User talk:Dontletmedown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

[The section below was transferred from Talk:Creationism because the subject matter is not specifically related to improving that article. Posts to article talk pages should remain on-topic and help to improve the article. Talk pages are not a forum for general debates. Please see Wikipedia talk page guidelines for further information.]

Creationists?[edit]

I keep seeing in this article and others that 'creationists' say this or that. Now exactly who are these 'creationists'? Would Ben Stein be considered a creationist? Would President Bush? Could we make a list of the prominent Creationists, ID supporters, and what is the term used to refer to those who believe in Modern Evolutionary theory. I think a list would help here so we know who 'creationists' etc are. Dontletmedown 13:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not know Ben Stein's views. He might be a creationist, but it is hard to know. President Bush also might be a creationist, but he might also be pandering to the Fundamentalist Christians for political benefit. Ken Ham is a creationist. John Morris is a creationist. Dwayne Gish is a creationist. Kent Hovind is a creationist. Carl Wieland is a creationist. There are assorted lists and petitions already, particularly of scientists. See A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism for example. See Clergy Letter Project for example. See Project Steve for example.--Filll 14:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
These are 'Creationists' (you'll find Ben Stein in this sub-category). President Bush has not expressed a sufficiently clear view to determine if he is a creationist, but at he has expressed sympathies in that direction. Nobody "believes" (as a matter of faith) in Modern Evolutionary theory, but the term for those who have an intimate knowledge of it is "Evolutionary Biologists", those who accept it are sometimes called "evolutionists", but that term does not have universal acceptance. HrafnTalkStalk 14:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionist is commonly regarded as pejorative in many locales and instances.--Filll 16:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we mention this in an article somewhere? Darwinist and evolutionist is pejorative and evolutionary biologist is accepted. Only problem is that is a rather long word. Also creationist is acceptable to creationists? Do they feel this word is OK? Are there any pejorative terms used to describe creationists? And how do we seperate Bible literalist creationists and those who are believe that God created the universe but do not believe that it was done in 7 days etc. When we talk about 'creationists' is it just bible literalists? What term would you use to describe that person who believes the universe was created billions of years ago by God? Dontletmedown 16:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This article makes it very clear which creationists are biblical literalists which are not. Creationists started calling themselves creationist and still proudly continue to do so; before this usage it had another meaning. However, intelligent design advocates usually do not like to be called creationists, although they clearly are creationists. I do not think it is worthwhile delving into the connotations of the words evolutionism or Darwinism in this article; they have their own articles. Most of your questions are easily answered if you just read the article and its references. --Filll 20:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that "Evolutionary Biologists" are those who study evolution, not just accept it. There is no not-considered-pejorative word for those who merely accept it. ID advocates generally deny being creationists until they're blue in the face (and often get extremely rude to those who point out that this is what they are), in spite of voluminous and reliable evidence to the contrary. Biblically literalist creationists tend overwhelmingly to be Young Earth Creationists. Old Earth Creationists tend to take a non-literal approach. "That person who believes the universe was created billions of years ago by God" would be either an Old Earth Creationist or a Theistic Evolutionist, depending on whether they believe God used evolution as his tool of creation or not. HrafnTalkStalk 17:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there is a single word to describe those who accept evolution: rational ;-) I don't think it is a problem that creationist is used to describe people with a wide range of beliefs. The article makes it clear that "creationism" is an umbrella term for several distinct beliefs that all have one thing in common: belief in an intelligent (and involved) creator despite a lack of supporting evidence. Using "creationist" to describe this range of beliefs is no more problematic than using the term "scientist" to describe hundreds of varying occupations. — DIEGO talk 18:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

But my question is can we have in an article or in the talk pages what exactly a creationist is. I see many people saying 'creationsists' say this or that. But it seems that they are referring to bible literalist creationists and not old earth creationists. It would be erroneous as calling evolutionary biologists simply biologists which is not clear. Would the Pope be considered a 'creationist'? I think these articles would be improved if these terms were a little clearer. Could we make a list of those that are old earth creationists vs. young earth? Dontletmedown 18:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


For instance:" Creationists tend to use the term evolutionism in a misleading sense in order to suggest that evolution and creationism are equal in a philosophical debate."

