Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups

For more contentious discussion of these issues, please see the newsgroup Talk.origins (Wikipedia link has information on how to access the newsgroup). For a November 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Creation vs. evolution debate

Archives
Antiquity – Nov 2004 Nov 2004 – Dec 2004 Dec 2004 – Dec 2004 Dec 2004 – Jan 2005 Jan 2005 – Jan 2005 Jan 2005 – Feb 2005 Feb 2005 – Mar 2005 Mar 2005 – Sep 2005 Sep 2005 – Dec 2005 Dec 2005 – Jan 2006 Jan 2006 – May 2006

Where to find more archives

• 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. It was subsequently renamed Creation-evolution controversy to conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy on January, 28 2005.

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

Various temp articles:

• An attempt from February 2005

• It's associated talkpage

Article protected

It's nice to see that there's a lively discussion about the ongoing edit war even prior to protection, but this edit warring must stop. Because edit warring is harmful to readers as well as to the processes by which Wikipedia works, esp. consensus and civility, I have protected the article until the contentious issues are sorted out here on the talk page, or at least until the editors involved agree to sort them out here before modifying the contested sections of the article. If anyone wishes to contest my protecting the article, please contact me on my talk page. Thank you, and good luck sorting this out. Tomer^talk 21:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that was probably a good step to take. JoshuaZ 22:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached

Right now it is clear that ems has not been able to address the fundamental points regarding why the article should revert to the previous version. It is obvious that we are now at consensus. Will someone ask the admin who protected the article to allow for unprotection so we can revert to the previous version? Comments, questions, concerns? --ScienceApologist 18:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait until ems wakes up and addresses this request before acting upon it. Another 12 hours or so should be sufficient for a response from him. Cheers, Tomer^talk 23:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No we have not. I need to go now. I'll be back in a few hours and continue. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 06:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I am of the opinion consensus has been reached as well. Jefffire 09:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, consensus. It looks clear-cut, despite the objections of ems.--ragesoss 18:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. It was protected long enough. If there's a consensus of most editors, then 3RR should handle any further disruptions. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 15:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The specific issue

Here's the issue: Are there religiously conservative or fundamentalist Jewish accounts of origins that conflict with scientific accounts or origins? If there are, then the Jewish moniker deserves to stay. I think it's pretty clear from the above citations that these things exist. Any objections? --ScienceApologist 17:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get too involved in this since I'm the one who protected the article, but from what I'm reading above, one of the biggest problems is the use of the word "fundamentalist" to describe any flavor of Judaism. The phrase "religiously conservative" is somewhat problematic as well, since that description has almost the opposite meaning when applied to Judaism, from what it means when applied to other religions. [I.e., "religiously conservative" Judaism is the Sadducees and Samaritans, and to a somewhat smaller extent, the Karaites.] My take on the above citations is that ems is saying that Rashi and other commentators indicate that the Christian interpretation of Judaism's Torah account of creation is mistaken. I'm inclined to unprotect the article if everyone can agree to leave that section stand as it presently reads until the minutiae are worked out here. From what I see above, there is general agreement among "one side" in the previous edit war that ems is "wrong" in his persistent disagreement with the meaning of certain words, but that's not consensus. I'll ask another admin to look in and see if we can't try to sort this situation out sooner rather than later. Tomer^talk 23:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the dispute to comment in detail, but I agree with Tomer that applying the words "fundamentalist" and "religiously conservative" to Judaism isn't straightforward. I admit to not seeing why this was removed, as it seems relevant and well-sourced. There's probably no harm in leaving the page protected for a couple more days if there are still issues to discuss. There may be something in Judaism and evolution that would help. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not know why this was removed, but if you read my reasoning above you will see why I think it does not belong in the article. It may belong in the article on Haredi Jews (which is referenced in the article). It certainly belongs on this talk page as an argument brought forward to show that most if not all "orthodox Jews" have no part in this controversy. AvB ÷ talk 11:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

