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
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.
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 May 2006 – July 2006 July 2006 – Oct 2006 Oct 2006 – Dec 2006 Dec 2006 – Jan 2007 Jan 2007 – April 20, 2007 April 20, 2007 – May 5, 2007 May 5, 2007 – October 31, 2007

No mention of drug resistance?

Didn't seen any mention of drug resistance which is another argument for evolution. See for example the article on antibiotic resistance. The diagram in the article shows a: "Schematic representation of how antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection. The top section represents a population of bacteria before exposure to an antibiotic. The middle section shows the population directly after exposure, the phase in which selection took place. The last section shows the distribution of resistance in a new generation of bacteria. The legend indicates the resistance levels of individuals." Pgr94 15:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is meant to be an overview of the "creation-evolution controversy", not a detailed listing of every "argument for evolution". The closest article to the latter topic is evidence of common descent. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Slightly more clarification, this is a page about primarily the political dispute, since there is no real scientific dispute. The page should not attempt to 'prove' evolution. WLU 16:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Pgr94, you correct that antibiotic resistance is another argument for evolution. In fact, it is "slam-dunk" evidence for evolution by natural selection. However, the effect of this evidence specifically on the creation-evolution political controversy has been limited, because creationists tend to see this only as evidence of what they call "microevolution", which they don't generally deny due to the overwhelming evidence in support of it. It might be worth including drug resistance as an example in another evolution-related article, if it is not already mentioned (just remember not to use the Wikipedia article as a source). — DIEGO ^talk 16:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem we have here is that there is not enough room in the articles of some of these topics for all the material that people want to insert in them. In areas like evolution and creationism, there are literally hundreds of linked articles that should be read to get a broad overview of the science and the politics. No single article can address it all, and a single article that did try to do this would be so large and unweildy that no one could edit it or write it or read it.--Filll 17:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole world is evidence of evolution. The article could probably read: "For more evidence of evolution, see Special:Random" User:Krator (t c) 17:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that the article is about the main classes of opinion, not the detailed arguments. Scientifically, antiobiotic resistance is pretty much "slam-dunk" as DIEGO puts it. As I wasn't aware that creationists make a distinction between micro- and macro- evolution, I thought it might be worth mentioning. Cheers. Pgr94 17:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The distinction is largely whether the changes we see are sufficient enough to explain molecules-to-men theories, and there is some technical discussion about information theory as well. The debate is about history rather than science from what I can tell. CobraA1 (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Creation-evolution controversy article paints a distorted picture of the debate

Unsubstantiated WP:SOAP userfied to User talk:Jhampson4 Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The debate influencing society

The debate has brought about 2 interesting side results

A board game (http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=536&Category_Code=) and a MMORPG (http://crevoscope.com), and I am sure some other such things. A mention of them should exist in the article, at least in passing... PS I am new here, so I apologize if I made some kind of error of etiquette... 20:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Yaroslav

Influences on society: making a lot of people angry by threatening to make many more ignorant. User:Krator (t c) 20:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think those are important enough to merit mention yet per WP:WEIGHT. But Krator, let's please try to maintain a civil discussion. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That was my point too, yes :) User:Krator (t c) 20:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Living Waters is part of Ray Comfort & Kirk Cameron's rather lightweight ministry, which tends to employ silly gimmicks (of which this boardgame is one). Unless substantive comment on this particular gimmick can be found in WP:RSs, I see no reason to mention it in the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

gallup poll

i've reverted the recent revert. the numbers given are nowhere in that video, which incidentally i watched before you reverted, as my original intention was to find the correct link and rewrite the sentence to include the sample population.--Mongreilf (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Creation & Evolution similarities

Creation and Evolution have similar traits.Evolutionists believe that the universe came from a cosmic egg which exploded in the big bang.Creationists believe God formed life.Both beliefs have something that has been there before Time began.God or a cosmic egg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesus Is risen (talk • contribs) 01:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Stunning. Baegis (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The differences are bigger than the similarities. One depends on data and other evidence. The other depends on the ranting and raving of assorted self-appointed religious experts and flakes who demand that everyone else accept their own personal interpretation of one version of thousands of contradictory error-ridden versions of a self-contradictory ancient text literally, in spite of disagreeing with the product of thousands of years of analysis by the greatest religious scholars that ever lived (such as St. Augustine, Maimonides and a who's who of the gifted and renowned minds who have devoted their entire lives to studying the scriptures). Feel free to believe whatever you personally want to. However, when you want to impose fruitcake ideas on everyone else by force, then there is a problem. Ok?--Filll (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's refrain from inflammatory speech. In regard to the similarities between the origins of the universe in the two opposing views, the primodial egg presumes matter preceded God while the reverse is true in Scripture. BryanSWiley (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. Render under caesar what is caesar's and unto god what is god's, right? And also, according to the Koran, there is no compunction in religion. And you are a bit confused about the two views but that is fine. Try to learn a bit more before you engage in rants here. We are here to write an encyclopedia. What are you here for?-Filll (talk) 05:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Evolution Biased

