This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Stormie 09:43, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared

[edit]

Current vote here

[edit]
lets review. copyeditor turned:
<<Creation biology is an attempt to study biology from a creationary perspective. Creation biology is identical to mainstream biology with respect to the observable physiology and function of living organisms today; for instance, the structure of the cell, taxonomy, and genetics. It acknowledges microevolution and speciation as observable phenomena. Creation biology differs from mainstream biology only with regard to the origin of living things. into:
Creation biology is an attempt to impose on biology a creationist perspective. Creation biology differs from mainstream biology by relying on religious literature instead of generally accepted scientific evidence.
my "vandalism" was to revert. npov presents all ideas sympathetically without implying that they are right or wrong ... but then provides substantive counterpoints by mainstream scientists to explain WHY they are wrong. copyeditor deliberately twisted the intro into his pet caricature of creationism, and stripped out all the qualifiers to show exactly where the issue is. he then made a mockery of all the links. no go, bro. Ungtss 12:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here is another example of Ungtss at his best:

"you're stuck on one stupid little point: "yes, God can create through evolution." so what? Darwin thought genesis was wrong. THAT'S A DICHOTOMY. DID GENESIS HAPPEN OR NOT? i get too pissed talking to you. ben, listen, you've obviously had your head up your butt your whole life. as you were. Ungtss 17:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) Bensaccount 14:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Bensaccount at his best. Ungtss 14:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I also think that the above edit should be credited at least partially with the recent removal of the disputed NPOV and factual accuracy banner from the page. Bensaccount 14:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

was it that, or everybody else getting tired of fighting with your repeated unjustified reverts against consensus of creationists and evolutionists alike? perhaps we should move this discussion over to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ungtss? Ungtss 15:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


In this free-election, it is clear who the victors are. (joshuashroeder).

After trying to work through this, it has become apparent that this article has no potential to become encyclopedic. Nor did there seem to be any result to the debate. A majority of those who posted comments on this voted for deletion. The main reason this page should be deleted is because there is no way the sole creationist editor User:Ungtss will allow for a reasonable comparison of ideas. Joshuaschroeder 17:04, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In an attempt to circumvent to circumvent the removal process User:Ungtss has made a number of daughter articles that I'm guessing he hopes will be preserved if the vote is rerecognized for a removal. Please, administrator, when you remove this article, also remove the following articles:

Creation vs. mainstream science in biology Creation vs. mainstream science in geology Creation vs. mainstream science in cosmology Creation vs. mainstream science in early civilization

in attempt to circumvent reality, josh has accused me of attempting to circumvent the removal process by creating daughter pages for some bizarre ulterior motive, rather than simply to cut an enormous page down to bite-size nibbles. please, administrator, when you remove this article, please remove josh. Ungtss 13:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


