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

Evolution_controversy

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I've suggested that this new article be merged here. Please weigh in with your opinions there. FeloniousMonk 17:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Already merged. The article is poorly written and most of its content is found on pages related to this one. Joshuaschroeder 18:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Not merged yet. But if any of its content can be found on related pages, please show me exactly where. That will help me prove that it's not "original research", which was another complaint. It can't be both redundand and original. Uncle Ed 00:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Errors in this article

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The debate is conducted primarily by Christian and Muslim adherents.
- Actually, at least half of the debate is conducted by atheists and other advocates of naturalistic evolution
  Actually, it's mainly conducted by creationists shouting a lot. Scientists tend to deliberately ignore them as arguing with them gives them some appearnce of legitimacy and there being a "controversy" which they can shout about a bit more. Also, it isn't atheists versus Christians, it's fundamentalist Christians versus everyone else. The major churches all accept evolution. There are a number of evolutionary biologists who have religious beliefs and see no contradiction. Dunc|☺ 18:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
  Haven't many scientists written books rebutting creationist arguments? I seem to recall a number of scientifically authored rejoinders to Wells' book on Darwin's "icons".
  
  Also please see the un-redirected version of [[evolution controversy] (or at least Definitions of evolution), because I just found evidence that at least one major church does not accept evolution. Uncle Ed 00:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
  Apparently not enough ;-) FeloniousMonk 02:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Cosmology, the study of the universe in its totality and by extension man's place in it, is erroneously referred to as a "viewpoint" on one side in the controversy. This is not only factually wrong: it insinuates the idea that the evolution is the objective side, and the opponents are biased. Thus the article sides with evolution. Wikipedia articles, I'm sure you'll agree, should be unbiased and avoid endorsing any side in a controversy.
"Evolution" is "objective" inasmuch as science is empirical. End of story. Nobody is "siding" with science (what you are terming "evolution"), but it is a point of fact that there are well-understood implications of a scientific understanding of the universe that are not compatible with creationist objections. Joshuaschroeder 18:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
You've changed the subject. The error I point out is that the intro calls cosmology a "viewpoint". If you don't object to my calling it an error, then I guess I better revise the intro accordingly. Fair enough?

Theory and Law

Latest comment: 19 years ago38 comments7 people in discussion

Joshua wrote:

Belief in a false statement such as "law is stronger than theory" is not a POV. It is a misconception . . .

Actually, what you just wrote expresses a POV (see Wikipedia:Point of view):

that law is not stronger than theory

I'd like to see a description that we can all agree with, which relates the "strength" of scientific laws and theories. Would it help to bring in "hypothesis" as well? Uncle Ed 13:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

In my experience, in biology, "laws" tend to be 19^th century formulations of generalisation. Given the absolute terms on which they are expressed, most "laws" in biology are far weaker than theories (except when people name their speculative pet hypotheses "theories" - e.g., Pathogenic theory of homosexuality, Gaia theory (science)). Of course, there is no single body that rules that an hypothesis is well enough supported to be called a theory, just consensus (sorry Ed). I suspect that FF knows more philosophy of science than the rest of us combined, though. Guettarda 14:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Okay, but isn't there a rough continuum like the following?

Anyone can make model, and many do, but it's not taken seriously unless formulated as a hypothesis.

A scientific model is one that expresses a theory in a way that allows for "experiments" to take place outside of the laboratory. A model isn't something that "anyone can make". This isn't an opinion, except inasmuch as science itself is an opinion (formulated by belief in the scientific method).

A hypothesis is an idea that is formulated from previous observations and from extending theories to their possible conclusions. A hypothesis is considered plausible if it can be tested (falsified as Popper said) and if it conforms to previous observations.

A theory is a systematic and formalized expression of observations that is predictive, falsifiable, and has never been falisfied. A scientific theory is the strongest statement that science can make regarding the rules of nature. A theory is not just a more sophisticated hypothesis.

