(ist) with Intelligent design (proponent). Which is extremely thin grounds to base such comments on.
The judge ruled that the material to be read to students was motivated by religion, had no secular purpose, and that the text suggested to students (originally to be a textbook) could not seperate itself from its creationist origin. Yes, he did. But in doing so, he has applied a standard that is not applied to evolution, support for which is often motivated by religion (e.g. atheism), has no secular purpose, and the text of which cannot separate itself from its anti-biblical origin.
perhaps the judge could have ruled less comprehensively You think? Of course he could have. In fact you have now appeared to claim that the ruling on ID itself was merely incidental.
the point is well made that the ID proponents declined to testify. And the reasons why are also well made. So ...?
Do you believe, after reading the transcripts, the judges decision and the expert reports, that he should have done something different being in mind his ruling only applies in a small portion of the united states… Absolutely, given that he himself hoped/expected that it would apply more widely, and that anti-creationists and anti-iDers have applied it more widely, and you are doing that here, in citing this decision that only applies in a small portion of the united states as though this encyclopædia should bow to the ruling.
You can disagree with a judge in Pennsylvania all you want,… Good. I will.
You wouldn't threaten to rape his daughters and burn his house down with his wife and kids in it would you. Or similar threat against Tammy Kitzmiller and her kids ? I think it's despicable that you would even ask that, even rhetorically.
All made by the "good God fearing christians" in the area. (and that is a fact - professional information sources) Are you claiming to know more than has been made public? Because as far as I can find, neither the content nor the source of the "threats" have never been made public, and may not have been that threatening anyway:

Jones won't discuss details of the e-mails, or where they might have come from, but he said they concerned the U.S. Marshals Service.

So, in the week before Christmas, marshals kept watch over Jones and his family.

While no single e-mail may have reached the level of a direct threat, Jones said, the overall tone was so strident, marshals "simply determined the tenor was of sufficient concern that I ought to have protection."

"They decided to err on the side of caution," he said.[5]

