Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups

What controversy?

I think the title of this article is misleading, because as we all know, beyond reasonable doubt evolution is greatly superior to creationism and of course, factual. The scientific community is who we rely on, and there is no controversy with them. The title should be changed to something such as "supposed controversy" or "attempted controversy" or "religious controversy", because there is nothing scientifically controversial about evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.200.11 (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/controversy Nobody said controversy had to be reasonable or scientific. MitchincredibleII (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I guess.....Sadly that's true. It's what ruins our society, having little value for reason and science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.167.99 (talk) 07:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• I too object to the title. There is absolutely no 'controversy'. I understand what the article is presenting, but the word choice is poor. What about "debate"? 67.194.78.220 (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• There is no scientific controversy -- but there is clearly a social and political one (hence "a recurring cultural, political, and theological dispute" in the lead). "Debate" gives the impression that the dispute is more narrowly defined than it is. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any real live controversy? It seems to me there are just two camps: a creationist camp which spends all its time denouncing evolution and all the others who occasionally try and educate the creationists, with more or less good humour. I've just updated the Hovind 2006 dead link, which is the first reference in the article. This is just a deceitful wager - certainly not a debate. (Only 1 of the 5 issues he suggests you have to prove is even about evolution in the commonly accepted sense.) Can someone substitute a reference that actually indicates a controversy? Chris55 (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Hovind is at the extreme-flaky end of the creationist spectrum -- and isn't taken seriously by even most other creationists. For articles covering somewhat less flaky recent efforts, I would suggest you read Expelled, Academic Freedom bills & What Darwin Got Wrong. I think that the scientific community does consider this to be a serious issue -- but a serious issue in terms of systematic flaws in the way that science is currently being taught in American schools -- see the NCSE website for more details. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• I would however agree that it would be better to have more widely accepted and/or a wider range of creationist sources, or better yet an independent source, for the extent of the controversy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'd missed that article by Jerry Fodor. But even he starts by saying "The story of the consequent fracas is legendary, but that argument is over now. Except, perhaps, in remote backwaters of the American Midwest, the Darwinian account of our species’ history is common ground in all civilised discussions, and so it should be. The evidence really is overwhelming." (Why Pigs don't have wings) I'm not really surprised to find him in the Gould/Lewontin camp - he has vested interests. Accepting the broad brush of Darwinism doesn't end controversies. Chris55 (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think Jerry somewhat understates the geographic extent (and intensity) of this issue -- recent activities of the Texas State Board of Education come immediately to mind. Never underestimate people's ability to deny overwhelming evidence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Also, the general consensus is that Jerry Fodor's talking through his hat (the main group citing his book positively seem to be creationists). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Would Creation-evolution struggle be a better title for the article? It is the title of a recent book, but it doesn't have the somewhat loaded connotation of Creation-evolution conflict which is another possibility. Chris55 (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

What problem would renaming this article solve? Johnuniq (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

OED defines controversy as:

The action of disputing or contending one with another; dispute, debate, contention.

I would suggest that creationists and supporters of science are disputing, debating and contending with one another on this issue. Does anybody suggest the contrary? If not, then we have a "controversy". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but what kind of controversy? It's certainly a social and political issue, but the topic is ultimately scientific and the controversy is not. If anything, it is a controversy between biblical literalism and science itself. Dylan Flaherty 21:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Already answered:

The creation–evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) is a recurring cultural, political, and theological dispute about the origins of the Earth, humanity, life, and the universe.

There's no reason to insist that a controversy about a scientific topic must be internal to science in order to be a "controversy". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's the time element that is the difficulty. Historically "disputes" are usually the cause of some other form of confrontation, e.g. a war. The most obvious exception is a border dispute, as with neighbours arguing over a fence or nations over a border, which one might refer to as an "ongoing dispute". This has been going on for 150 years. People seem to dislike the idea of a 'conflict', but to me the most obvious metaphor is a guerrilla war. The disputants have lost the argument in the conventional channels and continue to try and sabotage it from outside, casting around for any ammunition that might serve their cause. "Teach the controversy" underlines the somewhat artificial nature of the campaign.

But ultimately, what's in a name? I'm not making a big thing about it. Chris55 (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the article already covers this, by calling it a "recurring ... dispute" ("undead, keeps rising from the dead and we can't seem to put a stake through its heart, dispute" being somewhat unencyclopaedic in language ;) ). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hrafn - I find much irony in your quote "undead, keeps rising from the dead and we can't seem to put a stake through its heart, dispute" and it's coloration to the Biblical story about man's inability to kill Jesus Christ. However I digress. In this argument I do agree with you in that this is not a scientific issue. I also agree that this may be more directly linked to a war. It's no secret that this debate has much more to do with the human condition and pride than it does science. One view point may put a person in a place where they must come to terms with an ultimate right and wrong, where another viewpoint lends to a lack of any moral code at all. I believe the debate, controversy or more accurately "war" to be about one's view of human liberties and whether submitting to something greater is appealing or even an option. For this controversy to cease being a war each side must see the opposite side's viewpoint. The creationist must see life alone with no moral code and no greater cause, and the evolutionist (I don't mean evolutionists who ascribe to a creator) must see life with a greater cause and an absolute moral code. In my experience this is near impossible on either side. Therefor this controversy (war) will continue. Controversy is a perfect word, and I see no danger to the evolutionists side of this war, for I don't believe one word on Wikipedia will change anyone's mind. We can leave that for something greater. (TSB178 (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

