Talk:Creation-evolution controversy/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Unable to publish vs. unwilling

William Dembski, a noted and oft cited creationist, has gone on record with this statement regarding why he does not seek to publish in the mainstream scientific journals:

"I've just gotten kind of blasé about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print. And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read more."[1]

This puts the claim "they would if they only could" to rest.--FeloniousMonk 02:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Where you often wait two years"?!? Only if your paper is such crap that you have to submit it to seven journals before you find one desperate enough to publish your tripe... Especially in biology, come on. Most with-it journals have a review process of less than two months. Graft 02:24, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Although 2 years sounds like it's on the upper end, 2 months seems too short. When I get manuscripts to review they usually say "we need this back in 4 weeks". Some journals (in ecology at least) have 12-18 month backlogs after acceptance. Of course, from what I know of books the turn-around is usually longer (I know of conference proceedings from 1998 which have not yet seen the light of day) - which is why you go to the journals for current research, and to books for synthesis (or conjecture). Do these people really have "publication quality" manuscripts floating around which journals turned down? Even though most evolutionary biologists are opposed to creationism, there are enough people out there that would give a manuscript a read, and make a stink about it if it was turned down for political reasons (because, of course, we are all paranoid about being excluded by the "ruling clique"). Guettarda 03:32, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I felt that "unwilling or unable" sounded like we didn't know which, so I have changed it to hopefully make it clearer.

But perhaps Graft is on to something. Perhaps Dembski is only "unwilling" because he is effectively "unable" (not because of merit, but bias)? In which case, "unwilling" is not necessary???

Philip J. Rayment 03:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I removed the modifier (in some cases) since the conjuction "or" indicates that.

I think that the best NPOV way of putting it is that they are either unwilling or unable. People can decide for themselves what spin to put on it. Joshuaschroeder 07:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah Peer Review and thus criticism out of the way. Credentials please? Well I do write a lot of books and they sell well. In fact I expect to get the Nebula and Hugo awards for science fiction any day now. It cracks me up. Very funny. Thanks for sharing.--LexCorp 08:29, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I removed the modifier (in some cases) since the conjuction "or" indicates that.
I don't believe that it does unambiguously mean that. "The prosecutor said that the gunmen shot one or two rounds", means that he isn't sure which it is. The article can be read that way also. Philip J. Rayment 14:32, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Logically, being unsure of which case it is which is equivalent to stating that there are some cases (scenarios) where one is correct while there are others where the other is correct. Since the sentence we're referring to has a large number of cases (not just one as the example you gave is) then there is an opportunity to apply it to each and every case, not all cases on the whole. Joshuaschroeder 15:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They are not logically equivalent at all. They are two different possible interpretations of the words. This doesn't deny that both may be true in different cases, but it doesn't have to mean that. It could mean, as per my example, that we aren't sure. The possibility that my example applied to one situation (not necessarily true; I did say gunmen) does not mean that the same couldn't be true of the words in the article. I believe that it clear from creationists' complaints of bias that they are generally willing to publish in the secular journals, and that examples to the contrary are exceptions, and I further believe that the wording as it stands does not convey that. Philip J. Rayment 02:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

At the top of this section we have a direct quote from a creationist (at least, he is a creationist in the sense defined in Wikipedia), William Dembski, that he is effectively unwilling to publish in secular journals. Now your spin is that he is technically "willing" and is just lamenting a bias. I'm sorry. It is not up for us to read between the lines. There exist creationists who are unwilling to publish in secular journals. Therefore the statement is correct as it stands. Joshuaschroeder 03:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Although I did make the comment that Dembski's "unwillingness" may really be an inability, that was not my main argument, which is that Dembski would be an exception to the rule, not the norm, and the wording of the sentence in question doesn't reflect that. Philip J. Rayment 14:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Until you provide us with evidence that a "rule" as such exists, we are only going on your hunches as to whether your conception of the publishing in journals problem is correct. We have a counterexample, so it's not a universal rule, but if you want us to believe that most creationists don't publish because they are unable rather than unwilling, you're going to have to give us some evidence for this. Joshuaschroeder 15:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have already provided some evidence, that being their complaints that they are unable to publish. They wouldn't be complaining that if they didn't want to and hadn't tried to. Philip J. Rayment 14:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A few protestations does not a rule make. You should document that the majority of creationists don't publish in the journals for this reason. Joshuaschroeder 00:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The best evidence would be the large number of publication-quality mss floating around on the internet that were rejected by major journals. If these exist, then people can look at them and decide for themselves. Can someone point the way to these mss? Thanks. Guettarda 15:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whilst creationists would like to be able to publish in the secular journals, the fact that they know they can't means that they don't continually waste their time trying. Instead they publish in creationist peer-reviewed journals, so they would be the best places to look for the sorts of papers that would be submitted to secular journals if do so was a practicable proposition. Philip J. Rayment 14:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide me with the names of any of these journals? Guettarda 15:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe this is one. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The editorial commitee of this publication all have to sign this statement. Hence this isn't a genuine peer-reviewed journal. See particularly this point at the bottom of the link:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Something is not necessarily peer reviewed just because some people call it peer reviewed. Barnaby dawson 23:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I should have clarified it is one creationists may cite. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. It doesn't matter to me whether it is "properly" peer-reviewed or not - I am just curious about what they publish. I am would like to have a look to be able to decide for myself how I would react to a Creationist manuscript if I were asked to review it for a journal. That can't answer the question of "unwilling or unable", but it can give me more insight into the nature and quality of the work. Guettarda 00:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So when can we expect a review Guettarda? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:04, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As soon as I quit editing Wikipedia and catch up on all the work I'm behind on? :) Actually, it's Sprig Break, maybe I can find some time, and let you know what I think (which would be, of course, count as original research and have no place in Wikipedia...). Guettarda 23:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Clean up tag?