[ WP:SOAPbox-rant userfied to User talk:The Other Side of the Argument ] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Why was the entire section removed? I thought a valid discussion was going on. The Other Side of the Argument (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Because your claim that we should present the scientific merits of ID is itself without merit, as ID has no scientific merit. Raul654 (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It was not a "valid discussion" per WP:TALK. You were attempting to debate the validity of ID, not the contents of the article. You were also citing a patently absurd source: some random apologetics blogger's made-up "trillions of trillions of trillions" number. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I was not attempting to debate the merits of ID. I was trying to point out that the arguments of only one side is presented in the article. What evidence is there that the source of my evidence is bad. It seems the only ones trying to debate are the ones saying ID has no merits. The Other Side of the Argument (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This page is for discussing changes to the article. If you have specific proposals for changes to the article, feel free to share them. The rest of it really isn't relevant here. Guettarda (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

We get a lot of trolls and sockpuppets here, read through the archive and see if you're offering anything new. Otherwise, we've seen it before, read WP:V and WP:RS for why random blogs aren't sources. WLU (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Transitional fossils

This section is not neutral as it claims that the creationist's argument is based on a misunderstanding. This is subjective, as their argument is based on interpretation and therefore, you cannot say one is a misunderstanding over the other because you cannot know whether the evolutionist is misunderstanding the creationist's argument. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.173.184 (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have a contrary view, and it is published in a peer-reviewed mainstream journal like Science, Nature, Journal of the Royal Society, something published by the National Academy of Sciences or equivalent, then bring it to this talk page. Otherwise, it is just your own personal assertion and is not worth much.--Filll (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think the article is giving creationists too much credit in calling it a "misunderstanding" -- it appears to be a purposeful "strawman" distortion of "transitional feature" that they have created -- the old "what use is half an eye" fallacy (when evolution in fact deals with "an eye with half the features" -- where these "features" are colour, depth perception, focusing, etc, etc). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, please can you explain why this entire article is written from an evolutionary perspective? I am concerned that this article points out the flaws in creationists arguments rather than presenting, neutrally, what the debate is about. For example, the section on entitled Misrepresentations of Science constitutes an accusation against creationists that they misquote evolutionists when they may claim that evolutionists do exactly the same thing. And, from my research, both sides misquote and misrepresent one another. Another example of the non neutrality of this article can be found in this quote, "Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered." This is a valid defence of the arguments that creationists use but something which is inappropriate in an informational document claiming to present the facts of the debate, we have EvoWiki for that, it should not be brought up here. The neutrality of this article is severely in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.173.184 (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess you didnt read what I wrote above. Take a sentence you do not like. Present it here. Present a substitute version. Make sure you have WP:RS for your suggested change.--Filll (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. An example may be: "Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered." This sentence should be removed as this article is not supposed to be a defence of evolution but a presentation of the views of both sides. So maybe, rather than removing this sentence it could say, "Creationists claim that there are no transitional forms in the fossil records. Evolutionists dispute this as a fallacious claim and a misrepresentation of the facts." Surely the arguments are irrelevant from either side, all we need to know in this article is what either side believes, not the specific claim and refutation. Furthermore, if this sentence is allowed then surely a reference from a creationist's viewpoint should be citied? I am a user, not an editor and this article troubled me when I saw it because large parts of it do not appear to be neutral.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Well first, learn to sign your contributions or you will not be taken very seriously. Second, you have to provide sources if you want to make claims like that. For example, provide a source that shows that we would expect the fossil record to be so complete that all transitional forms should be present and found, if they existed. These sorts of sources should be in peer-reviewed science journals, like Science, Nature, Transactions of the Royal Society, or Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Then you will be taken seriously.--Filll (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on signing, I'm new here. Saying that sources should be in peer reviewed science journals is effectively asking the decks to be stacked the favour of the scientific communitie's viewpoint. Creationism is a fringe theory and is not accepted in the the scientific community but that is not relevant in this article. Sources are also irrelevant, the merits of each claim should not be being discussed here, this is an informative article, not a refutation of creationism. Is this a fair point?? Fritleyfrisp (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it is not absolutely necessary to have peer-reviewed sources, but there are a special set of rules about what sorts of sources are admissable, which can be found at WP:RS and WP:V. If you want to see how WP deals with fringe subjects, look at WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT to get an idea. The basic rule of thumb is that the views will be represented in accordance with their prominence, or in proportion with their prominence. So for fringe subjects, they are usually written from a mainstream point of view (POV). Look at inteligent design as a top-rated example of this.--Filll (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that this article should debate the relative merits of each side's argument, quite the opposite; it should present the controversy in a neutral fashion. I will repeat what I have said previously. This article is *not* a refutation of creationism, it is a presentation of the controversy. I find the article troubling in several places including the Misrepresentations of Science section which practically indicts creationists in a libellous slur against their integrity. Quote mining is not a neutral issue, it is a matter of interpretation. This article still troubles me and, if I knew how, I would report it to Wikipedia.Fritleyfrisp (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've just reported it to the community, which is all of us including yourself. Have a look at NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity" – Wikipedia's approach based on verifiable facts automatically doesn't give support to magical revealed Truth. It's quite wrong to read it as a slur against the integrity of creationists; though some have been found in court to have problems with perjury, I'm sure many are deeply and sincerely deluded. ... dave souza, talk 00:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The neutral observers of science have dealt with the problems of creationism in a neutral fashion. There's no controversy, there's a political battle that was started by the creationist side to force the scientific educational system to embrace a non-scientific theory. See the creation-evolution controversy. There is no scientific merit to the creationist 'side', and this has amply been demonstrated many, many times. But if you've got a reliable source, put it up. WLU (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether they have demonstrated it or not is irrelevant to this article. I am not proposing that we debate the merits, or lack thereof, of each side, just that the facts are presented. A large portion of the Transitional Fossils section serves to show the Creationist's misunderstanding of transitional fossils. This article is not the place to do that, we have blogs and EvoWiki for that. Please don't miss the point Fritleyfrisp (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

