Share to:

 

Template talk:Creation Science

Name

I think a better title would be 'creationism', there is no such thing as creation science. Creationism is not scientific. A little angry (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose one reason to use the name "Creation Science" is that the people and organizations listed present creationism as if it's a science or supported by scientific evidence. clpo13(talk) 19:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further to what I said above, there's actually a slight distinction between creation science and creationism in that creation science attempts to provide scientific proof of creationism, which is the sort of thing Ham, Hovind, et al do. clpo13(talk) 19:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be objective rather than say that "creationism is not scientific" just because you don't like it. One could easily and reasonably say the exact same thing about the well-accepted Theory of Evolution. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Creation science is a branch of creationism. All that matters for this navbox is that it's a distinct subject-based grouping of related articles -- and that looks to be the case. The [non]scientific nature isn't something that really needs to be debated here. WP:FRINGE is recommended reading, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"I think a better title would be 'creationism', there is no such thing as creation science. Creationism is not scientific." +1 --Author23 (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point. "Creation science" is a widely known and used term to describe the movement. It's not a neologism, and non-creationists also use the term to describe the movement. It doesn't carry implications on the accuracy of their work. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate template

Why was a Template:Creation science, which is nearly (but not entirely) duplicate to this one, created? --1990'sguy (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1990'sguy: I'll nominate it at MfD. —PaleoNeonate – 14:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@1990'sguy: Hmm it seems that for this type of template TfD would be used. However, I first boldly merged the contents from the new one here and substituted uses of the new one to this one; if that's eventually contested then the TfD discussion will become necessary. Please review the latest edit on this template, —PaleoNeonate – 05:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PaleoNeonate: Looks good to me. Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Museums?

@GliderMaven, 1990'sguy, StAnselm, and Bpc.sg: Pinging people with >5 edits to the template.

Why are these specific 5 creationist museums listed in this template, out of the 16 in Category:Creationist museums? --GRuban (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a reason for these five, specifically, it's probably that they're (arguably) the most prominent/well-known of all of them (especially the facilities operated by AiG). At the very least, I would endorse adding a link to the category in the template. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good question. I'm removing them from the template, and substituting it with Creationist museum.GliderMaven (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --GRuban (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to link to people/organizations critical of YEC, we should at least have a separate section for them. Links to Eugenie Scott and the National Center for Science Education are simply out of place when intermingled (with nothing to differentiate) with every other link in the template to YEC people/organizations.

Separately, the Falsifiability link also had little to do with the topic. There's only a small section about YEC in that article, and in that section, there's a "Main article" link to Omphalos hypothesis, which is also in this template. Templates should be focused on the topic and the links should make sense. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I AM sorry, perhaps you think this template is supposed to be an advertisement for Creation Science? You think that anything that anything, or anyone, or any philosophy that may contradict creation 'science' doesn't 'deserve' to be in the template? Which bit of WP:NPOV don't you understand?GliderMaven (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that Falsifiability does not belong in Creation Science. It's a neat logical concept, but not exclusive to Creation Science, putting it here it might as well be in most religion templates. --GRuban (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You mean even though Falsifiability has an entire section devoted to creation science specifically???GliderMaven (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It has nine subsections of the same level as the one called Young-earth creationism, including Evolution, Economics, and Mathematics. We're not putting a link to it into every article on Evolution, Mathematics, or Economics either. --GRuban (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GRuban: @StAnselm: I would also remove the Establishment Clause and Pseudoscience links from this template. Not only are they not exclusive to CS (in fact, much the opposite), but neither of the articles discusses creation science, at least in any depth (the pseudoscience article, which actually mentions it unlike the EC article, only has three links, but they're all passing mentions). --1990'sguy (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with 1990'sguy. And I was wondering where the links were going to stop: ignorance, dishonesty, etc. StAnselm (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no requirement that links be "exclusive" to the template subject. All of the subjects also relate to other subjects. The question is "does this help the reader in reading up on related topics?" More specifically (this is all from WP:NAV), there's this:

For complex topics in science, technology, history, etc., a navigation box can provide a comprehensive introduction to a topic. For example, {{Wind power}} links to subsidiary and supporting topics that provide background and context necessary for understanding the main Wind power article.