This is a phrase in the 'evolutionism' article. Now since the term 'creationist' would include old earth creationists. it seem that it implies that people like the Pope and other non-bible-literalists use this term wrongly. And Dawkins also used the term. I think perhaps it sh Aould be

"Bible literalists tend to use the term evolutionism in a misleading sense in order to suggest that evolution and creationism are equal in a philosophical debate."

or

"Young earth creationists tend to use the term evolutionism in a misleading sense in order to suggest that evolution and creationism are equal in a philosophical debate."

And I do not hardly ever any creationists who do not accept evolution as a fact. This seems to be an error in the articles here. Dontletmedown 18:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It is included in the article exactly what a creationist is. There is an accepted relationship in English between "-ism" and "-ist", therefore a "creationist" is a supporter, believer, or advocate of "creationism" in any one of its varying forms. And it would be appropriate to call to call "evolutionary biologists" simply "biologists", or even "scientists", depending on the context. If the pope has endorsed any form of creationism, then yes, it would be appropriate to call him a "creationist". For example, if the Pope endorsed Intelligent Design, then he would be an "intelligent design proponent" and a "creationist"; the level of specificity necessary would be dictated by the context of the discussion. Similarly, it is appropriate to refer to the Pope as a "Christian" as well as a "Catholic". The descriptive terms are hierarchical (by specificity) and not mutually exclusive, and neither are "creationist" and "ID proponent". Calling the Pope a "Christian" does not in any way imply that his beliefs are the same as all, or even most, other Christians and calling him a "creationist" does not imply that he agrees with the statements of other creationists. — DIEGO talk 18:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
As for creationists who accept evolution as a fact, I'll have to disagree. It is true that some creationists acknowledge the mechanism of evolution by natural selection in a limited number of irrefutable cases (mostly involving micro-organisms), but then make an arbitrary distinction between "microevolution" (which they accept), and "macroevolution" (which they do not accept). It is one thing to say "I accept evolution as a fact", and another to attribute the cause of evolution to a specific omnipotent deity (with no supporting evidence) while discounting the mechanism of natural selection (which is supported by substantial evidence). Evolution, as a scientific theory, is inseparable from natural selection as its primary driving force, so asserting that there are a large number of creationists who accept evolution "as a fact" is a bit misleading. If they accepted evolution by naturasl selection, then they really aren't "creationists" in the sense discussed in this article. — DIEGO talk 18:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe there are theories of evolution that do not accept natural selection as the sole mechanism. And I feel that many, many creationists accept natural selection. I cannot think of any that do not. What creationist feels that if a climate gets colder that those who have say thicker fur will not survive better. But you are getting of the point. Look at my proposed changes for those sentences and tell me why they should not be accepted. Do old earth creationists such as the Pope use the term evolutionist in a pejorative manner.

or

" Some creationists tend to use the term evolutionism in a misleading sense in order to suggest that evolution and creationism are equal in a philosophical debate." Dontletmedown 18:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And evolution does not deal with how life was created simply how it evolved so a person can believe that God created the first life and then evolution took over from there. Therefore a person can be a 'creationist' according to these definitions and totally accept all tenets of evolutionary theory. I do not think these concepts are explained in the articles.Dontletmedown 19:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Evolution is a scientific theory supported by evidence. The only evidence we have points to natural selection as the mechanism by which evolution occurs. Any assertion that additional influences (intelligent or otherwise) are involved is not based on evidence and is therfore not a scientific theory. It is irrelevant whether or not creationists accept "natural selection" or "evolution" as vague constructs. The fact is, they do not accept the scientific theory of evolution, otherwise they would not be creationists. There may very well be "theories of evolution" that do not accept natural selection as the sole mechanism, but they are not The Theory of Evolution.
As for your issue with the text; in each case, I think it is obvious from the context who is being referred to by the term creationists. For example, in the statement "creationists tend to use the term...", it is obvious that creationists refers specifically to those creationists who use the term evolutionism. In addition, if anyone wants to know specifically which creationists say this, they can check the source. I don't think this is any more problematic than writing "Christians believe that Jesus was sent to earth to atone for the sins of humanity". Do all Christians believe that? No. But that may not be terribly important in the context of the sentence. That said, I have no problem changing the statement(s) from "creationists say.." to "some creationists...", "many creationists...", or "most creationists..." depending on the statement and the source. — DIEGO talk 19:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • And evolution does not deal with how life was created simply how it evolved so a person can believe that God created the first life and then evolution took over from there.
A person who believed this, that God created the cosmos and the first self-replicating cell (or the building blocks for the first cell), then natural selection "took over from there" is not a creationist according to the definition in the article. Belief in a detatched creator who has no influence on evolution is not creationism. Creationists, by definition, do not believe in Darwinian evolution via natural selection with no divine intervention following initial creation. Your example does not preclude natural selection as the sole mechanism behind evolution, therefore it is not creationism. Perhaps this is the reason for some of your confusion. — DIEGO talk 19:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Now maybe your thoughts will help these article to be more clear: So you are saying that Darwinian evolution states there is no divine intervention after life has started? And that a creationist believes that God has intervened in the evolutionary process after life started? Dontletmedown 21:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


