|
The '''Minnesota Department of Transportation''' ('''Mn/DOT''', pronounced "min-dot") oversees transportation by [[land]], [[water]], and [[air]] in the [[U.S. state]] of [[Minnesota]]. The [[cabinet]]-level agency is responsible for maintaining the state's [[trunk highway]] system (including [[List of Minnesota state highways|state highways]], [[U.S. highway]]s, and [[interstate highway]]s), funding municipal [[airport]]s and maintaining [[radio navigation aid]]s, and other activities. Minnesota's lieutenant governor, [[Carol Molnau]], is currently head of the department (Commissioner of Transportation).
For a November 2004 deletion debate over this page see [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Creation vs. evolution debate]]
----
== Archives History==
The agency's history can be traced to the state's '''Railroad and Warehouse Commission''' which emerged slowly from [[1871]] to [[1905]], and the '''State Highway Commission''' created in 1905. However, the Highway Commission was abolished in [[1917]] and replaced by a '''Department of Highways'''. For air transport, the '''Minnesota Aeronautics Commission''' was created in [[1933]]. Much of the railroad oversight was transferred to the [[Minnesota Department of Public Service]] in [[1967]]. Two years later in [[1969]], the [[Minnesota Department of Public Safety|Department of Public Safety]] was established and took over the [[Minnesota State Patrol|Highway Patrol]] and [[driver's license|Driver's License Bureau]]. Mn/DOT finally came into being in [[1976]] and took over the functions of the aeronautics and highway departments, plus transportation-related duties of the [[Minnesota State Planning Agency|State Planning Agency]] and Department of Public Service.
* The text of the [[Creation vs. evolution debate]] page was cut from the [[Creationism]] page on October 29, 2004 to reduce the size of the [[Creationism]] page to reasonable limits.
==Services and projects==
* For full discussions prior to October 29, 2004, see [[Talk:Creationism]] and archives.
Mn/DOT operates networks of [[ramp meter]]s and [[traffic camera]]s in the [[Minneapolis-St. Paul]] [[metropolitan area]] in order to manage traffic flow. In [[2000]], the ramp meters were turned off for a study period mandated by the [[Minnesota Legislature]]. The bill was backed by [[Republican Party of Minnesota|Republican]] [[Minnesota State Senate|State Senator]] [[Dick Day]] of [[Owatonna, Minnesota]], who has often been critical of Mn/DOT policies and projects. The study showed that ramp meters reduce the number of crashes on highways, and marginally reduce travel time in many cases. However, the study also showed some places where the meters were more of a hindrance, and metering strategies have been altered since that time. There are about 430 ramp meters and more than 280 traffic cameras.
The department has also put up informational [[variable message sign|electronic signage]] along highways to provide alert messages. Message boards have been in [[Rochester, Minnesota|Rochester]], [[Duluth, Minnesota|Duluth]] and the Twin Cities for some time. Part of the reason for the Rochester signs is occasional [[flood]]ing of [[U.S. Highway 52]]. The department expanded use of the signs after [[Amber Alert]] legislation allocated funding for larger networks. In the Twin Cities, Mn/DOT began using them to display freeway travel times in [[2003]] or [[2004]] to help drivers plan alternate routes to avoid heavy traffic if necessary (although a generic message like "buckle up for safety" is often encountered).
[[/Selected discussions prior to October 29,2004]]
[[Twin Cities Public Television]] (TPT) station KTCI channel 17 has been used for many years to display [[weather]]-related information that is funded by Mn/DOT. The department also had a long-standing partnership with [[KBEM]] radio (88.5 FM) in [[Minneapolis, Minnesota|Minneapolis]] to relay area traffic information, although that relationship is coming to an end. After public outcry, the term was extended, but it is unclear how long the two organizations will continue the relationship. Mn/DOT paid KBEM [[United States dollar|US$]]400,000 per year to provide the information, about half of the station's annual budget. Video from traffic cameras is also shown on [[cable television]] systems in the metro area (at one time, this had also been shown on KVBM channel 45, today known as [[KSTC-TV|KSTC]]).
*[[/archive 1]] (upto 23rd ish of November 2004)
*[[/archive 2]] (upto 4th ish of December 2004)
*[[/archive 3]] (upto 11th of December 2004)
*[[/archive 4]] (upto 8th of January 2005)
*[[/archive 5]] (upto 19th of January 2005)
[[Snow plow]]s used on trunk highways are also operated by Mn/DOT.
== Too Big ==
I think this article clearly has lots of potential.. but there is much work to do. I didn't read the entire thing, but here is what i didn't like.. it's too long. Huge chunks of it could be split up into different articles, like the huge chunk on macroevolution could be summarized and moved to it's own article (called something other than "macroevolution".. like "creationist arguments against macroevolution"). Same with the Abiogenesis.. and its first sentence "The natural origin of life remains elusive to science, and is a limited field of research despite its impact on human understanding of our world." somehow feels like it's trying to convince me of something, and not explaining to me what Abiogenesis is.. and i don't like that one bit. And the gigantic "Perspectives on the debate over time" has to be moved and summarized.
