Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:21, 28 January 2005

Latest revision as of 14:30, 28 June 2025

Line 1:

{{Skip to talk}}

For a November 2004 deletion debate over this page see [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Creation vs. evolution debate]]

{{ArbComPseudoscience}}

----

{{FAQ|collapsed=yes}}

{{Article history|action1=GAN

|action1date=22 January 2006

|action1result=listed

|action1oldid=36150973

|action2=GAR

== Archives ==

|action2date=October 4, 2006

* 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.

|action2link=Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 7#Creation-evolution controversy

|action2oldid=79552939

|action2result=delisted

|action3=PR

* For full discussions prior to October 29, 2004, see [[Talk:Creationism]] and archives.

|action3date=November 25, 2006

|action3link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Creation-evolution controversy/archive1

|action3oldid=90115022

|currentstatus=DGA

[[/Selected discussions prior to October 29,2004]]

}}

{{Old XfD multi|votepage=Creation vs. evolution debate|date=December 11, 2004}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=

{{WikiProject Religion|importance=high|attention=yes}}

{{WikiProject Creationism|importance=Top}}

{{WikiProject History of Science|importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=high}}

{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=high}}

{{WikiProject Evolutionary biology|importance=high}}

{{WikiProject Palaeontology|importance=high}}

{{WikiProject Geology|importance=high}}

{{WikiProject Astronomy|importance=bottom}}

{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=high}}

{{WikiProject Atheism|importance=high}}

}}

{{To do}}

{{copied|from=Creationism|to=Creation vs. evolution debate|date=October 29, 2004}}

{{archives|banner=yes|age=90|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|auto=short}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|maxarchivesize = 200K

|counter = 24

|minthreadsleft = 3

|algo = old(90d)

|archive = Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive index|mask=Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}

== Do young Earth creationists reject all science? ==

*[[/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)

I see an edit war going on between some (?) IP editors, who are trying to soften the stance of young Earth creationists to say that they reject all science "on the issue", and some Wikipedia regulars who are insisting on "all science" (period). I find the latter claim implausibly broad (do they reject Newton's laws? Classical thermodynamics?), and the burden of proof should be on them. So what do the sources say? Unfortunately, most of the citations clustered at the end of the paragraph don't mention young Earth creationism at all, as far as I can tell. I'm going to tag some of them. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:grey;">[[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]]([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]])</span> 22:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

== 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.

Actually, none of the sources support the first half of the sentence. I have also come to realize that the sentence contradicts itself, saying that "this view" completely rejects science, and then saying that creation science attempts to prove that young Earth creationism is consistent with science. This latter statement is actually supported by some of the sources, particularly the one by Eugenie Scott. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:grey;">[[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]]([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]])</span> 22:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

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 :)

:Young Earth Creationists reject everything that does not agree with their interpretation of the Bible, science, history, philosophy, math, medicine; you name it, and if it can neither conform to or be distorted in order to conform to a YEC's favorite misinterpretation of the Bible, they will reject it and denounce it as the Devil's excrement.--[[User:Apokryltaros|Mr Fink]] ([[User talk:Apokryltaros|talk]]) 22:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

cheers, [[User:Mlm42|Mlm42]] 22:37, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

::e/c I was going to say the same, but less eloguemntly!! -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy,''' <small>the dog. Esq</small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 22:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

* 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)

:::Both of you - this is Wikipedia. What are your sources for this statement? <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:grey;">[[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]]([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]])</span> 22:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

::::My spelling above, for one thing. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy,''' <small>the dog. Esq</small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 22:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

:::::Among other things, RockMangetist, <s>have you ever bothered to look at Young Earth Creationist sites to begin with, let alone that they are rife with anti-science propaganda?</s> did you read the sources and note that they don't actually state Creation Science/Young Earth Creationist is consistent with science?--[[User:Apokryltaros|Mr Fink]] ([[User talk:Apokryltaros|talk]]) 22:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

