Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive 5

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

The misleading poll on which the introduction is now based

I think we left off on this topic with the accusation that "your idea of using "exactly the wording Gallup actually used" is merely original research." I think the complete idiocy of this remark speaks for itself. Bensaccount 04:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I took it the guy was just trolling me. Dr Zen 07:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well since the poll's proponents (Ungtss, Rednblu, Rayment) have decided to completely ignore this and instead to generate a new heap of disinformation (see below), the misleading poll is finally going to be deleted. Bensaccount 17:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ben, dr. zen reworded to page to fit the wording of the poll! the problem is solved in everybody's mind but yours, and you STILL can't articulate what you think is wrong with it, beyond, "it's misleading," which means nothing to anybody but you. you've lost this battle by consensus like 20 times now. give it up, man. Ungtss 18:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you finally allowed the original wording to be used. The next step is to remove the poll or explain why it is misleading (conflation of science and religion). Bensaccount 18:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ben, it's been like that for several days ... well before you deleted it. most of dr. zen's edits have actually made some sense. why don't you ask him what he thinks of your "conflations?" Ungtss 18:57, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What do you think of them Untss? Since you have not expressed an opinion yet I will remove the poll until you do. Bensaccount 19:02, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1) don't remove polls for my sake. i am perfectly capable of expressing my own opinion

2) i just expressed my opinion in my last comment. his edits made sense.

3) i think dr. zen did a fine job, and that's why i didn't contest his edit.

Conclusion: now put the poll back in and quit wasting everyone's time. Ungtss 19:21, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The fact remains that the poll and the paragraph based on it only allow evolution when it is conflated with religion. This is biased and I will continue to remove it until you prove otherwise. Bensaccount 19:26, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i can't deal with this anymore. the whole DEBATE is a "conflation" of theories of origins and religion. i've been going around in meaningless circles with you for two months now. would somebody help end this? Ungtss 19:32, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would also accept a clear explanation that the poll only allows for the conflation of evolution and religion. Bensaccount 19:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

labels

heya rednblue -- appreciate the excellent research you've added to the page ... but it seems we now have two types of information on the debate -- the issues of the debate itself (which, tho to many scientists it appears ridiculous, are in fact that material of an ongoing debate) ... and academic opinions on the debate itself, reflecting the pov that creationists are just vestiges of ignorance and geocentrism (ignoring, for a moment i suppose, that geocentrism was a greek scientific theory which the church adopted along with aristotle and the rest, and in NO WAY an explicitly christian idea, while the history of genesis is rather explicitly christian because it claims to be historical). to creationists, this pov is just a means of lumping creationists in with morons, because (to creationists) CREATIONISM is the most scientific, and evolution comes up well short.

my concern is that we've got a lot of diverse types of data on this page now. how shall we arrange the page now ... should we move the issues of the debate entirely over to the "viewpoints compared" page and just leave info on the debate itself here ... or move the info on the debate itself to the end so that we can describe the issues themselves before going into great detail about how creationists are unscientific ... how do you suggest we proceed? Ungtss 02:14, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I am thinking. I thought it would be easier to lay out the sections and then think about how to reorganize it. We also have a law review article or two that talk about the underlying conflicting values in the debate--on all sides. So you think the two types of information are 1) issues and 2) academic opinions? By "issues" do you mean questions like whether or not the randomness in retrotransposons, the haploid/diploid cycle iteration, and mistakes 8)) are sufficient to generate new "kinds"? ---Rednblu | Talk 03:23, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the stuff from Eugenie Scott because it's very POV (on Scott's part, not Rednblu's) and downright vilification, if not actually malicious, particularly the way she includes flat-earthers in the list. Philip J. Rayment 16:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I spent some time thinking this through for myself. :) I questioned whether Scott was being quite fair; in particular the International Flat Earth Society is so small. And because Scott already in the article had noted that most Americans had conceded the "well-accepted scientific theories (heliocentrism, cell theory, atomic theory, plate tectonics)" but rejected only "evolution." But when I check my own personal experience with Flat earthers and Geocentrists, I find that the Flat earthers and Geocentrists are no more plain stupid than are the idealistic communists; they are committed to a truth against all evidence, with the Flat earthers more committed to that truth--namely "theological conservatism" as against an "acceptance of modern science"--than are the Geocentrists or the Day-age theorists. I think if I were writing the (Scott 1997) article, I would have left out the Flat earthers and Geocentrists from the "continuum"--for political reasons of not wanting to lose an important part of my audience. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 20:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How are these "issues" in a "debate" between "creation" and "evolution"? "Evolutionists" do not believe there is any such thing as a kind, so what does or does not create one is not an issue for them. It's an issue in creation "science" but that is a whole different thing. Dr Zen 03:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

one of the issues, dr. zen, is whether or not there is such a thing as a "kind."

That's not what Rednblu said. He asked some questions about what things might generate new "kinds". These are not "issues" in the "creation vs evolution" "debate", because "evolutionists" do not as it happens debate what does or doesn't generate new kinds.Dr Zen 06:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let's not quibble needlessly over whether it is called family or "kind." If you must, 8)) please translate mentally "kind" to "family" so that "cat kind" translates to Felidae, if you please. As you must know by now, the "creation vs. evolution debate" is not among evolutionary biologists. :) As far as I can tell, the evolutionary biologists get involved in the "creation vs. evolution debate" only when they try to keep creationism out of science classrooms. Other than that political tussle over the science classrooms, the evolutionary biologists are absent from the "debate." The Creation vs. evolution debate page already makes this clear several different ways, does it not? ---Rednblu | Talk 07:11, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- We are not "quibbling needlessly". There may be discussion over what role retrotransposons have in evolution, but that does not play any part in the "debate" between creationists and scientists. Of course, "evolutionary" biologists do get involved in disputes with creationists (as [www.pandasthumb.org] attests -- there is another noticeboard where many of the same guys slug it out with ID enthusiasts but I don't recall its name; and I believe most of the talkorigins faq pages were written by biologists). Certainly, plenty have had things to say about Behe's "work". But the "debate" is not properly characterised as among scientists nor should we suggest that it is within biology, because it is not. Furthermore, we should not permit characterisations of eminent scientists in the appropriate fields as "not Darwinian" (we can certainly quote some whackjob or other claiming that they are, so long as we quote the guys in question saying they are not) and any presentation of creationist "evidence" must be rigidly balanced with refutations. I don't have the least problem with presentation of creationist views, of course, and I certainly haven't discouraged Ungtsss from presenting them. Nor do I endorse the poisonous section labels. The creationists' views should be presented fairly. If we have quibbles with the validity of polls, we must find someone who shares them and quote them quibbling.Dr Zen 07:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you acknowledge that biologists do debate the issue, but claim that there is no debate within biology, then you are defining the people that they debate with (the creationists) as being outside of biology. But some creationists are biologists, so this is clearly wrong. In other words, you claim that there is no debate within biology depends on the POV that creationism is outside of biology. Philip J. Rayment 16:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

to mr. rednblue: yeah -- those are some of the issues, among others -- abiogenesis, adaptive complexity, diversity, radiometric dating, phylogenetic trees, exons, introns, the whole deal -- basically everything we had before. seems to me most of it might go quite nicely on the "views compared" section. might solve some perceived pov problems and allow for expansion too. i've recently been trying to rearrange the facts compared section to be "fact-viewpoint-viewpoint" to aim in pov balancing -- what do you think? do you think we could transfer a lot of the old stuff there and leave this page with the high-quality academic opinions you've been adding, among others? Ungtss 04:05, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

LOL! It's not the facts that are the problem but their absence! Dr Zen 06:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

We have enough material on the page now so that we can begin to sort out what should be on this page. What are the four big points that should be made on the Creation vs. evolution debate page in your opinion? ---Rednblu | Talk 07:11, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1/ The "debate" is mostly done outside science. Where it involves scientists, those in the appropriate fields are overwhelmingly on one side of the debate, and those who are on the other tend to be from other fields that do not depend on the notion of evolution. Debate is the wrong word, in any case, because it is not a discussion with give and take, which debate implies, but a dispute between two absolutely irreconcilable viewpoints.

2/ Any distinction between the "sides" must be drawn fairly. In particular, there should not be a tripartite distinction between creationists, "theistic evolutionists" and "naturalistic evolutionists". The debate is between those who believe the Bible is literally true or nearly so, and those who do not. The latter include people who believe God created everything, some of whom think he guides evolution, whatever that means, some of whom think he does not, and some of whom don't really give it that much thought.

3/ If issues such as geology and abiogenesis are included, this article needs to be about "the dispute between creationists vs mainstream science". These subjects may well be tools in the creationists' quest to discredit evolution by natural selection and related theories, but they don't in fact form any part of the theories in question, particularly abiogenesis, which is entirely moot.

4/ This article is presented too much from the creationist POV. IOW, it gives the creationist quibble and then, if it bothers, science's reply. It is rather dishonest about some of the terms of the "debate" from science's side. No article on this debate should, for instance, ignore how unimportant abiogenesis is from science's POV, nor that "our" side does not see it as a reasonable debate in the first place. Many believe -- we could quote Dennett, if you like -- that creationism is a product of ignorance and preys on ignorance, because the weight of evidence for evolution is so overwhelming and compelling -- with the disputes within science over the details, not generally the basics. Most scientists, it should be noted, do not engage in any "debate" on this score, because the "fact of evolution" is as rock-solid as the heliocentric theory of the solar system. When you are reduced to attacking the notion of the continuity of physical laws, you're really groping around, because you have lost sight of the fact that science is about "explaining" the world coherently and creationism is about its idea of the truth, which are different projects altogether.Dr Zen 07:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any problem dealing with your four points. But I would say that the first important part of the structure is to get Mr. Ungtss, Mr. Rayment, and other creationists to express fairly their four priority points. After all this is a page in the "creationism" series, is it not? :)) And then you and I can negotiate our four priority points in response. What do you say? ---Rednblu | Talk 08:28, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

hmm ... four points. how about:

1) The debate revolves around the interpretation of historical evidence, rather than the contemporary observations of empirical science; creationists accept all experimentally repeatable and verifiable science, and only dispute the interpretations given to the fossil record and the radiometric dating of rocks, due to what creationists believe to be fundamentally flawed methodologies. this differentiates creationism fundamentally from flat earth and geocentrism, both of which require the rejection of empirical, repeatable, and experimental observations, and are thus sheer stupidity.

2) the issue of whether one's science informs ones ideology or vice versa is a knife that cuts both ways, and both sides have persistently engaged in a great number of fundamentalist tactics in an effort to defend their own ideology ... often against reason. creationists and evolutionists alike commit this ancient sin of bad religion.

3) the absence of creationists from empirical science is due not to an absence of merit to creationist claims, but to the ideology and paradigm of contemporary scientific culture, which excludes creation science by definition, even when it is significantly more parsimonious and has significantly greater explaining power. this leaves evolutionists with a great deal more scientific, financial and governmental research resources available to pursue and back its theories ... and leaves creation science unable to exhaustively research and develop its arguments, because creationism is, for the most part, a hobby on the part of people who need other jobs to make a living.

4) i'll leave number four for mr. rayment, should he have any suggestions.

i also think it would be INVALUABLE to have a thorough discussion on the "definition of science" -- precisely how both sides define science, why they believe their own side to be scientific, and why they believe they other side to be unscientific. Ungtss 08:49, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ungtss' three points and guess that my suggestion for the fourth point would be that the article needs to cover some history of the debate and description of the manner or form of the debate. Philip J. Rayment 16:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seems that Rednblu, Untss, Rayment have generated a whole new heap of irellevant disinformation. Luckily the article already has so much of it, it will make very little difference. Bensaccount 17:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

In my opinion, everybody should get to name their own four priority points. :)) And I invite Mr. Ben also to consider making a list of the four top priority points for this page.

How about the following approach? just off the top of my head. You could try your own version of this same process. What outline of the article would suit everyone's "four points"?

Let's aim the article for the interested high school student.
First we need to give the reader some sense of the debate, who is involved. We don't have to describe everything. But we want to make it clear. And we want to quote, paraphrase, and cite the proponents directly.
Then we need a clean way to present accurately the way that the creationists tend to attack not just evolutionary biology but also physics, chemistry, and geology. I just read this sentence in the (Scott 1997) article that seemed to me to demonstrate how it is not "creation vs. mainstream science." Scott says it this way. "There is a gap between the acceptance of evolution in the scientific community and its acceptance among the general public. It appears that among well-accepted scientific theories (heliocentrism, cell theory, atomic theory, plate tectonics), evolution alone is rejected by nonscientists. In a poll by the American Museum of Natural History, for example, 78% of adult Americans accepted the theory of continental drift ("continents gradually change their position)(American Museum of Natural History 1994)." That is, the creationist attack on physics, chemistry, and geology is limited to where those sciences support the part of evolution that the creationists reject.
And then we come to the Flat earthism and Geocentrism versions of Special creation. As Dr. Zen says and as the (Scott 1997) article says, there is a continuum in creationist views along the "creation vs. evolution debate." And the variable that defines where the creationist point of view is along the continuum is the percent of the Bible that is held as literally true. That is the Flat earthers hold the Bible to be 100% literally true; the Day-age theorists hold the Bible to be medium literally true; and the Theistic evolution proponents like the Catholic Church hold the Bible to be maybe 2% literally true--literally true only in regard to God creating the soul of humans; and the Materialist evolutionists hold the Bible to be 0% literally true. I don't see the Flat earthers as sheer stupidity. I see it as a kind of severe asceticism. And to be honest, I see the Progressive creationists making a similar kind of asceticism, holding on to a degree of Biblical literalism--not near as much as the Flat earthers--but still holding onto at least the degree of Biblical literalism that the Catholic Church grasps tenaciously. How can we talk about this "continuum" in a fair and neutral way. If (Scott 1997) is not fair and neutral, let's find a scholar who is fair and neutral. :)

Something like that. What four points would everyone have in response to everyone's else four points? 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 18:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

sounds like a great start. although i find scott to be silly, it's definitely a mainstream academic opinion, so it belongs there. i'd like it in the context of another continuum, tho: adherence to the scientific method, historical evidence, and basic reason: creationism first, then evolutionary creationism, then naturalistic evolution, then geocentrism, then flat earth. i'll try to find some scholar who has thought of that -- any ideas, mr. rayment:)? Ungtss 18:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like more of the same. Bensaccount 19:11, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. You don't like (Scott 1997) and the National Center for Science Education? ---Rednblu | Talk 19:57, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

<<i'd like it in the context of another continuum, tho: adherence to the scientific method, historical evidence, and basic reason: creationism first, then evolutionary creationism, then naturalistic evolution, then geocentrism, then flat earth.>>

We could present two continuums--if we can find the scholars who argue them. So by your idea, we would have a progression that went like this?

