Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive 20

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 15

←

Archive 18

→

Transitional fossils

This section is not neutral as it claims that the creationist's argument is based on a misunderstanding. This is subjective, as their argument is based on interpretation and therefore, you cannot say one is a misunderstanding over the other because you cannot know whether the evolutionist is misunderstanding the creationist's argument. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.173.184 (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have a contrary view, and it is published in a peer-reviewed mainstream journal like Science, Nature, Journal of the Royal Society, something published by the National Academy of Sciences or equivalent, then bring it to this talk page. Otherwise, it is just your own personal assertion and is not worth much.--Filll (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think the article is giving creationists too much credit in calling it a "misunderstanding" -- it appears to be a purposeful "strawman" distortion of "transitional feature" that they have created -- the old "what use is half an eye" fallacy (when evolution in fact deals with "an eye with half the features" -- where these "features" are colour, depth perception, focusing, etc, etc). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It has been stated that the change from a creature the size of a mouse, to one the size of an elephant, could be accomplished over 60,000 years, with a rate of change too small to be noticed over any human lifetime. 60,000 years is too small a gap to be identified or identifiable in the fossil record. Also Robert M. Hazen in "Genesis: the scientific quest for life's origin" writes on transitional fossils. Alan Haywood, the creatonist, in 1985 stated that Darwinists rarely speak of whales because of the absence of transitional forms. He further stated that if whales had originally been land animals, then there once must have been whales with vestigal hind limbs. The cover story of Nature on "When whales walked the Earth" shows that there were many transitional forms exactly like this. Basilosaurus, the toothed whale found in Egypt has been shown to have vestigal hind limbs, Rhodocetus, 46 million years old from Pakistan had larger hind limbs and the Ambulocetus (walking whale), 52 million years old had limbs rather like a seal. Hazen shows the argument about transitional forms is another version of the God of the Gaps theory, that finishes up trivialising our concept of God, as all it takes is the discovery of a new fossil and the "transitional types" problem disappears. John D. Croft (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, please can you explain why this entire article is written from an evolutionary perspective? I am concerned that this article points out the flaws in creationists arguments rather than presenting, neutrally, what the debate is about. For example, the section on entitled Misrepresentations of Science constitutes an accusation against creationists that they misquote evolutionists when they may claim that evolutionists do exactly the same thing. And, from my research, both sides misquote and misrepresent one another. Another example of the non neutrality of this article can be found in this quote, "Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered." This is a valid defence of the arguments that creationists use but something which is inappropriate in an informational document claiming to present the facts of the debate, we have EvoWiki for that, it should not be brought up here. The neutrality of this article is severely in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.173.184 (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess you didnt read what I wrote above. Take a sentence you do not like. Present it here. Present a substitute version. Make sure you have WP:RS for your suggested change.--Filll (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. An example may be: "Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered." This sentence should be removed as this article is not supposed to be a defence of evolution but a presentation of the views of both sides. So maybe, rather than removing this sentence it could say, "Creationists claim that there are no transitional forms in the fossil records. Evolutionists dispute this as a fallacious claim and a misrepresentation of the facts." Surely the arguments are irrelevant from either side, all we need to know in this article is what either side believes, not the specific claim and refutation. Furthermore, if this sentence is allowed then surely a reference from a creationist's viewpoint should be citied? I am a user, not an editor and this article troubled me when I saw it because large parts of it do not appear to be neutral.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Well first, learn to sign your contributions or you will not be taken very seriously. Second, you have to provide sources if you want to make claims like that. For example, provide a source that shows that we would expect the fossil record to be so complete that all transitional forms should be present and found, if they existed. These sorts of sources should be in peer-reviewed science journals, like Science, Nature, Transactions of the Royal Society, or Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Then you will be taken seriously.--Filll (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on signing, I'm new here. Saying that sources should be in peer reviewed science journals is effectively asking the decks to be stacked the favour of the scientific communitie's viewpoint. Creationism is a fringe theory and is not accepted in the the scientific community but that is not relevant in this article. Sources are also irrelevant, the merits of each claim should not be being discussed here, this is an informative article, not a refutation of creationism. Is this a fair point?? Fritleyfrisp (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it is not absolutely necessary to have peer-reviewed sources, but there are a special set of rules about what sorts of sources are admissable, which can be found at WP:RS and WP:V. If you want to see how WP deals with fringe subjects, look at WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT to get an idea. The basic rule of thumb is that the views will be represented in accordance with their prominence, or in proportion with their prominence. So for fringe subjects, they are usually written from a mainstream point of view (POV). Look at inteligent design as a top-rated example of this.--Filll (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that this article should debate the relative merits of each side's argument, quite the opposite; it should present the controversy in a neutral fashion. I will repeat what I have said previously. This article is *not* a refutation of creationism, it is a presentation of the controversy. I find the article troubling in several places including the Misrepresentations of Science section which practically indicts creationists in a libellous slur against their integrity. Quote mining is not a neutral issue, it is a matter of interpretation. This article still troubles me and, if I knew how, I would report it to Wikipedia.Fritleyfrisp (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've just reported it to the community, which is all of us including yourself. Have a look at NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity" – Wikipedia's approach based on verifiable facts automatically doesn't give support to magical revealed Truth. It's quite wrong to read it as a slur against the integrity of creationists; though some have been found in court to have problems with perjury, I'm sure many are deeply and sincerely deluded. ... dave souza, talk 00:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The neutral observers of science have dealt with the problems of creationism in a neutral fashion. There's no controversy, there's a political battle that was started by the creationist side to force the scientific educational system to embrace a non-scientific theory. See the creation-evolution controversy. There is no scientific merit to the creationist 'side', and this has amply been demonstrated many, many times. But if you've got a reliable source, put it up. WLU (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether they have demonstrated it or not is irrelevant to this article. I am not proposing that we debate the merits, or lack thereof, of each side, just that the facts are presented. A large portion of the Transitional Fossils section serves to show the Creationist's misunderstanding of transitional fossils. This article is not the place to do that, we have blogs and EvoWiki for that. Please don't miss the point Fritleyfrisp (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

First, Filll, you should not WP:BITE the newcomers, especially while incorrectly using the {{unsigned}} template, as you did here.

Second, WP:FRINGE is probably not applicable to this article in the way that you think. I suspect you think that WP:FRINGE should be applied to creationism, creation science, and intelligent design in this article as it should in articles having to do with science. In this article, the WP:FRINGE POV would be that the C/E controversy will lead to nuclear Armageddon, or that the C/E controversy is part of a New World Order conspiracy theory.

But, this is mostly a socio-political controversy, not just a scientific controversy. Consequently, except in sections dealing with the scientific controversy, the NPOV is a socio-political POV (e.g., the POV of Larson and/or Numbers), not a "scientific" (read: NCSE, Panda's Thumb, TalkOrigins) POV. Indeed, this article reads like a sophomoric NCSE imitation.

