Talk:Creation-evolution controversy/archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Article protected

It's nice to see that there's a lively discussion about the ongoing edit war even prior to protection, but this edit warring must stop. Because edit warring is harmful to readers as well as to the processes by which Wikipedia works, esp. consensus and civility, I have protected the article until the contentious issues are sorted out here on the talk page, or at least until the editors involved agree to sort them out here before modifying the contested sections of the article. If anyone wishes to contest my protecting the article, please contact me on my talk page. Thank you, and good luck sorting this out. Tomertalk 21:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that was probably a good step to take. JoshuaZ 22:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus has been reached

Right now it is clear that ems has not been able to address the fundamental points regarding why the article should revert to the previous version. It is obvious that we are now at consensus. Will someone ask the admin who protected the article to allow for unprotection so we can revert to the previous version? Comments, questions, concerns? --ScienceApologist 18:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait until ems wakes up and addresses this request before acting upon it. Another 12 hours or so should be sufficient for a response from him. Cheers, Tomertalk 23:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
No we have not. I need to go now. I'll be back in a few hours and continue. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 06:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I am of the opinion consensus has been reached as well. Jefffire 09:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, consensus. It looks clear-cut, despite the objections of ems.--ragesoss 18:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. It was protected long enough. If there's a consensus of most editors, then 3RR should handle any further disruptions. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 15:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The specific issue

Here's the issue: Are there religiously conservative or fundamentalist Jewish accounts of origins that conflict with scientific accounts or origins? If there are, then the Jewish moniker deserves to stay. I think it's pretty clear from the above citations that these things exist. Any objections? --ScienceApologist 17:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get too involved in this since I'm the one who protected the article, but from what I'm reading above, one of the biggest problems is the use of the word "fundamentalist" to describe any flavor of Judaism. The phrase "religiously conservative" is somewhat problematic as well, since that description has almost the opposite meaning when applied to Judaism, from what it means when applied to other religions. [I.e., "religiously conservative" Judaism is the Sadducees and Samaritans, and to a somewhat smaller extent, the Karaites.] My take on the above citations is that ems is saying that Rashi and other commentators indicate that the Christian interpretation of Judaism's Torah account of creation is mistaken. I'm inclined to unprotect the article if everyone can agree to leave that section stand as it presently reads until the minutiae are worked out here. From what I see above, there is general agreement among "one side" in the previous edit war that ems is "wrong" in his persistent disagreement with the meaning of certain words, but that's not consensus. I'll ask another admin to look in and see if we can't try to sort this situation out sooner rather than later. Tomertalk 23:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know enough about the dispute to comment in detail, but I agree with Tomer that applying the words "fundamentalist" and "religiously conservative" to Judaism isn't straightforward. I admit to not seeing why this was removed, as it seems relevant and well-sourced. There's probably no harm in leaving the page protected for a couple more days if there are still issues to discuss. There may be something in Judaism and evolution that would help. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not know why this was removed, but if you read my reasoning above you will see why I think it does not belong in the article. It may belong in the article on Haredi Jews (which is referenced in the article). It certainly belongs on this talk page as an argument brought forward to show that most if not all "orthodox Jews" have no part in this controversy. AvB ÷ talk 11:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

We have not reached a consensus. I am really busy right now. Its almost shabbat in a few hours. I am trying very hard to free the last hours before shabbat. I have got replies from chabad Rabbis that I need to upload. I am not sure if I can get them all uploaded before shabbat but I will try. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 05:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In response to ScienceApologist's question: I disagree. As I've argued before, the issue is whether there are reputable sources reporting that there are a notable number of "orthodox" Jews who reject evolution as incompatible with the tenets of their faith. I have yet to see such citations. What I have seen is rejection of a citation of what I see as an honest attempt by a notable Jewish scholar to explain why he quite happily accepts both the Biblical creation account AND the mainstream scientific account. The article was incorrectly used as an argument showing that Orthodox Jews believe in the biblical creation story. Editors here surely missed the fact that this (mildly naive in the scientific sense, but for the main acceptable) article calculates Day One as having had a duration of 8 billion years. AvB ÷ talk 11:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
This is an article about creationism in general, not Young Earth Creationism. AvB has the two of them confused. The article cited was clearly supporting a brand of creationism, just not necessarily the Young Earth variety. Please don't pontificate like this when the point is so obvious. --ScienceApologist 12:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Confused? Pontificate? Who, me? <maniacal laughter> I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow. This is what happened: I embarrassingly misread your question (regarding the Judaism/Jewish in the lead) and responded with my arguments for a different point, one I had been making for a while (the assertion about Haredi Jews needing citations). I hope that explains it. As my daughter would say—"duh." AvB ÷ talk 18:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, misunderstandings happen. Not offended in the least. Thanks for the clarification. --ScienceApologist 18:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
In response to user ems: you may want to reread WP:Consensus. To me it is clear there is consensus here regarding the removal of the large paragraph, while there is no consensus about the question whether or not Judaism belongs in the article as a religion that has a notable number of members that reject evolution as incompatible with their views. So far I have not seen one iota of evidence that this is the case. It may well be true, but we need citations. AvB ÷ talk 11:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
What about that Rabbi I found saying "Torah does not believe in evolution"? Does that not show some groups do not believe in evolution? Jefffire 12:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to get contact to him. His is meant to be calling me soon. I got many statements from Chabad Rabbis on this topic. Unfortunantly I don't have a scanner so far I have only been able to get one of them uploaded. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
AvB, whether the groups are "notable" is not the matter of contention. The issue at hand is whether creationism can be said to be "derived from fundamentalist or religiously conservative" Jewish "accounts of origin." While the words may not be appropriate in the context of Judaism, the fact remains that creationism is largely pulled from Genesis, which is found in the Torah, and there are certainly some groups of Jews who believe in creationism. Ladlergo 13:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
My response to ems simply argued that the assertion about Haredi Jews was in need of citations and perhaps consensus. (I note that the assertion was recently removed so it seems to have been settled.) AvB ÷ talk 18:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That Jewish thought conflicts with the Christian interpretations of Genesis is fine. That it is still creationist, however, seems straightforward. Does anybody deny that certain creationist arguments are promulgated by means of Jewish beliefs? --ScienceApologist 13:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You might want to rephrase "Jewish sympathies." It can get something of a knee-jerk reaction. Ladlergo 13:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Beliefs? Ideas? Formulations? Approaches? You get the drift. --ScienceApologist 13:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
To jump in again, briefly, "the drift" clearly is insufficient. I have asked previously that the wording, not the drift, be worked out here on the talk page, prior to unprotecting the article, as the "drift" is not the problem that caused this edit war, nearly to the extent that the actual wording is. Cheers, Tomertalk 00:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Tom, the wording has been worked out. --ScienceApologist 12:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not resolved.

Sorry I have been busy the last few days. We have defently NOT reached a consensus. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 15:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Continuing from where I last left off. I have signed statements that Chabad is like the rest of Judaism and agree with Rabbinical commenteries that Genesis: 1) did not come to teach the order of creation 2) there was creation before its account starts etc. So far I have only one of them uploaded.

But this is irrelevant to whether creationism is influenced by the accounts of origins found in Judaism. --ScienceApologist 16:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
It is also one random Rabbi's opinion anyways, and I already gave you a citation for a book that contained numerous young earth creationist essays by chabadniks. Furthermore, the signed letter is vague and doesn't even begin to approach the relevant claim. Even if all these concerns could somehow be addressed, as ScienceApologist has pointed out, they are irrelevant. JoshuaZ 18:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


Ems, I'm sorry to say, I've been watching this debate for a bit now, and it looks like there is indeed a good consensus here; however, it seems you are not part of that consensus. I think the other editors have been trying to bend over backwards to address your issue so far. Sadly, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but even less a jury (it certainly doesn't require unanimous consent). I would suggest you please start trying to make a compromise. This is not what I conceive is the way to collaborate to an encyclopedia. --Ramdrake 18:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abrahamic accounts of origin

