Talk:Creationism/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Subject of this page

The subject of this page is Creationism; that's what it's about; Creationism is its primary focus. How else can I put it? The nature of the article is consistent with this. It is not about the debate between creationism and anything, though that will naturally feature in it, because it's a pertinent fact about creationism. The insistence on describing it otherwise is either PoV or simply perplexing. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You did what I 'should' have done; bring the discussion to this page.

I came to this (article) page because I wanted to see the current state of what Wikipedia had to say about certain creationist beliefs. I typed in creationism, and found this page that sort of dealt with that. That was before the recent edit wars started. I got caught up in that for a while. Next I became more of a lurker making edits as I saw appropriate. Then I finally got back to what I'd come to this page for in the first place, find out the current state of what Wikipedia had to say about certain creationist beliefs.

Once I found the appropriate page, I added a disambiguation-like link at the top. It was soon removed. I added it back (when I should have brought the discussion to this page), and it was even more quickly removed. Whatever the subject of this page, I think that there needs to be a pointer at the top of the page to creationist beliefs. There isn't such a link in the introduction nor the next section. I didn't check, but it isn't likely to be in any of the other sections, now or in the future. That's why a disambiguation-like link is most appropriate. Val42 02:55, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

• How about a link in the "See also" section to Creation beliefs? ---Rednblu | Talk 05:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In theory, the two pages are different: Creation belief discusses various beliefs related to creation (past and present), while this article discusses the modern view held by certain groups that some account or other of creation (ususally Genesis) is true. There's overlap, and there could be a case for merging the two articles (the other article is pretty poor, in fact, and fails to fulfill its brief, being almost wholly devoted to creationism). Rednblu's suggestion of a 'See also' link would seem to be the best interim solution. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I think that putting the link to Creation belief at the bottom of the page would be inadequate. I think that it works better at the the top because of what I said above; if someone is looking for that page, then a disambiguation-like link would serve them best.

Secondly, there have been various attempts to define this page before. If this page is about creation belief, then it should be merged with that page. If this page is about the debate between those who believe in a theistic creationism (whether by theistic evolution or not) or non-theistic (naturalistic) creation, then it should be merged with that page. When I first came here, it was the former. Now it is the later. The people who are editing this page seem more interested in pushing one part of the argument or the other than in being helpful.

If this page is one of the above (clearly distingushed) purposes I put forward above, please merge the information in to the appropriate pages. If this page does not fit what I've defined above, please clearly say what it is and why it doesn't belong in either of the above categories. Right now, I'm being frustrated and trying to be helpful at the same time. I'd ask that in your own frustration, try to be helpful at the same time. Val42 04:02, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

• How about an indented, italicized disambiguation paragraph at the top of the page like there is on the Evolution page? It might read as follows.

This article is about the political and scientific movement of modern creationism. For a comparison of creation myths, see Creation beliefs. For an analysis of the debate between the proponents of creation and evolution, see Creation-evolution controversy.

---Rednblu | Talk 04:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• That sounds pretty good. It actually leaves this page to (mostly) define itself while providing pointers to the most likely wanted alternatives at the top of the page. But let's use wording that is more like what is in the introduction of the respective pages. I grabbed your first sentence, and the first sentences from each of the respective pages, with minor edits, and put them here. What about this?

This article is about the political and scientific movement of modern creationism. See Creation beliefs for cultural stories that describe how the universe, our earth, life, and/or humanity came into being. See creation-evolution controversy for the disagreement over the origin of the universe, life, and humanity.

Though this page and the creation-evolution controversy page still seem like the same territory, just different tacks.

---Val42 05:25, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

8)) If you remove "myth" from the Creation beliefs sentence, then you probably should take out "scientific" from the first sentence. Maybe something like the following.

This article is about the political and religious movement of modern creationism. See Creation beliefs for cultural stories that describe how the universe, our earth, life, and/or humanity came into being. See creation-evolution controversy for the disagreement with science over the origin of the universe, life, and humanity.

What do you think? ---Rednblu | Talk 07:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I removed "myth" from the sentence because it is too charged of a word. The creation beliefs page explains the word's meaning in its introduction, but I thought that was too much text to include in a disambiguation-like link. I also agree with you removing "scientific" from the first sentence. I think that we should put up this (your) wording at the beginning of the article in three days, unless someone disagrees.

I think that you have also done something else very good by removing "scientific" from the first sentence; you have defined a clear purpose of this page. This has been sorely lacking, at least since I've been following this page. Since "Creationism" is primarily a religious movement (that drives the political), this page should be about this religious movement, its motivations and brief arguments for its position. Brief counter-arguments should follow. If we look at the evolution page as an example, the controversy has been pushed to another page. It even deals with evolution and religion without getting into the amount of disagreement on that page as we do on this page.

What do you think, about both of my points? Have we reached enough agreement between ourselves that we could move for a vote on both points? Val42 02:31, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Motion for initial disambiguation paragraph

I move that we put the following initial disambiguation paragraph at the top of the Creationism page.

This article is about the religious and political movement of modern creationism. See Creation beliefs for cultural stories that describe how the universe, our earth, life, and/or humanity came into being. See Creation-evolution controversy for the disagreement with science over the origin of the universe, life, and humanity.

What does everybody think? ---Rednblu | Talk 03:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Support - See discussion just before this section. Val42 03:57, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

On "evolutionary creationism" / "theistic evolution"

These two terms do not seem to actually refer to different positions. The difference seems solely to be that some people do not feel comfortable calling that position "creationism", and others do not feel comfortable calling it "evolution". That is not a good guideline for which term is more descriptive.

What difference is there between this view and that of biological science? In terms of scientific methodology and description of the material world, there can be none -- specifically because E.C./T.E. accepts the scientific results of evolutionary biology. Rather, E.C./T.E. represents a philosophical (or perhaps, theological) position on the meaning of the scientific results. It sees evolution as evidence for the philosophical position of theism. This is in contrast with those who see evolution as evidence against theism.

E.C./T.E. is not "creationism" in the sense of any of the other beliefs we herein describe as "creationism", specifically because it does not represent a denial or rejection of evolution. All the other things we call "creationism" are rejections of evolutionary science. They claim that evolution did not happen. Because E.C./T.E. does not take this position, it strikes me as rather confusing to class it as a "creationism" at all.

The name theistic evolution is less ambiguous and avoids the confusion of having something called "creationism" that is not anti-evolution. It also happens to be (from the crude metric of a Google search) the rather more common term.

I'm not sure who you are (I should check the page History, but never mind), but this seems right, especially as we're talking about an 'ism' rather than just a belief. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You may wish to redefine creationism as only those who oppose evolution, but it simply isn't so. Evolutionary creationists have no quarrel with genuine science. The use of the term "evolutionary creationism" emphasizes the commonality of all creationist who oppose the misuse of science to make it into an anti-creator religion or ideolgy. See below, "under the guise of science," which is a key point, and must be included in any article that adequately treats the subject of creationism.Pollinator 02:56, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

50 ...under the guise of science...

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pollinator"

Concerning the edit ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=10946981&oldid=10946496) that I made to the Creationism article, I removed the statement that "those who, under the guise of science, make the religious assumption/statement that there is no God" not because I disagree with that opinion, but because it is an opinion. If your intent was to present this as an opinion of a certain group, I think you should make your intent more clear in the article. For example, you could write "Evolutionary creationism has no dispute with the scientific theory of evolution either, but disputes (materialistic) evolutionists (who some evolutionary creationists believe act under the guise of science, and that the statement that there is no God is a religious one)." Since your reversion of my edit, user:Fubar Obfusco has edited (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=0&oldid=10954413) the paragraph in question to fix this problem quite nicely, I think. --NoPetrol 22:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty nice when you can engage in a debate (which is what you are doing here) and write your opponent's views to suit yourself. I made it perfectly clear that this was a creationist viewpoint, in fact it is one of the primary ones and one of the places where the whole range of creationists agree wholeheartedly. The fine distinction between methological and ontological is not an adequate editorial correction, because this is a fallback position, not the one usually presented by materialistic or ideologic evolutionists, and only used when someone actually challenges their beginning religious assumption. So no, the present edit is NOT adequate; it is a distortion. Pollinator 02:43, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

It is good that this was removed from the article. Science does not have a 'religious assumption' that god doesn't exist. This is something that is very clearly written from the perspective of somebody who already believes that god exists. If you believe that god exists already, then when you come to analyse a scientific approach, it may seem almost logical to assume that scientists are simply 'presuming' that god doesn't exist. Science doesn't work like this however. Science starts with nothing - with no conclusions and no presumptions - and builds itself up based on accumulated evidence, and upon theories that are themselves based on this evidence, and that need to be tested and verified independently before being accepted. That science does not include god at any point is solely down to the fact that there is no evidence for him (or it); it has nothing whatsoever to do with any 'religious presumptions', or any atheistic agenda - it is a result of lack of evidence.

As such, it is good that the above statement, coming quite clearly from a religious perspective, was removed from the article. Aaarrrggh 15:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, I see. Are you the Censor here? Who is the Censor here? Apparently, we are no longer to report and cite what the actual scholars actually published. Which Inquisitor's form of personal research is then to inform the Censor? Are you the Censor? Who is the Censor here? ---Rednblu | Talk 16:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why would removing something that is incorrect and opinionated be deemed as censorship? Aaarrrggh 22:13, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. I am asking what the rules are. There are several possibilities.

1. Alternative 1: If I accurately report that prominent person PP said X, and even if I accurately summarize and cite what PP said, you may still assert your Censor's right to remove it based on your personal research. OR
2. Alternative 2: You might just note that, Yes, PP said X; that is what PP said, yes. That is an accurate report of what PP said.

There are other alternatives between those two extremes. So under what rules are we operating here, I ask? ---Rednblu | Talk 23:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Is there a actualy PP we're talking about here? I submit that we are actually talking about an opinion held "in general" by creationists. Thus the above comparison doesn't make sense in the light of this page.
• A removal is not necessarily censorship. The best editors are those that know what to remove. This is not to say that the material removed shouldn't be included in the article, only that the inclusion was problematic and, for example, it may seem to the "Censor" that it is better to remove the point entirely rather than try to reformulate it. If the first editor wants to return and try to reintroduce the point while keeping the quality of the material high, then I don't see a problem with that. However, a simple revert when a good-faith edit is being made is not acceptable, I think.

Joshuaschroeder 00:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with joshua's first point. The point we are talking about did not appear to be coming from a specific person, or from the point of view of specific research - instead, it felt like a generic (creationist) viewpoint, and as I outlined above, it was an invalid one. I would also just like to point out for the record that it wasn't actually me who removed this information, I simply agreed that it was right to remove it. Aaarrrggh 15:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rewrote "Criticisms of Creationism"

I have rewritten some of the section on the criticism of creationism. More specifically, I have removed the part on Rene Descartes (because I do not see it as being particularly relevance) and rephrased some of the criticism. Please comment on the latest edit, thank you. Ethereal 09:58, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think those changes have improved the article somewhat. I will add a few changes of my own at some point when I have more available time, but yes, I think most of the changes you just made were for the better. Aaarrrggh 15:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Ethereal 16:23, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've tidied some of the English (I probably should go through it more thoroughly), but more importantly I've reinstated the reference to Descartes. It's clearly relevant (I'm not sure why anyone would think that it wasn't), but it's important here because, first, it gives a philosophical argument for the use of reason over the apeal to authority, and secondly, it presents such an argument from a theist's point of view. The criticisms shouldn't be presented as if the debate were between believers and non-believers. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Descartes part is really necessary, but I don't think it'll hurt to include it, so I guess I'll let it remain. Ethereal 16:23, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Request for rewrite of Defences of Creationism

I haven't had much time to read through the entire article at one sitting, but looking at the section on Defences of Creationism, I should say that I find that certain crucial arguments routinely employed by creationists are lacking. One of the missing arguments I feel should be included would be that creationism is just as scientific as evolutionary theory. Indeed the section opens with an attack on science (not specifically evolutionary science), and questions the nature of science itself. Clearly proponents of creationism wanting their theories to be taught in the classrooms alongside evolution all would argue vociferously that creationism is scientific too. Furthermore, within the section, there is no mention of intelligent design (ID) theory (quite a prominent creationist movement) as well. There is only passing mention of arguments for ID theory such as irreducible complexity, creationist biology, specified complexity and much of the section focuses on a point-by-point argument and rebuttal format.

Moreover, there are some rather alien arguments present within the section such as creationists charging that "naturalistic explanations are fundamentally inadequate" because "because the models require violations of the laws of nature at the most fundamental level, while creationism allows for an explanation that, although not observable, at least allows for consistency with the laws of nature". The next sentence goes on to say that scientists counter there is no evidence there was any violation of the laws of physics. Huh? What does this mean? Did someone mix up creationist and evolutionist arguments? I have personally never come across such arguments while reading creationist books. The last sentence is also worded strangely (what exactly does it mean?):

• Moreover, while the methods of explanation have changed, the conclusions have remained the same, and it is with the conclusions that the criticism was concerned.

Apart from all this, there is also the endless repetition of "mainstream proponents" just about everywhere in the section, and no mention of any specific criticism of evolutionary arguments such as the fossil record, problems with specific accounts of abiogenesis, geological arguments etc. If anyone thinks that such should be included in the article on evolution rather than here, no, they're not there. In fact the paucity of "mainstream creationist" arguments here surprises me. I actually learned more about creationist arguments from talkorigins.org (pro-evolution website) than here.

Finally, before the evolutionists start spewing vile ad-hominem epithets against me, please note that I am an evolutionist and am firmly against all kinds of creationist crap. Nevertheless, I do not believe it is appropriate for evolutionists to present a strawman out of creationism. Knock them down as they are! There's no need to stoop so low. I can attempt a rewrite of this section over the next few days (if I have time), but I'm afraid I know more about anti-creationist arguments than pro-creationist ones so I am of limited help here. Ethereal 11:09, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

There was a great deal of discussion of this when the section was introduced. The relevant arguments are to be found under Creation science, and it was argued that this article shouldn't trespass on the proper concerns of that one. This article concerns the belief that the origin of the universe is divine, and thus not (wholly) explicable scientifically.

The 'defences' section was in fact originally written by a creationist (who has since abandoned this article), who included both defences and replies; subsequent changes to it can be discoivered in the page History.

Incidentally, a minor point, but can we use ad hominem only for what it actually means, not to refer to any personal comment or criticism? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do you actually think the current revision of this section doesn't require rewriting? The creation science page you referenced doesn't contain the kind of changes I'll like to see in this article's section. As for ad hominem, I don't know what you are talking about. I'm just pre-empting and (hopefully avoiding) unneeded personal attacks. Ethereal 14:30, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think of just leaving all these polarised articles to the squabbling sides; why is it that it's impossible to make a simple comment without its being taken as a statement of some definite point of view to be aggressively defended against? I was simply explaining the genesis of the section to which you were referring, the reasons for its present state, and the arguments offered at the time. In fact, if you'd read the previous discussions, you'd have seen that I don't think that it's OK as it stands. (I don't however, think that defences of creationism as having scientific status belong here; they're surely relevant to creation science, not to creationism.)

As for ad hominem; an ad hominem argument is one that tries to attack a belief held by a certain person by showing that it contradicts some other belief held by that person — in other words, it doesn't really show that the belief is false, only (at best) that a certain person shouldn't hold it. The term is sometimes used more loosely to refer to the attempt to attack a belief merely by attacking the character of a person who holds it. On Wikipedia and elsewhere it's too often used simply refer to any personal attack or even minor incivility. I'd just prefer to see it used properly. As I said, a minor point, but important if one values clarity. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You might want to check our article entitled Ad hominem on that one. It means both what you say and the other. When I studied informal logic, we distinguished the ad hominem argument (a valid argument that a person contradicts his own claims, or upon a person's credibility) from the ad hominem fallacy (a fallacious argument that a claim must be false because of something about its proponent).

For instance, here is an example of an ad-hominem argument: "Creationists claim that evolutionary theory is unfounded and false. However, most creationists do not reject the use of modern medicine. Much of modern medicine is derived from an understanding of biology that is inseparable from evolution. Therefore, creationists do something that contradicts their claims."

And here is an ad-hominem fallacy: "Joe claims that evolution occurred. However, Joe is a collector of pornography, lives with a woman not his wife, and smokes marijuana on the weekends. Therefore, what he says is false."

Or, more broadly, the ad-hominem by ridicule: "A number of people claim that creationism is true. However they are a bunch of uneducated rednecks. Ha ha, look at the silly rednecks. They're so silly they go to church every Sunday! How crazy can you get?! Therefore creationism is false." Or, "A number of people claim that evolution happened. However, they are a bunch of limousine liberals. Ha ha, look at the silly liberals. They're so silly they read The Nation and watch Michael Moore movies! How crazy can you get?! Therefore evolution is false."

One of the most common forms of ad-hominem fallacy I see on Wikipedia is the assertion that some person's position can be discounted because they (the person) are an "extremist", "fanatic", or "POV". In general any case of belittling someone in order to avoid confronting their claims can be considered an ad-hominem fallacy -- though it may be more useful here to just call it a personal attack and censure the attacker. --FOo 18:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks — but that's what I meant; ad hominem doesn't refer to just any personal attack, as people here often use it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Slightly new intro

Over the past few years the introduction to this article had been dangerously overwritten! It was dense, and hard for a newcomer to the subject to understand. Detailed discussions are best done within the heart of the article, not in the vert first paragraph. In line with the editing practice on hundreds of other Wikipedia articles, I made two edits. (A) I simplified the intro, without trying to change any of the ideas. (B) I placed the most common definition first, and the less common definition of the term second. RK 12:15, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Refrence to the CSAMA

The section on geocentric creationism under types of creationism mentions the Creation Science Association for Mid-America as an example. I went to their website, and while they seem to strongly beleive in creationism a la Genesis, I could find no mention them believing in geocentric, perfectly spherical world. Now, I'm not familiar with their organization, so I suppose it is possible that they do believe in such. But it would be nice to be able to find evidence of that if we want to keep it in the article. DaveTheRed 01:46, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

English

We've got enough to contend with here; could we refrain from getting into arguments about whether the article should be in U.S. or U.K. English? I read through the 'Defences' section, and it seems to be in U.K. English, so that that spelling of the title is appropriate. If there's good reason to change the whole thing, fine — but let's get the content sorted out first. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:12, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

I've just removed the following (added by 138.26.60.37:

However some creationist hold a distinction that evolution and creationism are one in the same without a literal translation of biblical text. They accept the plausability of evolution and intrept the bible as a description of evolution with a more metaphorical depiction

If it were to stay it would obviously need putting into correct English, but does it belong here at all? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(For a continuation of this conversation, see /Talk.)

