Talk:Creation-evolution controversy/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 'most prvalent in the United States'?

"The debate is most prevalent and visible in certain regions of the United States"

There is no citation or backing for this statement what so ever. I can assure you, it is an issue of just as much contention in countries such as Turkey (which is caught between European secularism and Middle Eastern Islamic traditions). This statement is not only ungrounded, but enormously Americanocentric, and thus arrogant. Please change it.

-Jackmont, Dec 7, 2006

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.207.75.142 (talk) 09:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm not sure a statement that refers to much of the US as backwards and ignorant can really claim to be arrogant from the US perspective, just the opposite! Still, the statement does need some improvement. --Suttkus 14:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
If might be more accurate to say "In the Western world" or "In historically Christian countries" or something like that. Possible citations become [1] and Evolution vs. Creationism:An Introduction (Eugenie Scott's book) which discuss how for Western countries is almost exclusively a US thing among developed nations (I don't have the book available at the moment- can someone else track it down?). JoshuaZ 16:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that. We really need some sources about the differences between the US and the rest of the "western world". Although we cannot use them as sources, interesting info comes from fr.wikipedia.org, de.wikipedia.org and nl.wikipedia.org (the ones I can read). They state that the proportion of creationist Christians in Europe is much smaller than that in the US. The American type of creationism is on the rise, but its role is marginal when it comes to the issues described in this article (such as teaching evolution or media attention). Also note that in many European countries the Roman Catholic church is the prevalent (if not virtually only) Christian denomination, and opposition to evolution etc. died down when the church adopted its current position. (Europe is not understood to include Turkey in this context and it is quite possible that this debate/controversy is also very prevalent there. Another country that comes to mind is South-Korea.) AvB ÷ talk 19:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
JoshuaZ, on rereading it dawned on me what you meant. Struck out part. AvB ÷ talk 20:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where to find more archives

  • For full discussions prior to October 29, 2004, see Talk:Creationism and archives.

Various temp articles:

  • An attempt from February 2005
  • It's associated talkpage

[edit] Re-Listing GA

Though I seldom participate here, I totally disagree with the removal of this article from the GA list. By any reasonable reading of the GA criteria this article is a strong 'meets,' an admirable feat for any article on such a contentious subject and a constant POV and troll magnet. It has had GA status for some time, and the The justifications for removal here seem weak, based on several individual's poor understanding of the topic and an unreasonable application of the GA criteria. I'll be restoring GA status until more community input from reasonable and credible contributors is seen. FeloniousMonk 16:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with FeloniousMonk. The above objections used to delist this article are very minor points, most often focusing on one word. For such a highly charged topic, this article is surprisingly good and stable. I do agree that this article still needs improvement in many areas (ie: it's not a FA article), but it defiantly is GA.--Roland Deschain 16:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Apparently "any editor can de-list an article. It's part of the unbeaucratic nature of the program. Which means that either (a) the GA system is broken, or (b) GA status is meaningless (since GAs should decay exponentially). Better to get it listed as "A Class" by the appropriate WikiProject. Guettarda 17:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Also note that for articles of this link, GA standards strive to be very close to FA. See the miniscule difference between WP:WIAFA and WP:WIAGA. The difference comes in the eyes of one reviewer at a time versus the eyes of several at once on the FA review. So an article that is far from FA is one that is far from GA as well.Agne 19:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, the review page is really supposed to give a final say concerning delisting an article or not delisting, its worked so far :/. Homestarmy 21:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly be interested in being referred to the original consensus or decree that requires only one "reviewer" to de-list an article from GA status. On a controversial topic such as this, it seems to me if flaws have developed since the original compromises and methods worked out among the participants, it would be perhaps preferable to simply advise on the article's talk page and allow time to refute or correct alleged deviations from the basic criteria for GA's. ... Kenosis 22:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Agne, your argument is specious and merely meant to back up your own faux pas. On the other hand, Guettarda has a point -- perhaps, given that any editor, whether using valid or questionable arguments, may delist a GA, should we really care whether an article received the GA seal of approval? Isn't it in essence meaningless?
Homes, this is a clear example of the system not working. The reasons listed by Agne for delisting the article were, as Roland pointed out, very minor and easily fixed. In fact, it seems that Agne has a penchant for tearing down articles (most notably physics article that she does not comprehend [2]) given the GA seal of approval, or at least being considered for such. Rather sad really... •Jim62sch• 22:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
PS, Kenosis raises some rather good points that should be heeded. •Jim62sch• 22:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not just work on it and push it towards FA? All it really needs is a citing up. A few books by Dawkins and Gould would be plenty enough to get all remaining cites. Adam Cuerden talk 15:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of Evidence - Lack of Tenable Position

Does it bother anyone that just about every theory of organic macro-evolution that has been put forward, modern or otherwise can be easily disproved based on either (a) logical fallacies or (b) factual inaccuracies?

Just wondering, Daeg Star

1) Please do not create two subsections for one comment. It's a bit confusing for the other editors.
2)I'd suggest you read up on the matter before coming up with such a demonstrably incorrect statement as the one you added.--Ramdrake 18:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Daeg Star, please provide these logical fallacies and factual inaccuracies. You can't just make such a bold statement and then leave it unsupported; that is not how Wikipedia works.--Roland Deschain 21:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the greatest logical fallacies, as Daeg calls them, would be the development of the frog. (see http://www.rae.org/revev5.html), scroll down to the part about the frog.

Another would be blood vessels. Spontaneously, an organism's DNA could not assemble veins, arteries, blood cells, the ability to get oxygen from blood cells, etc. [all totaling about 30 things] in one generation. It would have to develop all of them in one generation because, one, or even ten, without all the others would be utterly useless. The organism would not survive even with only a few of them. Also, why would it go about developing all these things if they were not required for survival? Thescaryworker 23:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

We're here to edit an encyclopedia, not to endlessly debate the finer points of evolutionary biology. I suggest you take your query to talk.origins, where I'm sure someone will oblige you. --Michael Johnson 23:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Briefly, though, on the blood vessel thing: haemocoel. All of them are NOT needed at once, as several animals easily show. A haemocoel lets you move away from Platyhelmith flatness. Simple pumps churn the haemocoel, increasing its effectiveness. Vessels increase it more. Etc, etc. Adam Cuerden talk 00:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The idea that there are irreducibly complex structures is a myth. All of the structures that has been put forward by creationists as too complex to have evolved has been proven not to have been too complex at all. In fact, they have often proven to have been easily developed. Yes, even the bacteria flangelum. It's sad that creationists still use this argument... /PutBoy

[edit] Weasel Words Abound

Amusingly, perhaps, this article has tonnes of weasel wording.

In any article on theories of mental levitation, tabletop cold fusion, the queen of England being a reptile, alternate HIV transmission theories, Dogon astronomy, and so on and so forth, the article come right out and blatantly calls the idea pseudoscience.

In a case where a vast number of people are clinging to a literal interpretation of mythology and grasping at every straw possible to 'prove' that their myth's account of the genesis of the universe is somehow scientifically accurate and consistently perpetuating fraud and hoaxes, people weasel around and say things like 'some consider it pseudoscience'.

This is what I'm starting to hate about Wikipedia. This kind of nonsense, combined with the [citation needed] tags making it impossible to read a single sentence without encountering the tag thrice and being used obviously to inject POV to an article by claiming the apparent is suspect -- this site is no longer what it once was.

If creationism is so convinced that evolution is wrong (despite the existence of Chihuahuas and Pugs -- selective breeding IS evolution, where man is the specific environmental factor contributing to selection in such case), then it needs to answer one simple question:

Why is it just the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic creation myth that is supported in converse?

Why not Norse, Celtic, Chinese, Mesoamerican or African primitive myths?

I think this simple factor right there is enough to call their crap hand. I don't even see why the whole thing is a discussion.67.169.63.116 22:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point on the bottom, but some people think their religion is the best and everyone else is screwed. Personally, I believe that no religion is right or wrong, or that anyone is condemned for what they do. --24.22.212.250 04:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

These claims are not taken seriously by some of the scientific community, where the evidence for evolution is considered to be overwhelming in quality and amount.

The bold words being the added ones, of course. Here's why I think these are wrong:

First off, that's bad English: The correct phrase is "some members of the scientific community". However, that phrasing implies that large numbers, even a majority of people in the community, do not hold the views that it goes on to discuss.

This is, of course, wrong.

There are ways to phrase it that may be slightly more accurate, however: "These claims are overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community, as the evidence for evolution is considered overwhelming in quality and amount." - though it uses "overwhelming" twice - accurately reflects reality whilst rendering the objection null.

Any suggestions as to how to get rid of the two overwhelmings, though? Adam Cuerden talk 23:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Replace the second overwhelming with "conclusive" perhaps? JoshuaZ 00:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
"conclusive in quality and amount"? DDoesn't quite work, sand just saying they see the evidence is conclusive isn't saying much. Probably better to re-write the second half, but I'm going to sleep now as I don't seem able to end sentences.Adam Cuerden talk 00:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Guys, sorry I started this, but technically while if we talk about scientists we do need to add the qualifier "the (insert superlative here) majority of scientists", if we're talking about the scientific community as a body, we merely need general consensus, not complete unanimity to say "the scientific community rejects...". As an analogy, if a worker's union agrees to a labor agreement, it only means the majority of voters were in favor. It certainly doesn't mean every single voter was in favor (in which case no labor agreement would hardly ever get passed). Just a suggeston, think about it. That would mean the original wording, without the two "overwhelming"s was correct. I'm not thinking straight at this hour either, so I'll let others decide.--Ramdrake 00:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought that too, but figured if it could be revised to lose the minor controversy, it wouldn't hurt. Adam Cuerden talk 07:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Overwhelming in the first usage is fine as it just happens to be true. The second is true too, so, just drop the comma after community and the second usage will support the first very emphatically. •Jim62sch•

Before one makes the statement that only parts of the scientific community believes in evolution, one must make it really clear that it's a false statement. There is no scientist who holds creationism to be true. At least no scientist who has a Ph.D. in biology, or close sciences, and who didn't get the diploma from a known diploma mill (read Kent Hovind, and others). There is no controversy among scientists about the accuracy of evolution. Consider that the theory is pretty much the same as it was when Darwin first formulated it, and add to that that millions of new data has come up since. No, the only right way to write that sentence is: 'These claims are not taken seriously by the scientific community, where the evidence for evolution is considered to be overwhelming in quality and amount.' talk

[edit] Catholics are not Christians???

Some editor has added in their edit summary that under some deinitions "catholics are not Christians". I must say that, as a Catholic and a Christian, especially considering Catholics form the majority of Christians, this is somewhat offensive. You may go ahead and say I'm overreacting, but for a Catholic to be told he's not a Christian is offensive, at least as far as the people I know are concerned.--Ramdrake 03:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw that too, and was staring at it oddly. I had heard it before (my mother's an ex-Catholic Fundamentalist, and I was a voracious reader when young), but never really thought I'd see it again. Adam Cuerden talk 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Mind ye, I suppose the description of the Pope as Catholic is accurate enough, but the logic for the change.... Adam Cuerden talk 07:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Speaking as a non-theist (in other words, no axe to grind in the issue), catholics are most definitely Christians. I too have heard this claim before, but the logic of the claim escapes me. •Jim62sch• 11:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The criticism comes from bad feelings left over by the Reformation as well as the Anti-Catholicism movements in the Protestant countries including the United States. Such luminaries as Jack Chick still maintain these now somewhat antiquated beliefs such as the Pope being the antichrist. If Wikipedia had been written just 50 years ago, such advocates would have been in far greater numbers than they are today. --ScienceApologist 15:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't take it the wrong way, I still find it's offensive. AFAIK, what separates any denomination from any other within Christianity is some difference (sometimes minute) in their beliefs and/or rites. If we were to say that Christians should have a single, monolithic set of beliefs and rites, then every denomination could claim they are the ones and only Christians and that all other denominations are not really Christians. Oh, wait, some already do that! ;)--Ramdrake 16:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I know at least one creationist who argues that the Pope is "effectively an atheist". Arguments that anyone who accepts evolution can't actually be Christian are common as dirt online. The "by some definitions" argument is laughable. By some definitions, only Catholics are Christian. In fact, that's why they call themselves Catholics (catholic meaning true, in other words, the true church). --Suttkus 14:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Catholic means "universal" not "true", but point taken. --ScienceApologist 12:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems you are correct. I wonder where I picked up that error. I hate being wrong! --Suttkus 13:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Catholic doctrine says that only Catholics are Christian, so isn't this a case of the Catholic calling the Protestant Black! J. D. Hunt 04:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have encountered this over and over. Many sects want to deny that the other sect of the same religion is valid. So they brand them as blasphemers or idolators or infidels or atheists etc. Islam clearly does this quite a bit as well; look at the tensions between the Sunnis and the Shiites and the Sufis and even among the subsects such as Alewites etc. However, when it suits them, like to declare how many people belong to their religion, they will then gladly include the blasphemous sect in to bolster the numbers !--Filll 04:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientist vs. Evolutionist

I have read this article in its entirety, and have a few problems with it. It says, or at least, implies (commonly) that creationists are against scientists, and ergo, science. This is not the case, as many scientists are creationists, and many are evolutionists. I think it would make more sense (and cling to the title of the article [Creation-Evolution contreversy] if the word scientist was changed to evolutionist (at least in parts debating creationism). This should be changed because there are many scientists who support creationism because of scientific proof, and others support evolution for the same reasons. We are not debating creation vs. science, we are debating creation vs. evolution.

I read in an interesting article recently that anything is a religion if it answers these questions:

1. Where did I come from? (as in, our race)

2. Why am I here? (What is the point of my existence?)

3. What happens to me (soul/spirit/etc) when I die?

4. How did everything get here? (the universe)


If you think for a while about it, both creationism and evolution answer these questions.

Creationism:

1. God made me.

2. I am here to worship my god, I need to convert others to my religion.

3. I go to heaven/hell.

4. God created everything.


Evolutionism:

1. I was formed through chance of protiens mixing in with eachother, forming the first cell, which evolved to become me.

2. I am here to do what I feel like.

3. I simply cease to exist. I am gone forever.

4. The universe began as a condensed piece of matter, that exploded, forming everyhting over billions of years.


I can only conclude that both are religions. If one would argue that a religion requires a god, the god of evolutionists would be chance, considering, we are very lucky to have evolved. Thescaryworker 22:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC) 22:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No. See Creation-evolution_controversy#Science_as_religion. In particular:
Creationists and their supporters often use derisive neologisms such as evolutionism and Darwinism to refer to the modern theory of evolution, and evolutionists and Darwinists to those who accept it. Many opponents to creationism object to such terms as inaccurate and misleading. In particular, the -ist/-ists/-ism suffixes are claimed to evoke similarity to religious or philosophical rather than scientific ideas (e.g. creationist, fundamentalist, Calvinist, Communist). It is claimed that in the case of evolutionism the label implies that evolution is just another religious belief system without empirical support, while in the case of Darwinism, the implication is that modern evolutionary theory is the static work of just one individual, Charles Darwin, as though he were not a scientist but rather the founder of a religious sect.
I hope that clears up your confusion. Raul654 21:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, in a related note, your claim that many scientists are creationists is ridiculous. Raul654 21:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
What about scientist. Does that mean the word scientist has a religious or philosophical conotation?
"the -ist/-ists/-ism suffixes are claimed to evoke similarity to religious or philosophical rather than scientific ideas (e.g. creationist, fundamentalist, Calvinist, Communist)."--64.131.13.176 23:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You did not answer the question. Thescaryworker 22:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of responding to one unsubnstantiated comment with another - yes, I do believe I have. Raul654 21:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
You would first have to establish that "many scientists are creationists". This is not supported by published peer reviewed articles, where there is a complete abscence of articles with a creationist conclusion. As for your set of questions, these are questions for philosophy, and science does not set out to answer them. Science observes the natural world, then tries and draw conclusions from these observations. As far as I can tell, creationism starts with a conclusion, then tries to fit the facts to suit the conclusion. --Michael Johnson 21:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Also, just as a side note to User:Thescaryworker the questions he or she pretends evolution tries to answer as if it were a religion are absolutely not from the resort of evolution : Why am I here? (What is the point of my existence?), What happens to me (soul/spirit/etc) when I die?, How did everything get here? (the universe). Only one question is even partially of the resort of evolution: Where did I come from? (as in, our race) and even then only inasmuch as we mean the origin of species, and not the ultimate cause of the universe. So, to me the comparison is faulty, even baseless to start with.--Ramdrake 21:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am NOT debating creationism, just that there are scientists who belive creationism.

