Talk:Objections to evolution/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is a chronological archive of past discussions from the current talk page for the period May 2007 – October 2007. In order to preserve the record of past discussions, the contents of this page should be preserved in their current form. Please do NOT make new edits to this page. If you wish to make new comments or re-open an old discussion thread, please do so on the current talk page. If necessary, copy the relevant discussion thread to the current talk page page and then add your comments there.

Contents 1 divorce statistics 2 Evolution has not been observed 3 Gregory S. Paul 4 Eric Hovind 5 Fair use rationale for Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg 6 Evolution Working Against Itself 7 Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics 8 Evolution leads to immorality and social ills 9 the hoyle thing seems almost to already be in the 10 There is nothing here about objections to not enough time for macroevolution to occur. 11 Bias in language 12 Evolution leads to atheism 13 15 Qnswers 14 Objection that scientific research is unable to provide 'sufficient' (meaning an unreasonable level of) detail 15 What ever happened to the footprints..? 16 Symbiosis 17 Another objection

divorce statistics

Orangemarlin wrote: 07:39, 25 May 2007 Orangemarlin (Talk | contribs) (77,473 bytes) (Anonymous user is missing the point. Scientists are no different than religionists.)

anonymous user deleted the following sentence and link: The Barna Group surveys find that Christians and non-Christians in the US have similar divorce rates, and the highest divorce rates in the US are among Baptists and Pentecostals, both sects which reject evolution and embrace creationism.^[1]

I agree with anonymous.

Here is the part in question: "Supporters of evolution dismiss such criticisms as counterfactual, and some argue that the opposite seems to be the case. There is a published study by Gregory Paul demonstrating that religious beliefs, including belief in creationism and disbelief in evolution, are positively correlated with social ills like crime.[83] The Barna Group surveys find that Christians and non-Christians in the US have similar divorce rates, and the highest divorce rates in the US are among Baptists and Pentecostals, both sects which reject evolution and embrace creationism.[84]"

this indicates the following line of thought: -creationists blame social ills on evolution.

-creationists (which are among the group of Baptists and Pentecostals) seem to have similar divorce rate.

- so it is not belief in evolution that causes divorce.

Let this be as it is, but the sentence reads as if divorce is seen as a social ill. Is this true? Not necessarily, so I think the quote of the Barma group has no place here.Northfox 06:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"Let this be as it is, but the sentence reads as if divorce is seen as a social ill. Is this true?"

• From the point of view of the Baptists, Pentecostals, etc who are making the argument, it most certainly is. They hold marriage to be a sacred institution.
• Even from a secular viewpoint, divorce causes considerable upheaval and unhappiness (both to the partners and to any offspring they might have). Although it may be considered a lesser ill than continuing an unhappy marriage, it would generally be considered a greater ill than never having entered the ill-fated union in the first place.

Hrafn42 14:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again the point is that religion probably causes more social ills than studying any science does. No more reversions of that section without a consensus, and I'll pretty much lay a bet that one will be forthcoming. Orangemarlin 14:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, this article is about objection to evolution, and not about who causes more social ills. If you want, please start an article about ‘objection to religion’ or ‘objections to Christianity’, which you seem to equate (you explicitly write ‘religion’ and not ‘pentecostals and baptists’).

Furthermore, you are comparing apples to oranges. Religion and Science are not about the same parts of life. Science is about ‘how’, religion and faith about ‘why’. But others (e.g. Gould, Polkinghorne) have put that more eloquently than I could ever do.

Your arguments sounds like ‘he did – she did’ to me: ‘We’ are accused of causing social ills, but ‘they’ have a higher divorce rate.

What you need to do in order to keep the divorce statistics claim in THIS article is:

1. show that creationists claim that divorce is a social ill.

2. show that creationists think that evolution (or the teaching of evolution) causes people to divorce easier.

3. show that people who believe in creation have an as high divorce rate as people believing in evolution.

As the paragraph is right now, this is not clear, so I think it should be modified to state the facts AND their significance to this article. Thus this divorce statistics part should be deleted.Northfox 03:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why we have to introduce assorted philosophical definitions of what are the realms of science and religion here. This is completely irrelevant in this context. What is the basic question? It has been claimed OVER and OVER and OVER by creationists that evolution is responsible for ALL the social ills of the world, including communism and pornography and diseases and teenage pregnancy and murder and theft and racism and ethnic cleansing and wars and so on. Do the data support this view? Well according to the studies quoted in this article, the data DO NOT SUPPORT THIS. End of story. It does not matter what your demands are. In particular,

1. It is irrelevant if any or all creationists think that divorce is a social ill. Some people believe it is a social ill, and a clear unequivocal case can be made that it is a social ill. That is all that is needed.
2. There are copious references to creationists blaming evolution for a multitude of social ills. Read the references. Here is another site that summarizes the information: [1] in case you have trouble finding it. Colin Bunnett of the Australian branch of Focus on the Family is someone who has made loud and frequent claims that evolution is responsible for divorce for example. But there are lots of others. For example, Eric Hovind (son of famed creationist and tax criminal Kent Hovind) recently gave a seminar in Union Station, South Dakota, which was reported in the Dakota Voice newspaper. Hovind said that we are seeing the effects of children being taught evolution in the self-destructive behaviors which are becoming more and more common in society...He cited statistics which illustrate that since evolution became the mainstay in scientific teaching in the public schools in the early 1960s, things such as premarital sex, unwed births, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), divorce and other negative behaviors are up dramatically. (http://www.dakotavoice.com/200605/20060507_1.html)
3. The Barna study demonstrates that religious groups whose official positions is the rejection of evolution and the belief in creationism do not have very different divorce statistics than anyone else (and in fact, even slightly worse statistics). This clearly indicates that belief in creationism does not protect anyone from this purported social ill.

Those are the facts. They are clear to anyone who does not have an axe to grind. Deal with it.--Filll 14:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, get consensus. You, me and one other person are in conflict. That's far from consensus. And I do think that religion causes a lot more problems than science. Orangemarlin 06:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about if science or religion causes more problems in society. I even think that this is a nonsense question, since they concern different parts of one's life. All four permutations exist (religious-atheist; scientists-nonscientist). There is no clear divide between two (religious nonscientist and atheist scientist)

