Talk:Objections to evolution

Neutrality of Language

Dead thread that doesn't have much to do with improving the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Statements regarding creationist and intelligent design advocacy as "mediaeval" in nature, and rendering the argument as totally ignorant is hardly neutral. If one believes another conception is false, such should be proven with facts, not subjective ad-hominem statements. The best way to prove a point is with cordiality and factuality, not ambiguos terminology and explanations. Nor reducing a belief regarded by many intellectual minds as veritable, to triviality and barbarism. Same with creationists / intelligent design advocates countering Neo-Darwinian Evolution. Wikipedia, if I understand correctly is not intended for heated debates, but objective information. --Tatoranaki (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Uhhm, "Medieval" is used correctly, neutrally and non-pejoratively here in a very literal sense. I'm sorry, but you misunderstood. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Ah, but the great chain of being is a classical conception, devised by Plato and Aristotle (Moral Implications - Humans as Animals). I apologize if I misunderstand, however, the language of the article appears to belittle the opposition. For example: "The scientific community, however, does not accept such objections as having any validity, citing detractors' misinterpretations of scientific method, evidence, and basic physical laws." Many prominent evolutionists, such as Dawkins, have stated that some form of intelligent design had to be implemented. Prominent scientists have become proponents of Intelligent Design, well aware of the scientific method and basic physical laws. I say this not to promote Creationism or Intelligent Design, but to identify what I believe to be a breach of objectivity and civility. --Tatoranaki (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC) "Many prominent evolutionists, such as Dawkins, have stated that some form of intelligent design had to be implemented." i would like to see that quote.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC) "If you look at the details of our chemistry [or] molecular biology. You might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process." -Dawkins --Tatoranaki (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC) That's a hypothetical. Examine the definition of the word "might" carefully when considering the meaning of that sentence.—Kww(talk) 03:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC) It's hypothetical and the point is clearly to show that even if this was the case it wouldn't explain anything. His point id not to suggest that creationism makes sense. That is a clear misinterpretation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC) It's not a misinterpretation, it's a misrepresentation, and unscrupulous quote-mine. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC) The producers of "Expelled" deliberately mislead Dawkins, claiming that Stein was interviewing him for a different movie, "Crossroads," then edited the footage of the interview in order to falsely portray Dawkins as a hypocritical, malevolent fop who hates religion, and seeks to persecute Intelligent Design proponents, yet, is secretly one, himself.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Do you have proof of this statement or is this your original research that you've gotten off the grape vine? Maybe he really is a hypocritical, malevolent fop - I don't think any of us know him personally. And if it were true, it wouldn't be any worse than the sneak attack interviews or hack job editting that are so commonly done by reporters on both the left and the right. In fact, Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC just did it to Mitt Romney by implying that he's an out-of-touch fool when the full text of the video (which I've seen) clearly shows different. Ckruschke (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke Did you ever watch the movie, "Expelled"? Did you ever read about how the producers of "Expelled" lied to many of the scientists they interviewed, claiming they were making a movie called "Crossroads"? Did you even bother to read the wikipedia article on "Expelled"? Did Andrea Mitchell lie to Mitt Romney, claiming she was from FoxNews? Or, do you just like attacking me whenever I say something you dislike?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC) The thing about Romney is not even tangential to this discussion anyway. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC) I'll check his other statement for a hypothetical, and post it if you're interested. --Tatoranaki (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Kww is correct. The quote occurred during an interview for the movie Expelled, where he was asked (repeatedly) if some form of "intelligent design" could have possibly occurred under any circumstances. He went out of his way to conjure up some possibility, and was subsequently misrepresented by Stein in order to make a point in the movie. Dawkins has since discussed it in depth; see here, for example. Ultimately, this comes down to reliable sources. We need sources to discuss changes to the article in any depth. The current article is sourced extensively.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Among other things, this and other related articles actually do explain why the mindsets and concepts of Creationism and Intelligent Design and other topics (i.e., "the great chain of being") are "mediaeval" in nature: that, and "neutrality" does not always mean giving both sides of a topic/conflict equal weight. Please see WP:UNDUE--Mr Fink (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Neutrality also does not mean not offending someone. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC) IF offended means upset over having your bronze age beliefs proven wrong by methodological science mountains of evidence, then sure neutrality means that. — raekyt 14:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"Moral implications" section

I oppose having this material in (and I think it should have its own article) and would like to lead the effort to get it out.