What is the reason for the cleanup tag. The edit summary was too vague. Rednblu's usual delusions of censors and his compulsive need for scholarly citations have been dealt with, and should be ignored. Bensaccount 05:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not really an account of the controversy at all, rather it is a list of incidental claims (like controversies over definitions and views beyond the dichotomy) and a list of people who are involved in the "controversy".

What we need is a description of the conflict itself: reference to the history (I cannot believe the Scopes Trial isn't mentioned in the article), reference to the tactics of the debate (not just the two that are outlined), and references to how this controversy has had effects in the public arena. The development of "Intelligent Design" as a neo-creationist enterprise meant to cause a "renewal" in the controversy should also be outlined. Likewise, the influence of popular science accounts (S.J. Gould, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins) vs. popular creationist accounts (AiG, ICR, Discovery Institute) as to how the "debate" is structured should be compared. Joshuaschroeder 17:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

* I agree. ---Rednblu | Talk 18:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We have a description of the conflict. Every section is an important aspect of the controversy. All of the most important aspects are covered. If you want a history section, I agree, but a clean up is not required. Bensaccount 22:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A certain one of us has an important point-of-view that there is no "conflict." And that very wonderful one of us has systematically removed every quotation, paraphrase, and citation that describes the conflict. We have been profoundly tolerant. 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 23:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See the end of this section [[2]]. Paranoid delusions of wonderful, important people systematically removing all of the quotations? Bensaccount 02:29, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aside from the incessant back-and-forth, I'm not saying any part of this article needs to go, I'm simply saying that there needs to be an expansion. Cleanup is simply a way to get some visibility for this page. I could have used the stub part as well, but I thought cleanup was more appropriate. Again, I'm not saying that we should take out anything, just add. Joshuaschroeder 03:12, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

?? ---Rednblu | Talk 03:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for an image?

Anyone got an image to represent the controversy? Creationist protestors holding signs maybe? Bensaccount 17:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Creation vs evolution debate.jpg

Creation Magazine is a common venue for the creation-evolution debate. This issue examines whether dinosaurs perished in Noah's Flood.

This image seems like a good representation. I took it from the AiG website. The image is blurry, do you think it infringes on copyrights? I know that there are other pictures of magazine covers on Wikipedia. Bensaccount 19:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fair use; fair use should apply, especially at that resolution. I've pinched pictures of some of the protagonists; that might be appropriate, they probably won't bother to challenge the fair use. Dunc|☺ 20:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We should definitely have Darwin fish and icthys. They should also be talked about (or at least hyperlinked) in the article.

The Darwin fish is a parody of the ichthus

The Darwin fish, when taken seriously can be a symbol that conflates evolution with Christianity, so I think it is fitting to put it in the conflation of ideas section. Bensaccount 15:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Back to the image anyway, Creation doesn't debate anything; it just one side's propaganda . Dunc|☺ 15:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just because it is unbalanced doesn't mean it is not an attempt to take part in a debate.It is obviously just one side's propaganda, but I think it is an excellent representation of the controversy, which can be thought of as one sides propaganda vs the other's. Bensaccount 15:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Im thinking of a better caption...Bensaccount 16:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know everyone's see it, but honorable mention. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, there's this one. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A lets not forget this wicked cartoon series... are they mentioned in the article yet? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is that cartoon series satire or genuine? ~~~~ 16:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the Earth image should be on this page. It is better to find something that represents the debate, and not the subject being debated. Bensaccount 15:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But that completely ignores intelligent design for a start; the idea is to put something in that if you were writing a school project for would look good. Dunc|☺ 22:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why should the image have anything to do with intelligent design? What does this "school project" criteria demand that is not covered? I like it when the image conveys the subject. A good picture is worth a thousand words. Bensaccount 23:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In other words, when someone says "creation-evolution controversy" what image should come to mind? (It is not a picture of the Earth). Bensaccount 23:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Twisted oversimplified science. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of creationist/noncreationist churches

User:Bensaccount deleted an entire paragraph that listed which denominations supported evolution and which supported creationism. Of course, the only reason that statements are made to this effect is that the controversy helps a conflation of science and religion. I have attempted to recategorize and make more explicit how this paragraph is connected to the controversy. Please make comments about this here. If this information doesn't belong here, where does it belong? It doesn't belong in creationism because that article is simply a description and a statement of who supports creationism (or, as I would say, the controversy). Joshuaschroeder 15:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Churches that have made statements about what is appropriate or inappropriate in terms of scientific theories are participants in the controversy -- and relevant. Most churches advocate creationism to some extent (it is a religious belief) -- this is irrelevant. Churches may advocate evolution; but this is irrelevant (unless they were specifically against it previously). Therefore unless you can say these churches are specifically against evolution, I will erase the list. Bensaccount 15:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to note which denominations tend to be more literal in interpreting the Bible; and those who are on the symbolic side of the equation could provide a sense where creationists come from. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not following Bensaccount's reasoning at all. It is useful to have a list of which churches demand belief in creationism, which take a neutral attitude, and which promote evolution (if any do specifically). The differing beliefs of the churches are, in part, a source of the controversy. -- Temtem 17:11, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

This would be equivalent to listing universities that teach evolution. This does not make them part of the controversy. Bensaccount 20:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite the same thing. Although the churches that are not opposed to evolution might not actively take part in the controversy, some of the controversy involves creationist claims that proponents of evolution are godless, Communist stooges attempting to set the stage for the New World Order. Naming the churches that do not oppose evolution provides a counterpoint to this claim (especially where the particular church has taken a strong anti-Communist stance). -- Temtem 21:24, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