==See also==
More generally speaking, when I read this article, many times it really feels like it's a creationist writing, and trying to convince me of something by using language tricks and logical fallacies to their benefit.. which is really annoying. But I think it can all be fixed.. since there is actual content here that belongs in Wikipedia; maybe it just needs more people to read the article (it seems the discussions are generally among the same people.. who have a pretty good idea what the other thinks).. other people's input would also be great for advancing your talks on the definitions of things. but keep up the good work :)
*[[Mn/ROAD]]
*[[MnPASS]]
==External links==
cheers, [[User:Mlm42|Mlm42]] 22:37, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
*[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/ Minnesota Department of Transportation]
* I agree with all of the criticisms you have made of this page. This is a page under development. We are just beginning to grasp what this page is about--and at the same time just beginning to grasp what we can drop from this page. This page should be cut in about half--in my opinion. But this is not the right time yet, I would say. ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 02:12, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
*[http://www.511mn.org/ 511mn.org] (state [[5-1-1]] webpage)
*[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/tmc/trafficinfo/map/refreshmap.html Twin Cities traffic map]
*[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/tmc/trafficinfo/metrocams/mapindex.html Twin Cities traffic cameras]
[[Category:Government of Minnesota|Department of Transportation]]
* I too agree that the article reads like a creationist tract. This is due largely to the fact that from the standpoint of the volume of contributions, the article was written largely by creationists. Correcting that is going to take effort on the part of others. Please feel to stick around and help.--[[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 21:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[[Category:Transportation in Minnesota|Department of Transportation]]
== What is "the debate"? Why this article? ==
I just dropped in here at the request of another user. I'm confused as to the purpose of this article--what, exactly, is the debate that the article is supposed to describe? Whether Creationism should be taught in schools? Whether evolution is true? Aren't these covered in other entries? Those aren't really debates, anyway; for purposes of an encyclopedia, the [[Lincoln-Douglas debates]] are the sort of debate worthy of an entry, actual debates that took place at a particular place and time, not just a broadly controversial group of topics. A general forum for ongoing argument isn't appropriate to an encyclopedia, is it? (And there are no shortage of such forums on the internet, in any case).
The list of different creationist and evolutionist positions seems useful, but for the most part this just seems like a disorganized dump of all sorts of claims and arguments in the vicinity of creationism and evolution. If some specific debate cannot be agreed upon as the subject here, then I suggest the entry be renamed to describe a specific topic not already covered. And if this isn't addressing a concrete topic that is not covered elsewhere, why should the article exist? --[[User:BTfromLA|BTfromLA]] 18:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There is no debate between creation and evolution because creation is religion and evolution is science and science and religion inherently can not conflict. However there are people who nevertheless think there is a conflict, and the perpetual conflict between these people is what constitutes the "creation vs. evolution debate". To allow for this debate, evolution and creation are given new arbitrary or persuasive meanings. The conflation of evolution with athiesm is one example of this. Another example is considering creationism as science. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 01:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:So, then, are you saying there is no point to having this article? Is there no agreement here about what the subject of the article is? --[[User:BTfromLA|BTfromLA]] 01:50, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The conflict exists, but the page should describe it rather than taking part in it. It must emphasize that the definitions of evolution and creation used are popular definitions but not standard ones, and that the debate creates a [[false dichotomy]]. If the page remains a forum for the debate rather than a description of it, it should be deleted. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 02:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
== Opener. ==
there are three povs regarding the nature of the debate.
1) by evolutionists, that it is naturalistic science versus religion.
2) by creationists, that it is creation science versus atheism
3) by evolutionary creationists, that it is a false dichotomy.
currently the opener takes the first pov. while that is a valid pov, it is NOT appropriate for the page to take that pov as fact. bensaccount's profound ignorance regarding what creationists believe notwithstanding, creationists DO believe that the evidence points to creation, not evolution, and that the debate is therefore creation science versus atheism. it is not appropriate for the page to take any one of the above povs are fact, because this is a page about the debate and therefore must deal evenhandedly with all sides. any suggestions on resolving this issue? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:16, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
* How about we write a summary opener section that actually summarizes what is in the rest of the article? What do you think are the three principal points in the current page? ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 16:50, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:: hmm ...
:: 1) the debate takes place at the nexxus of science and religion, and is therefore very touchy.
:: 2) the different conclusions of the various sides are the result of varying philosophical presuppositions underlying the interpretation of the evidence.
:: 3) both sides think their science informs their ideology, rather than vice versa.
:: but i'm sure other people will disagree with what i draw from the page ... so i wonder what it would take to agree on something? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 17:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::* Can we find a published scholar who characterizes the "debate" as a [[false dichotomy]]? ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 02:56, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:::As I see it (granting that I'm new here and may be missing something) the central problem is that there doesn't seem to be an agreement about what the topic of this article is, so it just becomes a sort of creationism/evolution message board. If the article can be defined as addressing something specific, limited, and not covered in existing articles, then progress can be made. If it can't be so defined, I take that as a sign this article should be dropped (though I see that discussion was had already). --[[User:BTfromLA|BTfromLA]] 18:40, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:::* Welcome to the project. 8)) In my opinion, we all agree what the topic is. Stick around. We are getting there. The question is how to organize what is on the current page. We need only about half of the text that is there now. ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 02:56, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::::Please help me out--I'm not being coy. What is the topic here that isn't covered in another article? --[[User:BTfromLA|BTfromLA]] 03:01, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
==The second paragraph==
''One's view of the debate often depends on one's perspective. Advocates of secularism and the theory of evolution typically see the debate in terms of "science" versus "traditional religious belief and pseudoscience." Advocates of creationism typically see the debate in terms of "creation science" versus "Atheism and pseudoscience." Advocates of evolutionary creationism typically see the debate as a false dichotomy, because the religious belief in God as creator is compatible with the science of evolution.''