We have not reached a consensus. I am really busy right now. Its almost shabbat in a few hours. I am trying very hard to free the last hours before shabbat. I have got replies from chabad Rabbis that I need to upload. I am not sure if I can get them all uploaded before shabbat but I will try. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 05:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In response to ScienceApologist's question: I disagree. As I've argued before, the issue is whether there are reputable sources reporting that there are a notable number of "orthodox" Jews who reject evolution as incompatible with the tenets of their faith. I have yet to see such citations. What I have seen is rejection of a citation of what I see as an honest attempt by a notable Jewish scholar to explain why he quite happily accepts both the Biblical creation account AND the mainstream scientific account. The article was incorrectly used as an argument showing that Orthodox Jews believe in the biblical creation story. Editors here surely missed the fact that this (mildly naive in the scientific sense, but for the main acceptable) article calculates Day One as having had a duration of 8 billion years. AvB ÷ talk 11:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about creationism in general, not Young Earth Creationism. AvB has the two of them confused. The article cited was clearly supporting a brand of creationism, just not necessarily the Young Earth variety. Please don't pontificate like this when the point is so obvious. --ScienceApologist 12:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Confused? Pontificate? Who, me? <maniacal laughter> I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow. This is what happened: I embarrassingly misread your question (regarding the Judaism/Jewish in the lead) and responded with my arguments for a different point, one I had been making for a while (the assertion about Haredi Jews needing citations). I hope that explains it. As my daughter would say—"duh." AvB ÷ talk 18:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, misunderstandings happen. Not offended in the least. Thanks for the clarification. --ScienceApologist 18:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In response to user ems: you may want to reread WP:Consensus. To me it is clear there is consensus here regarding the removal of the large paragraph, while there is no consensus about the question whether or not Judaism belongs in the article as a religion that has a notable number of members that reject evolution as incompatible with their views. So far I have not seen one iota of evidence that this is the case. It may well be true, but we need citations. AvB ÷ talk 11:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What about that Rabbi I found saying "Torah does not believe in evolution"? Does that not show some groups do not believe in evolution? Jefffire 12:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to get contact to him. His is meant to be calling me soon. I got many statements from Chabad Rabbis on this topic. Unfortunantly I don't have a scanner so far I have only been able to get one of them uploaded. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

AvB, whether the groups are "notable" is not the matter of contention. The issue at hand is whether creationism can be said to be "derived from fundamentalist or religiously conservative" Jewish "accounts of origin." While the words may not be appropriate in the context of Judaism, the fact remains that creationism is largely pulled from Genesis, which is found in the Torah, and there are certainly some groups of Jews who believe in creationism. Ladlergo 13:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

My response to ems simply argued that the assertion about Haredi Jews was in need of citations and perhaps consensus. (I note that the assertion was recently removed so it seems to have been settled.) AvB ÷ talk 18:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That Jewish thought conflicts with the Christian interpretations of Genesis is fine. That it is still creationist, however, seems straightforward. Does anybody deny that certain creationist arguments are promulgated by means of Jewish beliefs? --ScienceApologist 13:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You might want to rephrase "Jewish sympathies." It can get something of a knee-jerk reaction. Ladlergo 13:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs? Ideas? Formulations? Approaches? You get the drift. --ScienceApologist 13:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

To jump in again, briefly, "the drift" clearly is insufficient. I have asked previously that the wording, not the drift, be worked out here on the talk page, prior to unprotecting the article, as the "drift" is not the problem that caused this edit war, nearly to the extent that the actual wording is. Cheers, Tomer^talk 00:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Tom, the wording has been worked out. --ScienceApologist 12:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Not resolved.

Sorry I have been busy the last few days. We have defently NOT reached a consensus. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 15:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Continuing from where I last left off. I have signed statements that Chabad is like the rest of Judaism and agree with Rabbinical commenteries that Genesis: 1) did not come to teach the order of creation 2) there was creation before its account starts etc. So far I have only one of them uploaded.