::::::Astrophysics, astronomy, nuclear physics, geophysics, geochemistry, geology, paleontology, biology, evolutionary theory, genetics, molecular biology, paleobiology, and anthropology, according to https://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/stearns/expert_witness_ayala.pdf (Ayala 2007). [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 23:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I need to apologize beforehand, but also need to say this. [[User:Apokryltaros|Mr Fink]], the only way you could make the statement of "Young Earth Creationists reject everything that does not agree with their interpretation of the Bible, science, history, philosophy, math, medicine; you name it, and if it can neither conform to or be distorted in order to conform to a YEC's favorite misinterpretation of the Bible, they will reject it and denounce it as the Devil's excrement." would be if you were speaking for the entire group. I can't, and haven't heard of anyone who can. You are speaking of a group of individuals who may be influenced to an extent by those who lack sufficient knowledge. Given that, I fail to see how this type of hostility I'm seeing here is in like with the WP purpose. The idea is to provide quality articles. How that is to be accomplished is also defined in the guidelines for editing and conflict resolution. So the internal structure of WP is defined. Now how does that get accomplished amid the emotionally charged dialog I see? There does seem to be some type of conflict, if it is only the apparent hostility being tossed around above. If the idea is to hurl accusation and insult, I see that being accomplished. What I don't see is definitive methodology leading to improvement. Can we get to that? I'm also at least a little surprised that [[User:Tgeorgescu]] would be here in like manner, yet as I suspected, there may be some affiliation suspect of [[WP:COI]]: "ncse.com", tells the story. I'm calling for disclosure at this point for affiliation to the organization: National Center for Science Education (N.C.S.E.). The NCSE is decidedly biased in their anti-religious POV. Any affiliation with them is cause for COI concern. Are any editors on this page, or in this article, affiliated with NCSE? I'm asking for good faith disclosure. I don't see any disclosures listed on the article page or this one. If I missed something, help me out and direct me to the place where any disclosures might be found.[[User:BRealAlways|BRealAlways]] ([[User talk:BRealAlways|talk]]) 12:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

* 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)

* The NCSE does not have an anti-religious POV, except when religious groups try to have their beliefs taught as fact in science classes. Even if editors are not "affiliated" with the NCSE, it is unsurprising that most will agree with a group whose purpose is to keep science teaching restricted to facts and reality. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 12:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

: Well, creationists live in a parallel universe with alternative facts where creationism is valid science and where non-religious equals anti-religious. If you want to write articles that pretend that the parallel universe is the real world, you will not be happy editing Wikipedia. There is actually a Wiki for that parallel universe: [[Conservapedia]]. You will not succeed morphing Wikipedia into another Conservapdeia, so maybe you should directly go there instead. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 13:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

::{{ping|BRealAlways}}, I make and stand by my statement that "Young Earth Creationists reject everything that does not agree with their interpretation of the Bible, science, history, philosophy, math, medicine; you name it, and if it can neither conform to or be distorted in order to conform to a YEC's favorite misinterpretation of the Bible, they will reject it and denounce it as the Devil's excrement" due to both personal observations of Young Earth Creationists demonizing literally everyone who commits the sin of disagreeing with them, i.e., Answers In Genesis staff twisting "I respect all religions" into a tacit confession to promoting Satanically inspired ritual cannibalism, and personal interactions with Young Earth Creationists explicitly belittling me as a hellbound idiot for committing the sin of not believing God magically poofed the world into existence over the course of six 24 hour days exactly 4 to 10,000 years ago, or praying me to go to Hell for committing the sin of pointing out that it's physically impossible for the last mammoths to be frozen by magical falling pieces of magic ice falling from a magical floating ice dome, or even that scientists, in general, are a bunch of Satanic idiots engaged in a centuries-spanning conspiracy to hate Jesus for no profit beyond hating Jesus.--[[User:Apokryltaros|Mr Fink]] ([[User talk:Apokryltaros|talk]]) 15:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, since everyone is sharing their POV on the subject, I may as well chime in. As a preacher's kid from multigenerations of YEC, but now an atheist, I'd word it differently. I have two medical educations and have worked in YEC university settings and medical centers alongside medical and scientific researchers who were YEC. They live a [[Compartmentalization (psychology)|compartmentalized]] existence, so here's a more accurate statement:

: YECs "reject those aspects of science, history, philosophy, <s>math</s>, and medicine that do not agree with their interpretation of the Bible, but believe, practice, and research all other aspects of those subjects just as other, non-YEC, people do."