A law is a succinct way to express a predictive part of a theory. Laws are used to describe nature in terms of the theories developed as quickly and efficiently as possible. Because of this, laws do not lend themselves to modification, even though the theories they are based on do. A good example of this is the Law of Conservation of Mass from chemistry which is a law in the appropriate regimes but is utterly untrue when considering regimes where E=mc^2 becomes important. Laws are not simply more "confirmed" theories.

These are not opinions, these are definitions based on the processes of the scientific method and each of these ideas are defined well on their respective Wikipedia pages.

Joshuaschroeder 20:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

A hypothesis must be falsifiable, otherwise it's irrelevant. On the other hand, if there's no way right now to test the hypothesis, it still might be falsifiable. For a long time, astronomers predicted that the moon would have craters on the side which faces away from the earth. Was this "non-falsifiable" before 1960? (I'm leaning toward "yes, it was falsifiable even though they had no way to conduct a test".)

Theory and law are tricky. Are they synonyms, or what?

They are not synonymous, they are developed for different purposes. Joshuaschroeder 20:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

We speak of Kepler's and Newton's laws of motion, and the laws of thermodynamics - but we also say Einstein's theory of relativity and the "theory of evolution" (in biology).

Einstein's theory of relativity isn't a law simply because it cannot be stated succinctly. It is an overarching paradigm for understanding the rules of nature -- that is the definition of theory (see above). It is not a theory because it is not as well understood or correct as Newton's Laws. In fact, it is more correct than Newton's Laws which fail in certain relativistic regimes. Newton's/Kepler's Laws are based on Theory of Dynamics and Theory of Gravity. Joshuaschroeder 20:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm not planning to make a big deal over whether any particular idea should be called a law or a theory. I suspect it's a naming convention thing or a Chicago Manual of Style thing, or just that they don't want to keep switching back and forth between Law of Relativity and Theory of Relativity ever couple of decades. Uncle Ed 15:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

There is no "Law of Relativity" because you cannot formulate the theory as a simple law. Joshuaschroeder 20:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Again, I would disagree based on my experience. An hypothesis can range from a totally unsupported speculation to a careful formulation well supported by experimental data. Hypotheses do not need to be falsifiable, but falsifiability is considered a requirement for scientific exploration of an hypothesis. Models can mean a number of things (I reviewed a manuscript a few months ago which asked that question to biologists - what is a model - and it turned out that the answer differed by discipline. If it's been published I'll see if I can find it and supply some examples). "Models" can be conceptual diagrams which simplify ideas, they can be simulation models which may or may not be realistic, or they may be used to explain difficut ideas (like the "wave model of a photon" versus the "particle model of a photon" to handle wave-particle duality. Models lie outside of Popper's continuum, iirc.

The continuum idea works well with hypotheses and theories, although, as I mentioned before, there is no universally established place to draw the line.

Laws are tricky. Ideally, they could be envisioned as the culmination of the sequence - "the truth", as such.

This is not correct. Laws are just simple formulations of theoretical concepts that lend themselves to predictions. If you can find a counterexample to this, let me know. Joshuaschroeder 20:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Popperian philosophy says that science can never find the truth, just better and better approximations of it, so the older idea of laws becomes a little obsolete (as I understand things; of course I am not a philosopher of science, just a retail user of the philosophy of science). As I understand it, "laws" shifted from simple elegant explanations of "the truth" to simple, elegant explanations...emphasis on simple. As in "generalisations". Guettarda 17:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Joshua, you have my vote for king. Your multi-pronged edit was the best response to that question I have been able to find. - Tεx τ urε 20:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I believe that this may be the first time I've ever seen the essential difference between a scientific Law and Theory described as simply the simplicity of their formulation. Law, as I have always understood it, is the top of the foodchain in the scientific heirarchy. An hypothesis is an educated guess based on evidence. A theory is an hypothesis is strongly believed to be truth, has never been demonstrated to be untrue, but which still has some details to be worked out about the nature of that truth. A Law is proven. There are no more details to be worked out. Ohm's law is qualitatively different that a putative Ohm's theory. V does equal IR. Always, without exception. Evolution is a theory, rather than a law, because while the fact that evolution occurs is a fact, how it occurs, the speed at which it occurs, whether it's a continuous or discrete process (or both) - those sorts of details have not all been worked out. The overall theory is true, some of the internal details are hypothetical. There is no more trace of hypothesis in a law. It is true that laws tend to be easier to state than theories, and thus are generally more succinct. But succinctness is not the defining characteristic of a scientific law. Synaptidude 19:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm curious where you got your information. While your rendition makes layman sense it isn't what I've read about the two terms. Can you give an example or cite a source? (Joshua, I am not addressing Synap's simplified version of your explanation because I don't think it is necessary. Feel free to comment.) - Tεx τ urε 19:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Admittedly, my primary source here is my own scientific training and experience. I've looked and I can point you to a bunch of web pages (e.g. http://wilstar.com/theories.htm), but I don't think these are very reliable references. I could probably just as easily find pages supporting the Moon-Green Chesse hypothesis, or that the origin of species is too complicated for evolution to explain ;-). There are a number of scholarly books on the subject, but I don't really feel like going out and buying one in order to settle what is really a side-argument. The real point here, on which I believe Joshua and I would agree, is that just because Evolution is called a "theory" doesn't mean that there is any likelyhood of it being false. Synaptidude 20:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

