Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups

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

Unable to publish vs. unwilling

William Dembski, a noted and oft cited creationist, has gone on record with this statement regarding why he does not seek to publish in the mainstream scientific journals:

"I've just gotten kind of blasé about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print. And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read more."[1]

This puts the claim "they would if they only could" to rest.--FeloniousMonk 02:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Where you often wait two years"?!? Only if your paper is such crap that you have to submit it to seven journals before you find one desperate enough to publish your tripe... Especially in biology, come on. Most with-it journals have a review process of less than two months. Graft 02:24, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Although 2 years sounds like it's on the upper end, 2 months seems too short. When I get manuscripts to review they usually say "we need this back in 4 weeks". Some journals (in ecology at least) have 12-18 month backlogs after acceptance. Of course, from what I know of books the turn-around is usually longer (I know of conference proceedings from 1998 which have not yet seen the light of day) - which is why you go to the journals for current research, and to books for synthesis (or conjecture). Do these people really have "publication quality" manuscripts floating around which journals turned down? Even though most evolutionary biologists are opposed to creationism, there are enough people out there that would give a manuscript a read, and make a stink about it if it was turned down for political reasons (because, of course, we are all paranoid about being excluded by the "ruling clique"). Guettarda 03:32, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I felt that "unwilling or unable" sounded like we didn't know which, so I have changed it to hopefully make it clearer.

But perhaps Graft is on to something. Perhaps Dembski is only "unwilling" because he is effectively "unable" (not because of merit, but bias)? In which case, "unwilling" is not necessary???

Philip J. Rayment 03:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I removed the modifier (in some cases) since the conjuction "or" indicates that.

I think that the best NPOV way of putting it is that they are either unwilling or unable. People can decide for themselves what spin to put on it. Joshuaschroeder 07:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah Peer Review and thus criticism out of the way. Credentials please? Well I do write a lot of books and they sell well. In fact I expect to get the Nebula and Hugo awards for science fiction any day now. It cracks me up. Very funny. Thanks for sharing.--LexCorp 08:29, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I removed the modifier (in some cases) since the conjuction "or" indicates that.
I don't believe that it does unambiguously mean that. "The prosecutor said that the gunmen shot one or two rounds", means that he isn't sure which it is. The article can be read that way also. Philip J. Rayment 14:32, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Logically, being unsure of which case it is which is equivalent to stating that there are some cases (scenarios) where one is correct while there are others where the other is correct. Since the sentence we're referring to has a large number of cases (not just one as the example you gave is) then there is an opportunity to apply it to each and every case, not all cases on the whole. Joshuaschroeder 15:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They are not logically equivalent at all. They are two different possible interpretations of the words. This doesn't deny that both may be true in different cases, but it doesn't have to mean that. It could mean, as per my example, that we aren't sure. The possibility that my example applied to one situation (not necessarily true; I did say gunmen) does not mean that the same couldn't be true of the words in the article. I believe that it clear from creationists' complaints of bias that they are generally willing to publish in the secular journals, and that examples to the contrary are exceptions, and I further believe that the wording as it stands does not convey that. Philip J. Rayment 02:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