How do churches preaching creation have anything to do with "communist stooges"? Bensaccount 02:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Outrageous as it may seem, this is a claim that some creationists, such as Kent Hovind, make. -- Temtem 02:23, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Please enlighten me. What is the basis for this comparison? Bensaccount 02:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In other words, it is the claim of some creationists that a person cannot be Christian and believe in evolution. Moreover, these particular creationists claim that evolution is an atheistic, Marxist plot to destroy religion and prepare the world for a socialistic, godless government under the United Nations. The very existence of relgions that do not demand creationist beliefs exposes the fallacy of the creationists' claim that religion and evolution are incompatible. The list of positions taken by various churches is therefore relevant to this controversy. -- Temtem 02:33, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

If you're interested in this view, watch Part 5 of Kent Hovind's creation science seminar: [3] -- Temtem 02:34, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Some churches conflate evolution with athiesm, advocating its incompatability with religion, while others don't. Those that do are involved in the creation-evolution controversy. I still don't see how it involves those that don't. Bensaccount 02:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kent Hovind

Added a Creationist link that might be helpful for those seeking the truth. Salva 23:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This link shows that the AAA is not generally recognised as an accreditation body. The Patriot university is accredited only by the AAA. Hovind recieved his degree from the Patriot university. Hence I have put up a warning message to indicate that "Dr Hovind" has no properly accredited degree. Barnaby dawson 09:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed all the appellations from the reference list. They are unnecessary and are a favorite ploy of creationists to lend themselves legitimacy. Arguments, essays, and fact stand on their own weight, not on the doctoral degrees accrued. While I have no doubt that Dr. Theobold is worthy of the degree he carries and Hovind is not, the essays themselves will show that Theobold is the real scientist and Hovind is the impostor.

I added Hovind to the list of participants as this snake-oil salesman does seem to have a number of followers (such as Salva). Joshuaschroeder 15:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Referencing EvolutionDeceit.com

Why was this link removed? I did a google search and got 474 pages that link to it, not 60 as Brian0918 states. Isn't useful to have a link to a participant in the debate who comes from a non-Christian perspective? -- Temtem 21:30, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I see how you got the 38 number. Still, you'd expect a much lower number for a creationist site based on Islam rather than Christianity. Unless there's a more popular Islamic creationist site, I think it's appropriate to link this one. -- Temtem 21:43, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't any islamic site a so-called "islamic creationist" site? --brian0918 ™ 00:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this one goes to great lengths to argue against evolution explicitly. I suspect most Islamic sites don't. -- Temtem 00:18, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Temtem. Creationists websites from other religions should be included. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Darwin Fish

Someone keeps removing the Darwin fish without any discussion first. Here would be the place for discussion. -- Temtem 01:08, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

THe Darwin fish is a violation of Wikipedia NPOV. Administrators please do something. (unsigned, added by User:220.237.4.86)

But this is a page about the creation-evolution controversy. We did remove the fish from the evolution page because the consensus was it wasn't appropriate there. This page has a section about the conflation of science and religion. The fish is relevant to that. -- Temtem 03:45, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the Darwin fish makes perfect sense here, as it illustrates a topic about the controversy. It's not like the page is endorsing it, it's just discussing it. DreamGuy 03:47, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, the Darwin fish does not represent the NPOV, it is just like putting a Nazi symbols in the Jewish page. Please keep respecting each other view without attacking it.

I think I got the idea now. The Wikipedia is a simulation of real-life politics, whoever got the majority views win. I question what is really the basis of electing the administrator? I guess there are more evolutionist-view administrator here. That's why they keep putting up the Darwin fish. (unsigned, added by User:220.237.4.86)

They keep putting up the Darwin fish because it is relevant to the controversy, just like a confederate flag would be relevant to a page about the Civil War. If you think some other sort of symbol should also be included, that is another matter for discussion. -- Temtem 03:58, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I understand the question of relevancy, but would you put a Nazi symbol on a Jewish page? That is very inconsiderate. (unsigned, added by User:220.237.4.86)

No, but this isn't a creationist Christian page. It is a page about the creation-evolution controversy. And you would put a swastika on a page about WWII. -- Temtem 04:07, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

OK then, I accept that. I think the proof can only be proven individually at the point of death. (unsigned, added by User:220.237.4.86)

What relevancy does idealogy (nazism vs judiasm) have to do with a debate of science vs religious idealogy? They are not analogous, to profess they are is to expose a very clear POV. Continued comparisons to that subject is offensive. If you find evolution offensive (or an idealogy), demonstrate it on rationale or evidentiary grounds. Evoking inaccurate offensive comparisons is a cheap copout. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So you mean you're coming from a primordial soup long long time ago? (unsigned, added by User:220.237.4.86)

Please note that this user, User:220.237.4.86 (Talk), has just sunk to an absolute low, by altering the comment made by RoyBoy, by changing "Evoking inaccurate offensive comparisons is a cheap copout." to "I'm a cheap copout." Loathsome. -- Ec5618 14:54, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't mean that. That would be silly. I do mean so far we've been able to understand everything which is in our power to examine, we discover formed and can be explained from natural causes. Now there are things we cannot examine/explain fully, such as the "soul" (what gives rise to consciousness, how it functions and interacts with the universe), beginning of life and beginning/cause of the universe. The thing is if you have explained the majority of things naturally; it logically follows everything has natural origins. That might be wrong, certainly, but its reasonable and does not overstep our understanding. To answer your misleading question, no... I nor humans, nor mammals, nor vertabrates, nor invertabrates, nor algae, nor bacteria, nor archaea came from primordial soup. More likely some very basic form of chemical reaction which eventually became life (self-replicating) did. Keep in mind, by saying "primordial" soup that's simply labelling it as "original" or "fundamental" stage for life. What I'm getting at is that does not discount God by itself. (Believing everything came from natural causes does discount God, BUT you can believe life originated from primordial soup... and also believe God created Earth for that to occur. There is no contradiction.) Lastly changing over peoples entries here is an example of revisionist history that is another dishonest tactic creationists use. From my understanding of religions; that is a sin... and it isn't worth doing, since it ultimately demeans you and reflects poorly on your beliefs. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Theistic realism article

Can editors on this page check out the Theistic realism page? I think we need to have more people look at it so that we can get it moving along editorially. Joshuaschroeder 01:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The 'fundamentalist' labeling problem

I removed the reference to "fundamentalist" which was followed by a list of denominations, many of which are not, and would not call themselves fundamentalists. As in this case, term is often thrown about with little understanding of who is and is not a fundamentalist, and often with a derogatory purpose. The best way to keep NPOV to follow the Associated Press guidebook, which recommends that the use of the term be restricted to those who use it to apply to themselves. Pollinator 02:07, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

But I'm not sure I agree with your edit, either.