True. - Tεx τ urε 21:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to add to Joshuaschroeder's comments:

Theories can never become laws. Laws are correlations, usually linear, between variables. Laws usually yield mathematical truths, which translate into real world approximations. The (perfect) gas law, for example (pV = nRT) suggests that increasing the pressure by a factor of 2 will cause the volume to decrease by the same factor, if all other variables remain constant. Ideally, this is so, though in the real world this is only an approximation.

The same applies for Newton's law of universal gravitation, which is (approximately) true for most terrestrial applications. For otherworldly applications, and other extreme applications, Einstein's theory of gravitation (which, you may note, is not called law, because it is neither concise nor a simple correlation, nor in fact, is it bulletproof) will be needed. Newton's law will continue to be used, and rightly so, for most terrestrial applications, even though it is inaccurate, because it does still provide a useful approximate correlation.

Laws are mathematical tools, theories are not. Therefor, theories can never become laws. Rather, theories will forever be theories, because science will always face unknowns (even unknown unknowns), and it will never be so reckless. Science doesn't deal in absolutes. It knows it doesn't know everything.

Theories can be rejected through new information, or may need to be updated. But, though they are the culmination of science, they can never be assumed to be absolutely true. And they can never become laws. -- Ec5618 23:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

First of all, Laws are NOT proven. There is no real "proof" in science. Proof is what you find in mathematics. Since science is built on induction and the scientific method, there is never any proof to be had. Taking Synaptidude's example of Ohm's Law or the Law for Perfect Gases, it is absolutely clear that the Laws only apply in certain regimes. They aren't "proven" because they don't work independent of the theories that spawned them (the Theory of Electric Current and the Kinetic Theory of Gases). When these laws break down it is because the conditions that are needed to be met as described in the theories are not met.

Secondly, Ec is incorrect in stating that laws need necessarily be mathematical. There are scientific laws that are not mathematical, for example Dollo's Law. They just have to be succinct. Mathematics is a good way of making succinct statements, but it's not the only way.