This seems to be a case of throwing mud and hoping some sticks.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
sorry Philip, I was in Dover during parts of the trial. I was there representing my employer and providing security to all the members of our team. The various security staff freely exchanged any information about threats, NOT JUST VIA EMAIL. There was a serious attempt to kidnap one of the kitzmiller girls. There were rocks thrown through windows. The scene was ugly. If you dont know all the facts your opinion is worthless. Hamster (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Good thing we allow original (and not just original) research so we can include the truth. Steriledepraved mind! 21:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so there were non-email threats too. But that's a long way short of your contention that there were serious threats made by "good God fearing christians". First, anyone making such threats would, by definition, not be "good God fearing christians". (Christians, in some nominal sense, perhaps, but not "good God fearing christians"). Second, if it was possible to check out who made the threats to determine that they were "good God fearing christians", why were no arrests made (I assume from your lack of mentioning them that none were made)? Or perhaps you putting "good God fearing christians" in quotes was meant to indicate that you know that they weren't really that? It's hard to tell. And none of that is any reason to even mention the threats as though they were relevant to this discussion. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
philip, your persistance when you are ignorant of the facts is staggering. I know some of the threats were from "good god fearing christians" because I saw the evidence and know the identities of the people involved. I saw the tapes of the interviews when the news crew tried to ask them why they had done it. You can invoke "no true scotsman" all you like, these were members in good standing with their churches. I know the local police were trying to keep things calm, and putting people in jail would not have done that. " I am going to burn your house down with you in it ..." to me is a serious threat. Attempted kidnapping is serious. Your comments impugning the judges character is what started this , perhaps if you didnt automatically demonize people who disagree with your position things would go better. By the way, the Judge is a member in good standing with his church , so is himself a "good god fearing christian".
you dont find a draft with the word creationist changed globally (after a court case prohibited teaaching creationism in school science) to ID proponent compelling evidence of a books being a creationist text originally ? just what would it take ? Hamster (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
philip, your persistance when you are ignorant of the facts is staggering. Given that you are unable to present any of the evidence, perhaps it's not so surprising. And that you keep adding claims each time I raise a new question doesn't help. You referred to "threats". All I could find were claims of unspecified but apparently-not-serious threats in e-mails. So then you said that you were aware of other threats, and serious ones. I pointed out that they couldn't be too serious or from known people if no arrests were made. Then you say that they were interviewed for TV! Was this ever broadcast? You don't say, but nobody else has mentioned it that I have seen. You claim that these serious threats from known people were not acted on (in terms of arrests) because police wanted to keep things calm! Plausible? Well, just possibly, but stretching credulity. I'm not invoking a "no true scotsman" fallacy because I'm judging them by an independent criterion. That is, I'm not invoking an ad hoc "if they were true Christians they wouldn't do that" rationale; I'm invoking a criterion that would apply to all "Christians" everywhere. (If that's still not clear, I'm not claiming that the person is not a Scotsman because he said or did such-and-such, but because he doesn't come from Scotland, or whatever the precise criterion is to call someone a Scotsman). Actually, part of my rejection that they were "good god fearing christians" is that they were obviously not "good", and arguably not "god fearing". I wasn't saying that they weren't Christians, at least nominally.
Your comments impugning the judges character is what started this , perhaps if you didnt automatically demonize people who disagree with your position things would go better. What do you mean "started this". As far is that section is concerned, I disputed the judge's decision, not his character. This part of the discussion started with your comment that You can disagree with a judge in Pennsylvania all you want, or any judge anywhere. I am sure Judge Jones cares, except for the threats against his wife and kids. Up to that point, in this section (headed "Discovery Institute"), I had said nothing about the Judge's character.
perhaps if you didnt automatically demonize people who disagree with your position things would go better. I don't, your side does. I criticise people not for disagreeing, but for disagreeing in an offensive and/or bigoted manner, not "automatically".
you dont find a draft with the word creationist changed globally (after a court case prohibited teaaching creationism in school science) to ID proponent compelling evidence of a books being a creationist text originally ? just what would it take ? I have explained this before, and no, that does not represent my position. I don't find the incident compelling evidence that ID is creationism. As I have explained before, the book is about design in nature, and is therefore compatible with both creationism and ID, so could be sold as either a creationist book (as it seems it was originally planned to be) or an ID book (as it subsequently was). It simply doesn't follow that ID=creationism.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
interesting position. The historical context of a publication is not relevant but only what it says now ! Explain then why biblical scholars bother to look at early versions of the text to attempt to clarify meanings ? surely they are irrelevant as the early creationist drafts of Pandas are ? If I wre to find a draft of Genesis that read "In the beginning was the word , and the word was with Baal, and Baal was God.." then that would in no way change the interpretation of the current Bible and Christianity ? The fact that it was changed after a supreme court prohibited Baal worship also has no meaning ? Hamster (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
interesting position. The historical context of a publication is not relevant but only what it says now ! That is absolutely not what I said. Hence the rest of your reply was wasted as it was built on a false premise. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

di split

could you explain what about my statement is not your position. ? you claimed that the fact the book was a creationist text but changing one word globally made the whole thing an ID text with no possible interpretation of it being creationist, because that would be constitutionally prohibited. ?Hamster (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
one could quibble that an omnipotent entity does not "design" in the common useage of the word but simply poofs his thought into existance Hamster (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
could you explain what about my statement is not your position. ? This statement: The historical context of a publication is not relevant but only what it says now !? All of it.
you claimed that the fact the book was a creationist text… I didn't claim that it was a creationist text. I said that it is "compatible with … creationism" and "could be sold as" a creationist book.
…but changing one word globally made the whole thing an ID text… Again wrong. I said that it "is … compatible with both creationism and ID". I made no mention of it first being one thing and then another, except in the way it was marketed.
…with no possible interpretation of it being creationist… Yet again wrong, as I said that it "is therefore compatible with both creationism and ID". I didn't say that it was no longer.
…because that would be constitutionally prohibited. I made no comment as to why the change was made.
So not only was your other statement not representing my position, neither was this one.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 06:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
so you agree that thge two,, creationist and intelligent design, are indistinguishable from each other, good to know. Hamster (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Where did I indicate that? Answer please. That is, don't just vaguely refer to a comment I made, but demonstrate that that is what my comments amount to, with no reasonable alternative way of understanding my comments. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"Loaded" claim

I've removed the following comment from the article:

  • "Whether the Discovery Institute is a creationist organization is the subject of debate, the sides of which are not capable of being neatly organized by religious or political affiliation."