Creationism
Evolutionary creationism
Naturalistic evolution
Geocentrism
Flat earthism

What is the variable that increases as you go down the list? ---Rednblu | Talk 19:57, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

in my personal opinion, the variable is, "adherence to the scientific method, evidence, and basic reason." (and it decreases as you go down).

i understand the "biblically literalism" continuum -- but i think it misses the point. the bible is only relevent as far as it's TRUE -- certainly any opinion that took every word literally (for example the grand idea of transsubstantiation) or any opinion that rejected it entirely (like those intrepid souls who try to argue that jesus never existed) are concerned more with their opinion of the BIBLE than with TRUTH. you might say they haven't yet escaped the demon religion:).

seems to me the most intellectually rigorous interpretation of the bible would be a mix of literal interpretation, allegorical interpretation, and correction of plain error, based on the preponderance of evidence. that's why i'm a creationist. not because my truth comes from the bible, but because i think the bible best explains many mysterious aspects of Reality. i only wish i could find somebody out there writing this stuff for me to quote:). Ungtss 20:39, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The "scientific method"? Hypotheses that don't make predictions, theories that are extremely selective of the facts and anecdotalism are not elements of the scientific method. What you ignore is that "evidence" can be a lot broader than "what I can observe in a lab". We cannot observe the Big Bang but there is strong evidence for it. (In that case there is a fact that requires explanation. The Big Bang explains the fact very closely. In science, that is evidence. Your simply not understanding that indicates that you do not know what the "scientific method" actually is, or what science actually does.)Dr Zen 01:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So where do we look to find out what "scientific method, evidence, and basic reason" really are? ---Rednblu | Talk 03:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We can either refer to the tradition of centuries of work in those areas or we can pursue the method employed by the creationists in general and in particular on this page and pull them from our arse. Dr Zen 03:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

he's at it again.

would somebody be so kind as to push the source of life and truth past his revert limit again? Ungtss 19:13, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are the only one who has violated the 4 revert rule in the past, Ungtss. Bensaccount 19:14, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

oddly, nobody seems to mind when you revert nonsense four times. maybe if your edits had made any sense, somebody would have cared. Ungtss 19:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My edits balanced your POV. You are lucky nobody cared, but you still broke the rule. Bensaccount 19:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

nobody cared, because your edits worked against npov. everybody agreed, evolutionist and creationist. Ungtss 19:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My edits involved removal of the misleading poll. We have already proved that this improves the NPOV since the wording didn't correspond to the original back then. As for you breaking the rule, I still am hoping some admin will ban you for it. Bensaccount 19:33, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss, Ben, can I just remind both of you that the three-revert rule is an important part of our policy. Please try to discuss your differences without reverting. Try to incorporate each other's ideas. Where they are diametrically opposed, include both. Try to source them. Cite others who hold the views. Leave out interpretation. If we all make that our goal, we can get a satisfactory article out of this.

As for "nobody cared", don't count on it. People might not care about the article but they will care about the 3RR. BTW, if you feel that another editor has broken the 3RR it is acceptable to ask for admin action. They have a noticeboard and it's part of their duties to investigate if they are called on to do so. But can I urge that we try to keep disputes here, between the interested editors, and that each of us tries to discuss their problems with others' edits without reverting, if that is at all possible. Dr Zen 01:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i agree with you, mr. zen ... i'm afraid you've jumped in on ben + i after we've had a bit of a history. the 3RR hasn't been violated in weeks, and i have no intention of starting now. i violated it once about 4 weeks ago before i knew it was a binding rule that could get you banned. ben used by ignorance to his advantage and cried to mommy, and the two administrators who checked in determined that his edits were nonsense. he then promptly put the entire page up for VfD, which lost overwhelmingly, supported only by ben and a few mysterious sockpuppets. ben has a history of making destructive, rather than constructive edits here -- almost exclusively, in fact. his first edit to the page was to turn "is a debate about" into "is a debate between the ignorant about." thank you for making a constructive edit out of his complaint about the old poll -- you've definitely improved the page. i hope in the future you'll be able to decipher what he's talking about and make the appropriate edits to preempt his incessent vandalism. Ungtss 04:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey, be nice. The aim is everyone walks away content! Let's not throw words like "vandal" around. Everyone is working towards the aim of the best article possible in their view here.Dr Zen 04:36, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i only hope that becomes the case soon, and stays that way. Ungtss 08:34, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have to support Ungtss here. Some of his actions come very close to being vandalism. Bensaccount has been insisting that the poll is "misleading" and continually removing it, without coherent explanation of exactly how it is misleading (paraphrasing the wording of the poll is not necessarily misleading, and he never explained how paraphrasing it was misleading), despite others disagreeing with him and putting it back in. And he never tried to modify it except by putting in ridiculous statements to basically "alert" readers that they shouldn't take any notice of it! Philip J. Rayment 15:23, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Great, yet another section on how the poll is misleading. Ok, the poll is misleading because it conflates science and religion. One choice, two separate concepts. Bensaccount 16:12, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How about you spell out exactly how it conflates them and how that is misleading? Philip J. Rayment 16:54, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Conflation is the blowing of two separate ideas into one. Two separate ideas are blown into oe choice on the survey. This is conflation. Can it be any more simple? Bensaccount 17:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

the issue's not just religion -- it's whether God AFFECTED and GUIDED evolution, or whether evolution stands on its own. but if you want to know how many people believe in evolution GENERALLY, you just ADD THE NUMBERS UP, MAN! Ungtss 17:33, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The issue is religion and evolution combined into one. You can add the numbers but it wont represent evolution, it will represent two conflations of religion and evolution. Bensaccount 17:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

combine red cars and blue cars. 20% like red cars. 10% like blue cars. that means 30% like cars. what more do you want? Ungtss 17:54, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No that means that 30% like either red or blue cars. Bensaccount 18:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

and you can't say that all the people who picked red or blue cars like cars? Ungtss 18:14, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No you can not. You can merely say they like red or blue cars. Bensaccount 21:38, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well then, make the article refer to a percentage that said they went for evolution with or without God and really this problem is resolved. So long as no one refers to the results of this poll without the "with or without God" part, I can't see that this complaint will stand up. Dr Zen 23:35, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i was thinking along the same lines. we've got to avoid another type of misleading, however. to the theistic evolutionists i know, it IS different than naturalistic evolution -- because God is NECESSARY to make it happen -- it could NOT happen alone. So how about "biblical creationists vs evolutionists, some of whom believe God guided the process, and some of whom don't." would that work for you? Ungtss 00:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not really, because this entirely mischaracterises the debate. I agree with Ben that you cannot use the poll to draw up the battle lines (because it does not reflect an actual division of opinion so much as the creators of the poll's view of how the opinion should be divided) and if and when you do mention the poll in a separate section, you should be clear what it said and not include an interpretation or link it to your sides in the debate as delineated elsewhere.

I believe the debate should be properly characterised. I've suggested below what I believe it consists of and why there is a major problem with how you are seeking to characterise it.Dr Zen

okay. have you heard of a "subset?" a subset is a group that fits entirely into another group. theistic evolution is a "subset" of evolution. all theistic evolutionists believe in evolution, but not all evolutionists believe in god. do you understand? Ungtss 21:51, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thats incorrect, but I dont care because it is completely irrelevant. Bensaccount 21:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yet another section on how the poll is misleading

What is the problem with the poll? The poll is neutral data and it should be there. If you have contrary data, then you should quote, paraphrase, and cite to the scholar or poll that gives the contrary data. ---Rednblu | Talk 20:32, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The poll only allows evolution as an option when it is conflated with religion. This is biased. Bensaccount 23:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a scholarly or textbook analysis of how this particular "conflation" biased this poll? I find numerous scholars refering to this poll and polls of similar construction but none of them mention "conflation" problems. Why is that? ---Rednblu | Talk 23:47, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The poll did not use the terms "theistic evolution" and "naturalistic evolution". So where's yours?
I note again that I changed the wording to reflect what the poll actually did say, not what you or anyone else interpreted it as saying.Dr Zen 00:44, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Do you disagree with the terms used to describe the poll currently? ---Rednblu | Talk 00:57, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be missing currently!Dr Zen 01:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Inform the reader that the poll only allows evolution as an option when it is conflated with religion, and the poll will cease to mislead. Bensaccount 01:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not quite with you, Ben. Are we looking at different polls? The one I cited (a more recent version of the one in question) offers the choices of evolution with God's guidance and evolution with God taking no part.Dr Zen 01:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Most scientists will say evolution has nothing to do with religion. The poll conflates a scientific theory with either athiesm or theism. Bensaccount 01:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, actually it doesn't. The formulation originally posted by Ungtss did and you were right to want it excluded. I do understand what you're saying. The questions asked don't actually reflect most "evolutionists'" thinking about evolution, as I pointed out earlier. You'd need a question that said do you accept the theory of evolution and think the existence of God is not an issue as far as it's concerned. Still, the poll says what it says. It's often cited, not just by creationists. It made the news in the UK. I think we could perhaps make a more neutral "polls" section that presents the polls and their results absolutely without comment and does not draw conclusions from them. What do you think?Dr Zen 04:01, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One choice, two separate ideas. Choosing one of these so called "evolution" options is choosing a conflation of science and religion. The poll is insidiously misleading. Bensaccount 15:55, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What!! I suggest you restore the poll so that we can at least be talking about the same thing! ---Rednblu | Talk 02:04, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Both polls conflate science and religion. Tell the reader what the polls are doing or do not include the polls. Bensaccount 02:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You are speaking a foreign language to me here. In my language we don't believe in God. Well, I believe that God like Santa Claus is a man-made imagining and construct. 8)) So there is no conflation in the poll that asks 1) Do you believe that humans descended from the ancestors of the chimpanzees with the crucial help of Santa Claus? or 2) Do you believe that humans descended from the ancestors of the chimpanzees with not even an inkling of help from Santa Claus? Where is the conflation? Even in the commercial myth Santa Claus only brings toys down non-existent chimneys so there is not even atheism! There is not even a trace of conflation! ---Rednblu | Talk 02:44, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rednblu, your poll is not the same. Evolution is a scientific theory. To make it the same it would be: Do you believe in the scientific theory that humans decended from the ancestors of chimpanzees with the help from santa clause. See the difference? Bensaccount 16:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not it is a scientific theory depends on which side of the debate you are on, so that is a POV statement. Philip J. Rayment 16:54, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The question "Do you believe in the scientific theory that . . ." would never make sense. As Mr. Rayment implies, the question "Do you believe in the scientific theory that . . ." is as nonsensical as the question "Do you believe in the true statement that . . . ." You have combined two things in one question. The two things are 1) Do you believe that A is a scientific theory? and 2) Do you believe A is a true statement? ---Rednblu | Talk 08:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The fact is that evoution is often considered to be a scientific theory, so even if it is not misleading to the people who dont think of evolution as a scientific theory, it is misleading for the people who do. Bensaccount 17:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apparently no one else can see that the poll leads the reader by conflating evolution with religion, so maybe its just me. However I will say that this poll, nor any poll can provide a reasonable representation of this debate, and so the poll should not be placed in the intro but rather in a separate section with a thorough description. Bensaccount 17:40, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

what what you've really been saying all this time is you don't want the poll in the intro. okay. explain why it "cannot provide a reasonable representation of this debate" in a clear and concise way so we can understand it. Ungtss 17:54, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No I have been saying that the poll is misleading all this time, and I still say it is misleading. As for why it cannot provide a reasonable representation, apparently the debators define the sides of the debate differently. A poll cannot represent sides of a debate if they can not even be defined alone. Bensaccount 17:58, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

so how do YOU define the debate!? that's what rednblue's been asking you for a week now -- how do YOU think the poll should have been done, to accurately show the sides of the debate? Ungtss 18:14, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No Rednblu has been asking me to reword a poll. As for the debate, I initially said that it was caused by people who insists on absolute interpretations of their holy text. This is an incomplete picture. There are also the people who think that evolution leaves no room for God or creation (Julian Huxley). Generally the people who partake in the debate on either side are people who:

Use arbitrary definitions of evolution or creation.
Conflate science and religion.
Think that evolution and creation are a dichotomy. Bensaccount 21:33, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

you still haven't answered my (or rednblue's -- read again what he asked!) question. if you were going to take a poll, what would you ask? Ungtss 21:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why would I want to take a poll? Bensaccount 21:53, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

if you'd like to preempt the accusations of trolling and vandalism, i suggest you take a little time to work with us so we can try to understand what, exactly, you're talking about. you've said the poll is misleading. so what would a GOOD poll look like!? Ungtss 22:00, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If there must be a poll, it should ask whether or not the person thinks creation and evolution are a dichotomy. The % of yes answers would give the % of the population that give credibility to this debate. Bensaccount 02:12, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

that % would be the sum of biblically literal creationists and naturalistic evolutionists -- leaving only evolutionary creationists and those with some other opinion, or none at all. how do the above labels not effectively represent the sides of the debate? Ungtss 02:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Biblically literal creationists may or may not think there is a dichotomy between creation and evolution. The only way to know is to ask them in a poll. The same is true for all the other catagories you mentioned. Bensaccount 02:33, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, when you look at the poll, the options are:

"God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so" which pretty much represents the basis of Young Earth Creationism and the like
"Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" which is pretty much Theistic Evolution
and "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process" which pretty much represents materialist evolution (except with no refrence to atheism)

Hence, the whole arguement that the poll conflates religion and science (although somewhat true) also says that most of this article is a conflation of religion and science... I think the whole conflation issue needs to be taken into context for the article. It is impossible to discuss evolution vs. creationism without some sort of merging of the opposing ideas of science and religion. If indeed the poll accurately represents these 3 views, then it is fully relavent to the article and not misleading because it is providing a public opinion sample of how split the issue is in America. Just thought i'd put my 2 cents in. Sasquatch 06:46, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

YARGH!

would dr. zen or bensaccount PLEASE tell us what the proper categories ARE so we can at least have a little CLARITY here!? if there aren't biblical creationists and evolutionists of both theistic and non-theistic flavors, then what ARE there!? Ungtss 23:27, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is a full range of opinion that is not easily pigeonholed. One reason people are not easily pigeonholed is that this is just one small area of understanding for most of them. Another reason is that much more is at stake for biblical creationists, if you want to call them that, than for anyone else. The theory of evolution poses a serious challenge to their worldview, while the "theory" of creation does not pose the same challenge to science. This is largely why it is wrong to frame this question in terms of its being an even debate. The two "sides" are "people who have a problem with science (understood as a paradigm, if you like)" and "people who can be bothered refuting whatever creationists are currently using to express their problem with science". Why is this so? Because, as I explained, creationists wish to have others accept a "truth"; scientists wish to further an "explanation".Dr Zen 00:38, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<The theory of evolution poses a serious challenge to their worldview, while the "theory" of creation does not pose the same challenge to science.>>

They why are they fighting it so hard? It is already effectively banned in the western education system, yet any attempt to even weaken evolution's grip is fought vehemently by the evolutionists. Creationism does pose a huge challenge to evolution (but not to "science"; that's you mischaracterisation of the debate again!

Evolutionary scientists wish to have their "explanation" promoted as truth, just as much as creationists do.

Philip J. Rayment 14:01, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is banned from science classes, Philip, because it does not contain any science. Creation doesn't pose any challenge at all to evolution. If it did, it would be the widely accepted scientific theory. That's how science works. Evolutionary scientists, like all scientists, want the expanation most broadly supported by the evidence to be accepted. Dr Zen 02:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the dogma. But that doesn't explain why moves to teach just the scientific aspects, or to alert students to the tentative nature of science, meet with such vehement opposition. Philip J. Rayment 14:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When you say "alert students to the tentative nature of science", you're refering to the Scientific Method, right? One of the guiding tenets of science is that any theory, no matter how old or well accepted, can be reexamined or overturned in the face of new facts. There is no such thing as a "law" in science, and no scientific theory is gospel. That concept is taught in schools, I know from personal experience because I first learned that in school. But implying that the Scientific Method makes science "tentative" in nature is a complete mischaracterization. Science's ability to constantly reexamine and modify its theories is exactly what makes it so robust and credible. Now, as to why science educators fight so vehemently to keep Creationism out of science class (not out of school, it's taught in religion, history and/or philosophy), it's party because Creationists fight so hard to have it thrust into science class, so a good defense in necesary (note that most scientists are probably too busy to bother with this struggle). The only proper way to get something into science class is to introduce it as a legitimate scientific theory, which means going through the scientific journals and the peer review process. Creationists instead attempt to use litigation to force their teachings into science class. Creationism might not pose a threat to evolution in the scientific community, but I believe that it does pose a threat to science as a whole (not just evolution, but Science) in the schools: Teaching Creationism as science would undermine the teaching of the Scientific Method and produce students that have a completely flawed perception of what science is. The Scientific Method would basically have to be thrown out in order to accommodate Creationism, and we'd raise a generation of children that are ignorant of science (but very skilled at rhetoric). Also, I'd like to point out that a Creationist accusing an Evolutionist of dogmatism is a wonderful example of the pot calling the kettle black. - Eisnel 18:52, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am referring in general terms to the Scientific Method, and specifically to origins myths such as evolution. When some U.S. state or district inserted a note in the front of textbooks about the tentative nature of evolution (and that's all it was), the evolutionists were up in arms. How dare evolution be questioned even to that extent? Creationary ideas are put through scientific journals and the peer review process—just not the mainstream ones because they are not allowed there (as previously pointed out on this page just before that section was archived)—yet it is still effectively excluded from science classes. And you are basically admitted as much anyway. You say that it would get into classes if it was in the journals, but that it doesn't belong in science anyway! Philip J. Rayment 16:08, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

gotcha. thanks for telling me exactly what was bothering you -- now i can see how this would grate on your pov. how do you suggest we find an npov approach that incorporates my pov as well:

1) creationism is self-evident, and fully supported by every drop of science we have.

2) the church today is vile, and most scientists (and intelligent people) recognize it. but instead of jumping free of the church and objectively considering the evidence, many scientists continue to try to provide an intellectual basis for atheism, which doesn't exist, in an effort to cure the world of this disgusting religion.

3) if scientists actually looked at things objectively, they would realize that the problem with religion is not that it's too religious, but that it's not religious enough -- religious people CONSISTENTLY fail to live up to the clear and common-sense teachings of their founders (like "don't judge" and "love your neighbor as yourself.")

4) if atheists realized that the real enemy wasn't religion itself but only FALSE religion, they wouldn't be so desperately anxious to promote an intellectual basis for atheism, even when their explanations go against all reason.

i'm not here to preach. i'm just asking how you think we can create an npov page that represents both these povs fairly. Ungtss 00:48, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

With great difficulty. But I think all of your POVs can be included in any article of this nature, without their necessarily biasing it.

1/ Creationists clearly dispute scientists' reading of the evidence. It's reasonable to give some examples of where creationists dispute science's explanation and then to explain how science refutes their arguments. You cannot suggest though that these are two sides of an argument. Science has its own discussions on evolution. Creationism should be properly characterised as what it is. In particular, you should properly convey that what is prior for you is the "self-evident" nature of creationism. Science does not permit the "self-evident" any currency. 2/ You are mischaracterising science. It does not seek to scientifically prove "atheism". You make the mistake of assuming science's project is the same as creationism's; that is, to show that what it takes to be a truth is correct. However, there's no reason not to show that creationists make this mischaracterisation, and then to give quotes from scientists explaining that science is not about truth. 3/ Yes, I know this is your POV and I agree with it in large part but it has no part in this particular article. If we had an article on the problems with religion in the modern day, it would have a part, but only in so far as we discuss the problems perceived in the world, not by us. 4/ Darwin was not in fact an atheist and neither are a great number of scientists. It's a hard truth that the explanations of science today, which are supported by an enormous amount of evidence, do not fit the scriptural explanation of the world. This is not because atheists have invented science to discredit religion (which is a borderline insane reading of what science has been for, given that much early science was done by religionists). Many scientists have truly desired that science should turn out to prove the Bible true. It does not though, largely because the scriptural explanation of the world was also written by men, but in their case they lacked a sophisticated understanding of how the world came into being.

As I've said elsewhere though, science does not exclude God. It does not in general concern itself with the "why" because answering that involves uncovering truths, which science cannot do. Evolution by natural selection might simply be the mechanism God chose to create his lifeforms. I'm an agnostic and an adherent of science and I have no problem at all with that notion, which seems a reasonable way to encompass both views. It seems to me that I don't want to rid you of God, but you wish to rid me of science.Dr Zen 02:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<1/ Creationists clearly dispute scientists' reading of the evidence.>>

No, as has been said over and over, creationists dispute uniformitarians' reading of the evidence.

I think you need to learn what "uniformitarianism" actually is. All scientists, I think it's fair to say, believe that the same processes worked throughout history as work today, and most would believe that any catastrophes must be the product of processes observable -- or feasibly extrapolated from processes observable today. Lyell believed that this meant that there could only be a steady drip, but of course he wasn't right. We are pretty sure a body hit the Yucatan and caused a worldwide catastrophe, which Lyell would more or less have excluded. However, that body obeyed today's laws of physics and caused the damage that a body would cause if it hit the Yucatan today (except of course that there was no Cancun or other settlements in those days). This is the extent of science's uniformitarianism. Most creationists accept that this is fundamentally how the world works. Those that do not do not actually offer any evidence of a set of widely variable and varying scientific laws.Dr Zen 02:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Uniformitarianism has been weakened a bit by evidence of catastrophes, but the assumption is still held by most scientists to the extent that it is used to rule out many creationary ideas. Philip J. Rayment 14:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<It's a hard truth that the explanations of science today, which are supported by an enormous amount of evidence, do not fit the scriptural explanation of the world.>>

Absolute rubbish. The explanations of uniformitarians do not fit the Biblical explanations. There is no problem with the actual evidence.

Jeez, man, there is no process that would sort fossils out to look like they are in order of age in "flood" rocks. None. There is only evidence for your view looking from the view to the evidence, not the other way round. You have to say "there was a flood, and this is what it did". Science doesn't do that. It says this is what we can see, and this is a way of explaining it.

Just because you don't know of one doesn't mean that none exist. Science is supposed to work that way, but it is performed by scientists who don't always study the evidence without preconceptions. For example, Stephen J. Gould said that Darwin's purpose in proposing evolution was to do away with God. By your reckoning, therefore, Darwin ws not practicing science either. Philip J. Rayment 14:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your kind of "explanation" is the Velikovsky egg. You practically have to ignore the entire contents not just of geology but of physics, chemistry and biology to have it work and even then most of your dinos are living on the "dark side" of Velikovsky's earth. This is the problem with creationist "explanations". They disagree not just with the evidence for evolution (which they cannot explain) but also with many other elements of science, which are very well supported by evidence. You rely on vapour canopies that cannot have existed, superheated crusts that would have fried Noah, liquefaction processes that do not work in the rock types you need them to have happened in, rocks that form in cold temperatures to have formed in the extremely hot conditions you need for other rocks to have formed in the timeframes you demand, mountains that do not suffer erosion, metamorphic rocks created in processes that take years and not millennia (which we would, were your version true, expect to see formed today, but we do not) fish that die for no good reason in water, carnivorous dinosaurs that did not eat humans (because even though you claim they lived together, there are no human remains with dinosaur teeth markings on their bones -- while there are hominids with marks from other predators) and others that were not eaten by humans, even though they would have been very easy to catch, given that they were slow-moving (and why exactly did Noah not put dinosaurs in the ark? I'm going to have to search for the creationist answer to that one), among many, many other things that are by any reckoning impossible.Dr Zen 02:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So much more ignorance of creation from an outspoken anti-creationist!

Creationists do not have to ignore the entire contents of those scientific disciplines. In fact, the only thing they reject is stories about the past, not experimental evidence from the present.
What "evidence for evolution" cannot creationists explain? They deny that there is any conclusive evidence, and what evidence can be used to support it, they generally do have other explanations for.
Creationists do not rely on vapour canopies. Most creationists reject a vapour canopy.
I have no idea what you are talking about with "fish that die for no good reason in water".
Creationists claim that dinosaurs—and all other creatures—were originally vegetarian.
Noah did have dinosaurs on the ark.
Some of the other points you make I don't recognise, and I suspect are straw man arguments that anti-creationists make up.

Philip J. Rayment 14:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<It does not though, largely because the scriptural explanation of the world was also written by men,>>

That's a religious (anti-Christiam) POV, because the Bible claims to be ultimately authored by God. Rejection of that view is a religious statement, not an scientific one.

No. It's a religious statement that it had a single author but a scientific one that it has more than one. This is because science uses methods of analysis the religion does not permit. In any case, the Bible can have been written by thousands of people and they could all have been inspired by God. Just like the theory of natural selection, the scientific explanation does not exclude God, only a particular dogmatic version of him.Dr Zen 02:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The obvious implication of the statement that the Bible is not true because it was written by men is in effect a statement that it was not authored by God, and that is a religious statement. And it is not true that religion does not permit scientific methods of analysis. Dogmatism works both ways, you know. Philip J. Rayment 14:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<Evolution by natural selection might simply be the mechanism God chose to create his lifeforms. I'm an agnostic and an adherent of science and I have no problem at all with that notion, which seems a reasonable way to encompass both views. It seems to me that I don't want to rid you of God, but you wish to rid me of science.>>

Evolution can not be the mechanism that the God of the Bible used, because His description of His creation is inconsistent with it. If you want to propose a god of your own invention, that's another matter, but if you are talking about the God of the Bible, it doesn't work. And how many times do we have to tell you that creationists are not anti-science?

Philip J. Rayment 14:01, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He gives two descriptions of his creation, Philip, and they don't match, so clearly he was himself rather confused as to how he did it. Maybe he thought the method was unimportant in that context and didn't bother sharing it with us -- preferring to allow us to discover it in our own time? Perhaps he felt he was writing a history rather than a science textbook. Who knows? I don't presume to know the mind of God, Philip. I wasn't aware either that the God of the biblical literalists was actually a different one from that worshipped by those who think that the Bible was only divinely inspired. Even Muslims think that you're worshipping the same god as them. I didn't realise your religion permitted polytheism. That's interesting.