You know this, and you understand this, and you've heard this before. But it is time you start considering the message instead of what you view to be the character faults of the messenger. Pernicious Swarm (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for playing. NEXT!--Filll (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"[E]specially while incorrectly using the {{unsigned}} template"? So what are you trying to say - that one's usage of {{unsigned}} has any bearing on anything at all? Please try to be civil. Guettarda (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I will try. Where were you when Filll jumped on a newbie for not signing. "Well first, learn to sign your contributions or you will not be taken very seriously."[1] Not too friendly, and what does signing have to do with the validity of what one writes? Pernicious Swarm (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"I will try" And yet you continue. Guettarda (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo is watching. Ever watching. Pernicious Swarm (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is the last time I will say this. The lack of scientific merit is not under debate in this article, this article claims to be representation of the facts of the controversy, not a debunking of the creationist model. It is not an article which is intended to debunk creationism. I'm not sure how many different ways I have to say this in order for it to sink in. The neutrality of this article is questionable, especially in the Transitional Fossils section. Whether or not the creationists view of transitional fossils is a misunderstanding is totally irrelevant to the controversy. I have attempted to put this across in a sensible fashion but some users are trying to get me to offer the other side of the argument. The other side of the argument is not appropriate for this article!!! Let me say it one more time to be clear: this article is NOT intended to document the alleged falsehoods propogated by the creationist community. It is NOT the appropriate place to accuse creationists of quote mining, if you wish to do that, get a blog or provide balanced evidence that evolutionists and indeed writers in other disciplines don't do this. It is NOT a place to defend evolution. Please look objectively at what I am saying for the good of this article because your current attitude is serving to show undue bias. Please use EvoWiki to debunk creationism. Many thanksFritleyfrisp (talk) 09:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Detailed proposals for improvements with reliable third party sources will be welcomed. Of course, if sources present points as significant points in the controversy, whether for or against, these should be proportionately represented. Unfortunately many creationists are prone to quote mining, and to recycling the same old mined quotes – ID presents startling examples of this tendency. As the article indicates, some such as AiG advise against some quotemines, but I'm not in a position at present to say if they do it themselves. If a reliable third party source has presented evidence of "evolutionists" doing the same, that can be included. ... dave souza, talk 10:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Dave, do you think NPR is reliable? More reliable (and objective) than NCSE puppets? Well, take a look at this reliable source then. Of course, panda's thumb regulars and NCSE meat puppets have their own mythology surrounding these events. Pernicious Swarm (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, Summer for the Gods is a good source for this article. It might not be the best source for an article on intelligent design (except in a historical section) but it is a wonderful source for this article. Pernicious Swarm (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose it is removed because the accusation that creationists misquote evolutionists claiming that they don't believe their own theory is a distortion of the facts. I have yet to come across a creationist who claims that an evolutionist's admission that the problems with the theory serve to prove that it is untrue. In my experience, creationists quote evolutionist's not in an attempt to disprove the theory, merely to demonstrate that there are problems with the theory that even evolutionist's admit. This section, therefore, is biased, based on a emotion driven point of view of the fringe argument. So, I propose we remove the Misrepresentations of Science section and clean up the transitional fossils section. Being new to Wiki, I'm going to need some time to see how this is done and perhaps then I could come back with a proposal. Many thanks. Fritleyfrisp (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Fritleyfrisp, look at the Numbers and Larson references. You will need to have sources. Only problem is that the guardians will trump your references (e.g., Pulizer prize winning historian, and NPR Journalist) with blog entries at Panda's Thumb by NCSE employees and their toadies. Pernicious Swarm (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Are we still discussing this actively? The 'misunderstanding', and further, the constant failure of creationists to acknowledge that they were once misunderstanding and are now actively misrepresenting, science, biology, paleontology, nuclear physics, and many other branches of science, are definitely part of the controversy. Creationists twist, distort, accidentally and deliberately misquote scientific sources to portray a blatantly false message, in an attempt to win people over to their erroneous, and spurious point of view. Their methods of doing so, including transitional fossils and quote mining, are valid for the page (like including Nixon erasing tapes during Watergate; or whatever, US political history isn't my strong suit) because it shows the persistent use of lies to promote a political agenda to a bunch of scientifically naive Christians, or fence-sitters who want to 'teach the controversy' when there is no controversy. It's not NPOV to point out, as many, many reliable sources have, that creationists have been fucking lying for years, even after their lies have been pointed out many, many times, bu they keep lying. Their use of lies as a political strategy is definitely suitable for the page. WLU (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Your post reveals you bias. Active misrepresentation is a matter of opinion. I have been actively misrepresented in presenting my arguments and have even been called a liar. When challenged to present these lies, the accuser has run away, unable to do anything but rely on his opinion that creationists are liars. Whether they are actively lying or not is a matter of opinion and your words only go further in confirming that this article is biased. You don't find theologians silencing atheists because they have a misunderstanding of God so why should creationists be punished for expressing a point of view about whether or not they agree with the scientific consensus? Also, have you done your own independent research into whether creationists are lying because I have and it all seems like a huge hot air balloon onto which everyone jumps when they don't have the first clue about the subject. For example, I was told by a person who claimed to be familiar with the controversy that they had never met a scientist who was a creationist on the grounds of evolution being unscientific but, if he truly was familiar with the subject and had gone to each source independently instead of reading the other side's argument put forward by evolutionists, he would have known that there are lots of scientists who have claimed this and have personal testimonies to back it up. Anyway, I can see this is a waste of time, so I'll stop here. Thanks for giving attention to my posts anyway. Fritleyfrisp (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit. Go to this page, it'll cover basically everything. Within science, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of evidence - creationism has none, evolution has mountains. Quote mining isn't a matter of opinion either, this page shows quotes being misused for years, sometimes decades. I agree, this is a waste of time. It's been dealt with before, the page is fine. I read the section in question today, there's no problems bar needing some referencing for commonly-known ideas. WLU (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, it seems that evolutionist's are missing the point. Anytime a creationist quotes an evolutionist they seem to get upset about it and start kicking and screaming because they don't like the fact that creationists have jumped on the problems that they express. Creationists have an agenda and so the will quote an evolutionist if they claim that their theory has problems not to demonstrate that evolution is wrong but to show what the public do not see, that evolution is not an iron clad theory. Do you hear that being taught in schools? Within science, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of evidence - creationism has none, evolution has mountains. Odd how it's the same evidence that everyone is looking at. Creationists are *NOT* quoting evolutionists to show that evolution is wrong and creation is right, they are quoting them to support the idea that scientific opinion changes and God's Word doesn't. It is not evidence of creation, it's about Biblical authority. The links you provided are one sided. Can you point me to any website that documents both the behaviour of creationists and evolutionists from a neutral standpoint? I challenge you to do that and see what objectivity does to the argument. Evolutionists are as bad as creationists at misrepresentation, they just don't see it because they think they have the facts. The section entitled Misrepresentations of Science should be removed as it is missing the point of the creationist's argument.Fritleyfrisp (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No it's not "the same evidence" -- the 'Creationist' evidence is a carefully cherry-picked subset of the scientific evidence, pieced together on the basis of its compatibility with their prejudged conclusions rather than for accuracy or internal consistency (often leading to employment of superseded and/or incompatible information). And if you think that "God's Word doesn't [change]" then you clearly know nothing about the history of Judaism, Christianity and the Bible. So I suggest you go back to being spoon-fed 'proof texts' by your preacher, and leave serious scholarship to those who can handle it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm not trying to debate, this isn't the appropriate place so lets not be uncivil. If you look carefully, I stated the creationist's argument that God's Word does not change, I didn't say I believed that. So, lets agree to disagree, thanks for your time. Fritleyfrisp (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a matter of disinterest to me whether this self-deluding position is yours or merely theirs. I would also point out that this position (that science changes, and so is inferior to the purportedly unchangeable "God's word") is contradictory to the frequent Creationist slander that Evolution is dogma/a religion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is why we need to agree to disagree right? Fritleyfrisp (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fritley, are you making specific recommendations here? I'm lost. Please focus on specific suggestions and specific issues. What are you suggesting? Guettarda (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

