→A word to the wise: q to Calton about https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&diff=892592138&oldid=892561456 and to OJ about the preceding edit |
|||
Line 549: | Line 549: | ||
::::''I will have probably gotten topic-banned without any warning for exactly the same reasons that I got blocked for a week (also without warning)'' |
::::''I will have probably gotten topic-banned without any warning for exactly the same reasons that I got blocked for a week (also without warning)'' |
||
::::Sure, no warnings whatsever about edit-warring, unless you count [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oldstone_James&diff=809231544&oldid=809228729 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oldstone_James&diff=808900116&oldid=808100339 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oldstone_James&diff=809250145&oldid=809231544 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oldstone_James&diff=809696327&oldid=809685567 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oldstone_James&diff=809715462&oldid=809712269 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oldstone_James&diff=890299283&oldid=890065062 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oldstone_James&diff=890299969&oldid=890299283 this], or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oldstone_James&diff=809278263&oldid=809277805 this]. Or when you edit-warred about football, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oldstone_James&diff=696709335&oldid=695656892 like this]. Or advice like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oldstone_James&diff=809404705&oldid=809400839 this], or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oldstone_James&diff=809722723&oldid=809717131 this]. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 15:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC) |
::::Sure, no warnings whatsever about edit-warring, unless you count [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oldstone_James&diff=809231544&oldid=809228729 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oldstone_James&diff=808900116&oldid=808100339 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oldstone_James&diff=809250145&oldid=809231544 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oldstone_James&diff=809696327&oldid=809685567 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oldstone_James&diff=809715462&oldid=809712269 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oldstone_James&diff=890299283&oldid=890065062 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oldstone_James&diff=890299969&oldid=890299283 this], or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oldstone_James&diff=809278263&oldid=809277805 this]. Or when you edit-warred about football, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oldstone_James&diff=696709335&oldid=695656892 like this]. Or advice like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oldstone_James&diff=809404705&oldid=809400839 this], or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oldstone_James&diff=809722723&oldid=809717131 this]. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 15:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
{{u|Calton}}, would you please explain [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&diff=892592138&oldid=892561456 this revert] of yours? What is the problem with the hyphen that you removed? Why did you leave an edit summary that reflects on Oldstone James rather than commenting on the change you are making. {{u|Oldstone James}}, why did you use the edit summary that you did when adding the hyphen? It seems to me to not relate to your edit. Also, please don't revert Calton again, no matter what. [[User:EdChem|EdChem]] ([[User talk:EdChem|talk]]) 15:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:58, 15 April 2019
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Clarification of sentence in lead section
The current wording says:
It advocates a literal or historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis, with a particular focus on a pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism, which rejects those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative.
To clarify, I believe this statement is correct. However, my issue with it is that it may seem ambiguous to some viewers, who may interpret it as:
...young Earth creationism, which says that it is right and science is wrong with no basis
However, this interpretation is false, as even though the basis of YEC is very unconvincing, it is still a basis: that the Bible, unlike science, is infallible. This basis is cited here by AiG themselves:[1] and [2]. I believe adding an explanatory clause, such as "... – on the basis of their belief that the Bible, unlike science, is infallible" won't hurt at all. In fact, it will both help the reader understand AiG's point of view and reduce the number of proposed edits to somehow modify this statement to make it more "neutral", of which there have already been a lot.
My edits have been rejected on the basis that "weakening of the connection between creation science and pseudoscience". However, this is totally untrue and absolute rubbish, as in no way have I made the legitimacy of creation science any more credible. My version still clearly states that the promotion of YEC is, wait for it, "PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC". Just in case any of you missed it: my version states that YEC is "PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC". How can you make this any more clear? My edits have nothing to do with the legitimacy of YEC, but instead focus on explaining what views AiG promotes, which is what this article is about. Please take this into consideration. OlJa 19:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ "The Bible gives the foundation for the right approach in geology, astronomy, biology, anthropology-in fact, for all areas of reality". Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 21 March 2019.
- ^ "This definition of truth, upon which all good science is founded, ought to engender humility, as we acknowledge that only time will tell if our fallible understanding and hypotheses are correct". Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 21 March 2019.
- Please do not reinstate your pointy edit after two days. ThanksRoxy, the dog. wooF 16:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Roxy the dog: Hey. What is the point in leaving a message in a thread that contributes nothing to the conversation? You claim that my edit is "pointy" and that I should not "reinstate" it, but you provide zero arguments for why you think that is the case. I know this can't qualify as WP:PERSONAL, but you are literally just attacking my proposal for the sake of attacking it. Very questionable attitude, and I don't really see what you are trying to do here.OlJa 19:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Oldstone James:. See this diff and then this one particularly the pointy edsum "Please see talk page. If I don't get a reply on the talk page for 2 more days, I will restore my edit." From this it is clear that I was merely warning you not to re-instate that edit, per your request. Try to keep up purlease -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Roxy the dog: Hey. What is the point in leaving a message in a thread that contributes nothing to the conversation? You claim that my edit is "pointy" and that I should not "reinstate" it, but you provide zero arguments for why you think that is the case. I know this can't qualify as WP:PERSONAL, but you are literally just attacking my proposal for the sake of attacking it. Very questionable attitude, and I don't really see what you are trying to do here.OlJa 19:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Change "which" to "and", and problem solved. -Nunh-huh 17:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- I support User:Oldstone James's proposal. It's helpful to the reader to include the basis for any person's or organization's views, rather than just mentioning the view itself. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose this use of primary source material to synthesise an assessment of the supposed basis for AiG's views: it's largely inherent in the description already in the article of literal beliefs, but incomplete as they also give other reasons behind their opposition to the science of evolution. . . dave souza, talk 18:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Dave souza: Great point, actually. Perhaps we should remove the 'basis' part and just say something along the lines of "– believing scientific views to be fallible, unlike the Bible"? That would then not be synthesis because 1) the statements that scientific views are fallible and that the Bible is not are distinct, and no deductive statement 'C' is not added (previously, this statement was that these beliefs are their basis), and 2) as you said, the biblical literalism already implies that these beliefs are one of the bases of the core belief of biblical literalism. What do you think of this version?OlJa 19:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- AiG is a reliable source for what AiG believes, so the sources being primary is not a problem for this specific case. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @1990'sguy: I believe their emphasis was on WP:SYN, and I think they were correct in pointing that out. While AiG is a reliable source for what it believes, I cannot use two statements made by AiG to imply another statement, which is what I have done when I said that biblical inerrancy was THE basis for their rejection of scientific views. Either way, I do appreciate your help.OlJa 19:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- AiG is a reliable source for what AiG believes, so the sources being primary is not a problem for this specific case. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Dave souza: Great point, actually. Perhaps we should remove the 'basis' part and just say something along the lines of "– believing scientific views to be fallible, unlike the Bible"? That would then not be synthesis because 1) the statements that scientific views are fallible and that the Bible is not are distinct, and no deductive statement 'C' is not added (previously, this statement was that these beliefs are their basis), and 2) as you said, the biblical literalism already implies that these beliefs are one of the bases of the core belief of biblical literalism. What do you think of this version?OlJa 19:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose this use of primary source material to synthesise an assessment of the supposed basis for AiG's views: it's largely inherent in the description already in the article of literal beliefs, but incomplete as they also give other reasons behind their opposition to the science of evolution. . . dave souza, talk 18:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- I support User:Oldstone James's proposal. It's helpful to the reader to include the basis for any person's or organization's views, rather than just mentioning the view itself. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- The change does not, on the whole, seem like it's necessary to me. The current wording doesn't imply "with no basis"; it says "that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative". That they believe the bible to be infallible is built into the very concepts we're talking about, and spelling it out creates something of a false equivalence (i.e. as though anyone at all thinks that science is infallible). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: If it was indeed so obvious that biblical inerrancy is built into the concepts we're talking about, we wouldn't be seeing anywhere near that the number of editors that we are seeing trying to rephrase that sentence on the basis that it sounds POV to them. And it is really not stated anywhere in the lead section that AiG believes in biblical inerrancy, so there is no reason to assume that a reader would know that. Therefore, if you believe that this concept is so essential to the views of AiG, that makes it all the more important to add it.
- As for the false equivalence, I honestly don't see any problem. The statement is NOT "on the basis of their belief that science is fallible"; instead, the core of the statement is "on the basis of their belief that the Bible is infallible", followed by a clarification clause "unlike science". Therefore, if anyone gets out of this sentence that most people believe that scientific views are infallible, they are misreading it. If I said, "he believes that the ocean, unlike the sky, is not blue", would that imply that someone out there believes that the sky is not blue? I don't think so. However, if it's only the wording that's the problem, we could settle on "believing the Bible to be less fallible than science" or something of the sort.
- Furthermore, the current wording is clearly biased and bordering on emotional rant/false. "Rejecting those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their beliefs" implies "all those results... that do not conform to their beliefs", meaning we'd only need to find one result of one scientific investigation that goes against their belief that they don't reject in order for that statement to be false; I'm pretty sure there is some such result, which they don't reject but may say it's not significant enough to disprove their beliefs. However, reading the sentence the first time, the first impression is that the editor was fed up arguing with an AiG member who would reject everything that they say, and they would spill all their frustration out on a Wikipedia article. And I'm not on my own - as I have said, there have been countless non-creationist editors (me included) that have issues with this wording. Without further clarification, this impression won't go anywhere, and so I believe it is vital to add it.OlJa 13:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Consensus of experienced editors disagrees, and me, so no. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- First of all, there is no consensus yet. Two editors have addressed only a particular problem, which I have proposed a solution for in both cases. I am waiting for their reply, but I hope that my compromised version should already be enough to convince both, as it seems to avoid both addressed problems. Secondly, the consensus disagrees with what, precisely? I said that some editors have issues with this wording, and these 'some' editors come up pretty regularly. This statement is a fact. It doesn't matter what the experienced editors say: if there is a large number of people that don't interpret the sentence as it was intended then the meaning of the sentence is not clear or obvious. Experienced editors can't change that fact. And, honestly speaking, I can't see any experienced editors neither agreeing nor disagreeing with me so far. In fact, I don't see any editors disagreeing with me on this apart from you.OlJa 15:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Would you like me to recommend an optician for your much needed eyesight test? Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I actually think I'm fine, thanks. Another matter is you misunderstanding what I wrote. No one apart from you neither agreed nor disagreed on any of the statements I have made in the comment that you replied to. Therefore, you can't say that editors disagree with me on that statement if you are the only one that even commented on it. This conversation is meaningless and going nowhere. I won't reply to any of your further useless comments with the sole intention of provoking conflict.OlJa 19:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- More significantly, YECs reject Biblical inerrancy when it goes agains their theological interpretation – am pretty sure AiG reject the plain description in the Bible of Flat Earth cosmology, see CA662, CH131, and CH102. . . dave souza, talk 19:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think WP:OR would apply here. What we speculate AiG might say about flat earth cosmology (which they've written about) shouldn't be a factor in this. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Dave souza: Many issues with your statements here. First of all, even the users in the threads you linked believed that the Bible implied that the Earth is a sphere, so even they didn't contradict the principle of Biblical inerrancy. Secondly, these users do not represent AiG, and making that implication would be, as 1990'sguy has stated, WP:OR but also WP:SYN. Thirdly, AiG have clearly stated that the Bible is a foundation of truth of every aspect of existence, which is pretty much admission to belief in biblical inerrancy. Either way, thanks for your contribution.OlJa 19:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Threads? TalkOrigins Archive is accepted as a reliable secondary source on creationist claims, I've cited some examples from the index. AiG's statements open a can of worms, and the issues aren't as simple as you seem to think. . . dave souza, talk 21:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- It admittedly wasn't the best choice of words on my part, but the fact that TalkOrigins Achrive is a reliable secondary source (on creationist claims) doesn't take away from my point. AiG's views may open a can of worms, but that doesn't mean we can't handle them. The current statement is that AiG rejects all results of scientific investigation that they don't like, which opens an even bigger can of worms. Additionally, AiG explicitly states that the Bible provides a foundation for truth in every area, and also that science is fallible. What more can that mean than that they adhere to the principle of biblical inerrancy? I certainly do not believe that the issue is simple, which is in fact why I am opposing the simplistic conclusion that AiG just rejects everything without a basis. OlJa 23:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Threads? TalkOrigins Archive is accepted as a reliable secondary source on creationist claims, I've cited some examples from the index. AiG's statements open a can of worms, and the issues aren't as simple as you seem to think. . . dave souza, talk 21:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Dave souza: Furthermore, your personal opinions should not be a factor when deciding what to put in the article. You believe that the Bible outright says the Earth is flat, while many believers don't feel the same way. While I actually share your opinion that the Bible clearly says that the Earth is flat many times throughout the Bible, and that view coincides almost exactly with Babylonian science prevalent at the time, but this is only a justified opinion, and many scholars still disagree with this opinion[1][2][3]. On a different note, what do you think of my modified version which removes WP:SYN?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldstone James (talk • contribs) 20:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please sign your posts. Your links don't work, and are irrelevant if they're not specifically about YEC claims. It's not at all clear what your "modified version" is, and this section's turning into a WP:WALLOFTEXT so please start a new section to state concisely what you propose, and what secondary sources you want to use to support any changes to the article. . . dave souza, talk 21:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- My links seem to work for at least three editors. I think your connection/device might be a problem. My modified version is "– believing scientific views to be fallible, unlike the Bible", which avoids the problem of WP:SYN. I will start a new section shortly, though much of the cause for such a large amount of text were the mostly provocative comments by user Roxy the Dog.OlJa 23:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please sign your posts. Your links don't work, and are irrelevant if they're not specifically about YEC claims. It's not at all clear what your "modified version" is, and this section's turning into a WP:WALLOFTEXT so please start a new section to state concisely what you propose, and what secondary sources you want to use to support any changes to the article. . . dave souza, talk 21:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Would you like me to recommend an optician for your much needed eyesight test? Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- First of all, there is no consensus yet. Two editors have addressed only a particular problem, which I have proposed a solution for in both cases. I am waiting for their reply, but I hope that my compromised version should already be enough to convince both, as it seems to avoid both addressed problems. Secondly, the consensus disagrees with what, precisely? I said that some editors have issues with this wording, and these 'some' editors come up pretty regularly. This statement is a fact. It doesn't matter what the experienced editors say: if there is a large number of people that don't interpret the sentence as it was intended then the meaning of the sentence is not clear or obvious. Experienced editors can't change that fact. And, honestly speaking, I can't see any experienced editors neither agreeing nor disagreeing with me so far. In fact, I don't see any editors disagreeing with me on this apart from you.OlJa 15:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Levenson 2004, p. 11.
