Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:54, 25 November 2006

Rejection of evolution by religious groups received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

To-do list for Rejection of evolution by religious groups: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2020-05-02 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : *Arguments relating to the definition, limits and philosophy of science' section. Expand : *'Forums for the controversy' section should go beyond debates, and eventually add an introductory sentence. 'Public policy issues' & 'Issues relating to religion' sections require introductory paragraphs to provide an overview and give structure to their sub-sections.

Template:Talkheaderlong

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Rejection of evolution by religious groups was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. Review: October 4, 2006.

History of Science Unassessed

This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:V0.5

For more contentious discussion of these issues, please see the newsgroup Talk.origins (Misplaced Pages link has information on how to access the newsgroup). For a November 2004 deletion debate over this page see Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Creation vs. evolution debate

Archives
Antiquity – Nov 2004 Nov 2004 – Dec 2004 Dec 2004 – Dec 2004 Dec 2004 – Jan 2005 Jan 2005 – Jan 2005 Jan 2005 – Feb 2005 Feb 2005 – Mar 2005 Mar 2005 – Sep 2005 Sep 2005 – Dec 2005 Dec 2005 – Jan 2006 Jan 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – July 2006 July 2006 &ndash: October 2006

Where to find more archives

• The text of the Creation vs. evolution debate page was cut from the Creationism page on October 29, 2004 to reduce the size of the Creationism page to reasonable limits. It was subsequently renamed Creation-evolution controversy to conform to Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View policy on January, 28 2005.

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

Various temp articles:

• An attempt from February 2005

• It's associated talkpage

Re-Listing GA

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

I agree with FeloniousMonk. The above objections used to delist this article are very minor points, most often focusing on one word. For such a highly charged topic, this article is surprisingly good and stable. I do agree that this article still needs improvement in many areas (ie: it's not a FA article), but it defiantly is GA.--Roland Deschain 16:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently "any editor can de-list an article. It's part of the unbeaucratic nature of the program. Which means that either (a) the GA system is broken, or (b) GA status is meaningless (since GAs should decay exponentially). Better to get it listed as "A Class" by the appropriate WikiProject. Guettarda 17:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Also note that for articles of this link, GA standards strive to be very close to FA. See the miniscule difference between WP:WIAFA and WP:WIAGA. The difference comes in the eyes of one reviewer at a time versus the eyes of several at once on the FA review. So an article that is far from FA is one that is far from GA as well.Agne 19:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the review page is really supposed to give a final say concerning delisting an article or not delisting, its worked so far :/. Homestarmy 21:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Agne, your argument is specious and merely meant to back up your own faux pas. On the other hand, Guettarda has a point -- perhaps, given that any editor, whether using valid or questionable arguments, may delist a GA, should we really care whether an article received the GA seal of approval? Isn't it in essence meaningless?

Homes, this is a clear example of the system not working. The reasons listed by Agne for delisting the article were, as Roland pointed out, very minor and easily fixed. In fact, it seems that Agne has a penchant for tearing down articles (most notably physics article that she does not comprehend ) given the GA seal of approval, or at least being considered for such. Rather sad really... •Jim62sch• 22:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

PS, Kenosis raises some rather good points that should be heeded. •Jim62sch• 22:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Lack of Evidence - Lack of Tenable Position

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

Just wondering, Daeg Star

1) Please do not create two subsections for one comment. It's a bit confusing for the other editors.

2)I'd suggest you read up on the matter before coming up with such a demonstrably incorrect statement as the one you added.--Ramdrake 18:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Daeg Star, please provide these logical fallacies and factual inaccuracies. You can't just make such a bold statement and then leave it unsupported; that is not how Misplaced Pages works.--Roland Deschain 21:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Weasel Words Abound

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent edits

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

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

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

This is, of course, wrong.