This article is about objection to evolution. As it is written now, the divorce statistics do not belong in this section. See my 3 points above. I explained my standpoint in quite detail. You know my standpoint. May I ask you now to propose a concensus?Northfox 10:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Northfox: the section is about whether belief in Evolution leads to social ills. Many conservative Christian denominations disbelieve Evolution. If belief in Evolution leads to social ills, we should therefore see lower levels of social ills among conservative Christian denominations. Divorce is widely considered to be a social ill, so statistics on it are relevant. I therefore propose a consensus that the divorce statistics stay. Hrafn42 13:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, start a page with 'Objections to Christianity', or 'social ills caused by Christians' if you want. It has yet to be shown, and it was not by the Barna survey, that disbelief in evolution causes an as high divorce rate. There may be many factors. Don't have the time to look it up, but there is an argument that because of sexual abstinence before marriage, born again Christians tend to marry earlier in life. Thus being more likely to find out later that their spouse isn't what they expected for a life-long partnership. There is no positive correlation between believing in creation and divorce. The sentence has to go.Northfox 23:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Northfox: if I have 'objections,' it is not to Christians (many of whom accept Evolution) per se, but to anti-Science fundamentalist Christians who falsely lay claim to a moral high ground when they are in fact less moral than the general population. Rejection of Evolution is almost purely religiously-motivated, so any comparison of pro- versus anti-Evolution populations will have an element of religion involved. If you can find a study that more closely maps attitude to Evolution versus divorce than the Barna survey, then by all means produce it. Unless and until you can, the Barna survey stands. Hrafn42 00:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

<undent> Since I am the person who dug up the Barna Study and included it, I object strongly to any suggestion that this part of the article be removed. How on earth can it not be relevant? Here is a group that claims belief in evolution causes pornography and suicide and ethnic cleansing and murder and theft and war and lying and cheating and premarital sex and extramarital sex and communism and dictatorships and drug usage and divorce and all manner of other social ills and problems. And the statistics do not demonstrate that this is in any way correct, and in fact the statistics seem to support the complete OPPOSITE. This suggests that Pentecostals and Baptists and Fundamentalist Christians and other creationists are not only wrong, but hypocrites. So I think that this section certainly belongs in the article, until someone can show data to the contrary.--Filll 00:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

strong words, Filll, and I can understand that you are upset by hypocrisy. So am I. But if you look again at the Barna study, you will not find that Christians divorce more often, IN SPITE they do not believe in evolution. The Barna study shows that Baptists and Pentecostals do not have a lower divorce rate compared to other people. The reasons for this ( is it age at marriage, social factors, peer pressure, or indeed belief in creation) is not clear from that study. That's why it has no place IN THIS ARTICLE. This article is about criticism of evolution and not of Christian faith (of what denomination ever).Northfox 13:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is some confusion here. There is a large plurality of Christians that have no difficulty with evolution (the terminology of "belief" in evolution is wrong. There is no belief required, just acceptance of the evidence). The Barna study shows that Baptists and Pentecostals in fact have a GREATER divorce rate than other people (slightly). The fact that many of them reject evolution has not protected them from this social ill (that is, divorce). Of course there might be multiple other effects involved, but that is beyond the scope of this article. You can invent all kinds of fallacious nonsense to explain away any data and evidence whatsoever. This article and this statement has nothing to do with criticism of the Christian faith; that is all in your mind. After all, if one looks at the situation objectively, there is nothing to say that those divorces were not necessary. It is usually these very same faiths that declare divorce as a social ill. In terms of the hypocrisy operating here, let me just say "By their fruits you shall know them".--Filll 13:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

to Hrafn42, I have never heard of a study linking belief in evolution with divorce. That I cannot produce better data does not mean that I have to put up with data that does not belong here. Northfox 13:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist to make you feel better. And you do not personally have the sole say in what Wikipedia states.--Filll 13:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

your response within minutes of my post indicates that you are somehow upset. (as your previous reply did already. Read it again, you imply that there is for example a higher ratio of pentecostal murderers as compared with the average population. -Ridiculous). I was engaging in a discussion with Orangemarlin who was positive that we could get a consensus on the issue. I asked him yesterday to propose a phrase that would be okay for all of us. I'll wait and see what he has to say. Until then, bye.Northfox 14:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not draw any conclusions from timing. The Barna study says nothing about Pentecostal murders, but the other references seem to suggest that societies with a greater belief in creationism experience more murder. Why this is, we do not know. We do not know if living in a society with more murders causes more people to subscribe to creationism, for example. I will be glad to confer with OrangeMarlin about this.--Filll 14:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

but you did (hopefully tongue in cheek: 'Here is a group that claims belief in evolution causes ... and murder ... all manner of other social ills and problems. ... and in fact the statistics seem to support the complete OPPOSITE.')Northfox 15:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Northfox: I don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys what you are or are not prepared to "put up with" -- your sufferance is not required, only the agreement of the consensus, which appears to be on my side on this. I, along with others have substantiated why this data is relevant to this section. I am not prepared to continue responding to your contentless objections on this matter any longer. I would point you to this study on the correlation between religious belief and murder: Religious Cosmologies and Homicide Rates among Nations Hrafn42 14:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

'to put up with' (def.): To take without opposition or expressed dissatisfaction. That is exactly what I didn't do. Thanks for amending the main text that 'correlation' does not imply 'causation'.Northfox 15:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Whine all you like Northfox, it doesn't change anything. Hrafn42 15:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I actualy read the Jensen paper that you kindly pointed me to. Close to the conclusion section, on page 10 Jensen wrote "In short, Paul’s analysis generates the “desired results” by selectively choosing the set of social problems to include to highlight the negative consequences of religion."

In my field of study, 'selective chosing of results' is one of the worst accusations that seriously undermines the scientific value of the study. A university ethics committee would have a field day. Hence my insisting on rewriting the sentence about Paul's study. I couldn't care less if you call this whining.Northfox 06:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Northfox: I don't remember defending Paul's study. Jensen's conclusions are similar in any case, and give no support for the hypothesis that acceptance of Evolution leads to social ills. But none of this supports your whining about the fully justified inclusion of the Barna data. Hrafn42 07:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Question, since the aforementioned and I maybe off base, but your replied that religion causes more murder? Isn't that a tad myopic? It is well known, though he was off base, that Hitler used evolution as a basis for his extermination of the Jewish race. He also wanted, according to the Nuremberg papers released by the Rutger's Library, that he wanted to destroy Christianity because they were in conflict with evolution. http://www.lawandreligion.com/nurinst1.shtml

Before we lay all the ills on the world being religion, it should also be noted that it was the atomic bomb that killed 350,000 people. It is also science via technology that has created better weapons including biological warefare as well as nuclear warheads.

Now I am not laying the world ills on science, what I am using it as an example, that it isn't religion, politics, idealology or science that is the root of the problems of this world. It is simply that lovable, huggable, bipedal, carbon based life form named man.