This is starting to get ridiculoous. As the article and references state, there are many types of creationist with many types of belief. Please read the article before you post more things like this here.--Filll 22:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggested changes[edit]

<In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution.>

Change to

<In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution theory.>

or

<In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of modern evolutionary synthesis .>

These changes make things more clear since most creationists accept evolution as being observable but do not accept the present evolutionary theory in all of its aspects. Dontletmedown 19:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No, because by inserting such equivocating wording you succumb to the creationist myth that "microevolution" is OK but "macroevolution" is not, or that "yes, sure, it happens, but there is someone making it happen." You open the door to the nonsense that says "oh, we accept that evolution occurs, we just don't accept that it can create new species." Evolutionary biology draws no line between so-called micro and macro. This false distinction, and your proposed change, introduce weasel words which allow creationists to have their cake and eat it: not to appear complete idiots by denying the obvious truth that evolution happens, while at the same time clinging to some nonsensical supreme designer. In short, there is no "theory" which you can reject (other than in a few details relating to precisely how various things happen) while accepting the "fact". Snalwibma 19:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is whether or not there is a distinction between micro and macro some creationsists think there is. It would be dishonest to say that creationists do not accpet the observable fact of evolution when they do. They simply do not accept the assertion that it can lead to speciation. This would be misrepresenting their viewpoint and would be POV. I am not arguiing the validity of their belief just to have it accurately stated here. Flat earthers believe the world is not round. So to misrepresent how they feel would be dishonest. If you feel it makes them look like idiots to accept microevolution buy not macro why not state that? Now other people accept many parts of evo theory but do not accept others like Lamrackians. Should we hide what they think also? Dontletmedown —Preceding comment was added at 19:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, different creationists believe different things. Creationism has been different at different periods of time as well. Some want an old earth, some a young earth. Some want speciation for everything but humans. So instead of nitpicking, just keep it general and then consider the main types in detail. And you are wrong about your own weasel wording; this microevolution nonsense only harks back a few years, but creationism has been around almost a century. And this article has to cover all kinds of creationists, at all times and in all places. Not just some pet ideas you personally have to make yourself and your friends feel better.--Filll 21:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I think you a very off the mark here. These are not 'pet' ideas. I think you might be projecting. There is commonality among 'creationists. Dontletmedown 22:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe if you read the article and the links you will learn otherwise.--Filll 00:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
There's another point that I think is worth mentioning. Creationists tend to simply use the word "evolution" when talking about what they reject. For some, this means the modern evolutionary synthesis; for others, it means cosmology, abiogenesis, plate tectonics, stellar evolution, etc. It's probably better to just use the term that they use - it is by necessity an imprecise term. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 22:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are not correct in what you say. Creationists use the terms evolutionary theory and 'evolution' seperately to mean different things. This is one of the few places where I have seem the meanings conflate. Show me I am wrong with sources. Dontletmedown 22:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not up to us to prove you wrong with sources. If you want to show we are wrong and all creationists believe the same thing, and you have WP:RS sources for this, then please produce them. But to the best of my knowledge, you are incorrect. Sorry.--Filll 00:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Didn't we just have this discussion yesterday? Yes we did. It was moved here. Dontletmedown, please read the articles Evolution and creationism. They should clear up your confusion. Thank you. — DIEGO talk 01:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Banning the 'naked' use of the term "evolution" would solve a lot of confusion. It covers too broad a range of things. Perhaps creationists should just say that they don't believe in abiogenesis, common descent, featuritis, and so on. Evolutionists should also use specific terms or qualifiers where possible. rossnixon 07:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Would you also like to ban the "naked" use of the term gravity? And indeed creation? Snalwibma 08:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The term gravity is used properly here: "Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all objects with mass attract each other. In everyday life, gravitation is most familiar as the agency that endows objects with weight." The word evolution is not. "Gravity' is not a theory. And "evolution' is not a theory. The purpose of wiki is to clarify terms not conflate them. Of course 'evolution' has a colloquial meaning just as 'paranoid' does but the meanings here should be explained not obscured. We have the 'change in alleles' definition and the macro and micro combined definition. Also to say there is no such thing as micro-evolution would be like saying there is no such thing as micro-economics or microsurgery or alchemy. But you know Nixon, I do not think things will change here. These articles are controlled by POV pushers but the misrepresentations are so obvious they really clarify the deceptions that are being used. So an above average reader will see it and know that wiki cannot be trusted in many instances which is a good lesson for any scholar: use many sources and do not but a lot of trust into any one source. Dontletmedown 14:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