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

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

Replace the second overwhelming with "conclusive" perhaps? JoshuaZ 00:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"conclusive in quality and amount"? DDoesn't quite work, sand just saying they see the evidence is conclusive isn't saying much. Probably better to re-write the second half, but I'm going to sleep now as I don't seem able to end sentences.Adam Cuerden 00:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys, sorry I started this, but technically while if we talk about scientists we do need to add the qualifier "the (insert superlative here) majority of scientists", if we're talking about the scientific community as a body, we merely need general consensus, not complete unanimity to say "the scientific community rejects...". As an analogy, if a worker's union agrees to a labor agreement, it only means the majority of voters were in favor. It certainly doesn't mean every single voter was in favor (in which case no labor agreement would hardly ever get passed). Just a suggeston, think about it. That would mean the original wording, without the two "overwhelming"s was correct. I'm not thinking straight at this hour either, so I'll let others decide.--Ramdrake 00:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought that too, but figured if it could be revised to lose the minor controversy, it wouldn't hurt. Adam Cuerden 07:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Overwhelming in the first usage is fine as it just happens to be true. The second is true too, so, just drop the comma after community and the second usage will support the first very emphatically. •Jim62sch•

Catholics are not Christians???

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

I saw that too, and was staring at it oddly. I had heard it before (my mother's an ex-Catholic Fundamentalist, and I was a voracious reader when young), but never really thought I'd see it again. Adam Cuerden 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Mind ye, I suppose the description of the Pope as Catholic is accurate enough, but the logic for the change.... Adam Cuerden 07:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-theist (in other words, no axe to grind in the issue), catholics are most definitely Christians. I too have heard this claim before, but the logic of the claim escapes me. •Jim62sch• 11:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Don't take it the wrong way, I still find it's offensive. AFAIK, what separates any denomination from any other within Christianity is some difference (sometimes minute) in their beliefs and/or rites. If we were to say that Christians should have a single, monolithic set of beliefs and rites, then every denomination could claim they are the ones and only Christians and that all other denominations are not really Christians. Oh, wait, some already do that! ;)--Ramdrake 16:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I know at least one creationist who argues that the Pope is "effectively an atheist". Arguments that anyone who accepts evolution can't actually be Christian are common as dirt online. The "by some definitions" argument is laughable. By some definitions, only Catholics are Christian. In fact, that's why they call themselves Catholics (catholic meaning true, in other words, the true church). --Suttkus 14:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Catholic means "universal" not "true", but point taken. --ScienceApologist 12:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems you are correct. I wonder where I picked up that error. I hate being wrong! --Suttkus 13:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Scientist vs. Evolutionist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creationism:

1. God made me.

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

3. I go to heaven/hell.

4. God created everything.

Evolutionism:

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

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

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

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

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

No. See Creation-evolution_controversy#Science_as_religion. In particular:

Creationists and their supporters often use derisive neologisms such as evolutionism and Darwinism to refer to the modern theory of evolution, and evolutionists and Darwinists to those who accept it. Many opponents to creationism object to such terms as inaccurate and misleading. In particular, the -ist/-ists/-ism suffixes are claimed to evoke similarity to religious or philosophical rather than scientific ideas (e.g. creationist, fundamentalist, Calvinist, Communist). It is claimed that in the case of evolutionism the label implies that evolution is just another religious belief system without empirical support, while in the case of Darwinism, the implication is that modern evolutionary theory is the static work of just one individual, Charles Darwin, as though he were not a scientist but rather the founder of a religious sect.

I hope that clears up your confusion. Raul654 21:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, in a related note, your claim that many scientists are creationists is ridiculous. Raul654 21:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What about scientist. Does that mean the word scientist has a religious or philosophical conotation?