There are large areas of science and medicine where they will agree with others and their YEC beliefs are not evident. But there are areas where their deviance from science-based thinking will become evident. So it's not "all", but just that which disagrees with the Bible, which isn't everything. As with much in life, "all" is an extreme, and rarely true, exaggeration. Use a bit of common sense. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) 15:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The editors with a COI in relation to the NCSE are likely those making requests at [[Talk:National Center for Science Education]] to avoid editing the article themselves. There's only one that I'm somewhat familiar with and he's not very active on Wikipedia. I also don't find edits from him in this article's history or on this talk page. But the NCSE is notable, so it's not surprising for it to have mentions. Its focus is science education, that especially in the US has a history of corruption. An encyclopedia promoting public education and with academic bias ([[WP:ABIAS]]) like Wikipedia is compatible with that, it seems. This article also mentions [[theistic evolution]] and includes a source from the [[BioLogos Foundation]] that can be considered apologetic but does not promote rejection of evolution. —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 18:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

== What is "the debate"? Why this article? ==

My final analysis of this section is that it's out of control. Opinions based on "conversion from YEC to atheism" are a contrived way of expressing an opinion that is not backed up by anything other than personal POV. What I would be looking for is sources. Those hapless individuals plagued with YEC sugarplums dancing in their heads would be better served by producing content that is unbiased, pointing out the error of their ways. The verbiage above doesn't accomplish the task. Harboring an obvious animosity or contempt for the "religious" is an unacceptable norm for edits, as far as I can discern from WP guidelines for editing. That is one of the reasons I called for disclosure of affiliation. Though this is a talk page, it is not a general forum for discussion of material superficial to the article, unless it is included to support improvement of the article (with sources, of course).

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).

[[User:PaleoNeonate]], While it may seem innocent enough to conceptually limit the activities of a radical group to a specific topic, if we apply that same reasoning to Hitler's activities, we would end up in a position under his boot. Working under a similar assumption, if the N.C.S.E. is only about science education, why would they be concerned at all about religion? [[User:BRealAlways|BRealAlways]] ([[User talk:BRealAlways|talk]]) 13:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

:What specific changes to the article are being proposed here? [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 13:16, 3 February 2022 (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)

I propose that the article has no merit in and of itself. Therefore it should be removed from the stacks. This will, of course be a point of conflict, but be it as it may. It comes across as a propaganda piece against religion, and doesn't cover the topic sufficiently. It is sparse on scholarly sources. Big surprise! I'm seeing Eugenie Scott and Richard Dawkins show up in the list of references. Eugenie Scott = N.C.S.E. Anyone here affiliated with that group in any way? Just a question. Yes, I move for deletion. The world will not suffer if a list of anti-religion revolutionaries don't have their day in court. If it were a scholarly piece, it would include "Religious Groups", rather than singling out Judeo-Christians. This is the only religious group I see mentioned in the article. Surely this is not the only religious group in the world that rejects evolution theory as given. If it isn't canned, it should be seriously rewritten, as in be serious about covering the topic properly and fairly. WP is not for painting targets on any religion.[[User:BRealAlways|BRealAlways]] ([[User talk:BRealAlways|talk]]) 17:39, 3 February 2022 (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)

:[[User:BRealAlways|BRealAlways]], if you want this article deleted, your next step is to go to [[WP:AFD]] and follow the instructions. --[[User:McSly|McSly]] ([[User talk:McSly|talk]]) 18:02, 3 February 2022 (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)

:There's no need to ping me. Sure, Scott did important work against the corruption of education and is very notable for that. Why would that be Wikipedia's problem? —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 23:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

On second thought, deletion isn't absolutely necessary, but a major rewrite is the only saving factor. For example a contradictory statement is made in paragraph 4: "The Catholic Church recognizes the existence of evolution ...". The pope is then quoted as saying "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve." This is not a recognition of the existence of evolution theory, but the defining of the reliance of evolution theory on Creation, thus, a Creator. In engineering terms, God is the Designer of all self replicating machines (if life forms are to be classified as such). Some people are much smarter than I am, and might view such nonsense as an insult to their intelligence. The problem seems to be much bigger than a single article. This is only the tip of the iceberg from what I have already seen. I'll ask for advice before moving to delete. Thanks, [[User:McSly|McSly]] [[User:BRealAlways|BRealAlways]] ([[User talk:BRealAlways|talk]]) 18:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

== Opener. ==

:Make sure you mention that the NCSE is some sort of radical atheist group. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 18:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

there are three povs regarding the nature of the debate.