Removal of two sections to creation-evolution controversy

The critiques of creationism and the defenses thereof belong on the controversy page. I have moved them there. There could be a short little sentence or paragraph describing the controversy that refers to the other article, but the distraction of the immense "personal essay" as User:Ungtss liked to put it doesn't belong in an article devoted simply to explaining the phenomenon. Joshuaschroeder 07:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. The 'criticisms of creationism' section absolutely belongs in the creationism article. It would be totally misleading of us to create an article that does not make it absolutely clear that creationism is a hugely flawed and hugely criticised religious outlook. Moreover, the criticisms highlighted are totally legitimate, informative, and what's more - important. I have put the section back where it belongs. Aaarrrggh 15:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The only problem with this, as I see it, is that the sections aren't criticizing creationism but a particular brand of creationism that is associated with the Creation-evolution controversy. Those two sections don't seem to be on par with the rest of the article as it now stands. There are a huge number of creationist claims that could be debunked and there are also a huge number of perspectives by creationists on what creationism is. I think that should be made clearer if this section is to stay. Joshuaschroeder 15:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<It would be totally misleading of us to create an article that does not make it absolutely clear that creationism is a hugely flawed and hugely criticised religious outlook.>>

This is in direct violation of npov, which provides that articles neither state or imply that a particular point of view is correct or incorrect. Ungtss 16:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We are treading on old ground here Ungtss. We have been here before. Joshua, if you want to edit the criticism section to clarify any of your concerns, I don't mind that at all; I just don't think it's right to remove the section entirely from the article. Aaarrrggh 16:51, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we've discussed it before. I just felt obligated to point out the obvious. an article which does what you want this article to do violates npov in a direct and explicit way. Ungtss 16:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Ungtss' last statement. Aidje 18:23, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

Fine, but if you actually look at the edits I've made, I think it's fair to say they've helped the overal neutrality of the article considerably. When I came to this article, there was no criticism section whatsoever, and it was a TOTALLY biased account of creationism in favour of the creationist arguments. I agree that a wiki article should not come to actual conclusions, but it is fair to say that creationism is such a flawed theory and goes in the face of so much scientific evidence, that removing such criticism would itself constitute a form of bias. I'm not saying the article should explicitly state that creationism is a fraudulent theory (although this would still be accurate), but simply that such criticisms are totally relevant and should remain within the article. Aaarrrggh 21:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern for npov. Attributed and fact-based criticism of creationism is essential to an npov article. the current criticism is an enormous personal-research essay that states opinions as facts, thus violating npov and personal research rules in mind-boggling ways. Beyond that, defenses of creationism are also essential to an article on the topic. but these have been stripped out or down to meaningless conclusions, and followed up with long rebuttals. npov provides us with a structure that will serve both our purposes. when an article violates that structure, everybody loses. Ungtss 21:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why is noone ever willing to respond with an open mind to comments such as those above? Why is the majority unwilling to remedy clear and obvious violations of policy on this page? Do you not realize that when you can only "win" by breaking the rules, it's evidence that your ideas aren't strong enough to win on the merits? Why not win according to the rules? Why not provide cited summaries of critiques of creationism, and allow cited summaries of defenses thereof, without stripping them of their content, deleting them entirely, or answering them with extended personal research rebuttals that make no sense? Do you realize that when a creationist reads this page, he's not persuaded that creationism is bunk, but is instead persuaded that evolutionists are afraid of it? Ungtss 13:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Or do as Ungtss does: If you can't "win" with the existing rules, make up your own. User:Ungtss/FAQ Bensaccount 18:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I feel that we should remove the criticism of creationism from this page, replacing it with a reference, until such time comes that there is a criticism of evolution on the evolution page. Samboy 00:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Legitimate criticisms of the nature of evolution might be relevant on the evolution page, but a 'criticism' of evolution from a creationist perspective does not belong on there because it is simply corrupt and not relevant. The evidence for evolution is absolutely overwhelming, and creationism is nothing more than an insidious anti-intellectual pseudo-theory stemming from the inability of some religious people to deal with the reality of the world we live in. Aaarrrggh 13:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fine. So it is. Even so, NPOV still applies. the article may not imply that the point of view is right or wrong, and may not be filled with personal research, no matter how noble your intentions of freeing 45% of the US population from its own "corrupt, insidious, anti-intellectual pseudotheory." No matter how evil the criminal, the rules still apply. otherwise it's a mere lynching. Ungtss 19:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In general, fair representation does not mean giving an idiot equal say. Bensaccount 20:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nobody's asking for an equal say. what we're asking for is that we be allowed our say in cited, scholarly summaries, and that you limit your say to cited, scholarly summaries, rather than your own personal research. you are censoring cited creationist opinion and replacing it with your own uncited, personal research. Ungtss 20:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was not being specific to this page, which I have not read. My problem is with Ungtss' arguments. Bensaccount 20:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that Ungtss has done a good job of sumarizing Wikipedia policies on NPOV et al. I think that everyone should read the Wikipedia policy on NPOV before accusing someone else of making up their own rules. Or do you care to elaborate on where his summaries run contrary to Wikipedia policies.

It is parallel policy intended for bypassing the set policy, and I certainly do not care to waste my time reading it. If you need a summary of NPOV, heres a good one: The neutral point of view policy states that articles should be written without bias, representing all views fairly. Bensaccount 00:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your evident failure to read the FAQ or the long, complex and subtle npov policy draw the quality of your evaluation into question. Ungtss 19:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't make any evaluation, I said I had no intention of reading your attempt to rewrite NPOV. Bensaccount 20:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you should start by reading the real npov, then see if there were any substantive differences in mine. nah. too much work. Ungtss 20:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have read it and am satisfied, therefore I see no reason to read your attempt to rewrite it. Bensaccount

If you've read it and are satisfied, then feel free to start following it. start by deleting that abysmal personal research, highly pov, and factually inaccurate essay at the end of this page. Ungtss 14:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bensaccount's summary of NPOV is inaccurate. No article should represent "all views," only those pertaining to said article. Thus, in my opinion, facts about creationism should go in the creationism page, and anything pertaining to why the theory is "bunk" go in the controversy article. JEmfinger 16:48, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thats not my summary that is Wikipedia's summary from the page on NPOV. Unlike Ungtss I don't make up brand new summaries to suit my biases. Bensaccount 21:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOVing a section; aka (essay)

I strongly suggest that one of the proponents of the pov personal research essay at the end of this article bring it into conformance with wikipedia policy. it is currently an enormous pile of pov personal research, unbacked with cited scholarly opinion, and much of it is patent nonsense. Please. If you want to save the huddled masses of ignorant and vile creationists, follow the rules of npov. we're not stupid enough to confuse your opinion for reality. on the contrary, your persistent unwillingness to follow the rules just further convinces us that your views are nonsense. thoughts? Ungtss 03:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• !! ---Rednblu | Talk 05:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• How did Ungtss become a spokesperson for all creationists? Joshuaschroeder 13:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • How did schroeder become the spokesman for reality? Ungtss 21:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am offended that Ungtss is calling eveyone with this belief ignorant and vile. Bensaccount 17:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Carry on, ben. carry on. Ungtss 21:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will edit this section when I have more time. It definately needs cleaning up and fixing. I'll do it as soon as I can. Aaarrrggh 16:33, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. in order to maximize article quality, please find, reference, and cite published and scholarly criticism. thanks:). Ungtss 17:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok Ungtss, that I will do. I have made a start on an improved version of this section already, but I'm going to go to the library in my own time now to really tie it all together I think. I will try my best to update this in the next few days if I can. Aaarrrggh 18:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Awesome:). Ungtss 21:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

!! ---Rednblu | Talk 23:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Definition

I was suprised to find there is a difference between creationism and belief in creation. I think this difference is subtle and the reader would benefit if this article differentiated the two. Bensaccount 17:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. And thank you for having the courage to remove the essay. How would you differentiate the two? Ungtss 21:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, it's not the 'essay' that I was concerned about - it is having a section of the article dedicated to legitimate criticisms of creationism. I will take this on myself now, cleaning up and changing it until we hopefully have something much better. Aaarrrggh 16:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The first task is to make that which links to Creationism, creation, creation belief, origins beliefs, creating, and creation (theology) link to that which is most appropriate, and avoid redirects. Bensaccount 16:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AiG link

I changed the link to Answers in Genesis from "The thousands of articles and media programs on this site answer questions about creation/evolution, dinosaurs, and much more." to a more descriptive note about its support of Young-Earth creationism. I think this is much better way to know which site says what than something that sounds like it came from a press release. --Weyoun6 02:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Modern Geocentrism

The article the link takes you to doesn't refer to geocentrism in the sense that the Sun orbits the Earth. Modern geocentrism says that Earth is the center of the universe in that it located at the center. This theory, depending on the theorist's viewpoint, does not say that the whole universe revolves around Earth. User: Mred64

It actually does since the immobile Earth is also a part of the idea. Joshuaschroeder 22:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Brief note on Islam

In the Islamic world, due to the continued prevalence of religious belief, the theory of evolution has not yet taken hold, and traditional Islamic beliefs regarding creation remain dominant. However, several liberal movements within Islam, which are generally partial to secular scientific thought, subscribe to evolution.

This needs to be rewritten to make clear that it is due to the continued prevalence of Islam (or a particular type of Islam) that evolution has not taken hold, not due to the continued prevalence of religious belief in general. -- Temtem 01:06, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Moved stuff: creationism, Creation (theology), Abrahamic creationism

I've moved 'Creation (theology)', which only deals with Christianity to Abrahamic creationism. It should now be added to, to cover Islam and Judaism aswell. Creation (theology]] now refers here.

This article, in my mind, should be about creation in general, and should refer to Abrahamic creationism and the creation vs evolution debate. To that end, I've treid to add other views on creation. Feel free to add more, there are legion.

Ec5618 16:35, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

removed junk

do not delete important content

There is a problem with the way the section on "Abrahamic" creationism is set up, in that it implies that contemporary verions of creationism come from "Abrahamic" religion. It is true that in the US molst contemporary creationists claim that their views come from the Biblical book of Genesis. But this is not the same thing as claiming that the original authors of Genesis, or their audiences, elieved in "creationism." Moreover, there are many people who are of "Abrahamic" religions who are not creationists. It is for this reason that the last edit, which deleted the section on Christian critiques of creationism, was especially egregious. Evolutionary scientists are not the only people today who oppose creationism. Many Christians and Jews (qand I imagine, but cannot say for sure, Muslims as well) reject creatonism for religious reasons. There views must be represented, or we are left with a violation of NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, on closer inspection I removed too much. Still, I think the article has improved on the whole; it was really cluttered. Out with the bad, in/back with the good, as it were. A lot was also a rehash from Abrahamic creationism, so I removed duplicate info. Thanks for the partial revert, though I think the 'critique' section could be shortened. - Ec5618 22:57, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I am not faulting you at all for working on the article. But wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and one should never delete content. Edit it to make it clearer, or more accurate. Rearrange it. Create a linked page and put it there. But don't delete content, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just did a little more editing for style and NPOV. I deleted the link at the beginning of the section on Abrahamic religions because such links should be at the bottom -- this is not an article on one website's account of creationism, it is an article on creationism, drawing on many sources. I edited the opening of this section to make it less verbose and to make clear, for NPOV purposes, that "Abrahamic religions" do not require creationism, but rather we are talking about beliefs held by some Jews, Christians and Muslims. In the followin section I deleted the point about Muslim creationism, which is covered in the "Abrahamic" section. I also put the Mayan creationism under the bullet point for American Indian creationisms, since Mayans are American Indians. By the way, I still question the accuracy and NPOV of this section. What sources do we have that Maya and other American Indians really believe that their myths should be interpreted literally? The Indians I have spoken to usually interpret their myths non-literally, and Indians I have spoken to who talk about "creationism" are explictly referring to Christian creationism. Whoever wrote this section, please provide sources/verification. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia, obviously. And I agree that generally, content should not be deleted. In this case, I did, and rather rigorously at that, because the history still contains the deleted material. Since this article is on Creationism in general, and an article exists which deals with Abrahamic creationism, some content should be moved from this article. I reasoned, perhaps a bit presumptiously, that anyone who felt specific content should not have been deleted, they would restore the text, or even move it to other articles where the text would fit better.

And I'll also agree with you that the article on Abrahamic creationism is poorly set up. Moving the link, I'll agree with. I was the one who added the creation stories from the 'other cultures', using the source to which the link you just moved pointed. Perhaps we could add a note explaining that many/some/most of these myths are not generally believed, and perhaps, never were. Perhaps, they were, at one times, stories people told each other to amuse themselves with, knowing full well they didn't have any actual answers. Though perhaps this discussion should be at the Talk page of Abrahamic creationism. -- Ec5618 21:24, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Great. Personal advice, though: don't delete content assuming someone will restore it if they think it is necessary. I am not reacting personally to your earlier overzealous cleaning up, this really is just some friendly advice about how to work on other articles. If you really think something is absolutely redundant, or wrong, you can delete. But if there is any grey area, bring it up on the talk page first. Give it a few days to see if anyone disagrees with you about the proposed deleting, or has an alternative. If after a few days no one has objected, go ahead and delete. As to the other creation myths -- well, I am inclined to agree with you that sometimes the stories were meant to amuse. Or they may have had a serious didactic function, to express moral truths for example (look, people think Aesop's fabels are much more than "amusements," but no one believes foxes talk or more to the point that Aesop believed foxes talk. As I said, I know this is the case at least for a few Indians I actually know. But my point is -- I do not know how all Indians in all Native American societies feel about their myths. They may believe they are just entertainments. They may feel they express historical facts. they may believe they express moral truths. My point is, I do not know. IF you know for a fact that the Maya, or ancient Greeks or Egyptians or Norwegians, felt that their myths were amusement/historical fact/moral truth, then say so -- and provide the citation. Check our Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia: No original research, and Wikipedia: Verifiability policies. If you did not have a source when you wrote that these are creation myths, AND if you do not have a source when you now suggest they were amusements, then you are violating all three of these important policies. Please be careful. Please go over what you added and provide sources for the claims (interpretations) you added to the article. If you can't, then I will delete them. But I will give you time to respond/fix them first, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pleasant. I mentioned before what my source was. I got the information via the link you moved. I never claimed, not in the article nor here, that the myths were 'mere amusing anecdotes'. I will edit this page at some point, it's late now. - Ec5618 23:13, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I use the word "amuse" because you did -- and I am not criticizing you for using it (no need to get defensive), I am only pointing out that we do not know that for sure. As to the source, I am sorry but that website is not an appropriate source for the claim that these yths from other cultures are creation myths. I know that the website makes that claim, and I know that your intentions were entirely good. But that website is not providing any evidence to support the claim that those myths were used to explain creation in the same way that Creationists in the US use Genesis 1 to explain creation. An appropriate source would be an article from an anthropology, folklore, or religious studies journal (or a book by a scholar in one of these fields) which makes the argument and provides evidence. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A lot of worthy material seems to have been cut: I propose moving parts into new articles, suggested titles Judaism on creationism and Islamic creationism: have these sections already been moved? --dave souza 18:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A lot of material has been moved to the collective article Abrahamic creationism. -- Ec5618 22:25, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Panspermia as Creation Myth

I don't think Panspermia should be listed as a Creation myth. I thought Panspermia was a scientific theory or hypothesis, and that is what the Wikipedia article calls it. Serious scientific research is being done on it, to see if it really could happen. Mred64 00:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think in its strong from (cosmic ancestry), it could be considered a creation myth. -- Temtem 01:07, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Panspermia is NOT a creationist theory, it is a falsifiable scientific hypothesis. It ought to be removed from this article!

Do not make a confussion between Erich Von Daniken crap and Panspermia in which microorganism can develop inside meteorites ! - uncredited

Deleted Link

• Evolution Deceit

This site was deleted(because of low google serach) but this article doesn't have an Islamic link other than that one.(that I saw) Should it be kept? (I don't neccesarily disagree with the user that deleted the article) Falphin 22:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revert of Scientific Creationism

I just took this out:

Although many opponents to Creationism have shunned different Holy Texts as being unsupported and even mythical, a growing number of the world's scientists are accepting the likelihood of a greater intelligence responsible for creating the universe. This movement is commonly known as Creation-Science, or Scientific Creationism. Generally, Creation-scientists are found in the field performing studies similar to their Darwinian colleagues'. But unlike their fellow scientists, Creation-scientists tend to reject the theory of abiogenesis in place of Creationism, while at the same time helping to analyze their findings which can be used to support Creationism. So far, evidence is existent in nearly all the major fields of science, including geology and astronomy.

I know it's not good Wikipedia manners and not nice in general to delete entire paragraphs, but I think this is POV and invites problems. Holy texts have been not been "shunned" -- they're simply not suitable sources of information; if Salva knows of "a growing number of scientists" accepting creationism, then show bona fide statistics. Then also, scientists are not divided between "Darwinians" and "Creationists" as implied, and abiogenesis is not a theory, it's an umbrella term for hypotheses that life came from ordinary non-living matter. And finally, the evidence for creationism has been shown to be lacking or flawed, and at times even dishonestly presented as true by people who come with scientific grades obtained at "diploma mills".

