|
|action3result=not promoted
|action3oldid=354691000
|topic=Biology and medicine
|topic=natsci
|action5 = GAR
|action5date = 11:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
|action5link = Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Objections to evolution/3
|action5result = delisted
|action5oldid = 1292482471
}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GAb|
{{WikiProject Evolutionary biology|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Creationism|importance=High}}
::This is bullshit. The article is based on reliable sources. Your problem seems to be that the only sources you have been exposed to are far away from any reliability, so you believe in the false rumors spread by creationists instead of actual facts.
::If you have any concrete issues instead of vague accusations, you are welcome here. As is, your writings are not helpful. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 10:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
== Is it fair to include Plantinga on this page? ==
From what I've read, his 'evolutionary argument against naturalism' is not an objection to evolution, but an argument against metaphysical naturalism. I've never read anything that suggests he intended to disprove evolution, or even to critique it as unviable in the light of humans' reasoning capacities. [[User:Phil of rel|Phil of rel]] ([[User talk:Phil of rel|talk]]) 05:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
:Since he says, {{tq| a God would be expected to create beings with reliable reasoning faculties}} and people are very obviously very fallible, it sounds rather like an argument for atheism.
:I think he is mentioned because creationists use everything that can get, including non-creationist Fred Hoyle. Of course, none of it makes any sense, including Plantinga. I have no objection to deleting him. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 05:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
::It's fair to include him; as shown at [[Alvin Plantinga#View on naturalism and evolution]] he supported ID for a decade, eventually backing off a bit in 2010 – five years after ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'' . . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 08:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
:::His "ID" belief is different from others. Technically speaking, all religious (particularly Abrahamic faiths) believe in an "Intelligent Designer", even theistic evolutionists like [[Theodosius Dobzhansky|Dobzhansky]], [[Ronald Fisher|Fisher]], [[Simon Conway Morris|Simon Morris]], [[Francis Collins]], [[Francisco J. Ayala|Francisco Ayala]], etc. The only thing common here is the name, but what each label means is different. The traditional "ID" belief is only considered problematic because of it's rejection of evolution and denial of natural causes. There's nothing wrong with believing that the "Intelligent Designer" designs through the natural process of evolution as a mechanic. One can take the designer as the first cause and natural causes as [[Secondary causation|secondary]]. [[User:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar]] ([[User talk:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|talk]]) 18:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Also, you're argument is an example of [[genetic fallacy]]. [[User:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar]] ([[User talk:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|talk]]) 18:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
::::{{tq|different from others}} - All beliefs are different from all other beliefs; Plantinga is not special in that regard.
::::{{tq|Technically speaking}} - Wikipedia does not speak that, unless reliable sources already did it before. Antievolutionists have always tried to include non-antievolutionists into their groups; your rhetorics is not new.
::::{{tq|The traditional "ID" belief is only considered problematic because}} - Wrong. It is considered problematic because it uses bad reasoning.
::::{{tq|an example of genetic fallacy}} There is no trace of that fallacy here. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 20:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::I am not an anti-evolutionist. Check my en wiki profile.
:::::Also, I don't understand what you're trying to say in the second statement. As I said, even theistic evolutionists like Francis Collins counts as believers in intelligent design if we were to apply the basic definition and principle of the concept of "Intelligent Design". The technicality matters here because as Plantinga said, he does not object against evolution and does not subscribe to the anti-evolutionist beliefs of the more traditional ID advocates. The technicality matters here because he himself uses the term ID in that way. Additionally, his argument was never used against evolution because it only applies to philosophical naturalism. Also, no. Traditional ID advocates never tried to add non-anti evolutionists into their group. The Discovery Institute literally wrote a book and has an entire website dunking on theistic evolution.
:::::Also, you didn't even finish what I said. That's [[quoting out of context]]. The "because" here matters because "ID" isn't seen problematic because of it's mere name. It is seen problematic because it is traditionally used to object against evolution. Yes, it is problematic because of bad reasonings against evolution. But, Plantinga's argument is completely different.
:::::Also, there is, in fact, trace of that fallacy here. The individual was trying to justify adding Plantinga's anti-metaphysical naturalist argument because Plantinga was involved with the ID movement even though his argument doesn't even object against evolution. It counts as a genetic fallacy because an opinion (that his argument should be added) is being validated purely because of it's origins even though it's completely irrelevant.
:::::Literally, you're entire comment is an [[argument from ignorance]]. I'm not here for some sort of debate. Plantinga's argument, regardless of how strong or stupid it is, isn't against evolution. So thus, it is to be removed. [[User:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar]] ([[User talk:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|talk]]) 08:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|theistic evolutionists like Francis Collins counts as believers in intelligent design if we were to apply the basic definition}} We don't apply definitions here. See [[WP:OR]]. This is one of the most important Wikipedia rules. Another is [[WP:RS]]: If reliable sources say that Collins is ID, we write that he is ID. If no sources say that, we don't say it. End of story.