Here:

www.icr.org

and a list, if you really don't believe me.

1. Alexander Arndt

2. Steven A. Austin

3. Thomas G. Barnes

4. Arthur V. Chadwick

5. Melvin Alonzo Cook

6. Donald B. DeYoung

7. Danny R. Faulkner

8. Robert V. Gentry

9. Duane T. Gish

10. John Grebe

11. George F. Howe

12. D. Russell Humphreys

13. John W. Klotz

14. Leonid Korochkin

15. Lane P. Lester

16. Frank L. Marsh

17. Gary E. Parker

18. Charles B. Thaxton

19. Larry Vardiman

20. A.E. Wilder-Smith

Thescaryworker 22:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Scientists are expected to keep open minds, to let the evidence lead them to a conclusion. However, everyone at the ICR (and AIG and every other creationist organization I know of) must sign an oath swearing to support the official explanation as expounded by the leader of that organization. This practice is entirely anti-science. Since they are forbidden to use the scientific method (which requires the option to recognize you are wrong), nobody working at the ICR can be a scientist. Ergo, you haven't listed a single scientist who supports creationism. It's further worth noting that almost no-one on your list makes any pretense of being a biological scientist. (Gish is the only exception I can spot right off.) Why should we care whether hydraulic engineers and the like think of evolution? Do you ask your plumber for medical advice? --Suttkus 19:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but where are their peer reviewed articles? And what about the hundreds of thousands of biologists not mentioned above? --Michael Johnson 22:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it practical to list hundreds of thousands of people here? Or to research them? Thescaryworker 22:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

(Peer reviewed articles [3]. I don't know nothing about biologists. ) Dan Watts 22:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Cobbling together a bunch of people who already agree with you does not make a peer review. Sophia 22:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The rejection of the referenced paper review is a No True Scientist argument. Dan Watts 01:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The full phrase is antagonistic peer review. The peer review has to be with an aim to shredding the papers. Creationists lost all hope of being able to claim antagonistic peer review when they published Setterfield's Tired Light paper including all of it's blatant math errors. --Suttkus 19:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Now you don't like peers doing review. Some people are never satisfied. Dan Watts 22:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. What is the saying that you are known by the company you keep? A scientific paper that truely turned evolution on it's head and "proved" creationism would be worthy of a place in Nature, and the author a Nobel Prize. --Michael Johnson 01:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
And some have no clue how the scientific community functions. Sophia 22:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Amen to that! Dan Watts 22:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Q.E.D. Sophia 22:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think peer review should only be done by peers. And, to this end, have asked all barons and higher on Wikipedia to review our article. Adam Cuerden talk 23:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review is transcluded below

[edit] Creation-evolution controversy

Plan is to get this up to FA: It's a controversial article, but I've always been impressed at how well it's done. All suggestions welcome, though please don't just shout about howwe're all going to Hell. It tends to offend. Adam Cuerden talk 23:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 00:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, an intresting read. Although I think it in a way its a little one sided. Reading it, it seemed to leave out scientific arguements against creationism, rather talk about what creationists challenge in evolution. In another note, I also not too fond of the History section full of bulletins. I would go as far as suggest it being removed. - Tutmosis 23:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
It's an awkward article in some ways: It has to maintain a balance whilst making clear Creationism isn't scientific. This isn't easy to balance, and I think it manages quite well in a difficult situation. Could possibly stand to be a little stronger, though. Adam Cuerden talk 00:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
We'll I'm not saying the article is bad, don't get me wrong. Its just was a random comment about a small impression I got. Article definetely doesn't violate Neutral Point of View. My main concern is the bullet "History" section which looks akward and out of place. I wish to see it become prose and maybe even merged with "Ramifications of the controversy". What do you think? - Tutmosis 01:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
This article gives as more respect to creationists then they deserve. Any more skewing would misrepresent the actual facts.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.54.207 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 24 November 2006

True... it HAS undergone a certain drift in the wrong direction since I first found it. I shall try and redress this. Adam Cuerden talk 18:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help assist bringing this article up to FA status, it looks like an interesting project. I want to thoroughly review both article and talkpage, as well as the Review (so far I've just skimmed them). --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 01:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Evolution does not attempt to answer those questions in any way. It only tells us how we evolved. That's it! Evolutionism has nothing to do with the creation of the universe, not even how life started. PutBoy

Thescaryworker, I think your claim that "many scientists are creationists" is unreasonable in that you are going beyond any reasonable definition of "many". According to a study referenced by Newsweek magazine there are approximately 480,000 earth and life scientists in the US and only about 700 who give any credence to creation science. 700 out of 480,000 is less than 0.15%. A miniscule fraction of one percent is not "many". I would hesitate to even even call it "some". At best it is "a few" and more reasonably it is "a small handful". Here on the talk page I can joyfully forget NPOV issues and freely state that the common term for "a scientist who is considered NON-CREDIBLE by 99.85% of others in his field" is "CRACKPOT".

Secondly, for your "four questions" you provide *your* assertions about evolution answering them. In the Western World, the majority of people who accept evolution are Christians. Globally, the majority of Christians accept evolution. They personally believe those four questions have the same true answers as you suggest creationism answers them... they would simply expand on answer 1 in that they believe evolution was chosen God's mechanism for creating us... just as they believe optics are God's chosen mechanism for creating rainbows. Evolution itself provides no answers to any of those questions. One of the most common reasons anti-evolutionists fall down is attempting arguments built on the false assumption that evolution==atheism. Alsee 03:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

I have noticed that almost all of the other articles that mention biological evolution show it as fact, while this article shows both as evenly-competing "theories". So either science is a neutral point of view and we change this article, or evolution is a non-neutral point of view and we rewrite the whole encyclopedia. I don't mean this in the exact sense, so don't nitpick. I am just saying. If you're smart, you'll get my point. -DeadGuy

There is a difference between the two types of article. Most articles on evolution are on the science of the subject. This article is on a sociological phenomenon, that is a conflict between science and a religious dogma. So of course the approach will be different. However if you think the article can be improved, you are welcome to try. --Michael Johnson 00:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
This article makes it quite clear that evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains that fact. See here for how this article explains this. As Michael Johnson pointed out, this article does not heavily deal with the scientific side of evolution (where it is a fact explained by the theory of evolution (a.k.a the Modern evolutionary synthesis). To answer your quandary: biological evolution is a fact. This article says so and all other biological articles should say so (if they don't tell me, I'll add it in there with more than enough citations). This simple point gets buried in this article because most criticism of evolution does not deal with evolution, but rather with the theory that explains those facts (confusingly named the theory of evolution). I don't think I'm doing too good a job of explaining this so here is a clear cut example of evolution and the theory of evolution. That humans evolved from ape like ancestors is a fact. The theory of evolution explains this fact. Also keep in mind that when I say fact, I don't mean 100% certainty (no such thing exists for any human discipline). A much more elaborate explanation of what I summarized here can be found at TalkOrigins--Roland Deschain 01:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Understood, thanks for clarifying. I'm a theistic evolutionist anyway, so I agree. It just seemed confusing.-DeadGuy

[edit] What's the deal

Creationists don't dispute all science; they dispute the evolutionist interpretation of the facts.

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article. It doesn't say discuss first, it says discuss if ther is a disagreement. Reverts shouldn't be done either without discussion. J. D. Hunt 03:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please be reasonable. You make a huge assertion with no supporting citations at all. Especially is an article that is up for peer review, such huge assertions cannot be made that easily (in new article it is much easier). Support your assertions here first so that a consensus is reached. It is really hard to agree or disagree with you as your position is so vague. What facts can be reinterpreted to lead to what kind of different conclusions.--Roland Deschain 04:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
While I did not perform the last revert, that was just from not getting to it first. Most creationists do indeed ignore overwhelming scientific evidence if it does not fit with creationism. Selectively picking a few things and interpreting them wildly out of context is not any form of scientific observation. That's not to say it's a bad or invalid belief, nor is it to knock those who believe it, but it is inherently faith-based and therefore unscientific. Seraphimblade 04:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
double team to avoid the three revert rule huh

Creationist don't dispute all facts regaurding the age of the earth; just the interpretation of many of the facts. They do dispute the validity of some facts. This article makes it appear as if they refute science as a whole.

If you can cite a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal that agrees with their interpretation, that would meet WP:V. Else, it's just a belief-a notable one which certainly deserves an article, but a faith-based, not scientific, belief nonetheless. Seraphimblade 04:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
This isn't about rather a majority accepts it; throughout history the correct minority view has been considered psudo-science until proven, sometimes centuries later by the majority. J. D. Hunt 04:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Having multiple editors disagree with you is not "double teaming" in fact that is one point of WP:3RR so that if many editors agree on something a lone editor can't be very disruptive. Now, do you have a wording that you think reflects that they accept some science? Also, please sign your comments. You can do so by putting four tildes in a row ~~~~ and it will replace them with the time and your user name. JoshuaZ 04:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I know I forget the tildes J. D. Hunt 04:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

They do have scientific beliefs based on the facts they have observed, so I think this would work: 'who hold origin beliefs, based on religious and scientific views,".J. D. Hunt 04:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"a view that regards scientific explanations of origins as antithetical to creation theology, and often, more specifically, Creation according to Genesis." should read ' a view that regards evolutionist scientific explanations of origins as antithetical to creation theology, and often, more specifically, Creation according to Genesis. , because they don't disagree with all scientific fact, only what they deem to be so-called facts or misinterprentation of the facts.J. D. Hunt 04:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as evolutionist scientific explanations. Evolution science agrees with biology, physics, chemistry, genetics, biochemistry, geology, astronomy, cosmology, immunology. Stop trying to divide science between evolution and everything else.--Roland Deschain 04:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
but there is an evolutionist point of view that interprets the facts a certain way. Just like each persons world view colors his interpretation of all things. Quit insisting evolutionists have no bias when interpreting the meaning of the factual findings. J. D. Hunt 04:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The evolutionist point of view is the scientific point of view: they are synonymous. I will agree with you fully that the scientific point of view is deeply different than the religious point of view. I think the article shows this quite clearly. But your attempts to somehow imply that evolution is a different type of science is unfounded and very misleading.--Roland Deschain 04:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
to claim that there is no bias or interpretation in some of the findings by evolutionists in science is self-righteous. So there are no mistakes, no false findings that's impossible! Unless the scientific community are perfect. You sound like the catholic church sounded to Galilao J. D. Hunt 04:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Please stop, J. D. Hunt. For the third time: provide us with verifiable information to work with. There's nothing more for any editor to say to you. If you want something to change in this article, you must provide verifiable information. This is the third time I say this to you and I'm pretty sure you are again gonna ignore me and continue preaching pointlessly until this section is moved to your personal page and you will be given a reason for self-righteous anger.--Roland Deschain 05:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Your tactics silence me so others can't read the debate. I'll put it back as long as I have to. Here's to academic freedom!J. D. Hunt 05:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course people have biases, that doesn't make them relevant in this case, and the claim that people are somehow intepreting things from pre-conceived notions is not always accurate. Creationists like to claim this because they are using a massive set of preconceived notions, generally complete literal accuracy of the Bible. In contrast, science starts with few assumptions (generally not much more than replicability of phenomena). This is related to how in 1800 almost all scientists were creationists. By 1900 almost none were- why? It wasn't a change in the "preconceived notions" so much as the fact that they actually changed there views based on new evidence. The people who didn't change their views despite the evidence gave us the modern creationists we have today. JoshuaZ 04:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That isn't accurate. The views are only based on religion for most creationists. See for example Ken Ham- "Boys and girls," Ham said. If a teacher so much as mentions evolution, or the Big Bang, or an era when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, "you put your hand up and you say, 'Excuse me, were you there?' Can you remember that?" The children roared their assent. "Sometimes people will answer, 'No, but you weren't there either,' " Ham told them. "Then you say, 'No, I wasn't, but I know someone who was, and I have his book about the history of the world.' " He waved his Bible in the air. "Who's the only one who's always been there?" Ham asked. "God!" the boys and girls shouted. "Who's the only one who knows everything?" "God!" "So who should you always trust, God or the scientists?" The children answered with a thundering: "God!" (source given on his page). Similarly he says to ""always trust God" over science when confronted with teachings that contradict what is recorded in the Bible" The vast majority of proponents of creationism become creationists after they have converted to some religion which espouses it. No one becomes a creationist due to the "evidence". Ham and others have stated on many occasions that any evidence which contradicts the Bible must be a priori wrong.

Your second point about "evolutionist" is simply POV- no one but creationists even claim there is such a think as "evolutionist" scientific explanations. JoshuaZ 04:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I continue to disagree with JDHunt-while creationists claim to have scientific evidence, it is accepted by the vast majority of scientists to be warped, twisted, and selectively culled and interpreted. Science is an objective and unbiased look at all evidence, not an attempt to make the evidence "fit the theory." Once again, claims of an assertion's scientific nature should be backed up by respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal sources-and those sources do not back the assertion that creationism is scientific. Creationism is a faith-based, nonscientific belief. That's not a slam on it, it's just what it is. Seraphimblade 04:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe evolutionists "attempt to make the evidence "fit the theory." all the time. Admit it its natural. I guess only creationists would be capable of doing that. J. D. Hunt 04:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Projection pure and simple. There is nothing wrong when you have a tremendous amount of evidence for some model of interpreting things in terms of that model. That's very different than shoehorning things to fit a religious agenda. JoshuaZ 04:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
There are many scientists who have a body of work supporting young earth theory. If I were to mention them to you would would just scoff, because you have alredy written them off as Psuedo-scientists. I doubt most of you have truely read their work, as I am atempting to do with a science I believe to be Psuedo-science (evolution). I don't dispute all the facts, just some of the interpretations. J. D. Hunt 04:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, this seems to contradict what you said here. While your personal views aren't very relevant, it is going to be difficult to talk with you if you aren't being truthful. And yes we would write them off because they are a tiny tiny fraction of scientists and almost none of them have any relevancy to the fields in question. In contrast, see for example, Project Steve. JoshuaZ 05:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's very hard to get anywhere with J. D. Hunt as he does not give concrete information. What facts does religion interpret differently (and how do they justify this) and how does this interpretation lead to different conclusion from that of science. This article already discusses many of these disagreements about facts (ex: dinosaurs living before or with humans). So J. D. Hunt, start giving us more concrete information to work with.--Roland Deschain 04:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


I'm not trying to argue the validity of creation science here! I know you guys have read the scientific works of creation scientists and their theories or you are not very good scientists. I'm trying to get you to admit that creationists don't rely on the bible alone. Someone quoted Ken Ham. personally he believes that its not true science if it disagrees with the Bible. Personally you guys won't believe anything that goes against your belief in the evolutionary therios that men have come up with to explain scientific findings J. D. Hunt 04:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