Yes, there are two descriptions of creation, and there are four descriptions of Jesus' life on Earth, but the descriptions are complementary, not contradictory, so it is you that has the confusion, not the one and only God. Philip J. Rayment 14:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And creationists are anti-science, Philip. They want truth and propose that they have it. Science doesn't believe it can be found. Only one of those views can be right.Dr Zen 02:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, scientism doesn't believe that it can be found. Science is simply a method of study, that doesn't say whether or not truth can be found (by other means), and that (early) creationists were largely responsible for developing. Philip J. Rayment 14:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have the same initial impression as I had when I came to this page. Do not, however, forget about people like Julian Huxley who call themselves "evolutionists" and do wish to rid "creationists" of God and religion on the basis that "science" leaves no room for them. The problem involves arbitrary definitions of creation and evolution, conflation of science and religion, and false dichotomy. Bensaccount 02:44, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, but there's no reason to suppose that all evolutionists take Huxley's line. In fact they clearly don't. Even Dawkins goes to great lengths to explain that he is not unweaving the rainbow but making its wonder greater.Dr Zen 04:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the reason people get this impression is that the page was written primarily by "creationists" (Ungtss, Rayment, the duplicitous Rednblu) and therefore doesn't show the other side of the false dichotomy. Bensaccount 02:53, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

not seeking debate, but hoping if i explain myself we'll both be better writers for the article.

<<Creationists clearly dispute scientists' reading of the evidence>>.

yes, and that is a dispute with the conclusions of scientists, not science itself. creationists have no dispute with "science" but with the conclusions of some scientists.

That's simply not true. Creationists have a dispute with science as a body of work. It's not "some scientists" who believe that the earth is four billion years old. It is "all scientists except creationists". Do you see? Even if creationists are considered scientists, the debate should still be categorised as "creationists vs all other scientists".Dr Zen 04:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the creationist dispute is only with a very limited area of "science as a body of work" -- namely a mechanism for macroevolution, and radiometric dating. secondly, einstein had a dispute with certain areas of science as a body of work, too -- he didn't BELIEVE in Vulcan (planet) and thought there might be a more parsimonious explanation. Ungtss 06:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This simply isn't true. This might be your dispute with science but many creationists have a much broader problem with science.Dr Zen 02:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think Ungtss defines it too narrowly, but you define it too broadly. Creationists only dispute the very limited area of explanations of how things came to be, not empirically-testable science. Philip J. Rayment 14:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<Creationists have a dispute with science as a body of work. It's not "some scientists" who believe that the earth is four billion years old. It is "all scientists except creationists".>>

I notice how you just switched between "science" and "scientists". Yes, it is "all scientists except creationists", but it's not science. Philip J. Rayment 14:01, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion, and it's shared by many, that creationists do not practise science. They do not pursue the scientific method and they are not aiming at the end that science aims at. They are able to call themselves "scientists" for two reasons: 1/ it's a free world and you can call yourself what you like, regardless of mockery and 2/ some are in fact scientists who do pursue the scientific method in areas not connected with those in dispute: they may be mathematicians, economists, computer scientists etc. They would never employ the methods in their own fields that they use in "creation science", of course, because, if they did, they would not have a hope of being published or of gaining respect in their field.Dr Zen 02:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course many anti-creationists share this anti-creationist POV. But it has little basis in fact. The do pursue the scientific method even in areas connected with historical/origins science. But some of them are careful about admitting to it because of the anti-creationist bias in mainstream journals. Philip J. Rayment

<<Science has its own discussions on evolution. Creationism should be properly characterised as what it is.>>

in the creationist pov, we have science of our own, with greater explanatory power. Consider Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared and Flood geology.

"Greater explanatory power"? Are you taking the piss or do you just not know what "explanatory power" means?Dr Zen 04:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

hopefully neither. explanatory power is when one theory can explain the evidence more parsimoniously and accurately than another. for instance, Path integral formulation has more explanatory power than f=ma. what do YOU think explanatory power means? Ungtss 06:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly more parsimonious to say "God did it" but it's lacking explanatory power. Why? You cannot predict what God will do next. You cannot understand the mechanism of his doing it. Parsimony is not the be-all and end-all of explanatory power. "Accuracy" is, sadly, in the eye of the beholder in this case. Creationists tend to ignore that explaining facts one at a time is precisely what a theory does not do. It explains interconnected facts coherently and without contradicting itself. The more it explains in this manner without contradiction, the more explanatory power it's said to have.Dr Zen 02:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More anti-creationist rhetoric and straw-man argument with no basis in fact. Philip J. Rayment 14:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<In particular, you should properly convey that what is prior for you is the "self-evident" nature of creationism. Science does not permit the "self-evident" any currency.>>

to me, the scientific method is self-evident. wouldn't you agree? Ungtss 03:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean, let alone agree. The scientific method is what it is. It's not the only means of enquiry, as creationists demonstrate. It's quite possible to create theory solely by induction also.Dr Zen 04:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

you said that science does not permit the "self-evident" any currency. well how does "science" allow itself such high stature as a means of inquiry into the state of the universe, unless it carried some inherently superior merit to biblical literalism? personally, i think that the merit of the scientific method is self-evident -- science is OBVIOUSLY the best way to understand the universe. Ungtss 06:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Science allows itself stature because of the power of its explanations. Your car works because of it, for instance. You can build other cars if you understand the scientific explanation of how. "Biblical literalism" does not have explanatory power. You cannot predict the formation of new worlds or of new life, or actually anything at all from "God did it".Dr Zen 02:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Any ceationist arguments that amount to "God did it" are the exception, not the rule, and are argued that way for good reasons, such as God telling us He did it. Otherwise your claim is yet another straw man argument. Philip J. Rayment 14:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<You are mischaracterising science. It does not seek to scientifically prove "atheism".>>

once again, i'm saying that SCIENCE is a PROCESS, while SCIENTISTS do the work. and that while SCIENCE has no agenda, the majority of contemporary mainstream SCIENTISTS are people with biases, agendas, ideologies, and oedipal complexes, many of whom wish to rid the world of religion. i don't think "science" does anything. sometimes PEOPLE do science. sometimes they don't.

No, I believe this is entirely wrong. Suggesting that most scientists have as part of their agenda proving anything is incorrect, for one, and suggesting that they wish to rid the world of religion is even wronger. As I said, many scientists are Christians.

92% doubt or disbelieve in God. according to another poll, 5% are biblically literal creationists. that doesn't leave much room for christian evolutionists in mainstream science. Ungtss 06:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have never seen any poll that suggests that so many scientists do not believe in God. Even the atheists suggest 40% believe in God. Yes, 92% don't believe in a "personal" God. But so what? There are lots of conceptions of God.Dr Zen 02:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Science does do something. It's not in the least abstract. Of course, you'd like it to be. If it were, you really could claim that scientists don't do it and you do. It isn't, they do and you don't.Dr Zen 04:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

science is abstract. it's a METHOD. i don't believe that so i can say i do it and others don't. i believe that to explain why scientists constantly make mistakes, but their mistakes are eventually corrected by others better equipped and willing to follow the scientific method. the Doctrine of humors was scientific. it was just wrong. thankfully, other scientists were willing to challenge "scientific consensus." Ungtss 06:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is a "method" but a way of doing things! The doctrine of humours was not scientific in the sense of being arrived at by a scientific process. It was a hypothesis, that's all. It was on a par with God made the earth in six days and suffered the same fate.Dr Zen 02:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<Darwin was not in fact an atheist and neither are a great number of scientists.>>

darwin himself also believed that evolution could only go back to the original "stock" of animals, and could never explain the evolution of the eye -- a claim consistent with creation, although we'd screen out his silly ideas about bears becoming whales by opening their mouths real wide. Ungtss 03:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear. As I've told you, you should get your information from the source and not from creationist websites. Darwin said this: "To suppose that the eye [...] could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." But then he explained: "When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

that's the wrong quote, bro:).

That's the quote about the eye, bucko.Dr Zen 02:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. a few forms, or one, created by God. sounds pretty damn creationist to me:).

Yes, a beautiful quote. A personal favourite. One beloved also by Gould. He called his columns "this view of life" and one of his books "Life's grandeur". I've told you enough times that abiogenesis is entirely moot. It doesn't matter to the theory of natural selection where the first form or forms came from. I don't know what you think you're proving. I've said that several times! I've agreed that God could well have created the first lifeform. I have absolutely no problem with that hypothesis and neither did Darwin. He believed firmly in God. He believed God created the universe and it should not be a surprise that he found a way to have God create life too.Dr Zen 02:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

as to the eye ... he clearly said his mind was staggered at the prospect, stated repeatedly that it didn't surprise him that people failed to believe his theory because of it, and punted only to faith that it would someday be explained. still hasn't. Ungtss 06:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No. He said that it was very hard to conceive but in fact his theory showed clearly how it could be done, which it does.Dr Zen 02:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, Darwin was chiding the Behes of this world not to think that complexity was any bar to evolution by natural selection. Go to the source, Ungtss. That's what science does. Sticks to the facts.

yeah. stick to the facts. while you're at it, stop thinking you know what i'm thinking and where i get my data from, eh? Ungtss 06:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As for the "stock of animals", Darwin quite explicitly began in the middle. And, as I've pointed out several times, the beginnings of life are moot for evolution. It works wherever you begin in history/prehistory.Dr Zen 04:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

micro does, and micro he described rather successfully, although mendel figured out what it actually was. macro doesn't exist. he hoped maybe it might. he was wrong. Ungtss 06:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Macro is micro, as I demonstrated to you. Darwin was very wrong on genetics, as it happens. He believed inheritance was blended. We now know, thanks to Mendel, that it is not.

What tickles me is that you believe something magical limits microevolution in just such a way that it can never produce separate species. But, in common with all creationists who pursue this line of argument, you cannot say what.Dr Zen 02:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with Ungtss' use of "micro-" and "macro-evolution", but creationists do point to a major difference between the mechanisms that produce "minor" variations and the mechanisms that produce major ones, and at the same time, do not deny speciation. Philip J. Rayment 14:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<It's a hard truth that the explanations of science today, which are supported by an enormous amount of evidence, do not fit the scriptural explanation of the world.>>

i thought that science "wasn't about truth," as you said above. in my pov, it's a hard truth that evolution doesn't have a leg to stand on in science or in reason. Ungtss 03:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Science is not about truth but you can tell truths (and lies) about it. Do you see the difference? Your POV is founded on an a priori disagreement with science and you do not employ reason, so your "truth" is of no real consequence to science or to me.Dr Zen 04:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

my "truth" is that science is the best means of understanding the world, and that the evidence shows that evolution to be a folktale. Ungtss 06:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's nothing more than wishful thinking.Dr Zen 02:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course. If you think that the evidence points one way, then anybody that thinks differently must be just using "wishful thinking". Philip J. Rayment 14:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<This is not because atheists have invented science to discredit religion (which is a borderline insane reading of what science has been for, given that much early science was done by religionists).>>

hey now -- back off the borderline insane talk. science and creation went hand in hand until the 1860s. whether at that point "science overcame religion" or "western culture threw religion and reason out the window in favor of Eugenics, Colonialism, Nihilism, Communism, Fascism, Great Purges, Holocausts, and world war" is a matter of point of view. Ungtss 03:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know science and creation went hand in hand. That's one count why it is borderline insane to suggest that science has tried to destroy it or discredit religion. Whether Western culture should have abandoned religion is not a concern of science, but reason is. Sadly, you seem to think "reason" means "ignore the evidence in accepting a higher truth. This is exactly the province of religion, and exactly not what science does or sets out to do. Dr Zen 04:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

and what have i said to indicate that's my understanding of reason? Ungtss 06:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<As I've said elsewhere though, science does not exclude God.>>

Evolution does, by Occam's razor. Evolutionary creationists just haven't realized that yet, IMO. Ungtss 03:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I explained to you before that Occam's razor applies to explanations only and says nothing about what is true. That's not to say that this is not a widespread misconception but it does not affect God's existence one iota that the world can be explained without him. He doubtless chuckles over the very idea that it could.Dr Zen 04:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i'm sure he's chuckling ... but for a different reason. our only means of approaching truth is our explanations. if we find an explanation that makes God an extraneous assumption, then there is no rational basis for believing in him, except blind, ignorant faith you'd love to relegate us to. If i were Him, i'd be amused at the thought that anyone could look themselves in the eye and say, "y'know ... luck, time, and a lot of dead ancestors fighting over food and mates is all it took to bring you around." Ungtss 06:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no rational basis for believing in God. He doesn't require one though. Isn't the whole point that God does not require proof but faith? Dr Zen 02:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, this is just another anti-biblical straw-man argument. There is a rational basis for believing in God, and He expects us to be rational about it. Sure, faith is involved, but not blind faith contrary to reason. Philip J. Rayment 14:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<It seems to me that I don't want to rid you of God, but you wish to rid me of science.>>

and to me it seems that in this area, the mainstream scientific community wishes to get rid of both. Ungtss 03:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful to you -- if not to this discussion so much -- if you were to make a section on this page of arguments creationists have made to suggest science is not scientific. This might make clear where you are misconceiving science and whether there is anything substantive in it (that is, whether science has responded to the claims you make).Dr Zen 04:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

perhaps i could do that if i thought science was not scientific. i don't. i'm rather fond of science. i happen to think evolution is not scientific. Ungtss 06:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Which brings up the theme of persuasive definition. Bensaccount 14:38, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, it does not. You are doing original research again. If that use of "scientific" were "persuasive definition," you would find many scholars who agree with you. But I can find none, and you can cite none. So you continue doing original research. You may have the beginnings of a stunning new religion, but you do not have the first acceptable line of a Wikipedia article. ---Rednblu | Talk 19:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'd be interested to read creationists' explanation of exactly how it is that evolution is not "scientific". It does seem that at least Ungtss is defining "science" so that it simply doesn't include anything that would permit evolution. You want to leave off the "original research" nonsense, by the way. No one on the creationist side is indulging in actually supporting what they say.Dr Zen 02:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everything that you don't like is personal research right? Anyways, I don't want to discuss this until we have settled the matter of the poll. Is everyone agreed that it should be placed in a separate section? Bensaccount 19:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<Everything that you don't like is personal research right?>> No. Original research is my favorite activity. 8)) But it does not belong in a Wikipedia encyclopedia article--nor in any other encyclopedia article. Original research should be published in books and articles. In my opinion, that poll series is the most important item that any high school student should know about the Creation vs. evolution debate. So those poll results should be summarized in the lead section. I would prefer that one of the professional shorthand labels for those three categories would be used in the lead section. Gallup themselves use the shorthand labels: 1) God created, 2) Millions of years, 3) Help of God, and 4) Other/Don't know. I would prefer that 2) would be "No help of God"--because that is a clearer paraphrase of the complete survey question. In my opinion, it is appropriate to paraphrase the survey questions in the lead section if we give the details in the body of the article. ---Rednblu | Talk 21:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No way. This is a poll of a thousand Americans who were asked specific questions. You cannot draw the conclusions you wish to from it. That is original research, old bean.Dr Zen 02:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sure. But there are many scholars who have put many different "labels" on those questions. Quoting those scholars is not drawing conclusions; it is merely quoting scholars--which is the very essence of NPOV. ---Rednblu | Talk 03:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If something is obvious it is ridiculous to cite it. Anyways, does anyone disagree with moving the poll to a section other than the intro? Bensaccount 22:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not dogmatic that it has to stay in the lead section, but the lead section is my preference for it. Philip J. Rayment 00:56, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll bet it is.Dr Zen 02:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