I think your article is very good, but a tad bias. I don't get the feel that it is entirely written from an objective view but more about how religion is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.15.83 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 16 July 2007

I guess you need to work on your reading comprehension a bit. Creationists claim that "belief in evolution" causes murder. The data do not support this. Clear enough? The moldly old claim about Hitler using evolution to run his concentration camps has been disproved over and over. It demonstrates a lack of knowledge of evolution and of history. Did we need to know evolution to breed different kinds of dogs or faster horses, for example? Give me a break. Your link to Hitler's plan to persecute churches says nothing about evolution. And who is to say the atomic bomb is an ill? Aside from you getting the death toll from the bomb incorrect by a substantial factor, further discrediting your point of view, it might have saved us from many more deaths in the last few decades. All technology, like a garden rake, can be used both for good purposes and bad purposes. And sometimes, as in the case of the atomic bomb, it is not clear if the purposes were good or bad. A strong case can be made on both sides. Humans are basically disgusting creatures. And religion is often used by humans to give them an excuse to do evil. Science and technology make tools, which can then be used as humans do their evil. That is it. This is not complicated. Do not muddy the waters here with nonsense you have heard some preacher spew.--Filll 13:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I am admittedly bias and will not be editing this article.However, I would like to make a few observations. One, for this study to make sense in the context of the article it would have to prove that people of certain beliefs are somehow immune to consequences of other beliefs. I.e, that Christians are not affected by Non Christians influence. Hypothetically an Non Christians pornography site could have influenced a divorce and would therefore still be, albeit not directly, to blame for the Christians problems, witch would support the idea that Evolutionist are the cause of the ill. Two, there is no study supporting the idea that the majority of Christians blame specifically evolutionists or atheism for societies ills. Third, it does not take into account people who associate themselves with a religion but do not practice the beliefs of that religion. A person who says that they are Baptist but have not attended church in five years and don't participate in "Baptist" ideology, that is they don't vote or represent themselves as strictly Baptists or Creationist. Lastly, previous arguments for this being in the article cite specific examples of there argument but no evidence as whole for the standpoint. Correct me if I'm wrong but having to personally find only articles that support a specific view and none that oppose would represent original research in violation with Wikipedia standards. My vote, it doesn't make sense in this article. DJW2tone 19:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not follow your arguments. Societies with more religious beliefs suffer from more social ills. Clear enough? It seems pretty simple. We do not know why, or what is causing what. However, the claim by creationists that believing more in evolution leads to more social ills appears to be unsupported. Get it? Second, there are plenty of solid WP:RS references showing creationists accusing evolution of all kinds of things, and those are in the article. If you have contrary published evidence, please present it here. Third, what the nature of the religious belief of any individual is, is not our concern. Would you contend that societies which claim to be more religious are actually less religious? If so, please present a WP:RS source to this effect. Otherwise, the results of the study stand. I have no idea what you are trying to say. If you have WP:RS sources that support your views, present them. The study here is peer-reviewed and published in a regular academic journal. If you have other publications to present, please feel free to present them.--Filll 20:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that an article such as this could ever achieve Wikipedia standards for fair and unbiased opinion. It is painfully obvious that you have a specific agenda when editing this article. I hope you can set your personal feelings aside when editing articles like this or stop working on such articles. I don't trust myself to offer an unbiased opinion on these sorts of articles so I don't edit them. You seem to stand on a podium of a single study not on a unbiased body of facts. In another study by the same organization it says "One of the most significant differences between active-faith and no-faith Americans is the cultural disengagement and sense of independence exhibited by atheists and agnostics in many areas of life. They are less likely than active-faith Americans to be registered to vote (78% versus 89%), to volunteer to help a non-church-related non-profit (20% versus 30%), to describe themselves as "active in the community" (41% versus 68%), and to personally help or serve a homeless or poor person (41% versus 61%). They are also more likely to be registered to vote as an independent or with a non-mainstream political party."^[2] It is obvious that this article has become a pulpit to discredit and attack arguments against evolution and not an encyclopedia article. It is unlikely that information like this would make it into an article like this because it is not written in the spirit of an encyclopedia. DJW2tone 14:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a claim by a creationist that evolution causes people to be less likely to help the homeless, and then find a peer-reviewed study that shows that societies with more belief in evolution have more homeless and less assistance for the homeless, it can be included. Otherwise, this is just a nonsense objection.

So is voting for a nonmainstream political party now a bad thing? Interesting POV you are pushing.

All your other "social ills" need to be compared across cultures worldwide, including those with similar political systems and varying levels of belief in evolution. Otherwise, they are not particularly compelling.

You do not seem to understand the principles on which WP operates. I suggest you review WP:RS and WP:V and WP:NPOV. --Filll 14:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Evolution has not been observed

Shouldn't Grant and Grant's work on observed evolution in the Galapagos be cited in this section?

This is a wonderful article, by the way. Kudos to the contributors PedEye1 04:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Gregory S. Paul

I reverted most of Northfox's latest changes. There's no need to state Paul's credentials or reference them (especially not to a Wikipedia mirror), since they are present on the other side of the link. Wikipedia is hypertext, after all. Changing "are correlated" to "may be correlated" doesn't seem to be in keeping with what paper says. Adding:

He states in the introduction that the paper is "a first brief look" and "not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health".

really is just being argumentative, and doesn't belong in the article. The final addition:

The paper was criticized by Moreno-Riaño, Smith, and Mach in a published article in the same journal because "[Paul's] methodological problems do not allow for any conclusive statement to be advanced regarding the various hypotheses Paul seeks to demonstrate or falsify."

is going a bit overboard. The Paul paper is there to illustrate a point, the article is not about the Paul paper. The critique is totally out of place there. I moved it to a footnote for the moment, where it might be appropriate, though I have my doubts. Guettarda 14:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I added Paul’s credientials out of two reasons. First, affiliation and credentials of ‘creationists’ are commonly stated, even in this very article: ‘….Discovery Institute fellow Richard ….Kent Hovind of Creation Research Evangelism …..’. So adding this information allows to allocate possible schools of thought. Second, it helps in evaluating the statements made by that person. As the sentence is right now, (There is a published study by Gregory S. Paul demonstrating that religious beliefs, including belief in creationism and disbelief in evolution, are positively correlated with social ills like crime.) nobody knows if Paul is a statistician, or a mathematician, fields of study closely related to data analysis, or he specializes in fields not so closely related. Furthermore, and I did not even touch this subject, is the study published in a peer-reviewed article or not? All this info helps in evaluating the statements made by Paul.

Reading the article in its present form gives no clues at all. I had to access Paul’s wiki entry (sorry for the unnecessary link to the answers.com mirror site!) and his study itself, to get information that easily could have been made available in the present article in one or two sentences. An encyclopedia should give concise information on a topic in condensed form. I tried to do that.

How many levels down should we go?

Criticism of objections to evolution definitely belongs in this article. Criticism of Criticism of objections to evolution (i.e. the follow-up to Paul’s paper) should be allowed, too. I placed it in the main article, but it was moved to a footnote. I wish to move it back into the article. And I don’t think that the criticism is overboard at all.