(i) My allusion was quite clearly to vampire mythology not Christian mythology (I'm sure many atheists would find a joke somewhere in your inability to distinguish the two). (ii) For the rest of your discussion, I find it neither particularly relevant, particularly accurate, particularly npov nor even particularly coherent in places. Particularly: (a) The argument here is not between theism and atheism (as there are theists on both sides). (b) Many (most?) atheists would deny that their "viewpoint lends to a lack of any moral code at all." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I too agree that names are not that important, but they can be misleading and used to promote false ideas/manipulate people (ie "teach the controversy"). For example, "creation science" should be called "evolution deniers" and if I were to rename this article, I would give it something to that effect as well. However, that is just me. I know wikipedia isn't to be used to promote individual viewpoints, but it is used to promote facts, of which this is one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.200.46 (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There is NO scientific controversy on evolution, the current "controversy" exists solely in terms of religion and politics. I rewrote the intro to reflect this. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/ This is a long list of scientists of various disciplines who have expressed belief in, or openness to a creationist view (posted on a Creationist website, but nobody has yet made a Wikipedia page for it.) It includes well-known pioneers of science and mathematics such as Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Farady, Joule, Pasteur et. al. The fact that these scientists, whose authority in their respective fields is universally accepted, contend against the origin argument that evolution presents should in my opinion be considered as evidence enough that there is actually scientific controversy regarding this topic (even though the mainstream organizations and scientific journals are stacked in favor of evolution as the most likely explanation of the origin of life.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydge (talk • contribs) 18:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem a little muddled: citing Galileo et al. to support your view that there "is actually scientific controversy" suggests you think the present goes back a few hundred years, science has moved on a bit since then. Of course Answers in Genesis isn't in any way a reliable source about science, and evolution doesn't explain the origin of life – try abiogenesis. . . dave souza, talk 18:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Project Steve, a contemporary list that dwarfs the creationists' lists, is an elegantly tongue-in-cheek counter to such a facile argument from authority/Argumentum ad populum. And, honestly, populating a list with any pre-Origin scientists is a cheap trick: would you accept arguments on the veracity of germ theory from anyone prior to Pasteur? — Scientizzle 18:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually all I was saying about Galileo, Newton, Pasteur, et. al. is that they held a view that strongly favored or explicitly believed the creation account, and they are historically renowned scientists. There are also thousands of present day scientists (a few of whom are on the referenced list) who hold to a Creation belief to explain the origin of the species as opposed to a belief in macro-evolution to explain it. By pointing that out I'm not making an ad-populum argument to discredit evolution; rather I'm saying there is legitimate (and vehement) controversy on this topic within as well as outside the scientific community, even though the Creationist scientists are a minority. jaydge (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• " http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/ This is a..." a GROSSLY unreliable source. For one thing it dishonestly lists a large number of prominent scientists who lived/worked/wrote before the publication of On the Origin of Species as supporting their viewpoint. It mixes these pre-evolution luminaries with a larger list of ill-qualified/mis-qualified cranks. It is utterly worthless from an evidentiary viewpoint, as well as failing WP:RS, WP:SELFPUB, WP:DUE & WP:FRINGE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

@Scientizzle: I find it rather odd that Project Steve used the name of a Christian martyr (also a Creationist) : ) Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 17:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

@Hrafn: AiG's list had a huge section of scientists who lived after the publication of On the Origin of Species. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 17:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Why has no one mentioned [[1]]? It could potentially be considered an original source, but it does point to verifiable people, books and organizations who are in some way involved in science and believe in creation. That should serve at least to prove that there is a controversy within the scientific community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurupilgrim (talk • contribs) 22:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe because (i) it is an unreliable source, (ii) such sources typically grossly misrepresent the scientists and views portrayed, particularly including scientists who lived long before The Origin of Species was published, those working in fields other than biology and/or exaggerating their views. (iii) The scientists listed represent only a "tiny minority", so can be ignored per WP:DUE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point. It is definitely unreliable as it is most likely self published and is not reviewed or checked by anyone. (I'm kinda new). Would it be reasonable to consider 'creation-scientists' a notable minority in that it is borderline as per wp:fringe? Footnote 9 suggests 700 out of 480,000 which is a very small minority, but it is not completely absent. It seems to me it deserves to be considered for borderline notability. That is, without giving it any undue weight. Gurupilgrim (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Footnote 9 also says: "Virtually no secular scientists accepted the doctrines of creation science". The source of the 700 figure is a petition by the DI, and many of the signatories have no expertise in relevant fields, or were duped into signing the petition because of its ambivalent wording. See A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism and the corresponding scientific counter-petition, Project Steve. Creation scientists have published practically nothing in peer-reviewed scientific journals. They are not borderline fringe, but unambiguously fringe as far as their scientific output is concerned. The reliable sources are practiacally unanimous that creation science is not science and that there is no debate within the scientific community. You're also mixing up notability with reliability. The leading creation scientists are indeed notable, but creationist sources are notoriously unreliable due to their penchant for deliberate fabrication and misrepresentation. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should add a section to the article, maybe "the controversy controversy", detailing the arguments about calling this a controversy...Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Non neutral point of view.