This article is rather messy already, Salva -- please don't insert such inflammatory material. There's a policy about conflicting POVs here. Discuss your ideas here, don't dump them into the main article. --Pablo D. Flores 03:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pardon, what exactly are you saying is a "diploma mill?" Could you possibly be talking about Federally-funded universities? If that is your supposition, then you need to check your facts. There are creation-scientists that have graduated from schools all over the world! What about Jonathan Wells - PhD in religious studies from Yale and PhD in molecular biology from Berkley? Surely you don't see Yale and Berkley as "diploma mills?" Once again - why are we back on attacking each other's education in order to justify our positions? There's no need to wear out our temporal mendibular joints with all this nonsense. Salva 21:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Defining creationism

I have taken the most common elements from each definition on [[1]] and combined them to get this definition:

Creationism is the doctrine that the universe, life, and each human soul was created by God as described in Genesis. Bensaccount 03:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was going to point to merging this with creation (theology) but its already been done. Bensaccount 03:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Myth/Belief/Theory

Myth might be considered inflammatory, but neither 'belief' nor 'theory' are accurate. For example, we don't actually know whether every 'creation story' was ever actually believed. Who is to say there weren't people who realised they didn't have all the answers, and so told amusing stories to fill in the gaps. Theory obviously isn't correct either, so it would seem we need another term. Any suggestions?

Meanwhile, the creationism article now contains no in-text reference to the creation evolution controversy.

Ec5618 09:56, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

It was removed with the argument that it's biased and inflammatory to state that scientific explanations are in conflict with creationism. I'm putting it back. Naturalistic explanations are what science gives, and creationism is not a naturalistic explanation. --Pablo D. Flores 12:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Naturalistic means without God. There is no way to say for sure God is not present. Thus science is NOT naturalistic. Bensaccount 15:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But science doesn't need to show that there is no God. All it attempts to do is provide an explanation for events as if God or the supernatural is not the cause. -- Temtem 16:53, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Naturalistic means "with reference only to known natural laws", i. e. implying "without reference to God", not "without God". --Pablo D. Flores 18:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just a suggestion but what if we changed "science" to "naturalistic science." I don't see any conflict this way.Falphin 19:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, science is naturalistic. Surely you know the difference between alchemy and chemistry, astrology and astronomy? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes I know the difference

I provided these definitions from a google search.

Science: "a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study"

Scientific Method: " principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses"

Naturalist: "A person who studies nature (including plants and animals) and natural history (how plants and animals evolve)."

Putting it into the sentence

"Creationist beliefs usually conflict with theory of evolution and explanations of the origins and development of the universe, the Earth, and life provided by naturalistic science."(meaning: those who have studied the natural history of the earth using scientific methods.)

A better word might just be natural. This is just a suggestion, I don't believe the status quo is completley fair.

Another idea might be to simply reword it, "Creationist beliefs usually conflict with the theory of evolution and explantions of the orgins and development of the universe, the Earth, and life provided by the majority of scientists" , or something along those lines.

Falphin 20:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)Falphin

I still do not understand. What is "unfair" about the "status quo?" This all started with Bensaccount saying, "Naturalistic means without God. There is no way to say for sure God is not present. Thus science is NOT naturalistic." This sentence makes two mistakes. First, science is naturalistic in that it provides natural explanations and it is true that these explanations do not refer to God. But this does not mean that scientists do not believe God exists. All it means is that scientific explanations do not need to invoke God as part of the explanation. Second, that science does not invoke God, when in fact (according to Ben) God is present, does not mean that Science is not naturalistic, it only means that Ben believes science is wrong. Ben and anyone else is free to accept or reject science as they see fit. But they should not mischaracterize science. For an explanation to be scientific it must be natural. To say "naturalistic science" is redundant (since all science is naturalistic) and misleading (since it implies that a non-naturalistic science exists). Slrubenstein|Talk 22:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's untrue to say that creationist beliefs usually conflict with evolution - unless you define Catholics as not being creationist! I've clarified the paragraph...dave souza 23:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it depends on how you define creationism? I thought Catholics just are not creationists. Everyone I know in the US who is a creationist say they believe God created the world in six days, and created all the species separately. This most definitely contradicts science. I think you may be making a mistake to equate all religious beliefs with creationism. creationism does conflict with science -- but religion and science need not conflict. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

explanation for cut

I cut this:

On the other hand, many faiths which can be called creationist accept scientific explanations of the origins and development of the universe, the Earth, and life including evolution by natural selection–such beliefs can be characterised as scientific creationism.

because of the phrse "can be." For an editor of Wikipedia to claim that a religion "can be" called creationist is original research and must be deleted. Our articles are not to speculate about what "can" be so. We need to restrict ourselves to what "is," not what can be. The question is simply this: Do any faiths that accept scientific explanations of the origins and development of the universe, the Earth, and life including evolution by natural selection actually call themselves "creationist"? If so, fine — and we should name 3exactly which faiths accept natural selection and also call themselves creationist. But unless such a faith has actually called themselves creationist, this sentence has no place in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Check out scientific creationism and the associated talk: some prefer to call it theistic evolution, but that's controversial. I've tried to improve the para, if you want to substitute "are" for "can be" that's ok by me..dave souza 00:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Dave, you aren't really answering my question. Can you tell me which faiths both accept Darwin's theory of natural selection and explicitly call themselves "creationist?" Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for my misdirect: I meant to refer to Evolutionary creationism and its talk page: as you can see there, many religious faiths have belief in creation and at the same time reconcile this with evolution. It's correct to say they don't necessarily accept all science, the Roman Catholic belief in divine creation of life and souls being an example. Others on that talk page obviously followed the same principle as the definition in the creationism article, that it includes those with creation beliefs without stipulating that they reject evolution: it would be tidier to limit creationism to rejection of evolution, but I've had to accept that others don't feel that way..dave souza 00:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

p.s. I've revised the intro to creationism to meet your concerns - the relevant sentence is rephrased to:

On the other hand, many faiths which believe in divine creation accept evolution by natural selection as well as, to a greater or lesser extent, scientific explanations of the origins and development of the universe, the Earth, and life – such beliefs have been given the name evolutionary creationism, though others call them "theistic evolution".

Hope this clarifies things, .dave souza 00:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

You certainly are making a valid point. More sophistication is always better than less. I just think it is important to be as precise as possible, and always Wikipedia:Cite sources (e.g., who calls it "theisitic evolution?" Members of that religion, or outsiders?). Slrubenstein | Talk 00:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. A quick Google search for "evolutionary creationism" yields secondary sources, discussion forums, FAQs, and other wikis -- not primary sources -- and not very many sources of any kind at all. Who came up with this terminology? Who uses it? Are there any books defending the position? Do people who believe it self-describe as "evolutionary creationists"? "Theistic evolutionists"? Or do they just call themselves Christians, Jews, Muslims, or other religionists who happen to accept the conclusions of biological science as not contradicting their beliefs?

There seems to me to be a significant likelihood that this category is being cooked up in order to add religionists who agree with biological science to the "creationist" camp, or perhaps to define (unmodified) evolution as an "atheistic" belief. That would be unfortunate and dishonest. As such, the question of whether there are any faith groups who both accept evolutionary science and label themselves "creationist" is really central to assessing the worth of the contribution that claims so. --FOo 04:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Most of us from what I have seen over half a dozen forums on the "Great Debate" would rather call ourselves Theistic Evolutionist rather than Evolutionary Creationists. Frankly, we don't want to be associated with the term "creationISM" at all, especially since most of us are more likely to side with the non-theists than the Creationists in this debate. Also, a quick Google check also shows that Theistic Evolution is in fact, the more commonly used term. Here are the relevant results:

Theistic Evolution 28,600

Theistic Evolutionist 5,750

Evolutionary Creationism 2,700

Evolutionary Creation 1,440

Evolutionary Creationist 608

Dracil 21:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Some history: when I got involved in this, the article on Creationism listed types and of Evolutionary creationism said that " Many creationists would deny that this is creationism at all, and should rather be called theistic evolution, just as many scientists allow voice to their spiritual side.", but a redirect of theistic evolution meant both linked to the same page. From discussion on that talk page I accepted that the two should stay merged, and was given as a source of the titles What is Creationism?, which I added as a source to this page before someone deleted it and the list was later moved to Abrahamic creationism. The Evolutionary creationism article includes a number of sources for those taking the position, one being:

Dobzhansky wrote a famous 1973 essay entitled Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution espousing evolutionary creationism: "I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's, method of creation."

In the discussion page several contributors argue that this is their position, .dave souza 18:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't read this quote — thanks for providing it! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Salva/Aargh monologues

Excuse me, folks, but we have several issues here:

Most evidence presented by Creationists is against Evolutionary theories while science uses the Scientific Method as a means of discovering information about the natural world. Scientists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out to be correct, the theory survives. This is a meritocratic form of systematic enquiry, where the best ideas supported by evidence and positive experimental results survive. All scientific theories are falsifiable; that is, if evidence that contradicts any given theory comes to light, or if the theory is proven to no longer fit with the evidence, the theory itself is shown to be invalid. Evolution is a theory that fits in with all known biological evidence, fits in with all known genetic evidence, and is backed up by overwhelming evidence in the fossil record. It is also important to note that there is no 'debate' within scientific circles as to whether evolution is a fact or not. It is only in the public sphere, where young earth creationists (especially in America) have fought for recognition of their world view, that the debate about creationism and evolution rages.

Do you know what this is? It's called propagandizing and slanted journalism. Look, if you want to use these unending mantras to eliminate all possible equivocal interpretations of your vehicle of insanity, go ask CNN for a job - I am sure that they would love to have you! But please, this is not a ground for your indoctrination of atheistic beliefs.

This is the Creationism article, and Creationists are not mythics or pseudoscientists when reviewed in context with the English language. They are, however to our happy pack of Brown Shirted neo Darwinists who think that they will win the Culture Wars. If you are a scientist, you pay attention to the evidence. Given, the evidence for the origin of life can be construed to point to many beginnings, but it is NOT - LET ME REPEAT THAT - IT IS NOT extensive enough to draw any ABSOLUTE conclusions. The evidence for abiogenesis is poor, and on the other hand the Creation scientists are still tying up ends, but whoever wrote that dispicable rant of a statement is unrecognizably in a sinking boat trying to paddle upstream. Creationism is going nowhere because it CAN be supported by evidence. I know you evolutionists would sometimes love to think that you've won, and even try to convince yourselves that "there is no debate", but the clock is ticking, and there is nothing that you can do to halt your own looming apprehensions about the controversy which we so very much love to talk about.Salva 20:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It was slanted journalism salva, I freely admit that. It was slanted in favour of the facts and the evidence. I know this is a baffling concept for somebody like you, but some people out there think that facts and reality have a place in our understanding of the world around us.

We have won. There is no debate. By the way, I love it when you wacky bible thumping rabid frothing at the mouth creationists show up. Hello to you!

Salva, you are going to find that your total lack of intellectual integrity when it comes to this issue will be a burden against you here. The truth is more important than your beliefs, and wikipedia is not the place to censor totally valid criticism of a 'theory' as corrupt and vapid as creationism. If you are not happy - tough.

Aaarrrggh 14:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank U 4 x-tendng my edumakashun.Salva 16:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The irony is that that is the most intelligent contribution you have made to this talk page so far. Aaarrrggh 16:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

You're hopeless. Evidently, there is nothing that I can say to trigger your critical thinking. You can't open up your mind and you seem to hate all that is good and right. Well, all I have to say is fine. God be with you. Salva 17:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The reason I accept evolution as an accurate theory regarding the origin of life is directly because of my capacity for critical thought. Accusing those who understand and accept the validity of the scientific theory of evolution of being "Brown Shirted neo Darwinists" does nothing to promote your self projected image of a 'critical thinker'. Given that you also mention 'atheistic beliefs' (atheism is not a belief system), and imply that the 'battle' between evolution and creationism is nothing more than 'culture war', it seems to me that it is very clearly you who is in need of developing his critical thinking capacity. Evolution is not a cultural development - it is a scientific theory based solely on the systematic accumulation of overwhelming evidence. Any cultural impact this has is secondary and seperate to the scientific theory itself.

Also, your waffling about evolution not being not suported by "ABSOLUTE conclusions" shows an ignorance about basic scientific principles. Science is not about absolute conclusions; science is dynamic, pliable and self correcting. Science adapts and changes according to new conditions and discoveries. It is only in the relm of man made religions such as christianity that we find the arrogant declaration of absolute knowledge. There is no evidence for creationism whatsover; therefore it is an invalid theory, and this needs to be made clear within the article on creationism itself. You should try HONEST critical thought. It's good, and it might cure you from your mental delusions. If you ever feel the urge to be cured of the christian brain virus, please don't hesitate to ask me for my help. I would be more than willing :-) Aaarrrggh 17:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, without directly insulting your metal thought processes, I would like to point out a few things :-)

• Atheism is a religious belief. I don't know who on God's green Earth decided to let you into Oxford if you truly think otherwise. Unless you can prove that God does not exist then you have to believe he does not exist, hence, atheism is indubitably a belief system.

Yes, you are right to say "Atheism" is a belief. But you are wrong to say "Atheism is a religious belief." Not all beliefs are religious. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

• There is a battle going on between creationism and evolutionism. We see it every day in our schools, media, and even on Wikipedia. A battle is when two sides, usually with opposing belief systems, are engaged in a conflict.

Quite true. But the battle is not between creationists and atheists (especially since many "evolutionists" believe in God, and many are devout Christians). It is a battle between a very narrow religious doctrine, not shared by all religious people, and science.

• BOTH theories for the origin of life have survived the test of time in the scientific community and elsewhere. The difference is that Creationism has survived a much longer test of time. There are still quite a few people in the world who believe in Creationism because it is a solid explanation for our purpose, being, and origin. Let me repeat that - Creationism HAS survived. It has suffered a detrimental attack in America since the 1960's, but prevails nonetheless.

It is not true that both theories have survived the test of time in the scientific community. It is true that evolution has; creationism has not. You may be right that creationism has been around for a long time, but you may be wrong. Many Christians today do not interpret the Bible the way you do. It is unclear whether people living 1,000 or 2,000 years ago interpreted the Bible the way you do. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

• Don't forget that many of the "icons of evolution" have been deceitful hoaxes, whiiiiicch, (unfortunately for all the serious Brown Shirts out there,) have given a stench of incredulity to the theory itself.

I am not sure what you are talking about. Piltdown man was a hoax, yes. There have even been religious people, evangelists, who have been frauds — it happens. But the Piltdown man hoax was not meant to support evolution, it was intended to support British national pride. In any event, put the hoaxes aside, for a moment. So far all scientific evidence supports the modern synthesis. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

• You have the right idea of what science is, my friend! I'm proud of you! It is a self-correcting process, which means that both evolution and creation theories are probably correctable in one area or another.
• I'm appalled to be receiving personal attacks from an Administrator. That is not a good example to set for Wikipedia, and is counterproductive to say the least.

You are wrong to think Admin's are special or privileged. Wikipedia is non-hierarchical. All editors are equal as editors. Admin's are simply editors who have access to certain commands that allow them to do house-keeping chores. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

• If you would ever like some help, please don't hesitate to ask. Regards, Salva 21:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you have your wires crossed somewhere Salva. I am not an administrator, nor did I go to Oxford. I studied at Manchester University in England, not Oxford. I'm not going to get into the same age-old silly little debates such as 'atheism is a form of religious belief' with you. I cannot be bothered, and this is not the place for that. Sirubenstein is correct in pointing out that creationism has not stood the test of time in the scientific community. When you talk about there being a real debte, I am reffering here to the scientific community. There is unfortunately a limited 'debate' in the public sphere, but this is caused entirely by the loud screechings of organised creationists - it is not the outcome of any real debates based on real information. Simply insisting that something is the case inspite of the truth does not help anybody. I've seen this time and again coming from creationist zealots like yourself. Comments such as

"BOTH theories for the origin of life have survived the test of time in the scientific community and elsewhere. The difference is that Creationism has survived a much longer test of time...Let me repeat that - Creationism HAS survived."