The page is about the "debate." So what is there to say--really--about the "debate"? The lead section should summarize the data about the debate, surely. And that poll is the best data on the debate, so that poll should be summarized in the lead section. How about let's finish the rest of the article and then just fashion the lead section to summarize what is in the article? We could develop a section on polls and move the poll data there for development--with the idea that likely we will need a summary of the "poll section" in the lead section. Would that be a plan? ---Rednblu | Talk 03:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The poll has nothing to do with the "debate". I for one will fiercely oppose your putting an interpretation of this poll into the lead section, and in the final article, I'll be wanting it to be getting due prominence, ie, not much.Dr Zen 04:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The poll has nothing to do with the debate? Sure it does. Every published scholar I just consulted quotes one of that series of polls within the first two pages. Most start with characterizing one of the polls in a way that sheds light on the part of the debate that they want to examine. What published scholar can you find that says "the poll has nothing to do with the debate"? If you find such a scholar, you can follow the analysis of the polls with a paragraph that says, "In contrast, Dr. A. says, 'The poll has nothing to do with the debate because . . . .'" Would that be fair?---Rednblu | Talk 05:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If something is obvious you don't represent is as a POV. In this case it is obvious that the poll does not represent the debate. Bensaccount 18:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I still don't know exactly what you mean by "the poll does not represent the debate"—it is not intended to represent anything—but beyond that, it is not obvious that the poll is irrelevant, or we would all agree. Philip J. Rayment 16:08, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You might be able to say that it claimed by some that the poll has some vague relevance to the debate. However, it would be biased to present it in the introduction as if it is relevant. If as you say the poll doesn't represent anything, then there is no reason to keep it. Bensaccount 19:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't represent anything, but it provides some relevent information, so there is a reason to keep it, and at the moment it is about the most unbiased information on the numbers of peoples that hold different views that we have. Philip J. Rayment 14:10, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

side issues

great:)! thank you for your generosity regarding the spectrum of literalism:). would it be okay if i qualfied the statement, "rejecting parts of physics etc" to include exactly what parts they are -- i.e. radiometric dating -- to be more specific, as well as allowing for at least the possibility of rational basis for that rejection, rather than solely biblical literalism? Ungtss 08:28, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would make a clearer presentation to find that scholar who would present your continuum idea of "scientific method, historical evidence, and basic reason." We could present that continuum first, cleanly. And then follow with the (Scott 1997) continuum in a clean presentation. It seems to me that (Scott 1997) gets the position on the continuum by combining two variables 1) Biblical literalism and 2) Acceptance of modern science in a function like

$(PositionOnTheContinuum)={\frac {(BiblicalLiteralism)}{100\%+(AcceptanceOfModernScience)}}$

so that for Flat earthism where BiblicalLiteralism is 100% and AcceptanceOfModernScience = 0%, the PositionOnTheContinuum is 1 and so that for Materialist evolutionism where BiblicalLiteralism is 0% and AcceptanceOfModernScience = 100%, the PositionOnTheContinuum is 0. :) In my opinion, the whole radiometric section of the Views of creationists and mainstream scientists compared page is wrong because it discusses only the old K / Ar methods without discussing the "modern science" methods of ⁴⁰Ar / ³⁹Ar. I haven't made any corrections to the Views of creationists and mainstream scientists compared page because I notice that the Argon-argon dating page is missing. 8(( I will get around to fixing that gap in Widipedia. In the meantime, could we look for that scholar who develops a continuum similar to your "scientific method, historical evidence, and basic reason" continuum? But of course, this is only my opinion and only one vote. 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 07:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

sadly i cannot provide -- i've looked and can't find any "mainstream" creationists who represent my viewpoint -- because by and large they start with inerrancy, and so see no problem with the continuum as you've stated it -- they just think the geocentrists and flat-earthers are reading the bible wrong. while i agree with them that the geocentrists + flat-earthers are reading the bible wrong, i think the creationists shoot themselves in the foot with inerrancy, because there is no rational basis for it in the bible or in experience (the bible never SAYS it's inerrant after all, and even if it did, what would THAT mean outside the context of self-referential circular reasoning!?:) -- so i think inerrancy and literalism pretty much discredits everything they have to say after that, even tho, in my opinion, most of what they say after that happens to be RIGHT. but sadly ... i'm a pariah among creationists for challenging the sacred cow of inerrancy ... so i have no cited authors to cite:(.

so how about we leave the continuum as you've written it ... but AFTER the mention of creationists and their partial acceptance of modern science ... we qualify exactly which parts they reject? Ungtss 21:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To quote from AiG's Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (although I'm sure more comprehensive explanations could be found):"Biblical inerrancy [is] derived from the teaching that Scripture is ‘God-breathed’ (2 Tim. 3:15–17, cf. 2 Pet. 1:20–21) and ‘cannot be broken’ (John 10:35)...", and I suppose, the idea that God is without fault. Philip J. Rayment 01:01, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should have a section on "Biblical inerrancy." Probably one paragraph would do. Also, I think we have discussed some law review articles that would give a continuum at least in the moral dimension for analyzing creation vs. evolution. Is that not so? ---Rednblu | Talk 01:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

you're right -- i think a section in inerrancy would be very valuable -- since it does drive most of the creationist side, and drive most of the evolutionist ridicule. Mr. Rayment -- without disrespecting your opinion in any way (in my book it's better to err on the side of inerrancy than the side of erroneousness since it is such a MARVELOUS collection of books) i'd just like to present my pov that "god-breathed" and inerrant are two entirely different things. you and i are, in fact, God-breathed, yet both quite prone to error. the inspiration of God comes through frail human hands who (without exception in scripture, except Jesus, who never wrote anything that we know of) made HUGE errors, including direct disobedience, adultery, and murder. the heros of our faith were ordinary people who did extraordinary things ... but they weren't perfect. why should they have written perfect books? and yet ... these were people who experienced God in direct and profound ways ... and the extraordinary quality of the books they left us demonstrates the impact contact with God had on their lives. Just another pov for the pile:). Ungtss 02:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

sidenote

rednblue -- out of curiosity, what do you think of the "fact: viewpoint viewpoint" format on the views compared page? is it misleading in any way? does it allow a fair way to assess the strength of the two sides ... and allow the mainstream side adequate opportunity to explain itself ... or recognize that it CAN'T explain itself? i look forward to clarification of argon dating ... in my opinion, creationism will be in a lot of trouble if a reliable dating method ever comes around which substantiates the age of the sediments ... so i'm curious as to whether you've got one:). Ungtss 21:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Still factual problems?

Does anyone still think there are factual problems with this article, as opposed to a lack of neutrality (which is probably unavoidable, given the topic)? Ben Standeven 01:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I, for one, think there are factual problems. But we are getting there. I think all of the factual problems will be resolved as we look for published scholars and polls to base all of the points of the article. Would you agree? Wherever there are factual problems, we might find two or three scholars that have two or three views of what the "facts are." 8))) ---Rednblu | Talk 01:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Facts? We're going to have facts?Dr Zen 03:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Small changes

"In Europe, evolution by natural selection, with or without God's involvement, has nearly universal support." I think "evolutionary creationism" or whatever it was you called it is not a term current in Europe and my formulation exactly states what it is people do believe in.

"In the Middle East, biblically literal creation has nearly universal support." You cannot use "biblically literal creation" to describe what Moslems believe in. I'm changing it to "creation as described in the various religions' scriptures" and "support" should be "belief".

The poll needs to move if there is no other descriptive material in the opening section. I'll leave this for now.

"About 0.14% of earth and life scientists in the United States believe in biblically literal creationism." Let's use the correct figure. I'm trying to find the actual poll, so I can work out how many scientists this was. If it turns out that it was 1 from 700, I'm going to rephrase this to show that, because it would illustrate that there is no such debate in this area of science.

Why has "creationism" gained itself a capital letter? I'm going to be striking them all down to lower case unless I see a very convincing argument for keeping them. If this is not a religion but a scientific view, it should be treated as all other scientific views: little letters.

Creationists dispute evolutionary biology in only two areas:

Abiogenesis: that is, the origin of life, and whether it was brought about by purely naturalistic processes, or a divine, creative act, although the theory of natural selection has nothing to say about the origin of life;

The more I think about this, the more I feel it needs to be struck out. "Abiogenesis" is not a part of "evolutionary biology", as we've discussed.

I added this but you should edit it to what you feel correctly characterises the debate. "However, the "debate" is much broader, because the creationist worldview does not agree with many areas of biology, chemistry, physics, geology and astrology."

More when I get to it.Dr Zen 05:01, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another poll

I'm going to try to track down the PDFs that are missing from this. I think if we do cover polls, we should certainly have the one that says that most Americans don't think creationism and evolution are exclusive, and if they say creationism is not science, we should have that. We should have some quotes from scientists saying that creationists are charlatans, and we will when I have time to gather them. (Naturally, the creationists can put in quotes from creationists saying that science is not scientific if they like. I'll have a hunt through CRS etc myself to find some juicy ones.)Dr Zen 05:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

title proposal

due to chronic accusations of "false dichotomies" and "persuasive definitions," and a chronic movement to cut abiogenesis off the page entirely, i propose we change the title to "Origins debate." It would be less misleading (since all three sides believe in evolution of some type, and two of the three believe in creation of some type), would allow for a broader discussion of topics, would parallel the talk.origins and true.origins, would cut more directly to the issues involved, and would be less awkward (why do we have a vs. in our title, anyway?) what do you think? Ungtss 22:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nope. The theory of evolution by natural selection has nothing to say about life's origin. This article is about the dispute between creationists and science.Dr Zen 23:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(For the umpteenth time) Creationists don't have a dispute with science! Philip J. Rayment 16:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

you're defining "origin" too narrowly. the new page would consider the origins of many things, including life. and evolution would be considered as a possible origin for life's diversity and adaptive complexity. the origin of Homo Sapiens, for example. your attempt to define this as "creationists vs. science" will not succeed, so i suggest you start working with me to find a mutually agreeable solution. Ungtss 23:52, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that Dr Zen assumed your "origins" meant "origins of life" because you expressed interest in having abiogenesis in the debate. I think we need to have some boundaries in order to keep this article from getting out of control and becoming a jumble of data on all sorts of disparate topics. There's enough to say on this well defined topic. Creationism vs. the latest scientific theories on abiogenesis would make a fine article on its own, as would Creationism vs. scientific theories on the origin of the universe (granted, none of those would be good titles... I've never been good at titles). My problem with making this page overly broad, and not setting boundaries, is this: Creationist arguments often tend to stray from the topic at hand and go off into irrelevent territory in order to confuse the issue. For instance: making arguments against scientific abiogenesis in an attempt to disprove evolution, ignoring the fact that evolutionary theory just needs a replicator and doesn't care where it came from. If you don't believe that this happens, take a look at Jack Chick's "Big Daddy", which strays off into atomic physics in order to "disprove" evolution. I'll agree that this debate is a false dichotomy, but it's an important and popular debate between the most famous positions, and people want to know about this particular debate, false dichotomy or no. The 2004 debate between Bush and Kerry was a false dichotomy, but that doesn't mean there can't be meaningful discussions about their debates without including Ralph Nader and Michael Badnarik. So, my feeling is that this article's scope shouldn't be broadened or made overly vague. "Origins debate" could mean lots of things. Talk.origins and True.origins are huge databases that encompass numerous topics, we shouldn't try to fit all of those into one article. If you want to talk about the origins of lots of different things, then make lots of different articles. If you want to be more specific, then a section of this article could become its own article; for instance: the debate on the origin of the human species might make a fine article on its own. With that said, I'm open to a name change as long as it clearly preserves this notable and socially relevant topic. But the current name is accessable to lay people, even if it doesn't perfectly describe the debate. - Eisnel 02:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well said, Eisnel. Several scholars observe that the creationist debate is not against science--but against the science that supports evolution. And besides, the proponents of natural selection have tried since 1872 to change the definition of "evolution" that has persisted outside the life sciences since the 1600s. Under the layperson definition of "evolution" that has persisted since the 1600s, "evolution" includes the 1) abiogenesis, 2) geologic transformations, and 3) planet formations just to name a few origins. This creation vs. evolution debate has been going with little improvement in manners or intelligence since at least before Sir Matthew Hale's posthumous 1677 publication of The Primitive Origination of Mankind, Considered and Examined According to the Light of Nature (London) in which Matthew Hale argues that evolution is an "absurdity" because "it must have potentially at least the whole Systeme of Humane Nature, or at least that Ideal Principle or Configuration thereof, in the evolution whereof the complement and formation of the Humane Nature must consist. . . and all this drawn from a fortuitous coalition of senseless and dead Atoms." (Hale 1677:257, 259) ---Rednblu | Talk 03:12, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know what Rednblu is trying to say? His obscure long-winded POVs backed by even more obscure scholars make it virtually impossible to get any useful information from his ramblings. Bensaccount 03:43, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

slap. Ungtss 03:50, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<Creationist arguments often tend to stray ... If you don't believe that this happens, take a look at Jack Chick's "Big Daddy", ...>>
Chick is hardly representative of mainstream creationism!