I guess I have to throw out all my books on Gravitational Theory, including several which talk about the Theory of Gravity. Because we have a luminary here who claims gravity is not a theory. Well, let's fire all the experts in physics departments all over the world because we have an expert here on Wikipedia who claims that their field of study does not exist!
I will note that there is even such a thing as micro-gravity, and theories of micro, macro and even quantum gravity. However, we should not take the definition the local plumber has for microgravity or quantum gravity, and we should not take the word of the local pastor for what microevolution is, or even rely on the opinion of the pastor for the existence of microevolution or macroevolution. This is just plain silly, and it does not matter how long you hold your breath and what colors you turn; this will not alter the basic truth here.
We use the term "evolution" because it is commonly used in science and in everyday life. Just because some religious extremists who are a tiny minority of Christianity or Islam want to redefine the term "evolution" for their own twisted purposes, we should not have to discard the use of the word. Creationists create assorted spurious strawmen definitions that they assign to the term "evolution" which usually have nothing to do with what the term really means, and get very upset when this is pointed out to them. I will note that creationists have seized the terms "creationist" which used to mean something else, and also "darwinist" and "evolutionist" which now are increasingly only used in the way that creationists want to use them. So eventually this might happen to "evolution" as well if creationists get their way, and no one except for extremist religious anti-science zealots will use the term "evolution". But for now, the term "evolution" is still in common use and so we will do so as well in WP.--Filll 15:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Filll is right. What creationists reject is the science of evolution, rather than "the theory" of evolution. What specific creationists reject differs from person to person (or sometimes, from essay to essay or audience to audience). Creationism is a denialist position - it doesn't involve the rejection of specific bits - it involves the rejection of as much as the individual can bring themselves to deny. The only way to represent that concisely is to say "evolution". Guettarda 17:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course, I just so loved DLMD's cute attempt to replace "evolution" with "evolution theory". Typicical creationist claptrap, that, playing on the misunderstanding of the word theory.
As for gravity, its cause is still very much a theory. Currently, the most popular theory is that gravity is a result of the warping of space. However, gravity remains unable to be unified with the other three physical forces, so to say that we fully understand it is absurd. Hence, it's still a theory.
Back to evolution, Guettarda is correct: The only way to accurately and concisely represent the varying beliefs of creationists is to say "evolution". In addition, there is one simple point that creationist simply cannot comprehend: microevolution, i.e., the small changes over time, become macroevolution. Creationists toss around spurious arguments that if macroevolution really existed then a fish should turn into a flower -- i.e., they seem to have a love of Greek mythology, tales of pillars of salt, and Ovid's Metamorphoses. Thus their failure to comprehend microevolution --> macroevolution leads them to fail to apprehend that evolution does have certain "rules" based on the DNA available within the organism. A fish can no more become a flower than a horse can become a sponge: except in mythology, religion and fantasy and in the strawmen created by creationists. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I get the impression from assorted fundamentalists here that they believe if they huff and puff enough, we will concede and let them turn all science articles and a fair number of linguistics and history articles into religious tracts pushing their narrow viewpoint and recruiting for their particular religious belief. The problem is, these are minority views, and not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. Also, religions tend not to agree with each other; or hadn't you great geniuses figured that out yet? So if we adopt one particular religious interpretation, it will disagree with literally thousands of others. Go to conservapedia with your nonsense please.--19:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talkcontribs)