The entire section is nonsense: All this section boils down to is (1) 'it is bad because it leads to X, like doing/believing bad things, so let's not actually evaluate this theory for what it is on the question of whether or not its a theory based on, like, good evidence' (2) 'hey, if humans came from monkeys, I guess we're not superior to them' (3) 'everything bad is caused by this theory' (4) 'this is condusive to bad thing, so it's bad, even though you could totally believe in this and not do bad thing'

Now, of course, someone is going to point out "But these ARE common objections to evolution". Yes, but someone can say "I object to you having ice cream because the moon is made of sand". That doesn't mean we should actually treat it as an appropriate objection, as in one which is intellectually honest, as in one that is not a cookie-cutter objection that can be used against, seriously, anything.

The theory of evolution is a theory and should be evaluated on its merits. All this section is is "I object for a reason that has nothing to do with it". I don't see how that belongs on this page. I would like us to stick with legitimate and plausible objections. Byelf2007 (talk) 2 January 2012

This whole page is nonsense and shouldn't exist, but because a buch of fairly vocal nutcases don't accept reality and instead think the wisdom and traditions of bronze age goat herders is all that is relevant we need this page. The moral objections to evolution is well documentable and prevalent in these people's arguments. Do you not think it's a common argument among the evolution deniers? — raekyt 17:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If I received a penny for every time I heard or was told by a religious rightwinged pundits For Jesus, or one of their braindead fans or creationist troll about how Evolutionism/Darwinism is so evil, just on Wikipedia, alone, I would accrue enough money to bribe the government of mainland China to buy Wikipedia for me. Seriously, as much as all three of us would like otherwise, we can not ignore the fact that many evolution-deniers deny evolution because they were taught that learning evolution magically makes one evil and or magically hurts Jesus' feelings.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The objections are ludicrous, but, notable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding mechanisms to "Creation of information" section

I think the "creation of information" section could use some more information on the mechanisms involved in producing additional genetic information. I'm not particularly well-versed in this area, and I know evolution-creationism articles can be a hot bed of controversy, so I'm reluctant to make the edit outright.

If I recall some of these mechanisms include transposable elements and insertions, but also chromosomal crossover in some rare cases? If someone who's a bit sharper on the subject could clarify, I'd be happy to make the edits. Cheers! Scientific29 (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you asking about more information on the mechanisms from the Creationist side or the Evolutionary side? Because, again at the risk of controversy, I see a clear lacking in Creationist view point here as the "you can't create information from evolution" argument is much deeper than the one sentence shown and this section and much of the article, though listed as "Objections to evolution" are really presented as "ways that Creationism is wrong". I can't comment on the Evolutionary side. Ckruschke (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

I was asking for mechanisms that produce additional genetic information, to address the concern that modern evolutionary synthesis does not provide these mechanisms. Although, if there are additional notable creationist arguments to be made on this subject, I'd say they should probably be included in the article while we're at it.Scientific29 (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Nagel

Dbrodbeck has reverted my addition of material related to Thomas Nagel's objection to Neo-Darwinism, questioning whether the material is notable. The material is notable, having received responses by Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, and a large host of other writers, see Mind and Cosmos#External links. — goethean 16:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerry Fodor's argument against Darwinism (What Darwin Got Wrong) should also be included in the article. — goethean 16:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

What sort of responses? I don't mean content wise, I mean like where and when were these responses made? Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussed at nauseating length in the talk page archives at Intelligent Design. Consensus was that Nagel's self-admittedly non-specialist opinion generated very little if any interest and support or interest, and was soundly criticized by more qualified philosophers of science. As an extreme minority position, it shouldn't be assigned any weight. While Nagel is a serious philosopher, his knowledge about science and the philosphy of science leaves a lot to be desired, as he himself admits. Nevertheless, he's a darling of creationists because he's an atheist who disagrees with naturalistic science, which they interpret as supporting their cause. Naturally, tehy misrepresent his arguments. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The external links at Mind and Cosmos, which could easily be expanded, show that Nagel's book has been widely discussed; none of the links are to creationists. Intelligent design is not the right place for a discussion of Nagel, since he doesn't actually, you know, believe in intelligent design. Nagel thinks that some law seems to tilt the universe towards complexity or consciousness. This has really nothing to do with intelligent design, apart from the fact that creationists want to misuse his arguments for their own ends. — goethean 15:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you point me to where this was discussed? — goethean 15:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC) found it

Also, it is hard for me to understand why Alvin Plantinga's argument is considered appropriate here, but Nagel's isn't. Plantinga isn't a philosopher of science either. He's kind of an epistemologist and philosopher of religion. Maybe Plantinga, Fodor, and Nagel's recent philosophical objections could all be mentioned in a brief statement with links to each of their arguments. — goethean 15:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms from a minority of scientists

There have been criticisms from a minority of scientists. "Since then, nearly all criticisms of evolution have come from religious sources, rather than from the scientific community"- where is the reference or evidence for this statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.143.88 (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It is referenced later in the article, the lede does not need refs, it is a summary of the article itself. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Statements made in the lede do not need references or citations if they are further explained (and given appropriate references and citations) in the appropriate section later in the article, as per Manual of Style--Mr Fink (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Too much weight on Creationism

The majority of arguments in this article focus on how Creationists object to Evolution, and most paragraphs are along the lines of "Creationists say this..., but they are wrong because of this..., therefore this argument is invalidated".