I'm not sure if "loaded claim" is a suitable term, or what the correct term is, but it serves to introduce doubt when there is no need for any. It reminds me of a tactic used by (members of?) the Australian Skeptics many years ago. They reported CMI (when it was CSF) to the Queensland Fraud Squad over claims that money had gone missing. The Fraud Squad investigated, and found nothing wrong. But in the meantime, the Australian Skeptics could impugn the integrity of CSF by claiming, quite accurately, that CSF was being investigated by the Fraud Squad. The mere fact that some biased people debate whether ID is creationism is not, of itself, reason to mention that in this context.

Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Phone editing here. You've got to be joking Philip. The article says that your enemies call the DI a creationist outfit. You deny it. They deny it. It is therefor the subject of debate. You don't end the debate by pronouncing, as unbelievably arrogant as you are, that your enemies are wrong and therefor the debate doesn't exist. You're on the edge, dude. Step back a bit and look at the nonsense you're spouting. Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm not joking, but I find the hypocrisy stunning. Even if you personally haven't denied that there is a debate over evolution, you've never (on this site at least) disagreed with those who do claim that. I'm not saying that the debate doesn't exist (like those who claim that there is no debate over evolution—are they (Eugenie Scott, Bill Allen, The American National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine and Jerry Coyne and others) also "arrogant"?); I'm saying that the comment added to the article gives a false impression that there is a real debate; that is, one that actually has good arguments on both sides. But looking at it again, perhaps it was the wording I objected to. Possibly with different wording it could be mentioned, but at the moment I can't think of a suitable way of putting it. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
What do I or anyone else have to do with this? Nothing. If you want to get nasty, I can get nasty.
Philip, it's not up to you to decide whether arguments on either side are good or not. You're pretending to publish an encyclopedia, so you report the facts. Debate has a meaning. This particular question, as your blog post notes, is an ongoing dispute in which people are taking different positions. If you want to simply call it a dispute, that would be fine too. You're missing the point of adding this anyway. It's not to impugn your cult's ally. The article already blogs your opinion that "evolutionists'" claim that DI is creationist is horrible and awful. But that's in a separate section than this one identifying the DI and it's loaded with your personal bias. It's appropriate to state the only reason some totally non-creationists could be mentioned in an article about a controversy between others. Simply state the fact. It's indisputable.
I'm sure you can make up a super great answer for why a totally non-creationist intelligent design outfit that talks about its interest in some theistic nonsense is even mentioned on a page about the "creation-evolution controversy." It's totally not creationist. Looking forward. Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
What do I or anyone else have to do with this? Nothing. With what? This discussion? Of course you have something to do with that.
Philip, it's not up to you to decide whether arguments on either side are good or not. So who is it up to?
You're pretending to publish an encyclopedia, so you report the facts. Which facts? All facts? Or just relevant ones? Who decides which ones are relevant?
Debate has a meaning. This particular question, as your blog post notes… I don't have a blog. Oh, you were denigrating this site? Of course.
…is an ongoing dispute in which people are taking different positions. It is? Not judging by the statements of likes of the NCSE. They don't talk about it as though it's an ongoing dispute. They simply assert that it's Intelligent Design Creationism, as though that's a simple fact. And the media quotes the likes of the NCSE as though they are authoritative. But if I assert the opposite, I'm criticised for not mentioning that it's disputed. Seems like double standards to me.
It's not to impugn your cult's ally. Given that I have nothing to do with any cult, that's simply another derogatory comment.
But that's in a separate section than this one identifying the DI and it's loaded with your personal bias. You'd rather your personal bias?
It's appropriate to state the only reason some totally non-creationists could be mentioned in an article about a controversy between others. Okay, I get that point. My first thought was that it was already covered elsewhere in the article, but looking at it, probably not very well (apart from the Labelling and misleading inferences section, about the best is in the Scope and Positions section). But claims that ID is creationist is that ID is creationist. Nobody is claiming that the DI is creationist but ID itself isn't, so making it specific to the DI is not appropriate either. I'm thinking about how that could be improved.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
well the NCSE does have several people who have followed the Discovery Institute through all their name changes so are familiar with their change of stance from Biblical creationism through Intelligent design. That to many does make them an authority. Hamster (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
All their name changes? What name changes? And what change of stance? And if the DI has done all that, then obviously they are also an authority on what they have done. So why not quote the DI on what ID is? Doesn't suit the media bias, perhaps?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
ok, From Dembski, "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." Hamster (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
So? All that means is that Dembski himself sees ID that way; he's not actually defining what ID is. By your logic, evolution is religion, not science, because Keith Miller wrote "Seeing the history of life unfolding with each new discovery is exciting to me. How incredible to be able to look back through eons of time and see the panorama of God's evolving creation!". See here for a fuller rebuttal of this claim.
And I note several more questions in my last post that you failed to answer. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
and Miller is speaking personally for himself on religeous beliefs. Dembski is one of the proponents of ID as he developed the theory such as it it. He is making a clear statement of what ID is. Its like Darwin saying what evolution is. Hamster (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
and Miller is speaking personally for himself on religeous beliefs. So Miller was, but Dembski wasn't? That sounds like Ad hoc reasoning‎ to me.
Dembski is one of the proponents of ID as he developed the theory such as it it. So what rule says that because of this he can't talk about it "personally for himself on religeous beliefs"?
He is making a clear statement of what ID is. That is an assertion that is necessary for you to make your argument, but is unfounded. Further, it's explicitly denied by a prominent spokesman for ID, per the link I gave.
Its like Darwin saying what evolution is. Another unfounded assertion.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 06:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Reversion