::::::{{tq|Traditional ID advocates never tried to add non-anti evolutionists into their group}} Creation scientists did. They made lists of creationists including Newton, Linnaeus and lots of other pre-Darwin scientists that never had a chance to take of position on evolution because they never heard of it. But all this is beside the point. Just don't gather random people and call them ID.
::::::I am ignoring your fallacy claims because it would take forever and they are beside the point of this page. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 12:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::But, that's not OR. It would counts as OR if some drastic information was added which would require compelling evidences to be valid. (For example, if I gave a description of his childhood without adding any sources) There's nothing wrong with applying definitions and lack of it will create confusions (like how you initially claimed that Plantinga is an anti-evolutionist because of the label of ID even though that is wrong). Applying definitions are important especially when things are ambiguous and nuanced. For example, in the article [[The eclipse of Darwinism|eclipse of Darwinism]], there is a note clarifying the difference between 19th century "theistic evolution" and modern theistic evolution because these two things actually are different and refer to different things. That honestly makes Wikipedia itself un-trustable with it's information if words and labels were accepted as mere face value.
:::::::Also, I know that ID advocates try to put pre-Darwinian scientists into their lists, but that's different. My statement only applies to post-Darwinian era. They wouldn't tolerate anyone who accepts evolution or thinks that it is compatible. [[User:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar]] ([[User talk:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|talk]]) 13:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|But, that's not OR}} You are wrong. See the examples in [[Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material]]: {{tq|The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Making the second paragraph policy-compliant would require a reliable source specifically commenting on the Smith and Jones dispute and making the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source concerning the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia.}}
::::::::This is directly applicable to what you are trying to do. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 11:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
::Except Hoyle's argument very specifically supports an intelligent designer who designed things without starting with [[abiogenesis]]. Since it is an argument against abiogenesis, it makes sense to put the argument here. On the other hand, Plantinga's argument is specifically against metaphysical naturalism. And it cannot be and has never been used against evolution in any way. So, it doesn't logically belong here. The article itself makes it clear that it is an argument against metaphysical naturalism and not evolution. So, it doesn't make sense to put it here at all. It belongs to the article [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]]. [[User:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar]] ([[User talk:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|talk]]) 09:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
== Isolated systems ==
:::Since the Earth receives energy from the Sun, see [[dissipative system]]. A Nobel prize was granted for that idea. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 20:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:In the ten years since your first attempt at inserting creationist pseudoscience into the article, neither physics nor biology have changed enough to make evolution suddenly contradict the Second Law. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 08:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
::The Rosenhouse reply to the objection is curious. "The fact is that natural forces routinely lead to local decreases in entropy. Water freezes into ice and fertilised eggs turn into babies. Plants use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into sugar and oxygen, but [we do] not invoke divine intervention to explain the process ... thermodynamics offers nothing to dampen our confidence in Darwinism."
::However, at room temperature and pressure, ice melts to water as heat energy is absorbed from the surroundings, there is less order, increased entropy. In plants, energy input in the form of sunlight produces growth, more order and reduced entropy. Removing heat energy from water freezes water into ice resulting in more order and decreased entropy. Removing sunlight energy from plants results in death and decay, decreased order and increased entropy. That "Natural forces" lead to contrasting results in inorganic and organic open systems presents a question, not an answer.
::"The article brings out: "Organisms are open systems as they constantly exchange energy and matter with their environment." Because plants and animals are open systems, entropy changes in isolated systems are not relevant. Why is this straightforward answer not given as the answer?
::If the issue is increases in order bring negative changes in entropy, the Gibbs free energy equation shows enthalpy (energy) input is able to offset unfavorable change in entropy.
::The objection is addressed, without a reference, by an unusual assertion: "The second law of thermodynamics applies only to isolated systems." Then the second law does not apply to plants and animals as they are open systems: therefore, they are able to grow in size and complexity. However, these same organisms later mature, decline, die and decay in agreement with the second law. The second law clearly applies to plants and animals as open systems and not only to isolated systems. A physics text book states: "The general statement of the second law of thermodynamics is "the total entropy of any system plus that of its environment increases as a result of any natural process."* "Any system" would include open, closed or isolated systems.
::The article also notes "Since Earth receives energy from the Sun, it is an open system." If the second law applies only to isolated systems, then it follows that the second law does not apply to Earth, which is absurd. That the second law applies to Earth is self-evident; everywhere there is evidence of ruins. decay, wear, corrosion,...
::Realizing energy into open systems lowers entropy in organisms but increases entropy in inorganic systems warrants an explanation. Some order such as cyclones and long chain polymers occurs in inorganic systems; however, that degree of order pales in comparison to that of plants and animals. Biological macromolecules such as DNA, and other carriers of genetic code are present only in plants and animals. Their presence could account for plants and animals apparently violating, then following the second law in open systems. Their origin is an enigma.