"the -ist/-ists/-ism suffixes are claimed to evoke similarity to religious or philosophical rather than scientific ideas (e.g. creationist, fundamentalist, Calvinist, Communist)."--64.131.13.176 23:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

At the risk of responding to one unsubnstantiated comment with another - yes, I do believe I have. Raul654 21:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Here:

www.icr.org

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

1. Alexander Arndt

2. Steven A. Austin

3. Thomas G. Barnes

4. Arthur V. Chadwick

5. Melvin Alonzo Cook

6. Donald B. DeYoung

7. Danny R. Faulkner

8. Robert V. Gentry

9. Duane T. Gish

10. John Grebe

11. George F. Howe

12. D. Russell Humphreys

13. John W. Klotz

14. Leonid Korochkin

15. Lane P. Lester

16. Frank L. Marsh

17. Gary E. Parker

18. Charles B. Thaxton

19. Larry Vardiman

20. A.E. Wilder-Smith

Thescaryworker 22:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Cobbling together a bunch of people who already agree with you does not make a peer review. Sophia 22:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The rejection of the referenced paper review is a No True Scientist argument. Dan Watts 01:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The full phrase is antagonistic peer review. The peer review has to be with an aim to shredding the papers. Creationists lost all hope of being able to claim antagonistic peer review when they published Setterfield's Tired Light paper including all of it's blatant math errors. --Suttkus 19:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Now you don't like peers doing review. Some people are never satisfied. Dan Watts 22:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. What is the saying that you are known by the company you keep? A scientific paper that truely turned evolution on it's head and "proved" creationism would be worthy of a place in Nature, and the author a Nobel Prize. --Michael Johnson 01:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

And some have no clue how the scientific community functions. Sophia 22:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Amen to that! Dan Watts 22:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Q.E.D. Sophia 22:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Peer Review is transcluded below

Creation-evolution controversy

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

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 00:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, an intresting read. Although I think it in a way its a little one sided. Reading it, it seemed to leave out scientific arguements against creationism, rather talk about what creationists challenge in evolution. In another note, I also not too fond of the History section full of bulletins. I would go as far as suggest it being removed. - Tutmosis 23:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It's an awkward article in some ways: It has to maintain a balance whilst making clear Creationism isn't scientific. This isn't easy to balance, and I think it manages quite well in a difficult situation. Could possibly stand to be a little stronger, though. Adam Cuerden 00:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

We'll I'm not saying the article is bad, don't get me wrong. Its just was a random comment about a small impression I got. Article definetely doesn't violate Neutral Point of View. My main concern is the bullet "History" section which looks akward and out of place. I wish to see it become prose and maybe even merged with "Ramifications of the controversy". What do you think? - Tutmosis 01:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This article gives as more respect to creationists then they deserve. Any more skewing would misrepresent the actual facts.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.54.207 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 24 November 2006

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

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

Contradiction

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

There is a difference between the two types of article. Most articles on evolution are on the science of the subject. This article is on a sociological phenomenon, that is a conflict between science and a religious dogma. So of course the approach will be different. However if you think the article can be improved, you are welcome to try. --Michael Johnson 00:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This article makes it quite clear that evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains that fact. See here for how this article explains this. As Michael Johnson pointed out, this article does not heavily deal with the scientific side of evolution (where it is a fact explained by the theory of evolution (a.k.a the Modern evolutionary synthesis). To answer your quandary: biological evolution is a fact. This article says so and all other biological articles should say so (if they don't tell me, I'll add it in there with more than enough citations). This simple point gets buried in this article because most criticism of evolution does not deal with evolution, but rather with the theory that explains those facts (confusingly named the theory of evolution). I don't think I'm doing too good a job of explaining this so here is a clear cut example of evolution and the theory of evolution. That humans evolved from ape like ancestors is a fact. The theory of evolution explains this fact. Also keep in mind that when I say fact, I don't mean 100% certainty (no such thing exists for any human discipline). A much more elaborate explanation of what I summarized here can be found at TalkOrigins--Roland Deschain 01:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Understood, thanks for clarifying. I'm a theistic evolutionist anyway, so I agree. It just seemed confusing.-DeadGuy

What's the deal

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

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

Please be reasonable. You make a huge assertion with no supporting citations at all. Especially is an article that is up for peer review, such huge assertions cannot be made that easily (in new article it is much easier). Support your assertions here first so that a consensus is reached. It is really hard to agree or disagree with you as your position is so vague. What facts can be reinterpreted to lead to what kind of different conclusions.--Roland Deschain 04:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