File:Rcofsydney.jpg

Rabbinical College of Sydney - Signed by Rabbi Yossi Feldman

But this is irrelevant to whether creationism is influenced by the accounts of origins found in Judaism. --ScienceApologist 16:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It is also one random Rabbi's opinion anyways, and I already gave you a citation for a book that contained numerous young earth creationist essays by chabadniks. Furthermore, the signed letter is vague and doesn't even begin to approach the relevant claim. Even if all these concerns could somehow be addressed, as ScienceApologist has pointed out, they are irrelevant. JoshuaZ 18:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ems, I'm sorry to say, I've been watching this debate for a bit now, and it looks like there is indeed a good consensus here; however, it seems you are not part of that consensus. I think the other editors have been trying to bend over backwards to address your issue so far. Sadly, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but even less a jury (it certainly doesn't require unanimous consent). I would suggest you please start trying to make a compromise. This is not what I conceive is the way to collaborate to an encyclopedia. --Ramdrake 18:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Abrahamic accounts of origin

Ems2, could you please explain why you don't accept this wording? I find it quite satisfactory, as it references the fact that multiple religions that believe in creationism have the same root, and it does so without being overly wordy. Ladlergo 16:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Judaism is an Abrahamic religion but it doesn't believe that Genesis teaches creation at all. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Judaism... doesn't believe that Genesis teaches creation at all." -- I think this is obviously a ridiculous statement. It may not teach "creation" in the sense that many YECs believe it, but it certainly teaches "creation" by a deity. --ScienceApologist 16:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure but that isn't what the text says. ...accounts of origins ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ems2, as said above, Judiaism certainly does include a creator deity and hence a form of creationism (not YEC, but still creationism). Why should it not be mentioned? Would you accept "Abrahamic accounts of creation" instead? Ladlergo 16:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure it does. We have to work throught the wording. We have not done that yet. The current wording is incorrect. Would the page be protected already? ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Working out the wording" might entail you offering a compromise. --ScienceApologist 16:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you accept "Abrahamic accounts of creation" instead? If not, could you suggest a change? Ladlergo 16:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The article claims there is a controversy with Abrahamic religions. Judaism is a Abrahamic religion. Which I have sourced many places who see no conflict hence no controversy. the RCA notes that significant Jewish authorities have maintained that evolutionary theory, properly understood, is not incompatible with belief in a Divine Creator, nor with the first 2 chapters of Genesis. [1] ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Arguably, some creationists claim that evolutionary theory, properly understood, is not incompatible with creationism. So what's your dispute? ==ScienceApologist 16:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The conflict centers primarily around... this is not true for Judaism. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Your contention is that there is no such thing as Jewish creationism, but the redirect article claims that there is. So I'm at a total loss for how to evaluate your claims. --ScienceApologist 16:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

While that may be true, can you claim that most forms of modern creationism are not derived from Abrahamic accounts? If not, please give an alternate explanation as to why the statement is false. Ladlergo 17:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Judaism can not be included in the current statement. The statement's claims are countary to Jewish beliefs. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it Jewish belief that no Jew can be in conflict with scientific accounts of origins on religious grounds? --ScienceApologist 16:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Of fundamental Judaism, yes. I think we have already been through what fundamental Judaism is. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

So no Jew can argue with Richard Dawkins over his assertions regarding evolution's exclusion of deities acting in history? --ScienceApologist 17:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop being a smartass. His claims are not scientific. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 17:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ems2, please no personal attacks. Claiming that Dawkins' claims are not scientific is part-and-parcel to the creation-evolution controversy. I think you have just proven my point. --ScienceApologist 17:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This claim is ridiculous as multiple levels, including the fact that ems has already been given a citation for a book containing many Jewish(mainly chabad) YEC essays. JoshuaZ 18:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Dawkins, he interviews Rabbi Herschel Gluck at a Hasidic Jewish school in London near the start of the second programme in The Root of All Evil? two-part documentary, and the guy is fully convinced of YEC. That page includes a link to an online video of the programme. Rabbi Gluck advises that all the schoolchildren are made aware of evolution [as they must be under English educational standards], but is confident that the majority will believe that God created the earth in six days. He didn't go into whether he supported "flood geology". However this indicates it's not just Haredi Jews who take a YEC stance. ..dave souza, talk 22:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Framing of issue

Cut from intro:

The debate is most prevalent and visible in the United States where it is often portrayed in the mass media in the broader context of the culture wars or a supposed dispute between religion and science.