Well, no – the argument is only invalidated if you believe in evolution. This is cyclical reasoning that hinges on unfalsifiability. Two important things are needed to improve this article –

1. There are other anti-evolution theories apart from Creationist ones.

2. This article reads like a "Let's prove evolution exists" textbook.

An encyclopaedia article shouldn't have a mini-conclusion at the end of every paragraph that proves/disproves every point made (as this article does), but should merely list the arguments and allow readers to make up their minds. Hence why the article is called "Objections to Evolution", and not "The Cr*pness of Objections to Evolution". See what I'm saying? BigSteve (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

From my reading the article does a nice job summarizing the overwhelming scientific consensus. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Um...that's what the Evolution article is for... BigSteve (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your suggestion. Let's take a specific example, the Objections_to_evolution#Unreliable_or_inconsistent_evidence section. How would you improve that while staying within the constraints of WP:PSCI ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well first off, the editor who wrote this section has attempted to prove that questioning radiocarbon dating is nonsense because "one source" says its been proved and independently verifies eachother. However, I can point to a recent article within a peer-reviewed, non-Christian, magazine that states that multiple radiocarbon testing by multiple sources had done just the opposite - given multiple dates and the authors are mystified as to why. So can I swap out the citation and change the text? Which one is right - the one that backs up my truth or yours? My non-NPOV source has much more extensive citations (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/radiocarbon-ages-for-ammonites-wood and http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible as only two sources) than the existing non-NPOV citation shown so is it better? The point is that the editor has chosen one source - a webpage that is set up with a single focus, to debunk creationism and is thus a non-NPOV source - as the end all, beat all source. Going beyond this one section, I agree with BigSteve's overall comment that the article is clearly written as "Point 1 - Proof that Point 1 is Crap. Point 2 - Proof that Point 2 is Crap. etc, etc". I can think of no other pages on Wiki that are written this way (other than basically All the other Christian pages). Ckruschke (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Present your source? How are we to evaluate it otherwise? I will be astonished if it's a reputable journal that in anyway insinuates the researchers are "mystified." My guess is that it's a paper dealing with statistical confidence. Secondly, there is no such thing as a non-POV source; every source has a POV, it's just that some POVs (e.g. those of experts) outweigh others (e.g. those of non-experts). And no, not all or basically all Christianity related pages are written like this, not even close. The only pages of which I'm aware that follow a similar structure are those where the facts are well established and modern religious movements create social controversy that encyclopedias unfortunately have to explain. Needless to say, this is one of those articles but let's be clear here: there aren't substantial non-religious objections to evolution as a whole. There are aspects of evolution which are contentious - such as the question of whether human ancestors had some sort of aquatic lineage - but not evolution itself, except among the scientifically ignorant or those with a religious agenda. N^oformation ^Talk 22:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I still can't understand this suggestion given the constraints of policy and the obligations placed on editors. The example you provide involves a false equivalence. The scenario you describe would violate WP:PSCI because editors are required to "not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community". Sean.hoyland - talk 06:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What are the other theories of speciation besides evolution that aren't based on creationism? N^oformation ^Talk 11:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure WP:PSCI, it supports your point. "NO ONE" is asking you to check your brain at the door and write things you don't agree with. In the same vein, however, the OBJECTIONS to evolution should be clearly stated w/o the "one, two, three, kick" handling which I noted above. Considering the "Objections to Evolution" almost completely hinge on the popularly labelled "pseudo-scientists" basis for their objecting being on religeous grounds, one could suggest that this page be treated as more of a religeous page and WP:PSCI has clear guidelines on these pages which I completely support as fair and reasonable. Thus I have no problem with the "Objections to the Objections to Evolution" being stated on this page. Again that is fair and reasonable. However, I think that these should instead be captured in a single section. Thus the content could be treated in a NPOV WHILE CONTINUING to call into question the scientific basis as non-mainstream. This seems to be more than fair. I would hold up the referenced page that is listed in WP:PSCI (Moon landing conspiracy theories) as a perfect model for both stating the beliefs of these people in a fair manner while also debunking them. And if these far far fringe folks can be treated in a fair manner, I struggle to see why the much much larger group of Evolution objectors cannot be treated in a similar manner. Ckruschke (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Quick note: Moon landing conspiracy theories is a C-class article. Objections to evolution is a good article. As a general rule, we probably shouldn't be modeling good articles after C-class ones.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, confining the mainstrean view to a "ghetto" and burying it down in the article is considered bad form. The mainstream view should be presented in the body of the article together with the fringe statement. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We would be doing our readers a great disservice to present these views uncritically, whether that be by not explaining problems with specific objections or relegating the scientific explanations to an area away from the objections themselves. These objections, though aberrations of logic, can sound convincing to a scientifically uneducated person or to an uncritical mind and as an encyclopedia our job is to make sure people leaving the page have a good understanding of the topic. There's simply no reason to allow the psuedoscientific view to go unchecked, point by point. N^oformation ^Talk 23:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Well put by both DV and Noformation, I agree completely. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Jess: My point was not that we should bastardize the page by modeling it on a poorer page - simply that it was unfortunate that a loony position like Moon landing conspiracy theories is given stronger relevance than the much more wildly held view of Creationism both on the page itself and within the Talk page. Maybe I should have said Rush Limbaugh - this page has in the past been on the "good pages" list and I think it faithfully and truthfully relates the facets of Rush's career. An editor doesn't have to agree with his success/personality/views to be able to faithfully edit it.