:Our own interpretation of what the Pope meant is not usable per [[WP:OR]], but if you mean that many Catholics believe in theistic evolution I think that there are sources supporting that, one is from Scott,<ref>{{cite journal |author-link=Eugenie C. Scott|last=Scott |first=Eugenie C. |title=Antievolution and Creationism in the United States |journal=Annual Review of Anthropology |volume=26 |date=1997 |pages=263–289 |jstor=2952523}}

1) by evolutionists, that it is naturalistic science versus religion.

</ref> [[Theistic evolution]] also appears to use this one.<ref>{{cite book|last=Bowler|first=Peter J.|author-link=Peter J. Bowler|title=Evolution:The History of an Idea|publisher=University of California Press|year=2003|isbn=978-0-520-23693-6}}</ref> There's also an article about the [[Watchmaker analogy]]... —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 23:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

2) by creationists, that it is creation science versus atheism

3) by evolutionary creationists, that it is a false dichotomy.

::Accusing me of [[WP:COI]] is laughable. I mean: really funny!

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)

::Other remarks: at Wikipedia we do not sing {{tq|Kumbaya, My Lord}}. We sing {{tq|A mighty fortress is mainstream science}}.

* 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)

::There is life outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not have a monopoly on Net 2.0. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 03:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

:::[[User:PaleoNeonate/Userboxes/CigaretteSmokingMan|Me]], on the other hand... —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 04:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

:: 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)

This section shouldn't exist according to talk page guidelines. I will, however, answer the above opening edit to an extent. Some good information on the history of Young Earth Creationism can be found here [[https://biologos.org/articles/the-bible-rocks-and-time-christians-and-an-old-earth|here]]. The research was done by 2 authors who looked into the origin in a systematic fashion. Their book must go into the subject more thoroughly, although I haven't read it personally. Those who are interested in knowing more about the topic may want to purchase a copy. The page gives a sequence of development for the Young Earth paradigm from the origin to a point near the present (subject to date of publishing and revision). The authors have found that certain factions or sects of Christianity held to certain literal translations of selected text. This is an excerpt from the author's book: "The “heretical” and “infidel” tendencies of modern geology were roundly condemned by some churchmen, few of whom had any knowledge of geology, although there were a handful of individuals who had produced acceptable field-based studies of regional geology in Great Britain. These “Scriptural geologists,” however, found themselves increasingly marginalized by the vast majority who had extensive working geological knowledge and were now convinced that the Earth is very old."

:::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)

Hope this helps. What affect it may have on article improvement is unknown at this point. The section doesn't appear to have been created for that purpose, but looking at the history of a movement always helps to determine why it is what it is. YEC doesn't seem to have been formed for any other reason than to be a "follow me" paradigm. It (YEC) is a radical isolate, not founded on sound principles. The entirety of their belief system appears to be due to the types of relationships developed by [[Jim Jones]] and [[David Koresh]]. Need I say more? Your question doesn't follow, unless it is leading to article improvement. [[User:BRealAlways|BRealAlways]] ([[User talk:BRealAlways|talk]]) 05:51, 4 February 2022 (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.''

re: "Our own interpretation of what the Pope meant is not usable per ...". I did not interpret what the Pope meant. I interpreted what he said in the framework of the assertion. The article is self contradictory on that issue. If a person says something they don't mean, then how can I assume they mean what they say? There is a minimum expectation that a person is not suffering from some mental disorder that dissociates their ability to transmit their thoughts cogently. What you suggest is "putting words into other people's mouths". That should only be done when the person is aware of the conversation. That way, they would be able to explain to us all whether they are being "interpreted" correctly. [[User:BRealAlways|BRealAlways]] ([[User talk:BRealAlways|talk]]) 06:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

:As far as I'm concerned the discussion is done here, unless perhaps more specific proposals were done with citations. [[WP:BRD]] is also a good guide. Another possibility is creating text drafts in a sandbox for review by other editors. —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 08:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

== Article title ==

:i don't think it's a false dichotomy. your "fact" is a pov. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Controversy is a [[WP:WTA|word to avoid]]. In particular, it should be avoided for a false controversy between science and motivated reasoning. This article makes the case very clearly that what we are describing is not a controversy, but '''religious rejection of evolution''', and the resulting legal cases. To borrow the legal usage of the term, a "live case or controversy" is a situation where the parties still have a valid dispute. As we make clear, that has not been the case with evolution for a very long time. Attempts to portray creationism as anything other than religious have failed consistently since Scopes. The courts are clear: it's religion v. reality.