At the top of this section we have a direct quote from a creationist (at least, he is a creationist in the sense defined in Wikipedia), William Dembski, that he is effectively unwilling to publish in secular journals. Now your spin is that he is technically "willing" and is just lamenting a bias. I'm sorry. It is not up for us to read between the lines. There exist creationists who are unwilling to publish in secular journals. Therefore the statement is correct as it stands. Joshuaschroeder 03:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Although I did make the comment that Dembski's "unwillingness" may really be an inability, that was not my main argument, which is that Dembski would be an exception to the rule, not the norm, and the wording of the sentence in question doesn't reflect that. Philip J. Rayment 14:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Until you provide us with evidence that a "rule" as such exists, we are only going on your hunches as to whether your conception of the publishing in journals problem is correct. We have a counterexample, so it's not a universal rule, but if you want us to believe that most creationists don't publish because they are unable rather than unwilling, you're going to have to give us some evidence for this. Joshuaschroeder 15:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have already provided some evidence, that being their complaints that they are unable to publish. They wouldn't be complaining that if they didn't want to and hadn't tried to. Philip J. Rayment 14:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A few protestations does not a rule make. You should document that the majority of creationists don't publish in the journals for this reason. Joshuaschroeder 00:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The best evidence would be the large number of publication-quality mss floating around on the internet that were rejected by major journals. If these exist, then people can look at them and decide for themselves. Can someone point the way to these mss? Thanks. Guettarda 15:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whilst creationists would like to be able to publish in the secular journals, the fact that they know they can't means that they don't continually waste their time trying. Instead they publish in creationist peer-reviewed journals, so they would be the best places to look for the sorts of papers that would be submitted to secular journals if do so was a practicable proposition. Philip J. Rayment 14:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide me with the names of any of these journals? Guettarda 15:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe this is one. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The editorial commitee of this publication all have to sign this statement. Hence this isn't a genuine peer-reviewed journal. See particularly this point at the bottom of the link:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Something is not necessarily peer reviewed just because some people call it peer reviewed. Barnaby dawson 23:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I should have clarified it is one creationists may cite. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. It doesn't matter to me whether it is "properly" peer-reviewed or not - I am just curious about what they publish. I am would like to have a look to be able to decide for myself how I would react to a Creationist manuscript if I were asked to review it for a journal. That can't answer the question of "unwilling or unable", but it can give me more insight into the nature and quality of the work. Guettarda 00:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So when can we expect a review Guettarda? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:04, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As soon as I quit editing Wikipedia and catch up on all the work I'm behind on? :) Actually, it's Sprig Break, maybe I can find some time, and let you know what I think (which would be, of course, count as original research and have no place in Wikipedia...). Guettarda 23:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Clean up tag

What is the reason for the cleanup tag. The edit summary was too vague. Rednblu's usual delusions of censors and his compulsive need for scholarly citations have been dealt with, and should be ignored. Bensaccount 05:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not really an account of the controversy at all, rather it is a list of incidental claims (like controversies over definitions and views beyond the dichotomy) and a list of people who are involved in the "controversy".

What we need is a description of the conflict itself: reference to the history (I cannot believe the Scopes Trial isn't mentioned in the article), reference to the tactics of the debate (not just the two that are outlined), and references to how this controversy has had effects in the public arena. The development of "Intelligent Design" as a neo-creationist enterprise meant to cause a "renewal" in the controversy should also be outlined. Likewise, the influence of popular science accounts (S.J. Gould, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins) vs. popular creationist accounts (AiG, ICR, Discovery Institute) as to how the "debate" is structured should be compared. Joshuaschroeder 17:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

* I agree. ---Rednblu | Talk 18:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We have a description of the conflict. Every section is an important aspect of the controversy. All of the most important aspects are covered. If you want a history section, I agree, but a clean up is not required. Bensaccount 22:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A certain one of us has an important point-of-view that there is no "conflict." And that very wonderful one of us has systematically removed every quotation, paraphrase, and citation that describes the conflict. We have been profoundly tolerant. 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 23:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See the end of this section [[2]]. Paranoid delusions of wonderful, important people systematically removing all of the quotations? Bensaccount 02:29, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aside from the incessant back-and-forth, I'm not saying any part of this article needs to go, I'm simply saying that there needs to be an expansion. Cleanup is simply a way to get some visibility for this page. I could have used the stub part as well, but I thought cleanup was more appropriate. Again, I'm not saying that we should take out anything, just add. Joshuaschroeder 03:12, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

?? ---Rednblu | Talk 03:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image

Anyone got an image to represent the controversy? Creationist protestors holding signs maybe? Bensaccount 17:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

File:Creation vs evolution debate.jpg

Creation Magazine is a common venue for the creation-evolution debate. This issue examines whether dinosaurs perished in Noah's Flood.

This image seems like a good representation. I took it from the AiG website. The image is blurry, do you think it infringes on copyrights? I know that there are other pictures of magazine covers on Wikipedia. Bensaccount 19:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fair use; fair use should apply, especially at that resolution. I've pinched pictures of some of the protagonists; that might be appropriate, they probably won't bother to challenge the fair use. Dunc|☺ 20:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We should definitely have Darwin fish and icthys. They should also be talked about (or at least hyperlinked) in the article.

The Darwin fish is a parody of the ichthus, a symbol often used by Christians who are resolutely against evolution.