FF, who is being silenced here? There are literally thousands of creationist websites. There are dozens of creationist-only wikis even (Conservapedia, Iron Chariots, Research ID Wiki, CreationWiki, WikiNoah, for starters, but there are many many more). You are welcome to go to any of those that you like and contribute. However, on Wikipedia we abide by certain rules and policies. In general, I would say, you are allowed to believe anything you want, even if it is complete nonsense. However, you are not allowed to try to force your nonsense ideas on others by force. Sorry if that seems unfair. But that is just how it is...--Filll (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you see creationism being taught in public schools? Silenced? Evolutionists? Hardly. Anyway, this isn't a debate page so I'll stop. Thanks for listening. Fritleyfrisp (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Getting back on topic of the heading, evolution being a continuous unceasing process would mean that all fossils are "transitional fossils". It is just that since 99.5% or more of all creatures are now extinct, in most cases this transition has been towards extinction. Form this point of view the debate about transitional fossils is based upon a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. John D. Croft (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, so much bad blood. The solution to the problem, as all Wikipedia editors should know, is to find a reliable source describing the argument as a "misunderstanding," then attribute that characterization to the source. Gnixon (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Misleading title

I think the current title promotes confusion about the (scientific) merits of creationism (or lack thereof) by putting it on the same level with evolutionism. A more appropriate title would be "Origin of species controversy" or "Origins controversy". Other options, obviously appropriate if you look at the history of this debate, would be "Evolution controversy" or "Creationist attacks on evolutionism", as it is only creationists that have a history of actively disputing evolution. Biologists never engaged in campaigns to stop creationism from being taught in churches or to have evolutionism receive "equal sermon time". This has always been a slanted debate, essentially a prolonged siege on evolutionism (and sometimes on science itself), and the article's title should reflect that. D0nj03 (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, evolution started the controversy back in Darwin's time, and briefly in ancient Greece. Man has always favored creationism. What we are seeing today is a new movement to find scientific facts in support of creationsim. And because creationism is often a cornerstone of various religions, those who hold to it have much to lose if it is false, and so make more of a big deal about it. At the same time, evolutionists do return their attacks with almost equal vehemence. And evolutionists have attempted to remove creationism from being taught in schools, which leads to it being less believed and less taught in churches. And I'm not so sure the statement about never engaging in campaigns to stop creationism from being taught in churches is true. In any case, the conflict is between evolution and creationism, and must be labeled as such. I'm sure you realize evolutionists have at the very least replied to creationist accusations, so it is a two-way controversy. By the way, it is not just over origins, so even if we did have a new title, it shouldn't be "Origins controversy." ---G.T.N. (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks GTN but no more incoherent rants on this page about how the Ancient Greeks created the evil evolutionism, work of the devil blah blah blah. Enough of this nonsense. None of it makes any sense and it is all just uneducated ludicrous gibberish you are spewing out onto the page and polluting it with nonsense. It has nothing to do with writing the article, so please consider some other venue for your rants. We will remove them on sight in the future if you continue because we do not have time for such junk. --Filll (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot think of any alternative that doesn't have a far higher cost in terms of comprehensibility than its benefit in terms of NPOV. The only one that would come close, IMO, is 'Anti-evolution controversy'. But I still prefer the original -- Creationists manufactured this controversy, so it is difficult to claim that they aren't an include-in-the-title-notable component of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrafn (talk • contribs) 14:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. What's the NPOV cost of the "Origins..." proposals? As to your objection to "Anti-evolution controversy", the problem right now is that it's not creationists who are included in the title (myself, I proposed one that does include them), but creationism, and in a way that makes it seem equally plausible with evolutionism, which I find is a disturbing perversion of the truth.

D0nj03 (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Some points (1) The terms "evolutionism" and "evolutionist" carry very negative connotations, at least in the United States (2) it has had this title for several years (about 3.5 so far) and the article has been edited by literally hundreds of editors (908 or so, so far) and this title is the result of that consensus. It has been debated and this is the result. You might not like it for one esoteric reason or another, but it is a bit hard to argue that your POV should weigh out over everyone else's. That is not how WP works. (3) there are several types of antievolution movements; this one is specifically about the creationist resistance to evolution, not the resistance of the postmodernists or philosophers or any new age groups or those interested in panspermia like the Raelians.--Filll (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of (1). As for (2), it seems an entire archive of discussions slipped by me (I only looked at the current page before I posted) and indeed the title has been discussed and agreed upon. All I'm left to do then is to deplore the success of the ID movement in getting everyone to call this a "controversy" and make it look balanced by aligning "creationism" and "evolutionism" on the same level, linked with that simple and misleading "-". Indeed, when enough people are wrong there's nothing more a free encyclopedia can do but give the wrong idea a central place and put it on a pedestal. A democracy is a democracy.

D0nj03 (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that the title be changed from "Creation-evolution controversy" to "Creation/evolution controversy"? A hyphen is used to join words together, suggesting that creation-evolution is a particular type of evolution, whereas a solidus/slash/forward slash is used to separate alternatives. Sesquihypercerebral (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a completely outrageous suggestion. What does Hrafn think?--Filll (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My largest concern is WP:MOS#Article titles: "Special characters such as the slash (/), plus sign (+), braces ({ }) and square brackets ([ ]) are avoided; the ampersand (&) is replaced by and, unless it is part of a formal name." As far as the current name being misleading, I think the hyphen is used as commonly to connect opponents (e.g. "the Clinton-Obama debate") as to link a subtopic to its parent topic, maybe more so. Beyond that, the slashed title just feels a bit 'icky', at a gut level, to me. I'm open to the possibility of a new title, if an unambiguous improvement can be found, but do not think the current one to be fatally flawed, so see no need for a rush. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Creation/evolution controversy actually produces a subpage of the Creation article called "evolution controversy". What that means in terms of functional issues, I'm not certain. — Scientizzle 02:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Then how about we insert "vs." rather than using a slash? That would have the desired effect without violating the MOS. Kasreyn (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the word controversy, but at several points in the text the word "debate" is used. The nature of the controversy is such that to use the word debate is to overstate the weight of the Creationist argument and misrepresent the nature of the controversy. It would be more correct to use "controversy" throughout, except in direct quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.243.104 (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree -- it is even more a 'debate' (with the connotations of politics & often-empty rhetoric that come with that word) than it is a controversy (the latter being purely contrived). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the sentiment that "controversy" is a horribly misleading word to include in the title. The two views do not use any common criteria for evaluating the situation. This situation/condition/whatever is not a "controversy". (68.20.10.255 (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC))

The Title should read "Arguments Against Darwin's theory of evolution." Short, simple,to the point, neutral, accurate etc. Some agnostics or even atheists oppose the theory and/or support it. Some Religious people support and/or oppose it. Sometimes there are mixed arguments both for and against some or all of the theory by various people.

Any CREATIONISTS arguments should be SUB labeled as such. Any "Scientific" arguments should be labeled as such. Sfvace (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC))

Hrafn insists that the controversy (discussed in this article)is just about what is being taught in classes (US classes, I gather). THEN the title IS DEFINITELY misleading! In the 'history', e.g., we are thrown in at the deep end in the philosophical arguments in the debate. If some, the influential here Hrafn among them, insist that this is only about what is taught US schools, change the 1st paragraph urgently, leave only brief references to the background and focus on political and other technical issues, please. Do not take in innocent philosophically-minded by passers!--Breslauer (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds improbable, and suggests that you've misunderstood Hrafn. This is an old discussion, if you want a new discussion feel free to start it at the foot of the page. If you want to refer to statements by others, be careful to provide a link to the statements or quote them exactly, indicating what page they appear on. . dave souza, talk 21:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Political dispute?