The debate is a false dichotomy. Don't present facts as if they are points of view. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 20:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:i don't think it's a false dichotomy. your "fact" is a pov. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Blinding yourself doesn't change the facts. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 22:49, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:what are you talking about? do you have the slightest idea what npov means? you are ONE pov on this page, not the ONLY ONE. it's been two months now -- are you still as ignorant as when you showed up? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 23:26, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There are things that are true whether or not you or I believe in them. Contrary to what you think the world is not all fantasy. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 03:02, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:Unfortunately, even that is only a point of view; many people do not believe in truth. [[User:Graft|Graft]] 03:27, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The world is round regardless of if everone thinks it flat. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 05:14, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:the eye was created intact, even if everyone thinks it evolved. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 18:37, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Try and focus on one subject Ungtss. Anyways, religion is not fact; religion is belief. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 19:03, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:belief is either fact or falsehood. the eye convinces me that my belief in creation is fact. your problem is that you mistake your own beliefs for fact, just because people like to call them "scientific." that's fine if you want to hold that pov. personally, one look under a microscope leaves me unable to believe in anything ''but'' creation. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 19:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Which brings up the theme of conflation of science and religion. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 19:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:which brings up the theme of rather stupidly holding that religious claims can have no basis in science and history. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 19:16, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:yes indeed. jesus lived around 4bc-30 ad in Judea, a Roman province, and was crucified. egads! conflation of religion and history! [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 19:30, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Religion is the belief in who Jesus was and why he died. What you speak of is not religion. Why must you keep changing the subject? [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 00:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:listen, ben. just for one second listen to voices other than the ones inside your head. young earth creationism is a HISTORICAL idea. it is the idea that God CREATED the Earth AS DESCRIBED IN GENESIS, IN THAT ORDER, IN THAT WAY. it is the idea that God PLANTED A GARDEN where 4 rivers met, and filled it with particular trees, and MADE a man named Adam and a Woman named Eve, and those two people ate a fruit they weren't allowed to eat and got kicked out of the garden, and had Cain and Abel -- and Cain killed Abel. it is not a belief about "what creation means" or the "religious implications." it is the belief that 7,000 years ago, the EARTH DID NOT EXIST. it is NOT a false dichotomy with evolution, because evolution says the earth is much older than that, and that humans are related to blowfish. creationists read Genesis as a HISTORY, not just a "religious book." do you UNDERSTAND that there are PEOPLE in this world who think DIFFERENTLY than you? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 00:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Your digressive rant only serves to prove you don't know what a false dichotomy is. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 03:11, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
: your evasion only serves to prove your ignorance. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 03:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::<sarcasm>Share the love!</sarcasm> [[User:Neocapitalist|Neocapitalist]] 01:24, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
== A plea for good prose ==
As editors of an encyclopedia, and hopefully an encyclopedia of quality, I hope we can all remember that above all, our commitment should be first and foremost to good writing. No one wants to read, quote from, or attribute a poorly-written article. This is especially vital in the case of articles such as this one, edited by contending sides. Edits should not appear in the article like bomb craters in a war zone; the flow of the article should remain seamless and coherent from one edit to the next. So when you insert your passionate rebuttal to someone's evolutionist or creationist nonsense, PLEASE take a moment to make sure it fits in with the surrounding text, that your point isn't duplicated by a sentence one or two lines above or below, and that you have written it in a consistent voice, so it doesn't read like a harsh choir practice. [[User:Graft|Graft]] 20:46, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:Amen. But, again, I think there's little hope for clear prose unless the topic of the article has been clearly defined. --[[User:BTfromLA|BTfromLA]] 21:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
: I suggest that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_vs._evolution_debate&diff=9451600&oldid=9442632 this edit] exemplifies making a war crater in the middle of the quotation and citation to a published scholar. The following text that replaced the end of a direct quote of Scott mischaracterizes (Scott 1997) and makes an incorrect and unsupported statement: '''"While Scott concludes that the intelligent designer in question is God, proponents of Intelligent design only claim to have identified the existence of a designer or designers, without explicitly identifying the designer(s). Intelligent Design ideas often include explicit criticism of 'Methodological [[materialism]]' (see below) and related [[naturalistic]] philosophies."''' I suggest it would be better for this page to correctly quote and paraphrase each scholar that we select without making war craters. That is, if you want to make some passionate rebuttal to the exact quote of the published and cited scholar, I suggest it should be done in a following or preceding section that we would all refrain from blowing up with war craters. 8)) What do you say? ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 06:25, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::Geez, I didn't see that one coming. What mischaracterization? What incorrect statement? I was just trying to make the entry more accurate and concisely inforative. If anything there is inaccurate, by all means, correct it. --[[User:BTfromLA|BTfromLA]] 06:42, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:::Argh. I didn't want to start any name-calling. I think BT's edit is fine; I meant something more like this (I think I can safely pick on an anonymous IP) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_vs._evolution_debate&diff=8241362&oldid=8241279]. This edit introduces back-and-forth in the middle of a paragraph, which is just really bad stylistically. And that's what I was complaining about; pure style. You can lie and dissemble all you want, but at least do it with BEAUTIFUL PROSE. [[User:Graft|Graft]] 06:57, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::::Thanks, Graft. I went back over my offending edit and saw that it was possible to read it in such a way that one might take it as claiming that Scott believed in God, rather than Scott believed that the ID-ers were creationists declaring the existence of God under another name. Maybe that's how Rednblu interpreted it. I've revised it. --[[User:BTfromLA|BTfromLA]] 07:06, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