While I did not perform the last revert, that was just from not getting to it first. Most creationists do indeed ignore overwhelming scientific evidence if it does not fit with creationism. Selectively picking a few things and interpreting them wildly out of context is not any form of scientific observation. That's not to say it's a bad or invalid belief, nor is it to knock those who believe it, but it is inherently faith-based and therefore unscientific. Seraphimblade 04:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

double team to avoid the three revert rule huh

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

If you can cite a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal that agrees with their interpretation, that would meet WP:V. Else, it's just a belief-a notable one which certainly deserves an article, but a faith-based, not scientific, belief nonetheless. Seraphimblade 04:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about rather a majority accepts it; throughout history the correct minority view has been considered psudo-science until proven, sometimes centuries later by the majority. J. D. Hunt 04:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Having multiple editors disagree with you is not "double teaming" in fact that is one point of WP:3RR so that if many editors agree on something a lone editor can't be very disruptive. Now, do you have a wording that you think reflects that they accept some science? Also, please sign your comments. You can do so by putting four tildes in a row ~~~~ and it will replace them with the time and your user name. JoshuaZ 04:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

There is no such thing as evolutionist scientific explanations. Evolution science agrees with biology, physics, chemistry, genetics, biochemistry, geology, astronomy, cosmology, immunology. Stop trying to divide science between evolution and everything else.--Roland Deschain 04:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

but there is an evolutionist point of view that interprets the facts a certain way. Just like each persons world view colors his interpretation of all things. Quit insisting evolutionists have no bias when interpreting the meaning of the factual findings. J. D. Hunt 04:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The evolutionist point of view is the scientific point of view: they are synonymous. I will agree with you fully that the scientific point of view is deeply different than the religious point of view. I think the article shows this quite clearly. But your attempts to somehow imply that evolution is a different type of science is unfounded and very misleading.--Roland Deschain 04:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

to claim that there is no bias or interpretation in some of the findings by evolutionists in science is self-righteous. So there are no mistakes, no false findings that's impossible! Unless the scientific community are perfect. You sound like the catholic church sounded to Galilao J. D. Hunt 04:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop, J. D. Hunt. For the third time: provide us with verifiable information to work with. There's nothing more for any editor to say to you. If you want something to change in this article, you must provide verifiable information. This is the third time I say this to you and I'm pretty sure you are again gonna ignore me and continue preaching pointlessly until this section is moved to your personal page and you will be given a reason for self-righteous anger.--Roland Deschain 05:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Your tactics silence me so others can't read the debate. I'll put it back as long as I have to. Here's to academic freedom!J. D. Hunt 05:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course people have biases, that doesn't make them relevant in this case, and the claim that people are somehow intepreting things from pre-conceived notions is not always accurate. Creationists like to claim this because they are using a massive set of preconceived notions, generally complete literal accuracy of the Bible. In contrast, science starts with few assumptions (generally not much more than replicability of phenomena). This is related to how in 1800 almost all scientists were creationists. By 1900 almost none were- why? It wasn't a change in the "preconceived notions" so much as the fact that they actually changed there views based on new evidence. The people who didn't change their views despite the evidence gave us the modern creationists we have today. JoshuaZ 04:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That isn't accurate. The views are only based on religion for most creationists. See for example Ken Ham- "Boys and girls," Ham said. If a teacher so much as mentions evolution, or the Big Bang, or an era when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, "you put your hand up and you say, 'Excuse me, were you there?' Can you remember that?" The children roared their assent. "Sometimes people will answer, 'No, but you weren't there either,' " Ham told them. "Then you say, 'No, I wasn't, but I know someone who was, and I have his book about the history of the world.' " He waved his Bible in the air. "Who's the only one who's always been there?" Ham asked. "God!" the boys and girls shouted. "Who's the only one who knows everything?" "God!" "So who should you always trust, God or the scientists?" The children answered with a thundering: "God!" (source given on his page). Similarly he says to ""always trust God" over science when confronted with teachings that contradict what is recorded in the Bible" The vast majority of proponents of creationism become creationists after they have converted to some religion which espouses it. No one becomes a creationist due to the "evidence". Ham and others have stated on many occasions that any evidence which contradicts the Bible must be a priori wrong.