So provide the information for the editors to work with. It goes back to my above comment: give us verifiable information. This article already discusses many creationist claims and the response from the scientific community. If we are missing any claims (any science done that support the creationist theory of X) give us the relevant information with pertinent citations. I think the editors are being more than reasonable: give us the information and we'll go from there.--Roland Deschain 04:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
In the past I have given names of scientist and theories and was laughed at by you and others. Why don't you go prove me wrong by showing me real evidence that creationists don't conduct scientific bodies of work to support their claims. J. D. Hunt 05:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC) P.S.-since you seem to know it all
Why not have this article discuss the many creationist scientific claims and the response from the evoluntionist scientific community, as well as, discuss the many evolutionist scientific claims and the responses from the creationist scientific community. J. D. Hunt 05:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Because this isn't a general debating forum. This article is about presenting the basic issues in a WP:NPOV fashion which the article does. JoshuaZ 05:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is not presenting the topic in a neutral way that is my point J. D. Hunt 05:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
You are funny. Why do you insist on trying to divide science into evolutionist and all other sciences. All science is internally consistent. Evolution was in problematic until physics, chemistry, geoglogy, astronomy, and cosmology showed that the time frame was right for it to happen. Then came genetics, biochemistry, immunology to put the final touches of internal consistency. I find it laughable that again and again you repeat your baseless assertions when only a couple of paragraphs above those assertions have been shown lacking.--Roland Deschain 05:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


But enough is enough, I vote for this section to be moved to J. D. Hunt homepage as he uses this section for the sole purpose of preaching with no apparent indication to abide by Wikipedia rules for discussing an article. He has done this on the Evolution page as well (where the discussion was a little more constructive).--Roland Deschain 05:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not preaching I'm not Christian, I'm a Diest. I am just saying that creationist have scientific theories based on observable fact! J. D. Hunt 05:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

your the one preaching. you say evolution is irrefutable. that's dogma

Let's all be civil please :). J.D. Hunt, while I understand your position, the evidence and the consensus is to leave the article alone. Seraphimblade 05:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Seraphimblade I'll listen to you. I'll quit for now, but this article is factually incorrect and makes creationists look like they oppose science. And I know that everybody here knows that is not true. But it will be changed to refelct a more accurate and fair portrayal for all sides! J. D. Hunt 05:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

JD, no one is saying that evolution is irrefutable. If for example, we found (to use the canonical example) rabbits in pre-cambrian rock that would be strong evidence against evolution. Or if we found that mice were closer genetically to humans than to rats. I can give you many other examples. But none of them occur. Finally, given your edit history and inconsistent claims above I find your claim that you are a deist hard to believe. Possibly that word does not mean what you think it means. In any event, this is fast becoming a discussion about evolution v. creationism and not a discussion about how to improve the article. JoshuaZ 05:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to improve the article by making the claims about creationists more refelective about what they do, but all these other folks are trying to turn it into a evolution vs. creationism debate. Creationists use science you just don't like their findings. J. D. Hunt 05:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary (1952) includes in the definition of Deist: "One who believes in God but denies supernatural revelation." I do slightly differ from that strict definition. Where as I believe that God speaks to us through various forms: Nature, Science, Individuals, writings of many kinds, some of which could be the bible. If there are places where the Bible and Science agree then they might both be the truth about God's Creation. If you write an article about 'anything it could be a revalation from God. I guess I'm a reverse diest, I belive in revalation but it could come from anywhere, posibly even the torah. J. D. Hunt 06:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
That's not true aboute it not being irrefutable read Roland Deschain's comments
Point me to where Roland said that. JoshuaZ 05:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if he used those words verbatim, but read evey comment from him above.
For my part, I agree with JoshuaZ-the arguments aren't irrefutable, but they also aren't refuted. When a significant number of scientists advance and advocate this theory, and it accrues empiric evidence, it can be referred to as scientific. Until then, it's a religious belief-just as the article correctly says. Science isn't about picking and choosing, that gravity is fine but evolution is bad. It's an unbiased look at the facts in order to paint an unbiased picture of the outcome. Seraphimblade 06:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's an article where creationist have scientifically tested theories and have come to different conclusions: [4] Bed time. I'll post stuff as I come accross it. I don't get to wiki as much as I'd like too. To busy with - Life. P.S. These guys who write the article don't seem to like science. LOL J. D. Hunt 05:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking over that article (from the AiG splinter group) it suffers from the same problems as already discussed. 1) Starting with inviolate religous presuppositions and refusing to modify them in the face of evidence isn't science, that's religion 2) this shows another standard problem - rather than do any actual research or experiments they simply critique the standard models based on claimed problems. If creationists went and actually did empirical experiments they'd go a long way to doing science (note for example that AiG takes in millions of dollars a year and almost all of it goes into article writing and apologetics. Similar numbers hold true for the Discovery Institute and other creationists groups). Science isn't simply writing with long words and havign diagrams of amino acids. JoshuaZ 06:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
They are giving a review of the scientific findings and studies and formulating hypothesis and theories as many scientists do? And i think I know what my religious beliefs are better than you do. I am a diest. I'm not an idiot. I know what I am! J. D. Hunt 06:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


Cheap lie about my assertions in this discussion aside (I lost all respect for you J. D. Hunt), this paper is pointless. Why is it pointless. It starts of with the assumption that evolution deals with the origin of life. If you do not know why this assumption is blatently false, you do not know enough about evolution and should seriously educate yourself further. I have been polite so far, by you did lie about my points in this article, reaching for the lowest common denominator open for a creationist in a corner. You did it in the Evolution talk a couple of hours ago and then did it here again. --Roland Deschain 06:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
you had no respect for me in the first place looking down on me from your perch. Don't play games. Stop the hurt and disappointed drama. This article focuses on one point of evolution and creation "origins of Life" That's not all I think evolution is about! I was asked to show that creationists think scientifically and use science to come up with theories and hypothisis. I did that here. I'll post more when I can. J. D. Hunt 06:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Once again, please remember not to make personal attacks and to maintain civility, and that goes for everyone involved. In assumption of good faith, I believe that J.D. Hunt does wish to improve the article, though I disagree with the way in which he'd like to do so. As to the assertion, you're not simply being asked to show that creationists have claimed to use science-you're being asked to show that a majority of scientists, and respected and peer-reviewed journals (such as Nature and the like) have found that such claims have some base. In my research, the vast majority of scientists do not even agree that creation methods are genuine science. This makes the viewpoint that creation is scientific a small-minority view, subject to the WP:NPOV guidelines against undue weight. Seraphimblade 06:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
JDHunt, it was your edit, and the significant change in meaning that was objectionable. Your comment re "looking down on me from your perch" is inappropriate, unsupported and, to be blunt, asinine. You have yet to answer the original question, having chosen instead to make wild off-topic and unsupported claims, in the end resorting to a "you're all against me" defence. This will not do. •Jim62sch• 10:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I never said all were against me, but Roland Deschain has attacked my character again and again, and all I have done is respond in kind. This is a response to his belittling to others he disagrees with attitude. I'm done with this your bad and wrong - no your bad and wrong stuff. I want to discuss bettering the article that premotes the false assumption that creationists are oppossed to science. They just don't agree with all the scientific findings and the interpretations given to them by many scientists. Yes, they refute some of the so-called facts, but accept others. They do believe in science, they just don't believe all that evolutionary scientists come up with is valid science or valied theories based upon agreeable facts, just as evolutionist scientists don't accept theirs as valid. The way the article is written; it gives the impression that they are against all science, and that all they believe about evolution or creation comes from religious beliefs alone. There are a few that might fit this mold, but for the majority of creationists, this belief only fuels their desire to learn about how things work. J. D. Hunt 21:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Please post specific criticisms or recommendations (i.e. give an example from a section) and be absolutely sure to include a source that meets WP:V and WP:RS in your recommendation. --Davril2020 22:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
(Referring back to the start of this shouting match.) I've been talking with creationists for almost two decades. In all that time, I've never seen anything to support the claim that they are just intepreting the facts. Instead, they're cherry-picking facts that support their views and ignoring the vast majority of facts that do not. For example, Henry Morris' account of fossil sorting is derisible. Over and over he cherry-picks one small subset of the data that he thinks can be explained by a flood, but he's invariably contradicted by far more data and most of his examples are incorrect anyway. And yet it's the most detailed attempt by any creationist ever to account for fossil sorting! (At least, it is in all of my experience with creationist arguments.)
Every time I see a creationist make the "we have the same evidence, just different interpratations" claim, I start listing evidence and asking for some interpretations. After 20 years, I still have no explanation for fossil sorting that actually addresses how the fossils are sorted. It's that simple. --Suttkus 19:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there an in-depth article about fossil sorting they can look at, including the raw data used to determine the sorting of the fossils? Unless the data is dealt with directly, all the talk in the world is going to be useless regardless of the position taken by anybody discussing this issue. CobraA1 05:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Suggest you visit your local university with a biology or geology department and do a search in their library. This is not the place for original research. --Michael Johnson 05:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not asking that original research actually be included in the article, just that it be verifiable. CobraA1 21:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a talk page. Suttkus doesn't have to verify his comments. I'm sure you will find the article Evolution and associated articles fully referenced. --Michael Johnson 23:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Very well, but I don't see how random opinions helps the article. CobraA1 18:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
If you want to discuss the validity of the EvoWiki article I linked, go to EvoWiki and discuss it. --Suttkus 13:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. CobraA1 18:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coelacanth

The controversy of the Coelacanth, thought extinct 410 million years ago, recently found.

...That's an... interesting definition of recent, really. Adam Cuerden talk 23:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
"The coelacanths, which are closely related to lungfishes, were believed to have been extinct since the end of the Cretaceous period, until a live specimen was found off the east coast of South Africa, off the Chalumna River in 1938"--Roland Deschain 23:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, compared to the Cretaceous, 1938 is recent.  :-)
Note that the Cretaceous ended 65 million years ago, not 410, as the first poster claimed. He's confusing the age when Coelacanth first appeared with the time they vanished.
As for why it vanished from the fossil record, note that the only surviving branch of the Coelacanth group is a deep-sea fish. Deep sea fossils tend to remain in the deep sea. They only rarely are uplifted enough for humans to find them. As a result, our record of fossils from the deep sea is extremely weak.
This is an example of fossilization bias. You can learn more about fossilization bias at the article I helped write at EvoWiki. The very interesting thing about fossilization bias is that the bias we see reflects evolutionary "assumptions", but quite contradicts they kinds of biases we would see if it was the result of a global flood, as most creationists contend. Funny that. Almost like creationism is wrong or something. I'm still waiting for a creationist explanation for why hawks and eagles are so rare as fossils, as opposed to shore birds which are extremely common. How long do you think I'll have to wait? --Suttkus 05:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
In response to Adam Cuerden and Roland Deschain: See Suttkus' comment. It's recent in comparison to it's previously thought extention date. Also note the 2000 discovery date as well, which I assume you would consider recent. ~ UBeR 23:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
My comment was a joke. 1938 is not recent. If I said "Tyranosaurus was a recently discovered dinosaur" I would be wrong, it was discovered over a century ago. That its discovery was recent to its extinction is irrelevant. Tell me, if I called "Little Women" a recent novel, because it's a whole long younger than "Gilgamesh", would you consider this an accurate statement? I wouldn't. --Suttkus 05:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Eh, "recently found" implies that it's shocking new evidence. It ain't. Evolutionary biologists have long been able to deal with it. Adam Cuerden talk 01:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Shocking, most of you guys don't consider 6 years ago recent, even in the context of the Cretaceous era! ~ UBeR 07:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Now why would you think the context of this discussion is the Cretaceous era? Isn't the context the fast pace of scientific research? Innovation happens quickly: What's cutting edge six years ago can become the mainstream corpus of today. --ScienceApologist 12:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, discovering a deep sea fish is also found in another part of the deep sea is interesting, but hardly a difficulty for a scientific theory, is it? It was a shocking discovery ion 1936. In 2000, it was just more information on the range of a fairly well-studied species. Adam Cuerden talk 13:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I think he's referring to the discovery of a new species of Coelacanth in 1997, but his facts are so confused it's hard to tell what he's on about. In any event, it is certainly nothing that happened in "2000" that is in any way remarkable relative to the creatures. The surprise was in 1938. --Suttkus 13:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

True. The 1997 discovery of a new species was interesting and noteworthy, though nothing like the 1936 discovery that the whole Order Coelacanthiformes still existed. It's another species in the same genus, and thus no new major presumed extinct division of the Animal kingdom was discovered. Just a new species. Adam Cuerden talk 14:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drifting away from NPOV?

This article has been drifting a bit towards a less-critical view the creationist position, which seems to be undue weight. If there's agreement on this, I propose to do a good copyedit? Adam Cuerden talk 18:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Creationism is definitely a minority position, and that certainly should be clear. I'm all for it, where specifically do you see problems? Seraphimblade 19:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Weel, I *don't* like the "evidences against Evolution" category title. The rest of it... well, it's a lot of little things, and a matter of scale. In no particular order:

  • The "Noteworthy participants in the controversy" describes creationists in a completely non-critical way
  • the religion as science section is tiny compared to science as religion, and similarly, a lot of aeffort has been put forth stating creationist views, with some analysis, but there's very little space on scientific attacks on creationism, e.g. the quote-mining sectoin is only a paragraph. In shortt, a lot more space is spent on questionable creationist claims with less criticism than might be expected, and on rock-solid evidences of bad behaviour like quotte-mining, we only get "Many critics argue that these are quote mines (lists of out of context or misleading quotations) that do not accurately reflect the evidence for evolution or the mainstream scientific community's opinion of it."

This article is being so cautious, that it's saying the creationist side with more force than evolutionist. Adam Cuerden talk 00:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should provide diffs of how the article has changed for the worse, or simply be bold and edit away to improve it. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Easier to be bold, I think, but I could use some help being bold, as there's rather a lot to fix. Adam Cuerden talk 01:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Did someone say bold? Allow me to introduce myself  ; ) Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 01:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Heh! Glad to have you with us! I'll do what I can, but be warned I have flu just now. Still, I should at least be able to fix that quote mining section =) Adam Cuerden talk 02:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
If my last name were Tam instead of Tropics, I could maybe help with your flu...as it is, you'll just have to soldier on : ) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 06:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the "Evidence against Evolution" title either-changing it to "Claims against Evolution." If anyone objects, well, revert away! Seraphimblade 07:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently was already done. I've also removed the "Claims of immorality" section, this basically appeared to be a rant and was unsourced. If anyone can source any of this information, put it on back. Seraphimblade 08:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I had switched "Evidence against Evolution" to "Arguments...", but "Claims..." is just as accurate; feel free to change if you have a preference. Also, no objections here to removing unsourced material. Verifiable cites are a necessity. --Doc Tropics 08:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I actually like "arguments" better, just didn't see that had been done when I made the comment. Seraphimblade 08:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "US centrism" and Doc's removal

(after edit conflict, putting my explanation on top for continuity)

I removed the last para of the intro related to ID. The is only relevant in the U.S. (think globally!), and only notable for its spectacular courtroom failures. Furthermore, the links provided in that para are all available in the "See also" section. If anyone objects strongly, we can discuss, but even if the text is worth including, it should almost certainly be down in the article somewhere, not the intro. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that should stay in the summary. This is mainly a US problem on the whole and it is certainly not non-notable. JoshuaZ 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for any confusion about the edit conflict. I had to step away for a few minutes and forgot to hit save : (
I was considering them NN because I've seen so many of these groups/movements come and go in my lifetime. Five years from now the ID movement is going to be just another footnote in the history books. I'm not opposed to moving the text, I just don't think it belongs in the intro. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your point, but I'm not sure that such arguments from the future are valid for encyclopaedic purposes. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd leave it be for now: the nice thing about the Wiki is that it CAN be edited in the future, if ID does drop to a footnote. Adam Cuerden talk 04:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I was bold, it was reverted, then it was discussed; the BRD cycle is complete : ) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Bundesrepublik Deutschland? Yay for zee Germans. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
LOL. I only found the WP:BRD page recently, but it reflects a very useful way to approach working on certain topics. Doc Tropics 18:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I did a quick scan of the article and a few of the discussions on the talk page, and I had a couple of comments:

  • I have encountered web pages (which I can dredge up for you if required) by Jewish fundamentalists opposed to evolution, Hindu fundamentalists opposed to evolution and Muslim fundamentalists opposed to evolution, in addition to you know who opposed to evolution.
  • It really makes my skin crawl when creationists lump cosmology and the big bang and the Hubble constant and geological processes and plate tectonics and magnetic core dynamics and radioactive decay and the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram and abiogenesis and Darwinian theory all under the same rubric of "evolution". In fact, it is completely ignorant and it makes me nauseous. Is it possible to be any more willfully anti-intellectual and backwards? My goodness.
  • The persistent charge that science or evolution or whatever is a "religion" or based on "faith" displays a misunderstanding about what the differences are between religion and science, which should be made clear, either here, or maybe on another page linked in (like a list of "Differences between Religion and Science"). This is one of the most ludicrous and weak arguments that I have ever heard. But it needs to be addressed, head on and very agggressively.