Is electicity a theory? Is light a theory? Is sound a theory? No, sorry. You are misusing the English language. Gravity is not a theory. It is a force the 'theory of Gravity' explains the theory.

And please stop the OR that microevolution will cause macroevolution and get some source on this. I thought this was not a place to debate and soapbox and chit-chat yet that is what I mostly see here. Please provide a source that gravity is a 'theory' and that micro leads to macro and please take the debating to talk-origins. Dontletmedown 14:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And though there is not a theory of 'micro-gravity' there IS a theory of 'micro-economics' And to say that the word microevolution should not exist is absurd. It simpley means changes below a species level. It is measurable. It is defined. There IS a difference between and organism that can reproduce with and other and cannot. Again please give some sources and quit debating. Dontletmedown 14:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT. Read here for info regards this. I consider the matter settled. WLU 14:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked at that and there was no study that showed the micro-macro thing. It was just the opinion of an individual and I could find others who have the opposite opinion. Is that really what you base this important concept on? Some says it is true with out experimentation? That is not science. Sorry. Please try to find something. Dontletmedown 14:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm, User:Dontletmedown seems to be here simply to troll, but I'm going to comment on the micro/macrogravity thing since it is kind of interesting. General relativity, it turns out, has only been tested in the weak field limit. The closest we've gotten to the strong field limit is the Taylor-Hulse pulsar which is still only three terms beyond Newtonian. That is to say, that "microgravity" has been tested but "macrogravity" has not. Compare that to macroevolution which has been tested to such an absurd extent through the fossil record, phylogenetics, etc. it is actually clear that we have more evidence for how evolution works on large scales than how gravity works on large scales! And this is coming from an astrophysicist. ScienceApologist 14:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems like YOU are here to troll. What is the differentition between microgravity and macro in your example. This is a nonsensical analogy. And stop the OR. My point is that there are no source for this contention in these articles. Most known physical laws have limitations. To say that micro can lead to macro 'cuz I think so' is not sufficient. Where is the study or experiment? All you have shown is a link to an article in TO where one person says from what he has observed he thinks it is true. Now really this important concept has NO sources? Not one peer-reviewed study? Not a SINGLE one? ID is criticized for lack of supportive peer-reviewed studies yet this whole concept is just based on a priori impressions. Dontletmedown 16:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with SA, although we are slowly building up information on micromicrogravity with particle physics experiments. However, Dontletmedown has amply demonstrated in the last few days that he is not here for any constructive purpose, and there is no way to satisfy him, and no reason to reply to him. I would agree. WP:DNFTT.--Filll 16:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


You are off subject and trolling. And doing OR. Please stop. My purpose is to have statements in articles backed up by reliable sources. Not to have people here argue points. So please stop the debate.

Evolution is not a theory. It is a process. And gravity is not a theory. It is a force. If you have sources to show the contrary please post them here.

And also please supply a resource (not someone's opinion posted on a website) showing that micro to macro is even probable. Peer-reviewed studies. Not opinions on websites please. Dontletmedown 16:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You will not change the fact that there is no cite for your assertions. Gravity is not a theory. Is English your second language? Do you understand suffixes such as -ation etc? Gravity is a force not a theory. Young people actually read this wiki. To give them erroneous information is incorrect. Do you have any formal education? OK do you think 'electricity' is a theory? Do you think 'light' is a theory? Can you please stop ruining these articles. Thank You. Dontletmedown 20:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not an article about gravity, electricity, or light. Please take your soapbox elsewhere. When used in this article the term evolution refers to the scientific theory of evolution (i.e., evolution by natural selection), which, like gravity, is both a theory and a fact. In fact, the first mention of evolution in this article actually links to the evolution article, which is all about the scientific theory of evolution. It is an excellent, well-sourced article. I would suggest reading it (or Introduction to evolution). Please stop wasting everyone's time by posting irrelevant material on this talk page. Also, please be aware that you appear to be the only person spreading "erroneous information". Never mind the fact that little of this information has anything to do with this article. Please refrain from personal attacks (e.g., "do you have any formal education?"). Judge the edits, not the editor. Isn't that what Jesus would do? — DIEGO talk 20:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not bring up this gravity thing. Someone else did. My concern is that the sources here and for many of the evolution articles are not reliable. Where are the peer-reviewed articles/ studies? Can you answer that? Are opinions on websites reliable sources?