Blinding yourself doesn't change the facts. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 22:49, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So, per NPOV, we should use a title like '''religious rejection of evolution''' or '''creationist reaction to evolution''' - or, perhaps, as a parallel to [[Acceptance of evolution by religious groups]], '''Rejection of evolution by religious groups'''. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 10:20, 2 May 2020 (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)

:Agreed, either "religious rejection of evolution' or "Rejection of evolution by religious groups" would be preferable, there is no "controversy". [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 10:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

*I completely agree. I like '''Rejection of evolution by religious groups''', but the main issue is getting rid of "controversy" in the title, it's absurd. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 11:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC).

Just did it - now awaiting reaction ... :) [[User:Vsmith|Vsmith]] ([[User talk:Vsmith|talk]]) 13:17, 2 May 2020 (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)

:Too soon. I actually agree that this is a more accurate title, but the the term creation-evolution controversy is well-known, and this is ''far'' too brief a discussion. [[User:pepperbeast|<strong><span style="font-family: 'Segoe Script';"><span style="color: #a10;">Pepper</span><span style="color: #0c1;">Beast</span></span></strong>]] [[User talk:pepperbeast|<span style="color: #200">(talk)</span>]] 15:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

::An improvement, from where I sit. There is no real controversy, just extremist xtians in Merkia, and a few other minor religious groups of varying flavours. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' <small>the effin dog </small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 15:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

:::I think it was too quick, as well. I'm still digesting. I'm not thrilled with the word rejection, because it is a bit loaded although not inaccurate. I would suggest that "opposition" might be a better word choice. "Groups" might exclude prominent individuals. The words "doctrinal" and "faith-based" come to mind, but neither feels quite right to me. I would argue for not reverting the move, but no more moves without a well-discussed consensus. [[User:BiologicalMe|BiologicalMe]] ([[User talk:BiologicalMe|talk]]) 15:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

::::A bold move, IMO, an improvement which can stand until there is consensus to refine it. "Opposition" could work nicely. [[User:Just plain Bill|Just plain Bill]] ([[User talk:Just plain Bill|talk]]) 17:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

::::{{u|BiologicalMe}}, you can't really ''oppose'' evolution, though, any more than yo can ''oppose'' the Earth being an oblate spheroid. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 09:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

:::::What? Opposition to evolution is certainly possible, as shown by the barrels of ink spent on the subject. It is religious, rhetorical, political, and very much present in various venues of public discourse, including state and federal court cases. See [[:Category:United States creationism and evolution case law]]. While the opposition may be deluded, gullible, or willfully ignorant, it is a demographic reality. [[User:Just plain Bill|Just plain Bill]] ([[User talk:Just plain Bill|talk]]) 18:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

::::::{{u|Just plain Bill}}, but that's still repudiation not opposition. As I say, you can't oppose something that is a fact of nature, but you can pretend it doesn't exist. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 08:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

:I was startled and confused when I discovered the name of this page had changed. I spent about ten minutes looking in the archives for discussions of a merger with Creation-evolution controversy, since there seemed so much overlap! I finally noticed this tiny discussion. The point of all that is that this name change was premature. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:grey;">[[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]]([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]])</span> 17:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

:If it stands, what happens to [[History of the creation–evolution controversy]]? Does it become [[History of the rejection of evolution by religious groups]]? <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:grey;">[[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]]([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]])</span> 17:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

::{{u|RockMagnetist}}, it could do, or something else, but equally it might stay because (a) "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" and (b) there was, historically, some legitimate controversy, albeit over a century ago. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 08:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

:{{U|JzG|Guy}}: In your original message, you linked "word to avoid" to the disambig page [[WTA]]. I tried to correct it, but someone who applies rules without understanding reverted me. The link that I'm sure you intended is [[WP:LABEL]]. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:grey;">[[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]]([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]])</span> 03:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