Thirdly, the references for the differences between theories, laws, etc. come from a variety of sources. One of them I highly recommend is Donald Gillies' work on the philosophy of science. Of course, Kuhn, Popper, and Hume help in defining terms but these are all basic definitions that can be gleaned from considering the works that are considered laws and those that are considered theories, hypotheses, etc. Of course, there is very little rigidity in scientific nomenclature when it comes to such things -- but you will find that very few scientists disagree with my definitions. Joshuaschroeder 14:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, the more I read into this, including the above, the more I'm starting to think that the theory/law designation is basically arbitrary. It is my feeling that a "law" is supposed to have more heft than a theory, and it's hard for me to accept that the sole reason you call somehting a law is brevity. There has to be some measure of 'truth' to it as well. Otherwise 2+2=5 would be a law. Dollo's law is certainly succinct, but it also certainly is not a law, despite the name. At best, Dollo's law is an hypothesis, and I'd say even a postulate. It's probably not even true. On the other hand, the Pythagorean theorem is, by the brevity definintion, a law. By almost any other definition I can think of it's a law (it's always true). Yet, we call it a theorem. It does, incidentally, meet the mathematical definition of a theorem (A proposition that has been or is to be proved on the basis of explicit assumptions). I'm also curious as to what Joshua sees as the "real world" failures of Ohm's Law and the ideal gas law to accurately predict the behavior of electricity and gas.Synaptidude 01:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Resistivity being proportional current is true for charge densities dealt with in most circuits, but it breaks down in other regimes. This is why MHD has problems. Likewise the ideal gas law only applies to "ideal gases", of which no gas is actually ideal. There are extensions to the ideal gas law which accounts for interactions of gas molecules/atoms with each other that do a better job at modelling gases and break down as well.

Synaptidude is right when he says the distiniction is somewhat arbitrary, though his suspicion of brevity being the criteria is misplaced. 2+2=5 is not a "law" because it isn't based on any theory. A law needs to be based on a theory. Pythagorean's theorem also isn't a "law" either. It is a mathematically proven statement for Euclidean spaces -- outside the purview of scientific exploration. We can prove that such is true, we don't need to make observations to test the Pythagorean theorem. Joshuaschroeder 16:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I agree with you that a Law must be based on a Theory, though I'll grant you that most Laws are. I can imagine however that a simple law such as such as M = F*a or might have come about through direct observation, without a clear theory to explain it. Though I suppose that might not have been the most scientific way of defining a Law, then.

I also don't believe that Dollo's law should be classified as a law at all, and I maintain that Laws should be empirical correlations. Am I being a brat?-- Ec5618 16:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

What makes a titled "Law" a law is that it is called such. If you look at the list of scientific laws here on Wikipedia you'll find that they all conform to my definition. You claim tat "most Laws are", but fail to name any that don't conform to my definition. I'm not sure what you are trying to claim with your allusion to Newton's Second Law, but I think you're saying something about how the scientific method works -- a point honed by Kuhn in his seminal work. Joshuaschroeder 17:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I would imagine that certain Laws (such as M = F*a), could have preceded a grand Theory of Kinematics.

Please, let's try to get the Second Law correct: It is F=ma. This law indeed is derived from a grand theory of dynamics (kinematics does not deal with forces) laid out in Newton's Principia Mathematica. Joshuaschroeder 18:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I would imagine that its possible that the idealised scientific method is not always the roadmap to scientific victory, no matter what many people say.

This is true, but it does not detract from the fundamental point: scientific laws, when they are considered explanatory, are based on theories. Joshuaschroeder 18:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I will accept that all scientific Theories follow the scientific method, but I would imagine that at times, some points were followed retroactively.

Kuhn makes this point often in his famous work. I suggest you read it. Joshuaschroeder 18:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

It is said (falsely, but that's not the point) that Newton was sitting underneath a tree when an apple hit him, which inspired him to formulate his famous Laws. Are you saying that he could not have formulated the Laws before the Theory? The Theory is, after all, based on the empirical observation that, for example, objects tend to continue to move until or unless a force acts on them.

Indeed, as the story goes, Newton didn't formulate his Law of Universal Gravitation before the theory (it wasn't his three laws that he discovered from this apocryphal story, but rather the equivalence of celestial and terrestrial gravity). First he worked out the theory of the equivalence of two phenomena and then proceded to use his theories of dynamics to lay the framework for gravitational laws. Joshuaschroeder 18:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

And yes, I failed to provide an example of a Law that fails your definition. If we're going to be nickpicky here, I'd say that since you are suggesting that your definition is the right one, it is up to you to prove that no physical law fails to conform to your definition. You cannot make such generalisations otherwise.