Finally, why not put Paul’s statement in his introduction that the paper is "a first brief look" and "not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health" into the main article? This also helps to evaluate the study. This time from the author of the study himself (!), that this is a brief look, not an iron-clad conclusion back up by years of intense study and rigorous statistical data analysis?Northfox 10:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of criticism doesn't belong because you are no longer talking about the idea. The Paul article is an example, it's not the totality of the rebuttal. When you add your own critique of Paul's article you are violating our policy on "original research". Adding your own commentary about Paul's article most definitely does not belong in the article. Guettarda 21:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware that I added my own opinion about Paul's paper. Please show me where I did. I just added information about the author, his own opinion on the restrictions of his preliminary results, and a critique of his work. I agree having the critique as a footnote. But Paul's own words about his work, and his credentials have to stay in the main article. If not, the report of his work is biased.Northfox 23:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In this edit you added your own critique. To begin with, you changed Paul's conclusion (from saying that he found a correlation to saying that he may have found a correlation) - in doing this you appear to be misrepresenting the paper. In addition, you added He states in the introduction that the paper is "a first brief look" and "not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health". The article already said that there was a correlation, not "definitive proof". The main point of Paul's paper is that he found this correlation, not "what is a correlation". Your critique misrepresents the article by downplaying the main point and putting excessive emphasis on a minor point. Guettarda 04:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am a mathematician and a statistican and I have looked at Paul's data and believe me, there is a correlation. So...--Filll 04:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

so.....I suggest that we take the author by word. Why don't we change the sentence in question into

<italic>There is a published study by freelance paleontologist, author and illustrator Gregory S. Paul, in which he shows that there is "evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction". He states in the introduction that the paper is "a first brief look" and "not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health".</italic>

then we circumvent all the 'demonstrated' and 'is correlated' or 'may be correlated' interpretations of his findings. In addition we have his credentials (nothing to be ashamed of), and his own catious mention of a first brief look.

How's that?Northfox 13:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is again some confusion here. Everyone knows, or should know, that correlation does not imply causation. I do not think this needs to be belabored by excessive quoting. Instead, I propose a parenthetical note or footnote. The paper does not include any reason for these correlations. One could produce a long list of speculations for why these correlations appear, however, they do not belong in this article since they are verging on OR.--Filll 14:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Eric Hovind

It is quite relevant why his father Kent is not available to preach, since it illustrates the point being raised in this section quite vividly.--Filll 15:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg

Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution Working Against Itself

It can also be said that in the process of evolving, evolution may create a good amount of the components needed for major organs, however they would not be the final product, and would thus be useless, and weeded out in the next generation. After all, evolution is simply a process, and cannot see potential. Just a thought, thanks! Dmitri Demidov 23:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course this happens all the time. Consider vestigial organs and features, and atavisms.--Filll 23:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a misinterpretation of what I meant, apologies for the poor wording. I'm not talking about genetic mutations that causes organs to become non-functioning. If, during the supposed transition between species, a small amount of information is gained, natural selection would remove the information, as it would not yet serve any purpose. Dmitri Demidov 23:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean but thanks for your comment anyway.--Filll 23:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a movement a small bit towards an organ usually is useful... by a small bit. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not take this as being condescending, but I would not think that the flesh for a leg without the bones (or bones without the flesh) is useful in any manor. Likewise, a lung that intakes air, but does not oxidize (I think that's the proper word) red blood cells is useless. (Obviously, I am using some slight exaggeration, but the principles remain) Dmitri Demidov 04:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The correct word is "oxygenate." Flesh developed in vertebrates (subphylum Vertebrata) before bones:

Characteristics of the subphylum are a muscular system that mostly consists of paired masses, as well as a central nervous system which is partly located inside the backbone (if one is present).

Usually, the defining characteristic of a vertebrate is considered the backbone or spinal cord, a brain case, and an internal skeleton, but the latter do not hold true for lampreys, and the former is arguably present in some other chordates.

Vertebrate

Evolution of the lung: Lung#Origins (proto-lungs had utility before they could directly oxygenate blood, additionally a circulatory system would be useful with gills before lungs developed) Hrafn42 05:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution does not have any purpose to be working against. Suspect you may be confusing it with one of the alternatives. SheffieldSteel 13:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look at Evolution of complexity.--Filll 14:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics

This section seems to overlook the situation for which this argument was intended. In the stages that are supposed to have preceded life, such as the arrangement of protons, neutrons, electrons, etc. to form new elements, and the transition between inorganic matter, and living "primordial goo", vast decreases in entropy (disorder) would be required. Dmitri Demidov 23:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

To start with, this is not evolution, but abiogenesis or something similar. However, most creationists etc do not know what the argument actually is that they are using, since they parrot it without having the slightest understanding of thermodynamics, science, entropy or evolution. So the 2nd law is invoked in all sorts of ludicrous situations by a large group of assorted creationists.--Filll 23:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

(Non-sarcastically) I feel compelled to apologize for commenting on this topic with a flawed understanding of the principles about which I am speaking. Dmitri Demidov 04:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Dmitri: It is you who are ignoring a number of facts: like the fact that "the arrangement of protons, neutrons, electrons, etc. to form new elements" has been explained by astro- and nuclear physics, working well within the bounds of the laws of thermodynamics, the fact that "the transition between inorganic matter, and living 'primordial goo'" has large potential external energy sources (most notably the Sun and volcanic vents) that would easily overcome any potential thermodynamic problems. The 2LoT argument against evolution only works if (1) you don't understand thermodynamics (and so accept some popularised approximation to it) and (2) don't look too carefully at the energy flows. Hrafn42 15:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Dmitri, unfortunately you've picked up a common confusion between thermodynamic entropy and the (mis)use of the term in information theory: the second law is a strong statistical probability in thermodynamics, but has no equivalent in information terms. The description of entropy as "disorder" is a 19th century analogy referring to sub-microscopic movement of molecules, and while that old idea was widely used in developing statistical thermodynamics, studies have found that it confuses students and leads to misunderstandings. Not least amongst creationists who equate dna with "information" from their favourite deity. For further info see Entropy (energy dispersal).. dave souza, talk 18:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution leads to immorality and social ills

Hi all,

I have changed "often claimed" in the first paragraph to "sometimes claimed".