The first sentence states that this is a political dispute. The word political links to the politics. Wouldn't scientific dispute be more appropriate. This controversy (whether real or imagined) relates to science, not politics. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The topic is not disputed in the scientific community. Evolution is a fact and creationism is not science. The dispute plays out on school boards (elected) and curriculum issues (see previous), hence the words "political dispute". Baegis (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself. JB, something's not a scientific dispute unless two scientists are disputing it. One real scientist from Columbia and one fake scientist from the Discovery Institute isn't enough. Cheers, Kasreyn (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that sums up why it is a political dispute. I was confused myself.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 07:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a scientific dispute, why would scientists be debating it otherwise, in scientific magasines? See: [[2]] It's a polical dispute in addition to being a scientific dispute.193.95.59.112 (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The existence of an article debunking creationist myths does not imply that there is sufficient support for creationism within the scientific community for this to be considered a scientific dispute. That magazine is also written for a general audience, not scientists. --AlexCatlin (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Polarizing language

The current emphasis, particularly the intro section, is that there are two opposing views on this subject. This is polarizing and misleading. There are many centrist views which admit a creator while also allowing for much of the scientific evidence. Progressive creationism and theistic evolution need to be mentioned in the first section. Rlsheehan (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

While there exists views that are much more centrist, the controversey exists, for the vast majority, between two diametrically opposite views. Proponents of a theistic evolution are not trying to force students to learn about God creating everything in biology classes nor are they trying to challenge the very foundations of different scientific fields. The coverage for each of these is noted in proportion to it's promienence to the article at hand (C-E controversey). Baegis (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The article currently focuses on the extremes: the introductory section pushes readers to one or other polarized position. The existance of a broad (and more tolerant) center needs to be mentioned. I suggest a new short paragraph at the end of the introductory section (with proper citations):

The debate is often between the opposing views of creationists who reject evolution and secular scientists who reject a creator. Surveys have shown that many people [3] [4], including scientists[5] , are able to accept both evolution and a creator. Rlsheehan (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A short centrist paragraph has been included to make better balance. Rlsheehan (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the 'centrist' position is in some way neutral or equidistant between the two sides. This is incorrect. Theistic evolutionists have been highly vocal in their opposition to Creationism, and many of today's Creationist organisations were founded out of opposition to the Christian American Scientific Affiliation's widespread acceptance of TE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Readers of this article should be made aware of the spectrum of views on this topic, many of which are more tolerant and more reasonable than the poles. Thank you for suggesting a couple of specific theistic evolutionists. These are good additions but we need to clarify that they speak against STRICT (or Biblicaly literal) creationism. (Creationism is an umbrella term, also with a diversity of views.) The article does need to reference public views on this topic, as cited. I think we all want an article which allows for divergent views. Rlsheehan (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

They do not speak only "against STRICT (or Biblicaly literal) creationism" -- they are (by definition) against all forms of creationism that do not fully accept the scientific method (including methodological naturalism) and evolution (i.e. all forms of creationism, only excepting TE, if you consider calling it 'Evolutionary Creationism' to be legitimate, and thus that TE is a form of creationism). They have been extremely vocal in their opposition to ID, for example. This is a binary choice -- either you accept the scientific method, or you don't. If you accept it, then you would do science exactly the same way in the lab, with the same scientific conclusions, whether you were a devout Christian or an outspoken atheist -- you would merely argue in a pub afterwards as to whether your achievements that day pointed to the glory of God, or magnificent but impersonal universe. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No! This is not a binary question. The article is currently biased because of this polarizing language. We need to inlcude the position, which has been properly cited, that a tolerant reasonable center is relatively common. Not all of us are binary. Rlsheehan (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a centrist position would be regards the creation-evolution controversy - creationism is not liegitemate science, and the history of the controversy is an attempt to force religion into areas where science is supposed to have sole legitemacy. The only real 'centrist' position I could see is Non-overlapping magisteria, which isn't centrist so much as the idea that the two areas in truth do not, and should not overlap. Do you mean the viewpoint that the bible is not literal and evolution is how genesis plays out in practice? That might go under creationism, but this page is about the controversy, which is to say the conflict between the two. If a religious group believes that there's no place for genesis in science and no place for science in genesis, there's no controversy ergo it should not go on this page. I don't think it's possible to have a 'centrist' push, or just a little nudge towards creationism in science classes. NOMA be a binary position, as would theistic evolution - the idea that religion is a 1 and science is a 0, or vice-versa. WLU (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your polling data shows no such thing. They generally don't differentiate between ID & TE positions. They also demonstrate that people are confused -- with at least some stating that explicitly contradictory positions are probably/definitely true (that "that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life" and "that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years"). This is why argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. Your claims of a mythical middle-ground accepting both evolution and creationism is WP:SYNTH of highly ambiguous and equivocal data, that most probably actually means that neither the public, nor the pollsters themselves, understand the issues sufficiently to demarcate accurately non-polar positions on this topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, we could speculate that some people are confused or are not experts on the issues. Perhaps some can compartmentalize science and religion, keeping them totally separate. Let's not speculate. The article now has a POV problem of concentrating on the most vocal extremes. The addition of a simple sentence can fix this. It is very relavent to the creation-evolution article and is properly cited. Rlsheehan (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not a 'speculation' that people are confused -- it is an unavoidable implication of their acceptance of directly contradictory positions. You cannot "compartmentalize" your viewpoint on whether humans were created "within the last 10,000 years" or "developed over millions of years". The surveys you cite paper over the antagonism that exists between TE & ID by lumping them together into a single category. It is not only the YEC/atheistic evolution "extremes" that are vocal -- TEs consider ID to be pseudoscience (and bad theology to boot). IDers consider TEs to be intellectually dishonest heretics. It is most certainly not 'peace and harmony' in the centre. This shouldn't be surprising -- fratricidal conflicts are often the most bitter. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly there are many views on this topic. An unbiased WK article needs to discuss all significant positions, whether we agree with them or not. ONE of the centrist positions is theistic evolution.

"Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to some religious interpretations. In this way, theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who deny the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science; that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not be contradictory."

You seem to be prohibiting a properly cited statement that many people do not take the extreme positions on creation-evolution. A [NPOV] tag is called for. Rlsheehan (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You will notice that the TE article says that they "deny the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science" not that they deny a conflict between science and creationism. Given that this article defines the "Creation-evolution controversy" as a "dispute ... between those who espouse the validity and superiority of a particular religiously-based origin belief (i.e., creationism), and the scientific consensus" this provides no indication that TEs are neutrals/compatibilists on this dispute. The article does not claim that everybody takes extreme positions, it merely points out that the acceptance or rejection of the scientific method is a bright dividing line among theists. This line determines their affiliation on this dispute -- IDers join forces with YECs in the Discovery Institute and TEs join with atheist scientists in state 'Citizens for Science' organisations. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not keep trying to form just two opposing camps: there is a specrtum of views in this arena. An unbiased WK article needs to have a neutral point of view. That means various positions need to have their say. If editors insist on winning every point, then the article does not properly allow for divergent views. Our goal should be to have an excellent article, not for our personal viewpoint to be dominant. Rlsheehan (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No. I am attempting to describe the two opposing camps (each containing a "spectrum of views") that exists in reality. The 'position' of TE scientists is generally that Creationism (including ID) is pseudoscience. The 'position' of IDers is generally that TEs are the heretical enemy (to be converted to the true faith or to be discredited). If you can find reliable sources establishing that a significant body of either think otherwise, then you're welcome to present them. Polls that simply paper over these differences don't count. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you may choose to view the question as a two-sided debate. Others, however, have been shown to view the question on other terms. Some see the split three ways: special Creation only, secular evolution only, and God-guided evolution. Your point seems to be focused on what people teach in a science class - which is only one small part of this question. Many "creationists" are very willing to leave science to science. Rlsheehan (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No! I do not "choose to view the question as a two-sided debate" -- I describe what many prominent participants see as a two-sided debate. There is no "third way" unattached to either side. Your "God-guided evolution" is made up of TEs who side with what you describe as "secular evolution" and consider ID to be pseudoscience and IDers who side with the YECs and consider TE to be intellectually dishonest. This whole controversy is about "what people teach in a science class" -- it has been from Scopes through to Dover. Your entire argument is nothing but WP:OR, and you have presented no WP:RS supporting the existence of a coherent and cohesive 'middle ground' (i.e. one that does not ally itself with the more extreme wings on either side), or what specific views this mythic creature might possess. Lacking such sources, this has no relevance to the article, and no place on this talkpage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful of WP:NOTOPINION and WP:SOAP. If your interest is primarily in creation science then focus on that. This article has a POV problem and needs revision. Please do not get in the way of improvements. Rlsheehan (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that violation of WP:AGF, making spurious accusations of my motivations for simply stating the positions that the participants in the controversy hold.