In the second sentence, the article states: "The [creation-evolution] dispute is between those who support a creationist view based upon their religious beliefs, versus those who accept evolution, as supported by scientific consensus." My concern is with the alleged basing for their views—the sentence implies that creationism is merely supported by religion as in blind faith, while evolution is supported by the objective absolute truth of scientific consensus. Do we have to even state their reasons in this sentence? Perhaps in a different article or a different section? Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, since that's why there's a controversy, I'm not sure there's a way to present it otherwise. And I think you should review WP:NPOV, because it says neutral but not giving undue weight to a fringe point of view. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing "alleged" about it -- the respective bases of these views are well-established, and highly relevant. This is not two groups that drew their sides out of a hat -- it is a (very vocal) subset of religion versus (the vast majority of) the scientific community. It is clearly relevant per WP:LEDE which requires us to "define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a cancer researcher who would like to suggest that both parties discussing this (earlier threads especially) are not being as objective, kind, or respectful as I would hope. It would be interesting to have a page setup where each side of this debate gave their case with evidence on each of the subtopics in the debate, where creationist didn't modify the opposing view's arguments, and vice-versa. It would be nice to have a simple comparison of the different takes on each aspect, perhaps in a two column fashion. This could circumvent the debate between the editors, because it would not degrade into debates about the validity of sources, etc. Citing creation sources seems expected and reasonable, since this page is devoted to illustrating the debate. Let the creationists put up their arguments; let the evolutionists put up theirs, and stop vetting what the other party says, since it moves the debate topics from the wikipage to the discussion forum, where it doesn't belong anyway. Also, as a side note, many scientists and professors I know and work with (at a top ten university) tell me they are creationists because of their study of science only, with no regard or reference to the Bible at all (although they don't talk about it because they don't want to get ostracized).Gryderart (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. That is one of the problems with such subjects. It is almost impossible for matters such as this to be 'discussed' civilly. Those who believe in evolution think creatonist are stupid bible thumping bastards who have no use for reason. And creationist tend to believe that the other party are heathens. But your model sounds awesome! Mmallico (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence for creationism and WP doesn't publish arguments as if they are evidence. Creationism is religion pseudoscience, pure and simple; this is what the reliable sources say so this is what we publish. N^oformation ^Talk 01:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a forum. It is the discussion page of an encyclopedia article, a place to discuss improvements to the article. The article's job is to describe notable, verifiable, reliably sourced facets of the creation-evolution controversy, giving due weight to each view. Vetting sources and debating their validity is exactly what we are chartered to do here. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok Bill, that sounds reasonable. I just wish that since it is called a "controversy" page, that it would be written in such a way that you couldn't tell which side of the controversy the writers/editors were (ie. written with objectivity). That's all. (Gryderart (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC))

As Bill pointed out, this is an encyclopedia, which publishes only the views presented in reliable sources (in proportion to their weight). The article doesn't present the position of our editors. What you're seeing is agreement within the sources, which in this case amounts to unanimous scientific support of evolution. To present that is appropriate for an encyclopedia, because it reflects the state of our current thought on the issue.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Gyderart....sorry, your opinions and "anecdotes" have the value of....oh wait for it...NOTHING. If you're at a top 10 bible university, sure I believe you. But the facts, not random statements, show that over 99% of real scientists reject creationism completely. There just isn't one single tiny bit of evidence for creationism, so no real scientist would buy into it. I certainly hope that someone throws you out of the cancer research before you start claiming that homeopathy cures cancer. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there is creation evidence/data, or evolution evidence/data, but that there is only facts/data. This isn't a page about data/facts (since then there wouldn't be a debate, i.e. one guy saying the sky is red and one saying the sky is purple). This is about logic/arguments/interpretations of the data/evidence. This shouldn't be about comparing evidence for one against evidence for the other, but rather about comparing the way evolutionist reason and piece together a coherent system based on evidence, and the way creationist reason and piece together a coherent system based on evidence. That doesn't mean that the creationist have correct reasoning at all, but for the purpose of elucidating the controversy, it seems this is the approach to take when building this wikipage. For example- evidence: "Light is billions of light-years away", evolutionists and some creationists interpret: "universe is billions of years old", some creationists interpret: "the universe is young, but God made the light in-transit". Maybe this could be done in a table format for some basic facts, and then each different school of thought (in the spectrum from naturalist to theistic evo to old earth/young earth creanists, etc.). We already have something of that nature but in paragraph form. Thoughts? (Gryderart (talk) 06:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC))