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

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

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

Projection pure and simple. There is nothing wrong when you have a tremendous amount of evidence for some model of interpreting things in terms of that model. That's very different than shoehorning things to fit a religious agenda. JoshuaZ 04:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There are many scientists who have a body of work supporting young earth theory. If I were to mention them to you would would just scoff, because you have alredy written them off as Psuedo-scientists. I doubt most of you have truely read their work, as I am atempting to do with a science I believe to be Psuedo-science (evolution). I don't dispute all the facts, just some of the interpretations. J. D. Hunt 04:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, this seems to contradict what you said here. While your personal views aren't very relevant, it is going to be difficult to talk with you if you aren't being truthful. And yes we would write them off because they are a tiny tiny fraction of scientists and almost none of them have any relevancy to the fields in question. In contrast, see for example, Project Steve. JoshuaZ 05:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

So provide the information for the editors to work with. It goes back to my above comment: give us verifiable information. This article already discusses many creationist claims and the response from the scientific community. If we are missing any claims (any science done that support the creationist theory of X) give us the relevant information with pertinent citations. I think the editors are being more than reasonable: give us the information and we'll go from there.--Roland Deschain 04:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In the past I have given names of scientist and theories and was laughed at by you and others. Why don't you go prove me wrong by showing me real evidence that creationists don't conduct scientific bodies of work to support their claims. J. D. Hunt 05:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC) P.S.-since you seem to know it all

Why not have this article discuss the many creationist scientific claims and the response from the evoluntionist scientific community, as well as, discuss the many evolutionist scientific claims and the responses from the creationist scientific community. J. D. Hunt 05:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Because this isn't a general debating forum. This article is about presenting the basic issues in a WP:NPOV fashion which the article does. JoshuaZ 05:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is not presenting the topic in a neutral way that is my point J. D. Hunt 05:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You are funny. Why do you insist on trying to divide science into evolutionist and all other sciences. All science is internally consistent. Evolution was in problematic until physics, chemistry, geoglogy, astronomy, and cosmology showed that the time frame was right for it to happen. Then came genetics, biochemistry, immunology to put the final touches of internal consistency. I find it laughable that again and again you repeat your baseless assertions when only a couple of paragraphs above those assertions have been shown lacking.--Roland Deschain 05:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

JD, no one is saying that evolution is irrefutable. If for example, we found (to use the canonical example) rabbits in pre-cambrian rock that would be strong evidence against evolution. Or if we found that mice were closer genetically to humans than to rats. I can give you many other examples. But none of them occur. Finally, given your edit history and inconsistent claims above I find your claim that you are a deist hard to believe. Possibly that word does not mean what you think it means. In any event, this is fast becoming a discussion about evolution v. creationism and not a discussion about how to improve the article. JoshuaZ 05:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to improve the article by making the claims about creationists more refelective about what they do, but all these other folks are trying to turn it into a evolution vs. creationism debate. Creationists use science you just don't like their findings. J. D. Hunt 05:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary (1952) includes in the definition of Deist: "One who believes in God but denies supernatural revelation." I do slightly differ from that strict definition. Where as I believe that God speaks to us through various forms: Nature, Science, Individuals, writings of many kinds, some of which could be the bible. If there are places where the Bible and Science agree then they might both be the truth about God's Creation. If you write an article about 'anything it could be a revalation from God. I guess I'm a reverse diest, I belive in revalation but it could come from anywhere, posibly even the torah. J. D. Hunt 06:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not true aboute it not being irrefutable read Roland Deschain's comments

Point me to where Roland said that. JoshuaZ 05:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if he used those words verbatim, but read evey comment from him above.