Ems2, could you please explain why you don't accept this wording? I find it quite satisfactory, as it references the fact that multiple religions that believe in creationism have the same root, and it does so without being overly wordy. Ladlergo 16:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Judaism is an Abrahamic religion but it doesn't believe that Genesis teaches creation at all. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Judaism... doesn't believe that Genesis teaches creation at all." -- I think this is obviously a ridiculous statement. It may not teach "creation" in the sense that many YECs believe it, but it certainly teaches "creation" by a deity. --ScienceApologist 16:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure but that isn't what the text says. ...accounts of origins ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Ems2, as said above, Judiaism certainly does include a creator deity and hence a form of creationism (not YEC, but still creationism). Why should it not be mentioned? Would you accept "Abrahamic accounts of creation" instead? Ladlergo 16:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure it does. We have to work throught the wording. We have not done that yet. The current wording is incorrect. Would the page be protected already? ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
"Working out the wording" might entail you offering a compromise. --ScienceApologist 16:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Would you accept "Abrahamic accounts of creation" instead? If not, could you suggest a change? Ladlergo 16:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The article claims there is a controversy with Abrahamic religions. Judaism is a Abrahamic religion. Which I have sourced many places who see no conflict hence no controversy. the RCA notes that significant Jewish authorities have maintained that evolutionary theory, properly understood, is not incompatible with belief in a Divine Creator, nor with the first 2 chapters of Genesis. [1] ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Arguably, some creationists claim that evolutionary theory, properly understood, is not incompatible with creationism. So what's your dispute? ==ScienceApologist 16:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The conflict centers primarily around... this is not true for Judaism. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Your contention is that there is no such thing as Jewish creationism, but the redirect article claims that there is. So I'm at a total loss for how to evaluate your claims. --ScienceApologist 16:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
While that may be true, can you claim that most forms of modern creationism are not derived from Abrahamic accounts? If not, please give an alternate explanation as to why the statement is false. Ladlergo 17:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Judaism can not be included in the current statement. The statement's claims are countary to Jewish beliefs. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it Jewish belief that no Jew can be in conflict with scientific accounts of origins on religious grounds? --ScienceApologist 16:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Of fundamental Judaism, yes. I think we have already been through what fundamental Judaism is. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
So no Jew can argue with Richard Dawkins over his assertions regarding evolution's exclusion of deities acting in history? --ScienceApologist 17:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Stop being a smartass. His claims are not scientific. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 17:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Ems2, please no personal attacks. Claiming that Dawkins' claims are not scientific is part-and-parcel to the creation-evolution controversy. I think you have just proven my point. --ScienceApologist 17:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This claim is ridiculous as multiple levels, including the fact that ems has already been given a citation for a book containing many Jewish(mainly chabad) YEC essays. JoshuaZ 18:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Dawkins, he interviews Rabbi Herschel Gluck at a Hasidic Jewish school in London near the start of the second programme in The Root of All Evil? two-part documentary, and the guy is fully convinced of YEC. That page includes a link to an online video of the programme. Rabbi Gluck advises that all the schoolchildren are made aware of evolution [as they must be under English educational standards], but is confident that the majority will believe that God created the earth in six days. He didn't go into whether he supported "flood geology". However this indicates it's not just Haredi Jews who take a YEC stance. ..dave souza, talk 22:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Framing of issue

Cut from intro:

The debate is most prevalent and visible in the United States where it is often portrayed in the mass media in the broader context of the culture wars or a supposed dispute between religion and science.

Portrayed? Supposed? I thought the issue was primarily a conflict between religion and science.

Depends. Most religious denominations of the Judeo-Christian group have no problem with evolution, thus you could say that there isn't any real conflict between religion and science. The controversy comes from the minority who think that there is one. --Ramdrake 18:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. This is why these qualifications are important. --ScienceApologist 18:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'd also like to see the article pay more attention to critics who say that the Theory of evolution itself is unscientific, lacks predictive value, is not falsifiable, or is pseudoscience. Not that I'm saying there's any huge debate among biologists about this: 99.8% certainly represents a consensus. I'm talking about the 5% of scientists in general who have doubts. Who are they? What are there doubts? Is there skepticism based on science, or fundamentalist belief (as in "Creation Science")? --Uncle Ed 17:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Generally, these "5% of scientists" don't say very much beyond what is offered by the various creationist clearinghouses. It isn't a dispute in the academic or scientific communities, as the article reports. --ScienceApologist 18:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the war is in politics and the media, not in science, although it is to some degree about science. --Ramdrake 18:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] View that there is no controversy

Cut from intro:

The controversy is not occurring within the scientific community or academia, whose members overwhelmingly tend to oppose creationism.[1] Nor is it considered of great importance to most religious groups, even those that tend to support creationism. Rather, the controversy is promoted by vocal creationists who characterize the controversy as an important battle between good and evil[2] and those who actively dispute creationism who characterize the controversy as an important battle between truth and falsehood[3].

Yes, we know that 95% of scientists oppose creationism (99.8% of biologists). But the wording of this paragraph makes it sound like there is no controversy:

  • Let's see, scientists aren't disputing it
  • Most religious groups don't think it's important
  • So it must not be a big deal

I think we need a source for the "no big deal" POV, especially in light of the recent press attention to attempts to change science curriculums and the massive campaign by PBS, et al. It seems to be on a par with the "gay marriage" controversy. Any surveys showing otherwise? --Uncle Ed 18:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The "no big deal" idea is your reading of the facts. It is a fact that scientists aren't disputing it. It's a fact that most religious groups don't think it's important. However, it does not necessarily follow then that it "must not be a big deal". Please try to refrain from imposing your opinions on the implications of prose onto the article. If it looks to you like it's no big deal -- fine, but there is no such statement about this in the article and your reading of an implication or a POV to that effect is based solely on your own spin and not on the actual content. --ScienceApologist 18:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see some statistics (or other research) supporting the view that "most religious groups" don't think it's important. I assume you mean they think the dispute over whether evolution should be taught without giving equal (or any) time to ID.
Or perhaps you mean they think the dispute over whether evolution is true or not isn't important to them, because their group accepts all aspects of evolution. Can we get of list of religious groups which have made a public comment on evolution? I know there is some debate within the world's largest Christian body (Roman Catholic Church) over whether evolution is true in all its aspects, even if the pope himself has decreed that "evolution is consistent with our faith" or something like that.
Many readers will be interested in these distinctions, particulary in the US where 45% of adults dismiss evolution entirely as it conflicts with their personal religious beliefs.
Say! That gives me an idea for another article, and it sounds like it would be right up your alley. Differences between personal belief and church doctrine - particularly on Creation and Evolution. --Uncle Ed 14:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
As to whether religious groups consider the creation-evolution controversy to be central to their religious faith, I'd ask you to consider whether most religions include a statement about the controversy in their creed. While many have statements of belief that can be interpreted as being a party to one side or another in the conflict, there are very few religions or denominations that in point of fact make it a matter of doctrine. We list the churches and denominations that have made explicit statements in support of creationism in our article, and even so many of those denominations do not consider the conflict to be important or even necessarily relevant. For example, while the Assembly of God has made a statement in support of creationism, it's generally stated in their literature on the subject that the controversy is less important than being "born again". --ScienceApologist 16:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

May I know where you take that 45% number? It seems unreasonably high to me. --Ramdrake 14:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Last time I was asked that question, I referred the questioner to Evolution poll. Then he immediately put the article up for deletion. Lemme do a bit of googling. --Uncle Ed 15:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Most recently, in Gallups February 19-21 poll, 45% of respondents chose "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so," the statement that most closely describes biblical creationism. A slightly larger percentage, almost half, chose one of the two evolution-oriented statements: 37% selected "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" and 12% chose "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process." The public has not notably changed its opinion on this question since Gallup started asking it in 1982. [2]

I would provide a better link (this is second or third-hand), but User:ScienceApologist led a successful campaign to have the article Evolution poll deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evolution_poll). I don't know whether the information got merged into another article. Perhaps Joshua can help you better than I can. --Uncle Ed 15:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting bit. Found variations on it by Googling myself. Still, it doesn't change the fact that it isn't a matter of controversy in the academic circles, and that yes, most major religious denominations in the world have stated that they didn't see a problem with evolution by common descent as an accepted scientific theory (in the scientific meaning of theory, i.e. on a par with say the theory of gravitation). It is, however, a major topic of controversy in the political circles in the United States, at least. 45% of Americans polled stated they did not believe in evolution. But 80% of Americans polled in another survey could name only one of the four basic freedoms guaranteed to them by the US constitution. That doesn't make the Constitution any less valid, or any more arguable. --Ramdrake 15:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, please don't insult our intelligence by acting like a downtrodden victim. The artice went through AfD, and was deleted. Standard operating procedure. What 'successful campaign to have the article deleted' are you talking about? -- Ec5618 15:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
A wise man is never insulted by facts. Ramdrake asked me for the source of the 45%. It took me an hour to reconstruct it to Wikipedia standards (see User:Ed Poor/Evolution poll).
If the answer to the question is irrelevant to this page, I wonder why I was asked it?
But the subpage I just cited contains info which contradicts a few user comments above. Or at least it puts churchgoers at odds with the official bodies which represent them. How can 80% of churchgoers prefer Creationism to Evolution, and yet "most major religious denominations in the world have stated that they didn't see a problem with evolution by common descent"? as being on a par with the theory of gravitation?
I'm unaware of a single religious objection, even from a layman, to Newton's theory of gravity. Lots of religious people, even prominent (if not top) leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, disagree with evolution.
I think the question of how many people are on each side, is of interest to our readers, and I'd like to see Evolution Poll undeleted. --Uncle Ed 16:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you stating you are in fact a 'downtrodden victim'?
I will not get drawn into an argument about the validity of the poll. My point was merely that you shouldn't act like a victim. If anything, the poll is a source, and may be referred to as such. It does not deserve an article. As such, the 'article' was justly deleted. -- Ec5618 16:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
What is ultimately quixotic about Ed's claimed frustration is the fact that the poll he is quoting is described and referenced in this very article. --ScienceApologist 16:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that interpretation of polls requires some knowledge of how the way questions are stated can affect the outcome. The Gallup organization's own summary of a relevant Gallup Poll, possibly the very poll which Ed Poor wants to quote, is apparently available to subscribers at [[3]]. Such summaries usually address the issue I mentioned, which is of course well understood by polltakers.