Wait. I hear many editors here saying that their view carry more weight because they claim to be 'scientists' and yet seem to know little about the scientific method.

What has Jesus got to do with science? Is that a troll remark? Dontletmedown 21:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Dontletmedown 21:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


"the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution"

this is an untrue fact. cite it or source it please. creationist believe that alleles change over time. please show me where they say they do not. please let us not use lies here. Dontletmedown 21:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Which part is an "untrue fact" (or is it a "true falsehood"), the "commonly" part, the "religiously motivated" part, or the "rejection of evolution"? Belief that "alleles change over time" is not the same as accepting the scientific theory of evolution. Creationism, by definition, is "religiously motivated", and strict creationists do indeed reject evolution. The fact that they pick and choose which scientific evidence they want to believe (the whole "micro"/"macro" thing again) is not germane to the statement above. When discussing evolution as a scientific theory, one cannot simultaneously "accept evolution" and "reject natural selection", or "accept evolution", while adding religiously-motivated caveats not supported by evidence. A person can either accept or reject evolution. Stating "I believe in evolution" while rejecting the entire basis of the theory is still rejecting evolution. — DIEGO talk 21:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


  • "the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of the prevailing theory of evolution"
That is what it should say. evolution is the change of alleles and creationists accept that but they do not accept every part of the present theory. that is a big difference. That would be like if I did not accept some part of Newtons theory of gravity (einstein) that I do not believe in 'gravity' It is deceptive. Say I believe in Lamarkism and do not accept Darwinism I still believe in evolution just not Darwin's explanation. Dontletmedown 21:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The whole point is that evolution is not "the change in alleles". It is much more than that. You cannot change the definition of evolution (as used in this article) to support your point. By rejecting an integral part of the scientific theory, creationists reject the whole scientific theory (in this regard, it would seem that the theory of evolution is irreducibly complex). Evolution is the prevailing theory explaining the diversity of life on earth, but there is no "prevailing theory of evolution". The theory can change and adapt to new evidence, but at any one time, there is essentially only one theory (discounting relatively minor disagreements between scientists that don't affect the its fundamental aspects). Therefore, your suggestion is a bit redundant as phrased. There is a "religiously motivated-rejection of the prevailing theory speciation, adaptation, etc." , but not a "rejection of the prevailing theory of evolution". — DIEGO talk 22:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not moderated by experts, nor are "experts" exempt from Wikipedia policies like WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V. It is not a coincidence that many people editing science-related articles are scientists, but being an "expert" does not give any additional weight to an editor's opinion (if the information is not externally verifiable in a reliable source, it is useless here, no matter who posts it). You're right, Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with science. I'm glad we see eye to eye on that. But if Jesus (and god) have nothing to do with science, then neither does a creation story with no supporting evidence other than religious texts written by scientifically ignorant human beings thousands of years ago. — DIEGO talk 21:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trolling and debating. My point is that the sources are not reliable. When did I say Jesus has something to do with science. Stop the trolling. If you cannot find good sources that please do not respond. This is not a place to soapbox about religion. Please stop. I want to make sure the article is accurate. Creationists believe that alleles change. To say they do not is lying. Dontletmedown 21:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Your complaints about the sources has been addressed long ago. And some creationists do, and some do not. Read the article, the subarticles and the sources.--Filll 21:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