For my part, I agree with JoshuaZ-the arguments aren't irrefutable, but they also aren't refuted. When a significant number of scientists advance and advocate this theory, and it accrues empiric evidence, it can be referred to as scientific. Until then, it's a religious belief-just as the article correctly says. Science isn't about picking and choosing, that gravity is fine but evolution is bad. It's an unbiased look at the facts in order to paint an unbiased picture of the outcome. Seraphimblade 06:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Looking over that article (from the AiG splinter group) it suffers from the same problems as already discussed. 1) Starting with inviolate religous presuppositions and refusing to modify them in the face of evidence isn't science, that's religion 2) this shows another standard problem - rather than do any actual research or experiments they simply critique the standard models based on claimed problems. If creationists went and actually did empirical experiments they'd go a long way to doing science (note for example that AiG takes in millions of dollars a year and almost all of it goes into article writing and apologetics. Similar numbers hold true for the Discovery Institute and other creationists groups). Science isn't simply writing with long words and havign diagrams of amino acids. JoshuaZ 06:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

They are giving a review of the scientific findings and studies and formulating hypothesis and theories as many scientists do? And i think I know what my religious beliefs are better than you do. I am a diest. I'm not an idiot. I know what I am! J. D. Hunt 06:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheap lie about my assertions in this discussion aside (I lost all respect for you J. D. Hunt), this paper is pointless. Why is it pointless. It starts of with the assumption that evolution deals with the origin of life. If you do not know why this assumption is blatently false, you do not know enough about evolution and should seriously educate yourself further. I have been polite so far, by you did lie about my points in this article, reaching for the lowest common denominator open for a creationist in a corner. You did it in the Evolution talk a couple of hours ago and then did it here again. --Roland Deschain 06:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

you had no respect for me in the first place looking down on me from your perch. Don't play games. Stop the hurt and disappointed drama. This article focuses on one point of evolution and creation "origins of Life" That's not all I think evolution is about! I was asked to show that creationists think scientifically and use science to come up with theories and hypothisis. I did that here. I'll post more when I can. J. D. Hunt 06:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, please remember not to make personal attacks and to maintain civility, and that goes for everyone involved. In assumption of good faith, I believe that J.D. Hunt does wish to improve the article, though I disagree with the way in which he'd like to do so. As to the assertion, you're not simply being asked to show that creationists have claimed to use science-you're being asked to show that a majority of scientists, and respected and peer-reviewed journals (such as Nature and the like) have found that such claims have some base. In my research, the vast majority of scientists do not even agree that creation methods are genuine science. This makes the viewpoint that creation is scientific a small-minority view, subject to the WP:NPOV guidelines against undue weight. Seraphimblade 06:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

JDHunt, it was your edit, and the significant change in meaning that was objectionable. Your comment re "looking down on me from your perch" is inappropriate, unsupported and, to be blunt, asinine. You have yet to answer the original question, having chosen instead to make wild off-topic and unsupported claims, in the end resorting to a "you're all against me" defence. This will not do. •Jim62sch• 10:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I never said all were against me, but Roland Deschain has attacked my character again and again, and all I have done is respond in kind. This is a response to his belittling to others he disagrees with attitude. I'm done with this your bad and wrong - no your bad and wrong stuff. I want to discuss bettering the article that premotes the false assumption that creationists are oppossed to science. They just don't agree with all the scientific findings and the interpretations given to them by many scientists. Yes, they refute some of the so-called facts, but accept others. They do believe in science, they just don't believe all that evolutionary scientists come up with is valid science or valied theories based upon agreeable facts, just as evolutionist scientists don't accept theirs as valid. The way the article is written; it gives the impression that they are against all science, and that all they believe about evolution or creation comes from religious beliefs alone. There are a few that might fit this mold, but for the majority of creationists, this belief only fuels their desire to learn about how things work. J. D. Hunt 21:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please post specific criticisms or recommendations (i.e. give an example from a section) and be absolutely sure to include a source that meets WP:V and WP:RS in your recommendation. --Davril2020 22:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

(Referring back to the start of this shouting match.) I've been talking with creationists for almost two decades. In all that time, I've never seen anything to support the claim that they are just intepreting the facts. Instead, they're cherry-picking facts that support their views and ignoring the vast majority of facts that do not. For example, Henry Morris' account of fossil sorting is derisible. Over and over he cherry-picks one small subset of the data that he thinks can be explained by a flood, but he's invariably contradicted by far more data and most of his examples are incorrect anyway. And yet it's the most detailed attempt by any creationist ever to account for fossil sorting! (At least, it is in all of my experience with creationist arguments.)