---
The quote from Scott (1997) was this: '''"The vertebrate eye was Paley's classic example, well known to educated people of the nineteenth century, of design in nature. Darwin deliberately used the example of the vertebrate eye in ''The Origin of Species'' to demonstrate how complexity and intricate design could come about through natural selection, which of course is not a chance phenomenon. In creationist literature, evolution is synonymous with chance. In scientific accounts, there are random or chance elements in the generation of genetic variation, but natural selection, acting upon this genetic variation, is the antithesis of chance. In the Progressive creationism tradition, Intelligent design allows for a fair amount of microevolution, but supporters deny that mutation and natural selection are adequate to explain the evolution of one 'kind' to another, such as [[chordate]]s from [[echinoderm]]s, or [[Humans|human beings]] from [[ape]]s. These and the [[origin of life]] are considered too complex to be explained naturally, thus Intelligent design demands that a role be left for the intelligent designer, God" (Scott 1997, p. 280).''' In my opinion, the interpretation of Scott in the current page mangles what Scott explicitly said and makes an inaccurate and uncited, unsupported, and illogical rebuttal that does not even make sense. That is only my opinion. 8)) I would suggest that if you want to insert that rebuttal, that is fine. But please don't make the war crater that you did. Please paraphrase, quote, and cite some other scholar in a preceding or following section that accurately reflects what some rebuttal scholar actually wrote, please. ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 07:33, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:This "war crater" business is ridiculous. I am not an apologist for Intelligent Design. I cut the long quote from Scott because it seemed overlong for this brief summary of the different positions on the continuum. I'm not trying to supress or rebut anything, just to improve the readability of this grossly unreadable and thusfar pointless article. I'm pretty sure that all the claims in the summary are accurate descriptions of what the ID movement claims--if there's some false or misleading info in there, or some key point about ID that's missing, fix it. I did add a reference to Phillip Johnson, the man who popularized the ID concept, but your plea for every sentence to be attributed or a direct quotation makes readable writing impossible. And please realize that your idea about war craters is both inflammatory and false--both in the sense Graft intended it, which you've ignored, and in what I take to be the sense that you've invented--as a belligerant argument. Evidently, you are trying to drive editors away. I'm baffled as to why. --[[User:BTfromLA|BTfromLA]] 07:56, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:* Nay, my friend, I am working with you to clarify a set of standards that will make this page readable. In my opinion, rebutting Scott's quote in the middle of the summary of Scott's thesis is jarring. This has nothing to do with favoring one point-of-view. Let us clarify Graft's observation: Inserting a rebuttal to make a back-and-forth in the same paragraph is generally jarring. Would that be a good initial standard? ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 08:16, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::Your assertion makes no sense to me. Please explain where you see any rebuttal to Scott's claims. I assure you that none was intended by me. --[[User:BTfromLA|BTfromLA]] 08:19, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:* Opposed to Scott's argument that is in the quote, the following sentence is a rebuttal: '''"Intelligent design advocates also claim to have discovered empirical evidence . . ."''' That is not what Scott is saying; Scott is saying in the quote that the creationists, including the intelligent design artists, are ''ignoring'' empirical evidence--specifically, they are ignoring the very limited role that chance plays in [[natural selection]]--which "is the antithesis of chance." Would you agree? ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 08:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::I think I get it now. I thought we were borrowing Scott's categories to write a "brief summary of the different positions on the continuum." You think this section is not a Wikipedia overview of the subject but rather a "summary of Scott's thesis." So editing out some of Scott's comments and replacing them with another description strikes you as a violation, because you see it as an article about Scott's views. Nobody has answered my question about what the topic of this article is; if you want to make it a bunch of sections devoted to presenting various single-author arguments, it isn't currently evident that is the goal. Fix it up as you like--I don't appreciate being called upon to defend myself against accusations of war crimes when making good faith edits, and I'm not going to spend more time doing so. --[[User:BTfromLA|BTfromLA]] 16:55, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:* I would say we are all working to discover how to present this subject of the "debate" in "good prose." In my opinion, none of us here know how to do it yet, but I am sure that we can do it if we all work together. 8)) Surely it is better to quote, paraphrase, and cite published scholars on such a touchy subject--because it would always be [[NPOV]] to say that "Scott said"--and represent accurately what Scott said. There are a lot of other scholars with many views. The issue here is not to present only one view, but to present what we present here in good clean prose. I don't think Scott's views are better than any other scholar's views on a very common understanding of the debate--namely, that the debate is ''not'' a dichotomy, but rather a continuum of views. And what I have learned here is that, for this page, we will get cleaner prose if, in some sections, we don't have back-and-forth within paragraphs. We already have a subpage [[Views of creationists and mainstream scientists compared]] that is instant back-and-forth. What do you think? ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 19:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Here's what I think. The page currently has no clear reason to exist; unless and until it does, fussing over the contents is a waste of time. I'll propose three solutions to this problem, you may have others.
1. Define this as an article that discusses the social history of conflicts between creationism and evolution. No scientific or religious arguments, just historical accounts of points where laws were written, people jailed, institutions formed or changed in relation to this conflict. The Scopes trial and the recent business about stickers in textbooks would be the type of thing discussed in this history.
2. Make this a links page. A minimal narrative: these are the major viewpoints, these are some prominent figures, these are the contentious issues. Almost no discussion, just point to the relevant articles. I'm not sure this is really needed, but at least it would clarify the aim of the page.
3. Delete the page. See if it is missed. If there is some need for this article, deleting it might be the best way of identifying that need.
--16:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
excellent thinking. here's another possibility: the current page contains the material for several pages:
:1) sociological interpretations of the "spectrum of belief" and "causes for the debate"
:2) a description of the primary "issues" in the debate," (which is currently views compared)
:3) a solid wikiquote on evolution and creation.
what do you think? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 17:15, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think the wikiquote idea is fine, though I guess that means deleting this page and starting another, right?