begause talk.origins is not npov. npov is our specialty. let's try it, eh? Ungtss 15:30, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I once asked Ungtss to come up with a factual error on the site. He couldn't do it. His new tactic is to declare that talkorigins.org is not NPOV. I ask him to show an example of non-NPOV in the site I showed. They are very balanced in their treatment of creationist claims. Please show me where they aren't in the above site instead of grandstanding your own bias. Joshuaschroeder 06:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Please, that's a stupid argument. We don't have any control over that site, so it could change at any time without us being able to change it. And besides, we have articles on all sorts of things that there are good alternatives for on other sites. That does not mean that we should get rid of this article and "just reference this page [2]". - Ta bu shi da yu 04:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
when did you lose track of the facts? i demonstrated the strawman on talk.origins to hob, since you dropped out. i find your belief that talk.origins is "balanced" to be quite amusing:). Ungtss 16:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No you didn't. The result, as far as I am concerned, was:
You and me were talking different languages. I don't think it makes sense to discuss with you because I don't speak Ungtssese, so I stopped doing it. For example, you seem to think that "exquisite design" can be "good" or "bad", and "A, therefore B" is the same as "B, therefore A". Since you don't try to make yourself clear, your position seems to change every few minutes. Or maybe it does change every few minutes, I'm not in a position to know. It's a pain to discuss somebody like that. Anyway, you couldn't explain how the page is a strawman. You ended up claiming that I knew it is a strawman, which is not true. I guess you misunderstand the page because it is written in English instead of Ungtssese. --Hob Gadling 16:52, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
Above is vote by article creator - David Gerard 23:13, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
above is untrue. Ungtss did not create the article, nor did he propose its creation. The article was created by Barnaby Dawson, evolutionist,[3] and originally proposed by Hob Gadling, another evolutionist.[4] check your facts. Ungtss 14:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
this page is really getting places. -- If by getting places you mean mired in quicksand.
we're starting to get cited opinions on all the relevent issues, not even close. Look at the talkpages if you don't believe me. The current incarnation of the page is that only creationists are allowed to write on the creationist side -- there's no editorial control and it's impossible to make heads or tails of some of the incomplete arguments.
this page has a great deal of potential to be encyclopedic, if we're willing to explore the ideas on their own merits. -- nonsense. The minority creationist view has a lot of shrill malarky but if it cannot even be presented in a consistent way, how will there be anything like an NPOV comparison?
i will only say that i have only presented creationist opinions on the creationist side --> I disagree entirely. Ungtss presents his own version of creationist opinions. This isn't anything like an NPOV -- even of creationism. He maintains the strict right to edit out opinions that I know exist in the creationist community but are inconvenient for him to accept. For example, I know that the vast majority of YEC accept a biblical inerrancy, but because Ungtss is one of those peculiar ones who don't, he somehow thinks it inappropriate to include this argument (which is made more often than not by people who are YEC) on that side. However, Flood Geology is trumpeted as if every creationist believes it. That's certainly not the case, there are some creationists that don't think all geological features were created by the flood like Ungtss believes. If this page were to be honest, it would be called "Views of Ungtss and mainstream scientists compared": is that encyclopedic?
all other mainstream editors are welcome to present the mainstream side as powerfully as they like. -- Does anyone else find it problematic that we are setting up a place in wikipedia where people aren't allowed to edit?
i only ask that the creationist side not be weighed down by mainstream caricatures and deletions of creationist ideas. -- according to Ungtss' own POV of what that entails. It's clear that the page should be deleted and Ungtss has no ability to see the problem of this false dichotomy.
It must be very encouraging for the creationist to be able to present his POV without having to worry about someone who actually studies the stuff edit it. That seems to be Ungtss' goal for this page. Joshuaschroeder 17:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
all groundless and untrue accusations aside, the talkpage shows that josh's stated goal for this page has been to "make it look ridiculous" from the very beginning. well, it appears he's succeeded. i only hope mainstream scientists who have their heads on straight will be willing to develop this page into something good -- and i do think it has the potential to be something very, very good. Ungtss 18:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The debate is ridiculous. The page, if it were to be done correctly would look ridiculous. This is because there is so much more to put down from a scientific perspective than there is from a creationist perspective. Ungtss doesn't seem to realize that people other than himself are familiar with creationist arguments and the current format discourages them from editting the creationist POV...
Which makes me wonder, why are we entertaining POV at all on wikipedia? Joshuaschroeder 19:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
there are indeed people familiar with creationist ideas, but you're certainly not one of them. you've devoted yourself to caricaturing and deleting creationist ideas on the page, and adding loads of irrelevent information to the mainstream column, making it looking equally ridiculous. if the debate is ridiculous, i can't help but wonder why you take such an interest in it ... especially in light of the fact that there are many other evolutionists who think that the page is a great means of allowing the truth of mainstream science to put creationist pseudoscience to shame. Ungtss 02:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
there are indeed people familiar with creationist ideas, but you're certainly not one of them. utter bullshit. Joshuaschroeder 07:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Good one:). Ungtss 16:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I believe that Joshuaschroeder has been studying the issue for eight years. I have been studying it for 30 years. In my opinion, Joshuashroeder's familiarity with the creationist side is severely lacking. Philip J. Rayment 02:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