However we're dealing with science, not mathematics. Proof is offered by induction, that is, there is no counterexample thus the definition stands. This is usually how things work in language parsing anyway. Joshuaschroeder 18:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

As for the validity of Dollo's Law, which is horribly outside of the scope of this Talk page, it reads "An organism is unable to return, even partially, to a previous stage already realized in the ranks of its ancestors.". The 'law' seems to state that it is impossible for a random mutation, even a single random mutation, to be undone by a subsequent random mutation in another generation. Which seems a good rule of thumb, but hardly anything either useful or necesarily true (In fact, it seems comparable to Murphy's law in those respects). I understand that Dollo's Law is now called a Law, and that it would be hard to change the name at this point. Similarly, string theory is now called a theory, even though it is hardly the best example of a scientific Theory, as it seems to be only rarely valid, and even then only mathematically. (Is there a Law of String?) But should the definition of Theory really encompass theories that are not really Theories but are now named so? And should the definition of Law really emcompass Murphy's Law? -- Ec5618 22:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Dollos' Law is indeed of limited utility in this discussion but it was used as an example of a law that wasn't easily formulated mathematically -- just so that it was clear that a law need not necessarily be mathematical. Murphy's Law isn't scientific at all, and is definitely false according to certain Bayseian priors. Joshuaschroeder 18:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Joshua says "2+2=5 is not a "law" because it isn't based on any theory. A law needs to be based on a theory." This definition doesn't really support Joshua's argument. I could easily make a theory. I could make the theory that 'When you add two identical numbers together the synergy of their likeness draws in one more integer value, increasing the sum by 1'.

That's not a scientific theory. That's a "theory" in the colloquial sense, but it isn't what we are talking about. Joshuaschroeder 18:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Now, it's obvious that empirical evidence would not at all support this theory. But what this string of argument does show (a theory must be based on empirical evidence to be valid and a law must be based on a theory) that theory to law is a heirarchy. A law must be based on a theory.

Agreed. A law is based on a theory. That doesn't mean that a law is more "proven" than a theory. Joshuaschroeder 18:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Furthermore, the Pythagorean theory can be empiricly demonstrated.

The Pythagorean Theorem is not a scientific law. It is a geometrical fact -- and can be considered like an observation if you look at it empirically. Joshuaschroeder 18:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thirdly, The failure of "laws" to describe the "real world" derives from other forces being involved, not from a lack of validity of the law. The ideal gas law for example. Yes, it only accurately described ideal gasses (hence the name). The reason that it doesn't describe non-ideal gasses is because (among other reasons) they can interact at the molecular level either reactively or zwitterionically. Saying that this invalidates the law itself would be akin to saying that the laws of gravitation are invalid because they do not describe the rate of accelaration in a gravitational field of a feather.

Indeed the law of constant acceleration due to gravity is invalid in a fluid due to buoyancy. You argue my point well, though you seem to disagree with it. Regimes are appropriate for applications of laws, but because laws are inflexible in their formulation, they are often rendered impotent before their practical implementations. Joshuaschroeder 18:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

So, to summarize my point: Laws are based on theories, and thus are heirarchacly superior.Synaptidude 18:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

"Superior" can be used in a value sense and in a causal sense. In a causal sense, laws are superior, but theories are the strongest statements that are made in science when formulating descriptions of reality. Joshuaschroeder 18:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

If a summary is superior to a full text, then yes, a Law is superior. It is not more accurate (in fact, often less so, as the full Theory can describe exeptions to the 'rule'). But it does (allright, usually does) provide practical -- Ec5618 21:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

By 'superior' I meant this definition: "Higher than another in rank, station, or authority"Synaptidude 21:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

That definition really doesn't help much in way of clarifying the issue. I see no reason to classify either as having greater authority than the other.

Laws are not higher in authority, generally. The perfect gas Law, for example, must always be accompanied by a disclaimer that is it is only approximately valid for real gasses, because it assumes that the individual molecules have no volume or attraction. When the Law breaks down however is not specified in the Law itself, so it is not immediately clear whether tha law holds for a given situation. The Theory does explain itself more, and in the example, explains why (and when) the volumes and attractions are negligible. -- Ec5618 06:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Joshuaschroeder, yes, I meant M = F*r (I mistakenly used 'a' for arm, when 'r' is generally used). You're right in saying that .. well, you're right about a number of things.