Your first two suggestions strikes me as still being overbroad, especially given all the wrangling that attends to the most straigthforward representation of these topics--those seem more like premises for books than encyclopedia articles. My vote is to either adopt the "social history of the conflicts" idea or just delete the page. I do think the "continuum" is useful and should find a home somewhere on wikipedia. --[[User:BTfromLA|BTfromLA]] 06:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:i think you'll find a reasonably good history of the social conflict in [[History of creationism]] -- perhaps some of the material from here could go there so we can narrow down what we're doing here before deleting everything? what do you think? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:41, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::If the social history is covered elsewhere, I'd say delete. If you can find a few nuggets (the "continuum" is the one I notice) worth preserving elsewhere, export them. Please don't direct more questions to me here--I've taken this page off of my "watchlist." --[[User:BTfromLA|BTfromLA]] 18:00, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
== Ideology or science ==
Bensaccount recently edited to remove the second half of this sentence: "Advocates of evolutionary creationism typically see the debate as a false dichotomy, because they believe religious belief in God as creator is compatible with the science of evolution." I have restored it. This is a good example of ''evolutionism'', an intolerant ideology, masquerading as ''evolution'', a scientific theory, in that it won't even allow the statement of another's belief if it conflicts with its own. Many of the edits on these pages are also examples. Just as the definition of creationism changes "on-the-run," with great confusion between the variations in creationism, so does the definition of evolution, which conflates science with ideology in many cases on these pages. I will give this much credit, that some of the advocates of evolutionism, the ideology, believe so strongly that they cannot see this point, and are not lying when they try to equate their view with science. When someone says evolution is true, then one has gone beyond science, which uses a theory as a framework, but holds all its theories with healthy skepticism until a better comes along. Whenever one says evolution ''disproves'' God, then it is waaaaayyy beyond science and he/she has expressed a religious ideology. When one tries to convince others of this, then it has become an evangelistic religious idology. And when one goes beyond pursuasion, and tries to impose this view (through forced science curricula, court cases, etc.) then it has become a coercive religious ideology.
''Evolutionism'' today is fervently trying to suppress all opposing views through any possible means. ''Science'', like religion, should be strong enough to stand on its own feet; it does not need to be force fed to one and all.
All creationists, from young earth to evolutionary, unite to reject coercive religious ideologies, especially those that masquerade as science. [[User:Pollinator|Pollinator]] 14:17, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
:well said:). [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 14:28, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, evolution is compatible with creation, but no that is not why this is a false dichotomy. It is a false dichotomy because there are many other options than creation or evolution. Now could you please, explain to me why you keep replacing this statement? [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 15:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:he's replacing it because it makes sense, ben. i offered to rename the page "Origins debate" to try and pacify you, but you of course didn't like that either. this page describes the debate between two groups -- not saying there are no other groups -- but saying that these two are in a debate, and there is a "third way" between them. if you'd like to start a page called "Creationism vs. buddhism debate," go ahead. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The lack of conflict between evolution and creation means there is no dichotomy, not that there is a false dichotomy. How long do you think you can push this lie before people start to notice? [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 22:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:jeez man. there is a dichotomy between young earth creation and evolution (theistic and otherwise), because they are irreconcilably different views of historical events. describing the debate between those sides does not create a false dichotomy any more than describing a debate between bush and kerry means you can't vote for nader. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 23:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nobody thinks that a false dichotomy results from a lack of conflict yet you write that:
'''advocates of evolutionary creationism typically see the debate as a false dichotomy, because they believe religious belief in God as creator is compatible with the science of evolution.'''. This is a blatant lie. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 23:19, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
: Ten dollars say you tire long before he does.
: Not a lie. Theistic evolutionists believe in a theistic (read personal), creator God and at the same time have no problem accepting the science of evolutionary biology. A theistic evolutionist would say, " How does the fact that allele frequencies change over time interfere with my belief that Jesus Christ is my personal savior?". Thus, the framing of the debate in the terms "evolution vs. creationism" is a false dichotomy, since there is more than these two options as a valid position. --[[User:Jason Potter|JPotter]] 05:42, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
:: well said, mr. potter. ben, you've been mangling every little bit of common sense to come across the page. why don't you put up or shut up: what do YOU think the intro should say? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:25, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The reason this is a false dichotomy is not the compatibility of creation and evolution. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 21:31, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
==Goals for the intro==
#Remove the lies and evasion.
#Inform the reader that:
#*The debate creates a false dichotomy.
#*The debate is based on popular but not standard definitions
#*The debate involves the conflation of science and religion. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 22:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
okay. now. how do you suggest allowing the intro to be broader than your pov -- for instance, to include people that disagree with you on every one of the above points? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 23:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
---
If you disagree, say so. Stop evading it. I recommend you start with point #1. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 00:14, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
: <<''#*The debate creates a false dichotomy.''>>
How about we use terms the way that mainstream scientists use them? Here is an appropriate use of "false dichotomy." '''"The creationists assert a false dichotomy between micro- and macroevolution (Antolin & Herbers 2001)."''' Is that what you meant by "false dichotomy"? If it is, we could quickly dispense with this "problem" by inserting a section called "The false dichotomy in the debate" in which we could cite to all the published uses by mainstream scientists of the phrase "false dichotomy." 8))
* Antolin, Michael F., and Joan M. Herbers. 2001. "Evolution's struggle for existence in America's public schools." ''Evolution'' '''55''' (12): 2383. ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 00:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That is a different issue. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 00:14, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
: jeez. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 01:03, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Still waiting, Ungtss. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 22:38, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:what are you waiting for? everybody else to give up logic and reason so they can agree with you? i'm tired, ben. i'm tired of revert wars and votes for deletion. you obviously have no interest in reality, so i'm gonna let you leave the intro a mangled mess, while i work on other pages you haven't yet decided to destroy. hopefully somebody else will fight you, or you'll decide to move on to mangle other pages. whatever. you've had this page in a do-loop for 2 months now. i'm moving on. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 00:07, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am waiting for you to disagree with the above points. You allude that there are people who disagree but you don't say whom. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 14:24, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
==Lies and evasion==
The reason this is a false dichotomy is that these two viewpoints are presented as the only options when they are not. '''It is not the compatibility of creation and evolution.'''