<<it's an important and popular debate between the most famous positions, and people want to know about this particular debate, false dichotomy or no. ... But the current name is accessable to lay people, even if it doesn't perfectly describe the debate.>>
My view as well, except to note that (a) the word "evolution" does not just refer to biological evolution, but to the evolution of stars, the solar system, etc., so technically the title is not a false dichotomy, and (b) this point is clarified in the introduction (although not as well as I had it earlier, in my opinion).

<<...we shouldn't try to fit all of those into one article. If you want to talk about the origins of lots of different things, then make lots of different articles.>>
I have no problem putting them all in one, but it would depend on the size of the article. If it gets too big, then perhaps we should split it.
Philip J. Rayment 16:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

well alright then, i'll yield to the majority. i move that the next person to complain about how the title creates a "false dichotomy" or a "persuasive definition," or attempts to take abiogenesis off the page (since it is in fact relevent and for all intents and purposes evolution i.e. rna self-replicating, varying, and selecting) ... gets a collective slap on the wrist. Ungtss 03:38, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll say that the person who added "by natural selection" everytime the article says "evolution", is missing the point that there are more mechanisms to evolution than just natural selection. The mechanisms of evolution are mutation, selection (natural and sexual), genetic drift, recombination, and gene flow. For this reason, it isn't called the theory of evolution by natural selection, it's just the theory of evolution. --JPotter 04:44, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

I don't like that repetitive phrasing either. I had "goo-to-you" evolution at one stage, but that was deemed inappropriate, and (from memory) "the scientific theory of evolution" was substituted. But that is POV, so I replaced it with the Grand Theory of Evolution, but when that got changed I researched some more and found out that although that title was appropriate, its use wasn't widespread. Is there any problem with using "biological evolution"? "Theory of evolution" doesn't do it for me, because it doesn't sound like a title (i.e. everything in science beyond a hypothesis is a "theory", so "theory of evolution" sounds to be equivalent to the ambiguous "evolution"). Philip J. Rayment 16:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll say that you are missing the point that it is not called "evolution" either. "The word "evolution" is often used as a shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Darwin's theory of natural selection." (From evolution.) This more or less sums up my understanding of it. The "mechanism" of evolution is natural selection (broadly understood to include sexual selection, cases of which are generally argued to have been evolved by natural selection themselves). The matter on which selection works is created by mutation. The other elements are involved in evolution by natural selection but they are not "mechanisms" for evolution as such.

In this particular context, it is far more accurate to describe what creationists attack as evolution by natural selection because generally they agree that evolution occurs.Dr Zen 05:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<what creationists attack as evolution by natural selection >>

that's simply not true. we agree about evolution by natural selection. we disagree about MACROEVOLUTION (or alternatively, "increasing genetic information") by variation (of all the types described above) and natural selection, because VARIATION is insufficient to explain adaptible complexity. let's have the creationists speak for themselves, shall we, since it seems the other side is highly underqualified to speak for them. Ungtss 13:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To put it another way, creationists agree with natural selection, but not with "goo-to-you" evolution (i.e. evolution involving increasing genetic information), so "evolution by natural selection" is unclear if not actually misleading insofar as what creationists object to is concerned. Philip J. Rayment 16:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Case in point. Even the Talk.Origins primer says that natural selection is confused with the broader modern synthetic theory of evolution The word evolution has a variety of meanings. The fact that all organisms are linked via descent to a common ancestor is often called evolution. The theory of how the first living organisms appeared is often called evolution. This should be called abiogenesis. And frequently, people use the word evolution when they really mean natural selection -- one of the many mechanisms of evolution. --JPotter 17:09, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC) [1] natural selection is one, very important, part of evolutionary biology.

right. but all the types of evolution (including mutation, recombination, genetic drift etc) are all simply different modes of VARIATION -- and what creationists are arguing is that, as i said above, "VARIATION alone is unsufficient to explain adaptible complexity." Ungtss 20:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Close. According to evolutionary theory, mutation, recombination, gene flow all increase genetic variation; selection (natural, sexual, artificial, stabilizing, kin) and genetic drift decrease genetic variation. Also, symbiosis and genetic transfer has been proposed by Lynn Margulis as playing an important role in the evolution of life on Earth. Clearly, the endosymbiotic theory is the best explanation on how eukaryotes evolved. --JPotter 21:24, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Very good, Jason, but the facts remain that a/ it's been called the theory of evolution by natural selection since Darwin's day (what Ungtss doesn't like is, after all, the origin of species as an outcome of evolution by natural selection) and b/ just calling it "evolution" is extremely misleading, especially since many creationists, in the face of evidence even they find compelling, accept that evolution is a fact. What they dispute is the notion of common descent by modification, whose main mechanism is natural selection (again, symbiosis is very interesting, but it's not outside evolution by natural selection -- the symbiosis is accommodated in our genomes -- I mean our genomes take account of it, not that it lives there -- and I presume also in mitochondria's, what else but natural selection promoted the symbiotic lifeforms over others that competed for the same resources? Symbiosis is just a strategy for survival and is something that evolved just like any other strategy.) I don't care what we call it, as it happens, so long as we do not set up the false dichotomy between creation and evolution that creationists so much like. How about evolution by modification and selection? It's more accurate. Like it? How about "the modern evolutionary synthesis"? That work for you?Dr Zen 03:48, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<just calling it "evolution" is extremely misleading, especially since many creationists, in the face of evidence even they find compelling, accept that evolution is a fact.>>

Not at all, and the opposite in fact. Creationists do accept speciation and natural selection, but studiously avoid using the word evolution, as that word, in the popular mind, means the goo-to-you process, or "common descent by modification". (see [2], box). Philip J. Rayment 14:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Which once again brings up the theme of arbitrary or persuasive definition. Bensaccount 18:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

slap. Ungtss 20:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

slap. ---Rednblu | Talk 06:39, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're right of course but it must be defined in some way. What do you call what the creationists dispute? Personally, I think "science" covers it and I'm happy to source it to Dawkins or similar, but how about you? Given that it requires a label, what would not be arbitrary or persuasive?Dr Zen 03:48, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is grossly unfair to say that creationists dispute "science." Creationists dispute any argument, evidence, theory, or assertion that disagrees with their version of creation. Creationists generally do not dispute any part of "science" that is demonstrable and repeatable, such as the gravitational constant and mass of the earth obtained repeatably from the Cavendish experiment. ---Rednblu | Talk 06:35, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not. They fundamentally dispute a scientific explanation of the origin of man, in particular, and species in general. They have learned that couching that dispute in pseudoscientific terms helps them to make their argument appear reasonable and "scientific" to the rubes they are hoping to convince (they certainly do not hope to convince scientists -- if they did, they would put their hypotheses up for peer review; note that Behe is a biochemist but does not include ID as one of his research interests!). They do not dispute any part of science that they can work into their belief system, but neither does anyone who holds religious views.Dr Zen 02:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is. Creationists dispute naturalistic explanations of the origin of man, and creationists do not dispute the origin of species (creation predicts speciation). Evolutionists have learned that couching the dispute in terms of calling their side "scientific" and the creationist side "religious" or "pseudoscientific" helps them make their lack of argument appear reasonable to their followers. Creationists are convincing scientists, despite being effectively barred from putting their peer-reviewed research in mainstream science journals. Philip J. Rayment 14:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If it is unfair to say creationists dispute science go cast your vote on VFD for Views of creationists and scientists compared.

precisely. we also dispute any RELIGIOUS model of origins that differs from ours -- hindu, buddhist, greek mythological, what have you. does that mean creationists dispute RELIGION, too? we have our opinion in both religion AND science ... and we disagree with whatever opinion, religious or scientific, that differs from that opinion, most of which relate solely to PAST EVENTS, not repeatable scientific principles. Ungtss 13:40, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The use of arbitrary and persuasive definitions of "evolution" by either side makes it impossible to figure out what definition of "evolution" is used in this debate, I recommend putting it in quotations so it recognized that the debate uses its own definitions. Also the article should inform the reader that the debate makes use of various arbitrary or persuasive definitions of the word. The same goes for the words "creation" "creationist" and "evolutionist". Bensaccount 15:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The 0.14% of earth/life scientists

This claim is often repeated around the net and seems to trace back to the Newsweek article that was originally cited and not a poll. However, Newsweek said no more, no less than that "by one count 700 [scientists of those types" were creationists. It didn't say where it got this count from (I'm guessing it has taken the 650 PhDs figure from the Discovery Institute but even DI fesses that those are not even mostly bio/earth scientists).

I think we have to leave this claim out unless it is properly substantiated. I'm going to keep looking for a decent source but let's not just put in every piece of baseless supposition we can find, hey?Dr Zen 05:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Naturally as a creationist I'd rather not see that figure there! However I had no objection as long as it was accurate, but if, as you say, it is suspect, then of course I agree with its removal. Philip J. Rayment 16:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it should be removed. It very much overstates the support among life and earth scientists for antievolutionism.Dr Zen 03:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Possibly a more accurate poll would be that 5% of all scienists, including those who work outside of the life and earth sciences, do not accept evolution. This one is backed by Gallup

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm --JPotter 17:09, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

That poll is mentioned, Jason. It's not all that "accurate" on account of not actually being sourced to Gallup. If we could find the actual poll, with the actual questions asked, that would be really helpful.Dr Zen 03:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/US/724_public_view_of_creationism_and_11_19_2004.asp --JPotter 20:04, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Jason, I know this is a really minor point, but this is the poll of the public, which I have already sourced directly to Gallup. There is no mention of a poll of scientists. In fact, all I can find is a bunch of sites all referring to the same site we refer to -- the religioustolerance one (this sounds like one of those facts that gains currency because it is widely repeated but it actually only has one source -- a bit like the Saddam shredder story). It's not a reliable source at all, so we need to find a reference to the actual Gallup poll, or take out the item, or say that some guy who has a website "claims" Gallup said 5% of scientists are creationists.Dr Zen 23:14, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrary or persuasive definitions

I agree with Eisnel that referring to evolution as "evolution by natural selection" is incorrect. It is highly debated whether the word 'evolution' is even the current scientific definition (Dr. Zen see Rednblus assertions).
The debate is obviously based on arbitrary or persuasive definitions. Does anyone not want me to add this to the introduction? Bensaccount 21:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Where is the citation to a published scholar who said that the "debate is based on arbitrary or persuasive definitions?" ---Rednblu | Talk 21:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is absurd to cite the obvious. I assume, of course, that you agree with the statement since you make no objections. Bensaccount 21:24, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not in the least do I agree with the statement that the "debate is based on arbitrary or persuasive definitions." Furthermore, it is not obvious. And in my opinion, it is wrong. To argue that the "debate is based on arbitrary or persuasive definitons" ignores the empirical evidence of what Pierre Gassendi, Matthew Hale, Erasmus Darwin, Herbert Spencer, Edgar Allen Poe, Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley, Arnold J. Toynbee, Oswald Spengler, Robert Boyd, Peter J. Richerson, Richard Wrangham, and Robert Carneiro have to say about creation and evolution--just to name a few. If you can cite to a scholar that I don't remember who says that the "debate is based on arbitrary or persausive definitions," I would be interested to know who it is. 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 06:19, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do you actually think some of these people have empirical evidence that the debate is not based on arbitrary or persuasive definitions? Please feel free to cite this so called "empirical evidence" and then we can inform the reader that Edgar Allan Poe found first hand proof that the words evolution or creation are not used arbitrarily or persuasively in this debate. Until then your objections are unfounded. Bensaccount 15:14, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<I assume, of course, that you agree with the statement since you make no objections>>
Haven't we already made clear umpteen times that we don't agree with you? Philip J. Rayment 14:28, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, you have not. Do you? And if so, why? Bensaccount 15:16, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your attempts to change the article along this line have been reverted multiple times. A well as Rednblu above, I myself have said that allegations that the debate is based on arbitrary and persuasive definitions is not "obvious". I have asked you several times to explain your claims, and you generally have not done so. For example, what makes you think that the definitions are arbitrary and persuasive? We have already disagreed with you that the definitions are misleading. Philip J. Rayment 14:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

<<Please feel free to cite this so called "empirical evidence" and then we can inform the reader that Edgar Allan Poe found first hand proof that the words evolution or creation are not used arbitrarily or persuasively in this debate. Until then your objections are unfounded.>>

And did so over a hundred years ago! The article is all in the present tense. Rednblu is rather disingenuous in referring to what a bunch of dead white men had to say about evolution. Dr Zen 23:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

slap. Rednblu | Talk 23:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
slap. Ungtss 02:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nope. We are talking about the "debate." Hence, the "empirical evidence" that counts is data on how scholars have engaged in the debate and data on how they analyzed the debate. Each of the scholars listed above, used standard dictionary definitions in engaging or describing the debate between the proponents of "creation" and the proponents of "evolution." Are standard dictionary definitions "arbitrary or persuasive"? Can you give an example of this figment of your imagination, this "arbitrary or persuasive" definition of "creation" or "evolution"? ---Rednblu | Talk 18:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with including a section on major players in the debate and how they define evolution or creation. We all know what this will reveal (different def'ns to say the least). Bensaccount 21:35, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In fact, we already have such a section. Creation_vs._evolution_debate#View_of_the_other_side. Bensaccount 22:01, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Debates on the debate

I'm thinking that we should have plenty of coverage of actual "debates" on this issue, where they have occurred. This article just wouldn't be complete without some Bullfrog! or the "bunny blunder". We definitely need good coverage of the kind of "science" that creationists actually do, rather than vague assertions that they "disagree" with this, that and the other, or think there is no "evidence" for it. This is after all what the "debate" has mostly consisted of: creationists make outlandish claims (chicken lysozyme is closer to human lysozyme than chimpanzee's is; bombardier beetles would have exploded until they evolved the enzyme that prevents the explosion of the chemicals they use; humans are more closely related to rattlesnakes than chimpanzees; the earth was eggshaped in the time of the dinosaurs; flagella could not have evolved (rather different from claiming they did not); mutations do not happen/cannot happen at two loci at once; the earth was surrounded by a "vapour canopy"; the moon would be covered in ten feet of dust if it were really old) and whatever scientist can be bothered refutes them; then creationists move on to fresh claims; all coupled with nitpicking evolution and claiming that its "inability" to explain this or that entirely invalidates it (and as with the previous, as science explains this or that, creationism finds a new this or that to nitpick -- however, science's passing the tests creationism poses never gains it any credit).Dr Zen 03:35, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<...then creationists move on to fresh claims...>>

If creationists don't discard bad ideas, they are accused of not doing science; if they do discard bad ideas, they are caricatured as "moving on to fresh claims"! How is creationists discarding hypotheses upon further investigation different to evolutionists doing the same?