I will probably have a few more comments as I ponder the page and talk page more.--Filll 05:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

A lot of this is political postering. I have seen creationists call evolution a religion, not so much science in general. Also trying to make it an "ism". The idea is to make it "no different" to creationism, at least in the publics mind, thus making their message more respectable. May be worth noting in the article if you can find a reference. --Michael Johnson 08:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

I've started fixing the lead. However, the more I look at this article, the more I wondered why I was ever impressed by it: Frankly, it has some shocking errors. Adam Cuerden talk 08:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Errors? Review ref #4. It is attached to the last half of the last sentence in the 4th para which reads: "...and those who actively dispute creationism, characterizing the controversy as an important battle between truth and falsehood." Is it my imagination, or does using that cite require OR to divine Dawkins 'inner thoughts', since he never uses those spefic terms? Doc Tropics 08:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is an accurate summary of what Dawkins said-paraphrasing is acceptable. He clearly, with his satirical "Rome deniers" piece, characterizes the debate as one between those who accept that 2+2=4 and those who deny it "on faith". Seraphimblade 08:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It's probably an accurate enough description of Dawkins, but it's not being said to be Dawkins' opinion, it's said to be that of all scientists who participate in the debate. Which is awful. Anyway, the whole paragraph's badly phrased.Adam Cuerden talk 08:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I see what you mean now, and agree that some clearer phrasing would be helpful. Seraphimblade 11:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Made a bit of a change there, is that an accurate summation or should further change be made? Seraphimblade 11:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, should it be in the lead at all? I mean, it's just a chance to slip another creationist bashing of evolution in, with a minor scientific response that's easily dismissed since there's not been proof yet. Let's save it, mention the strong proofs of evolution, and put in the minor issue later. Adam Cuerden talk 12:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, in complete agreement there. Seraphimblade 19:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saved

Some creationists have gone so far as to propose that the debate centers on nothing less than a choice between good and evil,[1] while scientist Richard Dawkins characterizes the debate as fundamentally between truth and falsehood.[2][neutrality disputed][citation needed][clarify]

[edit] Intro, 2nd para

Adam added a much-needed [opinion needs balancing] tag at the end of the para. The last sentence reads:

"The key contention of such creationists is that only a supernatural miracle and not "unguided evolution" can account for origins."

Perhaps adding something immediately following that would help:

"However, evolution itself does not specifically address origins, but rather describes a process. It is accepted by 99.5% of all biologists as being an accurate description of that process."

This would also segue rather neatly into the next paragraph, which describes the expansion of Evo. I won't insert this yet, maybe others can polish it or come up with a better alternative. Just a suggestion. Doc Tropics 09:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gone a bit stronger: I combined it with paragraph four, cut a bit, then bulked it out with evidences for evolution. Adam Cuerden talk 12:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spectrum of creationist beliefs

This section doesn't really seem to say much of anything at all, is unsourced, and seems to be POV (which variant of creationism doesn't "dispute scientific beliefs"?) Accordingly, I'm going to remove and save it for now, though I think if sourced, NPOV'd, and fleshed out it could be a good part of the article. Seraphimblade 19:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Not all creationists dispute various scientific theories - there are many who don't dispute specific scientific theories (YECs dispute a lot more science than do OECs, IDists tend to bob and weave so much it's hard to say what they endorse or oppose...) As for being unsourced - it's a link to another article. What's there to source? Guettarda 21:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not convinced this adds anything to the atrticle, as it's been covered in the lead in more detail. This says nothing. However, there is a much longer section in the older logs: I'm going to restore it. Adam Cuerden talk 21:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saved for reference

[edit] Spectrum of creationist beliefs

Main article: Creationism

Creationism covers a spectrum of beliefs which have been categorised into broad types. Not all creationists dispute various scientific theories. Some are opposed to the theory of evolution and some are not.

[edit] Evidence for Evolution

You know, we don't actually have a section about this. Why the hell not? Adam Cuerden talk 21:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it's here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution PutBoy 12:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy

This was a long, listy section, I shunted it off. I'd appreciate if some of you would help watch it: It's probably prone to vandalism.Adam Cuerden talk 21:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cut

These entire sections take multiple paragraphs of pointless waffle to explain very little. Cut the crap. Can we use those poll results about belief in various countries? Adam Cuerden talk 21:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Surveys of views in the United States

In a 2001 Gallup poll on the origin and development of human beings [5] [6] a sample of about one thousand Americans were asked which statement came closest to their views on the origin and development of human beings. Of those polled, 45% chose "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so", 37% chose "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process", 12% chose "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process", and the remainder (6%) either volunteered a different response or had no opinion. When asked by name whether they believe in or lean more towards the "theory of creationism" or the "theory of evolution", 57% indicated creationism, 33% indicated evolution, and 10% responded "not sure." The Religious Tolerance website claims that the poll also found that 5% of American scientists (not necessarily working in fields connected with evolution) believed in biblically literal creation, 40% believed in "theistic evolution", and 55% believed in "naturalistic evolution" [7].

However, following another opinion poll by DYG Inc., it seems that such results may reveal a false dichotomy. According to the DYG poll, about 70% of Americans indicated that they did not see the theories of evolution and creation as in conflict [8].

A poll conducted in July 2005 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press and reported in the New York Times on August 31, 2005, "found that 42 percent of respondents held strict creationist views, agreeing that 'living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.' In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over time. But of those, 18 percent said that evolution was 'guided by a supreme being,' and 26 percent said that evolution occurred through natural selection. In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism." In contrast, the Times reported on August 30, 2005, that 20% of the U.S. population believes that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

A study published by the journal Science in August 2006 reported that the United States had the second lowest acceptance of evolution among 34 developed countries (Turkey was first). It also reported that the number of adults who were unsure about their stand on human evolution had risen from 7% to 21% in the past 20 years; the number of adults who accept human evolution had dropped from 45% to 40% over the past 20 years, and the number of adults who overtly reject human evolution had dropped from 48% to 39%. Reasons cited for the low acceptance of evolution were "widespread fundamentalism" and "politicization of science".[3][4]

[edit] Survey of views in German speaking countries

A 2002 survey[5] commissioned by the conservative, evangelical voluntary group ProGenesis (Switzerland, Zürich) and a closely associated conservative evangelical magazine, factum (Switzerland, Berneck), interviewed 500 people each in Austria, Switzerland, and Germany. According to the results, about 20% believed that the universe, life and humans were created by God within the last 10,000 years. 21% held the position that they came about by a process of evolution and development guided by God, and 40% believed in evolution by natural selection. (The remaining 19% were of unknown/undecided/other opinion.) The poll was conducted by IHA-Gfk. A poll[6] for the German atheist think tank Giordano Bruno Stiftung, yielded 12.5% for the Biblical interpretation, 60.9% for an atheistic evolution and 25.2% for theistic evolution (called intelligent design by the poll in the evaluation, but not in the question). The poll was conducted by Forschungsgruppe Weltanschauungen in Deutschland (fowid). Polls by independent sources, such as the newspapers Die Zeit[7] and Der Spiegel,[8] show results close to the mean of the two above polls.

[edit] Survey of views in the United Kingdom

A 2006 survey [9] conducted by Ipsos-MORI for the BBC Horizon programme interviewed 2,112 people aged 15+ in the United Kingdom.

Results: About 48% chose the "evolution theory", which stated that mankind has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life and that God had no part in this process; about 17% chose the "intelligent design theory"; which stated certain features of living things are best explained by the intervention of a supernatural being, for example God; about 22% chose the "creationism theory", which stated that God created mankind pretty much in its present form at one time within the last 10,000 years, whilst the remaining 12% did not know.

The poll did not include the option which explicitly stated that humans came about by a process of evolution and development guided by God or a higher being. It is therefore possible that many of those who chose the "intelligent design theory" would find themselves in agreement with this position, even though the term has different connotations elsewhere, particularly in the United States.

The poll then went on to ask people's attitudes to the teaching of the three given theories in school science classes:

For the "evolution theory", 69% of the people asked believed that it should be taught in school science classes, 15% believed that it should not be taught in school science classes and the remaining 17% were unsure. For the "intelligent design theory", 41% of the people asked believed that it should be taught in school science classes, 40% believed that it should not be taught in school science classes and the remaining 20% were unsure. Finally, for the "creationism theory", 44% of the people asked believed that it should be taught in school science classes, 39% believed that it should not be taught in school science classes and the remaining 17% were unsure.

[edit] Suggestion

What do all of you think of replacing the "Arguements against evolution" section with a rewritten copy of parts of the "misunderstandings of evolution" from the main article?

I think that could work. I also do wonder why we don't have an "Arguments for evolution" section-other than that we couldn't possibly include all of them without this article going to the megabyte range. I think we certainly could include the strongest and best-known though. Seraphimblade 19:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I would agree, in general, with both ideas. Per concerns about article length, we should include only the "highlights" while providing links to the relevant article(s). Doc Tropics 19:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article length

This is not a parent-article, and at 69kb it is more than twice the optimum length of 32 kb. I would suggest we vigorously weed out uncited or irrelevant material and make a point of balancing what remains. Also, note that I have struck out items from the "To Do" list, with explanations. Doc Tropics 20:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. But we ought to be careful to still handle the topic well.

I do wonder whether it's actually worth havign the spectrum of creationist beliefs section at all in the short form. - Should we just cut it, remove mention of it, and maybe add a reference/note naming the types where it was previously mentioned? Adam Cuerden talk 23:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe as a simple list, without any descriptors. A graphic like a concept map would be helpful there maybe instead, too. FeloniousMonk 23:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I had also considered removing the section entirely, but adding the links to "See also". On the other hand, a good graphic could add a lot to the article and wouldn't count towards the length. Since the page is somewhat lacking in visual appeal, I would strongly support that option, assuming a repreentative image can be found or produced. Doc Tropics 23:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. Go ahead and make one and we'll provide feedback. Seriously, does anyone here have the software to create concept maps? FeloniousMonk 23:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Heh. I thought you were volunteering! Actually, I think Adam might have some graphics skills....Doc Tropics 23:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A little, but what's a concept map? Adam Cuerden talk 01:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cut!

[edit] Examples of the conflation

Following are some examples of well known participants in the debate who conflate science and religion:

  • Henry M. Morris, an American young earth creationist, says: "Divine revelation from the Creator of the world states that He did it all in six days, several thousand years ago. The Bible is a book of science! It contains all the basic principles upon which true science is built".
Actually although this quote makes my blood boil, I think that it is very interesting as an example of the kinds of attitudes one finds among creationists and example of how they misunderstand what science is etc. It is the purest crap, but a great example of pure crap.--Filll 23:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. It may be worth working it in. But this section used the very odd views of Huxley (science as religion) and presented them as being equally common as Morris' - quite wrong. Adam Cuerden talk 01:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Julian Huxley, a British biologist and author, says: "The truth will set us free. Evolutionary truth frees us from subservient fear of the unknown and supernatural, and exhorts us to face this new freedom. It shows us our destiny and our duty. The evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern the outline of the new religion that will arise to serve the needs of the coming era".[opinion needs balancing]


Aye, like there's equal numbers of people on both sides that do this? Let's lose it. Actually, one wonders if we should lose the whole damned science as religion part. There's SOME notable material in there, but it's full of crap, and gives undue weight to creationist views. Adam Cuerden talk 23:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

ha! This was one of my next targets. Feel free to condense it significantly for balance, or remove it entirely. No objections here. Doc Tropics 23:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too, or rewrite to make it abundantly clear as to the relative commonality. Really, though, I doubt the idea that science will somehow beget religion is a very common one at all. Seraphimblade 02:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a somewhat common accusation that it *is* a religion. Adam Cuerden talk 02:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a very common weapon that creationists use against evolution and science. They completely misunderstand what is the difference between religion/faith and evolution and/or science, so they use the worst slur they can against what they see as the opposition. They claim science is based on faith, evolution is based on faith. They claim evolution is a religion, science is a religion. They claim atheism is a religion or based on faith. They claim all people who believe in evolution are atheists and practicing the atheist religion. They claim that people who believe in atheism are satanists. And on and on and on. Complete confusion and misunderstanding. Which I think would be worth trying to dispell.--Filll 02:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

--Filll

Freethought. Age of Enlightenment. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
c.f. Cultural Revolution - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mischaracterizations - definitions

I've been reading the discussion on this article with quite a bit of interest. One of the editors asked me to come over to this page and make sure that the creationist view was accurately represented (not given undue weight, just correctly represented). I think there is a mischaracterization of several views that stems from confusion about the way the word "evolution" is used. To see what I mean, take a look at the following paragraph:

  • Evolution is often expanded by creationists to include such things as the Big Bang Theory, abiogenesis, and the formation of stars, however, although the word evolution is used as part of several astronomical terms such as stellar evolution, none of these are implied by the term evolution alone.[8] Which specific scientific ideas conflict with their concept of creationism, and would therefore comprise "evolution", can vary from creationist to creationist.

It is incorrect that creationists believe evolution is a religion. Often, the word "evolution" is used as a synonym for the religious viewpoint of Secular Humanism - not in the same sense that is is used here, but as a worldview that seeks to explain the universe without divine intervention. Creationists do not attack the BBT, abiogenesis, star formation, and the like because they are mainstream scientific views, but because they are benchmarks of secular humanism and uniformitarianism. Here's why. Almost all YEC Biblical Creationists use the folllowing verse, directly or indirectly, as their basic assumption:

  • "Since the creation of the world, God's invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that mankind is without excuse." -Romans 1:20

Creationists hold the view, based on this verse, that God created the universe as evidence for His existence. Subsequently, any attempts, direct or indirect, to undermine this moral position is regarded as a direct affront to God's intentions. Take theories on star formation - the Bible speaks in many places about how the stars are a testimony to the creative power of God, so saying that "they all formed naturally due to the Big Bang" is viewed with quite a bit of skepticism by creationists.

Creationists believe that the majority of scientists who accept uniformitarianism (historical evolution, abiogenesis, BBT, etc.) do so not because of the evidence, but because they are trying to have an "excuse" not to believe in the Creator pursuant to Romans 1:20. After all, if the universe is not adequate evidence for God (in other words, it could have been formed naturally), then Romans 1:20 is bunk and mankind has an excuse to ignore God.