==Informing the reader==
===False dichotomy===
The creation vs. evolution debate obviously creates a false dichotomy. If there is any disagreement from the usual liars (Ungtss, Rednblu, Rayment), now is the time and this is the section. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 00:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
* Ok. What is the false dichotomy? And if you could cite to a published reputable scholar who says that the creation vs. evolution debate creates a false dichotomy, I would have no problem agreeing with you. But in fact, every published scholar I have read disagrees with you. For example, (Scott 1997) says expressly that it is ''not'' a dichotomy at all, but a continuum of views. ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 01:15, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Which means that representing it as a dichotomy is false. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 22:36, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
aren't you getting a little crazy with this false dichotomy stuff? i mean most debates are 'false dichotomies', but that doesn't make them horribly wrong. actually, if my understanding is correct, every two sided debate is a false dichotomy unless it's A vs. (not A).. and a false dichotomy is only a problem if somewhere in the debate of A vs. B you say (not A) implies B. wouldn't you agree? [[User:Mlm42|Mlm42]] 22:47, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No it is not crazy. It is the truth and I intend to get it on the page. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 23:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
---
: <<''Which means that representing it as a dichotomy is false.''>>
Ok. What text on the [[Creation vs. evolution debate]] represents "the debate" as a dichotomy? Throughout the page, I see quotations of various proponents that argue a dichotomy. But the page itself definitely does not represent the debate as a dichotomy--because it represents a whole continuum of views that proponents argue in the debate. Where is the dichotomy? The page just represents what the various proponents in the debate actually say. That is what [[NPOV]] is all about. 8)) So what point-of-view do you think is not adequately represented on the current [[Creation vs. evolution debate]] page? ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 03:44, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:You are obviously having trouble telling the article from the debate. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 14:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::<<"...every two sided debate is a false dichotomy unless it's A vs. (not A).. and a false dichotomy is only a problem if somewhere in the debate of A vs. B you say (not A) implies B. ">>
This is correct. [[User:Neocapitalist|Neocapitalist]]
:MIT likes to pretend that there's an MIT-Harvard rivalry going. Harvard, meanwhile is totally oblivious, being far more interested in its storied rivalry with Yale. If you ask someone from MIT about it, MIT and Harvard are bitter rivals. But Harvard people just laugh contemptuously at the suggestion. [[User:Graft|Graft]] 03:50, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What is your point Graft; unlike you I don't value good prose over meaning or clarity. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 14:05, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
==um ...==
<<''Mainstream scientists counter by arguing that creationists are dead wrong in saying evolution requires innumerable unknown assumptions and causes, because, they claim, every cause and assumption for evolution has been objectively verified.''>>
:not that i'm complaining or wanting to cut it out (god forbid the scientific community be denied its say in the matter), but do mainstream scientists really counter by saying that evolution is completely figured out and "has been objectively verified" so there are no gaps left to fill? maybe that's why i have a hard time believing them:). [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You are obviously complaining. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 22:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:Can we try and act like grown-ups? We are grown-ups, right? I agree with Ungtss - the statement is pretty dubious, and not something any scientist would seriously say anyway. [[User:Graft|Graft]] 03:47, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::The statement is dubious, because it claims "every". Perhaps it would be good to edit it to say:
<<''Mainstream scientists counter by arguing that creationists are dead wrong in saying evolution requires innumerable unknown assumptions and causes, because, they claim, enough causes and assumptions for evolution have been objectively verified to consider evolution nothing less than valid fact.''>>
:::definitely a great qualifier:). [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 04:22, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
---
You have a right to complain. In the end, that sentence should be cut unless there is some actual published scholar who said that. But I suggest that it should be left for the time-being--to be replaced in the future by what some published scholar actually said. 8)) However, in my opinion, the creationist claim to which that sentence replies is even more unjustified. How about we look for a published scholar who actually 1) says that "evolution requires innumerable unknown assumptions and causes" and 2) provides some rational argument for such a conclusion? :) ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 03:55, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:point taken -- i probably need some quotes from Phillip Johnson, don't i:)? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 04:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:* A concise and accurate paraphrase might suffice, yes. 8)) With a citation, of course. ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 06:29, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:::would you believe all his books are checked out of the library:)? i never thought i'd see the day:). i'll get the quotes whenever the books are returned. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
== proposed daughter pages ==
well ... it seems that the "views compared" page is here to stay, and this page doesn't know what it is, but it's got a lot of good material. here's how i propose dividing up this megalith:
:to stay on this page: spectum of debate, nature of debate, causes of debate -- issues related to the debate itself, but NOT to the history of the debate.
:to go to views compared: abiogenesis, macroevolution, irreducible complexity, flood geology, radioactive dating etc.
:to go to a new wikiquote entitled "Creation and evolution": the quotes section.
:to go to a new page entitled "Creationism and philosophical naturalism" -- discussion of occam's razor, stuff by phillip johnson, etc.
Thoughts? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
# Sounds good. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:18, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
# Sounds reasonable to me. ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 07:51, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
== Archive edits ==
Not having been on this page for about a week, I have now responded to some earlier points that were archived. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACreation_vs._evolution_debate%2Farchive_5&diff=0&oldid=9629633 this revision comparison] for my responses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:21, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
==Reversions without explanation==
I have given precise edit summaries for each of my individual edits, so if someone reverts I expect some rebuttal of my comments. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 18:10, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
* I went through each edit in the series and found that each edit harmed the page without adding a single positive value. Reversion is a waste of time, in my opinion. We should solve the real problem. 8)) ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 22:05, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:What is the "real problem"? [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 20:51, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Precise edit summaries"? I tend to agree with Rednblu, but here are some of your edit summaries and the rebuttal comments (as precise as your comments) that I would use if I was reverting:
:* ''Removed pointless statement''
:** Reinstate useful statement
:* ''We are not here to debate abiogenesis''
:** Abiogenesis is one of the issues in dispute.
:* ''No reason for this section''
:** There is reason for this section
:* ''No reason to go into this here''
:** There is reason to go into this here.
:* ''Remove lies and speculation''
:** Reinstate accurate statements.
The point is, you haven't given good reasons for your mass changes and deletions; rather you have provided a terse, almost meaningless, comment. You haven't, for example, explained how stuff you removed is "lies".<br>
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#Pointless statement: ''One's view of the debate often depends on which side one takes in the debate.''