Gryderart: this article is a chronological and topical overview of the controversy. As such, it does not (or should not) get overly bogged down on the details of any specific area of dispute -- we have a myriad of more detailed articles for that. In doing so, it gives WP:DUE weight to the majority scientific viewpoint, and does not give equal validity to viewpoints lacking scientific credibility. Taking your specific example, the YEC attempts to explain away the evidence for "Light is billions of light-years away" typically fail to either explain the full set of data, are internally inconsistent, or fail to cohere with other well-established scientific explanations -- as such they are not regarded as credible by the scientific community, and are therefore not articulated (except to disparage them) in reliable sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn, you say WP "does not give equal validity to viewpoints lacking scientific credibility". This implies that WP isn't neutral to different points of view but gives scientific POVs more credibility. Isn't the point Gryderart is trying to make that in an article about a controversy between different POVs then each side should be simply stated? Clearly the "experts" are heavily on one side, but it is precisely because a large percentage of the American population is sceptical of these people that POVs still exist which fly in the face of all the evidence. Chris55 (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, Wikipedia is not neutral to all points of view. NPOV means that the opinion of the editor is not interjected into the article and that we only report what reliable sources say. In no way does NPOV mean that we treat all views as equal/valid or give WP:UNDUE weight to all views. N^oformation ^Talk 10:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And the reliance on WP:RS in judging WP:DUE more-or-less-entails that Wikipedia accept expert opinion over argumentum ad populum. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Another way of looking at the issue is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge (what is known from evidence), and is not based on popular opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this article about the political/cultural/philosophical controversy? It's not about whether Evolution is a proven fact and that creationism is a pseudoscience and just totally unsupported by science? Creationism has its own article where it explains how silly it is. And since evolution is supported by several mountains worth of real evidence, mentioning it here seems very neutral. This discussion seems to be very odd, and pursued by one person who has no clue what constitutes real science and the difference between anecdote and peer reviewed data. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

well actually Orangemarlin, this is also about a religious controversy. The only people who are really concerned about creationism are religious people. It's perhaps revealing that the section marked "theological arguments" is empty. It suggests to me that Wikipedia is actually failing in presenting both sides of a controversy in a neutral way. You and I may not be deeply concerned about that side of the issue but it certainly has something to do with the fact that millions of otherwise adjusted people can believe something that we consider fairy tales. Chris55 (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The main point is one side would like religion taught in science classes as science. That is covered. Do you have suggestions on how that could be expressed better in the article? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is not a forum for crackpots to express their views. Evolution is well established fact and will not be "argued" against here, that's not what this article is about, however there is a creationist wiki that doesn't have any standards for evidence and I'm sure all that good stuff is covered there. N^oformation ^Talk 22:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Defending a religionist point of view in school is certainly where the controversy interacts with common life (given the traditional separation in the US). But a sizeable proportion of the American (and increasingly other nations) public have a religious view which doesn't allow them the normal compromises with common sense that most religious believers make. To characterise all of these as "crackpots" doesn't help. For most, "ignorant" would be a better, if not neutral, description. But clearly the belligerent approach shown, for instance, by Dawkins, has confirmed many in their resistance and may not be the best or most helpful approach. Chris55 (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Chris. Please refrain from using insulting terms such as 'crackpot' to describe an editor. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 08:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Before you accuse people, please read the content carefully. Chris did no such thing.Teapotgeorge^Talk 09:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Very sorry, I meant Noformation. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 10:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Guys, please see WP:NOTFORUM. This page isn't intended to discuss the article subject. If you have sources and specific suggestions for the article, please list them. Otherwise, we can close this out. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit Wekn. Noformation did not call any particular editor a crackpot. However, this discussion page is not a place for crackpot editors to blather on about their evolution denialism. The article is very good. There is an anti-science, evolution denialist group, and it is in the article. They have done a whole bunch of stuff (in the US) to try to deny evolution. It's in the article. That they are completely and utterly wrong, they have no evidence supporting them, and that there are no reliable sources that support the evolution deniers, it is in the article. Case closed. This place is not a forum for those evolution deniers to try to get the article to say "but wait, there's a whole bunch of evidence that evolution is wrong." There isn't. None. Not one valid paper out there disputes evolution. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to Chris55's valid points. First, I'd like to see any evidence that other countries are as totally fucked up about science as the US. Germans seem to believe in alternative medicine, so they follow pseudoscience, but amusingly, they are not creation supporters. Nevertheless, I don't think that religion is growing in any country (even the US), and the evolution denialist viewpoint is tiny in most countries, other than the US and fundamentalist Muslim countries. Ironic that. As for the empty section (I'll trust you, because I don't want to switch back to the article), but there are other articles that do a very good job with different theological points of view on creationism and intelligent design. Perhaps, you could add a few key points from those articles here (an easy writing job). Since i have no interest in religion, other than wishing it would disappear, I certainly won't write it. But you seem to have some knowledge and interest, and I would suggest that you have a valid point and the ability, so go for it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. Sorry everyone. @Orangemarlin: Do I detect a stereotype (per 'Germans')? I have a few German friends who are Creationists and I don't know any who believe in alternative medicine. If he wants to give Creationism validity, he should try A Storehouse of Knowledge or the Creation Wiki. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 16:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I also support Noformation's view: "Wikipedia is not neutral to all points of view. NPOV means that the opinion of the editor is not interjected into the article and that we only report what reliable sources say. In no way does NPOV mean that we treat all views as equal/valid or give WP:UNDUE weight to all views." Although I don't believe giving weight to Creationism is undue, I'll follow whatever rules WP sets. A Wiki that wasn't written from a particular POV would sound more like "Oprahpedia". Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 16:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"Religious people" aren't the only ones who reject evolution. Take Michael Behe, for instance. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 17:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Behe is a Roman Catholic...and this page is NOT a forum but a page for suggesting improvements to the articleTeapotgeorge^Talk 17:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