::Currently it links to [[Wikipedia:WTA]] which looks ok. Thanks, . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 09:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for making this page move, it's an improvement. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 09:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The title is decidedly POV, and is a point of potential social conflict. A better POV would be reflected using the above suggestion: "Religious groups reaction to evolution theory", but even this is potentially divisive. Don't we already have enough social schisms and irritation without anyone opening any more wounds and pouring in a generous amount of salt? The article is positioned as a point of contention over an ideology with the current title. Let's stop pretending and join in the effort to smooth out civilizational differences. Wikipedia would be a perfect platform to launch a global message of reconciliation and peace. With an alternate title, such as the one suggested, the article can accomplish much more than simply hurling accusations at religious groups. [[WP:NPOV]] has a goal of advancing article development in a way that is redemptive. This is also reflected in numerous WP rules and guidelines. If the idea is for editors to come to terms, why would there be an impetus to be divisive in the minds of readers? The title positions the article for conflict either through edit wars, or by ideological presentation. Perhaps the best title might be: "Rejection of evolution theory". With this title, development would be more neutral by definition. The implication is that only those who are affiliated with religious groups have problems with evolution theory. That is patently not true, and the article should speak of rejecting evolution theory without putting the bullseye on religious groups. I am also calling for disclosure of [[WP:COI]].[[User:BRealAlways|BRealAlways]] ([[User talk:BRealAlways|talk]]) 09:12, 2 February 2022 (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)

:{{tq|Wikipedia would be a perfect platform to launch a global message of reconciliation and peace}} I think you need to read [[WP:NOT]]. Wikipedia should not say there is peace when it is not true. There are religious loons who attack the science for stupid reasons, and pretending they do not exist is not what an encyclopedia should do.

:"Rejection of evolution theory" is disingenious because it pretends there is no elephant in the room. And "disclosure of WP:COI" sounds like the usual creationist conspiracy theory saying the evolution is hyped and creationism suppressed by sinister forces. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 11:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

:Possible alternatives may be "Religious views on evolution" but this is not really what this article is about; "Evolution and religion", although that'd possible invite a [[WP:GEVAL]] refocus that is discouraged. [[Objections to evolution]] also already exists, this article is more about its rejection (that can be considered a political controversy but not a scientific one in this case, so previously renamed to be more accurate). Oh and [[teach the controversy]] also exists. —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 18:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

:{{tqq|Only those who are affiliated with religious groups have problems with evolution theory}} but there are no competing scientifically plausible alternatives and the [[evidence of common descent|evidence is overwhelming]]. If not religious reasons it would be other ideological ones or ignorance (where science education should help). This doesn't mean that there aren't scientific debates about details of the [[scientific theory]]. Hypotheses are put forward, tested, falsified, etc. There are debates in [[behavioural genetics]] and [[evolutionary psychology]], about the demarcation with [[nature and nurture]] (including in [[evolutionary developmental biology]]), etc. [[Alternatives to Darwinian evolution]] are historical views and details. There are movements producing pseudoscientific argumentative literature, but that's not sound science. —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 18:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

You guys seem to be using this talk page for soapboxing, rather than suggesting improvements to the article. I call it ironic when the person citing yours truly for soapboxing is joining in the fray.

The world is round regardless of if everone thinks it flat. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 05:14, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

re: "Wikipedia should not say there is peace when it is not true." Nice choice of words. WP is not here to be anything other than an encyclopedic resource, yet you may consider whether it is implausible for Ford to make automobiles. Doing anything in an environment of hostility or resentment has an inherent impact on the quality of the product. It's the environment that can either help or hinder war or peace. One of the WP guidelines is that we should (as editors) treat one another with a minimum level of respect. When followed, this guideline will lead to development. When not followed, it will most likely lead to some form of anarchy. This didactic principle can be demonstrated as having been constructed from careful analysis of things that lead to success, and things that lead to failure. We desperately need that type of analysis in these times that you infer when "people are at each others throats, and taking advantage of one another mercilessly". WP has already set the stage for success. We need to each play our part in either using the "Divide and Conquer" method, or the "Let's work together to accomplish a worthwhile goal" model.