<<*Comment Does anybody see why we shouldn't just reference this page [5]?>>
I believe that this is symptomatic of Joshuschroeder's bias in editing the article that he can't see how POV is his suggestion to reference an anti-creationist website as a substitute for an article comparing views of creationists and mainstream scientists.
Maybe it's symptomatic of your idealization that NPOV means treating all opinions as though they are equals. Your opinion, sir, based entirely on non-science, is frankly not worthy of NPOV inclusion.
(Above comment made by Joshuaschroeder) Since when is science (so called) the basis of NPOV? Philip J. Rayment 02:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
<<The main reason this page should be deleted is because there is no way the sole creationist editor User:Ungtss will allow for a reasonable comparison of ideas.>>
As another creationist editor of the page, I would strongly disagree with this. It is Joshuaschroeder who persists in turning the creationist views into a caricature, consistent with his stated aim of making the page look ridiculous.
Phil and Ungtss have demonstrated that they don't even the most basic of science (for example they make claims on radiometric dating that are absolutely absurd). How can we have a constructive article writing if the writers of the article who are supposed "experts" don't know science? Joshuaschroeder 07:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Translation: Philip and Ungtss make claims that you don't agree with, so you accuse us of not [knowing?] science and accuse the claims of being absurd.
I didn't make claims for radiometric dating. I cited claims made by creationary scientists (including physicists). Joshuaschroeder seems to think that if it doesn't agree with the POV that he sides with, it isn't science and shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Philip J. Rayment 02:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
<<It lists all the claims and actually cites them instead of the monstrosity we have here.>>
I rewrote the section on radiometric dating to list the claims of creationists, citing essentially every one, and Joshuaschroeder deleted virtually all of them because he thought they were ridiculous. He didn't dispute that creationists claim them; he disputed that these creationist arguments have any merit. Any wonder Ungtss would rather he stick to the mainstream science side?
There are creationist who also claim that the earth is the center of the universe (see Modern geocentrism). Yet their claims aren't included. Why? Because they are nonsense (as they are shown to be in the referenced article). Likewise, putting in lies and non-facts is hardly encyclopedic with regards to presentation. And it is a bald-faced lie that I deleted all of them. But then, creationists do tend to break the commandment to not bear false witness. Joshuaschroeder 07:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The article is not exhaustive, so not mentioning something means little unless the possibility of mentioning it has been suggested and rejected, which I don't believe to be the case here. And geocentricism is only accepted by relatively few creationists, so may not warrant mentioning in an article about creationists' views. Wikipedia is supposed to take a NPOV, and it is disputed that some of the things Joshuaschroeder calls "lies and non-facts" are in fact that.
His view of NPOV is clearly that if the majority of scientists consider it to be fact, then those "facts" can be presented as true regardless of the existence of opposing views, and contrary to Wikipedia NPOV policy ("... we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct.").
As for his claim that it is a "bald-faced lie that [he] deleted all of them", I actually said that he deleted virtually all of them.
His remaining comment about creationist lying is vilification that shouldn't be acceptable on Wikipedia.
Philip J. Rayment 02:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
<<It must be very encouraging for the creationist to be able to present his POV without having to worry about someone who actually studies the stuff edit it.>>
Translation: The creationist POV is not allowed to be presented on a page comparing POVs if Joshuaschroeder "who actually studies the stuff", thinks that that the creationist POV is wrong. Which of course he does, as he thinks the anti-creationist web-site Talk.Origins is neutral!
Philip J. Rayment 10:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's more neutral than any other site I've found. Joshuaschroeder 07:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It gives arguments against creation and for evolution, etc. How is that even purporting to be neutral? It speaks heaps for Joshuaschroeder's POV that he thinks an anti-creation site is neutral! Philip J. Rayment 02:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
When User:SimonP added the vfd template to the vote, there was no explanation for what the ruling should be. As User:Bensaccount has rightfully pointed out, we need to know how to proceed, as it isn't clear from the results.
It does no such thing, and your POV that creationism is not a scientific view, is not a valid reason for deleting an article. Philip J. Rayment 10:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In order not to suggest this, the article title would have to be Views of creationists and scientists compared. In any case, comparing religious doctrine to scientific theory is comparing apples and oranges, and thus non-encyclopedic. Martg76 18:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
But it doesn't suggest it now, and your suggestion would imply that creationists and scientists are two mutually-exclusive groups, which is demonstrably wrong. Creationists argue that their views are as scientific as evolutionary ones; your claim to the contrary is merely a disputed POV. Philip J. Rayment 22:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
By opposing "creationism" to "mainstream science", the article title suggests that creationism is a scientific POV. This assertion in itself is a POV (and in my view rather a ridiculous one). Martg76 09:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Opposing "creationism" to "mainstream science" suggests that creationism is opposed to mainstream science. But if you can come up with a better title that doesn't suggest the opposite POV, that creation is not science, be my guest. And I disagree with you that calling creationism science is ridiculous, but this is supposed to be about the merits of the article, and our respective POVs should be irrelevant to that. Philip J. Rayment 11:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • You are supposed to be voting on the merits of the article, not your POV of the topic. Philip J. Rayment 13:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