All creationists believe in evolution. Show me a source that says they do not. They do not accept the prevailing 'theory of evolution. Just as scientists now do not accept Lamarkism. And please stop trolling. If you do not want to help just go away. Dontletmedown 21:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous statement (as are most sweeping generalizations regarding one person's perception of another's ideology). All creationists do not believe in evolution (note the link --try clicking on it [seriously]). No one is lying. Where in the article does it state "creationists do not believe that alleles change"? Evolution is not "the study of, or belief in changing alleles". As I stated above, "rejection of evolution" is a reference to the scientific theory of evolution, which creationists (except supporters of theistic evolution) reject. The statement is accurate and you are the only one debating and soapboxing. This whole issue seems to revolve around your refusal to understand that evolution, in the context of this article, is a distinct scientific theory, not an assortment of related concepts from which we can pick and choose those aspects we want to believe, while rejecting the others. And by the way, I am aware that you never said that Jesus has anything to do with science, and neither did I. I simply said that Jesus would not make personal attacks. Jesus has nothing to do with science, and neither does creationism. I hope that clears things up. When someone has a valid disagreement with your suggestions for improvement, that does not make him a WP:TROLL. — DIEGO talk 21:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(biology) The change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations. from wiktionary. all creationists believe that. and also all creationists believe in microevolution. now you are going to tell me microevolution does not equal evolution. leave your Jesus obsession out of this please. Dontletmedown 22:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No all creationists do not believe that. Some do not believe that creatures have ever changed and that they are identical with how they were created. Some believe that this is only true of some creatures, and others did evolve. And some believe in an old earth. Some believe in a young earth. The old earth people put the time in different places in the genesis account. Some do not follow the genesis account at all. Some include the big bang in evolution. Some include stellar evolution in evolution. Some include abiogenesis in evolution. And on and on and on and on. So please, give it a rest. Learn something before you continue here. Or else you might be asked to leave. Or prevented from contributing. --Filll 22:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


There are no creationists who do not believe that animals can be breed for some changes. Where do you get these ideas? Maybe you should give it a rest. Please stop the trolling and original research. The change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations. That is evolution and all creationists believe that occurs. Stop trying to say people believe in things they do not. You should learn to study these things in more depth before you think your ideas are the truth. Show me one cite where a creationist says that animals cannot be breeded. Do you read anything about these subjects at all? Please show me the cite and stop your trolling and original research. Dontletmedown 00:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedia is not a dictionary (see WP:NOT#DICT). "Microevolution" is an invention of creationists. There is not scientific theory of "microevolution" that excludes "macroevolution". Your dictionary definition is pointless, as dictionaries are not encylopedias and generally not a source for a detailed description of any theory. However, the Wikipedia article on evolution is a (relatively) thorough analysis of the theory. If you would actually read the article, you will see natural selection mentioned in the first paragraph as one of the primary means through which evolution occurs. — DIEGO talk 22:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


The term Microevolution was not an invention of creationists. And what if it was. Do you think that everyone who believes in God is an idiot? That is completely biased. Please stop this trolling.

I asked for resources and you have given me none. If you want to debate go to TO and do not debate here. Come up with resources to back up what is said in the articles. Please read the articles before you come up with these crazy claims. Dontletmedown 00:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

DNFTT. WLU 00:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
DNFTT. Agreed.--Filll 00:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What would be an acceptable source?[edit]

What would constitute an acceptable source for the statement that creationists reject evolution? Just to cite some hypothetical examples, how about...

  • a prominent creationist leader personally offering a substantial cash reward for anyone providing proof of evolution, or
  • a statement by a creationist group that belief in evolution is wrong and is responsible for many social ills?

Just throwing some ideas out there. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 13:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I see problems here:[edit]

[This section userfied from Talk:Intelligent design.] The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.[10][11] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[12]

First of all 'unequivocal' is not the right word. I am not saying the science community is not almost unamimous in it opinion. I think 'unaminous' or 'almost unaminous' would be better.