I think, however, that including a bit on the actual debates could be instructive. I know of one anti-evolutionist in Oz who (a) waved live mains power cables in front of his creationist opposite number in a formal debate, encouraging him to touch the cables "to see how electricity works", (b) claimed afterwards (although not in these words) on university letterhead that the creationist was a pedophile, (c) made libellous claims about a creationist organisation on national radio (the radio station had to publicly apologise), (d) wrote a book with such sloppy proofreading that he (i) claimed that there were 23 letters in the alphabet (ii) described the boiling point of sulphur as the melting point, (e) also wrote in that book "In my view, the Bible is not true. However, it is the Truth.". (And this is just scratching the surface of this anti-creationist's tactics and claims.) An exception to the rule? Perhaps, but he has a senior teaching position at one of Australia's main universities, has been repeatedly featured on national mass media, and has been feted by the Australian Skeptics. He is without doubt Australia's best-known anti-creationist, so I'm sure that some of his tactics and claims warrant inclusion. Philip J. Rayment 14:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

table

table proposal

How about something like this

Evidence for evolution and the criticism
×	Young Earth Creationists	Old Earth Creationists	Theistic evolutionists	Intelligent Design Creationists
biostratified fossil record	fossils are distibuted as would be expected in a world wide flood	new organisms appear suddenly in the fossil record but no evidence of transitional fossils	evolution occurred but guided by a deity	apparent evolution may have occured but tinkering occured by a deity
organisms that share characteristics share a common ancestor	similarities are due to a common designer	similarities are due to a common designer	accept common descent	some accept common descent, other say similarities are due to a common designer
similarities in DNA indicate common descent	similarities are due to a common designer	similarities are due to a common designer	accept common descent	some accept common descent, other say similarities are due to a common designer
the existence of transitional fossils	none exist/fake	none exist/fake	accept common descent	some accept common descent, others claim transitional fossils are fake, others claim deity tinkering
vestigal structures	modern vestiges have a purpose	modern vestiges have a purpose	accept common descent	unclear

--JPotter 23:25, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

This would only be of value in an article that was concerned solely with pointing out creationist quibbles with science...

... oh, I see.Dr Zen 02:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, with uniformitarianism! Philip J. Rayment 14:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you can know what that means, if you think that is what creationists have a quibble with. I don't think there would be even one latterday scientists who is a uniformitarian sensu Lyell. There are, by my understanding, reasonably few creationists who do not believe the laws of physics are if not constant then at least explicable in terms of the laws of today (IOW, not too many active in the debate who would claim that the water of the flood just appeared from nowhere or that the speed of light was faster in the past, but plenty who will argue for underground reservoirs of water or longer days or even God creating photons to give the illusion of a vast universe, or God creating a vast universe with I forget what mechanism to get the light here quickly enough). Dr Zen 05:40, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that you know how much of a problem creationists have with the idea that processes that we see today are what shaped the past. As you say, they don't have a problem with the universality of the laws of physics. Philip J. Rayment 14:38, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i think it's an absolutely brilliant table, jason. what does everyone else think? Ungtss 02:39, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Great table! But shouldn't it go on the Creationism page? That brilliant table seems to be only about "creationism" and is not about the "creation vs. evolution debate." ---Rednblu | Talk 08:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Either it should go on the Creationism page, or it should have an extra column for the evolutionary view. Philip J. Rayment 14:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The table has potential, but with the number of repetitive statements (Young- and Old-Earth Creationists are identical except for one entry, Theistic Evolutionists says the same thing every row except the first) I wonder if it is really worth it. Philip J. Rayment 14:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We don't need this. Bensaccount 15:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(a) it looks a mess and not worthy of an encyclopedia (b) it doesnt contain the view of mainstream science CheeseDreams 03:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

World War III

Don't you guys occasionally get the feeling that some day this debate is going to get so tense that the world will snap, and world war III will break out? The two sides will, roughly speaking, be the believers and non-believers (in creationism). I mean doesn't this seem inevitable? It's not like either side will 'give in'.. so they'll just end up fighting it out to the death. 131.111.8.97 23:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i wouldn't be surprised. there's clearly more at stake here than mere interpretation of science. this is a religious war in fine Western tradition -- the ancient war between the creationists and the atomists. i do hope we can learn how to coexist in peace:). Ungtss 02:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's no such thing. It's the conflict between religion, which deals with truths, and science, which does not. The former is insisting that the latter pay in the same currency as it does. It knows its audience demands truth and it can spin science as lies.Dr Zen 02:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More fictitious categorisation with no substance. Philip J. Rayment 14:29, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More big words without any hint that you know what they mean.Dr Zen 05:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Frankly no. On the one hand, it's a debate largely restricted to the United States, where it is part of a larger debate, and on the other, scientists generally ignore creationists. If creationists were able to push their agenda through the courts to the extent of getting a supreme court ruling that creationism should be taught in schools, then there would be a serious problem. But they won't. No matter what kind of whackjob Bush puts on to the panel, they won't. None of the arguments for it actually stand up. It's one thing convincing a few rubes in Kansas; quite another to create an argument that will stand the broad scrutiny of the nation and the world.Dr Zen 02:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not restricted to the U.S.A., even if that's where opinion is most evenly divided. It is pure anti-creationist rhetoric to say that none of the arguments for it stand up. Most scientists probably ignore the debate because it doesn't concern them. That is, they don't have a strong opinion either way, or it is not their field. But considering the attempts to put creationism down that have appeared in the major journals, it is not accurate to say that scientists generally ignore creationists. Philip J. Rayment 14:29, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's largely restricted to the USA, which is what I said. None of the arguments for it have ever stood up, Philip. Each has been readily refuted without any problem. When they are, creationists invent a new argument. Most scientists simply aren't interested because, as scientists, they are interested in exploring natural explanations for natural occurrences, and don't believe supernatural explanations have any part in science as such. Attempts to "put down" creationism have not appeared in peer-reviewed journals, Philip, which are where science has its debates.Dr Zen 05:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on how large "largely" is. One anecdote proves nothing, but the U.S. Court decision to ban the stickers in evolution text books made the newspaper today here in Melbourne, Australia.

Obviously, I disagree that none of the arguments have ever stood up. That is your POV, it is not mine. Perhaps my use of the word "journals" was sloppy. I was referring to things like Scientific American and National Geographic. Philip J. Rayment 14:38, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As to your first point, Philip, perhaps you might note the distinction between where it is debated and where it is reported. For the second, you guys need to be a lot clearer about the difference between magazines that popularise science and peer-reviewed literature. Dr Zen 23:18, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

thanks for telling us "rubes" how it is in the real world. please, share more with me about how stupid i am. i find it quite persuasive. Ungtss 02:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've demonstrated at great length that many of the creationist misrepresentations that you have proposed are not correct, Ungtss. I don't say you're stupid but I do believe that religion can make a person blind to the truth as well as reveal it. Dr Zen 02:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is not enough to tell a creationist that his misrepresentations are not correct. The real challenge is to state the case for evolution in a way that convinces. The proponents of evolution have not done that yet--because most scientists ignore creationists. ---Rednblu | Talk 03:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have claimed it; you haven't demonstrated it. But you are right about religion. Atheism can make a person blind to the truth. Philip J. Rayment 14:29, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But science is not trying to convince creationists, Rednblu. That's not what it does. This is, I feel, where your devil's advocacy fails. Creationists believe what they believe. Science is not in the business of dispelling belief. It simply describes what it sees. It sees evolution. You can take or leave it. Creationists more than just leave it. They insist that science ought to say it sees something else.Dr Zen 05:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, science is not trying to convince creationists. But many scientists are. The scientists believe evolution as an integral part of their worldview. For them, they cannot "take it or leave it" any more than creationists can. Philip J. Rayment 14:29, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is just another mischaracterisation. The theory of evolution is accepted by scientists because it is so very well attested. Your argument is akin to suggesting they take the theory of relativity or quantum physics as articles of faith. They do not, of course. Dr Zen 05:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is your opinion that evolution is accepted because it is so well attested. Creationists have a different view. Goo-to-you evolution is unlike relativity and quantum physics as the latter are things that can be studied in the present, whereas goo-to-you evolution is in the unobservable past. Philip J. Rayment 14:38, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No. It is science's opinion that it is well attested. I will be putting that into the article in good time, with quotes. I said that its being well attested is why it is accepted by scientists. You say that "creationists have a different view". Their view on why people accept it is for the obvious reasons of less weight than the view of those people themselves.

No, it is the opinion of evolutionary scientists (I never said that it was your opinion only). Some evolutionists have admitted that they believe it for religious or philosophical reasons. Philip J. Rayment 01:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Philip, the past is clearly observable. Let me give you an example of how. If I say "Jane Austen wrote Pride and Prejudice", this is an observation. I didn't see her write it. I cannot replicate her writing it in a lab. But many lines of evidence lead me to the conclusion that she did.

And no, before you say so, evolution is not different from Jane Austen in this.Dr Zen 23:18, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, evolution is different. You didn't say what the "many lines of evidence" are, but the fact that you didn't see her write it means that it is not an observation, on your part at least. However, you could legitimately argue that is was an observation on the part of her contemporaries, and that observation is documented. But the same does not apply for evolution. It does however apply (if you believe it) for creation, as the Bible is the documentation of those that observed it. So creation has the sort of evidence that you claim for Jane Austen, whereas evolution doesn't! Philip J. Rayment 01:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

dr zen, you have demonstrated absolutely nothing except profound ignorance. would you please tell me how the fossils formed, how fossil fuels formed, how mammals formed, how the geologic column formed, how loess formed, how the eye formed, or how salt domes formed? 'cause i have a very reasonable solution that comes from a really old book that nobody knows who wrote but has captured the hearts and minds of millions of people because it makes a HELLUVALOT more sense than anything you have to say.

I don't remember reading about the formation of loess in the Bible. Can you direct me to that part?Dr Zen 05:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

um ... if i limited myself to the ideas in the bible, i'd be ignorant. instead, i find signs of the global flood everywhere ... i hear every culture in the world reporting one ... and one reporting a global flood with dates, ages, and dimensions, and named individuals that are still used in tracking descent today, and i think, "hmm ... these "mainstream scientists" can't seem to explain jack, while a global flood can ... maybe instead of asking people to infer what happened 6000 years ago from assumptions about radiation levels in rocks, i should go direct to the source -- records kept by people who were there. Ungtss 19:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here are four possible explanations for the widespread nature of flood myths, Ungtss, which you might like to consider. One, there was a huge flood, and different cultures (although not all) report it; two, there was a flood in one place, which one culture reports and the story is twisted and used by other cultures (just like the story of Jesus, for example, which has its place in four major religions and many minor ones); three, there was no flood but a culture invented a story that gained broader currency (a bit like the notion of Satan/the demiurge, which became infected by Zoroastrianism, perhaps); four, the idea of a cleansing flood is for whatever reason a basic archetype for humans (perhaps, as has been suggested, we evolved by water -- in any case, our early civilisations were all based near rivers and most settlement has of course relied on being near water in one form or another).

In any case, I've explained your flood, but you didn't manage to explain loess. You changed the subject, actually.Dr Zen 05:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Options 2 and 3 are stretching it considering the worldwide extent of flood legends. Option 4 doesn't account for some of the remarkable similarities of some of the legends, such as eight people involved or a rainbow at the end. Philip J. Rayment 14:38, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Flood legends are by no means ubiquitous. Some cultures have them, some don't. Those that do are generally in areas that suffer periodic flooding or are in close cultural contact with them.

Philip, there would need to be eight people and a rainbow in every flood story and not just in the ones that can be shown to be from interconnected cultures, were your hypothesis to have any merit.