Do much to show how little integrity you truly have. The statement is simply false. This either shows you to have no real knowledge of the subject, or to simply be lying outright. Which is it? Are you ignorant or lying to us?Aaarrrggh 23:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Heh heh...we'll see who the liar is soon enough, my friend. The time for honoring yourselves is coming to an end. It's Ok, though, because TRUE SCIENCE corrects itself where it has been found to be false or misleading from the facts. I don't have the time or patience to repeat myself about things. Just think about what you are trying to censor and consider the possibility that you are wrong. By the way, I would like to add that this article needs some serious work done to it before it mirrors the format of the evolution page, and adding a page of attacks does in no way resemble it. I pray to God that I will be given the opportunity to meet every person out there like you face to face, "Aaarrrggh." It's quite easy for you to sit at a computer and BS, but if you cannot support yourself in public, you are a coward. So next time something like the debate in the Kansas State Board of Education comes up, I hope to see you or at least someone who will speak for your party of "scientists" there to prove their point to this country and this world. Recently (in Kansas), they simply chickened out and sent no one. Well, I'll tell you what - the neo-Darwinians just lost another state. Perhaps next time you could present yourself to enlighten the board with your almighty knowledge? You seem confident enough. My point is this - all that you have proved to me so far is that you 1)claim that you have "overwhelming evidence" 2) you are devoted to overthrowing the "brain virus" of Christianity. 3)you are convinced that you are smarter than someone else, which is a serious fallacy to anyone with common sense. Think real hard about that - I'm not saying you are dumb or stupid, but just think really hard about your attitude in this matter. Throw your contempt away! It's never too late to make that change. Salva 00:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to come over to Kansas to preach reality on behalf of honest scientists and teachers everywhere. I'm deadly serious about that; the only problem is that I'm a poor starving ex student living in England without the means to come over there. That doesn't mean you haven't triggered an idea in my head. Maybe one day I'll get to meet you in person, and perhaps by then the natural immune system of honesty and logic within yourself may have fought back against the virus that has taken charge of your thinking capacities. And with regards to your insistence that I provide more evidence for you, you can always take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Have a good read Salva - it might save your soul :-) Aaarrrggh 00:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Why don't atheistic scientists ever look at the overwhelming evidence for creationism, and realise its simply the more logical 'theory'? -- Ec5618 00:31, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Because there is absolutely no evidence for it anywhere. That's probably got something to do with it. Aaarrrggh 00:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that last comment was a piece of irony directed to Salva. My dear Aaarrrggh et all, if I may give you some advice, don't bother answering to militant fundamentalists. It's all effort and no reward. Keep the article page clean of their nonsense, and let them vent their frustration here, where this denial of reality can be exposed freely without damaging Wikipedia's reputation. Have a nice weekend, everybody. --Pablo D. Flores 01:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah Right. Apologies Ec, but I guess that shows that when you're arguing with these kind of nutters, it's very difficult to detect irony! Aaarrrggh 12:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

You folks are unbelievable. I feel like I'm talking to a bunch of nazis. I'm not going to mess with this anymore, though - I have much better things to do with my time. As for "Aaarrrggh," you are taking a dastardly gamble with yourself - what if you do have a soul? Do you have any concept of what eternity is? What if I'm right and you are wrong? Did you ever think about that? If you are the one who is right, well then neither of us don't have anything to lose. Please just humor me and carefully consider reading the following for your own sake:

• Case for a Creator Lee Stroebel
• Icons of Evolution Jonathan Wells
• Darwin on Trial Phillip E. Johnson
• Nature's Destiny Michael J. Denton

Good luck to you all. If you are as adament and passionate about your philosophies as you seem to be on Wikipedia, then I'm sure that we will all cross paths again sometime in the future. Until then, I cannot sit at my computer as long as you probably can, so I will only check in on this article every now and then. By the way, I have read the evolution article. I've read many things about evolution and have been immersed in this controversy for a long time now (long before I started at Wiki) - long enough to know one thing - the evolutionists often come across as playing an unfair game, and that is why they are steadily losing their foothold. Alas, the true face of neo-Darwinism is shown. Well that's enough from me. Deepest Regards, Salva 01:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

As said above, the "game" is very unfair. Creationism in the forms advocated by, for example, Salva's hero, Hovind, is clearly not scientific. Evolution is. Joshuaschroeder 02:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I've read "Darwin on Trial". A Bible society sent (pushed) it to me (overseas -- from somewhere in the US to Argentina; they probably have a lot of money to spare). A waste of precious paper and ink.

And oh, that sentence: "You folks are unbelievable. I feel like I'm talking to a bunch of nazis." I seem to remember a "law of flames" or something like that from several email lists, that states that a discussion has (basically) touched rock bottom when one of the debaters calls someone else a nazi. The only sensible thing to do is leave quietly. --Pablo D. Flores 14:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

You're right. This conversation has touched rock bottom when one side refuses to consider all available information, and then attempts to rid a public resource domain of viewpoints that come from a moral, sensible people who have a foundation of laws as well as a God who is forgiving, loving, rational, and probably created the world. This is not a myth because myths die with time. Christianity has survived for thousands of years, and in the form of Judaism long before that. Evolution is still young and already has some major discrepancies that forgiving, loving, rational, scientists have written books about, and will continue to do so (I am working on one right now.) Despite the fact that they question evolution, they all have their PhD's (I'm also working towards that as well) and are scientists. If that's too hard for you to accept, then that proves how authoritarian you are about your beliefs. Mr. Flores is correct, but do try to understand that it vexes me greatly when I encounter the arrogance that is so commonly displayed against anyone who questions evolution. Salva 16:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting that Salva is convinced that "one side" has refused "to consider all available information". I wonder what side that is. For someone who believes Hovind is an authority on scientific matters, I would have to say it is Salva whose head is in the sand. There will always be lunies and cranks out there who want the world to be the way they think it should be -- and some of them may end up with PhDs. Although if you look carefully at creationist "credentials" you'll find vanishingly few of them are qualified to talk about what they do talk about. It certainly keeps things interesting. Joshuaschroeder 17:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Salva said: "As for "Aaarrrggh," you are taking a dastardly gamble with yourself - what if you do have a soul? Do you have any concept of what eternity is? What if I'm right and you are wrong?" While this comment was not directed at me, I will respond. Faith is not logical. In any way. Believers believe something which logically no-one should believe. So even if any person was convinced by this logical comment, and wanted to save their soul, they would be incapable of doing so. -- Ec5618 18:23, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

It's Aaarrrggh here; for some reason I couldn't log in. Joschua basically said everything that needs to be said anyway. I do find it somewhat insidious that people such as Salva steal perfectly legitimate arguments (Arguing that "TRUE SCIENCE" (as he so BOLDLY put it) adapts and changes and is open to new discoveries for example) and then try to bend these arguments to place a bastardised version of them into their own twisted agenda. True Science does indeed adapt and change according to new conditions and new discoveries salva - but such discoveries are always the result of an honest enquiry that tries to learn and uncover more about the actual reality of the world we live in. What I have seen time and time again from fundies such as yourself is a form of what I like to call 'argument pollution'. That is, you make so much noise, and use such dirty tricks (stealing legitimate sounding arguments and then twisting them toward your not-so-hidden agenda being only one such example) that the result is often confusion on behalf of people who do not fully understand the conceptual differences between science and religion. It takes time and effort to explain the scientific theory of evolution to someone; not only on behalf of the person who is trying to spread such knowledge, but also on behalf of those who are willing to learn. With reality despising fundamentalist extremists such as yourself screeming at them and creating as much noise, and using as many dirty tricks as possible, it is understandable that some people may end up being confused and becoming convinced that there is some kind of actual debate worth arguing over. That is where people such as myself come in, and that is why you will not stand any chance of making any kind of insidious edits to this article.

As for your pathetic waffling directed towards me ("what if I'm right and you go to hell forever eh heathen? Think about that?"). I have an easy response for that. I'm going to make up my own alternative to hell now. Here we go - It is written in the book of AAARRRGGH that if you do continue to attack reality itself because of your puerile, anti-intellectual, parasitic and vapid beliefs, you will go to HELL2! Hell2 is much worse than the Hell you often hear about in Bible classes. Hell2 is so bad that it is not even mentioned in the bible. So what will it be Salva? If you don't do as I say, you could end up in HELL2! You prepared to take the risk?

See how this works Salva? Get over your stupid beliefs. They are fairy tales and parables and nothing more. Go back to your sandpit and allow the adults to take over. - Aaarrrggh 21:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

This is an example of senseless mudslinging. This bigot (Salva) asserts or implies that anyone who does not throw aside science and look for answers only in holy writings (or by asking Salva and his crew) is an atheist. Many scientists, great and humdrum, perceive religion as providing contact with God and guidance on moral and spiritual issues, but not as a means to truth about the physical world, or at least not as the leading method. To Salva, apparently, it is impossible to disjoin even partly the physical and the spiritual worlds, while others of us see a more gradual blending. Let Salva go to a faith healer when he is sick, a faith car body repairman when he has an accident, and let him stick with his Bible and stop reading and misunderstanding science books. Scientists might do an experiment and pray for the result they want (a big discovery), but they will be honest if their prayers are not answered. At least generally this is so - there are some bad eggs in every basket, scientific and religious, who will alsify.LedBalloon 04:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Cosmetics

Ive restored the topicbox 'creationism2' which is a vertical version of the creationism template. How were "links" the basis for remoiving it? Its based on the same thing, and likewise editable. Vertical is more accessible (hence useful) in longer articles. -SV|t 18:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I've removed {{creationism2}}, as it did nothing {{creationism}} didn't do - having both messed up the flow of the page and made it look bad. I have moved {{creationism}} to the bottom of the page: a full width box of links in the middle of an introduction doesn't make an encyclopaedia article. Most of the links in the box are already mentioned in the article, as they should be: wikipedia is about encyclopaedia articles. Templates, infoboxes and the like are excellent complements to prose, but not replacements, so don't get too carried away with them. I have moved the first picture into the second section to prevent the intro being squashed between lots of boxes. If and when everyone can agree on the article and remove the disputed box it can be moved back. Joe D (t) 15:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Merging with 'Origins beliefs'

I think we should - Ec5618 16:14, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

As the article now stands, a merger with Origins beliefs' looks entirely appropriate. If this goes ahead, the 'Creationism' page should become a disambiguation page to direct readers to the aspect of creationism they're interested in: for many, 'Abrahamic creationism' may be most appropriate, and a link plus brief description of all the creationism related articles would be useful.--dave souza 18:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merging this article with origins would not be acceptable. I have stopped by the page several times in the past but never really given it an honest effort. Now, it's on my priority list and believe me - we will have a sound article here when I am through with it. Salva 01:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I still think we should do this. Perhaps Salva has not noticed that 'creationism' as he understands it is currently being covered in an article called Abrahamic creationism. Perhaps it would be we should move that article here, and link to origins beliefs. But this article, as it stands, is duplicative. -- Ec5618 18:23, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

New 'Criticism' section

I have added a new section critical of creationism. For those unfamiliar with the recent history of this article, there was an old version that I originally added that was edited to such an extent that it became fairly garbled and incoherant.

This section is probably in an early stage, and some of the arguments need fleshing out in my opinion. The basics I wanted to get are:

- Creatinionism is not a theory backed up by or built upon scientific evidence

- It is unfalsifiable and violates the principle of parsimony

- It is a belief system that is often aggresively pursued by those people who are offended by the implications of the theory of evolution with regards to their own religious beliefs

- The evidence for evolution is overwhelming (while I appreciate the evolution/creationism section deals with this more thoroughly, I think this point is so valid that it at least deserves a mention on this page), while there is in fact no positive evidence for creationism.

What might be worth adding is more detail on evolutionary evidence (without necessarily going into too great a depth simply because it has been dealt with elsewhere), and also it might make sense to add some information about the attempts of militant creationists (or more appropriately, 'anti-evolutionists', to get creationism taught alongside real science in the science classroom.

If any other people wish to help me with this, I would appreciate it. Aaarrrggh 15:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I made some edits and still tried to keep your points. Falphin 22:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I saw your edits, but decided to revert back to my original version because I thought you removed some relevant material, and some of the re-wording was unnecessary. Aaarrrggh 12:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• That's fine, I just felt the section was too repetitive. I made some minor edits but didn't change anything major this time. Falphin 22:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I made "Criticisms" into a section rather than a subsection but I'm not happy that it really belongs on this page. I understand the motive but the tag at the top of the page does direct to other more disputatious pages. I'd quite like to see this as a simple description, although it definitely should include a little more on the common usage of the term as applied to creationist Christians in the US. I also moved the Navaho and Greek Creation stories to the "other myths" section.Joffan 02:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• In the "The Christian critique of creationism" section, It stated that the Roman Catholic Church rejects creationism. While it is true that some Roman Catholics do reject creationism, it is not rejected by the Church itself. http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp I changed "The Roman Catholic Chruch" to Read "Some Roman Catholics."

Should this article include a criticism section?

Should the criticism section be moved out of this article to the article on the creation-evolution controversy? I'm bringing it up here because of a silent revert war in progress in which the criticism section is being removed. Two possible viewpoints:

• Controversy article should contain the criticism of both evolution and creation, so both arguments for both sides can be compared at a glance. The controversy article should be complete.
• Both evolution article and the creationism article should contain sections on criticism. There are many more stories of creation (Origin beliefs) that just these two, so grouping them together like this would be unfair. The controversy article should summarize and link here.

Lets reach consensus and settle this now. -- Ec5618 12:15, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

The evolution article should contain any valid criticisms of evolution. This does not include criticisms of evolution from a creationist perspective, as there is simply no case whatsoever to answer. The evolution article already mentions the social impact of the the theory and mentions the conflict between religious and scientific explanations quite well. As for the controversy article , the same rules basically apply, although the article is coming from a different perspective which allows for the creationist viewpoint to be articulated in greater depth. I reject the implication that both evolution and creationism have valid 'arguments' for them. One is a scientific theory, the other is the literal interpretation of scripture.

The 'Criticism of Creationism' section absolutely belongs on this page, and it will be staying here. What is needed is maybe for the section to be slightly expanded, and for more information to be provided. We should not be falling into the trap of projecting creationism as some kind of actually valid theory supported by anything other than blind adherance and belief. Aaarrrggh 12:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• As you are obviously not a creationist, who are you to say that creationism isn't a valid theory? JEmfinger 16:09, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This comment makes no sense. According to you, only people who believe in an idea are able to account for that idea's validity? Joshuaschroeder 16:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I feel I know enough about evolution and creationism (and the founding principles on which both are based) to be able to participate here and to put forward the case for honest science. Aaarrrggh 17:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact it does make sense. There is no hierarchy that dictates what is scientific theory and what is not scientific theory. Joshuaschroeder, we could say the same thing about you, since you evidently believe that abiogenesis is "observable" or "factual" without the assistance of any sort of intelligence. Also, I feel the same way that Mr. "Aaarrrggh" does - I'm here to put forth an argument for honest science just like he/she is. So, now that we have that cleared up, let's get started!

We have a goal here to make the creationism article more like the evolution article. The evolution article does not have militant creationists who are trying to run it (at least right now,) so why should militant evolutionists be allowed to include a two page babble about their heavily biased opinions on the creationism article? Oh, wait, I forgot, you children of Darwin are the ones that have had the epiphanies about what the absolute scientific truth is - I mean - the undisputed, unquestionable truth, right? The one that's not based on faith or crossed fingers? Salva 20:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

"Oh, wait, I forgot, you children of Darwin are the ones that have had the epiphanies about what the absolute scientific truth is - I mean - the undisputed, unquestionable truth, right? The one that's not based on faith or crossed fingers?"

No Salva - this would be dogma, and that belongs firmly in the realm of religion. I subscribe to evolutionary theory precisely because evolution has withstood attacks from within science itself that are not 'based on faith'. Evolution remains a valid scientific theory because evolution fits in with all known evidence. Equally, there actually is a hierarchy that dictates what is scientific theory and what is not scientific theory. You can learn more about that here. Aaarrrggh 20:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Then why, my friend, have intelligent design and creationism movements given the evolutionists such a fuss? I might add that scientists from just about every major college have argued the theory of ID. I know that if they were a part of your little world, you wouldn't hesitate to shut them down or shut them up any way you could, but unfortuantely they are not, and I am not. Newsflash: Creation fits in with all known evidence. And thank you, I know very well what the scientific method is. The evidence can be interpreted two different ways - randomness or design. You figure out which fits best with causality. Now, that is your opinion. Scientists have come to different conclusions about different things in the past and they will continue to do so in any country that allows open-ended study. Salva 22:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

They haven't caused a fuss in any real sense, not within the realm of science. Anti-realityists such as yourself only cause a fuss in the public sphere, where you are a constant nuisance and a pest to those interested in honest enquiry. You keep on doing the same things here too. You keep on making statements such as "Creationism fits in with all known evidence", but you have provided no evidence as to why this is the case. Sad as it may seem, science does not begin with answers and attempt to bend everything to fit in with those answers. Science works the other way round. What you cannot do is show why any evidence points us in the direction of a creator and cannot be explained away through other means. You often totally lie about certain things too, making deceptive (and false) statements such as "there are a growing number of scientists who no longer believe in evolution", this is a malicious and almost certainly conscious form of deception; it is not only a total untruth, but it creates the impression that there is a growing doubt about evolution, as if creationism is somehow exploited some real flaws within the theory through purely scientific means. It isn't. There really is NO SERIOUS DEBATE ABOUT EVOLUTION v CREATIONISM WITHIN SCIENTIFIC CIRCLES. In your [User_talk:Salva31 talk page], you say for instance:

" ...Here's my position:

• This universe was created in six literal days, as the bible clearly states. There are current scientific theories pertaining to how humans were able to live longer lifespans before the Flood (as recorded in the Bible), how creatures of immense proportions were able to survive before the Great Flood, etc.
• There is evidence everywhere we look for creation and a massive worldwide flood, not evolution. The only type of evolution that I agree is supported by scientific evidence is microevolution; the rest is highly speculative.
• Scientists and non-scientists alike are beginning to see the many problems with evolution, primarily some of the blatant lies used to support it. (vestibular structures, human embryo gill slits, peppered moth, etc.)"

Hmm. Now let us think critically about this. "The universe was created in six literal days, as the bible clearly states" Hmm.. How scientific that position is Salva. Clearly, I have no idea what 'TRUE SCIENCE' is. Oh and look, there's the familiar deception: "Scientists and non-scientists alike are beginning to see the many problems with evolution". Lie.

Also we can see that you quite clearly and quite openly think that the bible should be treated as a pure historical document: "There are current scientific theories pertaining to how humans were able to live longer lifespans before the Flood (as recorded in the Bible)" Within the realm of history (and I should know this because my major was in History), the bible is treated as a faith-document. We do not take it as literal truth or as something that should be accepted without question. The very thought of doing so is absurd, but again, to you and your 'TRUE SCIENCE' (as you put it yourself), this does not seem problematic.

You also state on your talk page that:

"Believe it or not, there are organizations, like the ACLU and the NCSE that exist for that very purpose. Their triumph would likely hasten the movement of globalization, whereby Marx's fondest dream would be indubitabally achieved - an eventual, worldwide revolution that would toss us into a communist, uniform government. But these "Southern-Redneck-Hillbilly-Dogmatists" have risen to become the Left's worst enemy, and any Left Wing Liberal knows good and well this is true, despite what they might say."

Yes of course, because evolution is just a communist conspiracy against god isn't it? Can you not for one second get off your pedastal and realise that evolution came about honestly through the honest application of the scientific method? You also say this on your talk page:

"So, to summarize my thoughts, there is a war going on. It isn't a war with guns or clashing metal or beating drums...it's a war of information. And it is a war between the forces of good and evil. Just make sure you are fighting for the right side."

So what we are doing right now is not arguing over the application of the scientific method, and debating over ways of discovering and interpretating information - it is a 'war between the forces of good and evil'. And guess which side all the facts are on? Yeah you got that? Fossils are the lies of SaTaN!!!!!!!