My guess is that you are trying to make a point that I can't show that people have applied and been knocked back. But more relevant is that as private bodies, they have no obligation to provide funding impartially.

guessing ?
It should be easy to show a pattern of applications and rejections with reasons. If you can not show that why is it more than assertion.
who are you talking about in the last bit ? Hamster (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I had added, "Creationists refuse to give support to scientific societies or fund mainstream scientific research," to the creationist strategies. Steriledepraved mind! 13:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
"My guess" is an expression. It indicates that I can't be certain, but it's not literally a guess.
It is more than assertion, because, as I have already pointed out twice, it's based on logic and evidence of bias (i.e. bias against creationism generally, not specifically bias in funding).
If a private body wants to fund just evolutionary research (or just creationary research, or just research into the wings of fruit flies, or...), that's their business. They can be partial if they wish. The issue I've been talking about is taxpayer-sourced funding which should be impartial.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Suppression by authority

Philip just changed the heading "Public policy issues" to "Suppression by authority". I don't like this, mostly because, in contrast to the other headings, it is presenting a conclusion instead of defining a topic. If the change is kept, it should at least make explicit that the propagation of creationism is being suppressed, not evolutionism or the controversy itself.

And while we're here, the last two paragraphs are unsourced. There has been a [fact?] tag there for almost two years. In fact, there used to be many more, and it is not entirely clear on cursory inspection why they were removed. If a source cannot be found in a reasonably short period of time, the content should be removed.

The sentence "In other Western countries, rulings by governments or their education departments has been used to stop creationary views being taught, in some cases even in Christian schools." is also unnecessary since the only Western country mentioned (and sourced) is ... Wait the Council of Europe isn't a country, a government, or a department of a government. That makes the "other Western countries" statement unsourced as well.

—Awc 08:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I changed it because I was thinking of adding to it, but then realised that I should add to the main article (Suppression of dissent against evolution) instead. But while looking where to add in this article, I had a bit of trouble finding the appropriate spot, because the heading it had was quite misleading, so I changed it to better represent what it was about.
When you (Awc) some time back restructured the article, I let that stand because I thought that it was a reasonable attempt to give it a better structure. But in looking at it again now, I realise that much of the discussion of how evolutionists go about spreading their view is hidden under "benign" headings, such as this one calling it "public policy issues" rather than about how evolutionists suppress opposition.
However, I take your point about it not being clear what is being suppressed.
Regarding the fact? tag, I would not object to that claim being removed, simply on the grounds that I've not been able to supply a reference. The reason I've not been able is that I haven't been able to find the reference again. I know what book it's in, but it's a big book and I haven't been able to locate it in that book. If someone does remove it, I will reinstate it when I track down the reference.
As for the other former fact tags, they were removed because the references exist in the linked "main" article (the one with the remaining fact? tag is not). This (the references being in the main article) also applies to the sentence about other Western countries.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
P.S. A fresh look is often a good idea. I've just had a fresh look, and found the reference, so I'll be adding it to the article. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

I'm reverting the recent edits. At first glance, I thought that they may be good, but a closer inspection reveals real problems. I explain these below. There may be a little bit I can salvage, but not much.