Please present WP:RS supporting the existence of a coherent and cohesive 'middle ground' (i.e. one that does not ally itself, in a split manner, with the more extreme wings on either side), and what specific common views this purported grouping might possess. Otherwise your surveys have no real relevance and certainly don't belong in the lead.
That this whole controversy is about "what people teach in a science class" is supported by nearly every see-also in this article's history section: Scopes trial, Daniel v. Waters, Epperson v. Arkansas, McLean v. Arkansas, Edwards v. Aguillard, Teach the Controversy, Critical Analysis of Evolution, Kansas evolution hearings & Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. If it were not for the efforts to get creationism in and/or evolution out, there'd be very little of a controversy left.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be igoring the valid citations which prove that a large number of people have a "centrist" position of accepting both Science and Creation. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is not acceptable. Please let other editors have access to this article. Rlsheehan (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's take this one step at a time. What is this article about? Is it limited to the controversy about what is to be taught in schools? Is it over what's been demonstrated or is demonstrable by science? Is it about what "people personally believe" or subscribe to? Or is it about the alleged "consequences" or "fallout" different sides in the controversy accuse the "other side" of. (ie controversy over the redefinition of science, say, or moral decay in society etc). Professor marginalia (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about the theology of Creation but about the theological incursion into the subject of science that is Creationism. The former does not contradict science, so there is no potential for controversy. The latter does and makes a large number of claims that are refuted by the scientific community.
This article is mostly about "what is taught in schools", as this is where the spheres of scientists and creationists overlap -- in the science class. If not for this overlap, the two sides could quite happily ignore each other, as each side would be barely aware that the other existed.
Redefinition/consequence issues are a relatively minor part of the overall controversy.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You said that his article is mostly about what is taught in schools. There is an existing article about creation and evolution in public education: are you suggesting a merger? There are also existing articles about creation science, politics of creationism, intellegent design, etc. This article certainly can refernce them but let's not have multiple duplications. Your areas of interest are covered elsewhere. Rlsheehan (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That article is specifically on public education, and is focused on legislative/regulatory wrangling over creationism and evolution in public schools. This is a more general article, and also covers the wide range of viewpoints and claims that competing interests are trying to introduce into education. Likewise there are articles focusing on these viewpoints (Creationism & the articles on specific types of creationism) and claims (Objections to evolution). This article provides an overall overview. But this does not change the fact that the heat-generating core of this controversy is over what should be taught. I would further note that you did not respond to my first point, which directly refutes your rationale for your proposed addition. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

New additions

I've added a quote from the National Academy of Sciences making the point that many religions accept evolution. I have also added material to the sections on NeoCreo/ID & TE, clarifying that these two groups ally with the Creationists and the Anti-creationists/Scientists respectively. I believe that this is a NPOV representation of the actual positions of these 'moderates', and is substantiated by a wealth of details in the wikilinked articles. If anybody wishes to claim some common cause being made between ID & TE, they need to come up with WP:RSs to support this contention (NB: poll numbers just means they picked the same option, given very limited choices -- not that they actually believe in the same things). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, these additions help balance the tone of the article. I am willing to remove the POV tag.

Rlsheehan (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

External links re-worked

Behold my glory. I've reworked the formerly pretty long EL section to trim out some (a news story about a museum is not a good EL, but possibly a source for how the debate is playing out in the UK). Creationist beliefs are in one section, removed Dr. Dino to leave only the 'big' young and old earth creationism (AiG, AiC), as well as the Bahai 'cause it's an alternative perspective and a reasonably large faith world-wide, with talk.origins responses underneath. One thing I'm unreasonably pleased with is the final secton on debates. I think the use of a table is a more elegant solution to the pro/con sides than raw text and I've also ordered chrnologically. Feeback? WLU (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend going to two links each on YEC/OEC -- as Institute for Creation Research and Reasons to Believe are of similar prominence as the ones whose links you've left. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a huge fan of the part of WP:EL that says "links should be kept to a minimum"; small is beautiful. ICR I've heard of, RtB I've not. Can a case be made for one link only for Y/OEC that shows the best that Y/O has to offer? If there's general agreement I'm willing to be over-ruled and if you really think that a single link each doesn't do justice, OK. What about the rest of the reorg, think its OK? WLU (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know RtB is more prominent than AiC (which I haven't seen mentioned outside wikipedia). As far as " Praise my table!" goes -- it is very nice -- I particularly liked the joinery and the legs and the ornamental carvings, which put me in the mind of 18th century master carpenter Frederick J Bloggs of Putley on the Wold. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh shush, I said "praise me", not patronize :P I'll replace AiC with RtB then, ruminate a bit and if you think there's merit in putting in more representations of the creationism side then I'll probably be convince-able. WLU (talk)

Hmmm, you think you are your table? Come lie on this couch and tell me about your relationship with your mother ... Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear Physics

The statement "Although scientists have demonstrated that the decay rates of isotopes which decay by an electron capture mechanism can be varied slightly, these variations are of the order of 0.2 percent, far below a level that would give support to the Creationist results, and at a level that it is argued that they would not invalidate radiometric dating ...." appears to be incorrect. "¹⁸⁷Re may become highly ionized in the hot plasma of a star, and bound state β^- decay may decrease the half-life from 42.3 ± 1.3 Gyr ... by more than 9 orders of magnitude.... Experimentally, β_b decay was observed ... in the case of ¹⁶³Dy. This nucleus is stable as a neutral atom (Q_β = -2.565 keV ...) but, when fully ionized, it decays to ¹⁶³Ho (Q^K_{β_b} = +50.3 keV) with a half-life ... of 47 d." <ref>{{cite journal

| First = F.
| Last = Bosch
| Coauthors = T. Feastermann, J. Friese, et. al.
| Date = December 23, 1996
| Title = Observation of Bound-State β^- Decay of Fully Ionized ¹⁸⁷Re: ¹⁸⁷Re-¹⁸⁷Os Cosmochemistry
| Journal = Physical Review Letters
| Volume = 77
| Issue = 26
| Pages = 5190-5193
| Publisher = The American Physical Society
}}</ref>

These variations are much greater than "of order 0.2%". (I can't get the reference to show. It is in Physical Review Letters.) Dan Watts (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