R. Albert Mohler, Jr., President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, wrote August 8, 2005 in National Public Radio's forum, "Taking Issue", that "Debates over education, abortion, environmentalism, homosexuality and a host of other issues are really debates about the origin — and thus the meaning — of human life.... Evolutionary theory stands at the base of moral relativism and the rejection of traditional morality".[75][76] Creationist Ken Ham likens evolution to a horde of termites, weakening society's foundation. In Why Won't They Listen?, Ham suggests that "evolutionary termites" are responsible for pornography, homosexual behavior and lawlessness. He also writes, "I'm not saying that evolution is the cause of abortion or school violence. What I'm saying is that the more a culture abandons God's word as the absolute authority, and the more a culture accepts an evolutionary philosophy, then the way people think, and their attitudes, will also change."[77] Former Texas Republican Representative Tom DeLay claimed that the Columbine school shootings were caused by the teaching of evolution. DeLay is quoted as stating that "Our school systems teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who are evolutionized [sic] out of some primordial soup."[78] Hydraulic engineer Henry M. Morris claims that evolution was part of a pagan religion that emerged after the Tower of Babel, was part of Plato's and Aristotle's philosophies, and was responsible for everything from war to pornography to the breakup of the nuclear family.

I believe that this list justifies "often." Hrafn42 12:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There are four proponents mentioned in that paragraph, there are 301 million people living in the United States. If we accept 44% of the population believes in Young Earth Creationism, you have shown 0.000003% of the United States hold that opinion how does that justify "often"? Cedars 00:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have also commented out the Barna Group survey because it did not seem to mention evolution explicitly and extending it to the subject seemed a bit of a stretch.

This subject has been extensively discussed in the Talk:Objections to evolution#divorce statistics section above. The consensus was that the Barna Group survey is relevant. Hrafn42 12:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the statistics are that they take conclusions from one report and then stretch them to apply to a situation the survey never intended to cover. Not only does that probably constitute original research but I would argue the stretch isn't that reasonable to begin with. Cedars 00:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I am still unsure about the inclusion of Shermer's piece because I feel it is largely an opinion piece and therefore not appropriate for defending the science of evolution. Gregory Paul's analysis is also of concern because it works by reviewing crime and theistic beliefs at a society-level when an individual-level would probably be far more appropriate. In short, an analysis where people were the data points not countries would probably be far better at keeping all other variables equal because different countries have different cultures (religion aside).

Cedars 06:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Shermer's article is an "opinion piece" is clearly indicated in the article by the introductory phrase "Michael Shermer argued in..." The article is clearly pertinent, and published in a reliable source. Why is an argument in defence of evolution "not appropriate for defending the science of evolution"?

My problem is it is not a scientific argument, it is an opinion piece. You could say "Michael Shermer argued in an opinion piece that..." to make it clear to the audience. Cedars 00:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

On the Gregory Paul analysis, the Creationists' argument often goes Evolution->Atheism->Immorality, so statistical comparisons of levels of theistic belief and levels of criminal behaviour are clearly relevant. Hrafn42 13:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

My problem is the that the analysis does not compare those who believe in God and their criminal behaviour in the same society but instead society-wide belief in God and criminal behaviour. The problem is societies have different cultures and histories. If you have a society that has recently experienced thirty years of civil war and roaming gangs you might find that criminal behaviour is greater there (regardless of what percent of them believe in God). Cedars 00:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I introduced the material you are objecting to. I do not understand how on earth anyone could NOT see the relevance of these three articles to the subject. Creationists claim that evolution causes divorce. But in fact, the data seem to indicate the opposite, or at least do not show that belief in evolution causes divorce. Creationists claim societies that believe more in evolution have more crime and other social ills. In fact, the data do not support this claim. In fact, the opposite appears to be true. So these references and this evidence not only does NOT support any of the claims made by creationists about the negative effects of evolution on society, but refute them completely. If one looks at the history of creationism, there is a long record of these kind of lunatic claims being made, but they all appear to be false. They are just repeated mindlessly for generation after generation, and therefore are just accepted because they have been repeated so often. However, it is important that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia refutes these kind of nonsense claims.--Filll 14:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the offending word altogether for now, the sentence now reads "claimed" with no qualifier. What source do we have for "often"? It sounds like someones opinion; whose? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As I stated above, the word "often" is supported by the numerous senior figures in the Religious Right who are cited in the paragraph as having made this type of claim. It is possible that a more nuanced phrasing than "often" may be preferable, but I would object most strongly to any word like "sometimes" that gives the false appearance that this type of claim is uncommon. Hrafn42 15:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the history of creationism, the claims that evolution causes a number of social ills goes back at least to Price, about 100 years ago, and probably well before that. I think that the word "often" is quite appropriate. I could compile a huge list of creationists that make this claim, that would include almost every creationist and creation scientist of note for the last 100+ years. However, this is a lot of effort and I am fine with the present wording. I would rather put my energies somewhere else at the moment.--Filll 15:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Filll that, although exhaustive canvassing would almost certainly be supportive of the original wording of "often claimed," such further effort would be inefficient. I would therefore ask what wording the current claims in this paragraph would support. It definitely supports an unqualified wording of "It is claimed," and I would suggest it also supports "widely claimed," as the cited claims come from (1)a theologian, (2)two professional creationists, (3)a politician, and (4)a historian. Hrafn42 17:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"Often" and "widely" have inherent difficulties, so far as I can tell. Often claimed by whom? How much is "often"? I don't mean to quibble, but I am concerned this sentence might be misleading with a qualifier without clearly defined parameters and considerable care taken in the phrasing. Hrafn42's list of supporters is five people. It might be the case that it is often claimed by creationists - I seriously doubt it is claimed often by scientists. I don't know that there are any reliable demographics on this at all. And Filll's "been around for at least 100 years" gives a time scale, not a frequency. Filll's "lostso creationists" has weight, but "often" would then require "often claimed by creationists" which leaves our solitary historian and politician and scientist in the dust, unless they are also noted creationists. Do you see my difficulty with this? Unless there is more compelling reasoning than the shortlist, I would prefer we leave the sentence without the "often", "widely" or "sometimes" or any other qualifier at all. Apologies if my paraphrasing Hrafn42's and Filll's comments is read as too casual - I was going for succinctness. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a list of several more examples of such claims: http://www.jimloy.com/pseudo/immoral.htm. Also a poster graphically making this claim: http://atheism.about.com/od/religiousright/ig/Christian-Propaganda-Posters/Evolution-Darwinism-Schools.htm. I am not unequivocally stating that we should not accept a bare "claimed," only that we should first look at what the easily-collectable evidence will support. Hrafn42 11:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much!

1. Who is Jim Loy, and was this published anywhere besides his personal site? An unpublished essay is hardly a notable source.
2. A poster is an illustration, and that one is copyrighted. The accompanying text is indeed about creationists arguing that teaching evolution leads to "bestiality", and is written by Austin Cline, who is a prolific online atheist author. I'm not sure about his notability - I have not found anything about him, but lots by him. It looks like the article could be used as a source. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure who he is. It is not an "essay" as such, but rather a list of quotations.
2. I misread the poster-description. I had thought that it was in fact a poster used by Creationists, rather than merely one altered by the page's author.