Every time I see a creationist make the "we have the same evidence, just different interpratations" claim, I start listing evidence and asking for some interpretations. After 20 years, I still have no explanation for fossil sorting that actually addresses how the fossils are sorted. It's that simple. --Suttkus 19:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there an in-depth article about fossil sorting they can look at, including the raw data used to determine the sorting of the fossils? Unless the data is dealt with directly, all the talk in the world is going to be useless regardless of the position taken by anybody discussing this issue. CobraA1 05:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggest you visit your local university with a biology or geology department and do a search in their library. This is not the place for original research. --Michael Johnson 05:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking that original research actually be included in the article, just that it be verifiable. CobraA1 21:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a talk page. Suttkus doesn't have to verify his comments. I'm sure you will find the article Evolution and associated articles fully referenced. --Michael Johnson 23:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Very well, but I don't see how random opinions helps the article. CobraA1 18:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the validity of the EvoWiki article I linked, go to EvoWiki and discuss it. --Suttkus 13:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. CobraA1 18:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Coelacanth

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

...That's an... interesting definition of recent, really. Adam Cuerden 23:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"The coelacanths, which are closely related to lungfishes, were believed to have been extinct since the end of the Cretaceous period, until a live specimen was found off the east coast of South Africa, off the Chalumna River in 1938"--Roland Deschain 23:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, compared to the Cretaceous, 1938 is recent.  :-)

Note that the Cretaceous ended 65 million years ago, not 410, as the first poster claimed. He's confusing the age when Coelacanth first appeared with the time they vanished.

As for why it vanished from the fossil record, note that the only surviving branch of the Coelacanth group is a deep-sea fish. Deep sea fossils tend to remain in the deep sea. They only rarely are uplifted enough for humans to find them. As a result, our record of fossils from the deep sea is extremely weak.

This is an example of fossilization bias. You can learn more about fossilization bias at the article I helped write at EvoWiki. The very interesting thing about fossilization bias is that the bias we see reflects evolutionary "assumptions", but quite contradicts they kinds of biases we would see if it was the result of a global flood, as most creationists contend. Funny that. Almost like creationism is wrong or something. I'm still waiting for a creationist explanation for why hawks and eagles are so rare as fossils, as opposed to shore birds which are extremely common. How long do you think I'll have to wait? --Suttkus 05:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to Adam Cuerden and Roland Deschain: See Suttkus' comment. It's recent in comparison to it's previously thought extention date. Also note the 2000 discovery date as well, which I assume you would consider recent. ~ UBeR 23:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My comment was a joke. 1938 is not recent. If I said "Tyranosaurus was a recently discovered dinosaur" I would be wrong, it was discovered over a century ago. That its discovery was recent to its extinction is irrelevant. Tell me, if I called "Little Women" a recent novel, because it's a whole long younger than "Gilgamesh", would you consider this an accurate statement? I wouldn't. --Suttkus 05:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Shocking, most of you guys don't consider 6 years ago recent, even in the context of the Cretaceous era! ~ UBeR 07:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Now why would you think the context of this discussion is the Cretaceous era? Isn't the context the fast pace of scientific research? Innovation happens quickly: What's cutting edge six years ago can become the mainstream corpus of today. --ScienceApologist 12:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, discovering a deep sea fish is also found in another part of the deep sea is interesting, but hardly a difficulty for a scientific theory, is it? It was a shocking discovery ion 1936. In 2000, it was just more information on the range of a fairly well-studied species. Adam Cuerden 13:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he's referring to the discovery of a new species of Coelacanth in 1997, but his facts are so confused it's hard to tell what he's on about. In any event, it is certainly nothing that happened in "2000" that is in any way remarkable relative to the creatures. The surprise was in 1938. --Suttkus 13:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Drifting away from NPOV?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did someone say bold? Allow me to introduce myself  ; ) Doc Tropics 01:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh! Glad to have you with us! I'll do what I can, but be warned I have flu just now. Still, I should at least be able to fix that quote mining section =) Adam Cuerden 02:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If my last name were Tam instead of Tropics, I could maybe help with your flu...as it is, you'll just have to soldier on : ) --Doc Tropics 06:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Apparently was already done. I've also removed the "Claims of immorality" section, this basically appeared to be a rant and was unsourced. If anyone can source any of this information, put it on back. Seraphimblade 08:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I had switched "Evidence against Evolution" to "Arguments...", but "Claims..." is just as accurate; feel free to change if you have a preference. Also, no objections here to removing unsourced material. Verifiable cites are a necessity. --Doc Tropics 08:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually like "arguments" better, just didn't see that had been done when I made the comment. Seraphimblade 08:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"US centrism" and Doc's removal