See also this comment from the American Physical Society and this page from BBC, which I found while trying to find a nice summary of the results of an (earlier?) Gallup poll on this issue which I recall reading some time ago.---CH 16:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ID as Creationism

CH, thanks for posting the link to Marshall Berman's article, "Intelligent Design: The New Creationism Threatens All of Science and Society" [4] You could almost derive Creation-evolution controversy in full, just from this one lource - at least the anti-ID side.

Sometimes I see the controversy as two sides talking past each other. Berman sees ID as "anti-science". The ID movement sees itself as "anti-materialism". Is there widespread agreement that materialism and science are precisely the same thing? --Uncle Ed 17:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Uncle Ed, glad you liked the link; I agree that this is an excellent resource. As for your question: I don't see where you are trying to go with this, since I don't know of any scientist who has proposed to identify science and materialism. ---CH 00:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New subsection

A number of months ago I mentioned that we needed a new subsection on the immorality arguments by creationists. I have now written this section. Please improve it. --ScienceApologist 09:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the intro

These two sentences contradict each other:

  1. The debate is most prevalent and visible in the United States, where it is often portrayed in the mass media in the broader context of the culture wars or a supposed dispute between religion and science.
  2. The main opposing sides are ostensibly those who espouse religious origin beliefs and those who support naturalistic or scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology.

The first sentence quoted above uses phrases like often portrayed in the mass media and a supposed dispute to cast doubt on the idea that the two sides the public controversy are religion and science. But the very next sentence asserts the same thing that these phrases deny: that the main opposing sides take religious vs. scientific standpoints.

This contradiction needs to be resolved.

What are the main sides in the dispute? If there are two, how do they characterize themselves? And their opponents?

I think the article takes chiefly the POV of some scientists, or methodological naturalists (and particularly atheists) that Creationism is utter nonsense. But it is not the POV of Wikipedia that only the material world exists. So the article should not reflect that POV.

Rather, there must be a balance between those who believe in the possibility of Creationism being true and those who deny any such possibility. The article should not spend as much time as possible refuting Creationism. It should fairly describe both Creationism and Evolution, because as its title suggests, the article is about the controversy between the two ideas.

The article should not try to settle the controversy, but merely to describe it. --Uncle Ed 15:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed, you have the unfortunate tendency to read into wording meaning that is not there. Your claim that the phrases used in the first sentence "cast doubt" on the "sides" of the controversy. In actuality what they are doing is simply being very careful in how the sides are declared. In fact, there are plenty of religious people who are not adamantly involved in the controversy just as there are scientists who are not. This isn't a polarized camp vs. camp war here. Therefore it's a "supposed dispute" between religion and science which, you will note in that very article, is not necessarily considered a dispute at all. Furthermore, that something is often portrayed one way in the media does not make that portrayal wrong. You may distrust the media, Uncle Ed, but that's not a subtext of this sentence.
It is clear then that these two sentences in no way contradict each other except when warped by some very mean interpretations. More than this, your accusation that the article takes the POV of "scientists" seems to have come out of left-field. Would you mind providing some evidence to that end? --ScienceApologist 15:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say scientists only, but some scientists, or methodological naturalists (and particularly atheists). Surely you can answer your own question, if it's relevant. Can't you think of even ONE scientist who ever called Creationism nonsense? --Uncle Ed 15:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The point is that you are claiming that there is a POV-bias in the article, but fail to point out where it is. --ScienceApologist 17:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one to be uneasy with the massive recent changes made to the introduction by user Ed Poor? The new introduction feels like there is a raging worldwide battle going on between proponents of creation and of evolution, rather than the work of an extremely vocal and active minority in mostly one country? I definitely liked the original intro much better. --Ramdrake 17:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What part of the into gives the impression that the battle is worldwide or "raging"? I thought it specifically mentioned that The debate is most prevalent and visible in the United States. Feel free to amend this to ... confined mainly to the United States or wherever it's really "simmering".
Or is your point of view that (1) there is no controversy and (2) there is only a campaign by a minority to bring attention to the issue? --Uncle Ed 17:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, somewhere between the two positions, but much closer to the second than the first. A few people are making a lot of noise. --Ramdrake 17:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, then the article should reflect this. Perhaps we need to say more about what sort of controversy or dispute is going on. I gather that there is a disgreement over whether Creationism or Evolution is correct. But are you saying that most of the energy is coming from the Creationist side, with the Evolution side alternately ignoring it with dignity (because it has nothing to do with science) and occasionally responding laconically that the Creationists haven't come up with anything new in the 200 years since Paley, and would they please shut up so biologists can get back to work? (Or something like that).
What is the best way to characterize a disagreement in which one side doesn't want to talk, and the other side is trying to force the issue? (That's the case here, right?) --Uncle Ed 17:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Ed, you are speaking in overwhelming generalities about a conflict that is much better described by the nuance offered in the current . Why do you insist on being so tendentious? --ScienceApologist 17:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what tendentious means, nor do I understand what "nuance" you feel the old intro provided. Moreover, I did not realize that the intro had been locked by "consensus". Can you show me a record of the vote which established a "consensus wording"? --Uncle Ed 17:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
You could break with tradition, Ed, and read the archives. That will let you know how the article came to its current state (including the intro). The article is not "locked", but it is accurate and I encourage you to explain yourself. --ScienceApologist 17:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have about the changes I made. Which particular edit, or what passage of text, do you want to ask about? --Uncle Ed 17:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Ed, is it really so hard for you to see that you haven't offered any explanation for your rather extensive edits to the intro beyond a comment on a single "contradiction" above? We can only guess as to what chip you currently have on your shoulder, your edits are considered by more than one editor to be problematic so the onus is on you to defend them. I'd start out one-by-one. List them all in a section and we'll discuss them. At this point, I'm looking for you to justify all your edits. --ScienceApologist 19:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Ed, have you read the archives yet? --ScienceApologist 19:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus and reality

I encourage those editors distressed by Ed Poor's actions here to visit the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Poor (2). He is currently on the warpath to insert his own defiance of consensus in many articles regarding the creation-evolution controversy. --ScienceApologist 17:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Not on the warpath. My remarks are rather calm, and not directed against any person. And if a "consensus" exists which is incorrect, it should be changed to reflect reality. Surely you wouldn't want an inaccurate article at Wikipedia, merely because a voting bloc of editors wants to push a particular POV? My take on many of your comments is that you oppose "POV pushing" at Wikipedia. Or am I taking WP:Assume good faith too far? --Uncle Ed 17:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I waited for a response to the above, but got none. And you reverted again, with still no explanation but this edit summary:
  • rv -- this is the consensus version. Please explain YOURSELF on the talkpage (this is mostly your creationist POV-pushing, after all).
What is this "consensus version" you keep talking about? This is the 2nd page you've begun an edit war on, claiming you are restoring a "consensus". As far as I know, this is a wiki. Anyone can make a change. If you object to a change, please say so. I don't understand why you keep reverting with no explanation. Do you feel that no change, however small, can be made without your permission, or something?
I waited some more, but Ramdrake merely reverted a 3rd time, saying:
  • Ed, you got the processus backwards. Please let's discuss your changes to the article BEFORE changing the article,as this is a controversial article and this is usually how it's done in such a case.
No point undoing the 3rd revert, if there is a Wikipedia:mass reversion guideline which authorizes this. But it just looks like an excuse for one side to win an edit war to me: "We insist on our version and you can't make even tiny edits without our advance permission."
I would prefer this instead:
  • Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Shall we put it to a vote? --Uncle Ed 18:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Ed, you came to this article and decided to unilaterally rewrite it without consensus. Then you insist on reverting it when people here preferred the orignal version (which enjoyed consensus apparently), so no, it's you who are edit warring here, Ed. This is exactly the same sort of behavior that earn you your ongoing RFC, at which you can see that there's zero support for your method here. Do you want editors from this article as well adding to it? Do you think ignoring consensus here is making you look any better? FeloniousMonk 19:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I came here and starting making some minor changes. Then Joshua reverted all those changes, without any explanation. Can there be an edit war with only one party? Is there some policy which Joshua is enforcing? I think not, or else he would not not hesitate to revert 4 or more times in a 24-hour period.
I ask you one last time, where is there evidence that there exists a Wikipedia:Consensus version of the article which must not be modified in the slightest without prior consent of the majority? Is there a policy page you can point me to? Or are you and your crew merely throwing your weight around, as if Might makes right? --Uncle Ed 19:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Ed, I will ask just one question, based on your writings (emphasis added): No, I came here and starting making some minor changes. Then Joshua reverted all those changes, without any explanation.
Why is it that when you make changes to the articles, they are some minor changes, but when someone reverts them, they revert(ed) all those changes? What makes them minor in one direction, but appreciable (ALL those changes) in the opposite direction? The first and foremost point we're insisting upon is that the changes you made are not minor, and as such should be discussed prior to being made. Are you using two different weights by which to judge the scope of edits and reverts? --Ramdrake 19:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I ask you one last time, where is there evidence that there exists a Wikipedia:Consensus version of the article which must not be modified in the slightest without prior consent of the majority? --> This is completely not the issue. I have no problem with you, Ed, or anyone else coming in and making all sorts of edits to a page. Sometimes an editor makes a huge number of edits that are very good. Sometimes an editor makes a huge number of edits that are problematic. More than one person on this talkpage has indicated problems with your edits. That's when reversion to the last version occurs and hopefully discussion begins. As it currently stands, you, Ed, are the only person who thinks your edits are God's gift to this article. The rest of us are more skeptical. I'm open to hearing your suggestions for changes, and I have worked with you in the past on this very article with that regard. Right now, I see no attempt on your part to explain your total rearrangement and what I see as trashing of the introduction. No explanation of what you think beyond some vague insistences that the conflict may be more "real" than the article makes it out to be. If you have specific problems with specific wordings, let us know. I'm all for such discussions. --ScienceApologist 19:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An example defense for Ed Poor