@Wekn. I don't give a shit about Germans one way or another, other than the fact that I'm missing vast swaths of my family tree because of them. But that's neither here nor there. I don't care about your German friends, not because I don't like them, I just don't give a shit as I mentioned above. Moreover, your original research/anecdote/unscientific polling has the relevance of...well, my opinion of Germans. There are polls about country beliefs in alternative medicine, and Germany was ahead of even the dumb old USA on this point. But back on topic. Since creationism is not scientific, is unsupported by science, has not one single real peer reviewed article supporting it, giving any weight to it in a comparison between real science and evolution denialism would be undue. NPOV also means we show all the evidence that a fringe theory is fringe. It's not here to say "here's evolution and here's creationism, go figure it out." THAT would be Oprahpedia. No, we say, and I'm paraphrasing here, "creationism is a fringe theory that's full of shit. Evolution is real science that is a fact. If you want to be a denialist, be our guest, lots of people are." OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That's what I meant by Oprahpeida. As for the rest, I'm well aware this is not a forum. Silence is the best answer to everything else. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 09:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I an observation regarding reliability of sources (based on earlier comments). For the sake of illustration, if you are putting together a wikipedia article on the reasoning and beliefs of socialism compared to capitalism, you would labor to illustrate each school of thought by quoting leading writers and leaders in each, by tracing their roots and influences, etc. The sources would be considered credible only if they accurately portray the viewpoint of each, totally regardless of whether that author is considered 'correct'. Therefore, a 'source' is valid on this page if it reflects accurately the beliefs of each. Since creationist are not usually allowed to publish in academic peer reviewed journals when analyzing macro-evolution for instance, you couldn't get many highly respected, secular sources to illustrate their point of view, but that is okay because that isn't required if your goal is to illustrate their claims. Credible sources do exist for creationism/intelligent design, since their work is published and readily available at my local Barnes and Nobel. No one building this page is supposed to care whether they are right or wrong when editing this thing anyway; the point of this page, I assume, is to show what each side says, right? Just a thought. (AlwaysQuestioning (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC))

Not exactly. The point of this page is to show what reliable SECONDARY sources have to say about the topic. Primary sources can be used for some purposes, but with caution and with proper attribution and context. NPOV doesn't mean that creationists are allowed to "present their case", their opponents are allowed to respond, and the reader is left to "sort it out" for themselves. That's what the books you see at B&N are for. And Conservapedia and a half-dozen odd sites like it. Wikipedia has guidelines how to present topics of a psudoscientific nature. The viewpoint WP is written from is the mainstream view of experts in the field in question, in this case, biology. See WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE.

Also, creationists are perfectly able in every way to publish in peer-reviewed journals, and many of them do, Mike Behe and Maciej Giertych, for example. Of course, it is not surprising that, if they submit work that does not qualify as science, their work will be rejected for publication. This has nothing to do with "discrimination" against Creationists per se. Just discrimination against bad science or non-science.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

When creationists demonstrably misrepresent the facts -- the current state of relevant scientific research, quote mining prominent scientists, etc -- they render themselves unreliable sources -- i.e. they lose all "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". As they do this fairly ubiquitously, creationist works that would be a reliable source are a rarity. Add to that the fact that their popularity is generally inversely proportional to their accuracy (the few creationist sources that accurately represent the true scientific status of evolution, e.g. what I've seen of Kurt Wise's writings on the subject, would make fairly depressing reading to most creationists) -- prominent, reliable creationist sources is likely to be complete oxymoron. 05:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

For Behe, I was being sarcastic. The thing is very few Creationists aren't religious. All clear? Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 11:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