First, Filll, you should not WP:BITE the newcomers, especially while incorrectly using the {{unsigned}} template, as you did here.

Second, WP:FRINGE is probably not applicable to this article in the way that you think. I suspect you think that WP:FRINGE should be applied to creationism, creation science, and intelligent design in this article as it should in articles having to do with science. In this article, the WP:FRINGE POV would be that the C/E controversy will lead to nuclear Armageddon, or that the C/E controversy is part of a New World Order conspiracy theory.

But, this is mostly a socio-political controversy, not just a scientific controversy. Consequently, except in sections dealing with the scientific controversy, the NPOV is a socio-political POV (e.g., the POV of Larson and/or Numbers), not a "scientific" (read: NCSE, Panda's Thumb, TalkOrigins) POV. Indeed, this article reads like a sophomoric NCSE imitation.

You know this, and you understand this, and you've heard this before. But it is time you start considering the message instead of what you view to be the character faults of the messenger. Pernicious Swarm (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for playing. NEXT!--Filll (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"[E]specially while incorrectly using the {{unsigned}} template"? So what are you trying to say - that one's usage of {{unsigned}} has any bearing on anything at all? Please try to be civil. Guettarda (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I will try. Where were you when Filll jumped on a newbie for not signing. "Well first, learn to sign your contributions or you will not be taken very seriously."[1] Not too friendly, and what does signing have to do with the validity of what one writes? Pernicious Swarm (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"I will try" And yet you continue. Guettarda (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo is watching. Ever watching. Pernicious Swarm (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is the last time I will say this. The lack of scientific merit is not under debate in this article, this article claims to be representation of the facts of the controversy, not a debunking of the creationist model. It is not an article which is intended to debunk creationism. I'm not sure how many different ways I have to say this in order for it to sink in. The neutrality of this article is questionable, especially in the Transitional Fossils section. Whether or not the creationists view of transitional fossils is a misunderstanding is totally irrelevant to the controversy. I have attempted to put this across in a sensible fashion but some users are trying to get me to offer the other side of the argument. The other side of the argument is not appropriate for this article!!! Let me say it one more time to be clear: this article is NOT intended to document the alleged falsehoods propogated by the creationist community. It is NOT the appropriate place to accuse creationists of quote mining, if you wish to do that, get a blog or provide balanced evidence that evolutionists and indeed writers in other disciplines don't do this. It is NOT a place to defend evolution. Please look objectively at what I am saying for the good of this article because your current attitude is serving to show undue bias. Please use EvoWiki to debunk creationism. Many thanksFritleyfrisp (talk) 09:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Detailed proposals for improvements with reliable third party sources will be welcomed. Of course, if sources present points as significant points in the controversy, whether for or against, these should be proportionately represented. Unfortunately many creationists are prone to quote mining, and to recycling the same old mined quotes – ID presents startling examples of this tendency. As the article indicates, some such as AiG advise against some quotemines, but I'm not in a position at present to say if they do it themselves. If a reliable third party source has presented evidence of "evolutionists" doing the same, that can be included. ... dave souza, talk 10:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Dave, do you think NPR is reliable? More reliable (and objective) than NCSE puppets? Well, take a look at this reliable source then. Of course, panda's thumb regulars and NCSE meat puppets have their own mythology surrounding these events. Pernicious Swarm (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, Summer for the Gods is a good source for this article. It might not be the best source for an article on intelligent design (except in a historical section) but it is a wonderful source for this article. Pernicious Swarm (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose it is removed because the accusation that creationists misquote evolutionists claiming that they don't believe their own theory is a