You stated:

"Murphy's Law isn't scientific at all"
"What makes a titled "Law" a law is that it is called such."

"Laws are just simple formulations of theoretical concepts that lend themselves to predictions."

The second statement seems to disagree with the first, and seems rather useless in practice. The third just bears repeating.

I feel the definion of both Law and Theory should exclude laws and theories that were called so mistakenly or in a different context (Murphy's law, Moore's law, String theory, Intelligent Design theory).

However, I've been doing some soul searching and have come to the conclusion that you're right; Laws needn't be mathematical. (For example, though Hubble's law could be written as a formula, as a line of text it is much more intuitive).

ps, could you perhaps take a look at User:Ec5618/Laboratory. I am (foolishly, perhaps) trying to assemble a list of responses to often heard (and incorrect) arguments (for use in various discussions, mainly), and I'd love to hear your input. -- Ec5618 21:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

It's not true that "theories can never become laws". If a "theory" withstands criticism for long enough, and "survives"; it becomes an established "law" (or at least, a "tradition" which passes itself off as a "fact"). How else does a "theory" become accepted? Were not all current scientific "laws" first proposed as "theories"? When Copernicus proposed his theories, they were at first criticized; then accepted. Weren't they? Then later, when Galileo proposed his theories, weren't they at first criticized, then later accepted? (Or was it the other way around?) Is this not the way that "scientific theory" works? Point: and these theories also includes errors, which need to be challenged later on; by more sophisticated theories, which include later "scientific data" and new reasoning, or "insights". According to this pattern, "Darwin's theory of evolution" will eventually be challenged and replaced by a later theory, such as "intelligent design", which has better facts, and "new information"; and which will be better-able "to explain the universe". Otherwise, "scientists" who cling to this out-dated, and flawed theory of "evolution", risk becoming the next generation of "dinosaurs" and "dodo birds". 129.24.95.222 18:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)(Oct.)Reply

Intro favors evolution

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Cut from intro:

The opposing viewpoints are understandings of origins based on scientific investigation on the one hand and various religious viewpoints on the other. Those advocating religious viewpoints hold the scientific explanations to be antithetical to certain origin beliefs (in particular Creation according to Genesis and creationism).

The conflict is usually portrayed in the mass media as being between scientists and creationists, but as almost all scientists do not consider the conflict to have any academic legitimacy, it may be more correctly described as a conflict over a conflation of science and religion (see section: Conflation of science and religion).

The debate is conducted primarily by Christian and Muslim adherents, and is most prevalent and visible in the U.S.

All of the above represents the point of view of those favoring evolution.

that there is no debate really going on between the two sides; rather, Christians and Muslims are "debating" scientists, who refuse to engage them since there's no academic legitimacy to the debate
that there only two sides worthy of mention, i.e. (1) scientific investigators (and (2) religious believers

The first view presumes that scientists are right. The introduction should say instead that scientists assert that they are right. Wikipedia isn't supposed to endorse science when it conflicts with "anti-science" but remain neutral, noting only that 95% or 99.8% of scientists accept a theory and that XX% of the general public rejects it.

How does it "presume" that the scientists are right? This is an actual account of how the controversy unfolds. If you read the rest of the article you will see this. Nobody is saying that the scientists are correct, simply that the scientists don't normally engage creationists/IDers. This is absolutely true. Joshuaschroeder 17:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

The second view insinuates that scientists are objective and realistic while religious believers are dogmatic and unreasonable. This is tricky to describe, I'll admit.

I think that it is definitely a false dichotomy to claim that there are only two sides, but the article makes this point. Since the controversy itself is framed by one particular side (that is, the creation side) it brings with it all the bagage that is associated with setting up the false dichotomy. It is absolutely accurate to report that the creationists see it as being between one of two sides even while those opposing them believe in veiws "beyond the false dichotomy". We can include a link to that section of the article if we need further clarification. Your reading between the lines is really saying more about your own bias toward interpretation rather than the actual content of the introduction. The introduction isn't perfect, but it isn't explicitly saying what you are claiming it says. Rather it is reporting the way the controversy actually takes place. Joshuaschroeder 17:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'll go even farther and agree that by and large scientists are more objective and realistic than religious believers, but there are known cases in the history of science when the dogmatic and unreasnable ones have been scientists.