US focus

The article seems a little odd to me in its present state because it is so overwhelmingly focused on the US, whereas WP is supposed to be global. I understand that creationism is especially prevalent here in the US, but even so, it seems extremely skewed. It's very awkward that there is so much overly detailed discussion of US law, culture, and politics near the beginning, with the corresponding non-USian discussion tacked on at the end.--75.83.69.196 (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Outside of the US and a few Muslim countries, there is no controversy. Evolution is accepted as a fact in advanced countries as in Europe, the UK, Japan, Australia, Canada...etc. etc. That's why there's a focus on the US. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Orangemarlin here. The controversy is pretty much confined to the US, and even when creation is found in other countries like Australia, the UK, etc., it remains a distinctly American phenomenon, rather than a home-grown movement. If you are dissatisfied with the level of coverage other countries get, by all means feel free to expand those sections. However, if your goal is to "de-Americanize" this article, it would be as pointless as de-Americanizing the article on Abraham Lincoln. The religious environment in the US is unique, and Creationism is one of its most unique features. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Observations on objective phrasing

It is nice to see that an article on such a controversial issue has remained fairly neutral and I applaud the editors on this page who have managed to keep it so. I do have a couple of thoughts on biased wording I'll toss out. I think it is particularly important that the opening paragraphs be worded as carefully as possible to maintain an objective tone. The wording currently is the following:

The creation–evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) is a recurring cultural, political, and theological dispute about the origins of the Earth, humanity, life, and the universe.

The dispute is between those who, despite contrary evidence, support a creationist view based upon their religious beliefs, versus those who accept evolution, as supported by scientific consensus. The dispute particularly involves the field of evolutionary biology, but also the fields of geology, paleontology, thermodynamics, nuclear physics and cosmology. Though also present in Europe and elsewhere, and often portrayed as part of the culture wars, this debate is most prevalent in the United States.

While the controversy has a long history, today it is mainly over what constitutes good science, with the politics of creationism primarily focusing on the teaching of creation and evolution in public education.

Specific concerns:

• "The dispute is between those ..." - This sentence shows a pretty deliberate bias and there is no real reason for it. Something like the following is adequate without showing any form of favoritism.

This disputes generally pits those who support the view that life was originally created by an intelligent being (the creationist view) against those who support the view that life came from inanimate materials about through natural processes (the evolutionist view). Creationist arguments are almost invariably closely tied directly or indirectly to religious doctrines, particularly those that adhere to very literal interpretations of scriptures.

• "today it is mainly over what constitutes good science ..." - Problematic statement (bold assertion that's hard to prove) and the first part doesn't exactly tie into the last part. Maybe something like the following would be better:

The controversy has a long history, particularly in recurring debates regarding biology curriculum in U.S. public schools. These debates have spawned legislation and court cases such as the Scopes trial.

--192.88.165.35 (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not favoritism. Wikipedia has responsibility to represent The Truth about WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE theories (read Creationism). -Abhishikt 21:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• The proposed rewording fails to reflect that one side has the vast weight of scientific evidence, scientific research, scientific consensus and the scientific community on its side. It is no more the "evolutionist view" than modern physics is the "gravitationist view" -- it is the scientific view. Giving equal weight to the pseudoscientific "creationist view" is against Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Also I would point out that a large swathe of creationism, Old Earth creationism (which includes progressive creationism and intelligent design), is not "tied" to "very literal interpretations of scriptures". I would further point out that given the vast number of books that have been written on whether or not Evolution (and/or uniformitarian Geology) or Creationism "constitutes good science" demonstrates the truth of this assertion, and given that a significant subset of these books are cited in this, and related, articles, it is easily verifiable. It would be very difficult to find a book touching on the subject of creationism, from George McCready Price's Illogical Geology (1906) onwards, that does not address this subject. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me repeat - It's not favoritism to one side of view. Wikipedia has responsibility to represent The Truth about WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE theories (read Creationism).

After you understand that please provide WP:RS supporting "creationist view" in form of published papers in respected journals, providing evidence that creationism is a fact and not a myth. -Abhishikt 05:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, everything you just said is deliberate bias. Preloading the statements about the two sides with implications of who has the better argument is intentionally trying to push a point of view. Read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. And remember that this article is not about evolution. There is already an article about that. This article is about the controversy.

The point is that you should let the facts speak for themselves. You can state very clearly that the majority of scientists discredit the creation idea without having to attack creationists in every sentence (or attack them at all). Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --192.88.165.35 (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I would similarly be critical of starting out an article on Hitler saying "Adolf Hilter was a psychopath who murdered millions of innocent people and spawned waves of ethnic hatred that last to this day". Frankly I agree with every word of that but it is horribly inappropriate to introduce the subject that way even if you can back it up with references. --192.88.165.35 (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

And this article doesn't open by pointing out that "Creationism is the bigoted fantasy of religious cranks, designed to indoctrinate religious beliefs and instil a distrust of science." Similarly, the article on Hitler (I don't know who this Hilter character is), makes prominent mention in the lead of his antisemitism and "the systematic murder of as many as 17 million civilians". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The point is that the Hilter article does not lead with how bad a person he was. It brings up the murders appropriately and in a factual way. But these don't even come up in the first paragraph. In other words that article attempts to let the facts speak for themselves, not try to push any particular opinion.