What I am trying to do (and apparently failing at so far) is to see if there is any way to substantiate some qualifier of "claimed" that gives some indication of the ubiquity (for want of a better word) of the Creationist use of this claim. Hrafn42 16:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, "often claimed by creationists" is accurate and complete. Hrafn42 and KillerChihuahua are concerned this neglects the politician, scientist, and historian currently quoted. Thing is, the quoted politican is Tom DeLay, firmly in the Religious Right. The Scientist is Henry M. Morris, founder of several Christian think tanks. That leaves the results of a few statistical studies, which sometimes find correlations; but correlations do not imply cause, and they certainly do not imply belief. The quotes at jimloy.com all have creationist sources. All the arguments that evolution causes imorality *do* come from creationists. Thing is, who didn't know that already? Creationists bash evolution, and no evolutionist is going to admit to enjoying a good ethnic cleansing. Why not go with "Crime, teen pregnancies, homosexuality, abortion, pronography, communism, tatoos, body pierceing and child abuse have all been blamed on an increasing belief in evolution." Leave the redundant issue of who champions such claims for the later quotes, and dodge the un-wiki-ness of the phrase "It is often claimed that...". Dodge the silly percieved-or-truly-social-ills issue at the same time. Endomorphic 00:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that the whole section needs to be looked at carefully. I especially have problems with the last paragraph because, as I discussed above, there appear to be problems with Paul's survey and the Barna group's conclusions are being stretched. From this talk page's history you can see that I am not the only one to have had concerns over this section. Given this fact, my question is, why not work on changing the article instead of defending it? Cedars 02:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm concerned with sourcing, and Hrafn42 is working hard to research this. "often claimed" does seem accurate to me... which is Original reasearch. We can hardly use that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Me not paying enough attention to this article, you don't seem to be using the obvious source[2][3][4] which might suggest "common claim", though as far as I can see TOA doesn't actually say whether claims it addresses are common or not. Actually, it looks pretty good without any adjective. Now to patch up the misleading comments about Chas D... dave souza, talk 06:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

the hoyle thing seems almost to already be in the

Life is too unlikely to arise by chance section. It should be easy to add another sentence or two if we wish.Wikiskimmer 06:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

but the way i usually hear the boeing thing being used by creationists or just ignorant people is like this:

saying that dumb molecules can randomly come together to produce life is like saying that a bunch of dumb boeing parts can randomly come together to make an airplane.

and what i think needs to be pointed out about that analogy is that at the molecular level, molecules behave much more dynamically and creatively and interactively and non randomly than rusted old boeing parts at the macro level. Learn some chemistry and physics of dissapative systems. To me this is much more interesting than all this philosophising about which is more parsimonious, natural selection or god. After all, when talking about abiogenesis, we aren't necessarily talking about natural selection, we are talking mostly about chemistry.

so does this section spell out that nontheistic abiogenesis is a big hurdle for most people (and it spills into a disbelief of evolution), and that at present we have no theory of abiogenesis, and that nontheistic abiogenesis would not be such a big hurdle if more people knew how creative molecules are under energy flow, as opposed to inert boeing parts? In general i think the issue is not so much a matter of carefull arguments against the plausibility of evolution, but that these arguments resonate with the public so well because the public has no gut sense of what we've learned in the past 50 years about how much emergent order we can get from simple chemical, physical and mathematical systems.

is this in a wiki somehwere? should it be in this one?Wikiskimmer 09:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's the other way around. As you know, the jet airplane is significantly less complex than the simplest single celled organism. The analogy works in favor of intelligent design. The "simple" cellular flagellum is not even fully understood by modern science. There are numerous molecular feedback mechanisms during its construction which are simply unknown. The complexity is not just in the working motor, but in the genetic coding of its construction process. Yet you would believe that this complex system arose via an unintelligent chemical route. As an engineer, I know that to be not just improbable, but quite impossible. Of course DNA itself is the bigger problem since the proteins it relies on for its replication are also dependent on the DNA for their synthesis: a classic chicken and egg paradox.

Science has never observed complex information-based systems arise from unintelligent processes. That is a fact. Life is not an example since its origin was not observed, and is the matter in question. I thought science was all about observing the facts and basing theories on those facts. Darwinian evolution is a faith-based belief system, not science. Owen Ward 03:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing here about objections to not enough time for macroevolution to occur.

Is there another wiki that discusses this? Seems to me that lack of imagining millions of generations of small changes, and extinctions separating populations, is behind most gut objections to evolution.Wikiskimmer 06:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is closely related to the "Life is too unlikely to arise by chance" argument, as the probability of a complex series of evolutionary steps happening is related to the amount of time in which it has to happen. Additionally, any calculation as to the amount of time it would take would suffer from many of the problems identified with the probability calculations (imponderable input variables, too-narrow/ex-post definition of 'success', etc). Same sort of garbage-in/garbage-out abuse of mathematics. Hrafn42 10:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about abiogenesis, that's completely different and we have even less info about that. I'm talking about microevolution and macroevolution of organisms. Many people accept that offspring differ slightly from parents. They accept that populations go up and down, maybe even some extinction. But many people do not accept that there are 100s of millions of years for these two processes to produce macroevolution. This is a major hindrance to people accepting the seemingly rediculous proposition that amoebas can turn into worms can turn into fish can turn into humans.Wikiskimmer 12:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to look at other wikis, feel free to cull through some of them listed on my talk page at [5].--Filll 12:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

okWikiskimmer 12:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Life is too unlikely to arise by chance" section covers evolution as well as abiogenesis -- the "complexity" of life as well as its mere existence, although it does tend to concentrate on the latter. Certainly the "Evolutionary argument against naturalism" bit of it is about evolution not abiogenesis, though further examples and scientific counter-arguments from the post-abiogenesis end of things for the section would be beneficial. Hrafn42 12:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Red State Rabble raises an interesting point relating to this form of the objection under the title 'The Tangled Web of Creationism':

Creationist arguments sometimes create a real problem for those who craft them. Take for example, the argument advanced by young earth creationists that there hasn't been enough time since God created the world 6,000 years ago for the process of evolution to create the diversity of life we see around us today.

All of that life, they say, must have been a product of creation by God, or as those creationists who are familiar with court rulings would say, some intelligent designer.

But then a problem crops up. A problem moreover that the sort of mind that embraces creationism never seems to anticipate. How did all that diversity, all those animals fit on Noah's Ark? How were they fed? What was done with their waste? How did Noah's family manage it all?

Well, they have an answer for that too.

Noah didn't have two of every species we know today. He had two of every "kind" of land animal. "For instance," as some young earth creationists would have it, "two members of the dog kind walked off the Ark. Then, as the number of dogs increased, eventually the population split up and different groups formed."

"As the gene pool was split up, different combinations of genes—inherited from the original dogs—would end up in different groups. Thus, different species would form, such as dingoes, wolves, and so on."

