Talk:Evolution/creationism/kdbufallo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 kdbuffallo and the prevalence of creationism 1.1 to: duncharris (dunc) and wgsimon 1.2 TO: dunc 1.3 request for assistance and reason for NPOV complaint

[edit] kdbuffallo and the prevalence of creationism

Corvun is correct about creationism not being a completely fringe view and Biblical creationism is growing very fast around the world.

I cite the following:

Conservative Christianity is growing in the US and liberal churches are shrinking

For the growth of conservative Christianity in the US see the book "Exodus: Why Americans are Fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative Christianity" by Dave Shiflett.

Why is this important in relation to the evolutionary position?

Generally speaking liberal theologians are more likely to embrace ideas which materialist embrace like macroevolutionary ideas. If Christians become more conservative theologically, this of course means that less Christians are likely to support ideas which evolutionist embrace in the public square if current trends continue. This could portend the evolutionary position having a lesser influence but such things are difficult to predict.

Biblical Creationism is growing in Latin, America, and Asia

Penn State professor Philip Jenkins author of the Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity has pointed out that Christians living in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia are far more conservative theologically than Christians who live in the West so one would expect they would likely be less likely to adopt or embrace ideas that materialist/atheist embrace like macroevolutionary ideas ( see: http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/BibleStudyAndTheology/Perspectives/colson020722.asp ). Of course, in a world community this is important especially since areas like Asia are having more and more influence.

Of course, it is hard to predict how all of the above will play out in regards to evolutionary position on the world stage.

Creationism is growing in Australia

I cite the following from PBS:

c. 1980-1990: Global Spread of Creationism (Evolution Challenged)

Creationism spreads worldwide. A movement born in the U.S. -- and for many years exclusively American -- now has converts around the globe. Australia is a particular stronghold; one of the three largest centers for creation research lies in Queensland. And leaders of the creationist movement claim that five percent of the Australian population now believe that Earth is thousands, rather than billions, of years old. The movement also gains ground in New Zealand, Korea, Russia, and even among Muslims in Turkey and the Middle East.

TAKEN FROM: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/revolution/1980.html

One can see that creationism is growing in Australia:

More than a quarter of Australians believe the Bible offers a more likely explanation of the origins of life than evolution, an opinion poll says.

More people - 43 per cent compared with 28 per cent - preferred science to religion, another 12 per cent were inclined towards a combination of both, while 17 per cent were undecided whether the earth was made in six days or billions of years.

The poll, by UMR research for Hawker Britton, found that women, older people, Liberal voters and Queenslanders were less inclined to believe in evolution. People from NSW, people living in the inner cities and those earning over $80,000 preferred evolution as an explanation of how we got here …

taken from: http://badanalysis.com/catallaxy/?p=352

IN THE NON-WESTERN WORLD CREATIONISM/EVANGELICISM/FUNDAMENTALISM/THEOLOGICALLY CONSERVATIVE CHURCHES ARE OFTEN EXPLODING

As Penn State professor Philip Jenkins writes in The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity, predictions like Huntington’s betray an ignorance of the explosive growth of Christianity outside of the West.

For instance, in 1900, there were approximately 10 million Christians in Africa. By 2000, there were 360 million. By 2025, conservative estimates see that number rising to 633 million. Those same estimates put the number of Christians in Latin America in 2025 at 640 million and in Asia at 460 million.....

And these changes will be more than demographic. Jenkins points out that who he calls "Southern Christians" -- those living in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia -- are far more conservative, theologically and morally, than their counterparts in the West.

taken from: http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/BibleStudyAndTheology/Perspectives/colson020722.asp

Thus creationism is growing around the world.