You are not interested in the truth salva. I think I have very aptly demonstrated that here. We shall see what changes you make in the article. Any changes that are not honest, that are deceptive (deliberately or otherwise), or that are blatantly false (staments like 'an increasing number of scientists believe...'), or that are invalid will be duly removed or corrected by me. You are an agenda pusher, and I am going to stop you. Aaarrrggh 23:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Everyone has an agenda, Mr. Aaarrrggh, except for me 8-) Salva 23:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Thou shalt not lie, Salva. Aaarrrggh 23:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic, and this is really getting out of hand! Thanks, Salva 00:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't respond to any of the above comments or anything, salva. I'm sure you are just interested in the science and the truth like the rest of us. Aaarrrggh 00:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV makes specific allowance for the inclusion of a critique in articles on pseudoscience. Regardless of the veracity of the claims of "Scientific Creationism", it is, by definition, a pseudoscience. That is, it insists on a particular conclusion (i.e. the earth was made in 6 literal days). The Creationist response to this accusation is invariably that Evolutionists also insist on a particular conclusion (that being that the theory of evolution is correct). The former is verifiably true, the latter is (regardless of what "Creation Scientists" might say) verifiably false. I'm not saying this an a "militant evolutionist", I'm saying it as an ex-Creationist who found these things out for myself. Having said that, I believe that a more productive approach might be to create (if I may use the term) a separate page on Scientific Creationism, and move all information directly pertaining to the anti-Evolutionary versions of Creationism (including the current "Criticisms" section) to the new page. Unlike "general" Creationism, Scientific Creationism is a very specific subset of Creationism that does explicitly claim to be scientific, and therefore is subject to critique as a pseudoscience. Cataleptic 04:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Page already exists: it is called Creation science. Joshuaschroeder 05:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

What about theological criticisms? Those belong here, not on Creation science.Ben Standeven 03:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Copyright status of image?

There is no notice about permission being granted to use the image xx01.jpg which I found on this website. http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/model/creationmodel_01.html Could Salva who uploaded the image please provide the permissions, or should it be removed as a violation? Thou shalt not steal. Dabbler 22:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

If you spend time and look through the website, you will discover that Dr. Baugh allows free distribution of his images. Thou shalt not bear false testimony. Salva 23:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The point being that YOU have the responsibility for putting that copyright statement on the image page. If you don't put it there, how do I or anyone else know that you haven't taken it without permission? There is NO false testimony in MY statements, only facts, a question and a statement of one of the fundamental laws of human morality. Dabbler 11:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

By the way I tried to find any statement that supports Salva's claim that free use is permitted but I couldn't easily locate it on the site and I don't have the time to search the site completely top to bottom. Dabbler 11:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The site claims that "All material copyright© 1998 by Carl E. Baugh", it doesn't say that anyone can use the images. Joshuaschroeder 15:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Added image to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If no copyright information is provided, the image will be deleted. -- Ec5618 15:40, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Understood - I may have confused the source for the image. No matter, I will see if I can get permission. Salva 16:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Approaching Creationism

This may seem radical, but I think this article needs to start with what Creationists actually believe and not try to water it down with semantic hair-splitting. Something like "Creationism is the doctrine that the universe and all life were created by God, possibly in the form in which they currently exist, along with the evidence that is currently taken to support evolution." Then proceed to describe what most people who use the term "Creationism" today believe. This would be a much shorter article and information about creation beliefs of other religions, creation myths, etymology, etc. would go in a separate article. I realize that I am using the term Creationism to refer to a mostly-US, mostly-Christian movement, but that's primarily who is using the term these days. Shoaler 17:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at Abrahamic creationism. It covers the 'mostly-US, mostly-Christian movement'. -- Ec5618 20:11, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Constructive criticism

Preceding this discussion was a lengthy brawl which has since been archived.

That is about ENOUGH How do I am I supposed to know that you are an adult? Because you believe in evolution? That's pretty silly. Grow up, man. I'd like to make several changes to this article:

1. First off, I think the cartoon is uneccessary at this point. I'm going to remove that - and as for the highly militant attack on Creationism as a scientific theory, I will worry about that later.
2. I'm proposing that we go into detail about causality being a factor in explaining the theory that there is a beginning to the universe. Subsequently, this will lead into the argument that the universe shows evidence for design instead of randomness. For example: When I go to work every day, I don't have to worry about a horse appearing in my lab out of nothing for no reason.
3. You militant evolutionists need to slow down and think for a second or two. Is it appropriate to label Creationism a myth when there is scientific evidence that shows the possibility of His existence? If that's what you want, then going into more detail about the science of design is propositional.
4. Should we discuss more about the differences/similarities between Intelligent Design theory and Creationism theory?

Also - why should Wikipedia be an information database that is dominated by evolutionary doctrine? Would it be reasonable to both intelligence and science to present all sides of different scientific arguments? This article is not a place to refute or bombard Creationism with maniacal ravings that are crossing the NPOV threshold.

Any advice on any of these items would be appreciated. Regards, Salva 17:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

1. The cartoon is staying where it is. It's relevant, and damnit, it's funny.
2. Wikipedia is not the place to argue the objective validity of subjective belief systems. You can state that such and such a thing is symptomatic of a certain kind of belief or whatever, but you cannot use this place to distort reality for your own agenda. It simply is not the case that "...the universe shows evidence for design...", and I won't let you state it in the article.
3. Creationism is a myth and there is no evidence for it. No amount of screaming on your part will change any of that. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the same old arguments or cry about a 'heathen atheist close minded brown shirted Nazi conspiracy against God', you will not suceed in using this place as a platform to put forward your vile filth. I will not let you.
4. Because evolutionary doctrine is backed up by cold hard evidence. Overwhelming levels of it. It would indeed be reasonable to both intelligence and science to present all sides of different scientific arguments. This is why it is important to maintain the critical nature of this article, and to prevent attacks on real science by bible thumpers such as yourself.

I do not have a problem in the article stating what creationists believe, as that is obviously relevant to the article itself. What I do have a problem with is people like you who want to turn this article into a creationist apologetic. I won't stand by and let you get away with bringing down the reputation of wikipedia with your anti-intellectual attacks on reality. Talk about what creationists believe as much as you want, but the second you start attacking science and the truth, I'll be stepping in to stop you. Aaarrrggh 17:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous.

1. The cartoon may be a bit near the line, and would perhaps better be moved to the article on the 'creation-evolution controversy'. Still, don't remove it unilaterally.
2. Feel free to refer to the cosmological argument article. Oh, the horse-thing: I wouldn't expect such a horse to appear in a universe ruled by physics either.
3. Going into more detail about the science of design is definately a good idea. I would really love to see a section on the science of creationism.
4. And going more deeply into the differences/similarities between Intelligent Design and Creationism would also be a good idea. Please, someone, add such a section aswell. Just don't refer to them as theories, or make it abundantly clear they are not scientific theories.
5. "maniacal ravings"? In the article? Where? When? -- Ec5618 18:21, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

1. "Science of creationism" is an oxymoron. The two are disjoint in that creationism isn't considered to have scientific basis. That's why creation science is considered an oxymoron.
2. Intelligent Design is already described (correctly) on the page to be a type of creationism. For more information on this, one can be referred directly to the ID article. -- Joshuaschroeder 22:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I personally would agree with you, creationism is not science. But that is quite irrelevant. Many creationists claim, on many occasions, that there is science to back up creationism. I would like to see a section on such science for that reason. -- Ec5618 22:24, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I think what you are interested in is the article Creation science. Joshuaschroeder 06:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Should we seek consensus before editing?

I think it would be a good idea for all major edits to this page to be posted here first. And then viewed and voted on here. This should help prevent edit wars and I believe would make the article better. Perhaps I'm a bit naive but I think this article could become a featured article with a little work and consensus. Falphin 22:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Featured. I like the idea. -- Ec5618 22:24, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I like that idea too. -- The Consigliere 01:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I would love for this article to become featured. However, Wikipedia should be a place where bold editors can make changes as they see fit to the article without first presenting to a peanut gallery for an unspecified length of time. It is always a good idea to explain your edits on the talkpage, but it is a bad idea to declare that we should only make edits after discussing on the talkpage. This would be the equivalent of having creationism permenately protected. Joshuaschroeder 02:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Truthteller's critique

I hate to tell you this but you obviously have your facts wrong. This is so biased that it quite obviously tells me that you either HATE Christians, or Jesus Christ, Himself, or that you have NEVER taken ANY time to check out the facts for yourself. See my detailed response below for why I say this --Truthteller 16:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

And Then God said I think Man Should have a Chevy (BADDA BING BADDA BOOM!!!!!!) Don't go over 90 mph.

This is in response to the Author of the “Criticism of Creationism” portion of this page. This portion is so FULL of POV and inaccuracies that I (almost) can’t believe is tolerated on Wikipedia. As such it should either be deleted or totally re-written – as its presence here gives Wikipedia a BAD name, and makes their “profession” of being “strongly against POV” (Personal Opinion View) a Joke. For example, the writer of this portion states that:

“It is important to understand from the outset that Creationism is not based upon scientific findings or upon a scientific approach to uncovering the origins of life. Indeed, many of the more modern forms of (particularly fundamentalist Christian) creationism were born directly out of the conflict that occurred when Evolution became scientific orthodoxy, as a means of defending the literal truth of the Biblical account of creation in genesis. Many modern creationists are widely regarded as 'anti evolutionists' rather than as people putting forward an honest alternative to explain the origins of life.”

To the contrary, Creationism has exposed the (quite literal) IMPOSSIBILITY of natural processes (i.e. evolution) playing anything but a very minor role in the Creation of Life on Earth, or on its (purportedly slow) “development” thereafter. For example, it is the “scientific approach” that has already demonstrated that Life (as we know it) could never have started itself. This is because it is far too complicated and ordered. For example, if we look at how living organisms maintain themselves by replacing their aging (and constantly dying) protein molecules, it becomes evident that such a process could never have evolved by chance: -- and yet the means by which a cell divides is even more complicated. It should also be stated here that homochiralic proteins (the type that all living organisms are made of) DO NOT form naturally. In other words, not even the most basic homochiralic protein molecule, that consists of only 8 amino acids has ever been observed to form by accident (i.e apart from being made by an already – pre-existing -- living organism).

Prions. You lose. Watch out next time you try to cross a zebra crossing. Project2501a 00:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

So how then are proteins made?

I am glad you asked.

Proteins are made by first sending an enzyme (which is itself a protein molecule, that does not form naturally) to the DNA to tell it to unwind so that its information can be read. Then the RNA molecule comes up to it and (literally) “Mates” with it and copies the necessary information (i.e the information necessary to make a protein). Then the RNA molecule leaves the DNA (nucleus) and travels to a different part of the cell (i.e. to the Ribosome) where that information is re-read and used to align 21 different amino acids in the exactly correct order so as to make whatever proteins are needed by the cell. In other words the DNA is like a Memory Chip (with LOTS of MEMORY), the RNA like a portable copy machine, and the ribosome, like a card-reader/amino acid aligment (i.e. protein) factory.

Miller’s 1953 experiment only created 13 of the 21 amino acids – and nobody has done any better since. In other words, to this very day our scientists cannot even make the 21 amino acids in a lab. Miller’s experiment also produced equal portions of L-type and D-type (Left and Right-handed) amino acids; however living organisms only use the L-type. But even if our scientists ever do succeed in making all 21 amino acids (of the Left, or Right-handed types) they would still be unable to order themselves into proteins, just as random letters don’t produce long words -- much less paragraphs, pages, or books. The most basic bacterim that has ever been discovered is a parasitic bacterium called Mycoplasma. It has 40,000 proteins, of 600 different types. It also possesses its own DNA, RNA, and ribosomes. It is also a parasite – meaning that it cannot survive apart from a more complex host organism. In other words, there is NO WAY that even a “simple” Mycoplasma could ever make itself by time and chance – much less a more complex organism. And even if we granted that an incredibly lucky mass of chemicals randomly (or any other way – other than via an outside intelligent source acting upon it) produced a half-way formed “mycoplasma-type” organism, nature would soon break it back down into its basic constituents – meaning that it would NOT wait around for the other half to be formed. This all means that a Creator / Intelligent Being must have been involved with the Creation of Life on Plantet Earth, as it is the ONLY plausible explanation.

If that weren’t enough we also run into a Brick wall when we try to contemplate how evolution (by itself) could ever have produced a Butterfly – much less 1000’s of different species of them. This is because TIME And CHANCE are simply not enough. For example, let's say that the most basic self-replicating bacterium is of the order of complexity as a 1000 piece puzzle (even though the bacterium is vastly MORE complex than that). Let's further assume that you have ALL the pieces together in the same box (which neither Miller nor any of his colleagues have so far been able to do). Let's further assume that all the powers of Nature are at your disposal (i.e. wind, rain, cold, heat, fire, and the ability to shake up the box). Let's further assume that you have 100,000 Billion Years with which to put the puzzle together (using only the powers of Nature) -- meaning that you can shake up the box, heat it up, freeze it, blow on it, or even pour its contents out on the ground and pray over it. Any yet, even a third grader can tell you that TIME + NATURE Acting ALONE will NEVER put that puzzle together. This is not simply a matter of speculation, but rather of fact: a fact that NO AMOUNT of Wishfull thinking, or Doctoral Degrees, and assertions of Faith in the "power of evolution" will ever be able to change. Therefore your problem is not with me, or what I have written, but rather with the facts of science. I also don't have a problem with your editing the tone of what I have said, but rather get the strong impression that you only want ONE SIDE of the story to be heard -- the side that can never solve the problem.

Similar DNA is also NOT "compelling" evidence that evolution has (in ANY way) occurred, any more than it is compelling evidence of a Creator -- who chose to Use his own Blueprint / programming Language over and over again (with modifications to each different life-form that He Programmed from the Beginning (to function the way they do). For example, consider the "mystery" of what has been (appropriately) termed "Complete Metamorphosis". This is where (MANY 1000's) of Different Types of Butterflies and Moths and Flies and Flying Beetles, each enter into a cocoon stage, whereby their internal organs (literally) dissolve into a liquid, and then (somehow) --- within a matter of days -- "morph" (i.e. change very rapidly / transform) into something of a totally different appearance. In other words, this is very clear evidence of a MASSIVE amount of programming that went on within the DNA of each of these (probably 100's of 1000's) of Creatures -- all without the aid of "evolution" which can only propose very minor changes at one time (via proposed beneficial mistakes). Such assertions, however, completely Break Down with regard to each of these Creatures -- whose internal organs dissolve (into a liquid) before morphing into something else (with different DNA) (that is fully formed and "ready to fly" -- and complete with fully formed (male or female) reproductive organs, wings with wing veins (with mechanical pumps that pump fluid into them so that they open up), jointed legs that all work, compound eyes that work, antenae, mouth, and a retractable tongue with which to feed themselves. Some even have navigational systems whereby they fly thousands of miles to their breeding ground (located at the same geographic places year after year).

Below are a few Links that support what I just stated, and that provide many more details and documentation.

• Butterflies vs. Macroevolution by Frank Sherwin.

See also:

• Butterflies -The Miracle Of Metamorphosis

• The Life Cycle of a Butterfly

• Metamorphosis misnomer

• DESIGN FEATURES OF THE MONARCH BUTTERFLY LIFE CYCLE

• BEES AND ANTS: THE SOCIAL INSECTS
• Evidence of Creation or Extremely Rapid Change

With regard to Proteins and the impossibility of abiogenesis see:

• The Facts of Life

• How Simple Can Life Be?

• Amazing Bacterial Engines

• How Life Began

• Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible

--Truthteller 16:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Have you ever considered that maybe you and AIG have your facts very wrong? If you want to be taken seriously on Wikipedia you have to take note of the fact that it's full of biologists who can see through the unscientific rhetoric of AIG. Pasting in long-debunked AIG nonsense tells us who hasn't checked the facts (we have, of course, seen it all before and checked it out the firt time it was pasted here). As for your insane claim about evolution being anti-Jesus, that's far more damaging to Christianity than science:

"But, for me, personally, this debate has another dimension. I spent all of my teenage years, as mentioned in the introduction, in Orlando, Florida. As many people know, the southern African American community is one with a deep tradition of religious faith. The bulk of my religious training occurred in the confines of the African American Methodist Episcopal Church. There, we were taught that faith is to be anchored on the inhuman perfection of religion. If intelligent design is accepted as science, then like all scientific theories, it is in principle possible to disprove it by the actions of human observation and thought. Thus, those who would join the inhuman perfection of religion to the human imperfection of science put both at grave peril for anyone who deeply contemplates them. Many in the AME church tradition, like me, must reject this idea that by thoughts and actions of man our faith can be called into question. This is the very greatest danger, in my opinion, of the notion of intelligent design." -- S. James Gates Jr, "Einstein's Lesson for the Third Millennium"

Joe D (t) 16:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

To the Contrary, the information above is all easily verifyable, and it is a fact that there is NO WAY that evolution could POSSIBLY be true. Nature can't even make a SINGLE protein molecule that is similar to any that are made by living organsisms, and yet the MOST BASIC parasitic bacterium has 40,000 of them. This is basic Biology 101 and any biologist worth his salt knows that I am telling the truth. --Truthteller 16:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

My faith is anchored on the authority of God's word, and on God Himself, whom I have come to know via my own Personal relationship with Him. I also anchor it on logic and reason and facts of science. --Truthteller 17:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi again Randy, please don't delete other people's comments from the talk page. Having seen your approach to this topic several times before, I won't bother reminding you of the failings of your arguments. Joe D (t) 16:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall deleting anyone's comments except for a few (rude and crude remarks) by someone whom I will not name. However, after he admonished me (and agreed with my reasoning for doing so) I told him that I would not do so again. But do feel free to point out any "failings" of anything I have said -- if you can that is, as if I have stated anything that is untrue, then I want to know about it. --Truthteller 17:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I hate to tell you this, but what you wrote was incredibly biased, and simply wrong.