- ^ Waltke 1991, pp. 6–9.
- ^ Hyers 1984, p. 28.
- If I had said "fuck off James" I would agree the comment was provocative. Accusing me of making provocative comments is itself a personal attack, see WP:NPA. Grow a thicker skin or fuck off. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Clarification of sentence in lead section (2)
The last proposal has become a WP:WALLOFTEXT, so I will be concise this time. My issue is with the current wording of the clause:
...rejects those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative
Issue
The issue is that this clause may imply that all results of scientific investigation not favoured by AiG are rejected, which is a fragile claim, as it only requires one result which AiG does not favour but accepts as valid, nonetheless, - no matter how insignificant. Furthermore, no basis for this rejection is stated, creating the impression that AiG rejects these results just because and may (actually, does, as the extensive history of proposed alterations to this sentence suggests) come across as POV to some readers. In fact, AiG does have an (admittedly weak) basis for their rejection of mainstream science, and it's called 'the principle of biblical inerrancy'[1][2].
References
- ^ "The Bible gives the foundation for the right approach in geology, astronomy, biology, anthropology-in fact, for all areas of reality". Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 21 March 2019.
- ^ "This definition of truth, upon which all good science is founded, ought to engender humility, as we acknowledge that only time will tell if our fallible understanding and hypotheses are correct". Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 21 March 2019.
Solution
My proposed solution is to add an explanation to that statement
...rejects those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative – believing scientific views to be fallible, unlike the Bible
or
...holding that the Genesis creation narrative falsifies science
which solves both the problems: the statement now comes to mean that AiG rejects only those results that contradict what they think are the views the Bible, while one clear basis is also stated.OlJa 23:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
this clause may imply that all results of scientific investigation not favoured by AiG are rejected
- no, it states "those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative". That's specific and does not seem ambiguous.no basis for this rejection is stated
- yes, there is. The basis is conformation to a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative. Doesn't need to be more complicated than that. If we added "biblical inerrancy" we could then say there's no basis given for that until we get deeper and deeper and define the nature of belief or religion itself.come across as POV to some readers
- that some people say something is POV doesn't mean it's unclear (or that it's POV -- that's the nature of things like WP:FRINGE). Not trying to be dismissive here, but I still fail to see an issue that needs fixing in this line of text. (as an aside, FYI a ping doesn't work if added afterwards -- it needs the ping, on a new line, with a new signature, to generate a notification) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- That is a very questionable claim. The problem is that the current wording implies that ALL evidence not favoured by AiG is rejected, which is a claim that is both unsourced and, most likely, wrong (for reasons described in #Issue). Secondly, no, 'their literal interpretation' is not a basis. In this context, the wording really means 'they reject everything that they don't agree with'. Even if you believe it is, a lot of readers, including me, do not read it as such. Therefore, to make it clearer, we may add another clause specifically pointing out the basis, just to avoid any confusion. I don't see why you would reject this proposal - it's a win-win. If we add it, nothing will categorically change, and nothing bad will happen; however, we will make the statement clearer, at least to some readers.OlJa 12:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand why a solution has been proposed for a problem that doesn't exist. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. If it isn't broken, and I agree that it isn't, don't fix it.Doug Weller talk 11:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- The thing is: the problem exists by definition. The problem is that at least some readers that are not proponents or adherents of creationism, or even religion, for that matter (such as me and other editors), interpret this sentence in a way that makes it fallacious, and in fact this is how the sentence should be interpreted when read in proper English. Even if you don't believe a problem exists, that's not a reason to reject a proposal. If no problem with my proposal exists, I don't see why it should be rejected.OlJa 12:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@Oldstone James: please cease attempting to bludgeon your change through before you have obtained a consensus for it here. There is no grammatical error in the current wording. - Nick Thorne talk 10:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Nick Thorne: First of all, the change was suggested by user user:Nunh-huh, and no one has objected his proposal. Secondly, this is not how Wikipedia works. If you are to make a change to the article, the burden is on you to start a talk page discussion - not me. Thirdly, I've explained the grammar mistake twice, but you either didn't bother to read the explanation, or your grammar is no better than that of a 10-year-old, but I really hope it's the former. Fourthly, even if there is no error, why revert my edits? My version is clearly also acceptable, and reverting other people's edits for the sake of reverting their edits isn't necessarily the best thing to do. I think someone might need a good portion of freshly baked trout. However, since you are clearly edit-warring and are on the brink of violating the WP:3RR rule, I will report you first.OlJa 12:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with WP:BRD. You made your change, it was challenged and so now it whould be being discussed on this talk page. If anyone is edit warring, it is the one who is seeking to impose a change without consensus, after it has been chalenged. Your understanding of English grammar is perhaps not as good as you seem to think, but regardless, I am not impressed by your battleground behavior as demonstrated in the above post. Please feel free to take the issue to AN/I, but you might not get the result you seem to think. I'll give you a tip, I have not violated 3RR and I will not, but you continue to push for a change that does not have consensus. - Nick Thorne talk 12:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, on that same very page, it says 'BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes'. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the WP:BRD-NOT section. While I can't say there is a clear consensus on my change, all three editors out of the three discussing the change have agreed on making it. I have hence proceeded to make the change, only for you to revert it 3 times without any justification or even attempt to resolve the issue (and you are still not doing it). Now it is you who is challenging the (admittedly small) consensus, and so the burden is on you to justify your edits. I have already justified mine, and at least two other users have agreed, while none objected. Furthermore, you still haven't even bothered to read my edit summary, let alone address it. I appreciate your tip, but if you read my comment again, you will see that I have already figured it out by myself. Either way, we will see what the administrators have to say, and whether I 'get the result that you seem to think'OlJa 13:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with WP:BRD. You made your change, it was challenged and so now it whould be being discussed on this talk page. If anyone is edit warring, it is the one who is seeking to impose a change without consensus, after it has been chalenged. Your understanding of English grammar is perhaps not as good as you seem to think, but regardless, I am not impressed by your battleground behavior as demonstrated in the above post. Please feel free to take the issue to AN/I, but you might not get the result you seem to think. I'll give you a tip, I have not violated 3RR and I will not, but you continue to push for a change that does not have consensus. - Nick Thorne talk 12:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. The other three editors who have commented in this section do not appear to agree with you.
Not trying to be dismissive here, but I still fail to see an issue that needs fixing in this line of text.
- RhododendritesI don't understand why a solution has been proposed for a problem that doesn't exist.
-Roxy the dogIf it isn't broken, and I agree that it isn't, don't fix it.
- Doug WellerWhere is your so-called consensus? - Nick Thorne talk 13:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. The other three editors who have commented in this section do not appear to agree with you.
- I am particularly interested in James' response to this. There doesn't appear to be any wiggle room left, but we'll see. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sigh. All these editors are CLEARLY addressing my original proposal, which I have since abandoned having not reached a consensus. We can still ask Rhododendrites and Doug Weller, but it is pretty clear from the context already that they were'nt referring to Nunh-huh's comment.OlJa 13:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Can't speak for Doug Weller or Rhododendrites, but I think you need to revisit the meaning of the term CLEARLY. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm saying I'm happy with the current text "...rejects those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative" Doug Weller talk 14:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: the problem is whether it is 'which rejects' or 'and rejects'. The version before Nick Thorne's edits, which is the version originally proposed by Nunh-huh, is 'and rejects'. See my edit summary for this diff for explanation.OlJa 14:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm saying I'm happy with the current text "...rejects those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative" Doug Weller talk 14:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Can't speak for Doug Weller or Rhododendrites, but I think you need to revisit the meaning of the term CLEARLY. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I was indeed primarily responding to Oldstone James's main proposal(s). If this is just about "which" → "and thus", I'm more or less indifferent but weakly lean towards "which" in the current wording. "Which" takes "rejects [science]" and applies it to YEC; "and thus" applies it to AiG as a result of its [literalism, and YEC in particular]. Either seems ok, though? I do agree with James that the wording that combines "which" and "their" is awkward, though, since it switches references from AiG to YEC, then back to AiG (unless "YEC advocates" is implied for "their"?). Maybe the easiest solution would be just change "which/and rejects" to just "rejecting," which manages to connect it to YEC without shifting the subject off of AiG?
- James, an article like this can indeed be a slog to make even minor edits sometimes, and I dare say you'd have a much better time of it if you did take pains to find consensus on the talk page first and refrained from edit warring. As soon as you get into the latter, in particular, the substance of the edits becomes secondary to behavioral issues, and if you're trying to focus on the content, you'll find that shifted focus even more frustrating. FWIW. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Just saying 'rejecting' definitely gets rid of the grammatical mistake, but I think making a link between their belief in biblical literalism and their rejection of science by using 'thus' really helps the matters, as it adds a basis for AiG's beliefs, without compromising context. Alternatively, we could just reorder the clauses so as to put the 'it advocates...' and 'rejecting...' clauses together, which makes that link without even having to add any new words such as 'thus'. What do you think of that? I think it gets rid of my issue and your issue altogether.
- To be fair, a minor consensus between me and two other editors was already reached; no one else has commented on the proposal of the rather insignificant change since, so I'd thought I'd go ahead and make the change. I do agree that it is better to find a strong, unanimous consensus first, but wouldn't that also - and especially - apply to user:Nick Thorne? Other than that, yes, I agree with you, but it is still very frustrating to see someone revert even the most minor of my edits without any basis whatsoever and without any attempts of resolving the issue. I know it's not the best thing to do, but I'm sure a lot of Wikipedians would restore the original edits just like I did, not bothering to waste their time on such a blatant violation of Wikipedia policies.OlJa 14:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm in the middle of something else and won't be able to come back to this until later today, but this does not reflect what I said above. I'll look at the change in more detail later. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
And (thus) rejects vs (thus) rejecting
This will be my last proposal if rejected.
As it stands, the sentence is as follows:
It advocates a literal or historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis, with a particular focus on a pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism, rejecting those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative.
As I have learnt from my previous two proposals, any addition of what is considered to be superfluous content will likely be rejected. So, what about just adding one word, "thus", or even just rearranging the clauses without adding any new content? One of my proposals is:
It advocates a literal or historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis, (thus) rejecting those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative, and with a particular focus on a pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism.
This version links AiG's literal interpretation of Genesis with their rejection of science, and AiG have in fact explicitly stated that "in a biblical worldview, scientific observations are interpreted in light of the truth that is found in the Bible"[1], meaning the reason they reject science IS the truth of the Bible. On the other hand, it does not add any superfluous content, meaning the sentence can remain concise and to the point.