128.205.191.60 00:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I'm not sure that you can necessarily equate theological conservatism with creationism. I know many christians here in Thailand and not a single one believes in creationism although many (especially the older generations) are deeply conservative. Only a tiny minority find any problem with following Buddhism at the same time as Christianity, and their conservatism is mostly to uphold the social structures generated from the many centuries of Buddhism. When pressed many of them don't actually know that much about Christianity or what is actually in the Bible, but they all understand that being Christian rather Buddhist is a mark of social sophistication and it is thus very popular (and growing quickly) with the aspirational middle-class. — KayEss | talk 04:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

TO: kayess

I did not equate theological conservatism with creationism. I equated conservative Christianity with creationism. If I wanted to I could say the same about Islam, the Mormons, and Jehovah Witnesses. Here is what Wikipedia says in the topic category "Creation science": "As such proponents are found primarily among various denominations of Christianity who describe themselves generally as evangelical, conservative or fundamentalist Christians." And the "Creation science" category is written mainly by those who are atheists or liberal theologically in my view.

TO: ALL

It is not secret that Richard Dawkins a very vociferous proponent of the evolutionary position stated the evolutionary arguments made him feel intellectually satisfied as an atheist.

I believe that the reason some evolutionist are so reticient about allowing reasonable criticisms of the evolutionary position is that many who profess atheism are tenuous in their atheistic position inwardly.

What reasonable criticisms? You haven't shown any. The virture or lack therof of a scientific position does not lay within one's philosophy, but the viability of the evidence. Evolution has 150 years of supporting evidence and zero evidence against. --JPotter 00:55, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I cite the following:

A website declares Sartre as saying in Harper's magazine:

"As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for wont of being able to think otherwise."

taken from: http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/apol...cs/AP0702W4.htm

I believe the evidence is strong though that Sartre professed to be an atheist. Here is a education website's information below:

"Jean Paul Sartre was a well known French philosopher who lived from 1905-1980. His thought was influenced heavily by philosophers Heidigger and Husserl. He became one of the early proponents of existentialism, which emphasizes among other things, the ultimacy of human freedom. He considered himself an atheist existentialist (as opposed to a Christian existentialist) and eventually included Marxism and humanism in his philosophy."

taken from: http://faculty.wm.edu/jmchar/Kin493/kinst10c.html

Here is some additional data that supports that perhaps many professed materialists are doubleminded:

"Crick is also a fervent atheistic materialist, who propounds the particle story. In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through."

taken from: http://www.ldolphin.org/ntcreation.html

Here is the exact quote:

"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." (Crick F.H.C., "What Mad Pursuit," 1990, p.138). "

taken from: http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/200006/0070.html

And of course, I am guessing that many theologicall liberal individuals in the West are somewhat uncomfortable and defensive about people leaving their churches and joining conservative churches which is the current trend.

ken 17:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Scratches head. So, right, er, what is your point? Evolution will have the same level of validity regardless of who believes in it. Ever considered posting your wisdom to talk.origins or alt.atheism? Dunc|☺ 17:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

If ken would like to suggest some changes to the article please let us know what they are so we can discuss them. - Wgsimon 17:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] to: duncharris (dunc) and wgsimon

TO: Dunc

No genetic fallacy committed. I merely stated why some people would feel uncomfortable about criticisms of the macroevolutionary position.

TO: wgsimon

My time is limited but here are three changes right now that I will suggest (Origin of life, fossil record, and mutations).

Origin of life

The difficulty for the naturalist explanation of the origin of life is not even mentioned nor is the theism view presented. Why not? Is theism a fringe opinion? I do not yet know how to lodge a NPOV complaint but I see no reason not to in regards to the origin of life issue presented on the main page.

Furthermore, I would say that if you want to push God out of the picture then the abiogenesis hypothesis is certainly doing no pushing for you. In fact, it is one more weak link in the materialist position. It is no secret that the recent abiogenesis position has grown quite gloomy for the materialists.

Walter Bradley said, “There isn’t any doubt that science, for the moment at least, is at a dead end. The optimism of the 1950’s is gone. The mood at the 1999 international conference on the origin of life was described as grim—full of frustration, pessimism, and desperation.”

taken from: http://www.valleyviewseek.org/teach/010527.htm

I also cite the following:

Nobel prize winner, Sir Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA said,

“The origin of life appears almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going …. Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts.”

I would also say if you want to get into the origin of the species ballpark you need to go in by the origin of life gate. So far the materialist have not earned the right to even be remotely considered to be let into the ballpark.