At worst this article simply means that the wording should be amended to qualify the statement as only applying "outside stellar interiors". However a more general qualifier should probably be derived that covers all decay fluctuations (including due to the extreme pressure in cited in the original reference).Is there a review article that would give general coverage of this? It is clear that none of the exceptions are consistent with a habitable planet. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in the (unreferencable-by-me) paper, they state: "With this measured ft [log ft = 7.87 ± 0.03] value the decay rate of ¹⁸⁷Re in any charge state, and hence any temperature, can now be calculated." So, albeit it takes the capability to do the calculation, the information is readily available for earth temperature range [250-6000K (earth's core)] ¹⁸⁷Re decay rates. So, are we in a position to state that the change is only of the order of 0.2%? It doesn't take 10⁹ variation to be a problem. Dan Watts (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, because such calculations would be WP:OR. Which is another reason why we need a good secondary source to give context to the primary source material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that I am clearly following your logic. Is "No" to mean that we cannot state that the change will only be of the order of 0.2% and that the wording should be changed? Dan Watts (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, we are not in a position to state that Bosch et al does or does not contradict the 0.2% figure over Earth-like temperatures. To attempt to make a determination either way would be WP:OR. What we have currently is that the rate varies slightly at extreme pressures and greatly at stellar interior temperatures. What we do not have is any indication directly from a WP:RS that it would greatly vary in conditions applicable to Earth. Lacking such, the statement in the article requires, at most, some tweaking of the language. However, before attempting such tweaking my personal preference is to have a source (e.g. a review paper) that covers the full extent of conditions that might allow the rate to change. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

While I would have probably worded the change differently, what is now in place is acceptable, except for the references, which are now immediately after this section. Please, would someone who knows how to rectify the position of the references (without, hopefully, removing the Footnotes, although merging them with a References section seems a nice option) help make the article more orderly. Dan Watts (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the fix. Looks good now. Dan Watts (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed link

I have removed the Baha'i external link from underneath the Creationist subsection, because Baha'i belief is not creationist, in the normal sense of the word. Baha'is do believe in evolution, both in terms of an evolving universe, and biological evolution, while the biological evolution can be better termed as a parallel evolution model. From a further chapter of the web-link that I just removed it states "The universe as we know it today is a result of a long-lasting process. ... According to `Abdu'l-Bahá, the concept of substantial evolution applies to the whole universe. Matter, planets, stars, etc. evolved from a common origin."

Furthermore, from a published article Mehanian, Courosh (2003). "Religion and Evolution Reconciled: `Abdu'l-Bahá's Comments on Evolution". The Journal of Bahá'í studies. 13 (1–4): pp. 55-93. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) here are a following statements that show that Baha'is do believe in evolution: "We show that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá describes the human species as coming into being by developmental processes that are consistent with the mechanisms of scientific evolution" and "Thus, according to `Abdu'l-Bahá, life on earth is extremely old: 'life on this earth is very ancient. It is not one hundred thousand, or two hundred thousand, or one million or two million years old; it is very ancient. ...'" -- Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And come to think of it, the Baha'i aren't big players in the political infighting over education and whatnot, the guts of the controversy that the page is actually about. Good idea, wish I'd thought of it. WLU (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Baha'is are not involved in the political infighting at all. Baha'is as a matter of principle don't get involved in politics; but if they did, they would probably be on the science side of the debate. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why I should have removed it from this page when I trimmed the EL last week. The controversy is a political one, and the Baha'i weren't involved. It's good for another creation/evolution page, perhaps creation myth, but not this one, which should focus just on the 'dispute' end. I'd love to say I had thought of this, but I'm apparently thick as a whale omelet : ) WLU (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Evolution is not origin.

I may have missed it but I didn't see anything pointing out that the Theory of Evolutionary actually has nothing to do with the creation of life or the creation of Earth itself, instead concerning itself with the change of already existing lifeforms over time. Does this warrant a mention? --Irrevenant [ talk ] 07:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Scientists don't conflate abiogenesis, Big Bang theory and evolution of the solar system with the theory of biological evolution. Creationists do, but that's more one of their fundamental errors and there's no controversy from the science side. It would be most appropriate mentioned in the page that itemizes errors, though I'd say its worth pointing out that this is a conflation and illegitimate. This page, if I roughly recall, is more about the political controversy and bickering. WLU (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Social impact

Someone pointed out at Talk:Conservapedia that that particular Creationist site has a piece on "Social effects of the theory of evolution", the idea that racism and other social ills have roots in evolutionary theory. WP's article on Answers in Genesis addresses this as well: see Answers in Genesis#Morality and social issues. Should these ideas get a section in this article? The fact that evolutionism has had a cultural impact-- and the perception that this impact is not a good one-- is a fairly important Creationist argument. Fishal (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And as such, the mainstream view should be shown next to the argument presented on the AiG page. A couple of sources:[6] and [7]. . dave souza, talk 18:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This is handled on wikipedia mostly at Objections to evolution#Objections to evolution's morality. As far as I know, none of the claimed 'social effects' of evolution have been substantiated by mainstream sociological research. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Espousal of "a particular religiously-based creation myth"

Judeo-christian creationism is espousal of the validity and superiority of Creation myth#Judaism and Christianity
Hindu creationism is espousal of the validity and superiority of Creation myth#Hindu

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

An attempt to place bias in the article

The falsifiablity section needs to be fixed. For example it says "creationists have always said neither evolution or creationism are scientific". This is true but quite a few creationists have claimed creationism is a scientific theory(teach the controversy)YVNP (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's a quote by Duane Gish. Gish likes to think that what you and I both know to be demonstrably true isn't. I agree with your premise, though. The quote may demonstrate the point, but it adds another creationist talking point that remains unrefuted. Perhaps there is another creationist quote will make the point without the added misperception. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As it's drawing an inference from a primary source, WP:NOR requires that we find a secondary source making the analysis. As it happens, I've just been dealing with a primary source saying the opposits – In an Australian Broadcasting Company interview, Ken Ham.. asserted that some 60% of Americans believe that "God created the world in six days", and said that was why "the museum teaches that the biblical story of life on earth is scientifically verifiable."And God created... dinosaurs, Kim Landers, Australian Broadcasting Company News, May 29, 2007. . . dave souza, talk 09:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that the article refers to scientists who are supporters of Creationism as "creationists," while those who advocate Darwining, Old-Earth Evolution as "scientists." There are scientists on both sides, so it seems this is a point of subtle bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.29.109 (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I would argue instead that it corrects a deliberate, albeit subtle, point of bias introduced by Creationists: the attempt to affix the titles "evolutionist" and "Darwinist" to any scientist who acknowledges the evidence for evolution. While there are a handful of individuals with genuine scientific credentials in the Creationist movement, and an even smaller handful with scientific credentials in relevant fields, such individuals represent a tiny fraction of Creationists. It's at least as likely that a "Creation Scientist" will turn out to have a degree in engineering (like John Morris,) theology (like John Whitcomb,) mathematics (like William Dembski,) ( communications (like Janet Folger,) or Christian Education (like Kent Hovind.) While such individuals may be quite accomplished in their respective fields, I think it's a stretch to call them "scientists." --BRPierce (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

But, it doesn't matter what kind of scientist it is. By replacing the word evolutionist with scientist, the writer states that all scientists (including irrelevant fields to this matter, such as physicists and engineers) are evolutionists, which as you said, is a complete falsehood. Also, as long as 1 creationist is a scientist, the writer can't say all scientists are evolutionists, either. Also, you made a complete falsehood in your statement: in order to argue something, you need to acknowledge the information the other side has, even if to disprove it. And if what you're saying is that scientists who believe in evolution are evolutionists, I think that's correct, as an evolutionist is one who believes in evolution. In a sense, your argument sounds extremely biased, as you still don't site any sources for all of your information. You can't say "most scientists are this" without proper info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.28.132 (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

An unsigned user wrote "an evolutionist is one who believes in evolution". This is to present a biased view. It is like saying "a gravitationist is someone who believes in gravitation". To a scientific Darwinist, evolution is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of observation, evidence and proof. They would argue (correctly in my view), that one does not have to believe in evolution, just as one does not have to believe in gravitation. Gravitation is a matter of observation, evidence and proof. This did not prevent an earlier generation of creationists arguing that the heliocentric solar system was an attack upon the Bible, fortunately, an attack which has now been resolved thankfully, although sometimes I wonder. Have a look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part1.html, and "Apparently the folks at the General Social Survey, just for kicks, decided to ask Americans to come clean about their feelings toward heliocentrism. As it turns out, about 18% of Americans are in the “Sun moves around the Earth” camp. A full 8% prudently declined to have an opinion, leaving only 74% to go along with Copernicus." (http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/2007/06/attitudes_on_he.html). No wonder scientific education in the USA is in such a disarray. John D. Croft (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The unsigned user also overlooks a critical point: Creationist is a self-affixed label. Creationists refer to themselves as Creationists; therefore, it is reasonable to use the term in referring to them. Evolutionist is NOT a self-affixed label; it's a term primarily used by Creationists to refer to a very broad category of individuals with very different beliefs. Consequently, it is not a particularly useful term, particularly for an encyclopedia.