Asp's edit regarding ridicule, vilification, and name-calling
Asp essentially changed a comment that creationists behave civilly, as even anti-creationists acknowledge, to a a comment that a single anti-creationist says that creationists behave civilly. However, the link was that two anti-creationists acknowledge this (Rosenhouse and Myers), and there is little if any body of claims that they don't behave civilly. In other words, the original statement was correct, and the amended version is an attempt to downplay this.
Asp's enlargment of the "Creationist strategies" section
Although superficially this looks like a good addition, in looking at the detail I have several problems with this:
  • Some of it is historical information, so should be in the History section if it stays in the article at all.
  • It makes unsubstantiated assertions.
  • It refers to George McCready Price as a racist. Even if he was (I don't know), of what relevance is that here?
  • It makes the point that Price could not support himself as a YEC author, a point that seems to be of little relevance, even if a lack of interest in YEC was the only reason.
  • It says that Price "resorted to performing manual labor". So what?
  • It possibly makes too much of Price's contribution. Anti-creationists such as Ronald Numbers have tried to paint YECs as owing a lot to Price, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence that he had much influence on later YECs.
  • It refers to Rimmer as a YEC. He was a Gap Theorist, not a YEC. [Added Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)]
  • The line "...in an attempt to portray this new construct as lawful to teach in pubic schools, avoided introducing Biblical arguments." makes a claim (that it was an attempt to portray as lawful) that is not in evidence. Rather, my belief is that Morris sincerely and honestly acknowledged that teaching the biblical arguments is not appropriate for science, so stuck to the scientific arguments.
  • "...Harry Rimmer believed that teaching creationism in schools was as unconstitutional as teaching evolution." Yet evolution is thought to be constitutional, so what's the point? And was Rimmer talking about the scientific evidence or about biblical aspects? There is no reference, so I can't check. Actually, I've found a reference to this in Number's book, but he specifically mentions Genesis being taught.
  • "Despite the opinion of one of the founders of young earth creationism, YECs typically avoided attempting to influence legislatures, but instead pressured school boards to teach "creation science" alongside the theory of evolution." Which founder? And where's the evidence of pressuring school boards? And a related question, which YECs did this?
  • "Contemporary YECs, including the Discovery Institute, ..." The DI is not a YEC organisation.
  • "...also advocate allowing teachers what they call the "academic freedom" to teach intelligent design alongside the theory of evolution." What "they call" academic freedom? This is guilt by implication: is it or isn't it academic freedom?
Asp's edit regarding the Patterson quote.
His addition does not change the point being made, that creationists use quotes from evolutionists. The point that Asp is trying to make is that the particular quote used as an example has been misused by creationists, which is a separate point altogether, refers to that one example quote only, and is itself disputed.
Asp's "Inconsistent arguments and hypocrisy" section
Problems:
  • Bizarrely, it accuses Sarfati of making a fallacious appeal to authority whilst actually describing Sarfati accusing Ross (or his publisher) of doing that.
  • In so doing, it spends too much space on describing the appeal-to-authority fallacy.
  • It claims without any substantiation that "CMI routinely condemns, makes, and attempts to justify appeals to authority." The "substantiation" seems to be that CMI has argued that qualifications shouldn't matter, the substance of the argument does. But this is not a substantiation of the claim.
  • In fact the whole section is confused regarding just what CMI is supposedly doing wrong and/or claiming to be wrong. There are differences between (a) offing an opinion as an authority when not an authority, (b) making an argument on merits regardless of authority, and (c) offering an expert opinion with genuine authority. The section confuses these three concepts.
Asp's Poisoning the well section
This is making a specific criticism (rather than describing an aspect of the creation/evolution controversy), and presumes to understand the motives of CMI.
Sterile's Reversal of previous arguments section.
This is hypocritical. Evolutionists frequently defend their differing views as that being the way science works. All that is documented here is that creationists (also) have sometimes changed their minds about some things! That's the way science works! Hold the presses! So what? (And that's even assuming that the source is accurate; I'm not convinced that Senter has fairly represented the situation.)
Sterile's not really evidence + citations needed edit.
I don't agree that it's not really evidence. Regardless, that section was added by... Sterile!
Conclusion

No doubt, I'll yet again be accused of not allowing things I don't like into the article. However, what my critics will overlook is that I have detailed the reasons for reverting. Of course, you may not agree with my reasons. And you are free to discuss them (well, one of you can't; you've lost the right for now). But to pretend that I'm reverting just because I don't like them rather than for what I honestly regard as good reasons is something that I'll expect you to demonstrate if you want to make that claim.

Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it IS hypocritical to have oodles of instances in the encyclopedia where we talk about evolutionists' contradictions and fallacies but meticulously scrub the place of the instances for which creationists do it.
Any observation can be made to fit (HA!) an ominipotent Designer: He's ominipotent, for crying out loud. There is no evidence for intelligent design. Steriledepraved mind! 21:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Sterile, please answer the following questions:
  1. Is it hypocritical to scrub invalid arguments?
  2. Have I argued that the arguments that I've recently scrubbed are invalid?
  3. Do you agree with my arguments as to why they are invalid?
  4. If you don't agree, have you made an argument as to why my reasoning is wrong?
  5. If you haven't made such an argument, is it fair to accuse me of hypocrisy solely on the grounds that I scrubbed what I consider to be invalid arguments?
You're correct that any observation can be made to fit an omnipotent Designer. However, as I have pointed out before, not every observation can be made to fit a particular set of claims such as those found in the Bible. Observations can only be made to fit if you have complete, unconstrained, flexibility. By constraining oneself to a particular set of claims, such as those found in the Bible, this is no longer the case.
Not well at all. All the physical evidence points toward an old earth, and the evidence I pointed out above converges well to evolutionary theory. Meanwhile, design is an ad hoc explanation that explains nothing; Any observation could be said to be designed.. You admit that the Bible being inerrant is circular (or has "some degree of circularity", whatever that means), so using the Bible as evidence for itself does not work. So no, I do not thing that the physical evidence works well at all for creationism. Steriledepraved mind! 17:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 23:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You pretty much call me a hypocrite and then demand that I justify my same claim. You should be blocked by your own civility measures. Steriledepraved mind! 17:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I explained why your actions were hypocritical. You didn't dispute my explanation. You explained why you thought my actions were hypocritical, but I challenged that explanation (by asking the series of questions above). You have not defended your explanation by answering those questions (or in any other way).
All the physical evidence points toward an old earth… Argument by bald assertion.
…the evidence I pointed out above converges well to evolutionary theory. I'm not sure what evidence you are pointing to here. The paper you linked to? So what if it does? That doesn't mean there isn't plenty of evidence the other way.
Meanwhile, design is an ad hoc explanation that explains nothing; Any observation could be said to be designed. Not true in both cases. Design is something that can be determined, thus is not ad hoc. It explains the occurrence of things that are unlikely or couldn't occur naturally. I guess design could be invoked for random events, but there's no reason to.
You admit that the Bible being inerrant is circular (or has "some degree of circularity", whatever that means)… I have explained what that means.
…so using the Bible as evidence for itself does not work. That statement is so oversimplified that it's meaningless. "Evidence for itself"? That could mean "evidence for its own existence", which is something that it obviously can be used for.
So no, I do not thing that the physical evidence works well at all for creationism. Obviously you don't, but I, and many others, do.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 22:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

"Revert inaccurate and uncivil edits" is not an adequate justification

This is not a justification. Please explain. Or will you let anyone touch your masterpiece? Steriledepraved mind! 10:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hypocrite. Your edit comments for your three edits are contained between these quote marks: "". Yet you consider my edit comment—infinitely longer than yours—as inadequate! You justify your changes, then I will be prepared to justify my reversions, if I still want to revert after you've made your case. But until you've made a case, you can't demand that I make one (Matthew 7:5). Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I see that instead of justifying your edits, you simply make more. At least you did have edit comments this time.
Regarding the cartoon, there is nothing mocking about "portraying [Nye] in a crowd talking to Noah", or anything else in that cartoon.
"No citation, sweeping generalization, and yes, bald assertion. SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTIONS" As mentioned elsewhere, the appropriate response to a lack of citations is to ask for them. However, I wonder whether you really do dispute these claims, which are claims about what creationists do, not whether or not they are correct. And if you do dispute them, what do you think is wrong about them? It seems to me that you are simply deleting things on the creationist side for the sake of deleting.
"citing polls is an argumentum ad populum, factually" This is false. Whether or not it's an argumentum ad populum depends on the argument being made. If citing the polls is not for the purpose of claiming correctness, then it's not an argument ad populum.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Short on time, but you do realize Bill Nye is pictured in the cartoon? Probably you don't. It's clearly mocking, as many of the cartoons are. Steriledepraved mind! 12:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Do I realise that? Well, given that I quoted you referring to Nye being in the cartoon—substituting "Nye" for "him"—without disputing that point, then yes, clearly I realised that. But that doesn't make it mocking, and it's clearly not mocking, as is typical. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools
visitor navigation