Why? Because there's a myth of a man in a red suit, who visits everyone's house once a year. All the details are shared in the many cultures that tell his story: same number of reindeer, same white beard, same elves helping him load the sleigh.Dr Zen 23:18, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, there doesn't need to be eight people and a rainbow in every flood story, but I would agree that they need to be in otherwise unconnected stories. And those sorts of things are. Santa is a recent story in a time when there is world-wide communication. That is different to flood stories from cultures that have supposedly had no communication. Philip J. Rayment 01:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

mr. rednblue -- i wonder if mainstream scientists listened to creationists, they might find some answers to the questions they can't seem to answer, without putting a damper on any of the questions they CAN answer. Ungtss 04:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Creationists are not asking questions that scientists can't answer, so much as they ask "why can't you explain everything?" or "why can't you explain X in a way that includes my intuitions?" The former has a ready answer: science is progressive; the latter an even readier one: your intuitions are not a fact that requires explanation.Dr Zen 05:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, scientists make the mistake of thinking that just figuring out the answer is enough. But just figuring out the answer is not enough. What is missing from the "creation vs. evolution debate" is the scientists designing a demonstration of evolution that would be convincing to the creationists. 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 08:31, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the debate that you and I are having is that you are only reading your own posts, I think. I have said already that that is not science's problem, because it is not in the business of convincing creationists.Dr Zen 05:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i wouldn't mind at all if that were the case -- i look forward to the demonstration:). Ungtss 19:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm reassured in your confidence, Dr Zen, that there will be no world ending war over this. Then the other scenario that comes to mind is that in a few generations, scientific thought will advance further through schools, and the internet, (like Wikipedia) until only a tiny percentage will be 'holding on' to the creationist beliefs. In this case, though, does it not seem logical that the general belief in God, or some supernatural power will also fade away? Kids would be taught "science explains most things pretty well.. there's no hard evidence for God.. but you can believe in him if you like". 131.111.8.97 10:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think there is one of two possibilities. One, we see the continuance of the dissolution of the great beliefs, as more people understand more of the world. Beliefs such as creationism, at least as explanations of the world, are untenable in the face of the evidence, and the only hope creationists have of avoiding rejection is to force cultural mechanisms to include their beliefs on the same footing as science. The other possibility is that the boundaries between science and religion might be more clearly drawn. Science does the how but it does not touch on the why. It will be many years, centuries I think, before we have an understanding of how we work that is sufficient to exclude God as a personal element -- if that turns out to be possible at all. Dr Zen 05:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There will be no world war over this. However, with the small-but-growing band of creationary scientists doing ever more research, and publishing their research in media not controlled by the evolutionary elite, including on the Internet where almost everyone has access to it, plus the growing interest in Christian schools and home-schooling, more and more people are getting to hear that there actually is a rational alternative to belief in evolution. The number of people believing in creation is growing steadily and one day all those scientists that Dr Zen keeps telling us are not interested will have to start taking notice. Students will be taught that what we believe about our past depends on our starting assumptions, not on science, because science does not have the past to investigate. Philip J. Rayment 14:29, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whoa there.. hold on a minute. The number of people believing in creation is growing? Is this true or false? I don't actually know, but I was under the impression it's false. Or perhaps if true, it's only because the population of the world is growing.. I mean if you drew a graph of the proportion of creationists in the world over time, (it would be extremely interesting) and i think at 1000 years ago, close to 100%.. 200 years ago, about the same? 50 years ago.. i don't know, maybe 80-90%.. today is what, 50%? these are complete guesses, but you get my drift.. it's not unreasonable to expect that 'number' to hit 10% within the next couple hundred years.. is it? 131.111.8.102 18:13, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the numbers are growing, based on my experience here in Australia. But I am talking about growth in the last 20 years, not the last 1000. Philip J. Rayment 14:38, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's been reasonably stable in the States, as the Gallup polls show, and I think most of the world remains creationist, because it lacks access to scientific education.Dr Zen 05:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry your faith depends so much on propaganda but this is not the place to get it. Bensaccount 15:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removing POV phrase about atheism

In the Creation_vs._evolution_debate#What_is_driving_the_debate section I've rewritten the inaccurate and inflammatory phrase "informed by the religion of Atheism" to read "arising from the ideologies of atheism". It's deliberate POV spinning like this by a few that casts a cloud over the credibility of those creationists who are actually contributing in good faith.--FeloniousMonk 20:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a good instance where a quote would be better than the interpretation of one of our editors?Dr Zen 05:42, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that the phrase was POV, but I disagree that it was wrong. Whether or not atheism is a religion depends on your definition of religion, and I, along with many others, certainly do class it as religion. I don't think that I was the author of that phrase in the article, however. Philip J. Rayment 14:38, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that personal definitions have no place in an encyclopedia article. I didn't think you were the author, Rayment, as I've yet to see that you have much of an axe to grind with atheism. As Dr. Zen suggested, a direct quote with a cite would be the only way the phrase could worked back into the article I think.--FeloniousMonk 17:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Baiting and switching of terms and ideas

A number of recent additions to the article begin their postulates with the umbrella terms of "creation" and "creationism" but finish the same postulates by invoking "intelligent design/designer": [3] This is a bait and switch. Though closely related, they are essentially separate ideas-- the most common understanding of creationism claims a deity created the universe, intelligent design claims one or more powerful and intelligent beings created the universe (the criteria that differentiates them from deities seems undefined and ambiguous to me). Either way, the two ideas and terms should be split out and dealt with individually.--FeloniousMonk 20:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whilst Intelligent Design as a movement is not identical to Creationism as a movement, the creator of the universe almost by definition has to be an intelligent designer, and creationists have always believed this to be the case. Philip J. Rayment 14:38, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. That's what needs to be explained to the reader I think. You want to handle it?--FeloniousMonk 17:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was going to change the paragraph concerned, but then realised that it was correct as it was. It says that "Other creationists, particularly adherents of intelligent design, dispute the modern theory of evolution only in the area of the origin of the adaptive complexity and diversity of life...". Most creationists (i.e. non-ID people) don't dispute evolution only in that area. It is primarily ID people that do, so the paragraph is really about ID-type people. The last sentence I nearly altered also, as ID-type people mostly do not base their beliefs on scriptures, but it is probably true that some do, which is what it says. The whole thing could be made clearer I guess, but at the moment I'm not sure the best way of doing that. Philip J. Rayment 15:18, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Second paragraph

In Europe, support for evolution, with or without God's involvement, is nearly universal. In the Middle East, creation as described in the various religions' scriptures is nearly universally believed. In both of those places, there is very little debate, due to the dominance of one opinion.

This is personal research. A much more obvious, less biased reason for the lack of debate is that the debate is a false dichotomy. However the reason for less debate is certainly not as straightforeward as a simple dominance of one opinion. Bensaccount 23:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ben, you've been repeating that nonsense for a month now and it makes no more sense than when you began. the reason for lack of debate is not "false dichotomy." the reason is that in those two areas, everybody AGREES. have you BEEN to the middle east? (somehow i doubt it, since you thought it was in the south central US) please, ben, educate yourself before you vandalize the page. your pov -- that the debate is a false dichotomy -- is just ONE POV HERE. there are others who think there is a REAL dichotomy. that paragraph is accurate, and important, because it explains why the debate is amerocentric. your edit is DESTRUCTIVE. Why are you so interested in destroying this page? Ungtss 04:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All I am suggesting is that we inform the reader that at least some people in the middle east don't debate because they don't see a dichotomy. Anyways, since in Europe there is no simple dominance of one opinion, the statement that in both of those places, there is very little debate, due to the dominance of one opinion is an outright lie. Bensaccount 19:04, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

okay -- i'll add a qualifier if that will allow us to move beyond this silliness. it is NOT an outright lie, however. a short visit to either locale will reveal that it is very clearly the case, and that they DO see a dichotomy ... the dichotomy between a world that is 6,000 years old and humans were created separately and a world that is 10 billion years old and we're related to slugs. Ungtss 23:14, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The person you visited during your "short trip" may or may not have seen a dichotomy. This does not mean that everyone in Europe sees one. Bensaccount 16:29, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Biological evolution

If you insist on calling the theory that creationists dispute "biological evolution", you must give a comprehensive definition of it up front.

The basic theory is "evolution by natural selection" or even "descent with modification". Yes, there are other elements, but this is like saying you can't call Einstein's theory "the theory of relativity" because it involves other things than relativity.

It is ridiculous to call it "biological evolution", as though it were contrasted with other kinds of evolution. It is not. If one says evolution, one generally means "biological evolution".Dr Zen 05:51, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. The dictionary definition of "evolution" puts "a gradual process of change" as the first definition, and biological evolution as the second. Many people use the word "evolution" in contexts other than biological evolution, such as the evolution of stars and evolution of the motor car. And the use of the word "evolution" in the title of this article is broader than biological evolution, as it explains in the first paragraph. The problem I have with "Darwinian evolution" is that it could be read as being distinct from "neo-Darwinian evolution". The problems I have with "evolution by natural selection" are that more than natural selection is involved, it suggests that natural selection is the key point of the process that is in dispute, yet creationists agree with natural selection, and it is wordy. As I posted above, I have suggested and tried various terms, and "biological evolution" to me seems the most suitable so far. Philip J. Rayment 14:38, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I would also argue that if creationists are going to dispute specific scientific theories, they must identify them by their actual, correct names or risk being perceived as using bait-and-switch tactics. For example, by using the correct and specific term "modern evolutionary synthesis" to identify what Rayment is getting at above, one immediately signifies that one means neo-darwinism and not darwinism or some form of non-biological evolution. This makes for a more encyclopedic article and also has the added benefit of directing readers to related articles on the actual science. I suggest that moving forward we each make an effort to use the correct terms as they are being used in the field and that someone (perhaps I'll do it) go into the article and change the ambiguous terms to the specific terms that they refer to.--FeloniousMonk 19:19, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I thought you were saying that you agreed with me, including on the choice of "biological evolution", but then you appear to be suggesting "modern evolutionary synthesis" instead. Regardless, I don't have a problem with that term, except that it is a bit longer. Not that we have to use it in every reference; if it is clear from the context that "evolution" refers to "the modern evolutionary synthesis" (such as a subsequent use in the same passage), that reduces some of the wordiness. Philip J. Rayment 15:18, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with parts of what Dr. Zen says and with parts of what Dr. Rayment says. Part of the reality of the "debate" here is that there are different legitimate definitions of "evolution." As I understand it, Dr. Rayment argues for the scholarly position that creationists should be able to use the definition of "evolution" that has been used continuously since at least the 1600s by English acholars; by this scholarly definition, "evolution" includes abiogenesis. In contrast, Dr. Zen argues that we should use exclusively the definiton of "evolution" that first appeared around 1872; by this scholarly definition, the definition of "evolution" is controlled by the scientists. So the question is this: Does NPOV permit the scientists to control the definitions of common English words used on Wikipedia? ---Rednblu | Talk 21:58, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, of course, man, an encyclopaedia written in 2005 should use the terms current in 1650!

Wrong. We are not claiming that in 2005 we should use an obsolete term, but a term that was in use in 1650 and is still current. Philip J. Rayment 01:52, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The overwhelming problem with using definitions of evolution that suit Philip is that his definition is persuasive, as Ben has suggested. Whereas modern evolutionary theory quite specifically leaves abiogenesis moot -- as Darwin did, stating time after time that the theory of natural selection can work from any point in history, and most biologists, who use the theory in their day-to-day work, do not have anything to say about abiogenesis or any particular opinion on the ultimate origin of life, creationists want to include it into any definition of evolution. Why? Because it is a/ an area of science with far more gaps than evolutionary theory and b/ it will be their last stand when they have to give up on evolution (they've already had to give up on microevolution and most of macroevolution -- they cannot hang on to the nonsense about "information" for very long).Dr Zen 23:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The definition of evolution, as I have previously argued, can include the concept of more than just biological evolution, and in the minds of people that think of the "creation vs. evolution debate", they are thinking of a debate over more than just evolution. Creationists have not had to "give up" on microevolution or most of macroevolution; that is a mischaracterisation. I personally am not arguing to include abiogenesis in biological evolution, although some evolutionsts (probably a minority though) do just that. Philip J. Rayment 01:52, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i think this is good talk. what we're after is the concept of "goo-to-you" evolution as mr. rayment calls it, in slightly more scientific terms. nobody argues about variation and natural selection. whether macroevolution or increasing genetic information is the issue is disputed. the real issue is, "did everything evolve in an unbroken line from rna-world?" any ideas on ways to capture this idea clearly? Ungtss 23:14, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But at the risk of sounding like a broken record I should point out that just as Darwin specifically did not address ultimate origins, they are quite moot to the modern evolutionary theory. Dr Zen 23:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Rayment?? The only doctor in the family is my Dad's aunt Dulcie! I'm thinking of putting some information about myself on my user page, so watch that if you are interested.

Rather than arguing for a "scholarly" position, I'm arguing for an "in general use" position, but that certainly would include scholarly use in fields outside biological evolution (sorry, "the modern evolution synthesis").

I believe that this article should be about, and therefore the word evolution as used in the title should include, not just goo-to-you* evolution, but the evolution of the universe, of galaxies, stars, the solar system, etc. In other words, just about everything that creationists disagree with evolutionists—sorry, mainstream scientists—on.

*–I first came across this term as part of the title of a book "From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo", and have noticed other creationists using the term also.

Philip J. Rayment 15:18, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a wild goose chase. We won't agree on a definition because the entire debate is based on arbitrary or persuasive definitions, but go ahead and try anyways if you want. Bensaccount 18:18, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All I'm looking for, Ben, is that this article has the barest minimum of creationist misrepresentation. It's becoming apparent, though, that they are utterly determined not only to misrepresent Gould, Darwin and anyone else that they can, but all of science too, if necessary by insisting that we should discuss "evolution" using the definitions of the 17th century! Maybe we should. That's where most creationists are stuck, after all. Dr Zen 23:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

8)) Unfortunately, creationists have used the 17th century definitions of "evolution" since the 17th century; many words have been used since the 17th century with little change in definition. It was Darwin and other anti-creationists that played the fool and borrowed the creationist term "evolution" around 1870 and tried to re-define it. So here we are. ---Rednblu | Talk 02:08, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)