In the case of {{wind power}}, those related articles include Energy storage, Energy subsidies, etc. So the question is whether something like pseudoscience serves to "provide background and context necessary for understanding the main creation science article". I'm ambivalent about pseudoscience here and tend to agree that Establishment Clause isn't sufficiently connected. Depending on how many articles we have about critics, it may make sense to include somewhere, but a designated section doesn't seem unreasonable... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GliderMaven: Might I also ask what part of WP:AGF you don't understand? A little less patronizing in your objection would be appreciated. While I'm aware that he started by reverting your additions, I'm also aware that 1990'sguy's discussion here allows for the possibility of segregating opponents from proponents in the template. I think that's a reasonable suggestion, and helpful to the reader. Otherwise, they have to click through each article to see which is which.
Incidentally, I agree with both 1990'sguy and GRuban that including Falsifiability is a stretch. It is not a concept specific to creation science. To me, for an article to be significantly connected enough to the topic to include, it should mention its connection to YEC and/or creation science in the article's lead. Eugenie Scott and NCSE both meet that standard. Falsifiability does not. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GliderMaven: Your comment is messed up in so many ways.
First off, you accuse me of not adhering to NPOV -- a blatant violation of WP:AGF. Rather than give a substantive answer to my concern that the links are out of place, considering every other link already in the template, you just throw out ridiculous (and false) accusations of my motives. Also, please tell me how including only links in the YEC template that are directly about YEC (without otherwise noting they are only indirectly-related) somehow makes the template an "advertisement for Creation Science"? This accusation is ridiculous -- including critics of liberalism in Template:Liberalism, or critics of American conservatism in Template:Conservatism US, do NOT make these templates "advertisements" for their respective political ideologies. The same is true for this template.
Also, about the links to Eugenie Scott and National Center for Science Education, just look where they're placed. The "People" section of the template only lists actual creation scientists and other notable YECers, and the "Organizations" section only lists organizations that promote YEC. What part of that don't you get? This way, people wanting to learn about YEC and find out about its promoters (after all, the template is about the movement). The links you added (which are arbitrary, considering that many other YEC critics exist) mess up this organization since now there are two non-YEC organizations/people hidden among the list of YEC people/organizations.
Not only this, but neither of those two links is exclusively devoted to opposing YEC -- Scott devotes more of her energy to opposing ID (which is a separate belief from YEC), and opposition to YEC is one of several activities of the NCSE. Aside from the fact that these are not YEC organizations/people, links to organizations/people like this simply aren't helpful to people wanting to learn about the YEC movement.
At the very least, there should be a separate section in this template entitled "Prominent critics" (or something like that) where we can add people/organizations who speak out against YEC. But this template should be focused -- and for the record, User:StAnselm removed several off-topic links that were more appropriate on an Intelligent Design template (since they were ID-related articles that had nothing to do with YEC). There's precedent for keeping templates like these trimmed and focused. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So an IP changed CS -> YEC with this edit without any comment. I feel it is okay to go back, but to look at the edits in-between to see if they still work. Should we copy this and make a YEC template? I think there are already many similar templates that I was getting confused and was copying many of the same articles over. And there is always some overlap like what happened with Creationism -> ID. Also, I was working on adding an additional row of critics/opponents/… but thought the rows labels should be parallel and NPOV (like they are all "people"). Adding them also means that template will be on all of those articles too. StrayBolt (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@StrayBolt: This raises an interesting point. If links such as Eugenie Scott and NCSE are going to be added to the template, the CS template (if we continue to call it that) should be added to those articles as well, per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. I wonder how such an addition would be received on those articles. That answer might actually go a long way toward determining whether those are appropriate additions to the template. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@StAnselm: As I looked at this template yesterday, I was wondering about the CS/YEC discrepancy. Ultimately, I decided that discussion should take place separately from this one so as not to confuse both, but I think it is definitely a discussion that needs to be had. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It matters because, for example, I believe that the pseudoscience link would be appropriate on Creation Science but not on Young Earth Creationism. Interestingly though, the Eugenie Scott article styles her as a critic of YEC, but not CS. But here's the important thing - she's only opposed to teaching it in schools. StAnselm (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no. She's against creationism in all forms; she correctly refers to it as 'long refuted' in her book "Evolution versus creationism- an introduction".[1] And just because something is refuted, doesn't mean you can't bring something up in history class or religious studies; it's not like she was calling for censorship! But that doesn't mean you get to state it as 'contentious' fact in science classes. That what she fought hard against, and WON.GliderMaven (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kembali kehalaman sebelumnya