Creationists believe that the uniformitarian/no-God-involved-in-creation viewpoint creates a presupposition in the minds of its adherents that prevent them from seeing the clear and convincing evidence against evolution. The following statement by Richard Lewontin characterizes the Creationist view of evolutionary scientists:

  • We take the side of [uniformitarianism] in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Any creationist will tell you that this materialist/uniformitarian assumption (not regarding current events, but regarding past events) prevents most scientists from questioning the "unsubstantiated just-so stories", the "patent absurdity" of evolutionary constructs, and the like.

Whether this view is correct or not is debatable. Whether Richard Lewontin's statements are characteristic of the rest of the "uniformitarianistic" is subject to extreme POV and should not be affirmatively determined on the Creation-evolution controversy page. However, the preceding statement of the Creationist viewpoint should aid in removing confusion on this page. Here's a clear statement of creationist beliefs:

Creationists have scientific problems with most of the constructs of materialist uniformitarianism, and they feel that most scientists are blinded to these problems because of their commitment to a God-free history of the universe.

Hopefully that will help! standonbibleTalk! 15:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate having another viewpoint, I would object to anything being placed in the article which would characterize secular humanism as a "religion". Religions, by definition, require one to take the unproven and unprovable "on faith". Secular humanism is simply a rejection of religion, an assertion that "I will only believe in the observable and provable." Of course, that doesn't make it better or worse then religion (that's entirely another topic for another time), but it does mean that it is not a religion.
Also, I'm curious as to what this "uniformitarianist" bit means in your case? When I've discussed this with creationists before, I've heard that word-and it's generally used to describe the simple truism that what we see is what we get, and a very simple and sensible application of Occam's Razor-if this process works this way here and now, it is a reasonable (though rebuttable) presupposition that it works the same way yesterday and over there. Is that the meaning here? Seraphimblade 16:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
To add to the previous-I don't think many scientists are "committed" to a "God-free history of the universe"-in fact, many scientists also practice a religion. However, in order to bring a God or gods in scientifically, empirical evidence would have to be gathered as to such beings' existence and nature-a difficult undertaking in any case, and it would take a large amount of evidence indeed. A claim of being(s) that are unseen but all-powerful is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims, as always, require extraordinary proof. Seraphimblade 16:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not arguing the validity of the Creationist viewpoint; I'm explaining its viewpoint in the hopes that this article can better characterize the debate.
Understand that when I say creationists view secular humanism as a religion, they are not talking about the same Secular humanism as it is listed on WP. They are talking about the whole uniformitarianism/materialist/humanist premise that the universe must have formed independent of the supernatural.
  • "I don't think many scientists are "committed" to a "God-free history of the universe"-in fact, many scientists also practice a religion."
The key word there is "history". Creationists believe that most scientists have the presupposition that the universe formed under perfectly naturalistic materialistic conditions and that the history of the universe is essentially God-free. Creationists believe that when a scientist lays aside that presupposition, they can see the glaring holes in evolution, abiogenesis, BBT, etc.
When I say "uniformitarianism" I mean the assumption that past events can be perfectly ascertained by simply extrapolating present trends. For example, creationists freely admit that the universe is currently expanding, but they take issue with the extrapolation that it started as an infinitesimal speck that exploded/expanded and generated the universe. Basically the assumption that "all things have continued just the way they currently do from the very beginning" - to quote Peter. standonbibleTalk! 17:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that a reference to some of those views might be workable, but only provided that it's kept very clear that those viewpoints are small-minority ones and are not accepted within the scientific community, and so long as they're properly sourced and rebuttals are also included. Seraphimblade 18:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Thanks standonbible. I have a couple of comments:

  • I get the impression that creationists do not agree with each other in many details.
  • Although I have never encountered that verse before, I will take your word for it that has had a large influence. I have to admit I do not understand the verse very well at all and how it makes a case against science.
  • There might be a group of creationists who do not regard evolution or secular humanism etc as a religion, but I have personally heard this or read this many times.
  • I am not sure I understand what the "prior committment to materialism" means, or how science has not lived up to its "extravegent claims".
  • In my opinion, one of the main differences between science and religion is that religion relies heavily on supernatural processes, and science relies on natural processes.
  • I as well have often heard the charge by creationists that scientists want to reject God. I think that this is patently and demonstrably false.
  • What is often not understood or described properly is that supernatural reasoning is pure poison and destructive to science in many cases. It is something like the following; Billy is trying to do his math homework. Billy gets stuck at a certain point. Billy gets tired of trying to get the answer. Billy decides to declare that he can go from step 3 to step 4 by magic, and therefore get the correct answer. Now Billy has cheated to finish his homework! This is what introducing religion into science does, in a certain way.--Filll 18:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Most of the above views (if not all, but that will require me digging through his older works) are expertly rebutted by Daniel Dennett. A lot of his books deal with the refutation of the above criticisms, especially the creationist/fundamentalist assertion that science cannot provide detailed knowledge about the past. It is true that the above criticisms are rather rampant (especially in the US in the aftermath of the Intelligent Design craze), but they have been addressed by many scientists and philosophers, showing why they do not invalidate science. Both Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin, in their respective seminal works, address these issues. --Roland Deschain 19:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It is, however, true that there's only a few particularly well-known creationists, and that the kookiest and, well, scummiest (Hovind's tax evasion, collecting of quote mines) are far better known than the moderates who may merely be possibly deluded on some points by the kooks and liars.
Perhaps Francis Collins, as possibly the sanest and least kooky of the well-known semi-creationists, might merit a short analysis? Adam Cuerden talk 00:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that done by theistic evolution evaluations? --ScienceApologist 00:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Having heard Francis Collins lecture a couple of times, I would be hard pressed to classify him as a creationist.--Filll 00:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Point. I think I probably went far too far with that comment, though in my defense the article did say theistic evolution was creationism explicitly a few revisions ago. Still, his views are at least notable for the false dichotomy section. Adam Cuerden talk 00:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistan and Evolution

Does anyone have a citation for the claim in the article that evolution is not taught at universities in Pakistan? I'm unable to find a citation. The closest I can find is [10]. JoshuaZ 02:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I asked a friend who is a Pakistani lawyer. She confirms that it is not taught in any schools or universities in Pakistan. She is looking for a reference. Very interesting to discuss with her and her views. Amazing. She buys into the Muslim creationist story hook line and sinker.--Filll 16:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
There could be some cases. But Pakistan Academy of Sciences is a signatory of IAP Statement on the teaching of evolution dated 21st June 2006. --IsleScapeTalk 15:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting.--Filll 16:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Just discovered that Richard Dawkins' titles The Blind Watchmaker etc are also available in Urdu language, here. --IsleScapeTalk 20:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New "Humor" section

I'm actually a big fan of the Onion, and it was a clever link to add here, but I'd really like to discourage this kind of thing. In any serious article with a section related to pop-culture, it ends up looking like a yard full of old pick-up trucks and rust covered appliances. I'm too fond of WP to enjoy seeing pages that look like a a scene from The Beverly Hillbillies; that's why I'd prefer to nip this in the bud. If other editors feel that this section actually adds value to the article overall, then I'll live with it (of course), but I'm hoping for a consensus to keep the page clean and lose the "Humor". Doc Tropics 07:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say only use it if it can illustrate a point. For instance, see the cite for "Norse Mythology" in the Beyond the dichotomy section. Actually, that might be useful for revision: Flying spaghetti Monsters, Science vs. Norse Mythology, etc. There's a lot of good points made through humour for that. Adam Cuerden talk 07:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't object at all to having the link somewhere in the article as long as it were topic-appropriate. It's the presence of an entire section dedicated to miscellaneous factoids that seems an invitation to the junk heap effect. Doc Tropics 07:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's cut it, but work some of the humour - not that - into the section on BBeyyond the dDichotomy, since it does point out some of the problems with creationism as per the Bible admirably. Adam Cuerden talk 08:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, as long as the link is preserved, things can always be tweaked again if others comment on this. I'll copy it in here for now and cut the section:
It's a pretty good read : ) Doc Tropics 08:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I would recommend this article very higly to all.--Filll 18:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odd category

A category has been added at some point to the article:

NPOV disputes from it neglects the vast body of evidence for evolution, thus giving undue weight to creationism

I'm not completely familiar with how wikipedia categories are used, but does that really qualify as one? First of all the reference to "it" seems horribly out of place. --Suttkus 13:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It was from the POV boilerplate at the top of the page. Since I cannot ascertain that there is any active POV dispute regarding this page, I removed the boilerplate and the category. --ScienceApologist 13:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Heh. That's from me abusing the POV template to get that message at the top. They removed the template that lets you say what the problem is in a sane way, for good reason, but in this case, where the reason is fairly well agreed, it seemed useful to mention at the top, even if a weird Cat results. Adam Cuerden talk 13:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not really much of a "dispute", Adam. Try the {{POV-check|date=March 2008}} tag instead. --ScienceApologist 13:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that meant to call teams of people in to help? ...Not that that would necessarily be a bad thing. Adam Cuerden talk 14:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yeep!

I've just knee-jerk reacted and removed most of a category of external links whilst moving it:

...We obviously need to put *some* of this back, but the amount of pseudoscience in there is frankly, terrifying. Which should be restored?

Well from the point of view of a scientist who supports evolution, I would like to have access to a nice concise list of the best creationist websites, the most "rational", the least rational, etc, even if there is a good dose of pseudoscience in some of them. How about inviting someone from the Creation Wiki to help? When I glanced at some of the Creation Wiki pages, they seemed pretty rational and actually embarassed by some of the more extreme pseudo science. If we do include pseudoscience links, maybe we could put them in a separate category for easy access? This is helpful to have really. --Filll 18:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Admittedly, this was in a "Creationist claims" secttion, but part of my terror was the order: A list of debates, a sample of which seemed heavily biased in moderrator towards the creationist side. Then a huge section on creationist claims, then a second section of creationist claims. Needs fixed. Another, possibly more minor problem is that we're giving links to creationist sites and creationist rebuttals of science, but only scientific rebuttals of creationism, not scientific evidence. I agree (as a biology student) that it's useful to have them, but I think we need to think about orginisation carefully.Adam Cuerden talk 18:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
As I see it, ay this point, AiG should stay as they are one of the world's largest creationist ministries, as should CMI. Reasons to Belive and Answers in Creation should stay as prominent examples of OEC. The other I'm less convinced we need (although the ICR is probably worth having). CreationWiki and True Origin are both not notable enough to be listed (the only reason I see to list CreationWiki is to prevent claims of censorship- this is a weak argument). Also, Filll, I'm not sure it is our job per NPOV to decide which are more or less pseudosciency and I would note that the Talk Origins Archive has an extensive listing of creationist sites which would make an extensive listing here redundant (and [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a collection of links). I see no reason to include links to creationists rebuttals, scientific rebuttals, creationist rebuttals of those etc. We should just have links to the major sites. JoshuaZ 18:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I think all of them qualify as notable, although the ICR is primarily notable for historical reasons rather than for current contributions. I'd also add Kent Hovind's and Carl Baugh's respective drool-fest simply due to their extreme popularity among creationists. We don't get to define creationism; they do. Any attempt to restrict the list to "good" creationist sites will result in a blank list by any standard you might consistently apply. Even AIG has pulled some right boners, for instance, their long standing article which claimed Archaeopteryx was probably just a dinosaur fossil with fake feathers added, but if it wasn't a dinosaur with fake feathers, then it was a pure bird and had no dinosaur features at all. None! This article was kept up for about two years after I found it, despite efforts to make them correct it and it being the source of much mirth to their opposition. And AIG definately has to qualify as "better" because at least it's self conscious enough to put up the "arguments creationists shouldn't use" page (on which the "Archy is fake" argument appeared). --Suttkus 19:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

How should we order it? Adam Cuerden talk 18:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest general Creationism sites with YEC first, then OEC sites then ID sites. The general anti-creationist or evolution sites, then debates andthen miscelanea(sp? is that even a word?) that we think should be in but we can't put in any obvious category JoshuaZ 18:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

How about these links?

Keep or bin? Adam Cuerden talk 18:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Bin. Neither are major fora. JoshuaZ 18:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
They might not be major, but they sure are amusing :) --Filll 19:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ho'w's the structure look now? Adam Cuerden talk 19:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks much much better overall. While reviewing, I did move "Theistic evolution" up to the middle and establish it as a subsec, because it seems an important middle-ground. I tend to see the list of links/beliefs as a "spectrum", or progression, and "Thei-evo" should therefore appear between the two more polarized views, rather than at the end. However, even after all this justification, I'm not actually opposed to any other placement, that's just what looked right to me. Doc Tropics 20:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense: I wasn't quite sure where to put it, but the article used to come down pretty strongly on it as a form of minor creationism (which I guess it *technically* is, so... =) Adam Cuerden talk 23:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Section

[edit] Debated Beliefs

Much of the creation-evolution controversy is not about a literal debate of evolution vs creation but rather a debate between various beliefs on the extent of evolution. Very few people believe in fixity of the species, which is evolutions true opponent.

The accepted definition for evolution in biology is simply the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations. Some creationist mistakenly confuse the evolutionary theory for other theories such as universal common descent and the big bang theory causing them to fight being associated with evolution. Despite their misconceptions, most creationist should be thought as people who believe in evolution.

The primary differences between the various beliefs (besides the number of people who accept them) are the age of the earth and the origin of specie diversity. It should be noted that many of these beliefs conflict with many observations made by scientist is various fields and therefore are simply beliefs, not scientific theories.

Below is a number of different beliefs and the primary ways that they differ from eachother:

Age of the Earth: About 4.55 billion years. (The majority of geologist agree with this belief)
Origin of Specie Diversity: Universal common descent. (The majority of biologist agree with this belief)
Age of the Earth: About 4.55 billion years.
Origin of Specie Diversity: Gradual progression by intelligent designer.
Age of the Earth: About 4.55 billion years.
Origin of Specie Diversity: Intelligent design.
Age of the Earth: About 6,000 years.
Origin of Specie Diversity: Intelligent design and the orchard theory.

[edit] Discussion

This is an attempt at clearly defining what the debate topics are truly about. All so often the title "evolution vs creation" and "God vs science" are given dispite them not being the topic of the debates. Above is a section that lists the various theories which are currently in the evolution-creation controversy and a simple definition of the theories are included. I would like to add it, but it appears many people enjoy reverting articles so it is here for now. Pbarnes 23:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no debate. Rather, the scientific theory that life evolved by common decent by way of natural selection is being attacked by theologians who support the religious hypothisis that life was placed on earth largely in the forms we see today, by whatever variation of this hypothisis their particular sect supports. Your passage is quite misleading in that it implies that your three "theories" are somehow equivelent. --Michael Johnson 23:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's problems with it, though: First off, the term Darwinian evolution doesn't exist, and that's not a very good definition of evolution anyway: Universal Common Descent was not a necessary prerequisite of evolution: It is simply something that so far seems to be true. While it's true it appears all currently-studied species come from universakl descent, due to conserved proteins, a conserved genetic code and such, having more than one descent is not impossible in an evolutionary theory - Lamarck came up with one where worm-like animals were from a seperate line of descent from others. I think the worms were supposed to have created corals, starfish, that sort of thing - it all makes sense if you think about it - pity it's not true. It's quite possible a very strange lifeform could be discovered that would show a second line of descent even now, though it would be very ofdd if it resembled any known organism too closely.

It also ignores key splits: Saying that Young-earth creationism is a descendant of evolution is bizarre. Young Earth Creationism is a descendant of the Bible. Old Earth Creationism... is also, really. At the least, you'd need more things feeding into the theories on the right.