Portrayed? Supposed? I thought the issue was primarily a conflict between religion and science.

Depends. Most religious denominations of the Judeo-Christian group have no problem with evolution, thus you could say that there isn't any real conflict between religion and science. The controversy comes from the minority who think that there is one. --Ramdrake 18:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. This is why these qualifications are important. --ScienceApologist 18:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'd also like to see the article pay more attention to critics who say that the Theory of evolution itself is unscientific, lacks predictive value, is not falsifiable, or is pseudoscience. Not that I'm saying there's any huge debate among biologists about this: 99.8% certainly represents a consensus. I'm talking about the 5% of scientists in general who have doubts. Who are they? What are there doubts? Is there skepticism based on science, or fundamentalist belief (as in "Creation Science")? --Uncle Ed 17:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Generally, these "5% of scientists" don't say very much beyond what is offered by the various creationist clearinghouses. It isn't a dispute in the academic or scientific communities, as the article reports. --ScienceApologist 18:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the war is in politics and the media, not in science, although it is to some degree about science. --Ramdrake 18:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

View that there is no controversy

Cut from intro:

The controversy is not occurring within the scientific community or academia, whose members overwhelmingly tend to oppose creationism. Nor is it considered of great importance to most religious groups, even those that tend to support creationism. Rather, the controversy is promoted by vocal creationists who characterize the controversy as an important battle between good and evil and those who actively dispute creationism who characterize the controversy as an important battle between truth and falsehood.

Yes, we know that 95% of scientists oppose creationism (99.8% of biologists). But the wording of this paragraph makes it sound like there is no controversy:

• Let's see, scientists aren't disputing it
• Most religious groups don't think it's important
• So it must not be a big deal

I think we need a source for the "no big deal" POV, especially in light of the recent press attention to attempts to change science curriculums and the massive campaign by PBS, et al. It seems to be on a par with the "gay marriage" controversy. Any surveys showing otherwise? --Uncle Ed 18:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The "no big deal" idea is your reading of the facts. It is a fact that scientists aren't disputing it. It's a fact that most religious groups don't think it's important. However, it does not necessarily follow then that it "must not be a big deal". Please try to refrain from imposing your opinions on the implications of prose onto the article. If it looks to you like it's no big deal -- fine, but there is no such statement about this in the article and your reading of an implication or a POV to that effect is based solely on your own spin and not on the actual content. --ScienceApologist 18:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see some statistics (or other research) supporting the view that "most religious groups" don't think it's important. I assume you mean they think the dispute over whether evolution should be taught without giving equal (or any) time to ID.

Or perhaps you mean they think the dispute over whether evolution is true or not isn't important to them, because their group accepts all aspects of evolution. Can we get of list of religious groups which have made a public comment on evolution? I know there is some debate within the world's largest Christian body (Roman Catholic Church) over whether evolution is true in all its aspects, even if the pope himself has decreed that "evolution is consistent with our faith" or something like that.

Many readers will be interested in these distinctions, particulary in the US where 45% of adults dismiss evolution entirely as it conflicts with their personal religious beliefs.