I also cite the following:

WHY THE FIRST LIFE ON EARTH DID NOT ARISE NATURALLY

Excellent origin of life essay: http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html

More articles on the origin of life: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp

THE FOSSIL RECORD

I think this area acknowledges no problems either.

I offer the following testimony:

THE FOSSIL RECORD SUPPORTS CREATIONISM

Completeness of the fossil record:

"There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world."—*Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129.

"Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track.

The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record."

Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (1988), Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9

SOME COMMENTS REGARDING THE FOSSIL RECORD AS A WHOLE

"The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of any record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement or one by another, and change is more or less abrupt." Robert G. Wesson, 'Beyond Natural Selection', 1991, p. 45

Quote from author, paleontologist, evolutionist, and curator of invertebrate paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, Niles Eldredge and co-author Ian Tattersall who is Curator, Deptartment of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History and who is also a evolutionist).

"Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...

One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.

The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way."

Niles Eldredge & Ian Tattersall, 'The Myths of Human Evolution', 1982, p. 45-46

A widely read evolutionist and scientist states the following regarding the fosssil record:

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831 (Mark Ridley is an evolutionist)

Some quotes regarding the fossil record that are more specific:

"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation." - E.J.H. Corner, Prof of Botany, Cambridge University, England. E.J. H. Corner, “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97

"If the genealogies of animals are uncertain, more so are those of plants. We cannot learn a great deal from petrified plant anatomy which shows different spades at different times, but no real phylogeny [transitional plant species changes] at all. There are simply fascinating varieties of the plants we have today—some new species of course—plus many extinctions: but algae, mosses, pines, ferns and flowering plants are all clearly recognizable from their first appearance in the fossil record." —Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 181.

"We do not know the phylogenetic history of any group of plants and animals." —*E. Core, General Biology (1981), p. 299.

"Fossil remains, however, give no information on the origin of the vertebrates." —*Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7, p. 587 (1976 edition, Macropaedia).

"No fossil of any such birdlike reptile has yet been found." —World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 291 (1982 edition). (regarding reptiles becoming birds)

"For use in understanding the evolution of vertebrate flight, the early record of pterosaurs and bats is disappointing: Their most primitive representatives are fully transformed as capable fliers." Paul C. Sereno, The evolution of dinosaurs, Science 284(5423):2137–2147 (quote on p. 2143), June 25, 1999

"The fossil record does not give any information on the origin of insects." —*Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7, p. 585 (1978 edition; Macropaedia).

"Insect origins beyond that point [the Carboniferous] are shrouded in mystery. It might almost seem that the insects had suddenly appeared on the scene, but this is not in agreement with accepted [evolutionary] ideas of animal origins." —*A.E. Hutchins, Insects (1988), pp. 3,4.

"The common ancestor of the bony-fish groups is unknown. There are various features, many of them noted above, in which the two typical subclasses of bony fish are already widely divergent when we first see them." —*A.S. Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology (1988), p. 53.

"....squirrels have evolved in patterns that seem to differ in no important ways from their living relative Sciurus. Since Sciurus is so similar to what is apparently the primitive squirrel morphotype, it seems to fit the concept of 'living fossil.’" –*R. Emry and *A. Thorington, "The Tree Squirrel Sciurus as a Living Fossil," in Living Fossils (1984), p. 30.

"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked, tool-making, big-brained beings - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter." - Dr. Lyall Watson, Anthropologist. 'The water people'. Science Digest, vol. 90, May 1982, p. 44.

"Unfortunately, the fossil record which would enable us to trace the emergence of the apes is still hopelessly incomplete. We do not know either when or where distinctively apelike animals first began to diverge from monkey stock . . Unfortunately, the early stages of man's evolutionary progress along his own individual line remain a total mystery."— *Sarel Elmer and *Irven DeVore and the *Editors of Life, The Primates (1985), p. 15.

"No fossil or other physical evidence directly connects man to ape." —*John Gliedman, "Miracle Mutations," Science Digest, February 1982, p. 90.

"Even this relatively recent history [of evolution from apes to man] is shot through with uncertainties; authorities are often at odds, both about fundamentals and about details." Theodosius Dobzhanski (he was an evolutionist), Mankind Evolving, Yale Univ. Press, 1962, p168.