I'll reiterate that I think for the most part this article is pretty neutral. I was simply trying to point out a couple of instances where bias has crept in and suggest fixing these. That's all. --192.88.165.35 (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

And this article does say 'how bad a people creationists are'. It brings up the fact that they are contradicted by science "appropriately and in a factual way. But these don't even come up in the first paragraph." Per WP:FRINGE & WP:DUE we are required to give some indication of relative scientific support of the competing claims -- and in fact this is also entirely consistent with WP:LEDE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

(undent)That is rationalizing. Those problematic sentences are deliberately conflating issues. That is, they are trying to push a point of view rather than relate facts. Trying to push a point of view with facts does not make a statement neutral (this is the difference between letting facts speak for themselves and using them as weapons). --97.194.178.237 (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Points of Agreement

I think it would be helpful to add a section to this page detailing agreements between evolutionist and creationist. Importantly, they all agree on the reality of Adaptation through Natural Selection. They also agree about the vast majority, if not all, of operational science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gryderart (talk • contribs) 16:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(i) The correct term is "scientist" not "evolutionist". (ii) Creationists only accept a specially-neutered version of natural selection -- one that can produce miraculous radiation within kinds from a tiny initial population within only a few thousand years, but equally miraculously always stops short at the magic kind boundary. This view of evolution is viewed by the scientific community as laughable WP:Complete bollocks. (iii) Creationists disagree with Geology, Cosmology, Biogeography, Population Genetics, Nuclear Physics, and a host of other fields. Scientific fields are heavily intermeshed, so it is generally hard to deny one area without finding yourself in a denial of a whole heap of others. Science and creationism might agree that the sky is blue -- unless of course somebody finds a Biblical interpretation that they think requires that it be red. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No, they don't believe in natural selection, not universally. Creationists run the gamut from "I believe in evolution, but god did it too" to "god made exactly everything exactly as it is now and there's no evidence at all otherwise". Just about any form of creationism short of deism is incompatible with modern science. Luckily, no one demands that you believe science; it just exists. It doesn't need to be noted in the article because 1. It's not true. 2. It's relevance needs to be established in reliable sources. 3. Related information in established in section 2.6. i kan reed (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Nylon-eating bacteria and creationism

Can anyone think of a good way to de-orphan this article: Nylon-eating bacteria and creationism? Considering the implications I am surprised it has not garnered more notice on WP. Colincbn (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really -- it simply is not a major (or even anything more than a a very very minor) topic in any form of creationism, or creationist argument, or to any major creationist. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL turns up almost no coverage, and none relevant to any wider topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, that article is looking like a good candidate for deletion. The pertinance of nylon eating bacteria to the general subject of evolution makes it worth of potential inclusion in a number of articles. On it's own, it's not really an encyclopedic subject. Should I propose a merge? If so, where? i kan reed (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:EGG

In the introduction, there a lot of links that don't go to their subject. In particular, I feel like the name's of the linked articles would make more sense than the text that is actually shown. Anyone else got any input on this? i kan reed (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Liberty University

I was surprised to see that this article does not include any reference to Liberty University, while the wikipedia of Liberty university does refer to this 'debate'. Since I'm new to this, could someone give me clearance to write about this subject in this article? I don't want to spend hours writing something, and then find out it's not appropriate. The mentioned LU wikipedia section can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_University#Biology_and_fossils. Helemaalnicks (talk) 10:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see any evidence that Liberty University has played a notable role in the controversy. The only creationist at LU who is at all notable is Marcus Ross, and in the grand scheme of things, he is a small-time player. Unless you can provide solid reliable independent secondary sources that LU has indeed palyed an important role in the debate, there is no good reason to mention it in this article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Some topical connections are only notable in one direction. A hypothetical article on the Sharp R-426LS Microwave would almost certainly link to Electromagnetic radiation, as that's an important factor of the former- but that latter, more notable topic needn't include a link to an individual application of its topic. --King Öomie 15:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I would think an accredited university offering majors in biology teaching creationism to >50.000 students while it also is a YEC university would be considered an influential party in the controversy. EDIT: nevermind, apparently my source about LU 'teaching' 'creation science' isn't reliable. Helemaalnicks (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"“One of the distinguishing fac-tors of Liberty is that every single student here takes a class called creationist studies,” said Campus Pastor Johnnie Moore." How are they accredited to provide degrees? Who on earth let that happen?