The Darwin fish, when taken seriously can be a symbol that conflates evolution with Christianity, so I think it is fitting to put it in the conflation of ideas section. Bensaccount 15:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Back to the image anyway, Creation doesn't debate anything; it just one side's propaganda . Dunc|☺ 15:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just because it is unbalanced doesn't mean it is not an attempt to take part in a debate.It is obviously just one side's propaganda, but I think it is an excellent representation of the controversy, which can be thought of as one sides propaganda vs the other's. Bensaccount 15:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Im thinking of a better caption...Bensaccount 16:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know everyone's see it, but honorable mention. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, there's this one. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A lets not forget this wicked cartoon series... are they mentioned in the article yet? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the Earth image should be on this page. It is better to find something that represents the debate, and not the subject being debated. Bensaccount 15:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But that completely ignores intelligent design for a start; the idea is to put something in that if you were writing a school project for would look good. Dunc|☺ 22:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why should the image have anything to do with intelligent design? What does this "school project" criteria demand that is not covered? I like it when the image conveys the subject. A good picture is worth a thousand words. Bensaccount 23:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In other words, when someone says "creation-evolution controversy" what image should come to mind? (It is not a picture of the Earth). Bensaccount 23:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Twisted oversimplified science. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of creationist/noncreationist churches

User:Bensaccount deleted an entire paragraph that listed which denominations supported evolution and which supported creationism. Of course, the only reason that statements are made to this effect is that the controversy helps a conflation of science and religion. I have attempted to recategorize and make more explicit how this paragraph is connected to the controversy. Please make comments about this here. If this information doesn't belong here, where does it belong? It doesn't belong in creationism because that article is simply a description and a statement of who supports creationism (or, as I would say, the controversy). Joshuaschroeder 15:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Churches that have made statements about what is appropriate or inappropriate in terms of scientific theories are participants in the controversy -- and relevant. Most churches advocate creationism to some extent (it is a religious belief) -- this is irrelevant. Churches may advocate evolution; but this is irrelevant (unless they were specifically against it previously). Therefore unless you can say these churches are specifically against evolution, I will erase the list. Bensaccount 15:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to note which denominations tend to be more literal in interpreting the Bible; and those who are on the symbolic side of the equation could provide a sense where creationists come from. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not following Bensaccount's reasoning at all. It is useful to have a list of which churches demand belief in creationism, which take a neutral attitude, and which promote evolution (if any do specifically). The differing beliefs of the churches are, in part, a source of the controversy. -- Temtem 17:11, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

This would be equivalent to listing universities that teach evolution. This does not make them part of the controversy. Bensaccount 20:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite the same thing. Although the churches that are not opposed to evolution might not actively take part in the controversy, some of the controversy involves creationist claims that proponents of evolution are godless, Communist stooges attempting to set the stage for the New World Order. Naming the churches that do not oppose evolution provides a counterpoint to this claim (especially where the particular church has taken a strong anti-Communist stance). -- Temtem 21:24, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

How do churches preaching creation have anything to do with "communist stooges"? Bensaccount 02:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Outrageous as it may seem, this is a claim that some creationists, such as Kent Hovind, make. -- Temtem 02:23, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Please enlighten me. What is the basis for this comparison? Bensaccount 02:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In other words, it is the claim of some creationists that a person cannot be Christian and believe in evolution. Moreover, these particular creationists claim that evolution is an atheistic, Marxist plot to destroy religion and prepare the world for a socialistic, godless government under the United Nations. The very existence of relgions that do not demand creationist beliefs exposes the fallacy of the creationists' claim that religion and evolution are incompatible. The list of positions taken by various churches is therefore relevant to this controversy. -- Temtem 02:33, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

If you're interested in this view, watch Part 5 of Kent Hovind's creation science seminar: [3] -- Temtem 02:34, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Some churches conflate evolution with athiesm, advocating its incompatability with religion, while others don't. Those that do are involved in the creation-evolution controversy. I still don't see how it involves those that don't. Bensaccount 02:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kent Hovind

Added a Creationist link that might be helpful for those seeking the truth. Salva 23:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This link shows that the AAA is not generally recognised as an accreditation body. The Patriot university is accredited only by the AAA. Hovind recieved his degree from the Patriot university. Hence I have put up a warning message to indicate that "Dr Hovind" has no properly accredited degree. Barnaby dawson 09:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed all the appellations from the reference list. They are unnecessary and are a favorite ploy of creationists to lend themselves legitimacy. Arguments, essays, and fact stand on their own weight, not on the doctoral degrees accrued. While I have no doubt that Dr. Theobold is worthy of the degree he carries and Hovind is not, the essays themselves will show that Theobold is the real scientist and Hovind is the impostor.