Since Ed does not seem to understand what I mean by defending his edits, I'll do so for the first three of his edits for him below. This, Ed, is how you defend edits. I'm showing your edits here one-by-one giving ample opportunity for other editors to respond. I also show you what my response might be to each of these attempts I have made to put on your hat. Note, I don't know whether these rationales I wrote down correspond to your thinking on the matter because you have failed to do this for all but one of your edits (which, I'll note you haven't addressed yet above). --ScienceApologist 20:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed's first three edits, a justification
Comment: the explanation for why to keep this sentence is included above. --ScienceApologist 20:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment: what convention would that be? --ScienceApologist 20:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Unfortunately, this wording changes the syntax from a sentence that deals with generalities of creation and moves to the specificis of creation according to Genesis to a wording that implies that all creationism is based on a "doctrine", monotheistic, and not based in demiurge. The "see" parenthetical also indicates, falsely, that there is only one creationist account of origins when in reality there are more than just creation according to Genesis. --ScienceApologist 20:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You see, Ed? If you offer explanations for your edits, we can acutally have a dialogue and explain what we think about your ideas. --ScienceApologist 20:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha - that's pretty funny coming from you! For great justice. 22:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sides in the controversy

While restoring the word "ostensibly" FelonoiousMonk wrote the following in his edit summary:

ID proponents are an example of those who claim to not push religion while doing just that

Are you saying that the controversy is not between religion advocates and science advocates, or what?

If you think that ID advocates are stealth creationists, you should say so explicitly in the article. --Uncle Ed 21:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not the subject of this article.

By the way, Ed, you just violated 3RR again. --ScienceApologist 21:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fresh view

I'm cleaning up the article a bit in my spare time - mostly single words and phrases, which are explained in the edit summaries. I'm about half way through. I'll post up some more major revisions here if I can see any are needed. Stephen B Streater 08:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the sentecne about speciation back, as the discussion is not about the terminology, but about the actuall point in the process were it is a new species. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 09:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] Isn't the issue here merely a question of what the word speciation means? I marked this as a major edit because I think the current version tries to make out that there is actual controversy about something real, whereas in fact all that biologists disagree on is exactly what the word means. By its very nature, speciation is not a black-and-white concept when you look at single generations, but it is clear after millions of years that it has happened. Stephen B Streater 09:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I changed "undecided" adjective describing religion and morality to "subjective". I'm pretty sure a lot of the creationists are "decided" about this subject, but the point is that the ideas differ from person to person about what they entail. --ScienceApologist 13:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Stephen B Streater 06:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Ostensibly"

I have readded the word "ostensibly" to the description of the sides in the controversy. The problems with not including this word are legion. FM points out rightly that many ID proponents look to be involved in the conflict but flatly deny their religious motivations. While that's certainly a concern, there are other reasons to include ostensibly as well.

1) The conflict is really between creationists who are vocal in their attacks on mainstream science and self-appointed respondents. Ultimately, the description of the two sides is correct, but since there are those who do not engage in the debate yet still fall into one of the two categories, it's important to qualify that the controversy is "ostensibly" between the two classes of individuals. 2) This is the same paragraph that deals with media portrayal. It is indeed a "portrayal" and not a point of fact determination of who is on which side. "Ostensibly" covers this problem. 3) The controversy itself is of dubious necessisty as pointed out in the false dichotomy section. Adding the word "ostensibly" prevents us from implying a mutual exclusivity to these sides. 4) The conflict isn't just about advocates of different "theories" of origins. It is also couched in terms of intellectualism, the old materialist debates of Berkeley and Hume, and even separation of church and state issues. While the conflict "boils down" to the sides that we list, it is a bit more nuanced than that sentence.

It is important, however, to describe this singular "first attempt" at noting sides in the controversy so omitting the sentence is not an option. However, it is equally important to be nuanced in the description. An alternative would be to explain all the different caveats listed above regarding the characterization of sides, but the intro is already mammoth as it is and the single word "ostensibly" does a good job of letting the reader know that there are issues regarding sides that can be read about further down the article. --ScienceApologist 13:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying there is a disagreement over what the sides are? That makes sense. I think the pro-Creationism and anti-Creationsm sides disagree over at least two things which are not matters of substance: (1) the composition of each side and (2) what precisely each side is saying.
Many creationists are open about beginning with the premise that God exists and freely expose their strategy of rejecting (discrediting, destroying) any scientific view, institution or practice which refuses to accept their premise. (Let's call these for the moment "radical Creationists".)
There are also Creationists who believe in God but respect science and are sincerely concerned about how to resolve conflicts between scientific findings and theological beliefs. On rare but notable occasions, some church leaders have announced revisions in theology based on scientific findings. (I can only think of "earth goes round the sun" as a clear example. Less clear is the reaction of the hundreds of various Christian denominations to the discovery of fossils. Has any major group revised its theology about Creation to accommodate the fossil record?)
It would do a disservice to our readers to lump both groups of creationists together, even if the radical Creationists are more vocal and (especially) irritating! As encyclopedia editors, we need to remain calm and explain WHY the radical creationists are so vexing, and WHO considers them such a nuisance. We can't simply declare them wrong, in any case, since as all will agree Wikipedia does not take a stand for or against the view that God exists.
Further muddying the waters are statements from both sides which are inconsistent. Some pro-ID writers (Dembski, Behe?) have alternately (1) claimed that they are "just poking holes in the science of evolution" and (2) conceded (bragged?) that they are using the evolution issue as a wedge (see wedge strategy) to launch a philosophical revolution. If members of the ID movement are contradicting themeselves or each other, the article should definitely point this out with sourced quotations from anti-ID writers. But the article itself should not say "ID proponents contradict themselves". That would be original research. --Uncle Ed 15:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Ed, this doesn't exactly make any suggestions for the article. It's an interesting essay on what the different issues are regarding the "kinds" of creationists, but we address that in the article. The introduction needs to be concise, and you need to make an actual proposal if we're going to understand your objections. --ScienceApologist 20:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the word "ostensibly"

I'm somewhat uneasy by the use of the word "ostensibly" in the introduction. By definition, it seems, "apparently, seemingly, on the surface" (as per wiktionary). The way the sentence reads, it could be construed to mean that the conflict is apparently between the proponents of science and those of religion, but that reality differs. If such is the case, what is the underlying reality that his hidden? I guess I'm just trying to say I'd like somebody to explain to me what ostensibly is used to mean in this context, as the way I read it it opens a door the approximate width of the side of a barn =) to all sorts of possible interpretations. My feeling is that another word here may be more accurate of the intended meaning, but not being sure of the intended meaning, I can't tell what word would fit better here. --Ramdrake 13:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Never mind and blame edit conflicts for it... I got my answer already. --Ramdrake 13:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can think of better wording, please insert it. --ScienceApologist 13:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I think "ostensibly" is a good choice. Guettarda 13:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cbruno's proposed changes

There are several problems with the proposed changes:

  • "Scientists also point out the distinction between microevolution and [[macroevolution | macroevolution]" - the differences between macro and micro are differences in scale, they are differences in terms of the level of analysis. So this bald statement isn't really accurate.
  • "Creationists argue that macroevolution is controversial because it is not directly observable and its mechanism of action is controversial within the scientific community" - to begin with, as made this statement is misleading, since it suggests that the assertion is actually true (when in fact it isn't). In addition, it is unsupported - which creationists have made these claims, etc? Guettarda 05:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cbruno's Answer

First of all, I'm not a creationist troll. Some of the rv'ed responses seemed to hint that I was trying to insert my own creationist point of view into the lead of the article. I admit I gave to much detail on the micro vs. macro evolution. This made the introduction unbalanced. I do think however that SOMEWHERE in the lead passage of the article should mention the fact that there are creationists who accept parts, but not all, of the modern systhesis theory of evolution. That way, readers who skim the intro to the article are exposed to this. I think the one-sentence on how SOME creationists differentiate between micro and macro is sufficient.