Many conservative Christian denominations unapologetically promote creationism

The Roman Catholic Church is quite conservative, but does not promote creationism. Perhaps "conservative Protestant denominations" would be more appropriate. -- Temtem 04:39, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. Be my guest. The official version of the church is a form of evolutionary creationism, but it's not actively promoted. Pollinator 04:48, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

What is wrong with "fundamentalist"? This is merely a term meaning anyone that fits the description in the article Fundamentalist Christian. ~~~~ 16:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Page Title POV?

I am concerned that the page title ("Creation-evolution controversy") might be verging _very slightly_ on being a POV. As the introduction to the page says, 'evolution' is a term used in a slightly derogatory, and arguably inaccurate, manner to describe adherents to the ToE, Big Bang, old-Earth and other theories that do not agree with the literalist, young-Earth theory of origins. I suggest therefore that the page be moved to a new one called the Origins Debate, which takes an entirely NPOV on the matter by not using the term 'evolution'. Polocrunch 10:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, but I'm afraid your new title doesn't quite capture the article's contents. Creation-evolution controversy is the most common name for this "debate" (which isn't really a debate but rather a controversy) so any title change we make should link from creation-evolution controversy. For example, the [www.talkorigins.org talkorigins website] uses this term. The problem with "origins debate" or "origins controversy" is that it is too all-encompassing. There are many debates and controversies over "origins" -- not all of them have to do with this particular wrangling. Joshuaschroeder 04:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Good point. You are wise, young padawan, and I accept your judgement. Polocrunch

No, I think it would be wise to rename the article Origins Debate. Evolution is at odds with most any religion, not just christianity. Along that line, I think the article needs to have most if not all references to christianity changed to religion to reflect that fact. It's either that or start talking about Islam and other major religions.the1physicist 02:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

your definition of "religion" seems uncommonly restrictive: try looking at Evolutionary creationism. Touched by His noodly appendage, ...dave souza 11:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate on what you think I meant? Also, I am aware of FSM, but I have no idea why that is relevant. More importantly, the definition of religion has nothing to do with what I was saying. All I am saying is that evolution is not solely in conflict with Christianity, hence the title is invalid and needs to be generalized.the1physicist 00:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

New Cartoon

Image:Gary Larson-creationism.jpg

The Far Side: A mocking view of creationism by famed science-oriented cartoonist Gary Larson.

Greetings, Myself and a few other Wikipedians are working on remodifying the Creationism article. Conclusively, this cartoon is neither neccessary nor appropriate for the article, so User:Ec5618 proposed that we move it to the creation-evolution controversy page, which seemed to be a reasonable suggestion. What say you all? Salva 20:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It's a copyvio. Deal with as such. Nowhere as famous as the Darwin ape. Although funny, we do not want to resort to cartoon warface, but the same goes for 'Darwin in a vice' (sic).

Darwin ape

Image:Darwin in a Vise.jpeg

Darwin in a vice

Dunc|☺ 21:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticism section in this article seems to have been copied directly from the creationism article. It has since been edited (and extended) in that article by several people. For example, the section on this page still contains the 'new cartoon' (see above section). It also doesn't include the part in which the Church criticises creationism.

I also don't feel that the tone of the section is really appropriate, especially since there is no 'critisism of evolution' section (though I'll grant that such a section would be short). Still, removing or completely rewriting this section seems to me, to be the only way to go. -- Ec5618 10:58, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Also this is not really a criticism of creationism but moreso of creation science. Bensaccount 14:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Problems with the introduction

There are, IMHO, two main problems with the introduction:

Christian is used where creationist is meant. Not all creationists are Christians, but the article certainly infers as much.
The following statements are made without any real basis:

"The controversy exists mainly in the US. In the rest of the world, the theory of evolution is widely accepted, by Christians and non-Christians alike."

Again, the Christian focus is a problem, but also, is there a reliable source that states that?

--K. 06:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the introduction to try to accomodate your legitimate concerns. Please tell us if that is sufficient to satisfy. Joshuaschroeder 10:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard of evolution being questioned out of USA. Furthermore, the vast majority of creationists are christians, IMHO, so I can't see why not mention that both Christians and non-Christians don't see a problem with evolution out of USA. About evidence, all news I get about this debate come from USA, so if there is any debate out of USA, that is the evidence that should be provided, as it is impossible to produce evidence for the absence of debate anywhere else. vaceituno 10:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Much creationist literature comes form Australia and the UK. AiG is from Australia, for example. Joshuaschroeder 13:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean they just publish it or are they Australian and British authors? I would say that if there was any debate in the UK or Australia, there would be news about how people don't want their kids to be taught evolution in those countries, and lawsuits about people disagreeing on how and when teach evolution. Unless you can provide this kind of evidence, showing for example how politicians get involved in it in Australia and UK, that the debate is strong in any other country but USA, I think it will be very fair to estate in the article that this is a USA specific debate.

I suggest: "The controversy is most prevalent and visible in the US, while in the rest of the world evolution is widely accepted among religious and non-religious people and is challenged only on scientific grounds" vaceituno 10:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's a newsstory about a controvery in the United Kingdom. Joshuaschroeder 13:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

This is self publicity by the adventists. Not a great example. I don't think that is sufficient evidence to say that "the controversy exists in the UK".