One can also argue it is important to stress that YEC also rejects science, in which case we could say:
It is particularly focused on a pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism, which advocates a literal or historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis, thus rejecting those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to
theirthis literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative.
Personally, I think this version addresses both the issues that I have raised and the issues with my previous proposals.
Important note: if you disagree, PLEASE also explain why, so that I can address these issues and hopefully find a compromise or, better, how I can improve on my proposal so that it is acceptable to be implemented in the article.OlJa 16:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Doug Weller said it succinctly. ‘’”If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.” ‘’ Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not an argument as per WP:ROWN. Please tell me how I can improve my edit so that it is implementable. If you don't see any issue with my proposal, I see no reason why it shouldn't be accepted, and nor does WP:ROWN. Clearly, it is broken in the eyes of at least a couple of editors. No unhappy editors is always better than two or more unhappy editors.OlJa 16:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support: This proposal clarifies to the reader why AiG believes what it believes -- this is not an insignificant thing. The "if it isn’t broken, don't fix it" phrase is invalid because the intro paragraph IS "broken" and needs fixing. It has several issues, and one of them is that it does clearly explain AiG's basis for its beliefs. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose proposed change. The second sentence of the lead despite James's statement above reads
It advocates a literal or historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis, with a particular focus on a pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism, which rejects those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative.
The important thing to note when parsing this sentence is that "which" refers back to the initial clause of the sentence not the immediately previous clause which being surrounded by commas is a parenthetical amplification of the AiG's interpretation of Genesis. Consequently the clause starting with "which" refers not to YEC, but like the clause within the commas, also refers back to AiG and their interpretation of Genesis. There is no grammar error snd "their" clearly applies to AiG as does the rest of the final clause. The sentence is unambiguous and there has been no good reason given why it should be changed, - Nick Thorne talk 00:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Which" here is a dangling modifier, with no clear subject, and could modify either YEC, the Book of Genesis, or the interpretation, hence the ambiguity. Furthermore, the word "which" is interpreted by almost everyone as modifying the preceding noun or the last noun in the independent (main) clause; e.g.
Alice noticed a pen in her room, having just picked up a pencil, which happened to be large
. No one will ever get from this sentence that it is the pen that is large. Moreover, the proposal is also adding a basis to AiG's rejection of science, which is not otherwise stated, or stated very ambiguously or only ostensibly (proof: many editors don't see any basis stated). Lastly, "no good reason why it should be changed" is, ironically, itself not a good argument in a discussion like this one as per WP:ROWN.OlJa 02:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Which" here is a dangling modifier, with no clear subject, and could modify either YEC, the Book of Genesis, or the interpretation, hence the ambiguity. Furthermore, the word "which" is interpreted by almost everyone as modifying the preceding noun or the last noun in the independent (main) clause; e.g.
- Comment: Furthermore, the statement "rejects those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative" adds no information, because ANY view will reject all evidence that does not conform to that view; if you don't reject a piece of evidence, then that piece of evidence by definition conforms to your view. Your view may evolve and change, but it will always, by definition, reject evidence that does not conform to it. To make this statement meaningful, we need to state why they reject scientific evidence, which would then make this rejection systematic and imply that their view won't evolve. OlJa 16:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose: Although it isn't my first choice, I would be OK with the proposed change if there was a consensus for it, but so far there is no such consensus, so my preference is for the existing wording. I have read the arguments carefully and I do not see anything wrong with the current wording that needs fixing. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Even the grammar doesn't need fixing? Also, can you please explain what your first choice is and why it's better than my version?OlJa 16:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- The grammar is not broken, and does not need fixing. The meaning of the existing wording is perfectly clear. Please read the dangling modifiers section of Steven Pinker: 10 'grammar rules' it's OK to break (sometimes):
- "Danglers are extremely common, not just in deadline-pressured journalism but in the works of distinguished authors. Considering how often these forms turn up in edited prose and how readily they are accepted even by careful readers, two conclusions are possible: either dangling modifiers are a particularly insidious grammatical error for which writers must develop sensitive radar, or they are not grammatical errors at all".
- "The second conclusion is the right one: some dangling modifiers should be avoided, but they are not grammatical errors".
- --Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon: Thanks for the link and the quote, and I think it could be useful in a lot of situations. However, the very next sentence of that article states, "the problem with dangling modifiers is that their subjects are inherently ambiguous and sometimes a sentence will inadvertently attract a reader to the wrong choice", and later also repeats, "a thoughtlessly placed dangler can confuse the reader or slow them down, and occasionally it can lure them into a ludicrous interpretation". As I have demonstrated above with the Alice example, this one definitely belongs in that category. Furthermore, this is just an opinion of one writer. This article contradicts that opinion. Let's just agree that a dangling modifier, which appears confusing to at least 4 users (me, 1990'sguy, Nunh-huh, and Rhododendrites), is worse than no dangling modifier.OlJa 18:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I've been told my comment above doesn't count here. No time to say more than I agree with Guy and Nick. @Rhododendrites: what say you? Doug Weller talk 18:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Quoting from WP:ROWN: "Do not revert an edit because that edit is unnecessary, i.e. the edit does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse."OlJa 19:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- You might want to carefully consider the contents of WP:BLUDGEON. I am not saying that you have gone over the line, but you are approaching it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- There are a few different changes proposed here. There's the "thus" and then there's reordering and/or breaking up of the sentences.
- The "thus" - Let's talk about it in the context of the current version. As I understand it, James is [partly] proposing adding "thus" like this: "It advocates a literal or historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis, with a particular focus on a pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism, thus rejecting those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative."
- I would oppose this change. Without "thus" "...rejecting" is tied to AiG's "literal of historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis". It's an extension of that activity. Inserting "thus" seems awkward. Like making a cause and effect claim rather than simply elaborating on the perspectives. If anything it's the rejection of science that leads us to call it pseudoscientific, so putting it afterwards seems strange.
- The reordering - I don't see that the reordering of the sentences makes it any clearer, and in fact looks to detrimentally affect the meaning, at least per my reading.
- None of this is to say I don't think the line could be improved for clarity, but after a few attempts myself I haven't found a better solution. Keep as is, I guess. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: Quick comment: my emphasis is on the last version I have proposed, which imo is the best out of the four. What makes it better than the current version is that it adds why AiG reject science, which is otherwise not stated, and thus makes the clause meaningful.OlJa 22:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- At the risk of adding extraneous text to an already long section, could you specify which version you mean (diff or copy/paste)? I admit I'm having trouble following all of the threads. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: Once you read it, you can delete both my and your comment to save space:
It is particularly focused on a pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism, which advocates a literal or historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis, thus rejecting those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to this literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative.
- OlJa 02:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll go ahead and leave it for clarity on what in particular I'm responding to.
- This makes the text specifically about YEC, as I read it, seeming to frame biblical literalism, etc. an outgrowth of YEC, rather than the other way around. AiG's literalist approach is furthermore not restricted to YEC. I.e. YEC isn't the only aspect of its literal interpretation of Genesis for which it would reject the science that doesn't conform. My take on "thus" above still applies to that part, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, that's an easy fix: replace "which advocates" with "advocating" and perhaps add an "and" before "thus rejecting"; I just thought you preferred it this way, as you said before that you like the current version specifically because it applies "rejects science [that does not conform to the literal interpretation]" to YEC. Also, "thus" clearly makes biblical literalism the basis for rejection of science, which is what you seem to be defending, so I don't see your problem here.OlJa 03:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: Once you read it, you can delete both my and your comment to save space:
- At the risk of adding extraneous text to an already long section, could you specify which version you mean (diff or copy/paste)? I admit I'm having trouble following all of the threads. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: Quick comment: my emphasis is on the last version I have proposed, which imo is the best out of the four. What makes it better than the current version is that it adds why AiG reject science, which is otherwise not stated, and thus makes the clause meaningful.OlJa 22:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Oldstone James, Guy Macon has already pointed you towards WP:BLUDGEON. Yet you continue to outpost everyone else here. In fact, as I write this, you have made 24 of the last 50 posts to this talk page. I very strongly suggest you cease this now lest you be taken to AN/I for disruption. - Nick Thorne talk 09:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- If I may, I would like to mention why we have WP:BLUDGEON. I was here when it was first created. Perhaps Guy Macon and Nick Thorne might want to talk about improving the page without Oldstone James responding to every comment. Having Oldstone James constantly interjecting tends to lead the conversation in the direction being about Oldstone James' proposal -- which has already been discussed at length -- and strangles any new, partially formed ideas that Nick Thorne or Guy Macon might have in the cradle. Also, a human simply cannot post 24 comments a row on the same topic without starting to repeat himself. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- We would like to know why Guy Macon has started to refer to himself in the third person. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. (Saw this at DRN). The proposed version is unclear and its English a bit wonky. What we've got now is fine. Alexbrn (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Protected
I have fully protected the article for three days. Oldstone James, you must get consensus for any change that you make here, as it is obviously contentious. WP:BRD is there for a reason. Please ensure that this is followed when the protection expires. Black Kite (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Any? Even one that has proposed by users who disagree with me? Wouldn't that be an adaptive edit as per WP:BRD#Use cases?OlJa 16:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- You have two choices. [1] create a specific proposal and see what the consensus is for your change, or [2] Go ahead and assume that your change is OK without checking, make the change, and get blocked. Most administrators have a very low tolerance for someone who edits after edit-warring protection expires without a clear survey of participants asking if they object to that specific change. When in doubt, ask. If you have no doubts, ask anyway. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure who to trust here. I want to follow your advice, but this sentence from WP:BRD directly contradicts it: "To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion, but be sure you don't engage in any kind of edit warring."OlJa 19:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@Black Kite: (the administrator who protected the page):
Question for Black Kite: should Oldstone James create a specific proposal and see what the consensus is for his change, or should he go ahead and assume that his change is OK without checking and make the change?
A brief explanation of how the essay Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and the policy Wikipedia:Consensus apply, and exactly what you meant when you wrote (at the top of this section)...
- "Oldstone James, you must get consensus for any change that you make here, as it is obviously contentious. WP:BRD is there for a reason. Please ensure that this is followed when the protection expires."[1] (Emphasis in original)
...would also be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, fairly straightforward. Oldstone James has been making edits that don't (or didn't at the time) have talkpage consensus and were thus reverted. WP:BRD ran out at that point - after that you need consensus to restore something that's been reverted (for a good reason). Obviously I'm not saying he needs consensus to make any edit, anywhere in future - just the contentious ones that have been the subject of dispute here. Black Kite (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Let me explain what happens next
Now that the page has been protected for three days, everyone who has been edit warring is expected to calmly and rationally discuss the changes they wish to make and to not edit the article until WP:CONSENSUS has been reached. Read WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT if you are having trouble understanding this.
Not to put too fine a point on it, everybody has to agree that we have reached consensus. Don't just make a count and start editing the article because you think you have consensus. Check with the other editors first.
What usually happens when someone goes back after the protection expires and starts editing the article without reaching consensus is that the person who does that gets blocked from editing Wikipedia.
The current version of this article is identical to the version as of 01:54, 25 February 2019,[2] -- the last stable version from before the edit war -- and per WP:STATUSQUO it should remain as is until there is agreement on what changes to make.