It doesn't seem to illustrate the differences well, and seems rather obfuscating. Adam Cuerden talk 23:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Adam and Michael. Misleading and unclear. Unnecessary addition. --Davril2020 23:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts):Let me point out that none of the 3 theories listed are actually accepted theories in a scientific sense; even Darwin's original work has been so extensivley refined that the original (cited here) is no longer considered a valid working model. The latter two are not theories in any sense, they are religous beliefs. Furthermoer, use of the term "Gap Theory" is extremely misleading: the proper term is Gap Creationism. It is simply not acceptable to misrepresent "beliefs" as "theories"; there is already too much confusion regarding proper terminologies and this simply perpetuates misunderstandings. Doc Tropics 23:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Fill free to edit the section, I hear you opinions and agree with many of them but I'm not sure how to fix them. For instance, what would you call the belief I have listed as "Darwinian evolution". Pbarnes 23:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't edit your comments after others have responded. It can lead to confusion later. You don't seem to be getting the point. Evolution is not a belief. It is a scientific theory (and I suggest you read the link), that is an explanation of observed facts. Beliefs, such ss creationism, do not require facts to support them, they just require faith. The controversity is caused by some (even most in some parts of the world) religious believers, who find their belief in conflict with the scientific theory of evolution, and who then rather than modify their beliefs, seek to discredit the science. --Michael Johnson 23:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, don't edit the comments of others. I put "(multiple edit conflicts)" in front of my post to indicate that I had tried to add it more than once. This is common etiquette, while tampering with other's comments violates policy. Doc Tropics 23:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I thought it was put in by a bot or something.Pbarnes 23:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't edit my comments all I edited was the section in question to make it more fitting for the addition. And it doesn't matter if evolution is scientific theory because this article is about the many beliefs and confusion it is caused. We aren't discussing under evolution, this is evolution-creation controversy might I remind you and these "beliefs" are what all the commotion is about. In the case I believe YOU miss the point.Pbarnes 23:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem with your proposal is that it implies that the controversity is between three equal theories, which is not the case. It is the result of an attack by religion on science. --Michael Johnson 00:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Michael is correct to describe this as an attack by religion on science (or at least, that's POV enough that it shouldn't dictate what is in the article) but I do agree that to describe all of these notions on equal footing is not NPOV. JoshuaZ 00:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Yep, well I agree, but I was trying to make a point...! --Michael Johnson 00:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I would agree, to state that creationism is on an equal footing with evolution would be the very definition of undue weight. Creationism is a non-scientific, minority view. Evolution is the heavily prevailing scientific view-and has a footing in science equivalent to the theory of gravity or the assertion that the earth is round. The few flat-earthers out there might get an article, but it should be made clear that it's a small minority considered by mainstream science to be ridiculous. Seraphimblade 00:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I would hardly agree with both of the above comments - equating creationism to flat-earth theory is ridiculuous. It can also hardly be considered a minority considering +/- 55% of the USA supports creationism, and at least 2 billion people (if you count Christians + Muslims only) follow religions that teach man was created in some way and did not evolve. SparrowsWing 00:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Sparrows to be blunt, it isn't helpful for you to comment on issues that you clearly don't know much about. Many if not most Christians have no problems with evolution. For example, the Episcopalian and Roman Catholic churches are both fine with evolution as are many other Christian denominations. Many Muslims also accept evolution. While I agree that comparing it to flat-earthism is a bit extreme, the basic point stands. To pretend that these are ideas with any significant fraction of the scientific community behind them is inaccurate at best. JoshuaZ 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Well JoshuaZ there really isn't any reason to be rude. On the contrary I do know quite a bit about the issues concerned. You are a) trying to regale creationism to the level of flat earth theory and b) trying to make out that I am causing a conflict that I am not. I have no problem with evolution but this is not the place to discuss that. I just disagree that man evolved from some amoeba (sp) as I think would most people who follow one of the major world religions. The point I am trying to make above is that creationism is by no means a minority view and to portray it is such is doing disservice to many people.SparrowsWing 00:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Sparrows, it is a bit odd to accuse me of "trying to regale creationism to the level of flat earth theory" when I explicitly said in the comment that you were replying to that I disagreed with that comparison. Nor did I accuse you of "causing a conflict." I also don't know why you are bringing up your personal views which are completely irrelevant (and in any event I don't understand what you mean by saying that you "have no problem with evolution" and "disagree that man evolved from some amoeba" (and btw, no one thinks humans evolved from anything like that. The modern amoeba is almost certainly very different from the last common ancestor of humans and amoebas))(and as long as we're invoking our own religius beliefs for rhetorical gain, I'm religious (by many defintions) and accept evolution. You really need to read the article on theistic evolution). Simply put creationism is a minority view if one isn't looking simply inside the US (in Europe the fraction of poeple who are creationists in many countries is around 10% or less) and none of this is that relevant. What matters is that among the experts in the area the people the fraction of those who are creationists is tiny. To act like therefore these are on equal footing in some way is ridiculous and POV. JoshuaZ 00:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
JoshuaZ I'm afraid I have to apologise here - I incorrectly attributed the 'flat earth' comment to you when it was the previous poster (Seraphimblade) who brought it up - I misread that and I apologise. WRT my personal views I did say above "but this is not the place to discuss that". The amoeba comment was purely an exaggeration for emphasis of my point. The point I am trying to make is that creationism is by no means a minority view, any more than Wicca/Christianity/Islam etc. can be considered a minority view. That is why articles like this exist. Creationism, however, is not a minority view and to place it in the category of minority view is a disservice. SparrowsWing 01:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Creationism is a huge scientific minority and that's what counts in this discussion. What the general public thinks is irreverent when talking about the validity of evolution, just as it is irrelevant that 99.99999999% of people believe that time is constant for everybody when considering the validity of the Theory of Relativity.--Roland Deschain 00:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Sparrows, you appear to have a misconception as to what 'minority view' means. Minority/majority views aren't established on the basis of the population at large, but on the basis of experts on the subjects. Hence on the subject of evolution, since the vast majority of scientists agree with the modern form of evolution, creationism is substantially in the minority. Viewpoints of the general public are inappropriate here for reasons that are probably self-evident (if you don't agree or understand we can divert this discussion to your talk page if you like). --Davril2020 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
More than happy to move it over to my talk page - I have recreated it here: User_talk:SparrowsWing/Creation-Evolution_Controversy . SparrowsWing 01:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (arbitrary section break to make editing easier)

The additions are misleading and the diagram isn't an accurate representation of the relationship between these ideas. To begin with, there's no such thing as "orchard theory" and it isn't the only alternative to universal common descent, and the progressive creationist idea of multiple creation events is quite distinct from the baraminological idea of separate creation followed by post-Deluge evolution. Other alternatives to common descent include some of the "alien astronaut" ideas. In addition, the diagram seems to suggest that the only meaningful distinction is between old earth and young earth evolutionary ideas. Apart from conflating a number of very distinct ideas, it also gives undue weight to "young earth" (which is a minority among creationist ideas). Guettarda 00:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The orchard theory is the best term for the belief (which is still being discussed...don't jump to conclusions). It IS the only exception to universal common descent while still maintaining the belief in evolution. The orchard theory is not a term specific to creationism or the belief in God but simple refers to the belief that evolution happens but there are multiple original common ancestors. The diagram accurately lists how the various ideas are linked to one another. Also, please tell me how defining terms in a centralized location is giving undue? Pbarnes 01:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
At present it appears very likely that the orchard theory page will be deleted. --Davril2020 01:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Orchard theory is "the only exception to universal common descent"? Well...I suppose, since there is no such thing as "orchard theory" you could define it however you want. But there is a real difference between (a) a "young earth" idea of creation of "kinds" (however one chooses to define it) which have since diversified, (b) a progressive creationist idea of several creation events (also shared by pre-modern "catastrophist" ideas), (c) the idea that there might be more than one surviving lineage from the original "primordial soup" or (d) the idea that humans descend from alien spacemen. So no, the diagram is not accurate.
I'm not sure what you mean by "defining terms in a centralized location is giving undue". Guettarda 13:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Orchard theory or creationist orchard is simply the belief that there isn't one phylogentic tree but rather multiple phylogentic trees. You either believe this or you believe universal common descent or you don't believe in evolution...it's that simple, really. Pbarnes 17:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
So you are saying that baraminology, Battlestar Galactica ("life here...began out there") and the idea that there may be more than one lineage among the Archae can all be meaningfully lumped together because they question the idea of a single common ancestor? How can that possibly be a meaningful distinction? In addition, making that assumption appears to be a novel construction on your part, and so cannot be included in Wikipedia. Guettarda 19:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There's still major problems: It claims Creationism is an evolutionary belief, and that evolution is equivilent in weight to forms of creationism. This is simply untrue, given evolution's long success as a theory, and creationism's inability to make testable predictions. Adam Cuerden talk 09:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not even understand the figure very well. The entire contribution just confuses the issue.--Filll 17:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Creationist believe in the accepted definition of evolution, that is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. Most of them are off in there own little world and they make new definition for words. You cannot claim evolution means universal common descent because the majority of people and dictionaries understand otherwise, yet every major creationist would claim this and that is why they don't consider their belief evolution. Universal common descent is not necessary for a belief in evolution as already pointed out earlier. Furthermore, I would like an explanation as to how it makes other beliefs equivalent just by defining them, especially in a article such as evolution-creation controversy? I changed "theory" to "beliefs" because you guys felt "theory" was too strong of a word. I added "the majority of biologist believe in universal common descent and old earth". What more do you want...a completely biased article? Pbarnes 17:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I would rely more on my biologist colleagues, but if a Creationist wants to define evolution as having something to do with the Big Bang, should this be included? Sorry I disagree. Creationists do not know what science is, they do not know what theories are they do not know what evolution is. So why should we define it the way they want? And when I look up scientific definitions of evolution in biology, they do not sound very different from what the Wikipedia editors have written. Creationists seem to have a problem with natural selection, with mutations, with speciation resulting from evolution, and many other things, depending on the creationist. I also think that the definitions of the beliefs you propose are totally confusing. Sorry.--Filll 18:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
If you accept that evolution happens, and you accept the antiguity of the earth, creationism becomes indistinguishable from evolution. If you reject modern ideas about the age of the earth, then you embrace the idea that the creating deity is deceptive, for S/He has created a world which looks deceptively old. Which would make one (in a western context) either a gnostic or a satanist. Guettarda 19:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Note on terminology: the word belief is appropriately applied to Creationism, which is part of a belief system, but not to evolution. Educated individuals do not "believe" in evolution, they accept it as the most accurate description of observed phenomena. To characterize acceptance of evolution as a "belief" is simply misleading. Doc Tropics 18:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with this. Creationists want to define what a theory is, or claim that evolution is a religion or a belief, to try to put it on an equal footing with creationism. This just muddies the water tremendously and makes it harder for people to understand what the differences really are. Because contrary to some of the implications of your proposal and what you write, there are differences between creaetionism and evolution. That is why there is a controversy. If they agreed, there would be no controversy.--Filll 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I think this is an excellent point, which should probably be included in the article (unless it already is). I think linguistics and semantics deviate from the debate in hand and this is a strong example. The word "belief" is thrown around, but what does it mean in each case? I can say "I believe in evolution" But, do I really believe in it? Well, no; I find it highly probable based on current evidence. This is not the case when discussing belief in ID or religion. I think this misunderstanding is the core element in the "Science/Evolution is a religion" argument. Does anyone have a suggestion as to where (and how) this could be added (or whether it should be)? Riofrio 17:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secondary Proposal

I changed quite a bit around. It should be more clear and doesn't give undue weight to anyone. What do you guys think? Pbarnes 18:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Still claiming equality for non-scientific concepts to evolution. I'm afraid I still feel it misses the point. Adam Cuerden talk 19:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I am afraid that when I read it, I still get the impression that you are claiming that creationists agree with evolution, except in a few irrelevant details. Part of the difficulty is that there are so many flavors of creationist. Some acknowledge microscopic evolution. Some deny it. Some want an old earth, some a young earth. Some include stellar evolution and the big bang theory and all kinds of other theories in with the process of natural selection. Many are completely confused about the difference between facts and theories. Many do not know what science is. Many do not know what proof is. Many do not understand the data or even the foundation of their own religions. Contributing further to this confusion is not helpful, in my opinion. --Filll 20:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Better? Pbarnes 22:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I am still not that happy with the wording but I do agree on a couple of points, although I think it would be hard to find references to substantiate them. I do have the impression that the two main problems creationists have with evolution are the age of the earth (at least for the Young Earth Creationists) and the idea that mutations and natural selection together could produce new species. However, this ignores the fact that there are many other objections that creationists of various stripes have with what they call "evolution" (often completely distoring or misdefining evolution). I do think that a very large fraction of creationists believe that the species we see now are those that were loaded onto Noah's Ark and survived the flood, and these species have not changed since God designed and created them. There might be some who believe in evolution for all species except for man, and deny that man is an animal etc. However, I suspect there is not good survey data on the variety of creationist viewpoints and how many hold to each view. There might be dozens of differing creationist views I suspect. If you can find that sort of survey data, I would like to see it. I think it would be interesting.--Filll 22:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The confusion comes with the misconceptions about the definition of species. Some creationist see macro-evolution as the evolution of kinds. In reality though, foxes and wolfs having common ancestry is an example macro-evolution. I have heard many creationist refer to this example but they believe it is micro-evolution because of there misconceptions on definitions. Creationist do believe in evolution and if you look at the orchard theory page there are some links that show exactly what I mean. Pbarnes 23:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Darwinism is actually modern evolutionary synthesis and it definitely does not include theistic evolution. MES is a scientific theory, TE is a religous belief. Why is it so difficult to tell the difference? Further, I really don't understand the point of this material; it is already covered far more accurately in the article and this does not represent an improvement. It looks more like an attempt to obfuscate the issue than to clarify it. Doc Tropics 22:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

TE is a belief in neo-darwinism and God. Therefore neo-darwinism DOES include TE. If it makes you feel any better, I will make it a slash. It's amazing how critical some people are. Pbarnes 23:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, if I take your claims at face value, that most creationists believe in evolution and the phenomenon of species creation through evolution, then why do they object to evolution? What is their main problem? Is it pure misunderstanding? Is it the origin of man? However, I think you would have to demonstrate quite a bit to me to get me to buy that creationists believe in evolution and there is no real dispute between creationists and evolution. I have read some of their literature. I have sat through some of their lectures. I have had them try to debate me in person. I agree that there are a lot of things they misunderstand, but their objection to one or more forms of evolution is definitely not one of them.--Filll 23:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
TE is a term used to describe people who belive that 1. God exists and 2. life evolved. These two beliefs are not interdependent, they are in fact entirely unrelated. One is the product of faith, the other science. TE's may reconcile their beliefs in various ways, for instance believing God "set up" evolution, or that, while the human body evolved, God implants the soul into humans at time of conception. These beliefs belong to the provence of theology, they have nothing to do with science. Personally I've never heard of a creationist state a belief in anything more than "microevolution", by which they seem to mean breeds of dogs and such. I think any using a fox/wolf analagy are more showing an ignorance of taxomony than any acceptance of evolution. --Michael Johnson 00:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
This is not a scientific article. It has more to do with belief systems then scientific theory. Pbarnes 00:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that being a TE has nothing at all to do with the creation-evolution controversity, except that you are on the evolution side. And there are two distinct sides - those who accept the processes and product of science, and those who want to modify or misrepresent science to reflect their religious preconceptions. There is no middle ground. You seem to want to map it out as if there is some sort of continuim, which there is not. --Michael Johnson 00:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Filll - As I have stated over and over again. The accepted definition of evolution (biology) falls into the creation belief system. [see "Adaptation and natural selection"]. In summary, many creationist believe God created various kinds. The kinds evolved into different species like a wolf and fox were once once "kind" (that's how they all fit on the ark). The creation of the species of wolves and foxes is evolution. Pbarnes 00:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Pbarnes, this is one creationist. Even this one creationist writes that he is correcting many of the mistaken beliefs and confusions of his fellow creationists. However, I still thought a lot of his arguments were not particularly convincing. And he was still confusing things, in an attempt to try to make it seem like creationists are totally reasonable rational people who really believe in evolution and science etc. I could pick his little article apart and demonstrate repeatedly where he is wrong, but I think that is not the point here. The point is that this is one creationist view, which is at odds with most other creationist views, as he even states in his article. It strikes me as a creationist tap-dancing to try desperately to account for the evidence that is in front of his face without rejecting huge chunks of creationist beliefs. A frantic compromise which really satisfies no one. As soon as you introduce a supernatural magic wand into the creation of diverse life forms, you have left science and entered religious territory. You cannot hide that or explain it away somehow.--Filll, 00:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixing up this article

To start with, we are never going to seriously improve this article if we have mindsets like these (I'm not attacking the authors of these statements, just pointing out pertinent assumptions/biases):

  • And there are two distinct sides - those who accept the processes and product of science, and those who want to modify or misrepresent science to reflect their religious preconceptions.
  • if a Creationist wants to define evolution as having something to do with the Big Bang, should this be included? Sorry I disagree. Creationists do not know what science is, they do not know what theories are they do not know what evolution is. So why should we define it the way they want?
  • Most of them are off in there own little world and they make new definition for words. You cannot claim evolution means universal common descent because the majority of people and dictionaries understand otherwise, yet every major creationist would claim this and that is why they don't consider their belief evolution.