I've seen one or two articles dealing with the issue within the UK but there seems next to no evidence that there are a significant number of people in the UK who take a creationist stance (in the strict sense of believing that the evidence is in favour of creationism). Barnaby dawson 21:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Creationism certainly seems to exist in the UK, but as a quiet minority. I've the memory of seeing an (American) creationist film in a Baptist church in the 60's, and there's a church hall / coffee shop / bookshop in the town centre where I was tempted about 10 years ago by a children's book explaining how dinosaurs fitted into the Ark. The fuss referred to in the article had creationists on the defensive, but dropped out of the news with no clear outcome that I can remember. Also, we had Jehovah's Witnesses at the door the other week, who were opposed to evolution as meaning we are descended from "lesser beings", but didn't seem to know anything else about the controversy.- dave souza 19:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The evidence provided so far seems anecdotal to me. If there are a few creationist all over the world, that doesn't make the debate widespread. You have shown no involvement by politicians nor any lawsuits on the matter in any country but the USA. If a few creationist in Poland debate the matter in a Cafe, that doesn't extend de controversy to Poland, as it has no social implications at all. I will wait a few day before including "The controversy is most prevalent and visible in the US, while in the rest of the world evolution is widely accepted among religious and non-religious people and is challenged only on scientific grounds" in the introduction. vaceituno 00:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Humiliatingly enough, for the Dutch people, the Dutch minister of Education (of all things) has recently suggested that 'Intelligent Design' should be given consideration, as she feels it is as scientific as Evolution is. -- Ec5618 22:24, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

a quick prayer to the good google and all is answered: BBC news 'Creationist' schools attacked, BBC news Would you Adam and Eve it?, Humanist Association: Creationism in British Schools (includes comments from politicians, links to debates and continuing arguments to this year), National Secular Society: CREATIONISM CONTROVERSY EXPLODES (discussed in the Lords!), Emmanuel Schools Foundation - EvoWiki.. and others. Note that creationism is supported by several largish church groups, and controversy continues..-dave souza 01:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

No, thats the Emmanuel Schools Foundation operated by used-car salesman Peter Vardy. They have 2/3 schools only. ~~~~ 16:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Two now, one to open in September, by the way, which Peter Vardy do you mean? (check your link) - and lots more on the controversy in New Scientist 9 July 2005...dave souza 22:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

That would be Peter Vardy (businessman). New Scientist has an obsession with it, but not from a scientific standpoint, their obsession is on the political aspect. ~~~~ 07:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Creation science argumentation

I just added a proposal to Talk:Creation science, and figured that any editors of this page might also be interested. To that end, a short recap, and a link: Talk:Creation science#New article proposal.

My suggestion: we create a new article (I'm not sure about a name). In it, we list the arguments made by creationists to object to evolution, and the arguments made by non-evolutionists (oh, alright, 'evolutionists') to object to creation. We first list a statement, including any quotes, then list (*) an argument opposing it, and so on. Creationists and evolutionists could test their argumentation against peer review. -- Ec5618 18:48, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Creationists don't publish in peer-reviewed journals. Wikipedia doesn't need another forum for creationist claptrap. Ian Pitchford 14:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what that has to do with anything. There are undeniably certain arguments which are often used by creationists. List them here. We could then 'peer-review' them, and fix incomplete wording and such. -- Ec5618 15:18, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you would agree that the proposal does allow creationists to set the agenda though, and Wikipedia is already sodden with pseudoscience. To give some sort of balance, or rather a real impression of the status of creationism as a putative branch of scientific knowledge, we'd have to produce a list of all relevant scientific knowledge and then creationists could respond showing how their perspective has more explanatory power and is more fecund. Ian Pitchford 12:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Age of the Earth

Truthteller added a nice big criticism section, signed, with lots of external links but few specifics. I reverted the entire thing given its numerous problems, but a criticism section should be added... and rebuted. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Noteworthy Creationists and Evolutionists

I have previously changed this heading from what it is now, to what it was: "Creationists and their opponents". It has now been changed back. I'll agree that neither version is ideal, but I also feel that 'my' version is more precise. Opponents of creation are not just 'evolutionists'. Advocates of scientific theories such as the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution are on one side of the conflict, ..

Clearly, we should change this heading, but I'm not sure how.

Noteworthy Creationists and Evolutionists, is incorrect, I feel.
Creationists and their opponents, is perhaps a little biased.
?

I'll change it back to my version now, (I'd rather have slight POV for now, than a technical error) and I'll await input. -- Ec5618 09:14, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I sorted the list of people involved by position (creationists first, their opponents last) and used headers to make that clear. Bensaccount removed the headers, saying "removed headers. Creation and evolution have nothing to do with the ill-defined topics of debate."

I think that this does not make the section better. Now it's chaotic again, as it was before my edit. If you disagree with the wording of the headers, change them instead of removing them. And the remark about "nothing to do with the ill-defined topics of debate" is cryptic. --Hob Gadling July 7, 2005 14:12 (UTC)

Spectrum of Creationist Beliefs

I added about half a paragraph explaining that most modern young-earth Creationists don't view God as a trickster purposely planting fossils to lead people astray the way Philip Henry Gosse did.

is the controversy about "evolution"?

Hi, I've removed the last clause here:

The creation-evolution controversy (also called the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) is a disagreement over the origin of the universe, life, and humanity, even though evolution has nothing to do with the origin of either the universe or life.