Also, it's well known that religious believers tend to be dogmatic ("dogma" is a word used *by* religious believers to describe their own doctrine) and I can personally vouch for their frequent unreasonableness. I only object to the insinuation that they're all like that, which is being used to dismiss their side entirely.

Wikipedia should not commit itself to saying that religious belivers are wrong and that scientists are right. It is not Wikipedia policy to endorse science when it conflicts with religion (see NPOV). Uncle Ed 16:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't think you have shown that this work endorses a particular "side". The simple reporting that "sides" exist is sympathetic to the idea that the controversy is actual. Joshuaschroeder 17:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree that this intro needs work. (I don't see any harm in leaving it while it is worked on.) I am surprised at an intro that does not reference ID and was quite surprised to have specifics such as christians and muslims reference in an intro. That's too much detail. (Interesting, though, since I didn't know how involved muslims were in the controversy.) I think the first paragraph needs to start between scientific investigation and ID. The second paragraph needs to take the controversy from the first paragraph. What the media is really reporting is what is stated in the first paragraph, that of scientists versus religion. (Right or wrong) The third paragraph just doesn't belong. - Tεx τ urε 16:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

The intro does reference ID, it's just not in the above part. I think the statement about Christians and Muslims is problematic, but it's unclear how to work the information into the intro: we need to be clear that those who are opposed to the scientific explanations are doing it because they have a religious agenda. We can move the ID reference to the first paragraph if people think that would be better.

The "Scientific Community" Has an Economic Interest at Stake, and Cannot be Impartial; Their Views Are Clouded by Radical Beliefs, and by Hatred of Christianity

Of COURSE the "scientific community" rejects the evidence of intelligent design as "creationist pseudo-science": if they didn't; they'd lose their jobs! The "evolutionist" industry stands to lose millions; perhaps BILLIONS of dollars in revenues if their "pet theory" gets discredited and dis-proven. Of COURSE they are going to fight "tooth-and-nail" for it. If any "scientists" become convinced by the evidence of intelligent design (which is over-whelming), they usually become Christian believers not too long afterward. Then, as soon as they say anything about it, they lose their jobs. The colleges and government agencies have been "packed with radicals" for decades; and they view most Christians as their mortal enemies. These radicals practice "economic cleansing"; reasoning that if Christians can't work; they can't get paid; and without any money, "they won't have any influence". (Oct.)
Also, it's not true that "intelligent design does not constitute a theory, because it cannot be scientifically measured". The scientific community wastes billions of dollars every year on their "pet projects", without uncovering any new evidence. They STILL haven't been able to find any real evidence to support the theory of evolution. Archaeologists, paleontologists and "anthro-apologists" still rely on "a tooth here; a bone there" to "re-construct" entire skeletons upon. The entire body of "hard evidence" for evolution would easily fit upon a single table (except for all the text-books written on the subject). Can they deny it? Where's the "missing link"? There should be theoretically, MILLIONS of such things; show me one of them. Also, the "scientific community" engages in "research" into "UFO's", "ghosts" and "ESP"; attempting to "measure" such un-measurable things. They cry that the evidence (in the case of UFO's) has been "covered-up"; even as they seek to suppress all information related to intelligent design. And the "cultural anthropologists" are constantly digging up ancient artifacts from long-disappeared pagan societies, although the items obviously represented their pagan "religions". (These "scientific puritans" see no difficulty with a "separation of church and state" here.) These statues and other "idols" are routinely placed in modern-day museums, and are given great respectability, along with the myths they represent; anything except items containing the archaelogical history of Christianity; these things are purged, whenever possible. The current situation today is like a "scientific Inquisition"; which attempts to find and root out supporters of the intelligent design concept. But, new ideas die hard. (Oct.)