Free clue: In cases like this the person who posts one short comment with no emotion or talking about other editors and focuses on what the sources say usually gets his way over the person who posts the same argument again and again, acts aggressively, posts walls of text, or who doesn't have reliable sources to back up his preferred version. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- I remember a similar conflict on a YEC-related article I was involved in -- the version I and some other editors supported was the WP:STATUSQUO version, but the same editors using that rule now strongly argued against it when they opposed the status quo, despite the version we supported having no issues that made it an emergency-necessity to delete. Respectfully, for consistency's sake, I recommend restoring User:Oldstone James's wording until a consensus one way or another is reached. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for using your witty 'free clue' as a way to express your opinion that I only repeat the same argument again and again, and don't have reliable resources to back up my proposal, and also for thinking AiG's website is not a reliable source for AiG's own opinions. Oh yeah, all that when you have absolutely nothing to do with the actual discussion. And also for supporting keeping a version with a grammatical mistake in it, which everybody (4 editors) but one confused editor has now acknowledged.OlJa 02:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- I did not single you or any other editor out. As for the other, propose the exact change you want (no, I am not going to go back and reread the entire talk page) and ask if anyone objects. If there is a clear consensus for it, I will ask an admin to make the change. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
They present this as a choice between the word of God and human reason
I am SO frustrated that I even have to start a discussion about this, but a couple of very stubborn users forced me to. Per source, "There are only two possible sources for authority: God's Word and human reason. Those who rightly choose the authority of a literal reading of God's Word and are obedient to that Word can in all likelihood look forward to an eternity in heaven. Those who reject that Word and its authority can look forward to being like those who perished in Noah's flood". Note that the source presents both human reason and God's Word as sources of authority. It then says that those who choose God's Word as source of authority will be in heaven, while those who don't will perish. Nowhere does it claim that the choice is between God's Word and human reason; nowhere does it say that those who (also) choose human reason as source of authority will not be in heaven; nowhere does it mention "dire eternal punishment". Furthermore, AiG have on numerous occasions claimed that belief in God's Word is logical[1][2], and thus that human reason and God's Word go together, and even that, quote, "The notion of “faith versus reason” is an example of a false dichotomy"[3]. I am really looking forward to user:Guy Macon's and user:Bloodofox's response to this, as both users have clearly not read the source.OlJa 02:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- 2 points. 1) Editor interpretations of WP:primary sources are generally a bad idea, especially in complicated matters like this. Can you find reliable secondary sources which support your view on what AIG means? 2) What are you actually proposing anyway? From looking at the article history, I guess you're proposing making this change again [3] but despite your very long opening statement, it's very difficult to know what you are actually proposing just from it. Nil Einne (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: I propose removing the sentence altogether. Secondary source which supports my view? There you go:[4]. This source says that both human reason and God's Word are possible sources of authority for AiG. Interpretation of a primary source? There is no interpretation; the source makes a "straightforward, descriptive statements of fact" that it believes that "faith is not antagonistic to reason".OlJa 03:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree that you aren't making an interpretation of what they're saying. Also can you provide a quote from that secondary source where it supports your claim? The only thing remotely related I see in it is simply a quote from AIG (or more correctly the Creation Museum they made).
I don't see where it interprets this statement to say that AIG is saying they accept human reason. In fact the source seems to suggest the opposite, that they reject human reason when it contradicts what they consider a literal reading of the bibleAs the musem points out early in its "Bible Walkthrough Experience" (that takes vistors on a visual tour of the first eleven chapters of Genesis), there are only two possible sources for authority: God's Word or human reason. Those who rightly choose the authority of a literal reading of God's Word and are obedient to that Word (by, for example, accepting the claim that marriage can only properly occur between a man and a woman), can in all likelihood look forward to an eternity in heaven. Those who reject that Word and its authority can look forward to being like those who perished in Noah's flood.
although again this refers to the Creation Museum. Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)its real focus is on the question of who or what serves as the ultimate authority for Truth in twenty-first-century US culture
- I disagree that you aren't making an interpretation of what they're saying. Also can you provide a quote from that secondary source where it supports your claim? The only thing remotely related I see in it is simply a quote from AIG (or more correctly the Creation Museum they made).
- @Nil Einne: I propose removing the sentence altogether. Secondary source which supports my view? There you go:[4]. This source says that both human reason and God's Word are possible sources of authority for AiG. Interpretation of a primary source? There is no interpretation; the source makes a "straightforward, descriptive statements of fact" that it believes that "faith is not antagonistic to reason".OlJa 03:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://answersingenesis.org/logic/the-logic-of-belief/
- ^ https://answersingenesis.org/logic/is-the-christian-worldview-logical/
- ^ https://answersingenesis.org/logic/is-the-christian-worldview-logical/
- ^ Trollinger, Susan L.; Trollinger, Jr., William Vance (2017). "Chapter 31:The Bible and Creationism". In Gutjahr, Paul (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in America. Oxford University Press. pp. 223–225. ISBN 9780190258856.
The Word of God vs. Human Reason
In a recent edit summary, Oldstone James wrote "Nothing at all said about a supposed 'battle' between the Word and human reason".[4][5]
But the Answers in Genesis website says
"We cannot trust mere human understanding to explain the unobservable past... Evolution cannot be classified under operational science because it is a philosophical framework one assumes when interpreting past events. For most evolutionists, this philosophical framework involves naturalism and materialism—worldviews which teach reality consists only of matter and that scientific laws are sufficient to explain all phenomena. These philosophies are irrational..."[6] and "What makes the Creation Museum, Ark Encounter, and the message of AiG so powerful? And why are these two outreaches so inspiring to Christians and infuriating to atheists? Two words: biblical authority. The core message of AiG is that all of God’s Word is true, from Genesis to Revelation!"[7]
There is no reason to whitewash or water down AiG's stated beliefs. They stand by them and are proud of them. If you cannot trust human reason and every bit of God's word it true, then that's a battle between the Word and human reason. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon: Look, I myself am an atheist and, like all atheists, do not like AiG. However, this statement is just laughably wrong, and you almost certainly know it's wrong yourself. Even in the examples you have provided, which, bear in mind, are NOT stated in the article, NOWHERE is it mentioned that one must CHOOSE between human reason and God's Word. It just says that human reason is insufficient to know the truth. Furthermore, YOUR OWN QUOTE contradicts your point, as it says that "these philosophies are irrational". To completely falsify your point, let me again link this article, which clearly and definitively states that "the notion of “faith versus reason” is an example of a false dichotomy".OlJa 02:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- First, please don't ping me. When I make a comment I read any replies. Pings are for situation where you mention me on a page I am not participating on and likely am not watching.
- Second, please don't tell me what I almost certainly know myself. I am very familiar with this topic. The plain facts, easily verifiable in multiple sources, is that AiG believes that the bible as they interpret it (those old-earth creationists are all heretics) is infallible and always true. Yes, they accept science when it doesn't conflict with their interpretation of scripture. When the two disagree, the Bible wins every time. Not 99.99% of the time, but every time. This is what they teach. This is what they are. It is their core belief that they have the Truth. The rest is just detail work; explaining why the people who wrote[8] are wrong about the Bible and explaining why the people who wrote[9] are wrong about science. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with everything you are saying here, which actually supports my proposal for the second sentence of lead section. However, this has NOTHING to do with human reason vs God's Word. The matter of fact is that AiG think both reason and Word are sources of authority, which is supported by the source linked in the article.OlJa 03:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think Guy hits the nail on the head here. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- James, why do you feel it necessary to declare yourself an atheist, if indeed you are? How is that even relevant? What an editor likes or not is also irrelevant. Apart from that I completely agree with Guy. It is beyond time for you to drop the stick - Nick Thorne talk 03:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Because I've been accused of "whitewashing" and "watering down" AiG's beliefs. However, that's not at all what I am doing, and don't have any incentive to, since I hate AiG myself. I am not editing because of a conflict of interests, as Guy Macon seems to assume, but because in its current state, the entire article is full of false information, bad English, confusing and meaningless statements, etc.OlJa 12:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- James, why do you feel it necessary to declare yourself an atheist, if indeed you are? How is that even relevant? What an editor likes or not is also irrelevant. Apart from that I completely agree with Guy. It is beyond time for you to drop the stick - Nick Thorne talk 03:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is getting to be really annoying. Please stop telling me what I think and start asking me what I think. I am right here. I am perfectly capable of answering questions like "do you believe that I am editing because of a conflict of interest?" (The answer would be "No. I have seen no evidence of that"). You really suck at reading my mind, and pretty much always get it wrong.
- I stand by my description of some of your edits as whitewashing and watering down AiG's beliefs. (note that I am speaking of what you did, not why you did it.) In particular:
- [10] waters down AiG's beliefs. They do not, as you claim, reject many natural causes and events in scientific explanations of nature and the origin of the universe in favor of the supernatural. They reject all such causes. To AiG, there are no natural causes. Everything is God's handiwork. They are quite clear about believing this: " if you reject God and replace Him with another belief that puts chance and random processes in the place of God, there is no basis for right or wrong... As the creation foundation is removed, we see the godly institutions also start to collapse. On the other hand, as the evolution foundation remains firm, the structures built on that foundation -- lawlessness, homosexuality, abortion, etc. -- logically increase. We must understand this connection... Much has been written about one of fascism’s more infamous sons, Adolf Hitler. His treatment of Jews may be attributed, at least in part, to his belief in evolution."[11] (That entire page is well worth reading if you want to understand AiG.)
- [12][13] whitewashes AiG's beliefs. As I clearly showed with quotes from AiG at the top of this section, they present this as a choice between the word of God and human reason. The second part is also easily found on AiG's website: "God’s goodness doesn’t negate eternal punishment in hell; it demands it... The Bible leaves us no option but to recognize that hell is the punishment due to sinners who have rejected the goodness of an infinitely good God."[14] and "The Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God. It is an eyewitness account of history and is accurate in everything it says. It is the authority for Christian life and practice and is a foundation on which believers must build their thinking. We need to be equipped to teach people to see and draw connections between the Bible and the world around us. The Bible is the foundation for our understanding of the real world. It can be trusted and is the ultimate authority no matter what it speaks on -- from biology to salvation."[15] Again, these are not disputed views. AiG is quite open about their belief that The Bible is the ultimate authority over anything that science says, and that they only accept science when it agrees with (their interpretation of) the bible.
- I'm pretty sure AiG accepts the water cycle, carbon cycle, the cycle of wind in the atmosphere which plays a major role in weather patterns, etc. So they don't reject all natural explanations. To say otherwise is a strawman, unless you can pull up an AiG article that rejects the water cycle. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Typical creationist argument; setting up a straw man while falsely accusing your opponent of setting up a straw man. Where did I ever say that AiG rejects the water cycle? In fact, I directly quoted them as saying the exact opposite:
- "If a scientific model does not contradict the Bible, then we should be excited to see what new insights we can gain about the Creator and His workings. As with the question of origins, we must interpret the data through the lens of biblical revelation."[16]
- AiG believes that science is true in exactly the same way that an atheist believes the Bible to be true. The atheist will tell you that any particular passage in the Bible that completely agrees with science is indeed literally true -- but that doesn't make the atheist a bible believer. AiG will tell you that any particular conclusion that scientists make that completely agrees with their interpretation of the Bible is true -- but that doesn't make AiG science believers.
- Regarding your claim that "they don't reject all natural explanations" Yes. They do. Our imaginary atheist would conclude that some passages in the Bible are true while completely rejecting all biblical explanations (when the Bible and science agree he accepts only the scientific explanation, and considers the Bible getting it right to be an interesting coincidence). Likewise AiG believes that some claims made by scientists are true (because they agree with the Bible) while completely rejecting all natural explanations (when the Bible and science agree they accept only the biblical explanation, and consider science getting it right to be an interesting coincidence).
- Go ahead and post your best creationists arguments. The article gets better as a result of creationists making us verify every claim. But don't tell fibs about what AiG believes when their own literature directly contradicts your claims. AiG believes that God is the root cause of everything created. God is behind every law of physics. God created the laws of physics, along with all matter, all energy, time, and space. Go ahead and ask them. They answer their emails. Ask them whether the root cause of anything is nature or whether the root cause of everything is God. They will freely tell you that God invented nature and that all supposedly natural explanations are simply God working out his eternal plan through the nature he created. They will tell you that the water cycle is true, and that God in his infinite wisdom created the water cycle.
- I have studied the beliefs and claims of creationists at length. Frankly, I find AiG's open allegiance to God as the root cause of everything to be a refreshing change from those creationists who pretend that the Intelligent Designer they are talking about has nothing to do with the Christian God. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Citation
I have remove a citation needed tag and modified the text to reflect the existing reference. James has chosen to revert this claiming that the reference does not reflect the modified text. The reference states Importantly, Ham never shared the goal of the CRS or the ICR of developing a science of young Earth creationism. Instead, his focus was always on a simple three pronged message that the teaching of evolution was evil...
and it goes on. I submit that my wording is an accurate summary/paraphrase of the reference. My text is They present this as a choice between the word of God and human reason, particularly the teaching of evolution which they regard as evil.
I am not going to edit war over this, but I ask James to abide by the same protocol. - Nick Thorne talk 12:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I restored Nick’s version. Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please look into straw man. In my edit, I actually kept the part about evolution being presented as evil (although that has already been stated like literally two sentences before), and in fact also added that they present it as irrational. The part that is not supported by the source, or any reliable source you will ever find, for that matter, is "they present it as a choice between the word of God and human reason". Once again, that statement is false, as AiG themselves state that "the notion of “faith versus reason” is an example of a false dichotomy" and that "on the contrary, biblical faith and reason go well together"[1]. If you look at the source, it never says that one has to choose between human reason and God's Word. Instead, it actually says that there are two possible sources of authority: God's Word and human reason. I BEG you to tell me where I am wrong.OlJa 13:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree, and it would seem I am not the only one. Also, to answer your edit summary
Reference before punctuation (right?)