Secondly the source is erroneous. It is saying that ID claims supernatural intervention which it does not. Dontletmedown 13:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dontletmedown: your first point has already been discussed ad nauseam, your second point is contradicted by a stack of reliable sources, and unlikely to be supported by a single reliable source (or even an unreliable one that hasn't contradicted itself on this point on occasion). There is therefore nothing further to discuss on this. HrafnTalkStalk 14:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The point of the passage in the second paragraph of the article, which quotes the NAS and cites to many other reliable sources in the footnotes, is that when confronted with the ideas put forward by intelligent design advocates and the assertion that it should be presented in secondary school biology classes, the scientific community responded with an assertive "No!". In other words, the response was unequivocal. ... Kenosis 14:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Would preternatural work better? Just thinking of Raelian etc, though that is not really how this particular article is written. Nowimnthing 14:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Raelians are a red herring as far as I know -- they claim that life was brought here from the stars, not that it could not have developed here. It is the "could not" of ID that makes it implicitly supernatural. HrafnTalkStalk 15:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. And please do not debate here. You are using OR. YOU are determining that Raelians are RH. And YOU are determining that life here could not have been created by extraterrestrials. Do you have any source for this. The point is that ID never specifies supernatural. It demarcates. Just as TOE demarcates. Why can one concept be demarcated and another cannot. And whether or not the legal system allows ID to be taught or not is a moot point. We are explaining what ID is. I do not think phrenology should be taught but that does not give me the right to misdefine it and say it is something it is not. Dontletmedown 16:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The disagreement is duly noted. The Raelians' picking up on the words "intelligent design" is not a notable use of the term. The notability of the phrase "intelligent design" arises out of the fact that it was proposed to be taught as science to secondary school biology students, bringing to bear a manipulation of politics in the United States in attempting to achieve this objective and resulting in a nationwide controversy about the issue(s). All this has been well discussed, and the article is presently agreed to meet Wikipedia policies, most importantly WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, and is presently rated as a featured article. Any significant changes will need to be sufficiently persuasive to achieve consensus among those editors who have worked on it for quite some time. ... Kenosis 16:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting[edit]

What a silly comment. All I said was that the article was erroneous and I got banned. What a bunch of bull. But I actually cannot tell if these editors actually believe what they are saying or are just pulling at straws.

It is just a shame that some naieve kid might look at these articles and take them seriously. I know most educated adults can see the bias but kids are vulnerable.

It is terrible that these editors are holding back science and distorting truth.

This wiki experiment has to be exposed. Many people are being harmed by this.

These editors should be totally ashamed of themselves for misportraying what science is to promote their angry agendas. Why are atheists so angry? I really think many of these editors need some sort of pscyhotherapy. Esp Filll the hater and Orangemarlin the impersonator.

All this anti-Christian bigotry. OM blames Christians for supposedly persecuting his 'bretheren'. Well he should think about all the christians that hide and protected Jews in Germany. What a hate-monger he is. Dontletmedown 23:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting[edit]

What a silly comment. All I said was that the article was erroneous and I got banned. What a bunch of bull. But I actually cannot tell if these editors actually believe what they are saying or are just pulling at straws.

It is just a shame that some naieve kid might look at these articles and take them seriously. I know most educated adults can see the bias but kids are vulnerable.

It is terrible that these editors are holding back science and distorting truth.

This wiki experiment has to be exposed. Many people are being harmed by this.

These editors should be totally ashamed of themselves for misportraying what science is to promote their angry agendas. Why are atheists so angry? I really think many of these editors need some sort of pscyhotherapy. Esp Filll the hater and Orangemarlin the impersonator.

All this anti-Christian bigotry. OM blames Christians for supposedly persecuting his 'bretheren'. Well he should think about all the christians that hide and protected Jews in Germany. What a hate-monger he is. Dontletmedown 23:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting[edit]

What a silly comment. All I said was that the article was erroneous and I got banned. What a bunch of bull. But I actually cannot tell if these editors actually believe what they are saying or are just pulling at straws.

It is just a shame that some naieve kid might look at these articles and take them seriously. I know most educated adults can see the bias but kids are vulnerable.

It is terrible that these editors are holding back science and distorting truth.

This wiki experiment has to be exposed. Many people are being harmed by this.

These editors should be totally ashamed of themselves for misportraying what science is to promote their angry agendas. Why are atheists so angry? I really think many of these editors need some sort of pscyhotherapy. Esp Filll the hater and Orangemarlin the impersonator.

All this anti-Christian bigotry. OM blames Christians for supposedly persecuting his 'bretheren'. Well he should think about all the christians that hide and protected Jews in Germany. What a hate-monger he is. Dontletmedown 23:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)