::At the moment, Wikipedia is informing its readers: "The second law of thermodynamics applies only to isolated systems," which is contradicted by physics, logically absurd, unsubstantiated and lacking a reference, LEBOLTZMANN2
::* Physics, Principle with Applications, SIXTH EDITION, p. 425, D.C Giancoli, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey,1998
::[[Special:Contributions/71.163.186.151|71.163.186.151]] ([[User talk:71.163.186.151|talk]]) 21:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
== Plantinga ==
A discussion was already held here on the status of inclusion of [[Alvin Plantinga|Plantinga]]'s [[Evolutionary argument against naturalism|argument]]. First of all, Plantinga's argument was specifically against philosophical naturalism, not evolution. So, it doesn't matter what other views of Plantinga are, ''his arguments are simply not relevant here''. Additionally, he never objected against evolution. He already stated that his belief in intelligent design was different from other advocates. They merely just carry the same label, but what the label means here varies. As he stated, all religious people (or at least of the Abrahamic faiths) believe in some kind of designer, including theistic evolutionists like [[Theodosius Dobzhansky|Dobzhanksy]]. God could've just "designed" by the natural process of evolution. And even if he was an anti-evolutionist, trying to use his other views to justify a completely irrelevant argument here would be an [[Genetic fallacy|one kind of genetic fallacy]]. This article is specifically for anti-evolutionist arguments. [[User:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar]] ([[User talk:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|talk]]) 17:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:ID is a form of antievolutionism. {{tq|he never objected against evolution}} contradicts the following sentence {{tq|He already stated that his belief in intelligent design}}. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]])
::Plantinga does not exactly deny evolution, and remains skeptical about intelligent design as science. He talks like a philosopher, not like a scientist. And, yes, if he means that epistemic responsibility is scarce in humans, he is spot on. Most humans have never attained the full-blown rationality demanded by embracing modern science. I don't think that our specie is a paragon of rationality. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 20:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Plantinga does not exactly deny evolution}} Neither does ID.
:::{{tq|if he means that epistemic responsibility is scarce in humans, he is spot on}} He does not mean that. He uses that as a sort of reductio ad absurdum: if naturalism were true, it would mean that people's thinking is not reliable, which would mean that you cannot rely on... naturalism! His reasoning is full of holes and really stupid: you do not need naturalism to derive that, as you say, people's thinking is indeed not reliable. And picking naturalism as the thing that you cannot rely on at the end is purely arbitrary.
:::I had no problem with deleting Plantinga back then (see [[#Is it fair to include Plantinga on this page?]], contribution from June 2023), but consensus seemed in favor of keeping him. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 07:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Except, the mere concept of an intelligent designer is not really anti-evolutionist. The term ID is being used here in an extremely un-orthodox way. As I mentioned his "ID" belief is very different from the more traditional ID belief. The only thing common here is the name. It would be like if I renamed [[Young Earth creationism|YEC]] into evolution and evolution into YEC. The only things that change here is the label, but the core beliefs would still be the same. [[User:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar]] ([[User talk:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|talk]]) 08:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Also, how do I even get a concensus? [[User:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar]] ([[User talk:Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar|talk]]) 08:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
==Lacking==
::That’s fine. Telecine Guy just decimated the whole article with his points either way. Job done. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:6B66:48F4:0:B523:38E1:3F7F:1EEE|2A02:6B66:48F4:0:B523:38E1:3F7F:1EEE]] ([[User talk:2A02:6B66:48F4:0:B523:38E1:3F7F:1EEE|talk]]) 08:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
:::That statement makes no sense. This is a Wikipedia talk page, and its goal is to improve an article. Neither your contribution nor that of the other guy does that. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 10:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
:Your arguments betray a serious misunderstanding of evolution in almost every aspect. The cambrian explosion took place over millions of years after multicelluar organisms already formed, and was therefore able to evolve relatively quickly due to environmental pressures. What you are describing as happening "all at once" took place over millions of years. Just because you personally don't understand how that may occur does not disprove evolution but is merely evidence of your own ignorance, which is further evidenced by your frequent mispellings. You also claim that there are no transitional fossils for most species, but completely ignore the fact that fossilization is extremely rare. Of course most minor organisms are not fossilized several times.
:Evolution can predict where a fossil will be. It can predict genetic sequences between organisms. Do you know why humans have a tailbone? It's because our distant ancestors had a tail. The human embryo goes through stages, first being microbal, then with gills, then ape-like fur. Evolution's evidence is so robust that anyone who disbelieves in it either does not fully understand it or is simply an idiot. [[User:FriendlyNeighborhoodAspie|FriendlyNeighborhoodAspie]] ([[User talk:FriendlyNeighborhoodAspie|talk]]) 11:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
== "Supporters of evolution" ==
:{{talk quote|a fact isn't something that you "support", it would be like saying "supporters of gravity" or "supporters of The Holocaust", it doesn't make much sense, does it?.}}
:Sure you can. I think it's fine in this context and doesn't really have the effect you describe. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 01:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
== Article review ==
It has been a while since this article was reviewed, so I took a look and saw lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and at the end of paragraphs. Should this article go to [[WP:GAR]]? [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 15:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
==GA Reassessment==
{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Objections to evolution/3}}
| 