Say! That gives me an idea for another article, and it sounds like it would be right up your alley. Differences between personal belief and church doctrine - particularly on Creation and Evolution. --Uncle Ed 14:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

As to whether religious groups consider the creation-evolution controversy to be central to their religious faith, I'd ask you to consider whether most religions include a statement about the controversy in their creed. While many have statements of belief that can be interpreted as being a party to one side or another in the conflict, there are very few religions or denominations that in point of fact make it a matter of doctrine. We list the churches and denominations that have made explicit statements in support of creationism in our article, and even so many of those denominations do not consider the conflict to be important or even necessarily relevant. For example, while the Assembly of God has made a statement in support of creationism, it's generally stated in their literature on the subject that the controversy is less important than being "born again". --ScienceApologist 16:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

May I know where you take that 45% number? It seems unreasonably high to me. --Ramdrake 14:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Last time I was asked that question, I referred the questioner to Evolution poll. Then he immediately put the article up for deletion. Lemme do a bit of googling. --Uncle Ed 15:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Most recently, in Gallups February 19-21 poll, 45% of respondents chose "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so," the statement that most closely describes biblical creationism. A slightly larger percentage, almost half, chose one of the two evolution-oriented statements: 37% selected "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" and 12% chose "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process." The public has not notably changed its opinion on this question since Gallup started asking it in 1982. [2]

I would provide a better link (this is second or third-hand), but User:ScienceApologist led a successful campaign to have the article Evolution poll deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evolution_poll). I don't know whether the information got merged into another article. Perhaps Joshua can help you better than I can. --Uncle Ed 15:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting bit. Found variations on it by Googling myself. Still, it doesn't change the fact that it isn't a matter of controversy in the academic circles, and that yes, most major religious denominations in the world have stated that they didn't see a problem with evolution by common descent as an accepted scientific theory (in the scientific meaning of theory, i.e. on a par with say the theory of gravitation). It is, however, a major topic of controversy in the political circles in the United States, at least. 45% of Americans polled stated they did not believe in evolution. But 80% of Americans polled in another survey could name only one of the four basic freedoms guaranteed to them by the US constitution. That doesn't make the Constitution any less valid, or any more arguable. --Ramdrake 15:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, please don't insult our intelligence by acting like a downtrodden victim. The artice went through AfD, and was deleted. Standard operating procedure. What 'successful campaign to have the article deleted' are you talking about? -- Ec5618 15:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A wise man is never insulted by facts. Ramdrake asked me for the source of the 45%. It took me an hour to reconstruct it to Wikipedia standards (see User:Ed Poor/Evolution poll).

If the answer to the question is irrelevant to this page, I wonder why I was asked it?

But the subpage I just cited contains info which contradicts a few user comments above. Or at least it puts churchgoers at odds with the official bodies which represent them. How can 80% of churchgoers prefer Creationism to Evolution, and yet "most major religious denominations in the world have stated that they didn't see a problem with evolution by common descent"? as being on a par with the theory of gravitation?

I'm unaware of a single religious objection, even from a layman, to Newton's theory of gravity. Lots of religious people, even prominent (if not top) leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, disagree with evolution.

I think the question of how many people are on each side, is of interest to our readers, and I'd like to see Evolution Poll undeleted. --Uncle Ed 16:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you stating you are in fact a 'downtrodden victim'?

I will not get drawn into an argument about the validity of the poll. My point was merely that you shouldn't act like a victim. If anything, the poll is a source, and may be referred to as such. It does not deserve an article. As such, the 'article' was justly deleted. -- Ec5618 16:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What is ultimately quixotic about Ed's claimed frustration is the fact that the poll he is quoting is described and referenced in this very article. --ScienceApologist 16:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that interpretation of polls requires some knowledge of how the way questions are stated can affect the outcome. The Gallup organization's own summary of a relevant Gallup Poll, possibly the very poll which Ed Poor wants to quote, is apparently available to subscribers at [[3]]. Such summaries usually address the issue I mentioned, which is of course well understood by polltakers.

See also this comment from the American Physical Society and this page from BBC, which I found while trying to find a nice summary of the results of an (earlier?) Gallup poll on this issue which I recall reading some time ago.---CH 16:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

ID as Creationism

CH, thanks for posting the link to Marshall Berman's article, "Intelligent Design: The New Creationism Threatens All of Science and Society" [4] You could almost derive Creation-evolution controversy in full, just from this one lource - at least the anti-ID side.