"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee (evolutionist), “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.

I also cite:

Sir Solly Zuckerman, the famous paleoanthropologist of Birmingham University in England states how ideological expectations shape the way of thinking:

"…We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time." [3]

3. Solly Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower, New York: Taplinger

   Publishing Company, 1971, p. 64. 

taken from: http://www.mostmerciful.com/fossil-interpretations.htm

Mutations

I think it should be recognized that fruit flies remain fruit flies in over 100 years of experimentation and that the different kinds of animals are highly resistent to changing kinds.

I cite the following:

Articles regarding mutations and why they are not a good argument for the macroevolutionary hypothesis:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut10.htm

http://evolution-facts.org/c10a.htm

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut13.htm

ken 17:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Or to quote Theodore Dobzhansky, "Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really anti-evolutionists under the skin." (Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution) - Creationists have a habit of misquotation and it would be preferable if you could cite some sources properly. Now, can we also go through your problems one at a time please? Otherwise it's too confusing. So again, specifically what is wrong with the article? Or indeed any of its subarticles in category:Evolutionary biology? Dunc|☺ 18:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you're rather barking up the wrong tree with the vast majority of your... very verbose text. This is an article about evolution. You are not, for the most part, arguing that the article misrepresents the theory of evolution, you're arguing against the theory itself. That's not what we're doing here.

Fox1 18:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true - if there's legitimate scientific criticisms to be made of the theory, they deserve to have a place within the article. The problem is that the above criticisms amount to so much boobery. On the other hand, I do think "kdbuffallo and the prevalence of creationism" would make an excellent title for a children's novel. Graft 18:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right of course, but I just don't see much of that in the above text, especially the first post. A lot of this looks like a statement of the growing influence (apparently) of creationism worldwide, and well, it seems to swing wildly on and off topic. One moment we're talking about gaps in the fossil record, the next we're talking about the growth of creationism in Asia, I guess I just had a hard time seeing how this related to the article in any meaningful way.

You said "Boobery," heh.

Fox1 18:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TO: dunc

If you are going to assert my quotes are wrenched out of context you need to demonstrate this. You never did.

Secondly, I can see discussion is not profitable. I did try though. I am submitting a POV complaint in the origin of life as I alluded I would if discussion was not profitable.

ken 18:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

OK. I choose Andrew H. Knoll and Sean B. Carroll "Early Animal Evolution: Emerging Views from Comparative Biology and Geology " Science, Vol 284, Issue 5423, 2129-2137 , 25 June 1999 [DOI: 10.1126/science.284.5423.2129] pubmed, since it was easy to access in the Science website. Now, I cannot find the phrase or anything like "For use in understanding the evolution of vertebrate flight, the early record of pterosaurs and bats is disappointing: Their most primitive representatives are fully transformed as capable fliers". The article is in Science special on evolution and its tone clearly accepts evolution as fact.

The second one that I note "Even this relatively recent history [of evolution from apes to man] is shot through with uncertainties; authorities are often at odds, both about fundamentals and about details" can be repelled with Dobzhansky's view of quote mining above.

The third is Gee in Nature. Now the text you quote "Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether" is the abstract of that article which is at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6843/full/412131a0.html . Now, what Gee is saying here is that fossil evidence for humans is sparse, which is acknowledged. The evidence for common descent between humans and apes however is very strong, both molecular evidence and fossil evidence point to this, there is no doubt. What Gee refers to is the details of human evolution, which are in some areas a little sketchy. For example, given a fossil did that subspecies evolve from fossil or fossil (b), and did it evolve into fossil (c) or did fossil (c) come from fossil (d)? He is not questioning evolution, merely our abililty to interpret a sparse fossil record. Perhaps instead of trying to misquote you should take a trip to your local library and read them yourself? Dunc|☺ 19:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I found the sentence in the Science article, which I too looked at because it was easy. The sentence "For use in understanding the evolution of vertebrate flight, the early record of pterosaurs and bats is disappointing: Their most primitive representatives are fully transformed as capable fliers." is immediately followed by "The early avian record, in contrast, provides the rare opportunity to tease apart the sequence of modifications that led to powered flight and its early refinement (Fig. 4)." I find it really annoying how the first sentence was taken out of context (which is my excuse for adding flame to this argument). Zashaw 00:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Ken, I don't think you understand this process. If you want to add an alert to POV text in an article, the correct way is to use the POV tag (add {{NPOV}} to tag an entire article, {{NPOV-section}} for a particular section)on the appropriate section of the article, then bring your issues to the talk page. As you can see, there's no way to avoid discussion, profitable or not, it's what Wikipedia runs on.
Fox1 18:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] request for assistance and reason for NPOV complaint