::This is pointless because we are trying to define the debate not everyone's view of the debate (which is not even possible). Now explain why it is necessary to include this statement Phillip. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 20:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:::the only way to define the debate in an npov way is to give the spectrum of definitions. the alternative is to only include YOUR definition of the debate. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::::I said that the statement is pointless because it is regarding a different subject. It is about views on the debate, instead of the debate itself. I still am waiting to hear why this statement is useful. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 21:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:::::what are you talking about? it's about views of the debate itself. when the definition of the debate is at issue, you've got to qualify the nature of the debate. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:::::* Let us observe Mr. Ben's repeated violations of [[NPOV]] here. First, Mr. Ben repeatedly deletes paraphrases, quotations, and citations of reputable published scholars. Second, Mr. Ben refuses to provide scholarly reference to his assertions, such as the assertion "the creation vs. evolution debate creates a false dichotomy and involves the conflation of science and religion." Third, Mr. Ben asserts his own personal research contrary to all published scholars--such as the assertion that characterizing the views of the participants is "about views on the debate, instead of the debate itself." So what do we do about it? ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 22:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:::::::weep softly into our pillows:(. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 22:03, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::::::::I have provided an unrefuted reason why the statement is pointless, and my request for you to explain why the statement is useful has degenerated into insults based on Rednblus faulty understanding of NPOV. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 22:15, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::<<'' It is about views on the debate, instead of the debate itself.''>>
::::::::::what in the world does this MEAN, ben? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 22:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::::For example, if we deem this as important whats to stop us from writing about views on views on the debate? [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 22:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::::::::::::nobody is proposing that we do that. but there are a number of views on the debate that need addressing. your alternative is to provide only one view of the debate. that's not going to happen. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 22:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::::::No my alternative is to remove the statement altogether, since it is pointless, unless of course you can say why it is of any use, which so far you haven't done (although you have said how it is good to provide many views, which has no relevance here.) [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 23:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::''Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view.'' -- [[user:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]], Wikipedia founder
From that quote, I would assert that the essence of [[NPOV]] is paraphrasing, quoting, and citing to published scholars. ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 22:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Only when necessary. Stop trying to wield NPOV as a weapon Rednblu. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 22:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
# still weeping:(. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 22:56, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
# Stop faking argument by making [[non sequitur]]s, Mr. Ben. If we are going to get a good page on such a difficult topic as [[Creation vs. evolution debate]], we will have to stop writing "what is so" for us. We will have to start writing about what people say. ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 23:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What non sequiturs? [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 23:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
---
<<<<#Pointless statement: ''One's view of the debate often depends on which side one takes in the debate.''>>>><br>
<<''This is pointless because we are trying to define the debate not everyone's view of the debate (which is not even possible). Now explain why it is necessary to include this statement Phillip.''>><br>
Some people see the debate as a debate between science and religion. Other people see the debate as a debate between the science of one religion and the science of another religion. Yet others see the "debate" as a false dichotomy. Generally speaking, young-earth creationists and some old-earth creationists see the debate as a debate between the science of one religion and the science of another religion. Materialists see the debate as a debate between science and religion. Theistic evolutionists see the debate as a false dichotomy. Therefore, as the lines said, "One's view of the debate [i.e. how one sees the debate] often depends on which side one takes in the debate [i.e. YEC etc., materialist, or theistic evolutionist]". You can quibble over the details, but to me (and obviously most others here) that seems pretty correct, and pertinent. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Speaking of non-sequiturs, saying that "theistic evolutionists see the debate as a false dichotomy" does not lead to the conclusion that "one's view of the debate often depends on which side one takes in the debate", since other "sides" also see the debate as a false dichotomy. Anyways, you digress, get to the point. How is this statement useful. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 16:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
* Another [[non sequitur]]! Look at yourself. 8)) Read the [[non sequitur]] page. ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 20:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:Pity ignorant Rednblu, who can dish out buzzwords but can not explain himself. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 21:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
=="Perceived" disagreement==
"The '''creation vs. evolution debate''' is the conflict among people who perceive disagreement regarding the origin of the universe, Earth, life, and humanity." Bensaccount, I don't get you. Are you trying to say that there is no disagreement about the origin of aforementioned things? Everybody agrees about the origin, but somehow, through an optical illusion or whatever, they perceive disagreement? --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] 16:28, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
It would be more correct to say: is the perpetual disagreement among people who think there is conflict regarding the origin or the universe. I'll change it. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 22:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:Sorry, I still don't get it. Do you mean it like this (simplified)?
:#There are people who think creation is right and evolution is wrong. (creationists)
:#There are people who think creation is wrong and evolution is right. (atheistic evolutionists)
:#There are people who think creation is right and evolution is right. (theistic evolutionists)
:You seem to think (you will probably correct me if I'm wrong) that groups 1 and 2 think there is conflict, and group 3 thinks there is no conflict.
:But - there '''is''' a conflict between group 1 on one side and group 2 and parts of group 3 on the other side. There is no conflict between group 2 and group 3 because they disagree only on creation, which is a matter of belief.