• Creationism has exposed the (quite literal) IMPOSSIBILITY of natural processes (i.e. evolution) playing anything but a very minor role in the Creation of Life on Earth. Not true. creationists have repeatedly claimed to have proof, but have never been able to show that evidence. If creationists truly had proof of the existence of GOD, they would have come forward with it already. They have not. All creationists ever do is repeat eachother and claim that they have heard from 'a reliable source' that such evidence exists, and is being ignored.
• to this very day our scientists cannot even make the 21 amino acids in a lab. While I'm not at all convinced you would be able to cite a source for that little tidbit, it should hardly be surprising that nature is capable of things humans are not. For example, people make ammonia under extremely high pressure and high temperature. Nature does the same in bacteria that live in the roots of peas. The point being of course not that nature must then be devine, but that at the molecular level, processes take place that no-one understands.
• You go on and on about the impossibility of thousands or millions of molecules that align by chance. As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 26¹³ sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days. The point being of course that the formation of life through natural means is not simply a matter of pure chance.

--Ec5618 18:43, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Nature can make amino-acids etc in two ways: it has an unimaginably long period of time to do it, or it has enzymes, of which the biochemical pathways are generally well understood nowadays. Industrial processes for ammonia don't use enzymes, but computer simulations are getting us to the point where we can design efficient enzymes for use as catalysts etc for various uses. Joe D (t) 23:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Truthteller appears to have grown bored with Wikipedia, and since this is somewhat off topic and full of nonsense/cutnpaste, does anybody object to me archiving it early? Joe D (t) 17:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Please do. Perhaps we should archive it separately (/Pointless ranting), so we can just refer similar POV-pushers (and their rants) to it. -- Ec5618 18:12, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

(Dis)Proving creationism

From time to time, this page is visited by fervent creationists and non-creationists who both complain that this article shows clear POV. As a result, we are often left with longwinded discussions, often between two people with opposing viewpoints (with other editors mostly keeping a wise distance). To prevent this talk page from cluttering up, and to prevent edit wars, please note: We have all heard these arguments before:

• Creation is true, it says so in the bible. Irrelevant. Belief in something does not prove its existence.
• Natural formation of life has been disproven by science. Which is not true, nor is it relevant on this page.
• Creation is the only logical theory. This has been put forth by many people, in many ways. It is often followed directly by many scientists are starting to feel so too. As an analogy, a person from last century might have been incredulous had someone told him/her that beams of light and mirrors could be used to create holograms. Nowadays, few people actually understand how holograms work, but few people refuse to believe in them.
• Denying creation is POV. Its not. Different viewpoints are shown.
• Denying creation is hating God. Its not. In fact, in most of the world, Christians have long ago accepted that creation according to Genesis might have been a parable, a tale to show 'God's greatness'. The battle is not between creationists and atheists (especially since many "evolutionists" believe in God, and many are devout Christians). It is a battle between a very narrow religious doctrine, not shared by all religious people, and science.
• Evidence supporting creation exists. Often, creationists will claim that the evidence is out there, you just have to 'do your research'. Open minded people and critical thinkers will accept creation. And they're right, many webpages purport to have such evidence, and they provide it in clear English. Please remember that in the same way, many websites have proven that the [Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations#Issues of photographs|moon landing could not have occured].

To anyone that feels that there is proof of creation, and by extension, of a god or gods, please refer to the page on creation science, and provide said proof. Please do not come to this page proclaiming that such evidence exists. Statements such as "For example, it is the “scientific approach” that has already demonstrated that Life (as we know it) could never have started itself. This is because it is far too complicated and ordered." have no place on this page, for the simple reason that it is not true.

Meanwhile, lets try to stick to the NPOV that creationism is believed only by Christians. -- Ec5618 20:11, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

that's not npov. it's not even true. the story of the 6 day creation, adam, eve, enoch, and noah is held by millions of muslims and jews, worldwide. Ungtss 21:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Quite true. I had started that sentence and had not properly checked it when I clicked 'save page'. My apologies. -- Ec5618 23:14, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

no worries:). good edits on the criticism section, btw:). Ungtss 00:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The Scientific Position

Perhaps it is well to remember that all of us are in search of the truth as best as we can understand it. Creation theory rests on an axiom and scientific theories rest on axioms. Scientific theories rest on axioms that are either evident in nature, or logically necessary, occasionally "guesses" partially supported by either two. Creation theories rest upon the axiom that a creator exists. Science provides detailed explanations for its axioms, explanations that depend upon logic, and further, points out axioms that currently lack proof. It is constantly struggling with itself concerning all these axioms. Indeed, the most celebrated scientists are those who have done the most to supplant long established theories from Copernicus to Newton and Einstein. In this science can be shown to be self critical, demanding intellectual honesty and humility to such an extent that scientists are willing to accept the possibility that creation theories may indeed be correct despite all their efforts. It is in challenging longstanding axioms that we as humans show our quality, our doubt in all things, which reveals our nature, and to do so we are only being honest. The scientific community does not so much take issue with creation theories as it does with it's methods, it's willingness to accept some scientific evidence but not other, obviously based upon the need for a predetermined result, a logically untenable position. Creation theories are dogmatic regarding it's axioms, condemning as sin any doubt. It is as this point that creation theories break down in terms of integrity, logic and eventually believability. Science in general has much to say about its own limitation, particularly since the paper on the Gödel's Incompletenes Theorem [[2]]Stephen Hawking's paper on the Big Bang Theory[[3]]where theory breqks down "inside" singularities, (though they are neccessary for the theory) both of which draw clear limits on how far our understanding may reasonably go at this point in time. Therefore, there is room for a creator in scientific theories, it is not atheistic but agnostic, a "psychologically honest" pursuit where we all together wrestle with our doubt.

Personal commentary

I'm on Holıday ın Turkey as I type thıs, but couldn't help myself from checkıng wıkıpedıa whıle I was checkıng my emaıls. I just wanted to say I'm lıkıng the evolutıon (see what I did there?) of thıs artıcle at the moment. The idea of splitting the criticism section up into relevant segments seems good to me. I shall contribute more to the article when İ come back from holiday, but for now İ just wanted to say well done, and İ'm sure you will be hearing from me soon ;) Aaarrrggh 12:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Elementary, my dear Wikipedians! This article has evolved (through the intervention of intelligence and not randomness) to become a splendid document. I will continue to contribute what I can. Also, when are we planning to merge this article with Abrahamic Creationism? Salva 17:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Do not misunderstand me Salva. I was not necessarily saying I am happy with the criticism section as yet, merely that I was happy with the idea of splitting it up into relevant sections. The criticism section still needs work, and I will be chopping and changing it again soon. Aaarrrggh 23:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The Soul

This section was removed as it is completely irrelevent to the article as it was written. This isn't a repository for Christian/monotheistic theorizing about spiritual matters -- it is an article about creationism. Joshuaschroeder 09:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Finally, this section has been in the article since it was moved, basically, from a Christian encyclopaedia. Maybe we should put a short note on Talk:Soul. They might want it/get a kick out of it. -- Ec5618 09:53, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Scientifically accepted definition of theory

In the aritcle there is a paragraph that needs to be changed [inside a longer section that will then need to be completely revised].

Creationists sometimes minimize the explanatory power and validity of evolution theory by criticizing it as being "just a theory" implying that the word "theory" is synonymous with "conjecture" or "speculation", instead of the technical, scientifically accepted use of the word "theory" to mean a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and be verified through empirical observation. In this sense, evolution is a very powerful theory.

The first problem with this is that Creationists tend to attack "macroevolution." What 'falsifiable hypotheses' are proposed that can be tested against empirical observation for macroevolution. Conflating macroevolution and microevolution in an article on creationism is inappropriate since scientists defending creationism typically attack one and not the other.

The second problem is that this paragraph does not mention the rather important point that the best theories are predictive for which controls and variables can be used to test in experiments (rather than simply theories that can explain field data after the fact). Since this paragraph discusses Creationists viewpoint of evolution as a scientific theory, that needs to be addressed. A famous quote by Niels Bohr [I think that is the right attribution] is "A first rate theory predicts, a second rate theory forbids, a third rate theory explains after the fact."

Thirdly, the claim that creationism is not a theory allowing for falsifiable hypotheses to be tested against empirical observation is simply false. Just as evolution suggests daughter theories regarding the age of the earth and other theories, creationsim [in particular the creationism discussed in this artiel] is linked to other theories which falsifiable hypotheses can be drawn.

Here is an example of such a falsifiable hypothesis:

Creationsim calls for a young earth, and therefore predicts that crystalline lattices found in primordial rock will show evidence of youth. One could draw a falsifiable hypothesis based on the C_14 content of such diamonds [for example]. There are many others.

For these three reasons, this section needs to be revamped.

Kent Hovind; Bringing down specific people

It does seem that Kent Hovind's doctorate is worthless (he got it in a correspondence course from Patriot University). It got me thinking though; it seems that many vocal creationists have stated their reasons for advocating creation. Many of these reasons have been subsequently shot down by science. Many specific creationists have also been discredited in scientific circles.

Would it be a good idea to try to give a little background about specific creationists? To discredit specific creationists in the critisism section? To add a section on famous or vocal creationists? -- Ec5618 13:38, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the basic form of Creationism(a god or gods creating the universe or making it start) is a popular belief around the world that many variations have developed and getting a leader from each group and then discrediting each one will take a lot of research and time. If we do add this, Kent Hovind wouldn't be a good choice however because many groups like Aig reject his beliefs. It might be better to use Phillip E. Johnson or someone like that from the Yec group. Oec would be Hugh Ross and for ID Michael Behe, creationists that believe in a guided evolution process I don't know. But if we do that would be a start. We would also need a Jewish, and Muslim figure as well. Falphin 21:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

As this article deals with creationism in christian, jewish and islamic faiths, I don't see your first point to be much of a problem.

And you have no problem with the basic concept of describing the people behind creationism?

Please note, I'm only asking for opinions, not suggesting anything at this point. -- Ec5618 23:21, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

The point I was making is that you need to take a leader from every group. Which would take time but if you want to do it thats fine. And that Kent Hovind shouldn't be the example. As long as the article doesn't attack the person but instead discredits his theories/beliefs, I'm fine with it. Falphin 19:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

multiple reverts on the "no conflict" passage

Instead of going back and forth, can we discuss in a little more detail what the views are pro/con on the passage? Seems like it would be more straightforward than these multiple reverts.

Here's the latest version of the passage:

Others try to reconcile faith and science in various ways. Some see no conflict with science and consider evolution to simply be a tool that the Creator used.

Aaarrrgh, can you give a little more explanation on why you view it as misleading and poorly worded, and why it doesn't belong in the introduction? I personally have little patience for creationists, especially when they try to influence pubic school curricula in ways that I believe are inappropriate, but I thought this passage was a pretty good way to represent the views of a sizable chunk of people who care about this issue, while preserving neutrality. But I'm pretty new to wikipedia, and may be missing a larger issue. -- John Callender 08:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, I made my latest edit just before noticing this newly added section to the talk page. I have changed it to this:

"Not all creationists believe themselves to be in conflict with science, evolutionary creationists see evolution as a tool, used in creation. While this position allows an element of reconciliation between science and faith for believers, it should be noted that it is not a scientific position within itself, and is not a position taken by most scientists."

The problem I have with it is that to me it makes it sound as if reconciling faith with science presents no real problems and is even a scientifically sound thing to do. The fact is that it does present problems and it is not a legitimate position to take from a scientific perspective. However, it is true that many believers do adopt such a position, so I do not have a problem in making some mention of this; I just think it should be qualified, and that it should be clear that this is just a position taken by believers who are struggling to come to terms with the revelations of science, as opposed to being a perfectly sensible position in pefect harmony with science itself. Aaarrrggh 08:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Au contraire, I think Aaarrrggh is being too fundamentalist. It is perfectly possible to reconcile a scientific attitude to the development of the Universe while still being able to believe that there was a Creator who somehow set up those conditions and initiated the Big Bang. There is no evidence available before the Big Bang. Aaarrrggh may choose to believe that the condition occurred spontaneously, but that is pure faith, a religious view, and not falsifiable and scientific. Dabbler 10:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Nicely said, Dabbler. Evolutionism is obviously a religious faith for a number of our editors, though of course, they would deny this. It's also obvious that some are on a jihad against any form of creationism, which must be stamped out by any possible means. The fervor, the evangelistic zeal, the scorn - identify the religious evolutionists, for which evolution is not just a scientific tool but a deeply held fundamentalistic ideology. Pollinator 12:50, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Before you get too excited Pollinator, I would like to emphasise that I can accept as a proposition that a Creator God was the fundamental initiator of the creation of the Universe in the Big Bang billions of years ago, as there is no evidence to the contrary. I also am one of those who believe that the mechanism of evolution accounts for what we see around us. I can accept that there is a God but not that Genesis is a literal description of how He brought the world into being. Genesis as far as I am concerned is a collection of nomads' folk tales which describe how they perceived their relationship with God but not a complete and scientific history of the world. I am not one of those whose faith in a benevolent supernatural being is so weak that any deviation from the literal truth of Genesis destroys their belief in God. Dabbler 15:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not excited, Dabbler. And you bring a refreshing honesty to the page, unlike some of the rabid religious evolutionists that frequent the page, who exhibit the same rigid and intellectually dishonest traits that they seem to find in creationists. Pollinator 19:45, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Evolution is not a faith position, and I am not even prepared to waste my time arguing this point with religious creationists such as pollinator. I never mentioned anything about spontaneity of any kind. I am merely mentioning that there is no actual scientific reason to invoke a creator to explain away anything. This is merely something religiously minded people do to reconcile their beliefs with actual reality as exposed by honest science. As for your attempts to explain whichever version of that 'god' thingy it is that you believe in Dabbler, these kind of things always amuse me. I love to sit back and watch as a person creates a god before my very eyes. Take a few variables, make way for scientific revelations, and voila! Insta-god. It's like god by numbers. Regardless, the argument I have stated is still valid. Aaarrrggh 17:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I wonder, Aaarrrggh, if you can cite any sources for the "is not a position taken by most scientists" statement in the latest version of the passage. I'm not disputing its accuracy, just wondering if it can be sourced.

I dispute its accuracy. Pollinator 19:45, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I think the article's neutrality is stronger with this latest version of the statement added than without it, though I remain concerned about the slight sense of editorializing I still get from it: the fundamental identification of those holding this view as creationists ("Not all creationists believe..."), and the implicit (albeit mild) denigration I hear coming from "While this position allows an element of reconciliation between science and faith for believers" (emphasis added), and "it should be noted" (why are we emphasizing the "shouldness" of it? if it should be noted, shouldn't we just note it?) And, again, the unsourced assertion that it is not a position taken by "most" scientists. Even if we have an objective poll of scientists on which to base that, I'm not sure it's helpful in the current context. If the number of people who hold the position is only a substantial minority, I'd think the concept still deserves a neutral presentation, not one that editorializes on it even as it's being stated.

I'm intrigued by the idea that on both sides of this issue there are sincere, well-meaning people who believe they see in the other side an insufficient appreciation of the deeper meanings embodied by the world as it is. Richard Dawkins, no friend of creationism, wrote the following in the conclusion to The Ancestor's Tale, which by coincidence I just finished reading last night:

I have not had occasion here to mention my impatience with traditional piety, and my disdain for reverence where the object is anything supernatural. But I make no secret of them. It is not because I wish to limit or circumscribe reverence; not because I want to reduce or downgrade the true reverence with which we are moved to celetrate the universe, once we understand it properly. 'On the contrary' would be an understatement. My objection to supernatural beliefs is precisely that they miserably fail to do justice to the sublime grandeur of the real world. They represent a narrowing-down from reality, an impoverishment of what the real world has to offer.

I think a lot of the heat surrounding this issue would dissipate if the more-zealous in each camp were willing to do more listening to the other side, rather than simply attributing to it an inverted straw-man of their own deeply-held views.

Anyway, I think the following version would make me happier from a neutrality standpoint. What would you think about this, Aaarrrggh?

Some people, including some scientists, believe that science and faith can be reconciled by viewing evolution as the means used by the creator to bring about creation. Scientists opposed to this position would point out, however, that this view is not, in and of itself, scientific.

-- John Callender 18:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Yep -- a whole lot less POV than a deletion. Pollinator 19:45, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I admit that the statement 'most scientists...' was perhaps a little lazy on my part. I wasn't totally happy about that when I wrote it, although I'm sure it is actually true regardless. The assertion that this is not, within itself, a scientific position to take I think would perhaps be more appropriate. I will have a little dabble to see if I can create a slightly better wording, while removing the 'most scientists...' element. Aaarrrggh 19:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I have edited this section now, and have made mention of the fact that asserting a creator (from a scientific perspective) unncessarily violates the law of occam's razor. I hope this is better now. Aaarrrggh 19:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

For myself, I still prefer the version I posted above, for the reasons cited there. The current version still seems to me to be going out of its way to assert superiority to those who hold the creation-is-compatible-with-science viewpoint. I'm not saying you don't have a valid argument in saying that. I just think that the article's NPOV would be enhanced by your refraining from making that argument, especially right at the top of the article like that. The article seems stronger to me if it just sticks to a neutral statement of what the parties on each side of the issue say. John Callender 21:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I lost this in an edit conflict but found it again. While I am usually amused by zealots of all sides, I find it distasteful when they choose to be rude with it. While I may have been a slight troll wrt Aaarggh's comments, I would point out that there was a serious intent. His belief system does not allow for any God, even one who lurks in the unexplorable gaps. His religion is to be atheistic and he is as zealous a proponent of that as others are of their theistic explanations. I see both sides. I support science, despite proponents like Aaarrggh, because it has a factual basis. When someone goes beyond the facts to make definitive statements that cannot be proven, they descend into their belief system which I do not choose to accept. Contrary to what Aaarrrggh states, it is perfectly legitimate and in harmony with science to speculate about a God and have ideas about His activities, if any, in the absence of evidence. It just may not be very scientifically productive until you find a hypothesis that can be tested. To dismiss such speculation out of hand is the act of a zealot not a scientist.