Wrong. Punctuation before reference(s). - Nick Thorne talk 13:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)- It's good to know that you disagree, but what exactly out of what I said is wrong? If Alice says that her name is Alice, and Bob, a reliable source, says that her name is Alice, what's Alice's name? You may disagree that her name is Alice, and you may not be the only one, but if every reliable source, including Alice herself, says that her name is Alice then that must be so.OlJa 13:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- It is not necessary to answer every post with repetitive arguments. See WP:BLUDGEON - Nick Thorne talk 13:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- A quote from God's Word or Human Reason?: An Inside Perspective on Creationism by Jonathan Kane, Emily Willoughby and T. Michael Keesey "God gave humans the ability to reason, but the Bible commands that we have faith in Him. According to Answers in Genesis, the largest and most influential creationist organization in the United States, the conclusions of human reason must be rejected if they contradict our understanding of the Bible". Theroadislong (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Theroadislong: Key phrase: "if they contradict our understanding of the Bible". Their explanation is that if someone reaches a conclusion that contradicts the Bible, their reasoning must be false. Otherwise, where the Bible cannot give an answer, human reason must apply, as per source above. OlJa 13:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- A quote from God's Word or Human Reason?: An Inside Perspective on Creationism by Jonathan Kane, Emily Willoughby and T. Michael Keesey "God gave humans the ability to reason, but the Bible commands that we have faith in Him. According to Answers in Genesis, the largest and most influential creationist organization in the United States, the conclusions of human reason must be rejected if they contradict our understanding of the Bible". Theroadislong (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- It is not necessary to answer every post with repetitive arguments. See WP:BLUDGEON - Nick Thorne talk 13:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's good to know that you disagree, but what exactly out of what I said is wrong? If Alice says that her name is Alice, and Bob, a reliable source, says that her name is Alice, what's Alice's name? You may disagree that her name is Alice, and you may not be the only one, but if every reliable source, including Alice herself, says that her name is Alice then that must be so.OlJa 13:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree, and it would seem I am not the only one. Also, to answer your edit summary
So you admit that the citation needed tag is not necessary, then. Great. I suggest you move along to another article, Oldstone James. We don't need more creationist POV-pushing here. jps (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Of course the citation tag is needed. Furthermore, you are not going to find a citation for that statement, because that statement is false. Funny how you claim I am pushing creationist POV when I am an atheist. I am curious as to what in particular you will propose banning me for, other than bludgeoning.OlJa 14:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what your personal beliefs are, your advocacy here has the effect of holding water for a creationist POV. See tendentious editing for the problem. jps (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: Oldstone James is blocked for a week
A few hours ago by Black Kite. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I commented at User talk:Oldstone James#March 2019 B. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- And since that hasn't stopped the edit-warring, I've protected the article for a week this time. This should be plenty of time for all concerned to find a mutually acceptable wording for the disputed part of the article. If some sort of consensus can be arrived at by all involved, please ping me and I'll drop the protection. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Or we could not make the slightest effort to confirm that there is consensus for our changes, wait until the protection expires, and resume edit warring. Also fun: setting ourselves on fire, watching a double feature of Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas and Battlefield Earth. BONUS: Music to edit War to]
Let's review the wonderful things we have accomplished!
The current revision this page (18:44, 31 March 2019) is identical to the version as of 12:34 9 February 2019[17].
74 article edits by 21 users (and 171 talk page edits by 20 users) over a period of 7 weeks have accomplished exactly zero.
We could have all stopped editing and unwatched the page 50 days ago and the content would be exactly as it is today.
So how is that edit warring instead of seeking consensus on the talk page working out for you? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, there's always wp:The Wrong Version to consider, or maybe not. The aptly named Trollinger et al. may be worth reviewing, but it doesn't look urgent. Thanks for your time. . . dave souza, talk 20:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Second sentence and other matters
The second sentence of the lede has been the subject of, how shall I put it, some discussion. To be clear, this is the sentence as it stands:
- It advocates a [[Biblical literalism|literal]] or [[Historical-grammatical method|historical-grammatical]] interpretation of the [[Book of Genesis]], with a particular focus on a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] promotion of [[young Earth creationism]], which rejects those results of [[scientific investigation]] that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the [[Genesis creation narrative]].
and so it appears as:
It advocates a literal or historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis, with a particular focus on a pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism, which rejects those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative.
When I first saw the ongoing conflict after seeing a thread at WP:AN, one of my first thoughts was about the phrase "pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism" – which, as far as I can see, had not been raised. I wondered why pseudoscientific was used as a modifier of "promotion" when I thought it was YEC that was the pseudoscience. I was going to post here until I saw that ජපස had modified it to "promoting the pseudoscience of young Earth creationism" with the edit summary "simpler wording. YEC is a pseudoscience." I thanked jps for his edit, I seemed to me to be a better choice of words. Unfortunately, Oldstone James reverted with the edit summary "Actually, creation science is a pseudoscience, as well as the allegedly 'scientific' promotion of YEC. YEC by itself is just a religious belief that does no claim to be a science, and hence cannot be a pseudoscience." This was followed by three further reverts in under ten minutes. Another revert by 1990'sguy followed a few hours later, and Guy Macon's WP:STATUSQUO revert returned us to 27 March. Three more edits (not to the second sentence) and a revert from Bloodofox and we are back to a protected article, courtesy of Black Kite, and OJ is serving a block under WP:3RR. It seems that nothing much here is actually uncontroversial and I think that we should use this period of protection to actually find some consensus – and I am not meaning to blame anyone as there are clearly some reasons for disagreement. EdChem (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Issue 1: Pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism
- As a scientist, I understand what promotion of a pseudoscience is, but I don't know what is meant by pseudoscientific promotion of something. It could mean the generation and use of pseudoscience in aid of promoting a yEc view but AiG starts from a religious viewpoint as I understand it, making such an interpretation seemunlikely to me. Jps' change made sense to me, but OJ objected on the grounds that yEc can't be a science if it is a religious belief. WP's own article on young Earth creationism defines it as "the religious belief that the universe and the Earth were created by direct acts of God less than 10,000 years ago," and on that basis OJ appears to be correct – YEC can't be a pseudoscience if it is a religious belief and not claiming to be science. OJ further notes that creation science is the pseudoscience. The difficulty here is that yEc is used to refer to both the religious belief and the pseudoscience that is invoked to justify it, and so yEc can be argued to be a short-hand descriptor of a pseudoscience.
- As far as I can see, this leaves with a few options, on which I invite comment / discussion / alternatives:
- 1A – leave with the present wording,
pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism
- 1B – adopt Jps' wording,
promoting the pseudoscience of young Earth creationism
- 1C – adopt what I see as OJ's implied wording,
promoting the pseudoscience of creation science
- 1D – or an alternative form of 1C,
promoting creation science, a pseudoscience
- 1E – try to include both CS and yEc,
promoting young Earth creationism and the associated pseudoscience of creation science
- 1F – a variation on 1E that seeks to avoid "pseudoscience" and "science" so close together, but is longer, such as
promoting young Earth creationism and creation science, its associated pseudoscience.
s (intelligent design and creation science) - 1G – recognise that pseudoscience is the vehicle used to promote yEc and thereby recast the entire last section of the sentence:
with a particular focus on promoting young Earth creationism by rejecting those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative and adopting pseudoscientific explanations from the creation science
and intelligent designmovements. - 1H – redraft of 1G to be more concise (showing full sentence):
It advocates a literal or historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis with a young Earth, promoting pseudoscientific explanations from creationist
and intelligent designperspectives and rejecting scientific investigations that contradict their creation narrative.
- 1A – leave with the present wording,
- My preference would be to re-draft along the lines of 1H (other comments on that below) or for 1F or 1E on the specific point, though I can accept any but 1A, which I find confusing. EdChem (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'd be happy with "promotes pseudoscientific young Earth creationism", but think we may need a citation for that: will comment in a new section. Also note, as far as I know AiG is opposed to ID, though creation science tends to use the same arguments. . dave souza, talk 11:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, AiG is critical of ID as a movement.[18] No idea why intelligent design has been suddenly introduced here: it isn't mentioned in the article. StAnselm (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't have strong feelings about this, but I like 1H the best. 1B is also pretty good. I like anything containing "pseudoscientific promotion" the least, because it sort of implies that the promotion itself is pseudoscientific, as apposed to promoting pseudoscience. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'd be happy with "promotes pseudoscientific young Earth creationism", but think we may need a citation for that: will comment in a new section. Also note, as far as I know AiG is opposed to ID, though creation science tends to use the same arguments. . dave souza, talk 11:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Given the strikethroughs, I prefer 1F as being clear and accurate. StAnselm (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- 1A is the best of bad options, so if these are the only choices, it's what I'll choose. Preferably, I support
promotion of young Earth creationism
(without the unnecessary/over-the-top "pseudoscience" wording, which just shoves it in the readers' faces--just click on the YEC article and you'll see it) as the best option. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC) - 1990'sguy, you or anyone else is free to suggest alternatives. Oldstone James has expressed a preference for 1H, though with an addition of a link to biblical inerrancy as the reason for rejection of science. EdChem (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Issue 2: Dangling modifier
- In the present form, it is unclear whether the clause following the "which" modifies AiG's advocacy or yEc.
- Plenty of options have been canvassed above, none has found consensus, but I'm happy to summarise them if that would be helpful.
- To them, I would add:
- a rewording like 1H (above)
- a simpler reordering such as
It advocates a literal or historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis and rejects those results of scientific investigation that are seen as contradicting the Genesis creation narrative by a pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism.
- My preference is 1H or the reordering. EdChem (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I support the reordering, except for everything after "Genesis creation narrative," which I think is an unnecessary addition to the sentence. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Issue 3: Hatnote
A hat note was added:
- {{short description|Fundamentalist Christian apologetics parachurch organization}}
Should this be returned or not?
- It's not really a hatnote, is it? It doesn't appear on the page. I don't actually know what these "short descriptions" are for. StAnselm (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I would support the hatnote, especially if the description is simplified to "Christian apologetics organization" -- AiG may focus on Genesis 1-11, but it goes into depth on other Christian apologetics topics, including the historicity of the resurrection, evidence for the other 65 books for the Bible, abortion/same-sex marriage/other current social issues, etc. I would be OK strictly including "young earth creationist" as well, if necessary. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Issue 4: Views and activities
In the Views and activities section, the following part:
- Ham's message has had three central points. Firstly, teaching of evolution is an evil causing terrible damage to society, secondly, the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis give direct instruction on the creation of the universe and human social behavior, and thirdly that proper Christians must engage in a total conflict battling against atheistic humanism. Answers in Genesis promotes central young Earth creationist doctrines, including literal Creation of the Earth in six 24-hour days and effects of the global flood, but their main focus is acceptance of the authority of their particular literal reading of the Bible as a precondition for eternity in heaven. They present this as a choice between the word of God and human reason, with those choosing the latter liable to dire eternal punishment.
was changed to (sections in green are the original, purple highlights the changes):
- Ham's message has had three central points: that teaching of evolution is an evil causing damage to society; that the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis give a precise description of the process of creation of the universe and provide direct instruction on the organization of society; and that proper Christians must engage in a total conflict battling against atheistic humanism. Answers in Genesis promotes central young Earth creationist doctrines, including literal Creation of the Earth in six 24-hour days and effects of the global flood, but their main focus is acceptance of the authority of their particular literal reading of the Bible as a precondition for eternity in heaven. They present this as a choice between the word of God and human reason, particularly the teaching of evolution which they regard as evil.