This article is rather fragmented; it has trouble accurately defining what the "Creation-evolution controversy" actually is. Of course, matters aren't helped by the myriad of "creationist" viewpoints nor by the myriad of creationist definitions of evolution.

It might be beneficial to rename this article because "creation" is a religious belief and "evolution" is a term encompassing what happens when natural selection has mutations to work with. Believe it or not, there is rarely a controversy involving these two (even though religious beliefs might be at the heart of one end of it); what is much more common are controversies involving criticisms of mainstream scientific models concerning origins and alternate, minority scientific hypotheses about origins.

It is rather painful (and causes a lot of confusion; I saw that just by reading this Talk page) to use "evolution" as the main "controversial" issue. Like I said previously, most "creationists" question the theory of evolution only in passing compared to the time spent targeting other benchmarks of the materialist/uniformitarian model like abiogenesis, mutation theory, "missing links", geology, and cosmological models. Take me: I have no trouble with any true theories regarding evolution; I just don't think enough mutations happen to make evolution a reality. Most serious creationists spend little time with apes-to-man evolution.

Admittedly, it is generally the "apes-to-man" idea that is first questioned. But to name the article "Creation-evolution controversy" and then act as though we must discuss on the one side evolution-as-deliniated-here and on the other side creation-as-described-in-genesis-and-its-constructs makes for very painful editing.

I would suggest rethinking the very first section in order to "set the tone" for the rest of the article:

"The conflict centers primarily on the defensibility of creationism (especially the forms of creationism derived from fundamentalist or religiously conservative Abrahamic accounts of origins), a view that regards scientific explanations of origins as antithetical to divine creation, and often, more specifically, Creation according to Genesis. The key contention of such creationists is that only a supernatural miracle and not "unguided evolution" can account for origins. This view is overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community and academia,[1][2][3][4][5] who point to the strong correspondence of reality with the theory,[6] and how, as in the title of a famous essay by Theodosius Dobzhansky, Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.[7]"

Even though this is NPOV it is really not the "center of the conflict". Nor is creationism adequately defined. I would counter that the conflict really centers around the two things I mentioned earlier: criticisms of mainstream scientific models concerning origins and alternate, minority scientific hypotheses about origins. If we use this as a starting point, it will be much easier to lay things out rather than cramming everything into the "creation-evolution" debate. For example, a particular ridiculous or poorly defined attack on fossil evidence for evolution can be characterized as such rather than having to work it in according to the definitions in the "Defining evolution" section.

The Creation-evolution controversy is a term for the myriad criticisms of mainstream scientific origins models and the myriad minority scientific origins models plus all the organizations that are attempting to participate in some portion of those debates. The closer we stick to that definition the better. standonbibleTalk! 21:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

These comments are a bit convoluted and difficult to follow, but it is important that we don't mix-up a minority scientific opinion on origins with a pseudoscientific opinion on origins. Creationists of all stripes argue for pseudoscience when they contradict the scientific consensus because they do it outside of the scientific community. They are not a minority scientific point of view. See WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience for more. --ScienceApologist 22:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I find it hard to take you seriously when you state that the conflict centers on "alternate, minority scientific hypotheses about origins". -- Ec5618 22:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I recognize one or two of those quotes as mine. Oh well, maybe I speak a bit harshly on this issue sometimes. However, I would like to have a clearer idea of the Creationist position then, since this is the 2nd or 3rd time I have heard the claim:
Creationists basically believe in most of the science in evolution
So if this is the case, what is the argument about? Because I have had Creationists in person so agitated and upset that they were threatening to kick my butt and throw a tantrum, and the Creationists that I have seen in lectures and in print just repeat one wrong statement after another with a smug look on their faces. So if all Creationists believe everything in evolution then what is the controversy?--Filll 22:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The controversy is what I said it was - "most "creationists" question the theory of evolution only in passing compared to the time spent targeting other benchmarks of the materialist/uniformitarian model like abiogenesis, mutation theory, "missing links", geology, and cosmological models. Take me: I have no trouble with any true theories regarding evolution; I just don't think enough mutations happen to make evolution a reality. Most serious creationists spend little time with apes-to-man evolution." So you're right - it isn't really a "Creation-evolution controversy" at all. The argument is over a bunch of models that all agree with the materialist presupposition and also over part of the evidence (or what that evidence means). standonbibleTalk! 23:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi SoB, I'm really glad you're here. You are just the person to help guide us through this quagmire. I had been trying to compose a proposal somewhat similar to yours. One of my main objections to much recent discussion has involved terminology; ie, refering to scientific theories as objects of "belief", and refering to religious beliefs as "theories". I'd like the article to present all the relevant information, in a neutral unbiased way. That includes making sure that we are not only using terms properly ourselves within the article, but also explaining (or linking to explanations) for the reader. We have an opportunity to write a strong, well-balanced article by working together to bring our disparate views into a balanced presentation. I realize that I was a bit abrupt in some of my earlier comments to another editor, but I very much look forward to having reasonable and productive discussions with you on this topic. Doc Tropics 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

As I understand it, the basic point is: The extreme creationist viewpoints are being portrayed too much as the viewpoints of all who have any such leanings. Which is probably true. The difficultly, of course, comes from the fact that, well, LEt's put it this way: With reasonable people like, I think, standonbible and, I hope, we editors on the... let's call it consensus scientific side, it's not really a controversy so much as a disagreement. However, compare this with extreme views, like, let's say, Kent Hovind, who accuses anyone who accepts consensus science of gross immorality and causing, one gets the impression, all the evil in modern society, as well as substantially misrepresenting science. On the extreme evolution side... Well, the extreme views aren't so easily promoted on that side due to the nature of the people who have to be convinced, but Julian Huxley might do in a pinch, or some of the nutters like Velikovsky. (Social Darwinists might be a useful example for the scum factor).
I agree that it's not as much of a controversy as it is a disagreement. Put it this way: most serious creationists feel that the "theory of evolution", as it is commonly argued, would have been relegated to the same place as the flat earth theory or the idea that rotten meat breeds maggots were it not for its appeal to the secular/materialist worldview. Mainstream science disagrees. That's the disagreement! standonbibleTalk! 23:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
In short, the part of the debate that can be called a controversy are the bits involving the extreme viewpoints, and, since science has a filtering-out process for them to some extent, but creationism as a social movement doesn't, these tend to be the creationist kooks. The militant athiests probably don't help a calm solution. (I actually rather like Gould's views on Non-Overlapping Magisteria, though I know others don't). I'm not sure how to be fair and balanced, however, though I agree we should be careful not to represent all creationists as the same as the extreme kooks. Perhaps qualifying terms will help, e.g. clearly indicating young-earth creationist views as such. Adam Cuerden talk 22:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I suppose the main problem is simply that in an effort to keep the "Creation-evolution controversy" motif, the reader gets a poor understanding of what the creationist viewpoint is and what the debate is actually about. standonbibleTalk! 23:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, I would like to see a list of creationist beliefs and maybe survey results describing how many people subscribe to each of the schools of thought.--Filll 23:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The list is at creationism. It used to be here, but we eliminated it due to its redudancy. Maybe a separate article could be made for all of them. --ScienceApologist 23:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
That would be good, but we need a central idea of what this disagreement/conflict/debate is all about. It is very difficult when we simply heap all creationist ideas or criticisms of evolution together in the same article without any real central definition or primary creationist model. standonbibleTalk! 23:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article rewrite

Would it be useful to make a new article from scratch in a user page? Adam Cuerden talk 23:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If we want to re-write the article, I suppose we can do so at User:Standonbible/In progress:Creation-evolution controversy. This article has a lot of good content right now but it lacks organization so even though we will do a lot of copy-and-paste large or important portions will need to be rewritten from scratch. standonbibleTalk!

Perhaps we shoul d discuss orginisation a bit first? I'm inclined towards:

  • Lead
    • Basic statements of viewpoints: Scientific method and development of consensus. Religious objections to the theory (not evidences against - reasons to object). Other theories problematical to religious views. Non-overlapping Magisteria. Brief discussion of more extreme viewpoints (Answers in Genesis, Hovind, etc, but not going into much detail - they need covered, but they needn't becovered from the start).
  • The religious questions: Is natural selection opposed to religion? Objections and coiunterarguements of the theoretical views:
    • Just God? violence in nature, Icheneumon wasps and other things that shocked Darwin. etc.
    • Place of man?
    • Morality: Can morality exist without God? especially outline Huxley's theories on it, as I honestly can't think of anyone who did it better.
    • Abuses of evolution: Social darwinism, racial prejudice, etc.
    • etc.


  • Scientific thought.
    • Brief summary of evidences.
  • Attempts at reconciliation, and objections:
    • Gould and NOMA
    • Dawkins and militant athiesm
    • Francis Collins/Kenneth Miller and theistic evolution
  • History of the conflict
    • Ussher vs Lyell
    • Paley vs Darwin
    • etc.
  • Extreme views
    • Hovind, Ham, etc.
    • Abuses by the extremists: Quote mining, misrepresenting evidence, etc. Adam Cuerden talk 23:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Does this seem reasonable? Adam Cuerden talk 23:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Not so sure this is a description of the controversy as much as it is a description of points related to the controversy. People may find this article of some interest with regards to these issues. What we should strive to do is describe the controversy as it currently exists. It seems to me that this is best done by describing the shots across the bow made by creationists toward the scientific community. The response to creationist attacks is usually made either by scientists/skeptics with time on their hands or by the courts. So I would suggest reorganizing like this:
  • Lead
  • Overview
  • History
  • Creationist attacks
  • Skeptical rebuttals
  • Court cases
  • Education
  • Other contexts (surveys of viewpoints/current events, etc.)
How bout that?
--ScienceApologist 23:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, we can organize everything by group, or we can organize by type of attack of evolution, or we can organize everything into three types of controversy: criticisms of mainstream views, minority origins models, and everything else. But we need a good introduction. Give me a few minutes to try and come up with something. (don't want edit conflict). standonbibleTalk! 00:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
"Minority" origins models do not belong on this page. Try creation science. --ScienceApologist 00:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I've got to disagree; since it's the Creation-evolution controversy, I think that's about half the story. Otherwise we might as well call the page "religious criticms of evolution" and putting in a big list. standonbibleTalk! 00:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps religious criticisms of evolution might be a good idea, actually. Having that article would then let us handle this article in much more focused way. Adam Cuerden talk 00:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it would be hard to decide whether a certain criticism is religious in nature or scientific in nature. For example, most of AiG's criticisms are scientific (or pseudoscientific) for religious reasons. Where would that go? standonbibleTalk! 00:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Standonbible is right - ID advocates claim to be proposing a scientific not religious POV. To rename it religious criticisms would IMHO open the main evolution articles to demands that it be included there. --Michael Johnson 01:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe a really simple title: "Criticisms of evolution." After all, since the mainstream scientific community would compare evolution to gravity, the title doesn't need to be specifically mention that it's minority views. I could write the introduction and make it really good, and then there could be a "historical", "religious", and "scientific" section. The only trick would be deciding what goes in the religious and what goes in the scientific section. standonbibleTalk! 01:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no. Criticisms of evolution is a POV-disaster waiting to happen. That's the issue with forking, there is a problematic fork called a "POV-fork" that invites departures from NPOV. For starters, the proposed title is in-and-of-itself POV because it assumes that "criticisms" exist. They don't. There are only protestations of an uneducated, unacademic crowd of religiously motivated ne'er-do-well-ers. I'm not just saying this because I oppose the idea (even though I do). I've been through enough AfDs to know that a criticisms of evolution article will not survive. --ScienceApologist 01:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm opposed to this suggestion, as there isn't any published scientific criticism of the core principles of evolution. (There are many minor debates within biology about evolution, but they are all about such specialized field that deal with peripheral theories, and all participant agree with the core ideas of evolution described in the Evolution article). A Criticisms of evolution article would therefore be mostly religiously inspired (at best we would get some pseudo-scientific ideas). Plus such an article would be deeply NPOV: all pertinent criticisms should be included in the Evolution article (if they are scientific) or in the Creationism article if they are religious.--Roland Deschain 01:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Which leaves you with the current title. --Michael Johnson 02:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
or creation science, or intelligent design. --ScienceApologist 02:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A brief Interlude

I'd like to briefly address a couple of points unrelated to current discussions:

[edit] Archiving

A number of sections at the top of this page have useful commentary, but they are inactive, and a few weeks old. If no one objects, I'd like to archive them to reduce this page length; it seems the discussion has progressed into new areas. Doc Tropics 02:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Page length

Since major revisions are being discussed, it seems reasonable to point out that this article is significantly longer than optimum. Guidelines suggest 32kb, but allow some margin for excess. The page is currently 62kb, and the subject really doesn't seem to warrant such length. This is not a top-tier article, and we should try to stay within the normal standards. That means that "major revisions" should include some drastic reductions, in addition to rewrites. Just a thought... Doc Tropics 02:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purported

The reason I put that in there is I do not believe Christianity has any such mandate to evangelize. I think that is the purest hokum and nonsense.--Filll 00:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

See the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20). -- Cat Whisperer 01:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