I put the notifications of the NPOV in the right places. I do not know how to flag the NPOV within the coding. I want to know how to flag a NPOV in the coding or to have someone do it for me.

Here is my complaint.

• talk:evolutionNPOV complaint registering. The difficulty for the naturalist explanation of the origin of life is not even mentioned nor is the theism view presented. Why not? Is theism a fringe opinion? Is materialism a fact or does a materialistic view of the origin of life have strong proof in this forensic science question of the origin of life. Are theology departments held to be legitimate departments in academia? Are singularity events the exclusive property of materialism? Are singularity events repeatable though experiments? I see no reason to mandate a mere philosophy like materialism and again theism is by no means a fringe view.

I also cite the following:

Nobel prize winner, Sir Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA said,

“The origin of life appears almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going …. Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts.”

Notice he says "almost a miracle". Well theist often assert it was a miracle. There doesn't seem to be any reason to rule out a miracle.

Also, Walter Bradley said, “There isn’t any doubt that science, for the moment at least, is at a dead end. The optimism of the 1950’s is gone. The mood at the 1999 international conference on the origin of life was described as grim—full of frustration, pessimism, and desperation.”

taken from: http://www.valleyviewseek.org/teach/010527.htm

Lastly, is the DNA wrongly called a code? Do codes infer intelligence? Obviously these are legitimate questions in regards to the origin of life that should be raised.

ken 20:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

DNA is conventionally called a code in the sense that it is a system of signals transmitting messages. This does not require intelligence; one of the central points of Darwin is that this process requires no intelligence, direction, teleology. To disagree with this is to disagree with evolution as a whole, which is your right. But everything else you mention concerns theism. This is not an article on theism, it is an article on evolution. I assure you that if you go to the theism page you will not see much mention of evolution. I encourage you to add to the theism page since it seems to be a topic you know and care about. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein is basically right - DNA is called a code in the sense that it encodes genetic information; that information is decoded and put into action by RNA →Raul654 21:12, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB180.html and the paper referenced there, try to read our articles, particularly central dogma of molecular biology. Dunc|☺ 12:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

‘The difficulty for the naturalist explanation of the origin of life is not even mentioned nor is the theism view presented. Why not? Is theism a fringe opinion?’

There are two separate issues that you are drawing attention to:

• 'The difficulty for the naturalist explanation of the origin if life is not even mentioned ...'

If there are real problems inherent in the Theory of Evolution itself then they should be mentioned in this article or presented in a new article if the section gets to long. In my opinion these problems need to be well sourced and represent serious peer reviewed scientific criticism.

• '... the theism view [is not] presented. Why not? Is theism a fringe opinion?'

At issue here are two of many possible explanations for the origin of life. Evolution and Creationism both deserve their own articles. I feel that the main thrust of these articles should be to give information about the viewpoints themselves, not about the relationship between them. The relationship is also relevant and it has it's own article. It is clearer if we keep these different subjects separate.

I understand ken's concern that this article does not represent the full range of opinion on this subject, but he must realise that there is a necessity to present a clear explanation of what people mean by the Theory of Evolution, even if the theory is not the best explanation for the origin of life or if it has problems.

- Wgsimon 22:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, Evolution is science fact, whereas creationism is based on accounts in the bible - a fictional thriller with poor character development and cliched plot contrivances.

Oh, in response to your question above kdbuffalo: yes, theism is a fringe opinion, and no theology is not widely respected in academia. Have a nice day :-D Aaarrrggh 18:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)