Later in the same section, the sentence:
- Since their beliefs reject natural causes and events in scientific explanations of nature and the origin of the universe in favor of the supernatural, creation science is considered to be a religion by the National Academy of Sciences.
has been modified to insert the word "many" after "their beliefs reject"
- Most of these changes seem clear improvements to me. There was a debate above on word of God / human reason that is not reflected in these before-and-after snippets. On the addition of "many", do their beliefs reject all natural causes and events in favour of the supernatural when it comes to universal origins, or only some of them? Adding "many" implies to me that some natural causes / events in universal origins are accepted, and I'm not sure that that is true. EdChem (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Re: "do their beliefs reject all natural causes and events in favour of the supernatural when it comes to universal origins, or only some of them?", they accept natural causes in the same way that an atheist scientist accepts the bible as a science book -- if the Bible happens to say something that is exactly the same as what science says, in that one case the atheist scientist will agree that that part of the Bible is literally true. Likewise with AiG. AiG is clear about this:
- "If a scientific model does not contradict the Bible, then we should be excited to see what new insights we can gain about the Creator and His workings. As with the question of origins, we must interpret the data through the lens of biblical revelation."[19]
- To AiG, a natural cause outside of God simply does not exist. Let's take Gravity as an example. A scientist will tell you that gravity is a purely natural phenomena even as he tells you that we don't always understand the details (see quantum gravity). But AiG rejects the idea that gravity is a purely natural phenomena. Here is what they says the underlying cause of gravity is:
- "Two Bible references are helpful in considering the nature of gravity and physical science in general. First, Colossians 1:17 explains that Christ is before all things, and by Him all things consist. The Greek verb for consist (sunistao) means to cohere, preserve, or hold together. Extrabiblical Greek use of this word pictures a container holding water within itself. The word is used in Colossians in the perfect tense, which normally implies a present continuing state arising from a completed past action. One physical mechanism used is obviously gravity, established by the Creator and still maintained without flaw today. Consider the alternative; if gravity ceased for one moment, instant chaos surely would result. All heavenly objects, including the earth, moon and stars, would no longer hold together. Everything would immediately disintegrate into small fragments."
- "A second reference, Hebrews 1:3, declares that Christ upholds all things by the word of His power. Uphold (phero) again describes the sustaining or maintaining of all things, including gravity. The word uphold in this verse means much more than simply supporting a weight. It includes control of all the ongoing motions and changes within the universe. This infinite task is managed by the Lord’s almighty Word, whereby the universe itself was first called into being. Gravity, the ‘mystery force’, which is poorly understood after nearly four centuries of research, is one of the manifestations of this awesome divine upholding.""[20]
- AiG even directly addresses the question of whether they believe that the root cause of everything is God or whether they believe that the root cause of everything is natural laws:
- "Proponents of naturalism assume that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural laws. This is not only a blind assumption, but it is also clearly antibiblical. The Bible makes it clear that God is not bound by natural laws (they are, after all, His laws). Of course God can use laws of nature to accomplish His will; and He usually does so. In fact, natural laws could be considered a description of the way in which God normally upholds the universe. But God is supernatural and is capable of acting outside natural law."[21]
- So the answer to the question "do their beliefs reject all natural causes and events in favour of the supernatural when it comes to universal origins" is "Yes. They do. And they are proud of it." --Guy Macon (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Interesting example of intelligent falling. There seems to be a lot of evidence that AiG reject science in favour or revelation, and don't much bother to claim that what they propose is scientific. Think there are instances where they make pseudoscientific claims, but we need to be clearer about sources for that. . . . dave souza, talk 11:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- So the answer to the question "do their beliefs reject all natural causes and events in favour of the supernatural when it comes to universal origins" is "Yes. They do. And they are proud of it." --Guy Macon (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon: I think I have misread a diff. I thought that the word "many" had be re-added, and in doing so, the text implies that some naturalistic explanations are accepted by AiG... but on looking again, I think I have it backwards. Removing the word "many", as has been done, seems correct to me. I still think the other changes are improvements in a grammatical / linguistic sense. Dave souza's point below is interesting and needs careful consideration, too. EdChem (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I support all these changes by Oldstone James, and I think the wording is an improvement. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Creation science / pseudoscience?
Answers in Genesis#Criticism opens with the statement "Creation science, which is promoted by AiG," but as far as I can see the sources cited make no reference to AiG so don't support that statement. They confirm that creation science is pseudoscience, but part of that is that creation science claims scientific validity, while Answers in Genesis#Views and activities indicates that AiG simply rejects science as having any authority. Trollinger confirms that, while describing how Ham started in Morris's creation science movement.
So, we need a citation. Tried having a look at some of the citations in the article, the nearest I got is 36. Branch, Glenn (September 1, 2001). "PBS's "Evolution": The Creationist Backlash" which doesn't cover it, but links to NCSE's 61 page document (pdf) "Setting the Record Straight: A Response to Creationist Misinformation about the PBS Series Evolution". On p. 40 AiG is quoted as saying "real science supports the Biblical account of origins as recorded in Genesis, the first book of the Bible” referring to "Articles" by their Dr Jonathan Sarfati; there may be better references. So, it's plausible that AiG does at times claim scientific support, but I think we need a better citation both for that and for their alleged promotion of creation science. . . dave souza, talk 11:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- The two are really the exact same thing, marketed to different audiences. If you are a fundamentalist christian, creationism is there to tell you that (main point) the Bible is always 100% true and (minor point) that any science that contradicts the Bible is bad science. If you are a scientist, creation science is there to tell you (main point) that any science that contradicts certain scientific theories (which, by an amazing coincidence, just happen to be the exact same ones from the Bible mentioned above) is bad science and (minor point,almost never mentioned but they do believe it) that the Bible is always 100% true.
- You can see how this works in this quote by a creationist in our Wedge strategy article:
- "So the question is: 'How to win?' That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the 'wedge' strategy: 'Stick with the most important thing' -the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy."
- --Guy Macon (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, but I think we need a source explicitly discussing this. To quote Views and activities From the outset, Ken Ham did not share the interest of other creation science groups in aiming to produce science supporting young Earth creationism.[9] Instead, Answers in Genesis presents evangelicalism as an all-out battle of their biblical worldview against a naturalistic scientific worldview." It's a flat-out rejection of science, not the usual pretence that their beliefs are more sciency as exemplified by your quote from the ID cdesign proponentsists. AiG is different, and even Sarfati seems to be CMI rather than AiG these days. Sorry if I've missed a citation, but we need a reference for this. . . dave souza, talk 22:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Isn't there evidence for their support of creation science in the publication of their Answers Research Journal (redirects to the AiG page), homepage? The paper review process described in the journal's instructions to authors states that:
The following criteria will be used in judging papers:
1. Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?
2. Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?
3. Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young universe alternative?
5. If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins debate?
6. Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture? If necessary, refer to the following: R. E. Walsh, 1986. “Biblical Hermeneutics and Creation.” In Proceedings First International Conference on Creationism, vol. 1, 121–127. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship.- and is followed by a remark declaring that:
The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or if it conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of faith.
- To me, this affirms that they do start from the perspective that the Bible is true and invites pseudoscientific contributions on yEc and related creation science. I struggle to see how anything satisfying criteria 3 and 4 could fail to be pseudoscientific. The introduction expresses the intent of the manual for authors as follows:
it is hoped that this manual will facilitate your contribution to the technical development of the Creation and Flood model of origins.
- This is a clear statement that it aims to promote pseudoscience as that is the nature of the creation and flood model of origins.
- I think there should be a section in our article on the journal and its purpose. Jennifer Barone, in Discover, comments on the transparency of ARJ's intent: "Now, it’s not exactly Earth-shattering news that a creation “science” “journal” has to do some serious cherry-picking to fill its pages. But personally, I’m pleasantly shocked to find that they’re so darn transparent about it. They’ve helpfully explained in a neatly-ordered list that they’re only interested in hearing news that confirms what they already believe. Of course this kind of tunnel vision exists, but you’d think they would do their best to cover it up in public. Instead, it’s all nicely laid out as editorial policy. Thanks, AiG!"
- There are secondary sources available, such as:
- Adam Rutherford, an editor of Nature, wrote an Op-Ed published in The Guardian as saying that "On first glance, ARJ looks kinda like a science journal. "ARJ" sounds a bit like it could be a science journal. But sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken." He also notes the journal website's self-description: "a professional, peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework" – that last part going directly to the issues above, of course.
- The Nature paper doi:10.1038/451382b also comments on research being "within a biblical framework" and that peer review will be undertaken by those who "support the positions taken by the journal." Eugenie Scott is quoted: "Publications such as ARJ are part of the continued battle to excise science from local curricula, she says. 'Creation science is alive and well and appealing to a substantial minority of the American public.'"
- I've located some of this from the Rational Wiki article on ARJ and there are plenty more sources. Maybe I should write an ARJ article to replace our redirect? EdChem (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Adam Rutherford is a journalist for the Grauniad and it's an opinion piece, suggesting a somewhat indirect claim to scientific credibility, so not ideal but it's something. The second source is a Nurture news piece, not a paper. Genie Scott says AiG's publication "ARJ" is "part of the continued battle to excise science from local curricula", and says. “Creation science is alive and well..." but doesn't directly say AiG is promoting creation science. Think we can do better, eventually. . dave souza, talk 16:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- The above are all excellent points.
- On the one hand there is a good argument for our documenting (using reliable secondary sources such as those above) AiG's emphasis on being blatantly Bible-based vs. some other creationists' "get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate" emphasis, but without any hint that those other creationists are promoting any sort of actual science as opposed to "creation science" which denies being Bible based but suspiciously comes to the exact same conclusions as the more open Bile-believers.
- On the other hand, AiG (which has no problem at all with telling us when they disagree with a fellow creationist)[23][24][25][26][27] had two excellent opportunities to tell us if they have a problem with creation science at https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/ and https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/ so maybe my earlier "The two are really the exact same thing, marketed to different audiences" emphasis, which I believe can also be supported by multiple secondary reliable sources, might be the way to go.
- I am completely open to whatever the consensus is on this. I have been studying and quoting a primary source (AiGs website) because an organizations' own words are reliable on the topic of what the organization believes, but if we get into a comparison with other creationist organizations and whether they are essentially the same or fundamentally different, we need to cite secondary sources that address that specific question. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Far too often, Wikipedia editors violate WP:COATRACK, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH when they edit an article of a YEC organization/person/movie/book/etc. to "show" the reader that YEC is "pseudoscience" -- problem is, the sources/wording they add usually don't say/prove that the article subject itself promotes pseudoscience, but only that YEC is pseudoscience. This shouldn't be the case -- if something like this is going to be added, it must be a reliable source explicitly stating that AiG (in this case) itself promotes pseudoscience. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- WP:PSCI is policy, so "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included." WP:MNA is part of the same policy, and on that basis we don't have to hash out every time that creation science is pseudoscience. AiG has roots in creation science, so we could cover that aspect, but I'd like to see a good third party evaluation of whether they promote creation science pseudoscience, and if their basis in creationist revelation is distinct from creationist pseudoscience. . . dave souza, talk 16:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I made a reasonable effort to find such a third party evaluation, but as WP:PARITY explains, "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia." So I see a lot of mentions that we wouldn't accept as reliable sources. Examples: Rational Wiki says "Answers in Genesis (AiG), headed by Ken Ham, is a Christian apologetics ministry which pushes 'creation science'. They run (into the ground it would seem) the Creation "Museum" and Ark Encounter theme-parks in Kentucky."[28] And Skepdic says "One of the main leaders of creation science [is] are Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis"[29] Even wikiquote has "Once again, creation science advocate Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis..." but the source they quote is Old Earth Ministries, a competing creationist group. This LA times article[30] kind of sort of links the two, but it isn't a solid link. None of these are good sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Potential sources
Found a couple of reasonable sources, same author but well qualified and NCSE is a good publisher. . . dave souza, talk 17:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- "The Anti-Museum". NCSE. 26 February 2016. Retrieved 2 April 2019.
an account of some of the outrageous and remarkable pseudoscience presented by Answers in Genesis (AIG)
- "Kentucky Gets an Ark-Shaped Second Creation "Museum"". NCSE. 20 October 2016. Retrieved 2 April 2019.
Many in the scientific community tend to think that Answers in Genesis only promotes misinformation to a small fundamentalist segment of Christians, but the examples of jaw-dropping crank pseudoscience ....