:Maybe you mean "conflict" not in the sense of conflicting parties, but conflicting notions? --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] 12:48, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
I do mean conflicting notions. I will add this. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 16:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
---
May I remind everyone that our job here is to write about "what people say," not about "what is so." I have no objection to the content of Mr. Ben's statement; I have even looked for published scholars who say anything like that so that we could cite to it and develop a clear page in good style. However, if we add a section about "conflicting notions," it will violate [[NPOV]] policy because there is not one published scholar who has characterized the controversy as "conflicting notions." Every published scholar characterizes the conflict as a battle over "what is so." Wikipedia is no place for uncited [[Wikipedia:Original research|personal research]]. ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 19:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You may not, since what is so always takes precidence over what people say. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 21:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
* Not in Wikipedia--except by grace of our tolerance of your repeated violations of [[NPOV]] policy. ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 22:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes in Wikipedia. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 22:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
== Removing uncited, unsupported, and unexplained statement ==
: <<''The creation vs. evolution debate creates a [[false dichotomy]], involves the conflation of science and religion and is based on popular, but not standard definitions.''>>
I removed the above statement. The [[Wikipedia:Lead section|lead section]] should summarize what the scholars cited in the article say. The above statement contradicts every scholar cited in the "References" section. ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 23:04, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No the lead section should sumarize the article. Or more directly, it should summarize the subject. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 17:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
== Discussion? ==
: <<''There is absolutely no doubt that evolution, though possibly not in its current form, is fact. Creationists may be sympathized with, but they are just like little children- believing what is taught to them by others. In this way, believing in Creationism is a bit like believing in Santa Claus. But your parents aren't there to tell you the truth when you're older.''>>
I moved the above comment here for discussion. Can somebody please explain this? It would help if there were a citation to a published scholar. 8)) ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 09:47, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:yikes. if evolution is indeed scientific fact, i do hope you succeed in your goal of presenting evolution in a persuasive manner to us ridiculous "child-like" creationists, because the endless stream of garbage spewing from the mouths of these evolutionist fundamentalists convinces me they have nothing but rhetoric, ad hominem, proof by assertion and authority, raw bullying, and baseless assumptions to back their religion ... and they don't seem to notice, or care :(. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:* 8)) In my opinion, the contributor of the "There is absolutely no doubt . . ." paragraph gives us an opportunity to discuss how we should deal with vandals. Mr. Vandal has no interest in developing a [[NPOV]] page--even within Mr. Vandal's understanding of NPOV. Mr. Vandal is merely expressing "what is so" for him, and the expression of "what is so" is a violation of NPOV. Our job here is to write about "what people say." If I had found Mr. Vandal's paragraph in the ''Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics,'' I would think I had a good quote for my side--because I could expect that the article would develop some survey data and hypotheses correlating something like 1) "parents' beliefs about Santa Claus" vs. "child's beliefs about Santa Claus" compared with 2) "parents' beliefs about Creationism" vs. "child's belief about Creationism." In my opinion, it is crucial for Americans at this time that we would take very seriously the question of "Why do people still believe in Creationism?" So the difference between Mr. Vandal and any one of us is that Mr. Vandal does not want to work within the rules of [[NPOV]] which require writing about "what people say" rather than "what is so." ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 18:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
== So is there any science to any "Creationism" ? ==
This article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_earth_creationism
refers here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_vs._evolution_debate
I was curious if anybody has any way to interpret either the magentic evidence on the sea floors, or the paleobiological evidence in eastern and southern Africa, in any way consistent with any young earth theory -- or if there are any actual young earth theories (besides, just assertions of "God said so" I mean).
Neither of these articles seems to cover any scientific theory at all.
It is apparent that I can find a lot of name-calling, but, what I was wondering was, is there any science in the anti-evolution camps? Especially, is there any geologic or paleobiological science?
* No. But this is Wikipedia. It is ''not'' our job to write about "what is so." Our job is to write about what the proponents of the various views say. Does that make sense? ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 11:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
** For a consideration of the claims which creationists consider to be scientific, have a look at [[Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared]]. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Frankly, no. There is nothing scientific about creationism. However, it is popular for people to conflate the two, and eventually this page will have a section regarding the conflation of science and religion. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 16:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
***FWIW, if you're willing to look at the evidence objectively, there is scientific evidence in favor of both a young earth and an old earth (and for both "Creation" and "Evolution" as well..) Trying to keep this on the track of the scientific aspect only of the discussion (which after all is what you asked about), I would suggest reading through the archive of newsletters at ScienceAgainstEvolution.org: [http://scienceagainstevolution.org/newsletters.htm] There are a number of very good articles there, some of which support young earth interpretations. Read and decide for yourself.
:Science in creationism: The National Academy of Sciences still says "No." [http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309064066/html/25.html#pagetop] That little pun aside, creationism by definition cannot be part of science as it's conclusion will always preceed any of its premises. In other words, creationists will always choose to beleive that god created the universe/earth/man no matter what the evidence indicates. This position makes creationism antithetical to science and the scientific method.
:As for your question about the geological evidence, I recommend reading Arthur N. Strahler's books ''Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy'' and ''Physical Geology''. I believe Strahler addresses sea floor magnetism in both. --[[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 22:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
== reasonfor page move ==
okay, don'tgetmad. I moved the page [[wiktionary:controversy]] rather than [[wiktionary:debate]]. The former is more specific. It is used by both sides [http://www.talkorigins.org/ scientists (top right)], [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=teach+the+controversy&meta= creationists]. Debate suggests a structured discussion where sides are equal, when this is not the case. [[User:Duncharris|Dunc]]|[[User talk:duncharris|☺]] 11:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
: no complaints here -- i think it was a good idea:). [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think you should have asked on this page before you made the move. I don't really think it makes much difference though, so long as one redirects to the other. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 16:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
---
: <<''I moved the page''>>
Let us not please import into Wikipedia the slanted bias of talk.origins. That bias is just one of many. The peer-reviewed publications should be considered also. And the peer reviewed publications, such as in ''Evolution'' or ''Quarterly Review of Biology,'' use "debate" just as often as "controversy" to describe what goes on among the proponents of creation and the proponents of evolution. We need to stop two things on this page 1) unilateral massive changes and 2) [[Wikipedia:Original research|personal research]] that does not take into consideration what scholars actually say. This undiscussed move procedurally violated both those 'no-nos.' Substantively, either title for this page would represent what scholars actually have published on the topic of this debate. ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 22:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
* And by the way, since you unwisely and unilaterally moved this page, would you please fix the links to the archives, which you destroyed in the move. Thank you. Just a suggestion: The simplest fix to the archives would be to move this page back to its rightful name. ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 22:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
| 