Mainly, I think the clause makes things too complicated for the first sentence (or even the intro) of the article. I believe that few readers will be confused by wondering about the name, so there's no confusion to address. This thought could be addressed (with more explanation) later in the article, IMHO. It does seem wrong to relate the origins of the universe to evolution (although I'm no cosmologist). But the origins of life seem related to evolution (although I'm again no expert). The prevailing scientific theory seems to be that some basic molecules formed by chance that were able to replicate, and that led to life; random change plus selection seems like evolution, so it's not unreasonable IMHO to call this evolution. I agree that the label "evolutionist" seems to be over applied by creationists, though. Zashaw 06:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Evolution cannot really be applied until a molecule can self replicate. Until there are dynamic large (self-replicating) populations for natural selection to act upon; it is not chance which directs evolution; it is merely the engine. Prior to self-replication chance is the primary mechanism as molecules form and combine; that is only a part of evolution. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Good call: biological evolution can only follow after the start of life, and that's what the controversy is usually about, but "evolution" is also used in astronomy for the development of star systems, for example, and has other meanings which I think are fairly well covered in evolutionism. Creationists often muddle things, citing one field to justify their claims in another, but that's part of the controversy...dave souza 10:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Dubya?

Dunno about his creationism, but can Dubya be included under the heading "Noteworthy debaters"? ...dave souza 15:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Catholic Church News Alert

Here is a link to a news article saying that a cardinal is saying the Church shouldn't accept evolution. Is the catholic church rethinking its view of evolution? Although this isn't an official statement froom the Vatican, the cardinal did ask Pope Benedict to make a statement that was less vague than John Paul II's statement about evolution. Should we update the article to reflect this? Mred64 02:26, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

geographical balance

Is the geographical balance tag really necessary? The section is clearly entitled "Surveys of views in the United States," and the controversy exists in the United States to a greater extent than elsewhere, so it makes sense to have its own section. -- Temtem 00:09, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Writers bias is too obvious

Writers bias is too obvious:

"but as almost all scientists do not consider the conflict to have any academic legitimacy"

Since when is science determined by a poll? I prefer that we stick to the facts. -Unsigned 68.116.111.55

How do we decide what are the facts? What if there are two theories consistent with the facts? What if scientists disagree? --pippo2001 04:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

This statement doesn't say "science is determined by poll". This statement is merely commenting on the venues for the debate. The only reason it is relevent is to explain the debate's absence from the halls of academe. Joshuaschroeder 13:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Competing theories that are consistent with facts are considered protoscience, according to Kuhn. Joshuaschroeder 13:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes but Kuhn is one of the many... Popper would not agree, for instance. --pippo2001 19:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

So, what's your point? Joshuaschroeder 19:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you started going off topic. I answered to the objection against "but as almost all scientists do not consider the conflict to have any academic legitimacy". Given that we agree on this... --pippo2001 21:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

play time is over

All right. I just stumbled upon this POV nightmare. NPOV notice has been hereby given. Start reading up on NPOV policy, folks, because it's gonna start getting rigid enforcement. FuelWagon 04:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. NPOV tag added. WP:NOT Orginal research, do not disrupt the WP to make a point, this reads like a teenage 'anti-conspiracy theory' website. If you want to discuss the validity of each claim, go to talk.origins, don't scribble on the WP. akaDruid 10:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

As a guess, I would say that the focus of the article should be summerising the conflict without attempting to prove either theory. The details of either theory should be discussed on their relevant pages.

The root of the problem is deeply held feelings on an extremely complex and little understood area, and mutually exlusivity on the two leading theories.

Since the two are mutually exclusive, it will be a problem until one side can produce proof to satisfy they other - and even the possibility of proof existing is denied by both sides. Creation theory depends on faith, evolutionary theory depends on occams razor & discounting creation theory. Proving either evolution theory or creation theory would be disproving the basis for at least christianity and islam (by removing either validity of the source or the need for faith).

Either of the above is a pretty weak argument to the other side. From one side, faith by definition requires something you cannot prove by scientific method. From the other side, disproving a deity who can do anything for reasons which you cannot understand is rather difficult.

Either of the above would also rather upset some 30% or more of the worlds population who adher to a religion requiring a creator deity. But those without faith are deeply interested in an answer which doesn't require faith. hence the conflict.

To be NPOV, this article should (at least) address both sides as theories, state only cited facts about the acceptence of the theories, and avoid the use of weasel words when discussing them. NPOV guidelines contain lots more information to help with this.

Bear in mind I have a strong opinion on this subject, hence my lack of editing. The above represents my opinion of what an encylopedic article should contain. akaDruid 11:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I have made a number of changes here in a short attempt to direct the article to NPOV policy. The edit summaries generally explain the individual issues with each edit. FuelWagon 18:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

theory stonger than law

Jason Potter made a recent edit here [4]

"A theory is not, as it is considered to be in colloquial usage, a guess or conjecture, but rather the strongest type of statement that can be made about the natural world short of a natural law."

Jason removed the section "short of a natural law". Can someone explain to me how the "theory of evolution" is as strong or stronger than the "law of gravity"? FuelWagon 18:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The scientific method isn't like the rungs of a ladder, where an idea graduates from a theory to a law. A law is a simple formulation, usually mathematically based. It is like an indiviudal unit of science. A theory is an explanatory framework that makes statements and predictions about the natural world. So the theory of evolution cannot ever be a law, it is too complex. As far as gravity goes, there is both a law and theory of gravity, the theory being the explanatory framework making predictions and statments, while the law is the more simple mathematical description of gravity. Hope this helps. --JPotter 18:52, August 23, 2005 (UTC) [5][6][7] Theory

this would appear to conflict with your interpretation. the top of the page distinguishes theory from law, and a little further down the page shows a really cool little flowchart for how to go from hypothesis, to theory, to law. as it happens, the site also mentions evolution/creationism. FuelWagon 18:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe that page is an oversimplification of the scientific method. I wouldn't base what the scientific method is on an Earth Science 10 course outline. Our own page describes the process better. Also note that at the bottom of the flowchart exists both a law and theory. --JPotter 20:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you could argue that laws of nature are the most well-established ("strongest") parts of science because they are "true deductive systems with a best combination of simplicity and strength" (SEP). However, they form only a small part of science. The bulk of scientific explanation just doesn't deal with such entities, and theories are judged by their explanatory scope and fecundity. In this latter sense the theory of evolution is vastly superior to the law of gravity. --Ian Pitchford 19:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"small part of science" or not, the article says a theory is the "strongest type of statement that can be made about the natural world". This is not true. I get the point in attempting to clarify a scientific theory from the normal civilian use of the word "theory", but the sentence in the article is not scientifically correct. If you don't want to mention "law", then figure out a scientifically accurate explanation for "theory" that clarifies it from the civilian usage that usually means "rough guess". FuelWagon 19:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