Doesn't equate AiG to creation science, but decent sources for pseudoscience. . . dave souza, talk 17:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Alas, this looks like a case where WP:OR tells me the answer (AiG savagely attacks various other varieties of creationist as heretics who are misleading the flock, AiG speaks glowingly of creation science, skeptical sources say they are the same, other brands of creationism and non-creationist Christians say they are the same) but no independent reliable secondary source appears to have ever covered this detail. So it looks like the article should stay silent on whether AiG is the same as creation science. We have to follow the sources, not our OR. (Guy starts muttering "Eppur si muove!" under his breath...) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure about that. I think WP:BLUE applies. - Nick Thorne talk 00:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Now there is an interesting thought! It is "the sky is blue" obvious and undisputed that AiG believes and indeed shouts from the rooftops that everything was created by the Christian God. And that they really like everything creation science teaches. We also have pretty strong evidence that creation science purposely downplays any mention of any god in order to not run afoul of separation of church and state. Creation science claims to be based 100% on science. They say they looked at science with an unbiased eye and concluded -- without the religion that every creation scientist belongs to even crossing their mind -- that conventional science is wrong and their alternative theories are right. They say that the fact that they came to the exact same conclusions as more openly Christian groups like AiG is a total coincidence. Does that mean that it is "sky is blue" obvious that AiG is the same thing as creation science? I would like to see what the consensus is on that. In am pretty sure that I could post an RfC and get overwhelming support for calling them the same thing, but a lot of that would be because so many people are pissed off with creationists trying to get public schools to teach religion. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- You'll need sources, not an RfC. Creation science is indeed the strategy of claiming scientific credence, but still explicitly basing arguments on the Bible and Genesis – that failed in court, hence ID doesn't mention the Bible (much). The "sky is blue" to an evolutionist materialist is the outcome of physics, to AiG it's a divine color choice – see the second museum source above for rainbow as a sign as evidence that God changed the physics of light at the end of the Fludde. More important for this article, there's a fork in creationism between AiG, based [purely?] on revelation, and creation science/ID with their strategy of claiming support from science, even when it means redefining science. . . dave souza, talk 08:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Subhead: fork in creationism
- Is there any evidence for this "fork in creationism" actually existing as opposed to them being the exact same thing marketed to different audiences? Are there any examples anywhere of
- Biblical creationists such as AiG criticizing or disagreeing with creation scientists?
- Biblical creationists such as AiG criticizing or disagreeing with intelligent design proponents?
- Creation scientists criticizing or disagreeing with biblical creationists such as AiG?
- Creation scientists criticizing or disagreeing with intelligent design proponents?
- Intelligent design proponents criticizing or disagreeing with Biblical creationists such as AiG?
- Intelligent design proponents criticizing or disagreeing with creation scientists?
- Keep in mind that none of these groups have the slightest hesitation criticizing old-earth creationists. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Is there any evidence for this "fork in creationism" actually existing as opposed to them being the exact same thing marketed to different audiences? Are there any examples anywhere of
On the fork, which may not be the best term, Ronald L. Numbers (1998). Darwinism Comes to America. Harvard University Press. pp. 55–. ISBN 978-0-674-19312-3. and a variation in Numbers, Ronald L. (2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. Harvard University Press. pp. 269–273. ISBN 978-0-674-02339-0. synonymous tags 'creation science' and 'scientific creationism' .... signified a major tactical shift among strict six-day creationists. ... Instead of appealing to the authority of the Bible, as John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Morris had done in launching the creationist revival, they downplayed the Genesis story in favor of emphasizing the scientific aspects of creationism
From Gary B. Ferngren (August 2002). Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction. JHU Press. pp. 286–. ISBN 978-0-8018-7038-5. By 1974, Morris was recommending that creationists ask public schools to teach 'only the scientific aspects of creationism', which in practice meant leaving out all references to Genesis and Noah's ark
. . dave souza, talk 12:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
As for criticisms between groups, perhaps you've not looked at intelligent design#Reaction from other creationist groups. . . dave souza, talk 12:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
"A Visit to the New Creation "Museum"". NCSE. 7 March 2016. Retrieved 4 April 2019. Which creationism? As a close follower of young-earth creationism, I was curious about many subtle aspects of the presentation. Most observers are hardly aware of the striking conflicts among creationists, both in terms of their beliefs and their presentation styles.
. . dave souza, talk 12:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Subhead: brands of creationism
- For definitions of the "brands of creationism," try this reference:
- Ross, M.R., 2005. Who believes what? Clearing up confusion over intelligent design and young-Earth creationism. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(3), pp.319-323.
- Ross (2005) states "Answers in Genesis, another major YEC organization, has been more open to limited cooperation (Wieland 2002)." Paul H. (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- That's cooperation between ID and AiG. The proposed hierarchy is a bit out of date, see Eugenie C. Scott (3 August 2009). Evolution Vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Univ of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-26187-7.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) which on p. 64 has a "continuum" diagram adapted in a way that meets Ross's objection. Haven't checked if it discusses AiG. . . dave souza, talk 07:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- That's cooperation between ID and AiG. The proposed hierarchy is a bit out of date, see Eugenie C. Scott (3 August 2009). Evolution Vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Univ of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-26187-7.
- Ross (2005) states "Answers in Genesis, another major YEC organization, has been more open to limited cooperation (Wieland 2002)." Paul H. (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ross's paper tries to differentiate between them but what Ross doesn't do is differentiate between what they are and or what they believe and what they preach. He dismisses the many sources that discuss things like "creationism in disguise", "neo-creationism", and "stealth creationism" and assumes that what the ID crowd claims to be is what they actually are. But in their own literature they say that they are purposely not defining the intelligent designer in order to make their position more acceptable in public schools. Finally Ross appears to assume from the fact that most ID proponents say nothing one way or the other about the age of the earth that they must be old-earth creationists. But there are plenty of ID proponents who argue for a young earth:[31]
- I find https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/intelligent-des-11.html to be a more accurate depiction of what I have read in the creationist literature than Ross. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Amusing as Pandas' brief 2005 list is, Scott 2009 is more nuanced. . . dave souza, talk 12:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Resolution: Biblical and scientific creationism
This discussion preceded comments at Talk:Young Earth creationism#Looking through some sources (permanent link) where the following source came up:
- "The Tenets of Creationism by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, July 01, 1980". icr.org. – which states Creationism can be studied and taught in any of three basic forms, 1) is Scientific creationism (no reliance on Biblical revelation, utilizing only scientific data to support and expound the creation model), 2) is Biblical creationism (no reliance on scientific data, using only the Bible to expound and defend the creation model), and 3) is Scientific Biblical creationism (full reliance on Biblical revelation but also using scientific data to support and develop the creation model). Choice to depend on where the "form" is being used, but all clearly religious. small print at foot "All the genuine facts of science support Biblical creationism and all statements in the Bible are consistent with scientific creationism."
So, the "#Subhead: fork in creationism" really describes parallel presentations of the same ideas by the same people, leaving out the Bible or science to suit the audience.
Remember, scientific creationism is another name for creation science. In the case of AiG, their basic message is clearly Biblical creationism, but they don't hesitate to veer into Scientific Biblical creationism or creation science. Creation Science lists articles starting with Creation Science Is Real Science which links to an article titled Real Scientists, Really?. Further down, Successful Predictions by Creation Scientists includes Prediction 3: Radiohalos in Sandstones by AiG employee Andrew A. Snelling, a paper in "Answers Research Journal", "Funding was provided by the Institute for Creation Research" so tied in with the usual creation science source. Primary sources, but as NCSE notes of the AiG Museum, "Creationism is thereby presented as a legitimate alternative science rather than a non-science or anti-science perspective. This represents a simple but powerful harmony for those trying to reconcile Christian doctrine with science." So that's a secondary source. . . . dave souza, talk 13:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- This is very insightful; thanks a lot for your research. However, based on the information that you have provided, AiG is best described by either 1) Biblical creationism (as you point out) or 3) Scientific Biblical creationism. The only justification for 3) so far is AiG Museum's "scientific" theme. Whichever one it is, though, I still hold the position that "support" is the most appropriate word to use in relation to creation science. They may back their biblical ideas up using creation science (e.g. as in the case of the Museum), but it isn't their underlying message or aim or something that they promote on a regular basis. Therefore, I'd say that to claim that AiG "promote" creation science would be original research.OlJa 14:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Lead sentence editing by jps and Roxy the dog
I can't believe what is happening. I, and a lot of other editors, have literally spent a month trying to find the best way to phrase the lead sentence. We've had 4 long conversations and involved a large number of editors. Any edit that would be made during the discussion would be reverted. I've tried to implement one of the most popular changes proposed by EdChem, which seemed (keyword: seemed; don't accuse me of falsely claiming consensus) to have gained some degree of consensus, with at least 3 editors supportive of the version and none against. And then, out of nowhere, comes jps and starts forcing his own version, which he hasn't even attempted (!) to discuss on the talk, in spite of all the tremendous amount of conversation that we've mustered up over the last month. To make matters worse, I tried discussing this issue with them, but they just ignored that message. Not only that, they reverted my attempt not even to restore the status quo, as the vast majority of editors did here to my edits, but my attempt at a compromise! After this revert, I decided to restore the version before I even added EdChem's version, which should be considered a self-revert, as this was the only thing I could do which would avoid starting an edit war. And, come to think of it, out of nowhere yet comes Roxy the dog and reverts my self-revert and accuses me of edit-warring! Restoring a version that not only has absolutely no consensus but also one which hasn't even been attempted to have been discussed! Someone needs to step in and help me out. The editing by both jps and Roxy the dog is disruptive, but the latter's edits are bordering on WP:VANDALISM.OlJa 14:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- No, they're not vandalism, and you're edit-warring. Stop now, please. Black Kite (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- I am a bit confused as to how you as an admin always tend to jump to conclusions without even taking the time to understand what's going on. I have literally only made one revert, which was a self-revert, and you are accusing me of edit-warring. You are also condoning forcing an edit with absolutely no consensus. This is not even the first time. Last time, you threatened of blocking me because "I did not attempt discussion", which I very clearly did and provided you with diffs, which you gladly ignored. Shocking behaviour on an admin's part.OlJa 15:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- You can say what you wish about me, but anyone reading the revision history of the article will easily be able to spot which editor has caused the article to have had so much activity over last few weeks. Black Kite (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- So now you are blaming me for... causing activity? Seriously? Your comments are seriously concerning. And you are still ignoring the fact that Roxy the dog and jps have been blatantly forcing a version that has no consensus whatsoever.OlJa 15:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm quite happy to leave it for another administrator to consider if the edit-warring continues. I think what I've said has been quite clear. Black Kite (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oldstone James, you have once again started edit warring. Here are the diffs:[32][33] How many reverts do you count in those diffs? Is it one? or is is two? Clearly you learned nothing from your block, and clearly you learned nothing from the fact, which I documented at Talk:Answers in Genesis#Let's review the wonderful things we have accomplished! that edit warring accomplishes nothing.
- BTW, If you think Black Kite "Jumps to conclusions without even taking the time to understand what's going on", file a report at WP:ANI and his handling of the edit warring on this page will be examined. But be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Look at what that revert is. It's a self-revert. Also, you wittily avoided commenting on how your friend Roxy happened to reinstate an edit twice with no consensus - I guess that's not edit-warring at all. I was not trying to accomplish anything here - I was trying to prevent Roxy the dog and jps from edit-warring. I don't have the time to file a report, and I'm pretty sure simply jumping to conclusions would not warrant any further action - especially against an admin. Also, please don't try to nurture me in this manner; it comes across as derogatory.OlJa 15:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- If then, as you claim, ANI doesn't take action against admins when there is a legitimate complaint against them, how do you explain Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Blocked for a mean comment made a decade ago? and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Enigmaman?
- Re: "I don't have the time to file a report", perhaps you could free up enough time by not edit warring and not posting 60 messages to Talk:Answers in Genesis in 9 days. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Look at what that revert is. It's a self-revert. Also, you wittily avoided commenting on how your friend Roxy happened to reinstate an edit twice with no consensus - I guess that's not edit-warring at all. I was not trying to accomplish anything here - I was trying to prevent Roxy the dog and jps from edit-warring. I don't have the time to file a report, and I'm pretty sure simply jumping to conclusions would not warrant any further action - especially against an admin. Also, please don't try to nurture me in this manner; it comes across as derogatory.OlJa 15:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Let's talk about the lede
Answers in Genesis (AiG) is a fundamentalist Christian apologetics parachurch organization. It advocates Young Earth creationism and a literal historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis. Out of belief in biblical inerrancy, it rejects results of scientific investigations that contradict their view of the Bible's creation narrative and supports the pseudoscience of creation science as an alternative. The organization sees evolution as incompatible with the Bible and believes anything other than the young Earth view is a compromise on the principle of biblical inerrancy.
This is the lede as currently written. Are there any particular issues here that are problematic? Please identify them below.
One issue that was mentioned is that Oldstone James wants to say, in the second sentence, that AiG advocates for a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis before pointing out that they advocate for YEC. I think that the main notability of AiG is their advocacy of YEC. To that end, it makes sense to say this sooner rather than later, IMHO. Other than that, what other complaints are there?
jps (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- First two sentences work ok, the third gets mixed up between "it" and "their", then wanders on to creation science as a pseudoscientific alternative without clarity what it's an alternative to. Propose:
- From belief in biblical inerrancy, AiG interprets the Bible's creation narrative as literal facts about the origins of the universe, and rejects any contrary results from scientific investigations. Instead, AiG presents the pseudoscience of creation science as truthful.