Cbruno

I did the revert, so I owe you an explanation.
The material you added was inaccurate. In fact, macroevolution is any evolution at the level of speciation or higher, and while this takes longer to generate in the lab, it has been observed. In other words, macroevolution is a proven fact, contrary to standard Creationist claims.
In addition, that text was entirely uncited. If it were restored with citations and quotes, it would be acceptable as an accurate summary of inaccurate Creationist beliefs. As it stood, however, I felt I had to remove it in order to adhere to Wikipedia standards. Thank you for understanding. Al 05:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand why you reverted my description of micro and macroevolution. I agree with you. I dont understand why you reverted a mention to the fact that SOME creationists differentiate between the two, accepting micro but not macro. Whether they are wrong or not on how they interpret macroevolution is another artice (in fact, it is discussed in the macroevolution Wikipedia article). The point is that the intro says that SOME creationists refers to evolution in an overarching way. What about those who do not? These are the creationists who accept part but not all the modern synthesis, and they use the micro v. macro dichotomy to do so---hence a one sentence mention of this is appropriate. If a reader wants to know more about the legitimacy of the creationists claims about macroevolution, they can research it in the appropriate article.

It is not an offense to Wikipedia standards to mention that creationist differentiate between micro and macro evolution, even if this differentiation is unfounded, in an article on the creationist-evolution debate.

In the later sections we discuss the distinction. The distinction does not belong in the intro as it is a level of specificity removed from the actual nature of the controversy. Please read the whole article before editting it. You would have found the section dealing with macro/microevolution if you had read down to the later sections. --ScienceApologist 06:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bunker for NPOV

--- Begin bunker


Ths statement of scientists that evolution is a fact is used by proponents of both sides in seeking to gain advantage in the creation-evolution controversy, but this results in confusion for the lay public.

[edit] The idea that the theory is "really true"

Proponents of both sides of the evolution vs creation debate readily agree that a "theory", in the scientific rather than popular sense, differs from "fact" (in the absolutist sense), as all scientific theories are subject to falsification and are considered to be eternally tentative per the guidelines established within the scientific method. However, certain theories, like that of gravitation, are considered as fact because the daily observation of data that seems to prove the theory reinforces gravity's position as fact in the minds of the average person. Thus, the controversy engendered by the statement "evolution is fact" centers on the inability of the average non-scientist to observe evolutionary phenomena and artifacts in the day-to-day world.

[edit] Confusion over the words "fact" and "theory"

The word "fact" can refer to:

  1. data, i.e., astronomical observations or discovery of fossils. For example, "Our research is geared toward explaining these facts."
  2. truth, i.e., confidence that an idea is correct. For example, "Astronomers accepted the fact that the planets revolve around the sun long ago." (see Kepler and Newton's laws of planetary motion) Or, "It is a fact that bacteria transmit disease." (see Pasteur's germ theory of disease)

The word "theory" always means a way of accounting for (1) a set of observations by providing (2) an explanation that links them to a cause and/or predicts the results of additional observations.

[edit] Views of evolution proponents

Proponents say that biological evolution has been established so firmly as to be regarded as equally factual as gravity.

  • "It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution." -- Richard Lewontin [4]
  • "Today the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority." -- James D. Watson [5]

[edit] Views of evolution opponents

When opponents call evolution a "theory"[6] they intend to demean it based on the popular usage of the term. The purpose is to bring the layman to their belief system, which is that evolution is much less than certain than universally accepted concepts such as gravity.

[edit] Comparing "Evolution is fact" with "Earth circles sun is fact"

In his book What Evolution Is (2002), Ernst Mayr explains that the "fact" of evolution derives from "inferences" that have "enormous certainty" because of the combination of 1) derived predictions that are verified, 2) confirmations from many lines of evidence including fossils, genetics, and geology, and 3) "in most cases no rational alternative can be found."[7]


Nevertheless, when Mayr responds to the direct question Are not the "facts" of evolutionary biology something very different from the facts of astronomy, which show the Earth circles the sun rather than the reverse? (emphasis in the original), he says, "Yes, up to a point. The movement of planets can be observed directly. By contrast, evolution is a historical process. Past stages cannot be observed directly, but must be inferred from the context. Yet these inferences have enormous certainty . . . ."[8]


And then Mayr concludes with his argument that the "inferences" should be as convincing as "direct observation." Mayr says, "Frankly, I cannot see why such an overwhelming number of well-substantiated inferences is not scientifically as convincing as direct observations. . . . The endeavor of certain philosophers to construct a fundamental difference between the two kinds of evidence strikes me as misleading."[8]


[edit] Vulnerability of saying what evolution is--a fact

In 1999, the geomorphologist Arthur Strahler wrote a book advising scientists how to most effectively present the "fact" of evolution to non-scientists who easily misunderstand "facts."[9] Strahler notes that scientists had spoken of evolution as fact even before the "creationists' attempts to introduce their views into public education."[10] For example, one senior scientist of the Smithsonian Institution said in a speech in 1981, "Scientists may argue over the details of evolution, but they agree that evolution is a fact and should be so labeled."[10]

Having thus noted examples of how scientists speak among themselves of evolution as fact, Strahler warns that non-scientists easily misunderstand the concept of "facts." Strahler describes the public relations problem this way: "In discussing the nature of science [earlier in the book], I took the position that no theory or important scientific hypothesis should be described as 'a fact.' Quite apart from the reasons I gave for this preference is a reason applying to public relations between mainstream scientists and nonscientists. The arrogance displayed by the claim of fact --absolute truth, that is -- incites resistance in a substantial sector of the public and can easily generate hostility toward the scientific community." According to Strahler, if the scientific community deals with pseudoscience in a heavy-handed manner, the detailed attack and ridicule likely polarizes "a substantial sector of the general public against mainstream science," such as by inducing in the general public a "pseudoscience cultism."[10]

One reviewer sympathized with Strahler's situation in America by saying: "a European such as myself is somewhat bemused by a debate that persists today with creationists who have become increasingly sophisticated in their single-issue lobby politics, and continue to act with vigor so as to cast doubts into the minds of a significant proportion of the American population. This is all despite the shoddiness of their intellectual position having been repeatedly exposed over the last three decades."[11] The reviewer goes on to highlight Strahler's observation of how easy it is for American non-scientists to misunderstand facts, "the blunt statements by many evolutionists that evolution is a fact, rather than a highly plausible theory overwhelmingly supported by a wide array of facts from different fields of inquiry, runs the risk of alienating potential supporters and increasing vulnerability to attack from the more sophisticated creationists."[12]

[edit] References

  1. ^ As reported in Newsweek magazine, 1987-JUN-29, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."
  2. ^ Wieland, Carl. Evolution and social evil. Creation Magazine 27 April 2004. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0427social_evil.asp
  3. ^ Dawkins, Richard. 2002. A scientist's view. The Guardian, Saturday March 9, 2002. http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/2002-03-09scientistsview.shtml
  4. ^ (R. C. Lewontin, 1981)
  5. ^ (James Watson, 1987)
  6. ^ definition 1
  7. ^ Mayr 2002
  8. ^ a b Mayr 2002, p. 276
  9. ^ Strahler 1999
  10. ^ a b c Strahler 1999, p. 329
  11. ^ Quinsey 2001, p. 66
  12. ^ Quinsey 2001, p. 67

[edit] Bibliography

  • Mayr, Ernst (2002), What Evolution Is, Basic Books; Reprint edition, ISBN 0465044263.
  • Quinsey, Vernon I. (Mar. 2001), "Review of: Science and Earth History by Arthur N. Strahler", Quarterly Review of Biology, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 66-67.
  • Strahler, Arthur N. (1999), Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy, Prometheus Books, ISBN 1573927171.



--- End bunker


[edit] Suggestion for spin-off article

Right now our "conflicts inherent to the controversy" section is absolutely mammoth. What do people think about forking these "issues" into a new article? This would have the advantage of making the article a bit more manageable and would force us to summarize the "issues" per main-template limitations. --ScienceApologist 07:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Could I suggest: "Issues in the creation-evolution controversy" as a name for the spin-off? Any other suggestions? --ScienceApologist 07:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think each issue in the controversy should be named here, and preferably summarized. Taking all of them as a group and putting them in another article would create a content fork, which (I think) goes against WP policy. They tried doing this with Falun Gong but it's failing miserably, because they won't separate the issues.
How about taking out one issue at a time as a spin-off (or what I like to call a "sidebar")? This worked rather well with Augusto Pinochet.
The new intro I wrote over the weekend makes it easy to identify and "farm out" various issues into separate articles. --Uncle Ed 14:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The intro really isn't the problem, though. Can you give a point-by-point explanation of your edits like I asked for above? --ScienceApologist 16:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ed's rather lengthy intro

I have reverted the intro after Ed Poor's edits so we can talk about the modifications first. while I think there are some good ideas in there, the edits were too extensive to de-extricate without messing the intro further. So, I have preserved Ed's intro here verbatim so we can discuss it. --Ramdrake 14:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: Ed has a problem capitalizing terms for no reason. --ScienceApologist 16:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The creation-evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) is a dispute about the origins of the Earth, humanity, life, and the universe. It can be difficult to identify the main sides and to describe their positions accurately, but the in the English-speaking world (primarily the United States), proponents of Creationism and proponents of the Theory of evolution attract most public attention.