Sometimes I see the controversy as two sides talking past each other. Berman sees ID as "anti-science". The ID movement sees itself as "anti-materialism". Is there widespread agreement that materialism and science are precisely the same thing? --Uncle Ed 17:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Uncle Ed, glad you liked the link; I agree that this is an excellent resource. As for your question: I don't see where you are trying to go with this, since I don't know of any scientist who has proposed to identify science and materialism. ---CH 00:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

New subsection

A number of months ago I mentioned that we needed a new subsection on the immorality arguments by creationists. I have now written this section. Please improve it. --ScienceApologist 09:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the intro

These two sentences contradict each other:

1. The debate is most prevalent and visible in the United States, where it is often portrayed in the mass media in the broader context of the culture wars or a supposed dispute between religion and science.
2. The main opposing sides are ostensibly those who espouse religious origin beliefs and those who support naturalistic or scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology.

The first sentence quoted above uses phrases like often portrayed in the mass media and a supposed dispute to cast doubt on the idea that the two sides the public controversy are religion and science. But the very next sentence asserts the same thing that these phrases deny: that the main opposing sides take religious vs. scientific standpoints.

This contradiction needs to be resolved.

What are the main sides in the dispute? If there are two, how do they characterize themselves? And their opponents?

I think the article takes chiefly the POV of some scientists, or methodological naturalists (and particularly atheists) that Creationism is utter nonsense. But it is not the POV of Wikipedia that only the material world exists. So the article should not reflect that POV.

Rather, there must be a balance between those who believe in the possibility of Creationism being true and those who deny any such possibility. The article should not spend as much time as possible refuting Creationism. It should fairly describe both Creationism and Evolution, because as its title suggests, the article is about the controversy between the two ideas.

The article should not try to settle the controversy, but merely to describe it. --Uncle Ed 15:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed, you have the unfortunate tendency to read into wording meaning that is not there. Your claim that the phrases used in the first sentence "cast doubt" on the "sides" of the controversy. In actuality what they are doing is simply being very careful in how the sides are declared. In fact, there are plenty of religious people who are not adamantly involved in the controversy just as there are scientists who are not. This isn't a polarized camp vs. camp war here. Therefore it's a "supposed dispute" between religion and science which, you will note in that very article, is not necessarily considered a dispute at all. Furthermore, that something is often portrayed one way in the media does not make that portrayal wrong. You may distrust the media, Uncle Ed, but that's not a subtext of this sentence.

It is clear then that these two sentences in no way contradict each other except when warped by some very mean interpretations. More than this, your accusation that the article takes the POV of "scientists" seems to have come out of left-field. Would you mind providing some evidence to that end? --ScienceApologist 15:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say scientists only, but some scientists, or methodological naturalists (and particularly atheists). Surely you can answer your own question, if it's relevant. Can't you think of even ONE scientist who ever called Creationism nonsense? --Uncle Ed 15:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is that you are claiming that there is a POV-bias in the article, but fail to point out where it is. --ScienceApologist 17:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one to be uneasy with the massive recent changes made to the introduction by user Ed Poor? The new introduction feels like there is a raging worldwide battle going on between proponents of creation and of evolution, rather than the work of an extremely vocal and active minority in mostly one country? I definitely liked the original intro much better. --Ramdrake 17:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What part of the into gives the impression that the battle is worldwide or "raging"? I thought it specifically mentioned that The debate is most prevalent and visible in the United States. Feel free to amend this to ... confined mainly to the United States or wherever it's really "simmering".

Or is your point of view that (1) there is no controversy and (2) there is only a campaign by a minority to bring attention to the issue? --Uncle Ed 17:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, somewhere between the two positions, but much closer to the second than the first. A few people are making a lot of noise. --Ramdrake 17:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then the article should reflect this. Perhaps we need to say more about what sort of controversy or dispute is going on. I gather that there is a disgreement over whether Creationism or Evolution is correct. But are you saying that most of the energy is coming from the Creationist side, with the Evolution side alternately ignoring it with dignity (because it has nothing to do with science) and occasionally responding laconically that the Creationists haven't come up with anything new in the 200 years since Paley, and would they please shut up so biologists can get back to work? (Or something like that).