So there was enough time for evolution to operate, after all. And even to operate in a Darwinian manner, but it's still scientists who have it all wrong: "Evolutionists have often insisted that such a process happens slowly, and therefore, the Bible can’t be right when it says that the land animals came off the Ark only about 4,300 years ago."

If citations to YECs actually making these directly-contradictory claims can be found, it might be worth including this in its own 'not-enough-time' subsection of the 'too-unlikely' section. Hrafn42 04:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Bias in language

I completely agree with below post. The whole thing is written in a "debunking the criticisms" tone. It should be redone to highlight each criticism clearly, and then below each state how scientists try to or successfully counter the criticisms. Right now it completely reeks of bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.40.30 (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This entire article is written in a creationism vs evolution language. I don't see why the word creationist is used every two seconds in the article. Creationists aren't the only ones against the pseudo-science that is evolution; or does the word of the rest of us scientists not count. For the record you don't have to be a christian to not believe in evolution. How about we replace the words creationists with scientists; since they are the ones who are debunking evolution; while at the same time not living under the illusion of a 6000 year old world

Cite WP:RS of significant numbers of people, other than Creationists, (let alone a significant number of scientists) who disagree with the well-founded science that is The Theory of Evolution. Otherwise read WP:SOAP. Hrafn42 14:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Where are all the wikipedia POV nazis when you need them. This article is clearly biased in favor of the theory in question, evolution. "intelligent design advocate" rather than "creationist" would be a more neutral, unbiased term to use. There are numerous modern scientists (not creationists) in many fields who are intelligent design advocates. They view ID as the only scientific theory of life's origin that is consistent with the observed evidence. This article needs more unbiased research and less ideology. Its POV should be switched to neutral.

Some of the quoted examples of natural processes that decrease entropy are absurd and beg the question, since the origin of life is what's being debated. We already know life itself produces less entropy, yet the known universe has always moved in the opposite direction, with the exception of life itself and human-intelligence guided processes. Owen Ward 03:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No there aren't there are actually very few scientists credulous enough to give more than a few seconds credence to the notion of intelligent design. I seriously suggest that you stop wasting your own and everyone else's time, and try and educate yourself about the subject you hate so much, before holding forth about what is and isn't science... you'll look less stupid that way. ornis (t) 03:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, your ignorance/bigotry is showing. You should research some of the molecular biologists out there doing the cutting-edge cellular research who are also ID advocates. When they come face to face with the awesome complexity of the cellular machine, still far from well understood, ID is the only rational theory consistent with the observed facts. Darwin had the excuse of ignorance about cellular complexity. Today that is no longer possible except by denial or willful ignorance. Owen Ward 03:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It is about a scientific theory. And according to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, we present it accordingly. The determination of the US Federal Courts and the science community is that intelligent design is creationism. Pro-creationism and religious tracts are not unbiased, as much as you might like them to be. You clearly do not understand what science is or evolution, since evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life. And what about formation of salt crystals out of solution? Why not talk to someone who is an expert in thermodynamics instead of quoting religious tracts? If I want to get a medical opinion, I do not talk to a golf caddy, I talk to a doctor. --Filll 03:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Since when do the courts decide what is science? They have enough trouble understanding the Internets. ID is a modern scientific theory advocated by legitimate scientists doing advanced work at many research institutions. It is not the same as creationism. A legitimate encyclopedic article should reflect both sides of a topic rather than just pretending it is being objective or unbiased. This article is more like an opinion piece. Ignorance of ID is no excuse.

Actually, in the US, the courts do decide what is science and what is not. What about the Daubert Standard, according to the US Supreme Court, fulfilling their role under the constitution. Are you against the US constitution? Also Judge Overton who ruled in 1982 on McLean v. Arkansas also had his own determination as to what was science. And guess what? No real scientist that I know would disagree with the Overton rules or the Daubert rules. A tiny number of religious eccentrics want to define religion as science and force their opinions on the rest of science and the rest of society. And ID is NOT, absolutely NOT in any reasonable definition a scientific theory. Well over 99% of all degreed professional biologists agree. Neither does the AAAS or the National Academy of Sciences or 38 Nobel Prize winners who signed the Nobel Laureate Initiative. And none of the people who participated in Project Steve or A Scientific Support for Darwinism agree either. So....try to learn something before you add more material here.--Filll 04:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You are also mistaken that modern evolution theory does not attempt to explain life's origin. Do some research on the theory of how the flagellum arose or how self-replicating enzymes slowly became DNA. Those are attempts to explain the origin of the single celled organism (life) via natural selection (evolution). And I'm not quoting religious tracts, these are my own thoughts. Your bigotry is showing.Owen Ward 03:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It is clear they are your own thoughts, but they bear a striking resemblance to a religious tract or two. Interesting...And you are wrong. Just plain wrong. but you are welcome to your ignorance. Just do not attempt to force it on others. Thanks.--Filll 04:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. Funny how evolutionists are unable to see how much of what they believe is more doctrinal than rational. Believing that frogs can turn into princes given enough time still sounds like a fairy tale to me. Owen Ward 04:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the argument from ignorance. Typical. ornis (t) 04:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, the classic hand-waving argument. How did it happen? Billions of years! We can't show you the exact steps of course. It's self-evident! But it's science! Owen Ward 05:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe I will take my information from (1) Nobel Prize winning scientists (2) experts in the field (3) my own scientific judgement from years of experience, rather than listen to a biblical fundamentalist, biblical literalist, evangelical, fundamentalist Christian or engineer. But thanks awfully for the kind efforts.--Filll 05:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design is a political canard cooked up to side step constitutional separation of church and state. Cutting edge research? LMFAO... were is it? Oh that's right, there is none, because real scientists, with a little brains and imagination, don't need to invoke magic-man every time they come across something that can't immediately be explained. In fact, not invoking magic-man or any other supernatural explanation is one of the fundamental principles of the scientific method. ornis (t) 04:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

(ri) In any case, did you actually have some purpose here other than to vent your spleen? ornis (t) 04:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Try a google search or two, or would you rather remain willfully ignorant? I thought so. Owen Ward 04:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not get my information from google searches of blogs and religious tract sites. But thanks anyway.--Filll 04:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant.

Answer the question. Do you have some purpose here other than trolling? ornis (t) 04:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I came here to object to the article's lack of NPOV. The author(s) failed to research modern ID theory and contrast it to Evolution in a factual, unbiased manner. It's much easier to knock down the "creationist" straw-man.