One too many "the"s.
It isn't difficult to identify the main sides, or to describe their positions rather accurately. The full spectrum of positions just makes it hard to circumscribe entirely.
The United States doesn't represent "most of the English-speaking world".
The proponents of evolution I feel don't really want that much to attract public attention. They attract public attention (mostly in the United States) trying to undo the damage to the separation of church and state that the proponents of creationism are trying to inflict. --Ramdrake 16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the opening part:

  1. It can be difficult to identify the main sides and to describe their positions accurately --> throwaway statement that doesn't lend itself to proper exposition. Should be omitted completely.
  2. the English-speaking world (primarily the United States), --> where is this coming from? Are you saying French-speaking people don't identify this? Mostly, this statement is problematic because it confuses issues.
  3. proponents of Creationism and proponents of the Theory of evolution attract most public attention. --> Really? I don't know that this is true at all. In fact, the controversy attracts attention in a bit broader fashion.

The current opening paragraph is much better. --ScienceApologist 16:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Advocates for Creationism call themselves Creationists, and they begin most of their arguments with the premise that God exists, generally continuing to add premises like "God created each new species miraculously" or "God guided the process of evolution." A major division amongst Creationists is between (1) those believing that God created all forms of life around 10 thousand years ago and (2) those agreeing with geologists and biologists that the fossil record is authentic and that new species came into being over tens or hundreds of millions of years.

It's fine to know how the creationists label themselves (although somewhat redundant), but this doesn't say what the dispute is about. Also, the distinction between YEC and OEC calls for more of an explanation that the intro can allow size-wise. As in, what is the difference between OEC and theistic evolution. --Ramdrake 16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I struck out how supporters of Creationism label themselves, since this isn't as important as how supporters of Evolution label themselves. --Uncle Ed 16:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, the purpose of an introduction is to introduce so I pointed out the biggest split within Creationism. This, by the way, is a split that many of our readers may be completely unaware of. --Uncle Ed 16:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The split within creationism is a side-issue to the actual dispute. It doesn't belong in the introduction. --ScienceApologist 16:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, it is difficult to introduce OEC without explaining the difference between it and theistic evolution. Such an explanation belongs in the corpus of the article, not the introduction. I agree with ScienceApologist, but for different reasons.

Problems with this paragraph:

  1. begin most of their arguments with the premise that God exists, generally continuing to add premises like "God created each new species miraculously" or "God guided the process of evolution."--> this isn't true. Most of the "arguments" begin with other points entirely. Please see the section on them in the article itself. The examples aren't entirely illustrative of the scope of the controversy either. This sentence is altogether too problematic to include anywhere in the article.
  2. See above for the problem of illustrating "divisions" among creationists (which is an artifice).

--ScienceApologist 17:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Advocates Supporters of Evolution (who frequently reject the label "Evolutionists" applied by evolution opponents) support naturalistic or scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology. They hold that natural laws alone are sufficient to account for observations in nature.

I would prefer the word "supporters" rather than advocates. --Ramdrake 16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure, sounds good to me, too. Change applied.

[edit] How each side sees the other

Creationists often see advocates of evolution as rejecting creationism's main premise, that is, asserting that there is no God. Advocates of evolution, on the other hand, see the idea of supernatural beings existing or intervening in the physical world as irrelevant to science.

Creationists often represent evolution as positing "unguided evolution" as an account for origins. Supporters of evolution frequently assert that evolution is indeed guided, i.e., by Natural selection.

Not bad, but needs to be reworded. The way it is, it reminds me of a ping-pong match (no offense intended: tit-tat-tit-tat) --Ramdrake 16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Common ground between the sides

Some Creationists regard certain aspects of evolution as true, notably the idea that fossils show an accurate record of the appearance and extinction of the various species of life.

Already mentioned in a previous part of the intro (when introducing OEC without naming it). Redundant in an already overlong intro. I would just snip it out. --Ramdrake 16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of debate

The debate is most prevalent and visible in the United States, where it is often portrayed in the mass media in the broader context of the culture wars or a supposed dispute between religion and science.

Some Creationists see religion and science as being in dispute with each other on issues in addition to that over Creation and evolution. The forms of creationism derived from fundamentalist or religiously conservative Abrahamic accounts of origins assert that the scientific explanations of origins are antithetical to creation theology, and oftentimes, more specifically, Creation according to Genesis.

Some supporters of evolution see religion and science as not being in any significant dispute. <-- We should give an example of this "no dispute" assertion. -->

The Roman Catholic position (official papal position, not that of any specific cardinal) is a prime example of this, why not use it? --Ramdrake 16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Problems with this paragraph:

  1. Some Creationists see religion and science as being in dispute with each other on issues in addition to that over Creation and evolution. --> this has dubious meaning. The differentiation between "religion vs. science" and "creation vs. evolution" is not adequately explained by this single paragraph. We need an entire section on conflation to do justice to the problems. I don't think this is a reasonable inclusion in the least.
  2. The forms of creationism derived from fundamentalist or religiously conservative Abrahamic accounts of origins assert that the scientific explanations of origins are antithetical to creation theology, and oftentimes, more specifically, Creation according to Genesis. --> technically not correct. Most creationists actually believe that true science is different than the "scientific explanations. Our current wording nuances this well. This wording does not.

--ScienceApologist 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The controversy is not occurring within the scientific community or academia, whose members overwhelmingly tend to oppose creationism.[13] Nor is it considered of great importance to most religious groups, even those that tend to support creationism. Rather, the controversy is promoted by vocal creationists who characterize the controversy as an important battle between good and evil[14] and those who actively dispute creationism who characterize the controversy as an important battle between truth and falsehood[15].

The members of the scientific community do not overwhelmingly oppose creationism. They do not spend much of their time attempting to stop the progression of creationism (which is the primary definition of oppose). If anything, they overwhelmingly ignore creationism. --Ramdrake 16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
We used to have the phrase -when pressed- included to address this objection. --ScienceApologist 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As a means of naming the controversy, the term evolution is perhaps inappropriately used in an overarching sense to represent the sum total of the scientific theories and observational implications that creationists see as being in conflict with their worldview. The proponents of "evolution" therefore are generally those who hold that natural laws alone are sufficient to account for observations in nature and that supernatural origins are beyond the scope of the scientific method. Which specific scientific ideas conflict with creationism, and would therefore comprise "evolution", can vary from creationist to creationist. It should be noted that many people believe that scientific ideas including biological evolution need not contradict religious beliefs although it does contradict certain specific religious beliefs. (For more on this see sections on defining evolution and spectrum of creationist beliefs.)

It doesn't say anything about what may or may not be included, legitimately (or overarchingly) or not in the term evolution. This paragraph doesn't make a point. I'd cut it out. --Ramdrake 16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd reword it. We need to make the point that "evolution" is a catch-all phrase (as is made in the defining evolution section below). --ScienceApologist 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A new school of creationism that has become well known as part of the controversy in schools is the Intelligent Design movement and its associated arguments. Intelligent Design proponents assert that science inappropriately excludes the idea that origins of the biological and physical worlds could derive from an intelligent designer and have advocated a program named Teach the Controversy.

Actually, no. ID states that a designer is required to explain the variety and complexity of life on Earth. They will not entertain the notion that life may have evolved on its own into what we witness now. The way it was phrased made it sound like biology didn't want to include the possibility of a designer (which it doesn't refute - the existence of a designer is just irrelevant to the question). It is ID who insists life cannot have evolved on its own, so that argument is backwards. --Ramdrake 16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there any legitimate reason for adopting Ed's version over the current version (as flawed as it may be?) Why not start with the current version and work from there? What do you think, User:Ramdrake? --ScienceApologist 17:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My conclusion would be that this is the best way to go. However, I first wanted to explain to Ed Poor all the problems that I saw with his version of the intro, so he could see for himself that we are not reverting just for the sake of keeping our own version. Possibly the best thing to do is to decide which points to save from his addition and work them into the existant text, as I'm at a loss how to redress the specific version of the introduction he presented. --Ramdrake 17:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] more accurate name?

shouldn't this be moved to Creation-evolution controversy in the United States Midwest and other rural regions? It's not only not international, it really isn't even a national issue in the US, aside from a few bizaire religious cults that for some reason operate buildings and occasionally "news" papers, inside NY city limits like the moonies, etc, et al, et whatever.. there really isn't any notion of a "debate" anywhere other than extramly rural regions, with little or no access to education--205.188.117.14 16:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are other areas in the world (such as Australia, Great Britain and the Netherlands) that have creationist followings, though it is conceded that the vast majority of the action is in the United States proper, and possibly more concentrated in the Midwest. But it isn't limited to that, so we can't use that as a title. --Ramdrake 17:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
yes, but even implying that this is a "debate" in any large part of the US, let alone the implication that it's even note worthy in academic circles, frankly makes it look like my country is full of idiots--205.188.117.14 17:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Then maybe we should say that this is an intermittent rather than an ongoing debate, as the truth is, it seems to fire up sporadically and then keep quiet for long stretches at a time, at least judging from this side of the border. --Ramdrake 17:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm ok with that change. Ladlergo 15:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I've followed creationism for over 20 years. I do agree that it's predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, but it does have "outbreaks" in a few other areas (as previously mentioned). However, it is not just in the "Midwest and other rural regions" (the leading young earth creationist organization in the world, the Institute for Creation Research, is in San Diego, California; the leading neocreationist organization in the world, the Discovery Institute, is in Seattle, Washington; neither place is "Midwest" or "rural"), nor is it just "a few bizarre religious cults." Creationist, anti-evolution, beliefs are found among substantial numbers of religious believers in every major Christian religious denomination in the U.S., even in those denominations considered "liberal" where anti-evolution is not an official church position (including among Catholics, where respect for evolution as science is an official church position). Gallup polling has been conducted on this issue in the U.S. since the 1960s, and it has consistently found that creationist beliefs have dominated among religious believers in the U.S. the entire time. For example (from Creationism),

According to a 2001 Gallup poll on the origins of humans, they estimate that 72% of Americans believe in some form of creationism.... They also estimate that about 45% of Americans concurred with the statement that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."