:the eye was created intact, even if everyone thinks it evolved. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 18:37, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Back to business. Regarding the article title, it is deceptive, as stated above. The title says "religious groups", but only YEC are dealt with across the article, making the article unbalanced and not conformed to [[WP:NPOV]]. Much has been written here in this talk page, but most of it has nothing to do with article improvement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the purpose of these talk pages? That's a major violation of the good faith (trust) WP is extending. You would use their resources to support personal agenda rather than for the intended purpose of this venue. I have seen productive talk pages. This isn't one of them. Is this the norm in controversial pages? How about a change: productivity? It would be no surprise to me why the best editors may not want to work here. This could be good article. [[Special:Contributions/75.86.176.155|75.86.176.155]] ([[User talk:75.86.176.155|talk]]) 06:48, 4 February 2022 (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)

:You don't understand something: for academics harsh criticism is not a token that we hate each other, but business as usual. Some of us like to know our own errors and learn from it. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 07:15, 4 February 2022 (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)

:Your message is long itself, but thanks for the reminder that this is not a general discussion forum. There's also a point where sanctions may be necessary at times but meanwhile I think that it was also an effort and display of good faith to participate. I also agree with tgeorgescu that there's no hatred involved or necessary... —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 08:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

:Oh, but the above is too, more text by BRealAlways ([[Special:Permalink/1069433885]]). —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 08:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

== Possible FAQ improvements ==

Which brings up the theme of conflation of science and religion. [[User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 19:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I had a few notes on my TODO list about the above FAQ, so will express them here in case others are interested in evaluating their merits and/or improving it before I do. I otherwise think that it's pretty good already.

: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)

* Q3 lacks (or it may be for a possible Q4, perhaps):

: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)

*: A common argument is that if it's not science it's religious so does not merit any scientific scrutiny. The answer is of course that it attempts to pass as science (sources about the history from YEC to Creation Science to ID to prevent neutral biology education in schools may be relevant here); that it makes false claims about topics that science properly covers; that it aims to corrupt science education.

* There's no mention of pseudoscience in Q3 either (it's implicit, not explicit), but the above could also address that.

* Common arguments are in relation to metaphysics, that they're all equal doctrines including idealism (and that they each could provide proper science resulting in different conclusions versus methodological naturalism and materialism, etc), but the scientific method allows to evaluate and test their tenets and positions against reality (i.e. a proper "theistic science" would either deny evidence or achieve the same results). Some relevant sources may be found in relation to philosophy of science, the history of science and deep history, etc.

—[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 10:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

== Has the rejection of evolution died out? ==

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)

The rejection of evolution by religious groups surely is a very notable topic, especially in the filed of American [[culture wars]], so this article has a great deal of references. This article covers mostly the rejection of evolution by American fundamentalists in the 2000s, when it was a prominent issue in the culture wars, in the context of the creation of [[Conservapedia]] and the foundation of the [[Creation Museum]], when even president [[George W. Bush]] was in favor of the teaching of "intelligent design".

: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)

However, this article has few, but any, references to rejection of evolution in the 2010s and 2020s. I know American politics and debates are very complex (if not crazy), but as an educated guess, it seems that the subject of this article has become dated and historical, because rejection of evolution still exists but is no longer propagated by its foremost supporters, American conservatives. The culture wars have shifted, have you seen [[Donald Trump]] defending the teaching of intelligent design? The former real estate magnate and U.S. President surely is an indicator that the political polarization in the U.S. still exists but its subjects change.

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)

Just to be clear, I know that evolution is a fact, and the rejection of evolution is a purely political discussion, not a scientific controversy. I just say that this article has become dated as American politics surprise us every day with a new polarizing subject, and it seems the subject of this article has moved on. [[Special:Contributions/2804:14D:8084:A496:7882:1F19:B1E4:27D0|2804:14D:8084:A496:7882:1F19:B1E4:27D0]] ([[User talk:2804:14D:8084:A496:7882:1F19:B1E4:27D0|talk]]) 17:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

: your evasion only serves to prove your ignorance. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 03:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:Well, it could be true. Do you have a source for your claim? [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 18:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

::<sarcasm>Share the love!</sarcasm> [[User:Neocapitalist|Neocapitalist]] 01:24, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:"references to rejection of evolution in the 2010s and 2020s." The article is probably outdated, but the [[Ark Encounter]] opened in 2016, and is used to propagate [[Young Earth creationism]] to gullible audiences. That Donald Trump does not seem to care about the topic does not mean that creationism has suddenly died out. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 15:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

"the rejection of evolution is a purely political discussion, not a scientific."??? Not entirely true. Yes, it is not a subject of real controversy within the world of science, but it is just as much a theological POV and doctrine as ever within the many conservative groups that elevate the authority of the Bible over anything from science. Whether or not it is a prominent point of discussion in politics is just part of the normal ebb and flow of discourse. The underlying beliefs are still there. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 16:16, 28 November 2022 (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|&#9786;]] 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)