distortion of the facts. I have yet to come across a creationist who claims that an evolutionist's admission that the problems with the theory serve to prove that it is untrue. In my experience, creationists quote evolutionist's not in an attempt to disprove the theory, merely to demonstrate that there are problems with the theory that even evolutionist's admit. This section, therefore, is biased, based on a emotion driven point of view of the fringe argument. So, I propose we remove the Misrepresentations of Science section and clean up the transitional fossils section. Being new to Wiki, I'm going to need some time to see how this is done and perhaps then I could come back with a proposal. Many thanks. Fritleyfrisp (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Rfc: What is the NPOV for an article on a socio-political controversy involving school boards, religions, and science

This article reads like a posting at the Panda's Thumb blog, and many of the main contributors seem to think that the NPOV for this article is the scientific POV. However, the controversy has been covered by historians (e.g., Numbers and Larson), and it has been suggested that a socio-political POV is the NPOV (for this article). Comments? 04:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing like a nice full stocking for Christmas.--Filll (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is broad to the point of being useless. Do you have specific suggestions, or just insults? Guettarda (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion One: Decide what is the NPOV for this article, section by section if necessary. I argue that it is the socio-political POV, and not the scientific POV, except in sections dealing specifically with scientific claims (or supposed refutations of said claims). Pernicious Swarm (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of Creationists got computers for their pagan holiday of Winter's Solstice.  :) Guettarda, don't take that as an insult, I'm just cranky about what's going on around here :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is NPOV. It isn't something we "decide" for articles by a vote. Guettarda (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you all IM'ing each other? Pernicious Swarm (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, do you have a point, or are you just relying on insults? Ever heard of Special:Watchlist? This an 6821 other pages are on mine. Guettarda (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jingle bell jingle bell jingle bell sock! Some great hits being repeated here tonight!--Filll (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So this article is on the RFChist list ? Is that like the RFCreationist list?Filll (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a socio-political-historical controversy that just happens to involve scientists among others. Historians are better equipped. But I see somebody has IM'd the guardian admins, which will probably stifle and slant the conversation. Pernicious Swarm (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Some observations

1. The alleged controversy is about evolution vs creationism. This is a scientific subject and among the scientific community there is no debate and therefore we have no controversy.
2. Those insisting there is a controversy are either a fringe group of scientists or religious-political individuals.
3. Nowhere do we allow the opinion of politicians-religious groups to dictate the scientific debate, i.e. I have yet to see anybody claiming that since some lone wolf argues that condoms do not prevent STD's (HIV) the medical community rolls over to accept there now is a controversy on the efficacy of the use of condoms.
4. NPOV dictates that we present the facts that among scientists there is no controversy and only people with political-religious interests try to convince the world that scientists are still debating this.

Respectfully Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Nice comment, Nescio. But, "[[teach the controversy|alleged controversy]]" is a different article. Pulizer prize winning Larson disagrees with your misapplied conclusion that this is a scientific dispute. And scientists are not historians and they are not political scientists and they are not sociologists and they are not journalists. Too, Barbara Bradley Hagerty disagrees with you. See this NPOV piece for example. (Journalists know a little more about objectivity than Panda's Thumb members moonlighting as wikipedians, who, for some reason, believe that a science blog is more reliable on socio-political aspects of a dispute than NPR).

What is and what is not NPOV can be guided by consensus, Guettarda.

Filll, you really should concentrate on the message. You hear the words to the song but it's like they're in a different language. Pernicious Swarm (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)