The article has been developed through consensus. It is in complete accord with the articles on creationism and intelligent design here. And this article is about the objections to evolution. Period. You want to talk about intelligent design? Go to a talk page that deals with it. Or better yet, a wiki that focuses on the POV intelligent design view. This encyclopedia is NPOV and abides by WP:WEIGHT--Filll 04:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Then why does it say "objections to evolutions"? ID is an objection to evolution. Therefore it has the right to be in the article. And if it's in the article, it should be presented accurately. And generally all of the articles are biased towards evolution, it's not like this is the only one. If this is going to state objections to evolution, it should put some focus on the intelligent design view and do it accurately. 26 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.82.133 (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design is a type of creationism. It has its own article. It is not suitable for this article.--Filll 01:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If it is a type of creationism, and this is a creationism vs evolution article, than it should be included if it has contoversies against/to evolutionist thought. IronCrow 01:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I find this article to be kind of biased, and i'm not taking a view of "creationism" or "evolution." In the criticisms, it shouldn't say a sentence or two about what "creationists" think and then a flood of sentences about what evolutionists think. For instance: "Creationists commonly argue against evolution on the grounds that 'evolution is a religion; it is not a science'. The purpose of this criticism is to undermine the "higher ground" biologists claim in debating creationists, and to reframe the debate from being between science (evolution) and religion (creationism) to being between two equally religious beliefs — or, in some cases, even to argue that evolution is religious, while some form of creationism (typically intelligent design) is not." How do you know that is the "purpose" of a "creationist?" What is it, some new world order or something? I for once am sick of the Evolution vs. Creationism argument anyways, as there are more pressing matters to place scientists in (diseases, famine, AIDS issues, etc.). But, that's only my opinion, and this is an encyclopedia, a NPOV encyclopedia. Whether something is right or something is wrong is opinion. I don't care what you believe, Creationism or Evolution, but this is an Encyclopedia, the ideas expressed in the article fail to show research into "creationist" views. Guess Colbert was right, "Any user can change any entry, and if enough users agree with them, it becomes true." By the way, I wouldn't say 99% of biologists are evolutionists. Not even. As Wikipedia states: Be respectful to others and their points of view. That goes to both evolutionists and creationists. This is a talk page about THE TOPIC IN DISCUSSION. The article doesn't give a crap what you believe, and therefore, you're beliefs should not moderate what you put in the article. IronCrow 01:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Evolution leads to atheism

I've added a {{globalize}} template to this section. To the majority of the world (i.e. outside of the States) the reply to this charge would be "So what?". The belief in creationism could equally be critized as leading to a belief in a supernatural deity (although cause and effect are probably the other way around) and a suspension of rationality, which is far more harmful to society.131.251.0.55 13:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well anon, I frankly do not think your "global" complaint has much weight. It is like complaining that an article about the National Institutes of Health mainly is about the US or an article about The Times is mainly about the UK. By far, the vast majority of creationist activity in the Western English Speaking World is in the US, and everyone knows it. We draw creationists from the UK and Australia and NZ and Canada because they can make far more money in the US than they can at home because of its atmosphere. Some of our best known creationists in the US come from the rest of the world, like Ham, like Price, like Comfort and so on.

The rest of your complaint here is unrelated to the tag you placed on the article, and shows me that you have not thought your objections about very carefully. Maybe you need a different tag, which might be more appropriate to your real objection? In any case, it is an objection raised by those opposed to evolution (which is what the article is about, after all), and it is one that is easily refuted (which is done in this article). It does not matter what your personal belief in the matter is, because that is not the subject of this article.

This article is certainly not intended to judge whether belief in God is or is not harmful to society at large. If you think it is, then perhaps you might want to go someplace else to edit like talk origins or some other site or forum to debate your views. Wikipedia is not the place for it.--Filll 13:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

(EC) You're forgetting the billion and a half or so muslims in the world, who aren't so blasé about atheism. If anything, this is probably the most significant objection in the islamic world, not to mention both the the muslim and the christian parts of africa. I'd venture to say this is the most international objection. ornis (t) 13:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no sources in the moment, but I see this as a major creationist argument here in Brazil, too. wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 11:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

<undent> A bit off topic, but the Devil's Chaplain might amuse.... dave souza, talk 08:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

15 Qnswers

Just for info, sciam's 2002 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense might be of use... dave souza, talk 08:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Objection that scientific research is unable to provide 'sufficient' (meaning an unreasonable level of) detail

This issue came up in a blog entry on a recent lecture by William Dembski:

Since Dembski had earlier said (in response to a question about what would make him abandon intelligent design) that an explanation of the evolution of the bacterial flagellum would be a good step towards disproving ID, he was rather put on the spot by this explanation. His responses was first to try to play for time (write this up and get it published) and then to resort to the old creationist argument - details, I need details. In essence saying that, until he is supplied with every step in the evolutionary history, including every mutation, he’s holding on to the assertion that this is irreducibly complex. Weak!

– [6](emphasis in the original)

I remember this also being used by Michael Behe as a last ditch defence of his position in Dover. Is it a sufficiently prominent 'objection' to be worth mentioning? It would presumably be a sub-section of 'Objections to evolution's evidence'. Hrafn42^Talk_Stalk 05:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What ever happened to the footprints..?

I'm not trying in the slightest to get into a debate here but I was wondering what ever happened to the talk of the man-by-dino footprints? IE, this I don't know how it's viewed in light of today or whatnot but I didn't see it mentioned in this article. --209.247.5.131 08:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It was shown to be the result of erosion. The talk.origins website has a complete writeup of it, and how Baugh still maintains that the tracks are of men and dinosaurs, despite all of the evidence to the contrary. --Knight of BAAWA 02:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Symbiosis

Creationists have long claimed that obligate symbioses are evidence against evolution, arguing that since neither organism can survive without the other, they must have come into existence at exactly the same time.^[3] This simplistic point of view ignores the extreme variety of symbiotic relationships as well the mutability of species over time. Obligate mutualisms could easily evolve from facultative relationships in which neither species is fully committed. These arguments persist despite many examples of facultative symbioses and multiple theoretical and computational models describing how such a relationship would evolve.^[4][5][6][7]

This was added to the symbiosis article. It strikes me that it would much more appropriate here.  –  ornis⚙ 08:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Another objection

Found this on Pharyngula:

Cuvier famously (and incorrectly) argued that he could derive the whole of the form of an animal from a single part, and that this unity of form meant that species were necessarily fixed. An organism was like a complex, multi-part equation that used only a single variable: you plugged a parameter like 'ocelot' into the Great Formula, and all the parts and pieces emerged without fail; plug in a different parameter, say 'elephant', and all the attributes of an elephant would be expressed. By looking at one element, such as the foot, you could determine whether you were looking at an elephant or an ocelot, and thereby derive the rest of the animal.

– Laws of correlation and the derivation of evolutionary patterns from developmental rules

I don't know if anybody considers this to be a sufficiently important or interesting objection to be worth documenting in the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

this article has really gone down the drain... It has gone from being an article about the objections to evolution to an article about the objections to evolution and how stupid and pointless they are.