A theory is the strongest scientific statement. Laws are also strong statements, but in much simpler terms. --JPotter 20:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

You're right about the dilemma here. There isn't a simple formula or form of words that expresses the explanatory power, scope and fecundity of the theory of evolution. My favourite quotation is from Dennett "The fundamental core of contemporary Darwinism, the theory of DNA-based reproduction and evolution, is now beyond dispute. It demonstrates its power every day, contributing crucially to the explanation of planet-sized facts of geology and meteorology, through middle-sized facts of ecology and agronomy, down to the latest microscopic facts of genetic engineering. It unifies all of biology and the history of our planet into a single grand story. Like Gulliver tied down in Lilliput, it is unbudgeable, not because of some one or two giant chains of argument that might - hope against hope - have weak links in them, but because it is securely tied by hundreds of thousands of threads of evidence anchoring it to virtually every other area of human knowledge". (Darwin's Dangerous Idea, p. 20) --Ian Pitchford 19:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

the article says a theory is the "strongest type of statement that can be made about the natural world" this URL indicates that statement is disputed as factually true, expressing the point of view that "law" is "stronger" than theory. This means the sentence in the article saying a theory is the strongest statement that can be made needs to be changed to report something that doesn't directly conflict with a scientific website explaining theory versus law. I don't care how you word it. I just care that it doesn't match external dependable sources. If you don't want to say a law is stronger than theory, then find another way to clarify that a scientific theory is stronger than the common civilian notion of "theory" that usually means "good guess". FuelWagon 20:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Belief in a false statement such as "law is stronger than theory" is not a POV. It is a misconception -- similar to people who believe that the reason that the seasons happen is because the Earth is closer to the sun in the summer and farther away in the winter. Laws and theories are well-defined within scientific disciplines. Theories are hypotheses that have been shown by evidence and experiment to never have been falsified. Laws are statements derived from theories that succinctly state theoretical principles upon which predictions can easily be made. Laws are, by design, not easily modified and if it is found that the science upon which they are based is incorrect you have to either discard the law as being universal or dispense with it entirely. A law is not "stronger" than a theory -- it is just simpler. People who say otherwise have a misconception about the distinction and should look at various laws and theories. To see exactly what the difference is. For example, the laws of thermodynamics are succinct mathematical statements based on physical theory. The Univseral Law of Gravity is a succinct mathematical statement based on the theories of Newtonian mechanics and Galilean relativity. The difference between theories and laws is that laws do not lend themselves to easy modification. This is not opinion. It is simply fact that is known by people who work in science. Joshuaschroeder 12:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Well now that's still your opinion don't you think?--WwJd 03:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

one possibility would be to describe "theory" without saying it is the "strongest" statement that can be said. Instead say it is "strong". Or say it is "stronger than hypothesis". Or something. FuelWagon 20:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, reading this link, teh analogy that a slingshot is like a law and an automobile is like a theory puts things into a different perspective regarding theory <==> law. However, the statement in the article is stil untrue. A slingshot always moves the object forward. An automobile moves forward under some circumstances. My take on it is that laws are simple absolute rules (gravity=>masses attract) and theories are more complex aggregations (theory of evolution). While the law is simple and only involves one aspect, one could still argue that it is "stronger" than a theory, simply because it only makes a simple assertion, rather than a theory which makes a much more complicated assertion. I'd rather have the slingshot/car analogy explain the distinctions rather than have the sentence "theories are the strongest statement that can be said about nature". FuelWagon 21:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

slingshot always moves the object forward. An automobile moves forward under some circumstances. -- Huh? It depends on which way the person operating either machine decides to direct it as to which direction objects are moved. Laws are not stronger than theories. Laws are based on theories. Without theories, there would be no laws. If the theory that a law is based on is found to be incorrect, the law is incorrect. Statements that can be made in science are only considered predictive and universal when they are based on theories. This makes theories the strongest statements that can be made since only statements based on them are considered "authoritative". Joshuaschroeder 13:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

this will do for me. FuelWagon 21:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that comparing theories and laws is silly. What these words mean colloquially is quite different from their scientific meaning. Natural laws are neither human (you can violate the law, but if you do, you get punished) nor divine (God's law is inviolate). Natural laws are probabalistic statements concerning observable phenomenon. Maxwell wrote that "the second law of thermodynamics has the same degree of truth as the statement that if you throw a tumblerful of water into the sea, you cannot get the same tumblerful out again," that is, you can, but the chances are infinitessimal. A physicists measurement of the movement of planets or molecules is always ultimately an average, and our understanding of tdhe motion of planets and molecules is ultimately probabalistic. It is true that the chance that molecules at random motion will arrange themselves into some order is extraordinarily unlikely. But the fact that we always see them tend to some disorder is only because this is what is most likely to happen, not what "must" happen. A theory is a model of the universe or some portion of the universe, and a set of rules that enables us to relate quantities in the model to quantities in observations we make. It doesn't matter whether you "feel" that "law" sounds more real than "theory," or that "theory" sounds more important than "law." Both are models of the phenomenal universe through which we make sense of the universe. The reason natural laws and theories are better ways of describing how the world works than, say, creationism, is that they provide understandings of nature based on observations of nature, and do not require the existence of something that is either unnatural or unobservable. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

List of Arguments

It is so hard to find a complete or near complete list of viable arguments por popular arguments for both sides; or arguments for or agains the existence of God. I eventually came upon the "existence of god" article, which seems to list some theories/arguments for and against the existence of God, but I'm surprised it's not pointed to in this particular article. So I suggest that article be added to this See Also section of this article. Also, are there other articles which have a more complete list of arguments for and against creationism, etc.?

alleged

OK, I looked at it. pondered it. and there is just something wrong with using the word "alleged" as in "alleged creationists" and "alleged evolutionists". Is there no other subsection title that would work? could we just drop "alleged" from both? FuelWagon 06:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Dropping alledged? Definately not. The 'debate' is not between creationists and evolutionists. It is between creationists and absolutely everone else.