old vote -- a week before new vote -- administrator archived discussion without comment (20 delete 9 keep or rename: 69%-delete)

[edit]

Page typecasts all creationists as pseudoscientists. Also subject is fabricated and not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bensaccount 02:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the most balanced treatment on the web to date is the talkorigins archive [www.talkorigins.org]. The creationists, however, think that it isn't balanced at all. If there is to be a debate at all, it has to be in the form of an exhaustive rendering of facts and a willingness (as expressed by the maintainers of the archive) to be constantly vigilant in keeping up to date on the latest creationist fad.
If this page is kept, it will either degenerate in a free-for-all posting of whatever flight-of-fancy creationists feel like pursuing with the scientifically-minded scurrying to find the appropriate niche-counter for their nonsense or it will be a complete repeat of the talkorigins archive. Either way, I'm not sure it behooves wikipedia to engage in a rehash of a very tired "debate".
My main point, however, is that this isn't really a "debate" at all. There are many alternatives to the scientific mainstream and to post a "debate" as such makes it seem like the only alternative is creationism. More than this, the current slant of the article is definitely YEC in flavor, which is only one type of creationism in general.
What we need to do is cleanup the Creation vs. evolution debate article and get away from this necessarily POV fork. Joshuaschroeder 06:01, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Untrue. The talkorigins archive contains references to all the nonsense (how else could they critique it? Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Bconline complains that this page does not honor properly the scientific view. But this is not the SciencePedia, this is Wikipedia, and NPOV at least requires that the creationists should get to state accurately the documented history of their nonsense view of the world--which in my view this page does quite well. The page is getting there. 8)) As Mr. Zen complains, this page does not yet have the citations to scholarly publications. We will do that--and we will eliminate the original research that does not have citations to scholarly publications. But let's get the comparison of views first. Mr. Rossami suggests this page presents a false dichotomy, but it does not. This page merely tabulates the contrasting views in the debate. Nowhere on the page does it imply that you have to pick one or the other--quite the opposite. The parent page at Creation vs. evolution debate makes clear that there is a whole continuum of views in the debate from "Young earth creationism" to "Materialist evolutionism" (Scott 1997).

This is baloney because there is no way in the side-by-side format to decide where a nuanced view or a view that's not creationist but extra-scientific should go! Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Along that continuum, there is less and less disagreement between the creationist view and the mainstream view as you move from the extreme of "Young earth creationism" toward the other extreme of "Materialist evolutionism." Accordingly, the Views of creationists and mainstream scientists compared page merely tabulates the observed differences where the empirical data indicates differences. I definitely agree with Mr. Dawson that we should consider seriously the proposed Wikipedia guidelines for tabulating comparisons of science with nonsense. The issue here is how to treat nonsense in a legitimate NPOV manner. ---Rednblu | Talk 16:32, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think Rednblu is evaluating a hypothetical article and not the one that currently exists. How are we going to decide what constitutes a reference that we can use as part of the argument? Creationists have views that range from the most absurdist miracle-based ideologies to technical disparaging based on physical misconceptions. To reasonably do the "NPOV" suggested here would mean the article would stretch out ad infinitum. How would anybody decide what was reasonable to include and what wasn't?
Much of what the argument against creationism is is that there is a VAST body of scientific evidence against them. I could begin posting public domain sources of the hundreds of thousands of rocks that have been consistently dated to counter the claims that the creationists make against isochron dating. However, this obviously isn't in Wikipedia's best interest.
i'm not editing the page because it looks like it's about to be deleted. the fact that you think the left column is nonsense does not make lining that nonsense up with scientific truth pov -- if anything, it should make the left column look like nonsense in the light of the truth. i think this page could serve the purpose of getting the "issues" of the debate off the debate page and into a side-by-side comparison, so the debate page can consider more of the "big picture" issues, and it's only as long as we make it. Ungtss 19:09, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In short, those who are crying NPOV for keeping the article haven't really thought the issue out. Nor have I seen contributions from them that would seem to indicate that they were moving in the NPOV direction. It would be a sad thing if this article were kept as it is. We should expand Creation vs. evolution debate and make a reference outside of wikipedia. Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Exile 22:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

More