- Fourth sentence seems to to miss AiG's central points: that teaching of evolution is an evil producing cultural decay, Genesis describes the proper way to organize society, and all-out culture war against atheistic humanism.[34]
- The organization holds that teaching of evolution is an evil which damages society, and presents Genesis as a proper guide to social morality.
- That covers the main two, not sure about adding the third. . . dave souza, talk 09:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- "the pseudoscience of creation science" is a rather jarring repetition of "science". Maybe "pseudoscientific creation science" is slightly better. I'd also be tempted to use quotes around "creation science", but I'm not sure if this jibes with the MOS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with the above proposed changes. Just throwing out an idea that may suck, how about
- ...and supports "creation science" as an alternative to scientific knowledge.
- I think this gets the same point across as the use of the term pseudoscience and avoids the clumsy repetition of science. I also think that this is a great place to use scare quotes to get across the idea that creation science is to science what fool's gold is to gold or tofu bacon is to bacon. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't like this version. Creation science and scientific knowledge still have rare overlaps. This version rules out the possibility of such. Also, as pointed out, scare quotes are not advised. Creation science is now a specific term used even by opponents, so embedding it in scare quotes isn't necessary. There are numerous examples of terms which mean something that contradicts their implications. OlJa 00:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- The scare quotes imply creation science is not a widely-used term. On the contrary, it is widely known and used, thus, scare quotes are inappropriate here. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree. First, the quotes have nothing to do with frequency of use, but rather with the appropriateness of the term to describe the concept. As in 'the thieves "liberated" several barrels of whisky'. And secondly, creation science is really only used in a very very small community. There is precedent in reliable sources for its use with scarce quotes, e.g. here--Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be appropriate to word this sentence matter-of-factly so that scare quotes aren't needed? As for your "liberate" example, it would be much better just to say "the thieves stole several..." -- the term creation science is commonly used, from the U.S. Supreme Court (in more than one decision, I think) to people arguing against YEC, to academia, in addition to YECers. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think quotes around "creation science" would be inappropriate. Quotes belong around quotations; using them in this case would count as "scare quotes". Guettarda (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that they are scare quotes, but I contend that this is one of those few situations where scare quotes are appropriate. Consider Stephan Schulz's 'the thieves "liberated" several barrels of whisky' example. Imagine for the sake of argument that we could not remove the "liberated" because we wanted to wikilink to our article on a group that calls itself the Whisky Liberation movement. That would be another place where scare quotes would be appropriate. MOS:SCAREQUOTES does not say that we cannot use scare quotes. It says that they should be considered carefully because scare quotes can imply that a given point is inaccurate (which is exactly what we want to imply here; "creation science" isn't science like "liberating" whisky isn't liberation). --Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think quotes around "creation science" would be inappropriate. Quotes belong around quotations; using them in this case would count as "scare quotes". Guettarda (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be appropriate to word this sentence matter-of-factly so that scare quotes aren't needed? As for your "liberate" example, it would be much better just to say "the thieves stole several..." -- the term creation science is commonly used, from the U.S. Supreme Court (in more than one decision, I think) to people arguing against YEC, to academia, in addition to YECers. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree. First, the quotes have nothing to do with frequency of use, but rather with the appropriateness of the term to describe the concept. As in 'the thieves "liberated" several barrels of whisky'. And secondly, creation science is really only used in a very very small community. There is precedent in reliable sources for its use with scarce quotes, e.g. here--Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- The scare quotes imply creation science is not a widely-used term. On the contrary, it is widely known and used, thus, scare quotes are inappropriate here. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Good points, but looking at the links highlights that some of them are redirects to science so overlinking. Another try;
- AiG interpret the Bible's creation narrative literally, as a statement of facts about the origins of the universe. Because of their belief in biblical inerrancy, AiG reject any findings of scientific methodology that contradict their views on Creation, and instead support their beliefs with pseudoscientific creation science. The organization holds that teaching of evolution is an evil which damages society, and presents Genesis as a proper guide to social morality.
Probably needs more checking and wordsmithing, .... dave souza, talk 19:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry to quibble, but the phrasing "interpret[s] the Bible's creation narrative literally" is not my favorite. It seems to imply there is a clear and obvious literal reading, which I would say is not necessarily the case. I would prefer "AiG [believes in/subscribes to/posits a] literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative, seeing it as a statement of facts about . . . ." Just a thought. Cheers, all. 21:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC) Dumuzid (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Completely right, have tried below to be clear that it's a literal interpretation, not sure if we need to get more explicit in the opening. . . dave souza, talk 09:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Good point. The old-earth creationists also say that they interpret the Bible's creation narrative literally. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, just lately read Thomas Chalmers#Gap creationism – "We can allow geology the amplest time . . . without infringing even on the literalities of the Mosaic record". . . dave souza, talk 09:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with Dumuzid, but I simply prefer the current version over yours, as it appears to be more concise. I do like your second sentence, though. I think we could also squeeze their third central point in there, too, about encouraging Christians to combat atheism.OlJa 01:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Concise is good, we're trying to make this more informative. Point 3 maybe best discussed in the next section, meanwhile here's a tightened version. . . dave souza, talk 09:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry to quibble, but the phrasing "interpret[s] the Bible's creation narrative literally" is not my favorite. It seems to imply there is a clear and obvious literal reading, which I would say is not necessarily the case. I would prefer "AiG [believes in/subscribes to/posits a] literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative, seeing it as a statement of facts about . . . ." Just a thought. Cheers, all. 21:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC) Dumuzid (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Answers in Genesis (AiG) is a fundamentalist Christian apologetics parachurch organization. It advocates Young Earth creationism and a literal historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis which presents the Bible's creation narrative as an inerrant factual description. AiG defends this by rejecting scientific methodology, and instead gives credence to pseudoscientific creation science.
Ken Ham and creation science
This is regarding this edit:[35]
I went to the source to see which word it supports and found this:
From The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in America (2017) edited by Paul Gutjahr, Oxford University Press:
"Ham never shared the goal of the CRS or the ICR of developing a science of young earth creationism. Instead his focus was always on spreading a simple three-pronged message that the teaching of evolution was evil and that it produced terrific cultural decay, that the first eleven chapters of Genesis spoke directly and literally about about the origins of the universe as well as the proper way to organize society, and that true Christians should join earnestly in an all-out culture war for the soul of America against atheistic humanism."
What wording best reflects what is in the source? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- For info; the source as cited in the article is ref name="Trollinger" Trollinger, Susan L.; Trollinger, Jr., William Vance (2017). "Chapter 31:The Bible and Creationism". In Gutjahr, Paul (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in America. Oxford University Press. pp. 223–225. ISBN 9780190258856. . . dave souza, talk 07:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- (Let's put our conflict to one side for this discussion, please) Correct me if I am wrong, Guy, but I think you have at some point admitted that we can't equate AiG with creation science. Furthermore, user:Dave souza not only appeared to agree with you, but he also (imo rightly) reverted my edit which said that AiG promote creation science ([36]). Honestly, I would be fine with the word "promote" if that's what they had done and if reliable sources had used either this word or similar; however, they appear to be promoting other things, listed by Trollinger, merely supporting creation science, and the lack of "creation science" in such lists as the one composed by Trollinger only allude to this fact. Also, I would like some consistency: originally, the article preference was split between "support" (and distinctly not "promote") and "promote". Then I changed it to "promote", but the change got reverted. Through the process of elimination, I decided to then change the article preference to "support", but now that's being reverted. Of course, it can't both "promote" and "support but not promote", so we need to settle on one of these. My vote as of right now is for "support", but that will change as soon as an RS justifies the use of "promote".OlJa 12:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- See #Resolution: Biblical and scientific creationism above: AiG primarily promote Biblical creationism, but also claim scientific validity and both present and fund creationist pseudoscientific research, though their main focus is on Biblical arguments. Where they differ from classic creation science is that in public school classrooms and courtrooms it tried to hide its Biblical basis. . . dave souza, talk 13:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- (Let's put our conflict to one side for this discussion, please) Correct me if I am wrong, Guy, but I think you have at some point admitted that we can't equate AiG with creation science. Furthermore, user:Dave souza not only appeared to agree with you, but he also (imo rightly) reverted my edit which said that AiG promote creation science ([36]). Honestly, I would be fine with the word "promote" if that's what they had done and if reliable sources had used either this word or similar; however, they appear to be promoting other things, listed by Trollinger, merely supporting creation science, and the lack of "creation science" in such lists as the one composed by Trollinger only allude to this fact. Also, I would like some consistency: originally, the article preference was split between "support" (and distinctly not "promote") and "promote". Then I changed it to "promote", but the change got reverted. Through the process of elimination, I decided to then change the article preference to "support", but now that's being reverted. Of course, it can't both "promote" and "support but not promote", so we need to settle on one of these. My vote as of right now is for "support", but that will change as soon as an RS justifies the use of "promote".OlJa 12:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
A word to the wise
James, a word to the wise. As you well know, your behaviour on this page is currently under discussion at AN/I. At the moment as I read it the likely outcome of that discussion is that you will be topic banned from creationism articles, probably broadly construed, if it follows the usual form of these things. In the meantime you continue to battle away here. Stop it now. Stop making any edits to the article and withdraw from discussion on this talk page. If you ignore this warning and continue, you stand a really good chance of being indeffed, rather than merely topic banned. I think the chances of you escaping unsanctioned are now close to zero. Take my advice and salvage what you can of your repitation while you still can. - Nick Thorne talk 12:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't know what to expect from Wikipedia anymore, as I will have probably gotten topic-banned without any warning for exactly the same reasons that I got blocked for a week (also without warning). I honestly won't be surprised if I get indeffed without warning, too, straight after my topic ban is imposed, for two/three reverts of edits with no consensus. So I don't know how seriously I shall take your warning. Either way, advising me to refrain from even participating on talk pages, which is exactly the thing I was advised to do to avoid a topic ban, seems a bit unreasonable. Although, once again, unreasonable does not mean it shouldn't be followed, as I have come to learn. I don't know which advice to follow, as every advice I was given is contradicted by at least one other advice I was also given, which means that no matter which advice I choose to follow, I will always be in the wrong. I was first advised to follow WP:BRD; then, when I did, I was accused of editing without consensus, and now my following of it is being cited as one of the reasons why I should be topic-banned; I was then advised to gain consensus for any change that I make, and, when I did, I was accused of stirring action, and my edit was repeatedly reverted in favour of an edit with no consensus, me being (in hindsight, perhaps rightly, but my intention was to self-revert) accused of edit-warring. And now, when I stopped edit-warring or stirring any action and instead restrict myself exclusively to the talk page, I am accused of battling away. You see, there is no way out. If a group of "experienced editors" decide that you are not worthy of editing on a certain topic, they will oust you from it, no matter the manner in which you edit. This will remain the only lesson I will have learnt from the situation until someone coherently and understandingly explains to me why my editing warrants a topic ban, while user:Roxy the dog's and user:Guy Macon's editing is exemplary or, if not that, in any way condonable.OlJa 13:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, compared to your editing, my editing is exemplary. That's why you have made 3000 edits and have been blocked four times, with a topic ban in your near future, whereas I have made 45,000 edits over a 12 year period and have never been blocked. I even wrote an essay for people in your situation: WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Well, that isn't a good explanation, is it. Even before your reply, I knew that you think your editing is exemplary when compared to mine; you saying that again doesn't give me any new information. What I'd like to know is why you think that - despite the fact that you seem to be violating many more WP policies than I do.OlJa 15:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- I will have probably gotten topic-banned without any warning for exactly the same reasons that I got blocked for a week (also without warning)
- Sure, no warnings whatsever about edit-warring, unless you count this, this, this, this, this, this, this, or this. Or when you edit-warred about football, like this. Or advice like this, or this. --Calton | Talk 15:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Well, that isn't a good explanation, is it. Even before your reply, I knew that you think your editing is exemplary when compared to mine; you saying that again doesn't give me any new information. What I'd like to know is why you think that - despite the fact that you seem to be violating many more WP policies than I do.OlJa 15:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, compared to your editing, my editing is exemplary. That's why you have made 3000 edits and have been blocked four times, with a topic ban in your near future, whereas I have made 45,000 edits over a 12 year period and have never been blocked. I even wrote an essay for people in your situation: WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Calton, would you please explain this revert of yours? What is the problem with the hyphen that you removed? Why did you leave an edit summary that reflects on Oldstone James rather than commenting on the change you are making. Oldstone James, why did you use the edit summary that you did when adding the hyphen? It seems to me to not relate to your edit. Also, please don't revert Calton again, no matter what. EdChem (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)