What is the best way to characterize a disagreement in which one side doesn't want to talk, and the other side is trying to force the issue? (That's the case here, right?) --Uncle Ed 17:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed, you are speaking in overwhelming generalities about a conflict that is much better described by the nuance offered in the current . Why do you insist on being so tendentious? --ScienceApologist 17:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what tendentious means, nor do I understand what "nuance" you feel the old intro provided. Moreover, I did not realize that the intro had been locked by "consensus". Can you show me a record of the vote which established a "consensus wording"? --Uncle Ed 17:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You could break with tradition, Ed, and read the archives. That will let you know how the article came to its current state (including the intro). The article is not "locked", but it is accurate and I encourage you to explain yourself. --ScienceApologist 17:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have about the changes I made. Which particular edit, or what passage of text, do you want to ask about? --Uncle Ed 17:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed, is it really so hard for you to see that you haven't offered any explanation for your rather extensive edits to the intro beyond a comment on a single "contradiction" above? We can only guess as to what chip you currently have on your shoulder, your edits are considered by more than one editor to be problematic so the onus is on you to defend them. I'd start out one-by-one. List them all in a section and we'll discuss them. At this point, I'm looking for you to justify all your edits. --ScienceApologist 19:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Ed, have you read the archives yet? --ScienceApologist 19:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus and reality

I encourage those editors distressed by Ed Poor's actions here to visit the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Poor (2). He is currently on the warpath to insert his own defiance of consensus in many articles regarding the creation-evolution controversy. --ScienceApologist 17:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Not on the warpath. My remarks are rather calm, and not directed against any person. And if a "consensus" exists which is incorrect, it should be changed to reflect reality. Surely you wouldn't want an inaccurate article at Wikipedia, merely because a voting bloc of editors wants to push a particular POV? My take on many of your comments is that you oppose "POV pushing" at Wikipedia. Or am I taking WP:Assume good faith too far? --Uncle Ed 17:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I waited for a response to the above, but got none. And you reverted again, with still no explanation but this edit summary:

• rv -- this is the consensus version. Please explain YOURSELF on the talkpage (this is mostly your creationist POV-pushing, after all).

What is this "consensus version" you keep talking about? This is the 2nd page you've begun an edit war on, claiming you are restoring a "consensus". As far as I know, this is a wiki. Anyone can make a change. If you object to a change, please say so. I don't understand why you keep reverting with no explanation. Do you feel that no change, however small, can be made without your permission, or something?

I waited some more, but Ramdrake merely reverted a 3rd time, saying:

• Ed, you got the processus backwards. Please let's discuss your changes to the article BEFORE changing the article,as this is a controversial article and this is usually how it's done in such a case.

No point undoing the 3rd revert, if there is a Wikipedia:mass reversion guideline which authorizes this. But it just looks like an excuse for one side to win an edit war to me: "We insist on our version and you can't make even tiny edits without our advance permission."

I would prefer this instead:

• Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.

Shall we put it to a vote? --Uncle Ed 18:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed, you came to this article and decided to unilaterally rewrite it without consensus. Then you insist on reverting it when people here preferred the orignal version (which enjoyed consensus apparently), so no, it's you who are edit warring here, Ed. This is exactly the same sort of behavior that earn you your ongoing RFC, at which you can see that there's zero support for your method here. Do you want editors from this article as well adding to it? Do you think ignoring consensus here is making you look any better? FeloniousMonk 19:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I came here and starting making some minor changes. Then Joshua reverted all those changes, without any explanation. Can there be an edit war with only one party? Is there some policy which Joshua is enforcing? I think not, or else he would not not hesitate to revert 4 or more times in a 24-hour period.