Creationism in most of its forms is certainly wrong (my opinion; and I myself would dispute all of its forms), but this is no call to blind ourselves to the extent of the problem, or to use misrepresentative statements in a manner similar to creationist rhetoric. (Greeneto 01:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC))
  • The vast majority of educated people in the United States are open to alternative theories, and aren't so heavily bogged down in evolutionism as to ignore all evidence to the contrary--F.O.E. 06:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The vast majority of educated people in the United States support evolution as the theory to explain the origin of species. The supporters of creationism are usually found in the less-educated strata of American society. This is even more true for countries outside the United States. --Ramdrake 15:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    The vast majority of people in the United States aren't very well educated. The few who are understand the difference between a scientific theory and an unscientific theory. Kasreyn 22:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence against evolution section - minor change?

At present, we have "Creationists have also claimed that because the Nebraska Man and other paleontology hoaxes were fabricated...". However, Nebraska Man wasn't a _hoax_, merely a mistake. Would it be permissible to change this sentence to "Piltdown Man and other paleontology hoaxes"? Tevildo 21:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Please do! --ScienceApologist 23:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Tevildo 05:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge of "Spectrum of creationist beliefs" section to main Creationism article

  • Approve. The content of this section is already covered in the Creationism article, and doesn't, IMO, have a significant part to play in the controversy itself, rather than in the general issue of Creationism as a whole. Tevildo 18:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: A shorter section near the beginning, perhaps after or part of "Overview of the controversy" would make some sense. Seems an afterthought at the end. Gimmetrow 18:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I put the tag there. My theory is that the section was once copied verbatim from the main article. I guess its purpose was to suggest (just look at the context) that even within creationism itself there is broad diversity of beliefs, to imply "They want to teach creationism. But which creationism?" I guess merging to main article would be fine (or deleting; it seems to have been developed heavily in the main article and hardly at all here). Instead make this implicitely suggested attack explicit and base it on sources? --Rtc 00:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fault

This rather confused assertion was added to the intro.

At its root, the controversy describes a fault line running through Western epistemology. We often somewhat uncritically assume that all science (in the broadest sense the organized pursuit and gathering of observable truth) must by definition be naturalistic in its assumptions to be valid; all else is relegated to the private sphere of "values" and opinions. To exclude actual possible scientific explanations because they do not fit the unproven postulated paradigm of a naturalistic worldview creates circular reasoning (e.g. Intelligent design is not scientific) which is not especially helpful or interesting. Many naturalistic scientists treat truth and how we can know it as something a lot simpler than it really is.

Removed as POV. ..dave souza, talk 00:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's perhaps an interesting idea, but the lead-in should be a summary of the article content - not introduce new ideas the article doesn't discuss, nor make an already long lead-in longer. Gimmetrow 00:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judaism

Hello. I was told about a debate here a few months ago. Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan wrote a book on this debate. The Age of the Universe - A Torah True Perspective. None of the Gedolie Yisrael oppose him. No Jewish authority has called him a heretic. etc... gtg 144.135.252.207 10:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

So, without some kind of a download, how old is it? ..dave souza, talk 17:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I downloaded it. A 30-page boring read that ends up advocating Gap Creationism. --ScienceApologist 18:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not very civil to call someone's thesis 'boring' just becasue you don't like the subject matter--F.O.E. 04:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Huh? I know of no clause in WP:CIVIL that requires us to be civil towards absent non-Wikipedians. Kasreyn 10:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, maybe the thesis *is* boring? (Haven't read it.) Accusing someone of lieing about the boringness of a thesis out of sinister personal motives is definitely not very civil, unless you have evidence, in which case you should present it. 213.235.241.220 15:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV references

Has anyone noticed almost all of the references cited (Darwin, etc.) are hopelessly biased in favor of evolution? I'm going to find a creationist book and insert it for the sake of fairness. Does anyone object? Aaрон Кинни (t) 23:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see NPOV: Undue Weight. Experts in the conflict say that Creationism is a load of B.S. Undue weight should not be given to creationist sources. Ladlergo 14:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's not quite fair. Scientific experts say that Intelligent Design, ie., creationism trying to pretend to be science, is a load of BS. But as most origin theories are untestable and unscientific, it's not actually possible to prove anything about them, one way or the other. Creationism itself - the honest form of creationism - admits to being nothing more or less than a religious belief. For all we know a creator of the universe could exist; the point, however, is that the hypothesis is scientifically meaningless because it fails to make testable and falsifiable predictions. Scientists only have a problem with creationism when it tries to pretend it is science. Cheers, Kasreyn 17:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
While the origin of the universe is (currently? forever?) unprovable, there is evidence that supports various theories. There is no evidence for creationism.
  • The universe had a definite beginning (see Big Bang).
  • All known living things use only left-handed amino acids. (A choice was made and the choice was universal.)
  • The decay time for craters on the moon are too short for them to remain visible - which leaves very little time since the last meteoric pummeling. (This is strongly disputed with only the ASSUMED viscosity of moon rocks to be > 10^25 poise as a rebuttal.)
  • The decay time for Venus' craters (which should be universally accepted as being much shorter than the moon's) also leave too little time since the last meteoric barrage.
Folks don't agree with the evidence, but it exists. Dan Watts 21:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Makes no difference. We still don't know, and likely will never be able to learn, what (if anything) happened or existed before the Big Bang. If there was a previous universe which collapsed, we will never be able to learn anything about it as all possible information content was lost when it compressed to an infinite point. Or, if the Big Bang represents a true beginning or creation, the question of "where did that infinitely small, infinitely massive point come from in the first place?" remains unanswered. Godly intervention is one theory, but there are others. Regardless, it has nothing to do with evolution. Kasreyn 04:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the first point could be argued to have nothing to do with evolution, but the others are not so easily set aside. Dan Watts 02:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, regarding the left-handed amino acids: not necessarily. Perhaps the first replicator that arose from the so-called "primordial soup" happened to use left-handed amino acids. All life on Earth, by the theory of evolution, is descended from this initial organism. What possible competetive advantage could there be for making such a massive change as twisting the amino acids the other way? It would probably cause massive compatibility issues; it might even make it impossible to consume other organisms for nutrition. An organism that mutated from left-twisted to right-twisted would probably be unfit and die off.
Now, the argument could be made that additional creations from primordial soups could have occurred, and that these might have had rightward twists, and descendants, at least in the very very early days of life (Archaean period or so). The question is therefore, why didn't the descendants of these rightward-twisted organisms survive to modern times? I would hypothesize that the leftward-twisted organism happened to come first (flip a coin; simple as that) and its descendants were more advanced by the time rightward-twisted organisms arose from the "soup". In the sort of life-or-death struggle that nature is infamous for, the less-advanced right-twisted organisms, whose only misfortune was to have arisen second, were outperformed and natural selection would therefore have preferred the leftward-twisted organisms. A flip of the coin; not design. Assuming the "primordial soup" theory of creation is correct, the theory of evolution can explain broad similarities of life, such as the universal leftwards twist, or the carbon-based metabolism, etc.
Of course, if we were willing to make an unsupported assumption, we could say "left-twisted organisms won out because there's something about life that makes left-twisted amino acids superior to right-twisted amino acids". But that's getting beyond evolutionary logic and into biochemistry, which isn't my field. For all I know, that could be the reason - but it's not needed. I've already demonstrated how, even if left- and right-handed twists are functionally equal, one might become universal through natural selection. Assumptions about the efficacy of leftward twists aren't necessary.
I'm not sure about the Moon and Venus crater issues. I'm really not very well educated on the history of the solar system's meteoric bombardment, so I'm not competent to debate it with you. Kasreyn 04:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually the stereoisomer thing is easy - it isn't what you use, it's what you make. You'd need different enzymes to make both stereoisomers. In addition, since protein folding is a consequence of the form of the amino acid, my guess is that a different isomer would change protein function. Assuming a common ancestry for the enzymes involved in amino acid synthesis, having only one stereoisomer is the expected outcome, not "evidence for design". Guettarda 04:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you misunderstood my point. The statement was made: "There is no evidence for creationism." It is my contention that the facts mentioned are evidence for creation. That they may be disputed, or may be interpreted in some other fashion, is irrelevant to the point that they are evidence for creation. There was no mention of exclusivity, or irrefutability, or non-controversiality of the evidence. Dan Watts 13:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
If those facts are disputed by some, or they can be interpreted in some other fashion, these facts are not evidence of creation. At best, it could be said that they are interpreted by some as evidence of creation. --Ramdrake 15:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)=
I am sorry to be the one to disabuse you but, all facts are disputed by some, or can be interpreted in some other fashion. Dan Watts 18:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
No disabusing here, but there is also the matter of consensus. You could dispute that the earth is circling the sun and argue based on plain observation that the reverse is right. However, your observations would not be considered as evidence the sun circles the earth. At least, not by the vast majority of people. --Ramdrake 18:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
So now is there an added majority factor to what can be considered evidence? Must all evidence be certified by a board/panel/oligarchy/tribunal/etc? Dan Watts 20:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
A good question: the answer is Peer review. You want to claim to be science. you satisfy and use the scientific method. ...dave souza, talk 21:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
So this would suffice since they do peer review. Peers in the subject review the articles. Dan Watts 23:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
That isn't peer review at all, that's review to make sure it fits preconceived notions. If you want to keep just making standard creationist arguments take it to talk.origins or some other forum. That isn't what this page is for. JoshuaZ 01:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course! CRS peer review isn't peer review by definition. Please educate us as to what CRS peer review doesn't do to satisfy your standards. Dan Watts 01:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This isn't the place for a general discussion about creationism and evolution, so I will be brief. The CRS does is not about science but about reinforcing a pre-existing view and publishing things which support that view. Quoting from their webpage: " The CRS advocates the concept of special creation (as opposed to evolution), both of the universe and of the earth with its complexity of living forms. Membership in the Society requires agreement with the CRS Statement of Belief." JoshuaZ 01:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
And of that group, peers review the articles. Dan Watts 02:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Whereas in mainstream science, peers from all creeds and viewpoints review the articles, not just the creationist creed and not just those who have signed the same statement of belief. That's a crucial difference. --Ramdrake 02:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I was more pointing out the "Undue weight" part of WP. Ladlergo 19:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
There are creationist books listed in the references. --ScienceApologist 08:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think its interesting to see a creationist use the big bang as support for creationism. I have only previously heard it opposed as it doesn't fit with the literal bible interpretationJameskeates 15:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Venus is not young