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

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

I think that should stay in the summary. This is mainly a US problem on the whole and it is certainly not non-notable. JoshuaZ 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion about the edit conflict. I had to step away for a few minutes and forgot to hit save : (

I was considering them NN because I've seen so many of these groups/movements come and go in my lifetime. Five years from now the ID movement is going to be just another footnote in the history books. I'm not opposed to moving the text, I just don't think it belongs in the intro. --Doc Tropics 02:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your point, but I'm not sure that such arguments from the future are valid for encyclopaedic purposes. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd leave it be for now: the nice thing about the Wiki is that it CAN be edited in the future, if ID does drop to a footnote. Adam Cuerden 04:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I was bold, it was reverted, then it was discussed; the BRD cycle is complete : ) --Doc Tropics 05:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Bundesrepublik Deutschland? Yay for zee Germans. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I only found the WP:BRD page recently, but it reflects a very useful way to approach working on certain topics. Doc Tropics 18:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

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

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

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

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

Lead

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

Heh. Errors? Review ref #4. It is attached to the last half of the last sentence in the 4th para which reads: "...and those who actively dispute creationism, characterizing the controversy as an important battle between truth and falsehood." Is it my imagination, or does using that cite require OR to divine Dawkins 'inner thoughts', since he never uses those spefic terms? Doc Tropics 08:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an accurate summary of what Dawkins said-paraphrasing is acceptable. He clearly, with his satirical "Rome deniers" piece, characterizes the debate as one between those who accept that 2+2=4 and those who deny it "on faith". Seraphimblade 08:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It's probably an accurate enough description of Dawkins, but it's not being said to be Dawkins' opinion, it's said to be that of all scientists who participate in the debate. Which is awful. Anyway, the whole paragraph's badly phrased.Adam Cuerden 08:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean now, and agree that some clearer phrasing would be helpful. Seraphimblade 11:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Made a bit of a change there, is that an accurate summation or should further change be made? Seraphimblade 11:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Saved

Some creationists have gone so far as to propose that the debate centers on nothing less than a choice between good and evil, while scientist Richard Dawkins characterizes the debate as fundamentally between truth and falsehood.

Intro, 2nd para

Adam added a much-needed tag at the end of the para. The last sentence reads:

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

Perhaps adding something immediately following that would help:

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

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

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

Spectrum of creationist beliefs

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

1. Wieland, Carl. Evolution and social evil. Creation Magazine 27 April 2004. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0427social_evil.asp
2. Dawkins, Richard. 2002. A scientist's view. The Guardian, Saturday March 9 2002. http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/

• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Delisted good articles
• Unassessed history of science articles
• Unknown-importance history of science articles
• WikiProject History of Science articles