I also feel that invoking Occam's razor is the evolutionary equivalent of quoting Genesis to prove something. Its a nice bit of folk lore but not a scientific Law. Dabbler 20:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, first of all, Occam's Razor is not a scientific law. It is a principle that one hopes to be able to adhere to, but it is by no means a requirement. Furthermore, it is subjective because it asks the evaluator to determine which of two things is simpler. For example, it is certainly unclear that abiogenesis is any less complicated than special creation. In fact, from one standpoint, special creation is much less complicated. If you are going to have living beings coming from somewhere does it make more sense to assume a higher intelligence caused it or not?

There are many scientific theories that are certainly hard to swallow, for example the story of how the Earth's atmosphere came to be in its present state is a story of improbably stages appealing to a host of unstable equilibria. Just how complicated does a naturalistic theory have to get before it becomes less easy to believe compared to a paranormal one? Once again, a subjective question.

And the fossil record has forced scientists themselves to find less and less easier to swallow theories due to lack [or scantiness] of transitional forms. We have over a quarter million types of fossils (millions of actual fossils), and still many paleontologists are wondering where all the transitional forms are. This is what gave rise to the hopeful monster theory and punctuated equilibrium theory, but are those particularly simple?

Phantym 21:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Occam's Razor effectively says "do not employ more entities/assumptions than necessary if you can explain the same with less". If you find an assumption is necessary AND no more complex than the alternatives AND it doesn't contradict the rest, then it is valid to incorporate it to a theory. That's how I understand it. However, I Occam's razor is not a scientific law, but a rule of thumb, and I really don't how it belongs there. It'd be better to rephrase... "it is not the position of most scientists, because it introduces a new level of complexity into the theory", or "a supernatural element...", or something like that. --Pablo D. Flores 21:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Probably best to say that it does not fit into the naturalistic framework of modern science. -Phantym 20:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV problems in 'Miscellaneous critique of creationism' section

I think the whole section headed 'Miscellaneous critique of creationism' is problematic from a POV standpoint. It reads to me like an extended diatribe against creationism from someone engaged in advocacy, rather than the presentation of a neutral account of a controversy. Specifically, I see problems with the following:

It should also be noted that throughout human history there have been huge numbers of origin myths that attempt to explain the origins of humanity and of life in general.

Why mention explicitly that it should also be noted? We're noting it by including the passage; telling the reader explicitly that he should be noting it is an attempt to strengthen the argument beyond what the argument itself would achieve on its own. Similarly, the phrase "throughout human history", the "huge" numbers of origin methods, and the characterization of them all as "attempting" to explain our origins, all seem like advocacy, not meaningful content. I think I'd be happier with a sentence more like this:

Historically, there are many different creation myths that have provided explanations of the origins of humanity and of life in general.

I'll be more happy with

Historically, there are many different creation myths that attempt to explain the the origins of humanity and of life in general. No myth is reality, so, it can't explain anything. Project2501a 11:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Returning to the section as it reads currently:

The form of creationism advocated by young earth creationists is simply a literal interpretation of one religion's beliefs of creation, as described in Genesis, which in itself is just one of a large number of origin myths which pre-date modern science. (emphasis added)

"Simply" and "just" are operating as classic weasel words here. The assertion being made is that young earth creationists are just wrong in their beliefs, because those beliefs are not, as they contend, an accurate version of our origins, but are, in fact, nothing more than myth, as the scientific version of our origins contends. That's POV. It happens to be POV I mostly agree with, personally, but it's POV nevertheless, and the article would be stronger without it.

For these reasons, and simply because of the overwhelming evidence for evolution, creationism is not respected as a serious theory explaining the origins of life.

"Simply" and "overwhelming": more loaded language. The passage states that creationism "is not respected," but fails to say by whom it is not respected. The implication that it is not respected by all right-thinking people. That's advocacy.

I could go on, but I don't think there's really any point. The whole section reads like this. For what it's worth, my own take is that the whole section should just be removed. We already have the (much better, from a NPOV standpoint) section on the 'Scientific critique of creationism'. The 'Miscellaneous critique' seems to merely restate the scientific critique in less-neutral language.

I'm not going to delete the whole section myself; I don't want to add fuel to the fire of those currently engaging in rev/counter-rev with respect to isolated passages within it. But I'd be very curious if those who believe this section belongs in the article could articulate some of their reasons for thinking so. Thanks. John Callender 00:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I also think that adding words as the ones you mention loads the text up emotionally, without adding more content, which in turn gives ammo to the fanboys ^_^ I'll do something about this section this weekend. Project2501a 11:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Miscellaneous critique of creationism

I tried to replace the POV disagreement over the section with the following.

"The motivation behind animated attacks of the Young Earth creationist movement towards evolution stems from their belief that the first eleven chapters of Genesis should be understood as a literal description of the origin of the universe and everything it contains."

But I'm not sure my rewording is any better than the previous. I prefer animated over aggresive but I don't like the attack insertion. The entire sentence should probably be redone completely in order to get a more precise and short sentene. Falphin 17:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I had a go and came up with variants on "Because Young Earth creationists believe in the literal truth of the description in Genesis of divine creation of every "kind" of plant and creature during a week about 6,000 years ago, they dispute evolution which describes species developing without a need for divine intervention over a much longer time, and take particular issue with the implication of common descent that humans are descended from "lesser creatures". " but decided that this whole section describes creationism rather than the critique of creationism, and is largely redundant, so added by sentence to the young earth creationists section. I propose deletion of the Miscellaneous critique of creationism section. =dave souza 11:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Debate within scientific circles

Rossnixon changed this passage:

"Because of this and other evidence, there is no 'debate' within scientific circles as to whether evolution is a fact or not. It is only in the public sphere"

to

"Because of this and other evidence, there is little 'debate' within scientific circles as to whether evolution is a fact or not. It is mainly in the public sphere".

Can you give an example of such a debate within scientific circles about whether evolution is a fact or not? Or is this just a hidden POV - a claim that creationism is science? --Hob Gadling 16:12, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Their are a couple thousand scientists that doubt the validity of evolution which is probably no more than 5%(maybe less) of total scientists so technically there is some debate. So I could see the wording either way. Falphin 18:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A couple thousand? Are these scientists biologists? And are they religious? Could you please cite a reference?

Many are religious and others not. I was mostly refering to the OEC, Yec, and ID movements. I can't find my reference so I looked up some o these, while they don't give a couple thousand they do give enough proof that their are scientists with valid degrees in your area you mentioned. Also, I imagine their are easily 50,000 scientists total in the United STates, probably a lot more, making the creationist number very small compared to the total in the world. .

[4]

[5][6],

[7] Falphin 18:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this seems to hardly prove or even suggest that there are thousands of creation scientists. The first biochemist on the list, the first who isn't in the employ of ICR, got a B.S. in Biology from Liberty University, a Christian correspondance school known as, or suspected of being, a diploma mill.

The Discovery Institute was able to list 40 Texas scientists to sign this statement:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Heck, I'm not just skeptical of random mutation, I understand the Theory of Evolution enough to know that it isn't based on randomness, as such. And careful examination is always a good idea.

The list posted by AiG seems genuine enough, though the introductory text is incredibly biased. Still, I see no evidence for the idea of thousands of scientists believing in CS. -- Ec5618 02:35, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Even if the evidence suggested there were thousands of scientists who happened to believe in some form of creationism, this is not evidence of "debate in scientific circles" on the matter. What I personally would have to see to accept that there is scientific debate is an article in a generally respected, peer-reviewed journal asserting that there is evidence to support a creationist account and (what is a logically independant matter, though creationists often confuse the two) reject evolutionary theory for related reasons. I am confident that no such article will be unearthed any time soon - in fact, even if I dropped everything after the bold "and", I doubt such an article could be found. Accordingly, I will momentarily be changing it to a much stronger wording. (Anonymous)

I'm not sure that this latest language from the introduction is as neutral as it could be. Yes, that's how science, good science, at least, should be practiced. But I could see someone from the creationist side arguing that:

• creationism is also based on evidence (admittedly, different kinds of evidence compared to what science looks at, and a narrowly constrained set of it relative to what science looks at, too, but ev[idence nevertheless).

• some of what even mainstrain scientists would accept as "science," broadly speaking, doesn't seem to involve a very direct connection to the scientific method. That is, in the actual practice of science by human beings, there are frequent cases of pettiness, professional jealousy, ideological resistance to new ideas, and so on. While not religious doctrines per se, these examples of "bad" science are an undeniable part of science as it actually is practiced.

• I could also see a creationist arguing that he or she arrived at a creationist view through the scientific method: examining the world, constructing multiple working hypotheses to account for its features, eliminating untenable hypotheses through a process of experimentation and deduction... Yes, a true scientists could make valid arguments against that characterization, but that doesn't mean a creationist would be convinced by those arguments.

I get a sense from the sentence quoted above that it is being spoken by someone who is steeped in the view that scientific explanations are inherently superior to religious ones. As a result, I think NPOV's call for "Fairness and sympathetic tone" in depicting the other side's views isn't being lived up to very well.

A recent version of this sentence read:

This interpretation is rejected by mainstream scientists, who say that it is incompatible with evidence from many scientific disciplines.

For myself, I think that version does a better job of avoiding actually arguing the issue in the article, but simply stating what the criticism is, and who it is who's making it. And at least for me, the evidentiary criticism of creationism in this older version is stronger than the methodological criticism of the current version, especially given my doubts about the ability of science as it's actually practiced to always live up to the idealized characterization given in the current version. John Callender 08:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Evolution is a fact, as defined in scientific circles. It is simply a change in the frequency of alleles (however you spell that) in a population. This happens every time an organism dies or is born. Natural selection, or the modern synthesis, is a theory attempting to explain how evolution results in the current biological diversity and complexity. Therefore it is erroneous to even suggest that evolution is not considered a fact in scientific circles. People keep using evolution as shorthand for a specific theory, but it just ain't right. Evidence that a theory does not cover all observations does not disprove a theory either - in order to disprove a theory you have to replace it with a better one. (For an example of this, quantum mechanics and general relativaty are not fully compatible. Clearly, something is wrong in one of these theories. However, we still use them.) As creationism is not disprovable, it can never replace the modern synthesis. --Ignignot 13:54, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Deleted the "misc critique" section

Per the discussion we've been having, and in the absence of anyone having offerred a reason for keeping it, I went ahead and deleted the "Misc. critique" section just now. I'm pasting it below, in case anyone wants to salvage something from it. -- John Callender 09:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Miscellaneous critique of creationism

It should also be noted that throughout human history there have been huge numbers of origin myths that attempt to explain the origins of humanity and of life in general. The form of creationism advocated by young earth creationists is simply a literal interpretation of one religion's beliefs of creation, as described in Genesis, which in itself is just one of a large number of origin myths which pre-date modern science. For these reasons, and simply because of the overwhelming evidence for evolution, creationism is not respected as a serious theory explaining the origins of life. Creationist responses to the success and prevalence of evolution range from belief in a world-wide atheistic conspriracy that has managed to successfully hoodwink almost everyone in the scientific community (including the vast number of scientists who identify themselves as being Christian), to the acceptance of some or even most of the relevant facts (regarding the age of the earth and theories of common descent, for instance).

The motivation behind animated attacks of the Young Earth creationist movement towards evolution stems from their belief that the first eleven chapters of Genesis should be understood as a literal description of the origin of the universe and everything it contains. These creationists believe that to deny the validity of a literal reading of Genesis is to deny the validity of the entire (Christian) Bible, and therefore to deny the validity of Christianity itself. Because the theory of evolution is incompatible with a literal reading of the Biblical creation story, many Young Earth Creationists insist that evolution is an intrinsically atheistic theory. Moreover, they assert that evolution and Evolutionism are one and the same thing, and that therefore the theory of evolution (via Evolutionism) excuses and even promotes atheism and immorality. Although this view is most prevalent, and most explicitly promoted, in the more extreme varieties of Creationism (Young-Earth Creationism in particular), it is the driving force behind all anti-evolution movements that define themselves as Christian in origin, which includes many, but not all, members of the Intelligent Design movement. Evolutionary Creationists, in common with other Creationists, oppose Evolutionism, sometimes known as materialistic evolution or atheistic evolution, which supposedly makes an ideology out of the scientific theory of evolution.

Introduction

What data is available to support the statement that a few creationists are flat-earthers? Or is this just an ad-hominem attack, and therefore needs no connection to reality?

To Ec's revert: 1) I never said that it was common 2) L.Orgel "The Origin of Life on the Earth", Scientific American, October 1994, J. Rebek Jr. "Synthetic Self-Replicating Molecules", Scientific American, July 1994, C. DeDuve "Blueprint for a Cell", Neil Patterson Publishers, Burlington NC, 1990, S. Weinberg "Life in the Universe", Scientific American, October 1994, and C. Folsom, "Life: Origin and Evolution" Scientific American Special Publication 1979 all speak of the incredible difficulty of abiogenesis.

Dan Watts 7 July 2005 16:26 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks seem to be a normality on wikipedia, especially during the C/E debates therein. Such attacks are blatant attempts for disparaging any challenges to arguments against, for example - abiogenesis. Salva 16:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe the statement on flat-earters can be an ad hominem attack. Indeed, I find it hard to believe that there are any flat-earthers who are not creationists. I find Salva's comment, suggesting that his opponents regularly resort to this type of attack, a little hypocritical.

Secondly, I reverted because there is no 'standard' account of the origin of life. If anything, the scientific account with which they find fault, is scientific. And yes, you did suggest it was common, Dan Watts, by using the word standard to refer to it. -- Ec5618 18:14, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

The evidence backs your interpretation. I was also at fault in not reading the statement in the origin of life article: 'There is no truly "standard" model'. Mea culpa. Dan Watts 03:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Looking at this link [8], (the only active site that I have found) it appears to be a spoof site. Is there any active Flat Earth group? Dan Watts 18:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The last president of the real society died a few years back and there isn't a clear successor. However, that doesn't mean that the group is done and they have historically been a backwater oddity of creationism. See Flat Earth society Joshuaschroeder 22:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

It surely doesn't mean that the group is thriving either, and that what had been a theory with a recognized group of proponents still exists. Dan Watts 01:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

If you think the article as it now stands indicates that there is a thriving group, I think no one would object to you indicating that this is probably not the case. Joshuaschroeder 11:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Where is the solid evidence that the Miller-Urey experiment is even possibly a representational simplification of what may have happened viz the origin-of-life? Ec5618 states that Science works by formulating theories based on solid evidence. Even supporters of that experiment agree that "the ... composition of the prebiotic atmosphere of earth is ... controversial" and that "Other less reducing gases produce a lower yield and variety". Brooks, J. and Shaw, G., 1973. (Origins and Development of Living Systems. Academic Press, London and New York, p. 359.) state concerning the Miller-Urey experiment: "If there ever was a primitive soup, then we [should] find ... either massive sediments ... of the various nitrogenous organic compounds ... or ... vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes. In fact [none] have been found ...." Yet, this is given as a scientific account of the origin of life. This seems inconsistent with Ec's position on the workings of science. Is Ec wrong? Does science "work" in a less foundationally-stable environment than is admitted on some issues? Dan Watts 15:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I have never stated that the abiogenic origins of life are scientific fact. And I never stated that the hypotheses by which scientists are trying to explain the (abiogenic) origins of life are complete. However, at one point, scientists didn't know that organic molecules could be generated by manipulating inorganic molecules. That was the value of the Miller-Urey experiment. It showed to scientists, and the public at large, that something they had never though possible, was in fact possible.

No-one is arguing that life was started in that exact way. But it showed us that organic molecules could form in a lifeless world. For the first time, life didn't require a supernatural origin. -- Ec5618 16:36, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

So, do you agree that "scientific account" may connotate a more workable hypothesis than is the case for the origins of life? (Didn't Wohler's paper in 1828 on synthesis of urea show something concerning organic molecules?) Dan Watts 17:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. What do you mean by "scientific account"? "..than is the case for the origins of life?" I'm sorry? -- Ec5618 18:34, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I wrote as if you had written the last sentence of the last paragraph of the Introduction section of the article; the one which starts:

"Some creationists may also dispute scientific accounts of the origin of life ...."

I wrote as I did since one of your edit summaries stated "Science works ... by formulating theories ... based on solid evidence" and I did not see such solid evidence in the discussion of the origin of life. I dod not check to see which peerless author had added those words and was juxtaposing your edit summary against what I see as an overzealously worded statement concerning the Miller-Urey experiment. (Wohler's paper on the synthesis of urea appears to preceed the Miller_Urey experiment.) Forgive me for attacking someone with a message which (to me) resonated dissonantly with the article. Dan Watts 01:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I see your point. As you know, there are some disagreements on what science is. According to the article of science:

"There are different theories of what science is.

According to empiricism, scientific theories are objective, empirically testable, and predictive — they predict empirical results that can be checked and possibly contradicted.

In contrast, scientific realism defines science in terms of ontology: science attempts to identify phenomena and entities in the environment, their causal powers, the mechanisms through which they exercise those powers, and the sources of those powers in terms of the thing's structure or internal nature."

However, these definitions would still seem to exclude a number of fields of science, as they are not strictly testable or reproducible. Archeology and all the paleo-ologies come to mind, and perhaps the social and behavioural sciences as well. These fields are still based on science, though, and are still considered scientific for some reason.

The only reason I can imagine for that, is that all these fields still try to explain the evidence they find through natural means. Creation science/creationism posits a supernatural explanation and an 'a priori' explanation. That must be the greatest problem people have with creationism.

That having been said, "Some creationists may also dispute scientific accounts.." may not be the right wording. Perhaps we should distinguish between science and scientific. -- Ec5618 10:27, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hi-ho, wikinewbie and nonscientist here, venturing my 0.02. Re. Ec5618's musings directly above (ie. what is or is not "scientific", or "testable"). My understanding is that fields such as archeology are in fact "testable", at least indirectly, in that they generate hypotheses susceptible to falsification, or contradiction, or the parsimonious rigours of Occam's Razor (itself inherently untestable). For instance, if my hypothesis is that stone tool manufacture preceded bronze, and then I find the gilded remains of chain-armoured australopithicenes, I must modify or discard my theory. If however my hypothesis is immune from criticism on the basis of observation, testing and falsifiability, then it is not a "scientific" theory (ie. God did it, and whatever "evidence" appears to contradict this fact is itself the unknowable work of said inscrutable God). I understand this to be a broadly accepted convention, and not a partisan POV, but again I am not myself a scientist.