I ask you one last time, where is there evidence that there exists a Wikipedia:Consensus version of the article which must not be modified in the slightest without prior consent of the majority? Is there a policy page you can point me to? Or are you and your crew merely throwing your weight around, as if Might makes right? --Uncle Ed 19:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I will ask just one question, based on your writings (emphasis added): No, I came here and starting making some minor changes. Then Joshua reverted all those changes, without any explanation.

Why is it that when you make changes to the articles, they are some minor changes, but when someone reverts them, they revert(ed) all those changes? What makes them minor in one direction, but appreciable (ALL those changes) in the opposite direction? The first and foremost point we're insisting upon is that the changes you made are not minor, and as such should be discussed prior to being made. Are you using two different weights by which to judge the scope of edits and reverts? --Ramdrake 19:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I ask you one last time, where is there evidence that there exists a Wikipedia:Consensus version of the article which must not be modified in the slightest without prior consent of the majority? --> This is completely not the issue. I have no problem with you, Ed, or anyone else coming in and making all sorts of edits to a page. Sometimes an editor makes a huge number of edits that are very good. Sometimes an editor makes a huge number of edits that are problematic. More than one person on this talkpage has indicated problems with your edits. That's when reversion to the last version occurs and hopefully discussion begins. As it currently stands, you, Ed, are the only person who thinks your edits are God's gift to this article. The rest of us are more skeptical. I'm open to hearing your suggestions for changes, and I have worked with you in the past on this very article with that regard. Right now, I see no attempt on your part to explain your total rearrangement and what I see as trashing of the introduction. No explanation of what you think beyond some vague insistences that the conflict may be more "real" than the article makes it out to be. If you have specific problems with specific wordings, let us know. I'm all for such discussions. --ScienceApologist 19:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

An example defense for Ed Poor

Since Ed does not seem to understand what I mean by defending his edits, I'll do so for the first three of his edits for him below. This, Ed, is how you defend edits. I'm showing your edits here one-by-one giving ample opportunity for other editors to respond. I also show you what my response might be to each of these attempts I have made to put on your hat. Note, I don't know whether these rationales I wrote down correspond to your thinking on the matter because you have failed to do this for all but one of your edits (which, I'll note you haven't addressed yet above). --ScienceApologist 20:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed's first three edits, a justification

• The debate is most prevalent and visible in the United States, where it is often portrayed in the mass media in the broader context of the culture wars or a supposed dispute between religion and science. --> removed: see above comments.

Comment: the explanation for why to keep this sentence is included above. --ScienceApologist 20:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• creationism --> Creationism :the idea should be capitalized because of xyz convention.

Comment: what convention would that be? --ScienceApologist 20:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• that holds the scientific explanations of origins to be antithetical to creation theology, and oftentimes, more specifically, Creation according to Genesis. --> that hold the scientific explanations of origins to be antithetical to the doctrine of Creation, and particularly the creation of the heavens and the earth by God (see Creation according to Genesis).: this seems like more stable wording.

Comment: Unfortunately, this wording changes the syntax from a sentence that deals with generalities of creation and moves to the specificis of creation according to Genesis to a wording that implies that all creationism is based on a "doctrine", monotheistic, and not based in demiurge. The "see" parenthetical also indicates, falsely, that there is only one creationist account of origins when in reality there are more than just creation according to Genesis. --ScienceApologist 20:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

---

You see, Ed? If you offer explanations for your edits, we can acutally have a dialogue and explain what we think about your ideas. --ScienceApologist 20:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha - that's pretty funny coming from you! For great justice. 22:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sides in the controversy

While restoring the word "ostensibly" FelonoiousMonk wrote the following in his edit summary:

ID proponents are an example of those who claim to not push religion while doing just that

Are you saying that the controversy is not between religion advocates and science advocates, or what?

If you think that ID advocates are stealth creationists, you should say so explicitly in the article. --Uncle Ed 21:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not the subject of this article.

By the way, Ed, you just violated 3RR again. --ScienceApologist 21:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)