I'd love to start this school- 'We offer several mathematics degrees. Also, all students are required to take our course, 'Why math is Satan's work and all clearly false'. --King Öomie 15:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

How many articles are lacking discussion of LU now? Is this some sort of stealth advertising campaign? i kan reed (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Be Gentle :-). I think it's just a matter of an inexperienced editor doing their best to improve the encyclopaedia. Mildly Mad^T_C 16:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I get your point. i kan reed (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A concerned reader

I find the first sentence HIGHLY biased, as any "evidence" evolutionists claim to have can easily be interpreted either way. It is very simmilar to the half-full/half-empty argument and highly offensive to those with non-evolutionary beliefs. Please consider changing it to a more neutral tone, as it would be fairer and less agressive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.2.252 (talk • contribs)

Not that it really needs a response, but I think you should read Denialism. — raekyt 07:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Or the myth of Procrustes, who (if not for the misfortune of being from the wrong mythos) would have made a really great Patron Saint of Creationist Research Methods. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

We find here a standard case of the "everything's unfair" complaint of bias, that circumvents citing something in particular that is wrong with an article and just asserts its wrongness. We'd love to discuss improvements to resolving bias in any specific cases you'd like to point out. The problem is those individual points tend to be very well supported already in contentious articles like this one. Those points are always worth a discussion, but this mindless "I think creationists might be right, therefor the article is biased" type of thing doesn't help improve the articles. Since you're new, I reccomend taking a look at the reliable sources requirement Wikipedia has. It's how we establish facts for this article, not the opinions of the editors. Thanks i kan reed (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the Evidence is pretty clear cut. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying that I find the article biased based on my belief. What I am saying is that it is an encyclopeadia's job to produce NEUTRAL facts. That is, mostly using facts that both sides of the argument agree to and stating an even number of arguments from both sides without pushing either side as right.

If you look at Creationist websites, such as Answers in Genisis, you would find a large collection of arguments supporting Creationism. This article, to me, does not seem to produce enough of that evidence.

Also, creationists would argue a common DESIGN, not DECENT. Creationism has as much right to be heard as any other form of science, because it IS a science. It integrates "religious" beliefes as much as ANY science does (even evolution, which starts on the "religious" belief that there is no God) and produces its own evidence based on a different interpretation of the data. How is that so different to Evolution that it can't be called and treated as a separate science? (John)

We do not give equal weight to scientific proven fact and unverifiable beliefs. Instead we give due weight to the evidence in reliable secondary sources. There is no evidence for creationism. None.--Charles (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not agree to your claim. However, if you are seeing it from a point of public acceptance, then I would agree that, to some extent, evidence of creation is not accepted as being true in your particular circle as evolution is. However, in many other circles, such as the Pentacostal circle, it is widely accepted as true. So, how is saying there is no evidence for something, when there is a ligitimate sized group that says there is, not biased. Creationism does not ever say there is no evidence for evolution. Rather, it teaches that the evidence can be seen in another angle. Science should be the study of knowledge from all angles, not just one that the majority of people accept. THAT is being biased.

Or was it right for the scientists of old to keep us from believing the earth was round? If they had had their way, I don't think you would be allowed to send your rockets into outer space. They would be too afraid you might produce evidence that they couldn't rebut. (John)

Science is not a "belief system," it's just a method to discover things about the universe we live in. What we've discovered so far leads us to the conclusion that life on earth shares a common ancestor and that species are selected by a natural process. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and like any encyclopedia, it represents a consortium of knowledge. Just like we present the Atomic Theory of matter as fact because it is the scientific consensus of our understanding of matter, we present theory of evolution as fact because it is the scientific consensus of our understanding of biology. There is no debate here and creationism is not a competing "theory," it's just a religious explanation for natural phenomenon, and on wikipedia mythology is not presented as a realistic representation of the universe. N^oformation ^Talk 10:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So basically, Wikipeadia has lied or mislead when it talks about neutral ground. For whilst that information may be considered neutral in your circle, many other circles would consider it not neutral. It is my oppinion that the evidence you have given me proves you to be highly biased, just as the scientists of old. Might I encourage you to do a bit of study OUTSIDE of your own circle? You may find yourself to be all the better for it.

God bless.(John) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.24.85 (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand the concept of neutrality. Neutrality does not mean that all views are represented as fact or even as equally valid, it simply means that we report what reliable sources have to say. In regards to scientific articles, this means that we present the scientific consensus and we base said consensus on sources such as peer reviewed scientific journals and the like. But yes, you are correct that WP is not neutral in the sense that it's not biased, WP is in fact biased towards reliable sources. Just as we don't present raelianism as a valid, factual idea, we give no more or less credence to Christianity, Islam, ID, creationism, etc when it comes to describing reality. See WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE for mopre information. N^oformation ^Talk 10:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a very funny meaning you have for neutrality and what is credible. I hope you will one day be enlightened to the truth that Creationism and the word of God present.

May His peace go with you. (John) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.24.85 (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Peace, man. Regarding meaning, you don't seem to have noticed that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. And especially not The Truth. WP also has a specific meaning for neutrality, which you really should study if you want to make contributions here. . . dave souza, talk 14:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Evolution, being science, doesn't have ANYTHING to say about god, and certainly doesn't require (or even assume) that one does or doesn't exist. Every pro-creationism argument at AIG has been debunked or disproven (except for 'god exists'). THAT'S what you want us to present, alongside actual science that stands up to scrutiny? Your claim that your complain isn't firmly rooted in your own bias is laughable. And I think we could all do without the passive-aggressive "I'll pray for you". --King Öomie 17:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)