Dominus Vobisdu: I am not stating that the mainstream view (i.e. evolution) should be relegated to the ghetto. Far from it. My point is that the article is ABOUT Objections to Creation while the article actually reads as "Objections to" Objections to Evolution. This may be the impossible dream considering the subject matter and the overall views of Wiki at large, but it just seems to me that a Wiki page should be about the subject at hand - not about what everyone else thinks about what that Wiki page is about. The information should stand on itself, whether people agree with it or not, and should be fairly related. This is journalism 101 and although Wiki isn't news, it should at least somewhat adhere to some writing conventions.

N^oformation: Not poking or trying to start something, but your strawman is part of the problem. So what you are saying is that it's Wiki's "job" to prevent someone from happening upon this page, forever going down the uneducated path of thinking Evolution isn't fact, and being ruined for life - really?!?! Whether someone will (obviously wrongly) agree with the views of large percentage of Christians?!?! The truth is that the lede (which I have no problem with) clearly states that Evolution is taught as mainstream and objections to it come almost exclusively from the Christian crowd - this is all true and stated without a non-NPOV. The job of Wiki is not to try and prove to someone how wonderful Coca-Cola, or Boeing, or The Eagles, or the United States of America is - or how infallible Evolution is. The job of Wikipedia is to plainly, objectively, and truthfully relate information on the subject at hand and having a page that clearly and without bias states the view of the "Objections to Creation" by no means weakens this goal. Whether you or any other editor agrees with these "aberrations of logic" is immaterial. Ckruschke (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Depends on what part of the story you are talking about. For instance, there are at least three variations of just "Biblical" creationism: Straight traditional "10K yr Creation" and "Godly creation of the first cells and then millions of years of evolution", and finally "traditional garden of Eden creation followed by (smaller) millions of years of Evolution". Obviously the latter two is a form of evolution but is still unaccepted by either the Evolutionary concensus or the conservative Creation crowd. This doesn't even count the creation stories of the other religeons - some of which are still held by their more devouts aspirants. So then is the root of the question is the actual "creation of life" point? Well if it is, there are many different camps even within the evolutionary crowd with even reputable sources espousing an extra-worldly source for life. My 2 cents. Ckruschke (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

What are the other theories of speciation besides evolution that aren't based on creationism? The latter part of your paragraph deals with biogenesis, not evolution. Additionally, anything but abiogenesis is on the far fringes of scientific thought but still is not at all incompatible (i.e. does not object to) with evolution. N^oformation ^Talk 21:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the replies! To NoFormation – I don't think we need to qualify by name any theory that objects to evolution (i.e. it doesn't need to be "creationism vs. evolution"), therefore it doesn't need to fall foul of WP:PSCI. Rather, it's possible to simply name valid scientific research that questions separate points - e.g. valid research that questions radiocarbon dating; valid research that points out apparent inconsistencies of fossils in rock strata; valid research that supports microevolution but not macroevolution, etc. After all, the article is not called "Theories that attempt to disprove Evolution", but "Objections to evolution". This allows for separate scientific inconsistencies to be listed and discussed, but without need for POV commentary or mini-conclusions about how right or wrong they are. We can let the facts (both pro- facts and against- facts, obviously) speak for themselves in each section. BigSteve (talk) 09:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about, there is no valid research (by valid I presume you mean published in peer reviewed scientific journals), that contradicts these things. Please provide sources if you think there is. — raekyt 04:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)