Venus is not young. --ScienceApologist 15:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The above link assumes an initial condition for Venus that is (of course) unmeasurable (and unknowable). Dan Watts 18:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that's not true at all. The parameter fits don't require any assumptions about the initial conditions of Venus nor is this present in the article. In fact, the measurements made currently tell us information about the past history by means of simple physical models. --ScienceApologist 19:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually it is true: "Suppose Venus really were "young". Suppose it were molten only a few thousand years ago." This quote from the page to which you pointed makes the assumption that a young Venus would be molten. The page has no parameter fits. It appears to be concerned with some Velikovskian theory of planetary collisions (I believe). Dan Watts 20:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Claiming that there are "assumptions" of young and hot Venus is to show an absurd ignorance of basic physics. Young massive objects that gravitationally collapse are warmer because of energetic considerations associated with very basic physics of gravitational fields and dynamics. The only way a "young Venus" would be cold would be if it violated a few Laws of Thermodynamics when it coalesced. Unless you're claiming that a) gravity doesn't account for how Venus formed (in which case why is Venus a sphere?) or b) there was a magical fairy that can make energy disappear in violation of energy conservation. --ScienceApologist 01:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
A) To claim that Venus formed from a gravitational coalescence of primordial sub-bodies, gas and dust is an assumption (unless you know how it came into existance). B) If that isn't how it was formed, the potential energy available is an unknown (and fairies are optional). Thank you for your freely-given assessment of my physics education. Dan Watts 02:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
To claim that Venus formed from a gravitational coalescence is a theory like any other that can be tested. So far, no one has produced a test that shows this not to be the case. The evidence for Venus and indeed all planets and stars forming from gravitataional collapse is overwhelming and there hasn't been any evidence to date that contradicts this. More than that the potential energy of a body is an easily calculated integral -- easy to do mathematically. Your insistence on pseudoskepticism with regards to basic physics makes this whole enterprise a bit absurd. Claiming that the potential energy available is unknown is like claiming that modern geocentrism must be correct because if the Sun revolves around the Earth in an absolute sense than the theory of gravity that accounts for it is unknown. Using an argument from ignorance is not how science proceeds. Falsification is how it proceeds and no creationist has provided a falsification of gravitational collapse as a mechanism for planetary formation. --ScienceApologist 18:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Dan... but creationism also assumes an initial condition that is unmeasurable and unknowable... that whole "in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and moved over the waters" or whatever. All things derive from initial unmeasurable and unknowable conditions, so while you're correct, it's nothing special about Venus... Kasreyn 22:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Which brings us back to "the fitness of evidence is in the eyes of the beholder." If it is defined that there is no evidence for creation, then that is what will be concluded, and any evidence search would be in vain. Dan Watts 23:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
No one "defines" away "evidence for creation". In fact, evidence against a literal Genesis as most creation science advocates would have it has been collecting since the late eighteenth century. In fact, we're in a unique situation with creationism because there has been far more attention to their particular brand of idiocy than other pseudosciences because religion was so powerful in the Western world where science developed. Creationism is better debunked than other crackpotteries because of this. --ScienceApologist 01:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
So there must be a solid experimentally-backed set of evidence that Kumagai and Ito's measurement of granite viscosity at room temperature and niggling stress isn't what they measured it to be, or that such experimentally-determined viscosity is not germaine to the surface of the moon and Venus. Or actual measured stress/strain relationships that show that yield stress is not an assumption. Where is it? Dan Watts 02:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
As was established on your talkpage many eons ago, you haven't dealt appropriately with stress/strain relationships in terms of discontinuous boundries associated with deformation. A viscocity measurement only works to show "flow rates" if you have a fluid which granite is not. You cannot calculate a dynamical relaxation time for an object which experiences stresses that prevent it from relaxing, which is the very definition of the major issue in solid state physics. --ScienceApologist 18:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
O.K. You don't like the term viscosity. Yet, the measurements by Kumagai and Ito show a measurable strain rate as a function of a (more or less) constant stress. We can just use that value (and not call it viscosity). So how does their measurement avoid being germaine to earth rebound (fennoscandia), and lunar and Venusian crater relaxation? (And how do you know that granite does not flow? It appears to be a mater of timescale as much as anything else.)Dan Watts 20:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
You cannot model a solid as a liquid and expect to get meaningful results. Measuring a stress-strain relationship is fine for looking at local and fast response mechanisms in rocks but it doesn't state anything about relaxation times in other time and space scales. --ScienceApologist 21:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you will not allow me to do so. Others have not been so constrained.
  • Viscosity used to calculate surface flow - a few examples
1)Introduction to Theoretical Geophysics, Charles Officer, 1974, Springer Velag, pp 369-370 uses viscosity to calculate the rebound time for postglacial uplift in fennoscandia.
2) Jafar Arkani-Hamed calculates viscosity associated with mascon viscous deformation (not that I agree with his assumptions) in Lunar Mascons Revisited, JGR Planets, 1997, Vol. 103, No. E2, p. 3709.
3) R. Meissner, in Lunar Viscosity as Obtained from the Selenotherms, The Moon, 12 (1975), pp.179-191 calculated viscosity in order to determine strain rate.
4) J. Hall and S. Solomon in Lunar Floor-Fractured Craters: Evidence for Viscous Relaxation of Crater Topography, Lunar and Planetary Institute, 1981, pp. 389-391 study relaxation times relative to lunar surface viscosity.
  • Rock Flow in general
1) Flow and Fracture of Rocks, Geophysical Monograph 16, American Geophysical Union, 1972.
2) In Experimental Rock Deformation Techniques by Terry and Jan Tullis (sorry, I don't have more reference information on this) state:
"In nature, rocks may be deformed at temperatures ranging from -30o C up to their melting temperature.... Most ductile deformation of rocks takes place in the earth at much slower rates than are practical for laboratory study, and because ductility is enhanced by slower strain rates, this poses a problem ...." (emphaisi added)
3) T. Tan and W. Kang in Locked in Stresses, Creep and Dilatancy of Rocks, and Constitutive Equations, (Rock Mechanics, 13 (1980), pp. 5-22, after studying tunnels cut in granite, state:
"These results show that hard[,] sound rocks must be regarded as elasto visco plastic materials which will relieve a part of its (sic) internal stress energy...." (Emphasis added)
  • Yield Stress
David Griggs in Experimental Flow of Rocks, Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, Vol. 51, pp. 1002-1022 could only extrapolate a yield stress from his measurements, and stated:
"If we accept...that strength is exceeded when permanent set occurs, then we see that the limit of strength is set by the limit of our measuring equipment and by our definition of flow. For example, in the Solenhofen limestone creep test, it will take several years to determine whether the flow at 1400 kg/cm2 is ... permanent ... or reversible ...." (emphasis added)
And he was correct. Kumagai and Ito conducted room-temperature, low-stress measurements on granite for 10-30 years in duration.
Dan Watts 17:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Now be fair, what about the Intelligent Falling factor? ...dave souza, talk 19:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you two take it somewhere else? This is getting out of hand for a wikipedia talk page. Kasreyn 21:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

T's okay. Dan completely missed the point about timescales in my last comment anyway. Cheerio. --ScienceApologist 21:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/e/Talk%7ECreation-evolution_controversy_archive_12_266b.html"