I added Hovind to the list of participants as this snake-oil salesman does seem to have a number of followers (such as Salva). Joshuaschroeder 15:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

EvolutionDeceit.com

Why was this link removed? I did a google search and got 474 pages that link to it, not 60 as Brian0918 states. Isn't useful to have a link to a participant in the debate who comes from a non-Christian perspective? -- Temtem 21:30, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I see how you got the 38 number. Still, you'd expect a much lower number for a creationist site based on Islam rather than Christianity. Unless there's a more popular Islamic creationist site, I think it's appropriate to link this one. -- Temtem 21:43, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't any islamic site a so-called "islamic creationist" site? --brian0918  00:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this one goes to great lengths to argue against evolution explicitly. I suspect most Islamic sites don't. -- Temtem 00:18, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Temtem. Creationists websites from other religions should be included. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Darwin Fish

Someone keeps removing the Darwin fish without any discussion first. Here would be the place for discussion. -- Temtem 01:08, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

THe Darwin fish is a violation of Wikipedia NPOV. Administrators please do something. (unsigned, added by User:220.237.4.86)

But this is a page about the creation-evolution controversy. We did remove the fish from the evolution page because the consensus was it wasn't appropriate there. This page has a section about the conflation of science and religion. The fish is relevant to that. -- Temtem 03:45, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the Darwin fish makes perfect sense here, as it illustrates a topic about the controversy. It's not like the page is endorsing it, it's just discussing it. DreamGuy 03:47, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, the Darwin fish does not represent the NPOV, it is just like putting a Nazi symbols in the Jewish page. Please keep respecting each other view without attacking it.

I think I got the idea now. The Wikipedia is a simulation of real-life politics, whoever got the majority views win. I question what is really the basis of electing the administrator? I guess there are more evolutionist-view administrator here. That's why they keep putting up the Darwin fish. (unsigned, added by User:220.237.4.86)

They keep putting up the Darwin fish because it is relevant to the controversy, just like a confederate flag would be relevant to a page about the Civil War. If you think some other sort of symbol should also be included, that is another matter for discussion. -- Temtem 03:58, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I understand the question of relevancy, but would you put a Nazi symbol on a Jewish page? That is very inconsiderate. (unsigned, added by User:220.237.4.86)

No, but this isn't a creationist Christian page. It is a page about the creation-evolution controversy. And you would put a swastika on a page about WWII. -- Temtem 04:07, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

OK then, I accept that. I think the proof can only be proven individually at the point of death. (unsigned, added by User:220.237.4.86)

What relevancy does idealogy (nazism vs judiasm) have to do with a debate of science vs religious idealogy? They are not analogous, to profess they are is to expose a very clear POV. Continued comparisons to that subject is offensive. If you find evolution offensive (or an idealogy), demonstrate it on rationale or evidentiary grounds. Evoking inaccurate offensive comparisons is a cheap copout. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well it looks like there are more evolutionists here hahaha Can't prove both actually, so we just guessing.

Theistic realism

Can editors on this page check out the Theistic realism page? I think we need to have more people look at it so that we can get it moving along editorially. Joshuaschroeder 01:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The labeling problem

I removed the reference to "fundamentalist" which was followed by a list of denominations, many of which are not, and would not call themselves fundamentalists. As in this case, term is often thrown about with little understanding of who is and is not a fundamentalist, and often with a derogatory purpose. The best way to keep NPOV to follow the Associated Press guidebook, which recommends that the use of the term be restricted to those who use it to apply to themselves. Pollinator 02:07, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

But I'm not sure I agree with your edit, either.

Many conservative Christian denominations unapologetically promote creationism

The Roman Catholic Church is quite conservative, but does not promote creationism. Perhaps "conservative Protestant denominations" would be more appropriate. -- Temtem 04:39, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. Be my guest. The official version of the church is a form of evolutionary creationism, but it's not actively promoted. Pollinator 04:48, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)