As for the speculation as to "scientific" relating only to "natural" explanations, this seems to me to be a tautology. By this I mean to say that "natural" is implicitly contrasted to "supernatural". Natural explanations assume predictable behaviours which are reproducible and can be expressed as logical rules. Supernatural explanations are the opposite, invoking the unknowable will of a sentient creator/ intervenor (ie. God). In my opinion, a theory of God which described a deity acting predictably in accord with comprehensible "rules" (and where no simpler explanation would equally suffice) would in fact be a scientific theory. I may however be in error. ::Snickersnee 02:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Generally limited

I assume that it's been discussed before, but where? Where does the introduction come from?

While the belief may be interpreted "literally" (i.e. in physical terms), religious discussion is generally limited to a spiritual meaning.

By whom is it limited, and why do their views merit the virtual honorific of "generally"? Why does an approach that essentially evades the controversy subsequently described end up in the introduction? Please pardon my lack of familiarity with the process by which the page came to its present state. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC) Please comment. I want to remove the second half of the introductory paragraph, but cannot find where it came from. As far back as May, the introduction read

Creationism or creation theology may refer to all or to a particular cultural origin belief; typically stressing the importance and holiness of a spiritual explanation over a strictly empirical one.

Where does this idea come from, that creation is regarded as somehow limited to "spiritual meaning"? What does the word "strictly" mean here, as in "strictly empirical"? To whom does this language make sense? May I have an explanation of what it means? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I support an edit of the introduction which does stand now as very confusing and not exactly descriptive of creationism in general. What should be in the introduction is a definition of creationism, a disambig between creation theology and creation science (this page is about the former), and a discussion of criticisms against it. Neutral, straightforward, adn to the point. Edit away. Joshuaschroeder 12:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Geocentrism

.To be fair some evolutionist have held to same geocentrism and flat earth idea and some of each group have contended that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax.

Now this is interesting. Which evolutionists have held to geocentrism? -- Temtem 00:19, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I too wish to know about these people as it has a direct effect on modern geocentrism. Joshuaschroeder 05:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course SOME scientists hold geocentrism. I'm sure some scientist out there have visions of pink unicorns. Within any community of a certain size there is bound to be SOME people who does and believes the weirdest things. What does that prove? That pink unicorn theory has some validity? Unless it is a substantial part of the scientific community it is not worth mentioning. Should we point out in Catholicism that quite a few priests are pedophiles "just to be fair" when describing religious beliefs?

Fact v. Theory of evolution

This is mainly intended for user Joshuaschroeder to respond to, but if anyone else can shed some light, much appreciated. A little background on me, first...this was my first major edit to the wikipedia, so I'm looking for help to figure out why my edit was completely removed.

So: why was my edit completely removed? It seems the reason provided in the edit comment is "fact v. theory distinction meaningless in terms of science". I don't understand this...theories and facts are distinct from each other in science and scientific discourse. In short, a fact is an observable event, a theory is a prediction model built on such observable events. Far from meaningless, this is a distinction that is fundamental in science.

Where did I go wrong in my edit? sever

Hi. I edited your addition before it was completely removed, and I too was surprised by the revert. It's true, your addition contained several flaws, which I tried to set straight, but the edit was not without merit.

The difference between fact and theory does exist in science. Gravity is an observable fact, but no complete Theory of Gravity exists to explain where the attraction between objects comes from. Similarly, evolution is an observable fact, but the Theory of Evolution, which tries to fully describe the mechanism of genetic change still eludes us.

You must realise of course that this article is quite controversial somehow. -- Ec5618 23:41, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose in retrospect perhaps a newbie such as myself should not have thrown in to a fairly controversial topic. On the other hand, I thought I had something real to contribute and the instructions said "be bold". So the real question is, where to go from here? I really need Joshuaschroeder to weigh in on this directly so I can find out what his issue is (I don't want my first contribution to result in an edit war). If it's a content issue, perhaps I can address it. If it didn't follow some rule like NPOV I'll honestly need that pointed out to me. But at this point the only thing that makes sense to me is to put it back, which will of course simply result in another reversion. sever

If you are interested in talking about "Fact vs. Theory", you should go over to Creation-evolution controversy where it is discussed in appropriate context. Here it is simply confusing. All we are describing here is the philosophy of creationism, not the whimsical musings of certain participants in the Great Debate. Joshuaschroeder 03:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

As a somewhat disinterested outsider, I'll throw in my two cents: You run the risk of descending into the sticky goo of semantic, rather than important, distinctions. Put another way, words are slippery, and trying to pin them down with mathematical precision can let the argument run away from enhancement of understanding and communicating knowledge.

AFAIK, a "fact" in science, or in law or politics even, is not the exact same as an "absolute truth." In other words, facts come with qualifications, context, limitations. "The chemical composition of salt is NACL (a molecule made of one atom of soldium and one of chlorine)" is a fact. You can use this fact to develop chemical processes; it works for scientific purposes. But you can also argue its facuality by going beyond the context -- chemistry and biology -- in which it is important. There are other things called "salt" that are not NACL. So "salt" is not only NACL one may argue. Or, "How do we know that there is not more to salt than NACL, which we just haven't seen or discovered yet?" There are always ways to dispute facts because we have to express them with language, we have to agree on terms, and we know the transitive nature of knowledge and understanding. You can always dispute even simple facts by showing there is a more nuanced way of describing the actuality that the factual statement. "Proving" that salt is NACL, and that this is a fact, is not trivial either; it requires acceptance of scientific methods, of chemical analysis, and would likely involve sophisticated technology which a skeptic (or non-technical person) may distrust.

It's a long-winded way of saying, try not to focus on attacking the "fact" by supposing that any "but..." statement you can attach to it reduces it to something less than facthood. Facts are, in a way, shortcuts or components of broader truths. They have practical purposes. Without full context, acceptance of assumptions, and agreement on their utility, they can be disputed. It makes them no less factual in the sphere in which they are used as facts.

So, fact vs. theory in science. Scientists may, in fact, accept and use a theory as a fact. Could the factuality not change? Are there not nuances to the factualness? Yes, yes. Still, a statment like "there is no difference in this case between fact and theory" is logical, and truthful in its application. There is no fundamental disconnect or illogic of the "theory of evolution" being accepted as a "scientific fact," and little point in attacking that statement based on the meaning of theory, fact, science, knowledge, and so on.

BTW, welcome and good luck with your experiences here! DavidH 21:27, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hm. Down the rabbit hole we go, eh? :-)

I'm not trying to stir up a pot of trouble, so I'm keeping it confined to the talk page. But here's the thing--the philosophy of science on which the scientific method depends, from which it was derived, even--recognizes the distinction a model and an empirically observable event. Semantics be damned, my point doesn't change if I dispense with the words "fact" and "theory" altogether. There is a great divide between models used to predict and empirical observations of events that predict nothing in and of themselves--all of science depends on this distinction. To hand wave around this and simply say, "Well, words are squishy things, this is a semantic debate," misses my point entirely.

Understanding the difference between fact and theory is central to being scientifically literate. Knowing which is which is fundamental to executing the scientific method. Theories can generate hypotheses and allow us to draw conclusions, but they have no place whatsoever in the observations section of an experimental write-up. There is no such thing as a theory that is directly observable, reproducible, and repeatable...theories are only testable. Scientific facts are observations of empirical evidence which are reproducible and repeatable, the purpose of which is to encapsulate the context in which the facts were observed. Only with a specific procedure that reliably reproduces and repeats an observation of empirical evidence can a thing be labelled a "scientific fact"--I think this addresses your concern about context.

Your analogy about salt misses the point, I feel, because that actually is a purely semantic example. It's easy to see this if we consider two people that disagree about what to call NaI. One might say, "This is salt, and I'm going to prove it by putting it under a microscope and doing a chemical analysis, etc, and if I find that it is NaI then I'm right and it's salt." But the other could disagree that NaI ought to be called salt, so proving that the substance is NaI does nothing to convince person 2 that it is salt. So the argument between these two is not about the nature of the thing itself, about how NaI behaves differently from NaCl or has different properties--that NaI and NaCl are different compounds and have different properties is already understood by both parties. They are merely arguing over whether to call it "salt".

I, on the other hand, am arguing about the nature of the thing itself--I'm arguing that whatever you care to label "repeatably and reproducibly observable event," it is fundamentally different and contributes to the process of doing science in a completely different way than a "model that generates predictions".

To say the distiction between these two things is meaningless says to me that they are interchangeable, which implies a scientific fact and a scientific theory are somehow similar. Far from being similar, fact and theory are in direct opposition! This is obvious when one considers the purpose of performing experiments: experiments are not done in order to collect facts that accord with a theory, though this is often what happens; experiments are attempts to refute a theory by trying to collect facts that show the flaws inherent in the theory. No good scientist designs experiments aimed at supporting a theory; every worthwhile experiment aims to undermine and disprove the hypothesis generated or informed by a theory under test.

A theory can never be elevated to the level of fact in terms of certainty. There are several dramatic examples in the history of science where a small set of facts upset a well-"known" and well-established theory, accepted for hundreds of years. The two slit experiment resulted in facts that conflicted with Newton's theories of physics, and science dictated that these relatively few facts would trump the hundreds of years of research that supported Newton's models.

So you can see why I'm boggled by the statement that "fact vs. theory is not relevant to science". One could make a strong case that the difference between fact and theory is the foundation of science. I feel I must point out that, if I am to accept Joshuaschroeder's statement at face value, then the science entry needs a serious rewrite. It spends a great deal of time discussing the difference between fact and theory.

I'm starting to sense a reversion is in order...if I don't hear from someone on this discussion page that disagrees in the next few days... sever 08:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

You make good points, I did use semantic examples, maybe followed the White Rabbit too far. I guess it boils down to, can we make an assertion that, in this case, scientists accept the theory as fact. They no longer are testing to prove or disprove it; they use it in their "equations" as a factual construct, they are convinced it is a theory that has been proven to describe (f)actuality. Yes, of course there is a big distinction between theory and fact in science, but does that mean the processes described in a particular theory can't become accepted as, essentially, a fact -- a usable truth?

Because so much of the arguments with natural selection-evolution are along the (simplistically semantic) lines of "but it's just a 'theory'," there needs to be some indication that scientists in the relevant fields have stopped theorizing about it and moved on to taking it as fact. Hope I put that in a positive way for this discussion, and thanks for your work on this. (BTW, I do work as a field botanist, am not at all expert on evolutionary biology, it would be great to hear from some on how far off track I may be on this, and what the language used sounds like to them.) DavidH 19:16, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

It seems our discussion has become moot--Dpr has stepped in and submitted a far superior rewrite to my own that expresses the sentiment closely enough for me. Even so, I feel like I'd be leaving you hanging if I didn't respond. :-)

"...can we make an assertion that, in this case, scientists accept the theory as fact[?]"

Absolutely not. Science never accepts theory as fact. A theory is simply a made-up model--a very useful made-up model that allows for all kinds of useful predictions--but it's a model that, at best, approximates reality. To assert that a theory is a fact is to say that it no longer approximates reality, but has become reality. This cannot be true unless the theory itself is somehow empirically proven (I'm sure there must be an example of this happening at some point in history).

Let me give an example: gravity. Newton's law of gravity is part of Newton's gravitational theory, and it describes how objects behave with respect to gravity very well. It allows us to predict that, if I drop a ball close to the Earth's surface, absent wind resistance the ball will fall at a particular constant rate of acceleration. We are speaking about the model that allows us to make such predictions when we talk about Newton's Theory of Gravity. To talk about the fact of gravity, we must only speak about observations of repeatable, reproducible, empirical evidence. Empirical means that it must be derived from experience; so, that means it must have already happened. Since it defies logic to speak about a prediction as something that has already come to pass, a theory and a fact must never be confused if the integrity of science is to be preserved. Predictions are general statements about what might happen; facts are specific statements about what did happen. Never the twain shall meet.

An important interaction of fact and theory occurs when an non-falsifying experiment is conducted. The theory allows a hypothesis to be crafted that makes a prediction. The experiment is performed and the results observed. The conclusions drawn from the experiment state whether the theory was shown to be false or not by the results and/or observations. (Note that a result that does not disprove the theory neither proves it--it could simply be that the theory has not been disproven yet). If the theory allowed for a successful prediction, then we can say that, in the same or similar circumstances, predictions by that theory in the same domain of problems will also probably be correct. No matter how many experiments confirm a the predictions of a theory, though, science never allows us to say that the theory has been proven, or that we know for certain that the result will always be the that predicted by the theory.

This is precisely why, after observing for hundreds of years that Newton's theory of gravitation worked, all it took was a single observation that didn't agree with that theory to cause us to look for something better. According to Newton, gravity does not affect the path of light--which it does. According to Newton, Mercury ought to rotate about its axis and revolve about the sun in a particular way--which it does not. Had we ever accepted Newton's theory of gravitation as fact, we would have facts in conflict when these newer facts were discovered, and how does one choose which to believe between two true facts?

Many with whom I've discussed this find it a counter-intuitive way of looking at scientific theory. But if you take the whole view of my statements, it will make a lot more sense. For instance, one might develop a theory that undetectable elves are responsible for the mutually attractive behavior of objects: they simply move objects around in such a way from another undetectable dimension such that it appears to us there's this thing called gravity. You might say, "I don't see the difference between a ridiculous 'theory' like this and Newton's theory of gravitation if what you are saying is true--we are never to take the model as if it could actually be reality, so as long as the model explains the behavior, it doesn't matter how far-fetched it is."

You might be surprised by my response: Yes, exactly! Provided the undetectable elves theory meets all of the other criteria of a theory, the fact that it does not provide for a believable reality is not troubling at all to me or to science, because science places no such requirement on theories that they ought to strive for facthood. Again, it's the opposite; science specifically forbids theories from ever attaining facthood, unless and until they are somehow able to meet all of the requirements of facthood quite independent of ever having been a theory.

Are undetectable elves any more unbelievable than the idea of an electron which can exist in two discontiguous spaces simultaneously? No, maybe not, but science does not consider undetectable elves a good theory for another reason entirely: the undetectable elves theory does not provide any ability whatsoever to predict. It ascribes the behavior of objects to complex beings that we cannot observe, and therefore not only know nothing about, but beings that are fundamentally unknowable. And now we come full circle to the point I was trying to make in the article with my addition. Even those who believe Creationism is a scientific theory concede that such a theory is based on the actions of a fundamentally unknowable being. It is for this reason that science rejects Creationism as a theory to be taught alongside evolution theory in science classes. Teaching Creationism in science classes makes as much sense as teaching evolution theory in religion classes, or teaching the undetectable elves theory in either.

"...but does that mean the processes described in a particular theory can't become accepted as, essentially, a fact -- a usable truth?"

I'm not sure what you mean by "the processes described in a particular theory". If you're talking about specific processes that can be observed directly and meet the requirements for facthood, then they stand as facts independent of whatever theory that happens to use them. Even if no theories existed at all that thing would be a fact. If you're talking about those parts of the theoretical model that do not meet the requirements of facthood, then that does mean they can not become accepted as scientific fact. They must not ever become accepted as fact unless they indepedently meet the requirements of facthood somehow.

A theory is essentially an analogy. I might say, "People are like bananas, in that both have a skin on the outside." Clearly, if we stay in the proper domain of application, this analogy allows us to create knowledge from one area we already know about (bananas) to another which we don't (people). So based on this analogy, you might ask yourself, "Well, do people have skin? If I'm to believe this analogy, then yes, since a banana does. Is a person's skin on the outside? Yes, since a banana's is." If you start applying the analogy to questions outside its (admittedly limited) domain, you'll be off in the weeds: "Is a person's skin bright yellow? It must be, since a banana's is." A theory is no different--it is at its core a complicated kind of analogy. But would it ever make sense to state that an analogy is a fact? It's instructive to consider what this would mean, were we to do this, in the case of the silly analogy: we would accept the "fact" that "people are like bananas". It's also instructive to deconstruct this silly analogy down to the fact level...as it turns out, this analogy expresses no facts at all. A fact would be something like, "Bob is a person and has skin on the outside," or "This banana I'm holding has a skin on the outside." It would be erroneous to say that either of the following statements are facts, though: "All people have skin on the outside," and, "Bananas have skin on the outside." These cannot be facts unless every single person and every banana has been observed to have skin on the outside, and each new person and banana brought into the world are observed as well. This is why it is very unusual to see scientific research claim as fact any kind of generalization; it is not at all unusual to see scientific research state specific, observed events or occurrences as fact. So we need not accept a theory as a "usable truth" for it to be useful--it's simply enough to accept it as a "usable theory". :-)

This is the big misunderstanding of creationists that attack evolution as being "just a theory". If they're talking about the facts of evolution--specific occurrences of it that have been observed (again, I refer to the repeatable, reproducible experiment that anyone can run...equipment required: Petri dish, bacterial culture, few drops of the right toxin)--then they're wrong in the sense that they are not talking about something that's "just a theory" at all. They're talking about a fact, not a theory, and therefore it doesn't even make sense to dismiss it as "just a theory".

If they're talking about the theory of evolution, often called Darwinism, then they are perfectly correct. It is indeed "just a theory". The mistake in this case is not in calling a theory a theory, for that's exactly what it is. The mistake is in the "just" part of that "just a theory" statement. That is, placing a negative value judgment on it because it is a theory. The argument against this is certainly not to argue that we change the way we do science by elevating a theory to fact; it is instead to point out that everything in science that claims the ability to predict is "just a theory".

They might as well argue against the fact of evolution by denouncing it "just a fact". sever 08:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)