But there are lots of Christian sects that do not do this. This is only something done by some sects who interpret this text in this way. So it is not really a uniformly agreed upon mandate. It is only by a certain segment of the Christian community which is also characterized by "certain other features". I could give lots of other passages which are interpreted in an opposite sense. --Filll 01:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of purported because I thought it was clear from the context that it was only some Christian groups. Do you think it isn't clear? Also purported has negative connotations it might be better just to say something like "what they see as Christianity's mandate to evangelicize" or something like that. JoshuaZ 05:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It was not super clear to me. And it is one of the things that grates on me most about these extremist groups. Sort of like their denial that Catholics are Christians or their focus on Revelations or Speaking in Tongues or Snake Handling or a few other more irritating proclivities. Basically I feel like they have hijacked the Christian religion and are sort of obnoxious about it. So if it kicks them in the shins a bit, I suppose I do not mind. But it might be too inflammatory.--Filll 10:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Evangelism is not exactly a practice of extremist groups, its simply that the metholodigy is often radically different. For instance, whereas I personally would propose that the best way to evangelize would be to grab a bunch of gospel tracts, head into the city, and hand them out to people while using The Way of the Master, others may believe that it would be a better idea to send missionaries to Africa than bother with anything in the states, others still that evangelizing to someone is best to do only when you become their friend, and yet still others that, well, err....lets not discuss the real extremist forms of evangelism, which certainly aren't Christian at all. (cough Flirty_Fishing cough) There's a reason that almost all denominations have been known to send out missionaries to remote locals, although many Christians do not take evangelism as seriously as they really ought to, the drive is still there to do it, even when its not being practiced to the degree it should be. I know of no denominations which publicly state that Evangelism is not commanded by Christ, and therefore in summary, I don't think its very accurate to propose that evangelists only belong to extremist groups. Homestarmy 18:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
That's all well-and-good, Homestarmy. But your assertion of word ownership over "Christianity", "evangelism", and "extremism" is highly debatable. I definitely consider Way of the Master to be an extermist group -- bent on hellfire, damnation, fundamentalism, distrust of the secular, and promulgation of creationism. I would say that most Muslims would also consider any form of evangelism to be proselytization and therefore akin to extremism. So this kind of comment is really nothing more than a personal opinion and shouldn't be informing our articles. --ScienceApologist 20:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes I agree. Way of the Master looks like the same sort of fire and brimstone organization like countless others that appear overnight again and again in the US, full of anger and hatred for those who do not believe what they have decided is the "truth". Is there any speaking in tongues? Playing with poisonous snakes? Healing the sick by laying on of hands? Thrashing around on the floor like epileptics, full of the Holy Spirit? Brimming with confidence that science and progress and knowledge is evil and the work of the devil. Claiming that scientists are evil and maybe even Satanic figures. I have had so many experiences with groups of this ilk that it makes me ill. People who just stand up and proclaim that every word out of their mouths is the word of God so no one is allowed to disagree with them. And other people who all decide they must be correct and they should send these religious leaders money. Amazing. But somehow these religious extremists have decided they have to stick their noses into science and education and politics and throw their weight around.--Filll 02:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I have the feeling my answer won't really matter to you, but to answer your questions in order, it is not explicitly required, (i've never heard it once on their radio show) no, not required again, and that one I think I recall them being suspicious of because there's little Biblical precendece for it. I'd respond to the rest, but i'd rather not unless I could be more confident that you'd really care about anything I type. Homestarmy 02:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, there are too many evangelists full of anger and hatred at the rest of the world. Completely the opposite of Christianity in my opinion. And I have been in the firing line of their attacks over and over and over. And accused of horrible things. It gets old. You know what I am saying? Science is not the work of the devil. Reason is not evil. Using your brains is not some sort of Satanic act. But religion has a long ugly blood soaked history that just continues to repeat itself as we even now are on the cusp of more religious wars, but with far more deadly weapons that are capable of killing millions of innocents. Ah, isnt religion wonderful?--Filll 03:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
While I think their television show episode on Evolution has some flaws, (Hey, it's harder to be a Creationist than you might think, we have to sort the AiG's from the Kent Hovinds, you know?) that's the only one I know of where they talk about science at all, and I don't recall anything in there about Science being the devil, reasoning being evil, or using your brain being a Satanic act. I've also never heard them advocate that we all go to war against everyone else, you've really got to look at each group of people on its own, promotes better critical thinking skills in my opinion. Homestarmy 03:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that there are some areas where potentially look for evidence of the supernatural or evidence of a creator if a person wanted, but I think it is pretty fruitless to do it in evolution. I can give a list of places to look, but the problem is, they actually require thinking instead of listening to some uneducated boobs spewing warmed over arguments that were dismissed 50, 100 or even 200 year ago.--03:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it fruitless, but it certainly does seem to be an extremely roundabout way of going at it in my opinion, since most of the time you just end up with a very long train of thought when a short one will do, and it ultimatly ends up as the teleological argument in the end anyway. Homestarmy 03:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of extremist of course, and on evangelizing or proselytizing. I think there are Christian denominations that do not believe they were commanded to evangelize by Christ, but the radical elements might not recognize them as Christian, just like they do not often recognize Catholics as Christian.--Filll 18:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

My point was not that all Christian groups clearly know that they should evangelize like The Way of the Master, but that I know of not a single Christian denomination which specifically disavowes evangelism of all varities, and specifically states that we have no mandate to do such. I did, if you'll notice SA, mention several different forms of evangelism that many Christians or Christian organizations take part in which certainly are not like the kind I personally think is most effective. However, since we are, you know, in an encyclopedia here, I don't think my definition of Evangelism is highly ambiguous or debatable at all, I mean its at the Evangelism article. Anything which proclaims the gospel is evangelism, and while of course I would disagree that everyone who calls themself Christian is really spreading the right gospel, my opinion really doesn't matter here. The method or the message doesn't matter, its whether Christianity has the mandate or not, and considering the massive support among pretty much every Christian denomination there is and was throughout history that evangelism is indeed a mandate/responsibility/what-have-you of Christianity, I really don't think qualifiers would be appropriate, per undue weight. Homestarmy 02:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
However, I do wonder which groups precisely see Creationism in particular as something we have a responsibilty to evangelize over, as it isn't really explicitly part of the Gospels per-se, and I assume the person who put up a fact tag wondered the same thing. Homestarmy 02:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific vs. non-Supernatural vs. Naturalistic

I do not think that creationists object to scientific explanations per se. In fact, I think that creationists would point to creation science or intelligent design and claim, "hey science supports our belief not yours". I do not think they necessarily object to naturalistic explanations either, as long as they do not violate what is in the particular religious text or religious belief they are following. I think that creationists reject anything that does not include either a supernatural explanation, or the possibility for a supernatural explanation, when these are dictated by their faith, because that is what they are really counting on: the existence of the supernatural. Naturalistic explanations that do not trod on the preferred supernatural explanation are fine. Scientific explanations that do not trod on the preferred supernatural explanation are fine.--Filll 15:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is, though, that they reject scientific explanations. There are explanations that are not scientific which also are not supernatural, but creationists don't normally comment on those. Of course, we all realize that creation science/intelligent design is not verifiably science, so their insistance that "science supports creationism" is wholly misleading. --ScienceApologist 16:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that creation science is not science. Intelligent design is slightly better, but still not real science. The focus of their dispute is really that they want to preserve some supernatural component in the explanation of natural phenomena. In particular, they want to preserve the supernatural component which they believe their sacred text or their religious leader has dictated by fiat exists. For example, Christians who accept evolution as God's method of creating species are dismissed by Christian creationists, because the supernatural intervention to produce species as delineated in Genesis is missing in their worldview. It is not science that they are rejecting, because as long as the scientific explanation does not come into conflict with what they believe is an unassailable and unquestionable truth, such as biblical inerrancy, they would have no dispute with it. If it was demonstrated that extraterrestrials had designed the species on earth, and this removed the possibility of a supernatural intervention, it would be rejected by those supporters of intelligent design. This was amply revealed in the Dover court case. They really only want one answer; a supernatural one. That is the focus. If science somehow produced evidence of a supernatural element, creationists would have no objection at all to a scientific explanation, clearly. It is only when this scientific explanation appears to be at odds with their own preconceived notions of supernatural intervention or existence.--Filll 16:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

they want to preserve some supernatural component in the explanation of natural phenomena -- This is a desire that is wholly unscientific, so when creationist criticize science, they are criticizing the scientific aspect of science not just the "nonsupernatural" aspect. The point is that the creationists reject the parts of science which do not fit in with their worldview. This is illustrated in the text of the article very carefully. --ScienceApologist 16:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
It's also pretty inaccurate. For instance, Christian fundamentalists are just as unhappy about Hindu creationism as they are evolution, so you can't say they examine issues neutrally among different supernatural options. --Davril2020 16:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
This is a good point. Yes, what they really are doing, is trying to argue just to preserve some particular world view of their particular sect, which might different than another sect. It might be even at variance with the sacred text that their sect follows, or based on a different interpretation of the text than the interpretation of other sects. This can make it difficult to argue with them since they are dogged in their pursuit of some particular goal. They already know the answer, and everything else is summarily rejected, including definitions of terms they do not like, techniques they do not like, scientific theories, logic, reason, etc. Extreme extrapolations and convoluted explanatons will be dredged up to protect their beliefs, such as "God made the world look old to test our faith" and "The devil made the world look old to tempt us from our faith" and "coral produced more than one growth ring per year in past millenia making them look much older than they are" and "God created the earth already pre-aged" and "Radioactive decay rates are not constant" and "God created light already redshifted so it looked like it came from a great distance" and on and on and on. This makes it impossible to "win" an argument with them since they are allowed to bend the rules to make sure that the one answer they have in mind is always the "right one".--Filll 17:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I think there's a couple points to make. Firstly, reading material from creationists, it is obvious that they regard science that leaves out their particular theological belief with hostility. One quote from, I believe, a DI member went along the lines of saying Christ should be central to science, not an afterthought. So in that sense it is not just the case that creationists reject science that disagrees with particular religious interpretations - they are fundamentally opposed to anything that ignores their ideological beliefs, not juse those that actively contradict them. On the other hand, this demonstrates that the problem is not with science or the supernatural - it's simply an unwillingness to engage with ideologies or methodologies that disagree with their worldview. So you might be able to say that creationists typically reject any argument that disagrees with them regardless of source, and be accurate. However, given that in this case we're dealing with objections to a scientific theory it seems excessive to note down such a general point. While creationists are inevitably hostile to opposing religious traditions with different origins stories, you can comment on that in those relevent articles - I don't think it has a place here. --Davril2020 18:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
It was said by William Dembski - the full quote is "Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ." JoshuaZ 18:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Even though Dembski says you should end up with Christ (similar to the many Papal pronouncements, and those of other religious leaders), the problem that I often run into is that the average creationist, and maybe even Dembski himself, takes another view in practice. More often, one finds that the answer is assumed to start with, and then the work is done to make the answer come out the way that one expects. Which is like cheating. And which is why this is pure poison to science. It is dishonest.--Filll 18:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think he is saying pretty close to the creationist view there. He does say "the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ" and he has other similar quotes which I can locate if you want where is more explicit. JoshuaZ 18:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not found them near this reasonable to be honest, in practice. Far from it.--Filll 18:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is odd since most of the time the Intelligent Design people are accuse of being more dishonest about their goals rather than less so. Incidentally, two more quotes from Dembski of the same sort: "any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient" and "all disciplines find their completion in Christ and cannot be properly understood apart from Christ" JoshuaZ 19:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the ID proponents only sort of pretend to be open minded and not connected with Supernatural beliefs, but this is a very poor disguise, as you reveal. After all, they have to espouse these beliefs to raise money from supporters. That is not the dishonesty/dissembling that I am discussing. I am referring to basic intellectual dishonesty which all of these creationist approaches not only encourage, but even require. Suppose Johnny is trying to do a math problem. Johnny does not know how to get from step 3 to step 12. Johnny knows from looking in the back of the book that the answer he wants to get is 3213. So Johnny declares that a magic wand allows him to wave his hands and ignore the need to fill in the steps from 3 to 12. And he is done. And declares himself a great genius. And then is bent out of shape and defensive when someone points out he cheated. THAT is what creationists are like. And that is the dishonesty I am talking about. It is inherent the instant you postulate as a precondition that you must have a supernatural intervention of a prescribed nature to appear at certain places in the narrative.--19:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spiritual and physical spiral Evolution

  • Harold Aspden, Creation: The Physical Truth, Book Guild Ltd , 216 pages, ISBN 1-84624-050-6, U.K., 26 Oct 2006

has nothing to do with evolution or creationism

by Filll at User talk:213.58.54.87 04:56, 12 December 2006

As far as it concerns to the article Creation-evolution controversy it is not only about biology or science, it should involve all human knowledge aspects surrounding this central issue, including religion and spirituality. Failing to present all views central to this issue, the article, not surprisingly, is biased toward a materialistic conception of man, based upon the 18th-19th century positivism movement, which sadly became the foundation of current-day auto-proclaimed "society of knowledge". As it was said before, the almost 100 years text Rosicrucians: The Process of Evolution presents evolution from a Spiritual standpoint: not from a materialism science view theorizing that man is an accidental end-result, without any real purpose for existence. However, here I leave some words from the same source to meditate upon:
"Scientific materialism is based on the premise that nothing can be known except that which is observed through the five senses or measured by machines. Thus, materialism recognizes only the Physical World and its laws. It originates from the theories of Charles Darwin, Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Engels, among others.
These theories hold that man, as well as all life-forms that exist on our planet, are the result of chemical forces which interacted in a haphazard manner. Thus, man is an accidental end-result, without any real purpose for existence. Man's survival as a psychological organism requires balance between the inner forces, which surge from the unconscious, and the outer forces, which impinge from social and environmental sources. Although he must try to gratify his inner urges without provoking a threat from without, he has no direct control over either the inner or the outer forces.
The solution to the human dilemma, according to the logical implications of materialism, is to control the inner urges through such things as drugs and behavior modification and to control the outer forces through direct manipulation of political, social, and economic structures.
With this concept of man, there is no individual responsibility because, at any particular point in time, man is merely the result of factors over which he has no control. As an example, man's behavior often is blamed on "genetics" or "education" or "poverty." In this theory, man does not have an individual free will for which he can be held responsible; he simply reacts to the inner and outer stimuli which he perceives. If responsibility for man's destiny is placed on social institutions, rather than on man himself, the intrinsic worth of the individual ado is denied.
As the materialistic view has grown stronger and stronger, especially in the Western World, there has been a corresponding increase in the number of people who reject it. They have grown disillusioned at the over-mechanized, over-intellectualized, de-humanized society which has resulted from materialistic thought.
These truth-seekers perceive an intrinsic worth and integrity in the individual human being -- something of a transcendental nature. They feel that people possess an individual free will which is not merely a response to social or biological stimuli but an independent assertion of the identity of the individual. Also, they perceive that the Physical World is not all that exists -- that beyond outer appearances he inner readies which are the cause of what expresses itself outwardly."
Regards (my English level is not enough to discuss deeper these points, as I gladly do it in my own mothertongue). Thanks. --213.58.54.39 13:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
On the subject of free will, I can recommend David Hume. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fact vs. Theory

I have seen this issue be a huge hurdle over and over in discussions with creationists when I have encountered them for many years. I have also seen it cause trouble in the evolution article. Both this article and the evolution article have a section on this. Obviously at one time these sections in the two articles were the same. I and orangemarlin have been unhappy with the wording of the fact vs. theory sections in evolution and this article, and have created a rough draft of a replacement section in Talk:Evolution/FactvsTheory. Unfortunately, this replacement section is longer than I would like. I hope it is clearer. I think it is. I do not think it discards anything. It just changes the order a bit and adds a bit of explanatory material. I have several ideas/options I would like to propose for comment:

  • replace both fact vs. theory sections in this article and in evolution with an edited version of what is now in Talk:Evolution/FactvsTheory.
  • shorten drastically what is in Talk:Evolution/FactvsTheory and replace both fact vs. theory sections in this article and in evolution with the shortened section
  • create a separate article on fact vs. theory confusion using the material from Talk:Evolution/FactvsTheory, fleshed out a bit, and provide links from both this article and the evolution article, and drastically reduce the size of the current fact vs. theory sections in this article and in evolution
  • create a blue box with sections in it, comparing the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution as both fact and theory. This would show that the arguments are in fact parallel. Gravity is a fact and gravity is a theory. Evolution is a fact and evolution is a theory. This box could go in this article, in evolution or both, or in the proposed fact vs. theory article.

Comments?--Filll 14:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Do it. That section's needed a revamp for a while now. Adam Cuerden talk 03:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I did it. The philosophical stuff which someone had worked so hard on, but needs reworking, I shoved into a new section. It does not have much to do with theory and fact in evolution anyway. It is more about the philosophy of science, what is in science etc. That is a different topic really. --Filll 08:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)