I cheerfully agree that specific Creationists who also happen to have scientific degrees should be referred to as scientists. Ideally, they should be referred to more specifically than that--as geologists, or biologists, or what-have-you. "Scientist" is also a very broad term, and not a very useful one.

However, prominent Creationists with genuine scientific credentials are not the norm; many "Creation Scientists" have no scientific credentials at all, and should NOT be referred to as "scientists." Likewise, someone who accepts the evidence for evolution but lacks scientific credentials should not be referred to as a scientist.

It is, however, entirely proper to say that the overwhelming consensus among scientists in relevant fields is that Creationism is not science and that it contradicts the available evidence. --BRPierce (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a starting sentence saying "Many creationists vehemently oppose" which is hasty generalazation and bias. It should read Many people strongly oppose- Sfvace (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I find juxtaposing in the same very important introductory sentence 'scientific consensus' with 'creation mhyth' is a misrepresentation. I tried to rectify it twice, but my changes were undone immediately afterwards.

The dispute/debate takes place on several levels, including scientific. Scientists on one side of the debate, the vast majority, argue with scientists, the 'vast' minority, on the other side. They use logic, refer to facts, publish, refute and so on.

Whatever one thinks of the quality of the debate, it is a scientific debate nonetheless. How to achieve an un-biased introduction? ¬¬¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breslauer (talk • contribs) 20:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

See Neutral point of view policy which it has specific requirements for NPOV: Pseudoscience, avoiding giving it NPOV: Undue weight or NPOV: Giving "equal validity", while NPOV: Making necessary assumptions about the validity of mainstream science. At the same time we must also avoid original research by being careful to provide a verifiable source for facts and for assessments, opinions or analysis of these facts. Your opinion of science is an extreme minority view amongst expert opinion, according to multiple reliable sources. . dave souza, talk 20:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Article

Hmm...I wonder who wrote this article.Prussian725 (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Lots of people it seems :-) Shot info (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The article shows a severe bias towards evolution, without referring to many of the valid points of scientific dispute regarding evolution. eg perverse nature of evolution in some homo sapiens attributes - the defining aspect of evolution is that animals adapt and develop there genes via a functional advantage, yet many homo sapien physical features are less advantageous than the primates cited as genetic ancestors, eg muscle fibres, bone structure of the foot. There is also no mention of the irreducible complexity theory relating to cellular organisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.102.13 (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a bias, an application of WP:NPOV. Discussion should end here. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 02:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is true. I have always believed in evolution and still do, but I do not accept aspects of Darwin's theory for scientific and logical based reasons. Me and some fellow scientists discuss this a lot and it does not effect our belief in a God; I noticed Darwinists are no more open minded than most extreme, faith based creationists. They label you as a "Creationist" no matter what and dismiss any and all arguments. Had people done this during Newtons time (though his equations was 99.9% accurate in our every day life) we would never have had relativity where in the majority of the universe Newton's Laws don't apply and Einstien's Do. Well I'm giving up here all I get is twisting of the any argument I give, shifting the burdon of Proof's, false accusations/complaints of any of my edits, and mostly ignorance of what I say. Your welcome to view my vid on youtube.com/playitalready and especially the LINKS within it; real eye opener, even the Creationists link (never thought I'd say that). Sfvace (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This is simply a rationalisation of a prejudged position. (i) The Theory of Evolution has already been expanded significantly from "Darwin's theory". (ii) There is no scientific debate that natural selection is a major mechanism in evolution. All arguments to the contrary have been demonstrated to be pseudoscientific. (iii) "Creationism" is a self-chosen label for the movement (prior to this, in the early 20th century they referred to themselves as Anti-Evolutionism). (iii) This movement does not wish to take science forward, but backward to the 17th century before the discoveries of modern biology and geology. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Darwinism has multiple meanings, which is why it's no longer used much in the scientific community. Creationism is a self-description of the religious anti-evolution movoement which began amongst fundamentalists in the 1920s, and even when relabelled ID or "strengths and weaknesses", it's the same group of arguments. There is debate about the proportionate importance of natural selection, Darwin's most significant theory in the long term but one which most "Darwinists" of the 19th century didn't really accept, and genetic drift which Darwin knew nothing about. That's a debate within science, and in no way supports the "anti-evolutionism" of the creation-evolution controversy which is a theological and political controversy. Maybe this needs to be made clearer in the article. . dave souza, talk 09:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Public Opinion Poll

The public opionion poll listed in the article is rather brief and doesn't offer a complete look at the numbers that define how people(Americans in particular) think about the debate. Since this is a political debate, as stated in the opening paragraph, I feel offering a section listing public opinion (not just a graph), with accurate analysis is needed. Searching, I came up with this CBS poll (although it was from 2004). [8] Mr2b (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This poll was deeply flawed in that (i) the options weren't set up as mutually exclusive (they add to 104% for "All Americans") & (ii) "Humans evolved, God guided the process" conflates the two mutually antagonistic positions of Intelligent design & Theistic evolution. Further it looks solely at "Americans in particular", with heavy emphasis on who they supported in the 2004 presidential election. I see no reason to include it. Public opinion is covered in Level of support for evolution‎ (though a summary here wouldn't be out of order). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well perhaps we could find a better poll, I'm sure there is one out there. Anyways, I didn't know about the Level of support for evolution page so thanks for pointing this out. Mr2b (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Added information to Macroevolution Section

Hi all, I have added information to the Macroevolution section about the polar bear. I believe that it is relevant because it provides a specific example of macroevolution (evolution above the species "barrier") and even includes an example of a creationist from the Creation Research Society who himself states that the polar bear is "evidence of more dramatic change" than the mere microevolutionary. It also includes a link to a debate that one person had with Kent Hovind using the example. Fits perfectly I think. 4.246.200.136 (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Not in this article. This article doesn't discuss particular evidence for or against evolution, macro or any other kind. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well that's odd as it sure looks like it does to me. For instance, I see specificity in the "Human evolution" section. Molecular evidence indicates that the lineage of gibbons (family Hylobatidae) became distinct between 18 and 12 Ma, and that of orangutans (subfamily Ponginae) at about 12 Ma; we have no fossils that clearly document the ancestry of gibbons, which may have originated in a so far unknown South East Asian hominid population, but fossil proto-orangutans may be represented by Ramapithecus from India and Griphopithecus from Turkey, dated to around 10 Ma. Molecular evidence further suggests that between 8 and 4 mya, first the gorillas, and then the chimpanzee (genus Pan) split off from the line leading to the humans; human DNA is 98.4[67] percent identical to the DNA of chimpanzees. We have no fossil record, however, of either group of African great apes, possibly because bones do not fossilize in rain forest environments. How is that different than the polar bear inclusion? Additionally, the latter example includes specific discussion from a Creationist on this very topic, the macro/microevolution aspect of the debate, and last I checked this article is about the Creation-evolution controversy. 4.246.206.221 (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Gibbons, gorillas, chimps, and Ramapithecus? Good grief, what a digression. I agree. I don't see how this belongs here either. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well let me put it this way, if you can't mention the back and forth (albeit briefly) of the micro/macroevolution debate (which is significant in the creation/evolution discussion) within the Creation-evolution controversy article where the heck (pardon) can you? 4.246.206.221 (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll come out to say that neither the analysis of the scant remains of ramapithecus nor Hovind's website's touted polar bear theory have much to do with the quote-unquote "controversy" focused on in this article except, maybe, as cherry picked examples of some tangentially involved particular. Clearing the waters about what this article is about hasn't been delineated as cleanly as it could be. It's not about polar bears, gibbons, or macroevolution. But delimiting which kind of of the how-many categories of creation v evolution disputes this article is focusing upon--I admit, that isn't as clear as it should be. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If not about the particulars of the controversy then what is it about? What are you allowing to be discussed? 4.246.206.211 (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an overview article on the controversy. Detailed examination of minutiae belongs elsewhere. Possibly in human evolution, possibly in baraminology, possibly in macroevolution, possibly in an article about a particular creationist or creationist organisation, if they've made one of these issues a keynote. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the problem with that, as I suspect you know, is editors of both the human evolution and macroevolution articles would refer it right back here - to the Creation-evolution controversy article where it belongs. Are you telling me that there is no wiki article specifically dealing with the particulars of creationist claims and their answers by scientific community? 63.196.193.138 (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so this is a creationist claim rather than a real scientific issue? Well, then we'd need third party evidence that this is a significant creationist claim – we're not trying to replicate TalkOrigins Archive here, it has to be verified as particularly notable. . . dave souza, talk 21:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't belong anywhere, then it doesn't get used. Not really a problem -- wikipedia is not an attempt to document every piece of information in the universe. However if we attempted to document all such creationism/evolution minutiae here, it would render this already large (111k) overview article completely unmanageable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, ran into an edit by Professor marginalia. Anyway Dave, the Creationist claim is that while there is microevolution there is no macroevolution [9]. They argue that no amount of small changes can ever amount to a big change, which is obviously silly but it's crucial to their argument because they can then claim that, while there are changes, all changes are "horizontal", of no more important than different breeds of dog for example.

I offered an example with the polar bear of an accumulation of changes that do lead eventually to a bigger, and "vertical" change if you will which allows to to thrive in an environment that the brown bear could not. Additionally some creationists themselves agree that the polar bear's changes are not minor but are "dramatic". So they are themselves talking about it. That makes it fit for this article IMO. And the polar bear represents just the right amount of change for this debate because were it to change to the point that creationists demand with entirely new body structure it would then most likely no longer be able to breed with the brown bear. They could then easily claim that the two are not and never were related as stated in the quote.

Here's what I originally submitted at the end of this existing sentence in the macroevolution section, The scientific community considers that there is strong evidence for even such more restrictive definitions, but the evidence for this is more complex:

A specific example of large-scale evolution is the polar bear (Ursus maritimus), which though clearly related to the brown bear (Ursus arctos) by virtue of the fact that though separate species they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring [70] it has also obviously acquired significant physiological differences from the brown bear. These differences allow the polar bear to comfortably survive in conditions that the brown could not including the ability to swim up to sixty miles at a time in freezing waters, to blend in and to stay warm in the arctic environment. In fact Creationist David J. Tyler of the Creation Research Society has stated:

The Polar Bear, however, provides evidence for more dramatic change, and it is worthy of note that it used to be classified as a species within its own genus (Thalarctos maritimus). As previously mentioned, the fur has specialised hollow guard hairs; there is partial webbing between the toes; the feet pads are fur-covered; the dentition is that of a predatory carnivore, and the very large stomach capacity is of particular value to this animal in its normal environment. These morphological changes seem to me to go beyond the small, microevolutionary changes which are widely cited in creationist literature, and they all suggest the idea of design. At the very least, a study of these members of the Ursus group suggests that creationists need to be more positive about larger-scale adaptations (with the appearance of design) than generally appears to outside observers. [71].

The polar bear was used as an example of evolution in an online debate with creationist Kent Hovind, [72] however Hovind rejected it stating that it is "still a bear". Rayborne countered that "The problem with that is that if it were much more changed, there is every reason to believe that it would no longer be able to breed with the brown bear or that the offspring of such a union would be sterile ... which could then raise doubts in the creationist mind about relationship, especially given the totality of changes that will by that time have taken place. At this point a creationist might then conceivably claim that the two are not and never were related!"

It is long and perhaps that can be pared down, perhaps to something like this:

A specific example of large-scale evolution is the polar bear (Ursus maritimus), which though clearly related to the brown bear (Ursus arctos) by virtue of the fact that though separate species they can still interbreed and produce fertile offspring [10] it has also obviously acquired significant physiological differences from the brown bear. These differences allow the polar bear to comfortably survive in conditions that the brown could not including the ability to swim sixty miles or more at a time in freezing waters, and to blend in and to stay warm in the arctic environment. Specifically these changes include its white color that serves as camouflage which is an aid in the hunting of seals; specialised hollow guard hairs which are an aid to buoyancy; a four inch thick subcutaneous layer of fat which provides extra insulation; more elongated necks than other bears which makes it easier to keep their heads above water while swimming; oversized webbed feet which act as paddles; small papillae and vacuole like suction cups on the soles to make them less likely to slip on the ice; the feet are also covered with heavy matting to protect the bottoms from intense cold and provide traction; ears which are smaller than those of other bears to reduce the loss of heat; eyelids that act like sunglasses; sharper teeth than other bears to accomodate their all-meat diet; a large stomach capacity to enable opportunistic feeding and the ability to fast for up to nine months while recycling their urea. [11][12]

Anyway, in what other Wikipedia article but this would such information be appropriate? In any case I think I realize that this article is not big enough to address even the main Creationist arguments, but maybe a few of them and then another article devoted to it? 4.246.205.209 (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Why the heck is my IP address bouncing around like that? 4.246.205.209 (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that I've looked at the content more carefully, I'll say it isn't appropriate for any article at wikipedia. I hope you don't feel you've been given the run around about it. Because I didn't feel the topic belonged in this particular article, I didn't read it carefully until now. But the kent-hovind website is not a qualified source here. It's not Hovind's, it's self-published material. The polar-bear brown-bear issue seems to relate only to one individual's argument when he entered and attempted to collect the prize money on Hovind's $250,000 challenge. His contest entry doesn't demonstrate notability of the bear illustration in either creationism or evolution, and as it stands just doesn't qualify at wikipedia. See WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Sorry. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess I thought the fact that a Creationist at the mother Creationist institution, CRS, made the very unusual comment that the polar bear's changes were "dramatic" and "seem to me to go beyond the small, microevolutionary changes which are widely cited in creationist literature" and that "at the very least, a study of these members of the Ursus group suggests that creationists need to be more positive about larger-scale adaptations (with the appearance of design) than generally appears to outside observers" was actually quite notable indeed, and that, along with a brief citation of the many changes that the polar bear has undergone, would fit in well with the macroevolution section of the Creation-evolution controversy article. But hey, I guess that's just me. I'll not waste more wiki kbs arguing it. Thanks. 4.246.203.137 (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the "disputes related to science" section could be addressed a little differently. It does give the impression it's going to get into specifics, and I think it does pick a few examples from talkorigins to highlight. I think the recent Sciam issue about Evolution has an article that we could look at to restructure that section a little bit so it's not attempting this kind of snapshot coverage by picking particular disputes over this fossil or that molecular evidence. It occurred to me that an article there framed the dispute nicely to give the bigger picture. I'll pull it back out and sketch out what I'm thinking to see what others think. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)