Also, are there even people who label themselves 'evolutionist'? The name makes it sound like a belief. -- Ec5618 06:32, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what "alleged" has to do with creationists versus "everyone else". If that's the distinction, then it should say "creationist proponents" and "creationist critics".

I don't think "evolutionist" sounds like a belief anymore than "biologist" sounds like a belief. FuelWagon 06:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think many people would label themselves 'evolutionist', except perhaps within this controversy. Titles like 'creationist proponents' versus 'creationist critics' would make it clear that this controversy lives only in the minds of creationists. I'm not sure I'm confortable with the implications of that statement in an unbiased encyclopedia.

And creationists are believers. A commonly heard argument is that the 'evolutionists' are hung up on their own beliefs, and unwilling or unable to keep an open mind. I would oppose any titles that pitted that 'evolutionists' (science) against 'creationists' (believers).

'Alledged' was alright, though by no means perfect, but these alternatives seem less apt. -- Ec5618 09:50, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Basically there are two groups of anti-creationists; scientists, particularly evolutionary biologists, geologists and astronomers, who think creationism is pseudoscience; and the mainstream Christian churches (Anglican, Catholic and Lutheran) and their theologians, who think that creationist pseudoscience it is bad theology. There are mainstream theologians those who use the teleological argument in theological language rather than pseudoscientific language, and this illicits less of a response from scientists. To call everyone who isn't a fundie YEC literalist "evolutionists" is a perjorative that quite frankly, doesn't stick. Dunc|☺ 00:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I wonder why they consider it pseudoscience...it isn't science at all. It's a system of beliefs that seek to explain in a miraculous and supernatural manner. Last I recalled, that was outside the domain of science.

There is a distinction between creation science and creationism. A better way to put it is that scientists think creation science is a pseudoscience. Joshuaschroeder 22:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Additional external link

I added an external link to http://www.evcforum.net/ and also put it under a seperate category "Creation vs Evolution links".

I think this excellent resource deserves a link, and since it claims to offer a place for BOTH sides of the debate, it wouldn't have been correct to force it under one of the existing categories of links

Evolutionists?

The term was removed by Ec5618 who replaced it with "Their Opposition" - with the comment This one snuck past me. Evolutionists do not exist. There are creationists and their opposition. I am not about to get into an edit war, but had to make at least one statement to counteract the false one made by Ec5618. My edit was quickly reverted, as I expected, because this page and other similar pages are dominated by evolutionists. The term is mostly used by creationists, of many stripes, but it is a valid term and its denial is POV. I am a journalist who is highly interested in science, and am disappointed to see what is undeniably religious or philosophical belief expounded under the guise of science. Evolutionists (or evolutionism) go beyond science and exhibit many of the defining characteristics of a belief system. Science is peripheral on this page and similar ones. It is, at the core, a conflict between two belief systems that are essentially religious. The Evolutionism page is very weak and POV on this as well, but probably won't be changed because evolutionists dominate there also. It's unfortunate that Wikipedia thus becomes a propaganda mouthpiece, but, in this area it certainly is. I cannot say, on the motivations of the evangelistic evolutionists. I suspect some are deliberately deceitful, while others really believe, or have convinced themselves, that they are doing science. The genuine scientists I have known are always more humble than the evolutionists I have known. Pollinator 19:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It is, at the core, a conflict between two belief systems that are essentially religious.

I have sympathy for your POV, but that's not accurate. The theory of evolution is widely accepted in the modern world. I personally don't believe that Darwinism explains the origin of life or intelligence, but it does have a great deal scientific support for being the mechanism of speciation. Creationism is not (much of) a scientific theory. It can be said that there is such a thing as a broad secular worldview, but it contains many groups that disagree completely with each other on basic issues. It's not nearly as unified as most religions. --goethean ॐ 20:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The intro of the article states "The conflict is usually portrayed in the mass media as being between scientists and creationists, but as almost all scientists do not consider the conflict to have any academic legitimacy, it may be more correctly described as a conflict over a conflation of science and religion"

In my mind, the conflict is perpetuated by creationists, in the same way, (I mean no offense) that conspiracy theorists perpetuate stories of, well, conspiracy. -- Ec5618 22:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The second point is that creationists try to false dichtomy claiming that it is the atheist scientists "evolutionists" versus them, when really it is not only the scientists but mainstream theologians think that creationism in scientific terms is bad theology. Dunc|☺ 22:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

If one were to choose to accept the definition of "evolutionists", as people with a "religious belief system" based on evolution, then the dichotomy is still false. That isn't to say that there aren't people whose reason for embracing evolution is religious...but they are not the major opponents of creationism. Personally I oppose creationism for different reasons than I accept evolution. I accept darwinian evolution as the best scientific explanation for an overwhelming amount of data. I oppse creation science and ID because they are pseudosciences. I oppose straight up creationism because it would require that I believe in a God who would plant all these fossils and molecular evidence for evolution simply to set people up to fail - and I do not believe that The Deceiver is God. As a scientist I oppose pseudoscientific junk. As a Christian I oppose an idea which seems to require one to believe that God is evil. The dichotomy is false. Guettarda 23:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives