Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scope of science

  • Science studies the natural world. It seeks explanations which include natural processes only. Therefore, it does not and cannot discuss the supernatural (that is, events outside of the normal working of the world). However, science can be, and often is, used as evidence to support philosophical positions which do make statements about the supernatural. For instance, the apparently unguided natural process of evolution is often used to argue that the world is without purpose, random and uncontrolled by God or any other entity. [1]

Some religious believers are dismayed at this situation. A few wish that science would expand its scope and study the supernatural, as Raymond Moody began to do. Many object to the conclusions drawn from scientific results, such as the idea that "evolution proves there is no Creator, hence no religion is valid and I can live my life as I choose free from all moralistic restrictions".

I wonder how much of this 'dismay' fuels the "religious side" of the controversy. --Uncle Ed 18:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I did not find that passage in the document Ed. Where did you get it from? And why?
  • religious people are dismayed by many many things about science. What are we supposed to do about it? We are writing an encyclopedia. We are not here to make religious people feel better.
  • We report what is reality, to the best of our ability. And the reality is that science does not include the supernatural. If the religious extremists force science to change its definition, then WP will document that of course.
  • Most of the statement you wrote above is pretty nonsensical, wrong and basically pure silliness, from multiple viewpoints, at least in my opinion. What are you trying to say?--Filll 20:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Brian Thomas's 6th paragraph: "I must preface the following with some remarks about the nature of science and what it means to accept its conclusions. First, science studies the natural world. It seeks explanations which include natural processes only. Therefore, it does not and cannot discuss the supernatural (that is, events outside of the normal working of the world). However, science can be, and often is, used as evidence to support philosophical positions which do make statements about the supernatural. For instance, the apparently unguided natural process of evolution is often used to argue that the world is without purpose, random and uncontrolled by God or any other entity. This conclusion, however, is not a scientific one, but a philosophical one, though it is based on the discoveries of science. One can make an equally allowable statement that God directs the natural occurrences in our world and therefore endows them with purpose. However, that purpose is not, in principle, accessible to scientific investigation. We scientists can only describe the working of nature, not elucidate its purpose, or lack thereof." [2] --Uncle Ed 17:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


Ed, please focus your comments on the article.Trishm 10:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Please read Ed's comments more carefully folks. He's really saying something. I for one had no problem with the point he's making. And he's making one, regardless of the politically correct, tentative "I wonder" language. AvB ÷ talk 11:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Ed, it looks like you're (once again, I guess) grappling with a difficult point about this article. The same applies mutatis mutandis to your (reverted) edit to the Intelligent Design article. The point is this: the creationists in this article are not the many theistic evolutionists (many of whom are dismayed by attempts to make science say something about the supernatural). This article is about the strong creationists who find fault with evolution itself and actively oppose it. Theistic evolutionists do not reject science. However, all creationists, and this is your point, reject "scientific" claims that there is no god. Similarly, the Intelligent Design article deals with the specific concept represented by the Discovery Institute. The Catholic Church obviously believes in an intelligent designer. This is what the "intelligent design" remarks of the Cardinal and the Pope mean. The seemingly anti-evolution language does not in fact condemn evolution. It makes precisely the same point you're making above: science should not make statements about God or other supernatural concepts. It does not mean they have adopted ID as associated with the DI: and that's what the ID article is about. It certainly does not mean they are on their way to becoming strong creationists. AvB ÷ talk 11:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This article is about the strong creationists who find fault with evolution itself and actively oppose it

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 17:13, 2 February 2007

Except for some puzzlement over the term "strong creationist", I mostly agree with this statement.--Filll 17:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's make it "strict creationists" (I think I wanted to avoid the word "fundamentalists"). AvB ÷ talk 11:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


Re: This article is about the strong creationists who find fault with evolution itself and actively oppose it

The motives of their opposition are important, and of interest to Wikipedia's readers. I daresay most of the objection stems from an analysis which links Evolution and Atheism. (1) If man could evolve without God, than Atheism is possible. (2) Evolution asserts that man evolved without God.

There is intense suspicion, severe mistrust here! Creationsts frame "evolution" as not just saying physical processes are sufficient, but as saying that supernatural processes were not involved.

There's a lot of dancing around the issue, but a key point (if not the main one) is this: scientists and especially science educators, along with their political backers, have made unending efforts to prevent any mention of the possibility of supernatural forces in evolution education. They conclude (or at least fear) that this is a concerted effort to attack religious belief and promote atheism.

Nothing makes a man angrier than to tell him his beliefs are wrong, unless it's to go around indoctrinating his children and his friend's children with the opposite belief. Why, people will commit mass murder over this (see also suicide bombing).

Can you see why this is such a touchy subject? --Uncle Ed 17:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Similarly, the Intelligent Design article deals with the specific concept represented by the Discovery Institute.

ID argues that the natural world must have been consciously designed. This in turn implies the need for an Intelligent Designer like God.
Evolution argues that life need not have been consciously designed, asserting that natural forces are suffient to account for the diversity of life. This in turn implies that there is no need for an Intelligent Designer like God.
It's all about the implications. No one really cares about the science qua science, but only about the metaphysical conclusions they can draw from it. Either the science favors religion, or it favors atheism. That's what all the fuss is about.
Is any of this in the article? I'll have to give it a careful rereading. --Uncle Ed 17:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)--Uncle Ed 17:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I partially agree with this analysis. However, science, and especially evolution, really has nothing to say about the existence of God or not in the design of the universe. Some atheists use this to their advantage to declare this is "proof" or evidence for their views, much to the consternation of the religiously intolerant who feel it encourages atheism and have a hatred of atheism, but evolution really gives no evidence for atheism. This is just an interpretation that is unwarranted. However, I think that other things are going on in addition:

  • evolution makes a belief in strict biblical literalism look unfounded. Again, people kill each other over the interpretation of a passage or two in the bible or the koran. Therefore, it is completely understandable that evolution is viewed as a threat by those who see it as a challenge to their core beliefs that depend on biblical literalism.
  • For about 100 years or more, creationists have linked evolution with all kinds of other ills: the Holocaust, the Shinto religion, teenage pregnancies, gun violence, plagues, the inquisition, crime, wars, AIDS, Hitler, worship of graven images, communism, Nazis, Islamic extremism, terrorism, slavery, satan worship, the cruxifiction of Jesus etc. Therefore, it is no wonder that evolution is feared, because it has been successfully linked in the minds of the uneducated with all kinds of bad things.--Filll 18:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Amen to that. AvB ÷ talk 11:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Johnson in A War on Science

This issue was made explicit by Johnson in the BBC documentary A War on Science, so I've watched it and transcribed his statements:

"The Darwinian theory of evolution is the grand creation story of our culture. Every culture has a creation story, creation myth if you like, and the creation story is the basis for every kind of knowledge in that culture. And for that reason, the experts who have the authority to tell the creation story to the public have great power. And they always have, or at least want, a monopoly of that power. They don't want to share it to anybody."

[narrator refers to Darwin on Trial, Johnson questions how much has been seen or tested in experiments. Narrator describes evolution – "over billions of years natural selection could create, unguided, the diversity of life on earth. But like many before him, Johnson was unconvinced by the evidence."]

"The problem with the Darwinian story is not that it's altogether false, certainly, but perhaps it's true within a much more limited scale than is usually claimed."

narrator: Johnson believed Darwin's theory was just part of a much greater problem with science. By attempting to explain the world solely through natural causes, science was excluding the supernatural. Science was inherently anti-religious.

"The Darwinists claim we must keep God and any form of supernatural creation out of science, and nature had to be capable doing all of its own creating."

narrator: Johnson thought science unfairly ruled out God as a creator. It couldn't even entertain the possibility. [interviews with Behe and Dembski, description of their hypotheses.] Together they claimed it was evidence for a supernatural power. They had forged the seemingly impossible, evidence of a creator based on science, not religion. Intelligent Design had arrived

"We saw an opportunity to change the world. By moving debate away from this bible versus science stereotype, and into the question of whether the scientific evidence, when examined impartially, really justified and supported the grand claims of Darwinism."

later in the programme,

Kenneth Miller – "By the terms of the advocates of intelligent design themselves, the designer creates outside of nature, supernaturally, by means that are undetectable. And if those means are undetectable, they're not susceptible to scientific observation or analysis, and therefore the whole idea is not science. A theory that explains everything in fact explains nothing, and that's the central flaw of intelligent design."

These statements seem to me to be relevant to the points being discussed. ... dave souza, talk 21:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The programme's available online at Google video: the BBC documentary, "A War On Science.". .. dave souza, talk 21:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is very interesting to me. I will have to watch it. It also has given me another idea or two. Johnson is a retired lawyer. Now how would lawyers feel if the following were pushed by the public and by members of some religious sect:

  • All criminals that had not been seen committing a crime by the jury had to be released immediately. DNA evidence was ruled inadmissable, and confessions, and fingerprint evidence, and circumstantial evidence and eyewitness accounts were all thrown out. Unless the jury sees the crime for themselves, there is no proof it did not happen, so we have to just assume the opposite.
  • Any criminal defendent is allowed to use miracles as part of his defense. So if my neighbor saw me killing the postman and burying him in the backyard, I can claim that he did not see me, he saw a vision, or that I was miraculously in Cleveland on the day of the murder, even though I have no evidence to support me being in Cleveland and in fact there are 30 pieces of evidence that I was home in Rochester instead.
  • Questioning a "miracle" defense, or questioning the discarding of DNA evidence or fingerprint evidence will cause the judge, jury or lawyers to be condemned and cursed roundly, and told by the general public that they are damned and will burn in hell forever for questioning the word of God himself-They are in fact, defaming God almighty by questioning the miracle defense or introducing evidence from the past which no one saw.
  • There were rumblings about changing the laws to require the introduction of the miracle defense, and the discarding of all past evidence. Anyone who disagrees with these principles is automatically suspect
  • Lawyers and judges who disagree will be viewed as nonbelievers and atheists and blasphemers for doubting the word of God himself
  • The expertise of lawyers and judges will be called into question since it is irrelevant-they are all atheists anyway, so who can trust them?

I wonder if the debate was recast in this way, and brought home to Johnson and others in terms that they could understand, what people might think. Comments?--Filll 21:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I watched it, but I think the Regents Lecture right after he published his book "Darwin on Trial" is much more telling. He tells several huge lies in his lecture. He is incredibly glib. He uses misquotes. He uses every dirty lawyerly trick imaginable.--Filll 02:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I am just now watching the BBC documentary. Interesting. They fail to mention that the creationists, in winning the scopes trial, were winning a publicity stunt dreamed up by the ACLU and the local town. This is as bad, it seems, as what you describe happened in the Regents Lecture. StudyAndBeWise 05:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Cutting and pasting from time magazine article

Somebody cut and paste and cut from a time Magazine article.


See here for the full quote:


I am going to try to reword it to make it less of a cut and paste job. StudyAndBeWise 02:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I reworded it to be:


which I hope is meets the guidelines. Also, this is more concise, without loosing any of meaning, so I think it is better anyway. Of course as always, others are welcome to rework it yet again if you disagree. StudyAndBeWise 02:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Counting the creationists, part 2

I am not saying this is authoratative. I came accross this while trying to fix the Martin Nowak cut and paste. But it is a more neutral point of view than the POV-suspect National Center for Science Education (see Project Steve). What do you do when you have conflicting stats that can be selectively quoted? StudyAndBeWise 03:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that is completely inline with the polls from other groups (see level of support for evolution)--Filll 03:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Good. I reconciled the two uses of statistics. At first it didn't make sense, but then I thought about it. It seems that although a belief in Biblical Creation is significant, even among those who believe in Creation, the level of support for the teaching of evolutionary science is even more substantial. Do you think the article is okay the way I worded this? See my recent additions to Differing_religious_positions StudyAndBeWise 03:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Nicely done.It is a maze, isn't it? When polls ask "Do you believe in Creation as described in the Bible", that is so ambiguous, that is loses all meaning, because it means anything from a belief that God created the universe, to the world was created in six days, according to some semi-literal interpretation of Genesis 1, and the bits of genesis 2 that don't conflict with Gen 1.
The only clear question you can ask is "Do you think evolution should be taught in science class".Trishm 07:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


Not too bad. I have the reference: Molleen Matsumura of the National Center for Science Education found, "of Americans in the twelve largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education." These churches include the United Methodist Church, National Baptist Convention, USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), National Baptist Convention of America, African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, and others.[1] --Filll 04:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


But all is not completely bleak. A 1999 national public opinion survey of 1,500 Americans conducted for People for the American Way by DYG, Inc. (founded by opinion researcher Daniel Yankelovich) showed that:16

  • 83% want evolution to be taught in public school science classes.
  • Only 13% of Americans want creationism taught with evolution as competing scientific theories. But 66% wanted creationism taught: outside school (20%), outside science class (17%), or identified as a "belief" not a scientific theory like evolution (29%). Only 16% supported teaching creationism and excluding evolution in schools.
  • About two-thirds of those polled felt that there should be national standards for the teaching of evolution rather than leaving the decision up to individual states or local school boards.

16) People for the American Way press release of 3/10/2000, "Public wants evolution, not creationism, in science class, new national poll shows" at http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1903. Accessed 1/01. --Filll 04:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I just realized another possible explanation why so many Christians oppose the teaching of creationism in the public schools, while at the same time, so many Americans actually believe in some form of creation. I think it might be because these people value seperation of church and state, and Christians don't want to set a precident for having other opposing religious beliefs given credence in the public school system, such as Islam, buddhism, etc... Just a theory, but it is reasonable, and so, I wonder if this observation has been made by any disinterested references. If so, it might warrant inclusion in the article. StudyAndBeWise 04:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Somebody want to archive older parts of this talk page?

I may experiment with it, but last time I tried to do something like that, I really hosed things up. StudyAndBeWise 04:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Have done, hope that's ok. I've cut this as short as seemed reasonable, there's been recent discussion of Widely quoted Newsweek article, Peking man, Creation/evolution controversy in the age of Darwin, Are the findings of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District a neutral source?. and "Kinds" and "baramin" are terms invented by creationists and derived from the book of Genesis; feel free to revive these or any other topics you think still need attention. ..dave souza, talk 09:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you sir! StudyAndBeWise 18:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Dan Dennett's "unrebuttable refutation" citation questions

Dawkins reports that Dan Dennett, calls it "an unrebuttable refutation" dating back two centuries.<rref>Dawkins 2006, p. 157, referring to Dennett 2005, p. 155</rref>

The Dennett|2005 reference had been listed as:

  • Dennett, Daniel (2005), Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life, Simon & Schuster, ISBN 978-0684802909

However, I can find no record that this book was released in 2005. I have found this book in 1995 (I have a copy right now). And on page 155 of the 1995 version, I can find nothing regarding "unrebuttable refutation." A search on Amazon for 978-0684802909 turns up a 1995 book as well.

Product Details
  • Hardcover: 592 pages
  • Publisher: Simon & Schuster (May 10, 1995)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0684802902
  • ISBN-13: 978-0684802909
  • Product Dimensions: 1.5 x 6.5 x 9.8 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 1.95 pounds

Ignoring the question of whether this citation and the sentence it supports belongs in the article, I am trying to figure out how to clean this up. Was Dennett's book re-released with its pages resequenced in 2005, or is this possibly referring to a book other than Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life? I searched the index of the 1995 book for references to a 747, Hoyle, etc., but found nothing in the 1995 book regarding "an unrebuttable refutation." Of course, not finding anything could be human error on my part. But I think we need to clean this up, or remove it. StudyAndBeWise 18:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just found it. Wouldn't you know it, I found it right after I pushed the "save page" button. I will now try to harmonize the dates regarding the Dennet citation. StudyAndBeWise 18:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
As an aside, Dawkins quoting Dennett praising Dawkins...is it just me, or does this seem strange? StudyAndBeWise 18:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
That Dawkins is an egotistical, inflated, arrogant snot? Not really. Ok, joking aside, if one brought up an argument before it is isn't intrinsically unreasonable to note what other people have said about it. JoshuaZ 21:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Dawkins can be a bit over the top sometimes, but a lot of the figures in this entire controversy can be over the top as well. Gould as well was a bit much. And Philip E. Johnson is one of the most amazing characters if you study his pronouncements; amazing. HIV denial as the cause of AIDS. Claims of great secret conspiracies to inflate African AIDS figures to play on the sympathies of the bleeding hearts and cheat the gullible stupid West out of money to help the poor and sick. His attack on the Theory of Everything in physics based purely on the name, since "everything" implies there is no place for God, in his mind, so it is all crap to him. His rants about how awful Christians are who accept evolution. Smarmy. Greasy. Glib. His rejection of every piece of evidence he is confronted with, in a blind knee-jerk reaction. His claims he is better and smarter than all the scientists and all the courts and all the lawyers and educators etc, based on judicious quote-mining and lying. These people involved in this controversy are ALL a bit outrageous I think. --Filll 22:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wichita Eagle and John Richard Schrock Reliable Source?

Somebody posted this to cite the claim that


While I still believe this original 1998 study by Molleen Matsumura is probably true, I do not think the citation provided is a reliable source. This is my opinion, nothing to act on yet. My reasons are as follows:

1. John Richard Schrock seems to be writing an editorial. (page 17A) He has just had published another editorial on Feb. 1, 2007. 2. He speciously claims that many evolutionary scientists are Christians using an anecdotal rhetorical device.

3. He is abusing statistics, and admits it (and he is not a statatician):

4. To back up his difficult to believe claims about evolutionary scientists, he switches gears to high school biology teachers, and quotes a public school teacher who happened to be Roman Catholic.

Based on my internet research, my *guess* the findings are in a 1998 article What do Christians Really Believe about Evolution?NCSE Reports Volume 18 Number 2 Published March, 1998 by Molleen Matsumura . (Matsumura, M. 1998. What Do Christians Really Believe About Evolution? Reports of the National Center for Science Education 18: 8-9.)

However, I cannot find it online. However, this That this is the article with the quote is a guess only.

I propose that we delete references to the 1998 Matsumura findings until we can find a reliable source (or the original). StudyAndBeWise 09:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted it. I am optomistic that we will find a Matsumura|1998 reference, but meanwhile, an editorial special to the Wichita Eagle by a person who "trains biology teachers," and/or???? is a biologist, who munches statistics, cannot be considered a reliable source even if he uses quotation marks, cites the author he is quoting, and provide a year. (Note--no article title, journal title, or other references that will allow us to validate this claim made in an editorial.) If you disagree, feel free to revert my edits regarding Matsumura|1998 and Schrock|2005. StudyAndBeWise 09:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


Here is Shrock's homepage. He is a faculty member: [3]--Filll 15:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again filll, I just sent him an email explaining the dilema, and requesting a harvard citation for the Molleen Matsumura quote. Hopefully he will be kind enough to respond. If he does, I'll post the harvard citation to the discussion page, and we can then decide if we want to either assume it is correct or verify the citation. StudyAndBeWise 17:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I also found that this article had been reprinted at least once in a scholarly book of essays. Let me see if I can find that citation for you.--Filll 18:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have also called the National Center for Science Education before and they are very helpful with references. I am pretty sure they would help again here if we asked. They do read our articles regularly including the talk pages, so be aware that they have a pretty good idea of what is going on here.--Filll 18:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


Oh oh, do I have to worry now? I mean, this is a federal agency, right? Might end up on a no fly list or something...:) StudyAndBeWise 23:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the scholarly collection of essays: Darwin, Third Edition, By Charles Darwin, and Edited by Philip Appleman, (Indiana University), Published by W. W. Norton & Company, ISBN 0-393-95849-3 • paper • 696 pages • 2001. Molleen Matumura's essay is pages 572-573. The amazon link is [4] and the W.W.Norton link is [5].--Filll 19:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Had some problems getting Amazon to show the contents list, but noted this impressive statement – "Each volume combines the most authoritative text available with the comprehenive pedagogical apparatus necessary to appreciate the work fully." Wow! Sounds like test tubes and bunsen burners at least!!  :) dave souza, talk 22:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I took a look at the table of contents. The article I suspect is where the quote is from is there in the table of contents as filll noted. However, just in case there is any confusion, I could be wrong; it might be another article Matsumura|1998. I am guessing based on the year of publication and the subject of the article as titled that this is the correct article. StudyAndBeWise 23:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is another essay that summarizes the results with a citation (but no statistical quotes):Problem Concepts in Evolution: Cause, Purpose, Design, and Chance, Eugenie C. Scott, Paleontological Society Papers, Vol. 5, October 1999, The Evolution-Creation Controversy II: Perspectives on Science, Religion, and Geological Education, Edited by Patricia H. Kelley, Jonathan R. Bryan, and Thor A. Hansen. Note that the reference in this one is slightly incorrect. Scott cites "Matsumura, M. 1998. What Do Christians Really Believe About Evolution? Reports of the National Center for Science Education 18: 8-9." when in fact the correct citation is closer to "Matsumura, M. 1998. What Do Christians Really Believe About Evolution? Reports of the National Center for Science Education 18: No. 2, March, 1998"--Filll 19:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

National Center for Science Education, Inc.

I just got an email from Dr. Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, Inc., (don't I feel important, and confused about the "Inc.") he ^she^ offered to send me a pdf file of the article in question, after Dr. confirmed that the quote came from:

Matsumura, Molleen. 1998. What Do Christians Really Believe About Evolution? from the Reports of the National Center About Evolution 18(2): 8--9. It has also been reprinted with permission in Kansas Biology Teacher 8(1): 13.

I have enough information to believe the quote was fair and accurate, though I am interested to read the article once Dr. Scott sends it. If you want me to add this as a Harvard reference, let me know. StudyAndBeWise 01:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow you got an email from the boss. This is THE famous Dr. Scott herself, I bet. Impressive. You must have pull or something. Actually from my conversations with them, I believe they want to help us write the best possible articles on these topics.--Filll 21:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, an interesting part is that she was BCC'd on an email response to me from a third party, but she responded to the BCC. I did not know she was BCC'd until after I received her response. Surreal. StudyAndBeWise 07:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I received the PDF, and have updated the article.

For use in other articles quoting Matsumura|1998 on the 89.6%, here is the harvard citation:

  • {{citation | last = Matsumura | first = Molleen | authorlink = Molleen Matsumura | publisher = National Center for Science Education | year = 1998 | title = What Do Christians Really Believe About Evolution? | journal = Reports of the National Center About Evolution | volume = 18 | number = 2 | pages = 8-9 }}

And here is the harvard reference (replace rref with ref):

  • <ref>{{harvnb|Matsumura|1998|p=9}} adapting table from a June, 1998 article titled ''Believers: Dynamic Dozen'' put out by Religion News Services which in turn cites the ''1998 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches''</ref>

Hope this helps. StudyAndBeWise 21:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Turkish Creationism

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol19/8371_cloning_creationism_in_turkey_12_30_1899.asp

Adam Cuerden talk 20:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this too while researching the Molleen Matsumura quote. I'll try to read it sometime, but if you beat me to it, feel free to include information that belongs in the article. StudyAndBeWise 02:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is some absolutely amazing material around about Turkish creationism. Look in Islamic creationism and in the associated internal and external links, particularly the main guy Adnan Oktar who organized it and the web links and articles. Absolutely incredible! I think some of this is in creationism as well. --Filll 02:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

77-89.6%

I am a bit confused. This is an estimate with 1 sigma error bars? Or what? What is this range?--Filll 21:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Filll, see the discussion on the Level of Support for Evolution page. I quoted the article there. The 77% comes from the cited Matsumura|1998 article. See here StudyAndBeWise 21:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It is a pure direct quote?

--Filll 21:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, to the best of my typing abilities. StudyAndBeWise 22:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Analysis of Creationist claims

I think this section should go: Analysis of Creationist claims

This is an article on the controversy. Perhaps this should go to an article on creationism instead? I am willing to consider other views.

For reference, this is what I cut:

===Analysis of Creationist claims=== *[http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_intelligent_designs.html The Top 10 Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths)] *[http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064066/html/ Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences] *[http://www.talkorigins.org Archive of the Talk.Origins usenet newsgroup] *[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html Description of modern synthesis of evolution] *[http://www.evolutionpages.com Scientific evidence for evolution and refutations of creationist arguments] *[http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/List_of_creationist_arguments Evowiki: List of creationist arguments] *[http://members.shaw.ca/amitdeshwar/creationism.html Why Creationism is Wrong] - An Essay by Amit Gulab Deshwar *[http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-03/evolution.html One Longsome Argument] - [[Skeptical Inquirer]] article explaining the misconceptions and fallacies that lead people to doubt evolution *[http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wise.htm Criticism of creationism] *[http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/ Frequently Encountered Criticisms in Evolution vs. Creationism] *[http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html Evolution is both fact and theory] essay by Stephen Jay Gould *[http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentviewarticle.asp?article=1191 Humanist Association: Creationism in British Schools] *[http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/ Evolution resources from the National Academies] - The US [[National Academy of Sciences]] have created this site to fight misconceptions about evolution. *[http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html The second law of thermodynamics and evolution] from [http://www.2ndlaw.com/ 2ndlaw.com] argues against creationist claims. *[http://richarddawkins.net/foundation,ourMission Foundation For Reason And Science]

StudyAndBeWise 05:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

We wouldn't want this to be linked from the article? ("This" is a creationist's analysis of evolutionary science.) StudyAndBeWise 05:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that this sort of list is perfect for Objections to evolution, or a possible page of links giving an overview of what is available on this issue on the internet. I have quite a few similar links collected already, and it is just a question of how I can put these on WP and not violate some sort of link farm rule.--Filll 13:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Darwinism" rehashed.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/when_i_use_a_word_it_means_jus.php —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 15:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

I am not sure what you're trying to say? I assume it's not just "Hey, take a look at this interesting blog." I assume you're trying to say that we shouldn't quote Jonathan Wells' use of the term darwinism? I just checked the article and it doesn't quote Wells. If you meant more than that, you'll have to be explicit. StudyAndBeWise 15:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Another cite

Can't do much as I'm very ill, but

http://darwin.bc.asu.edu/blog/?p=246 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 21:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

I hope you get better. I'll wait until you can articulate the point you're trying to make before I respond. StudyAndBeWise 04:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous edits by 24.108.7.53

I just undid the anonymous edits by 24.108.7.53. This is a diff.

1. S/he replaced "scientists" with "people with recognized scientific credentials." The change doesn't add much meaning but does add more words. This change was not necessary, and the sentence before the change accurately represented the cited source.

2. S/he added:


This is a position of many scientists on the evolutionary side of the debate. I removed this for three reasons: 1. It's location in the ICR co-opting section, which is describing the ICR, and not debunking them. 2. If it belongs in the article, it belongs elsewhere in the article (it may belong in a different article). 3. It should be cited.

3. S/he added the following incited uncited material to the section describing the ICR's co-opting of the creationist label:


I removed this because: 1. It is located in the wrong section. 2. It should be cited. 3. It appears to be geared toward deciding the controversy, when this particular article is to describe the controversy. Other articles on wikipedia are more geared toward deciding the controversy (or at least presenting the overwhelming scientific view on the matter). Even so, if the point being made can be cited, it could arguably be placed somewhere in the article.

4. I removed the following because while many scientists agree with the point made in the citation, many others do not (there is a debate regarding the universal application of Popper's falsifiability to science).


If you read this 24.108.7.53, I would recommend the following in searching for citations, in the following order:

1. Disinterested parties, e.g., journalists, historians, etc.
2. Interested parties on both sides of the controversies.
3. Interested parties on one side of the controversy. (In this case, the presentation of the material should, in my own opinion, describe the material as being from an interested party). E.g., "Creation scientists state that X is Y."<rev>{{harvnb|2004|Creationist_Organization_1_policy_statement|p=13}}, {{harvnb|2003|Famous_Creationist_two_editorial|p=12}}</ref>"

I also recommend that you either include them additions in the appropriate section (or article), and/or that you create a new section with enough materials and citations to justify an additional section. Please feel free to discuss. And please don't be discouraged. This is a controversial article, and we are trying to keep it balanced, organized, and well written. We don't want it to devolve into a "They claim...they counter...but they claim..." type of article with disjointed adjacent contradictory sentences. (We have more work to do along these lines, but we have made some progress too.) You also might want to examine some of the other evolution/creation articles, where some of your material might be more suitable. This particular article is about the controversy, not resolving it. StudyAndBeWise 04:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing capital from "God" when talking about god for multiple faiths

Interesting. Is this standard? It makes sense to me if we were talking about religions that had a different god (e.g., the church of Appollo). However, what about the main three monotheistic religions? In this later case, does the rule apply? StudyAndBeWise 02:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have seen some picky Muslims get very upset about any suggestion that God and Allah are the same. Not all feel like that however. And many Jews prefer to write it as G_d.--Filll 02:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'm the one who made the edit (diff) I think you're talking about. I read "almost all churches teach that god created the cosmos" to be of all religions (not just Christian), although re-reading that paragraph the Christian version is probably what was in mind. I would support either changing "churches" to "religions", or just reverting it back to "God" if it really is the Christian one.
The whole differing religious positions paragraph seems centered on the Christian creationism debate. While I agree that the Christian debate is the largest area of debate (so should be most of the article), it would be interesting to have some discussion from other religions' views too, as they must be facing similar issues. Perhaps the page needs a {{Globalize}} tag?
Anyway, I hope that explains why I made that edit. --h2g2bob 09:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
To answer your first point, it's not a Wikipedia policy - I was thinking of the capitalization of the word in language as the difference between god as a being (God) and god as a concept (god). --h2g2bob 10:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I won't edit any sentence that uses the word G_d, since I would spell it in that manner. Otherwise, I think god is a generic concept, or a group of mythical beings. Orangemarlin 21:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Gould portrayed as "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" in Dennet's book

I am trying to read Dennet's book for this article, but it is not very useful along these lines. There are some unexpected turns, however. For example, Dennet's portrayal of Gould is less than flattering at times. StudyAndBeWise 05:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Arr, well, remember not to give undue weight to his odder opinions, unless others say it too. =) Adam Cuerden talk 09:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Explamnation of above cite

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/when_i_use_a_word_it_means_jus.php This was for the previous discussion of "Darwinism" as a term. Particularly noteworthy is the quote of Ernst Mayr,

"The word "Darwinism" has continued to change its meaning over the years. In the period immediately after 1859 it referred most often to the totality of Darwin's thinking, while it strictly means natural selection for the evolutionary biologist of today."

...I think we should avoid the term. Adam Cuerden talk 11:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Common venues for debate

I nominate this section for deletion. Some reasons are that it lacks notability (nothing special here), it lacks importance, and is mostly obvious/self-explanatory. Over all it does not contribute to the article nor does it help us understand the subjedct of the article any better. Article is long enough as it is. ~ UBeR 21:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Moving addion to opening

I am moving a recent addition to the opening.


Because

1. This is based on a reference to a reproduction of a science magazine citing a disocover letter (read: editorial) quoting the subject, Duane Gish, who may or may not speak for so-called creation scientists. 2. It would better fit in the section on creation science as a metaphysical research program. (I.e., it is already addressed)...even so. 3. It reverts to previous presentation methods, that is, sentence, contradiction, sentence, contradiction, which makes the article incoherant. I've been trying to move away from this (though there is work to do on this front).

Anyway, I am going to try to better present the citation so that readers don't have to visit the off-site web-site to learn that this is a purported reproduction of a science magazine referencing a discover letter purporting to quote Gish, and also include it in the metaphysical research quotes, becuase that section could use support. StudyAndBeWise 14:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I am done moving it. If anybody has a copy of either the science and or discover letter, please update the harvard reference, or post the pertainent details here and I will do it. StudyAndBeWise 15:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"Ironically" as POV?

See this diff: diff

I don't think this is POV. It would be understandable to construe this as original research. However, the irony of the matter is what justifies including the description and reference to McLean v. Arkansas. And the irony is there, and I don't think the irony is controversial and/or POV. The irony is an objective description and no great leap of logic. I'll leave it out for now and just raise my objection here for others to comment on.

Changed from:


Changed to:


Context: Creationists using falsifiability as doubled edged weapon (citable) against evolution have the argument(weapon) used against them in McLean v. Arkansas.

Meh, maybe I'm just in a bad mood. If you disagree with my decision feel free to revert it. JoshuaZ 15:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll wait for other comments. It's not a big deal, and does raise a question regarding original research in my mind, and possibly POV in yours. StudyAndBeWise 15:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, JoshuaZ, I see you identified it as OR as well as possibly POV...my mistake. I'll let others help me understand the OR line, and when it is crossed. I disagree with the POV, but am willing to listen. StudyAndBeWise 15:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The POV concern is that due to the inherently subjective nature of irony, saying something is ironic is almost always POV. JoshuaZ 16:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> The term "ironically" draws attention to the sudden shift from falsifiability being used against evolution to it being used against "creation science", but while concise it isn't clear and suggests possible POV. Perhaps an introductory sentence would help the paragraph, along the lines of "The point has also been used to critique creation science." ... dave souza, talk 16:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I just added a transition sentence per Dave Souza. Hopefully this addresses the OR concern and softens the transition. StudyAndBeWise 04:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Introduction massively biased

The first two paragraphs of the page are fine, but the third is not.

"Although there has been some success in de-emphasizing evolution in some public schools by applying pressure to local school boards and even individual teachers, the teaching of evolution is still widespread." This sentence is very clearly not Neutral Point of View... "success in de-emphasizing evolution", "teaching of evolution is still widespread".

The second sentence says "consistently thwarting the introduction of creation science and intelligent design into public science curricula" which reads as if it is inherently right for "creation science and intelligent design" to be in the "public science curricula".

Clearly, I am on the side of science, not religion but I hope that I would have picked up on this point if I was undecided on the issue. The current introduction is a very poor starting-point for an otherwise quite neutral article; I will work on a genuinely neutral solution and will edit, probably tomorrow.

Asteroceras 22:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I will point out that it is extremely hard to be NPOV in these articles. No matter how they are written, someone thinks they are biased.--Filll 02:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Still, I'm inclined to agree, I fear. Adam Cuerden talk 02:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I am open to persuasion, but this is not easy to write, that is for sure.--Filll 02:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Aye. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 02:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

I think if you are on the side of science or the side of creationism, you will think this phrasing is biased. However, if you treat it like a description of two fighters in a bout in which you have no stake, it's unclear to me which side it is biased towards. Of course I am biased, I wrote it (but was influenced by Numbers and Larson). I think I summarized NPOV sources in writing it, as well as the article, using the language of the ostensibly NPOV sources, historians, who use phrasing that ticks off both sides (e.g., "co-opting of creationist label" and "evangelizing for Darwinism"). I say unless you can demonstrate that Larson and Numbers are partisans to the debate, that the phrasing is prima facie NPOV, and you have a tough sell ahead of you. StudyAndBeWise 03:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I also want to add I don't think being NPOV is subject to a poll of people who are participants to the controversy. If NPOV sources such as Numbers and Larson portray something a certain way, the onus on showing that the source, and hence the paraphrasing of the source, is POV is on the accuser. StudyAndBeWise 03:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why this is not POV

1. It describes the unflattering tactic of pressuring individual teachers, correctly characterizing the lengths participants of the debate are willing to employ, illustrating the emotion of the debate. 2. It accurately describes the lack of success on the part of some on the creation side to de-emphasize the teaching of evolution. 3. It is factually true. 4. It is backed up with a reference to a minister and a scientist [not entirely unsympathetic to the creation side] who, among other points, describe how "high-school teachers are terrorized by ringing telephones, fearing an irate parent will scold them for teaching godless evolution to their children."

Next, I quote from page p=39-40 of Numbers|1992


which lends credance to the idea that irate parents would attempt to thwart evolution in the public schools.

In any event, this is an article about the controversy, and not to decide it. The above quoted statements are supported by NPOV sources, do not decide the controversy, and do are not flattering (biased towards) either side. They are objective statements of fact. StudyAndBeWise 03:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

More on why it is not NPOV:


From BioScience Viewpoint editorial reproduction Volume 39, No: 9, p 636, October 1987.

And


From Arkansas: low on the evolution scale article in the Arkansas Times by Jennifer Barnett Reed on 03/30/2006. So now we have a disinterested party (Numbers) an interested party (minister and creation sympathetic biologist), another opposing interested pary (Bioscience journal editorial viewpoint by Zimmerman, Michael), and an "objective" article in the Arkansas times.

Need I go on? Just because something sounds POV to somebody who has taken sides does not make it so. The references make it clear that this is a fair and accurate description. As I said, you have a tough sell. The number of references available supporting the current phrasing is great, from NPOV and POV sources on both sides of the controversy. StudyAndBeWise 04:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I would add the Bioscience article as a reference if it weren't a reproduction. (I am often critical of anonymous websites putting up reproductions to legitimate articles, so I won't do it now, even though it supports the current phrasing). StudyAndBeWise 04:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Passive voice is bad. I would suggest changing "Although there has been some success in de-emphasizing evolution in some public schools by applying pressure to local school boards and even individual teachers, the teaching of evolution is still widespread." To "Although creationists have had some success in de-emphasizing evolution in some public schools by applying pressure to local school boards and even individual teachers, the teaching of evolution is still widespread." JoshuaZ 04:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this, JoshuaZ. If you would make the change, I would appreciate it. (I agree with this critique, and recognize it as a problem in my writing.) StudyAndBeWise 04:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Well somebody changed it to phrasing I can live with. If any further changes are made that change meaning, I request that the contributor go over the references, as well as the stuff posted in this discussion. Thanks to the contributor who changed it and found some neutral ground. It is amazing how this was found so quickly by what appears to be a lurker. StudyAndBeWise 04:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The only thing I don't like about the sentence is the word "widespread." Where is it widespread? Out in the sticks? Big Cities? California? Alabama? Every time a school district here in California, even in rural areas, attempts to teach ID or Creationism, they get sued, the school district loses (or gives up because of cost), and Evolution is taught in science. From my viewpoint, the teaching of Evolution is not widespread, it is total. Predominant would be my word. Orangemarlin 06:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I can better understand the concern that the term widespread is less than precise. Predominant is a slightly stronger but probably correct synonym. StudyAndBeWise 03:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Why the intro is biased: national bias.

It's funny. I can't believe how much I disagree with you,StudyAndBeWise, that the intro is NPOV, and yet I know you to be fair-minded. Take the second paragraph, for example; to me that is rhetoric which doesn't have much information in it, but leaves you with the impression that evolution and Intelligent Design are more or less on par, and I can't see that as neutral.
Assuming good faith, which with you is quite easy, I started to look for how the different views, yours and mine, could both be held and both be true. The answer is easy: national bias. This is US-centric. If you look up the policy on what constitutes national bias, it is when a dispute is framed differently in different parts of the world, but not presented to convey that. That is exactly what we have here. In the US, evolution has never been fully accepted by the population at large, and has only been taught in schools, with Creationism excluded, for a relatively short time.
Evolution has never been controversial in Australia. The moment that the platypus was discovered, it was clear that there was a different paradigm for how the world was created than what was prevailing at the time. I personally suspect that finding Australia was a turning point for European science, and was partly responsible for Darwin's theory - Australia's fauna made it just so startlingly obvious that the prevailing view was inadequate. As for the creationist view? I remember reading that it was very difficult for missionaries in Australia in the early days. Until Europeans came there were no beasts of the field, or even fields, as Genesis describes. Trishm 05:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that is very well put. I agree. --Michael Johnson 05:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
To be neutral *in this article*, I think you *have* to treat those who support "evolution only" and those who oppose "evolution" as two sides of a *controversy*, as partisans, and not decide the controversy. Even though there is virtually unanimous consonance among biological scientists that evolution is the best scientific explanation for the origins of life, that is beside the point in this article. (So I don't need to mention that science and consensus are as orthogonal as supernatural explanations and modern science are orthogonal.) In other wikipedia articles, you do not have to treat the sides of this controversy so objectively, especially when the controversy is not the subject. But I think in this article you do. And that means characterizing what NPOV sources say, the way they say it, regardless of whose feelings it hurts.
I just watched a Nova documentary on my cousin, the peaceful, sex-loving, war-avoiding Bonobo, a great ape, and I think it was funded by Americans largely for Americans, produced and edited in America, and is not atypical of what we get in the United States.(NOVA Program on Bonobos) So I disagree on the bias...if anything, we in the United States are over-exposed to the idea that humans and monkeys are our not-so-distant cousins (and that we humans are causing climate change and must do something now).
I think the reason we have such different views is I am simply more objective than you (tongue in cheek). But of course you feel the opposite. Nobody I know would claim that I think like a typical american, so your observations are refreshing. (Most people I know disagree with me on virtually everything current, until I am proven right several years later, e.g., on why the war in Iraq was illegal and how using our troops as terrorist bait immoral, in which case many eventually claim they knew this all along.)
However, and this is a big however, maybe the intro could be reworded without loosing meaning to address your concerns. Until I see the changes, and only the critiques, I am too quick, I think, to assume that critical details about the controversy will be removed. Again, I urge you to read the NPOV sources, as well as POV sources that are self-critical, before making changes. I am more amenable to arguments that phrasing is wrong or less than ideal; that original research has been done, etc., than POV arguments on well-cited sentences or summaries of well cited NPOV material.
Also, this controversy is largely US-centric, is it not?
Lastly, you write "Evolution has never been controversial in Australia." A notable debate in the creation-evolution controversy occured in Sydney between Professor Ian Plimer and biochemist/YEC Duane Gish. It was written about in the papers there from what I understand. StudyAndBeWise 06:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed reply. I read the talk-pages before I edit, so do not fear loose-cannon edits, that's why I started this discussion.
I will reply to all the points you made, but not in the same order, so bear with me.
  • this controversy is largely US-centric, is it not?
Most certainly. But is has been pushed out on to many different parts of the world, including Australia. Ministers have lost jobs over it (all prompted by US groups). I spoke about Australia's history, but certainly the controversy has hit our shores too. I have added bits about Brendan Nelson (Federal Education Minister) unsuccessfully floating the idea of teaching ID in science classes to relevant wikipedia articles myself. Because it is US-centric, but a global phenomenon, it is especially important, and difficult, to avoid national bias.
*To be neutral *in this article*, I think you *have* to treat those who support "evolution only" and those who oppose "evolution" as two sides of a *controversy*
Not quite. You are accepting the definition of the controversy as hoped for in the wedge document, POV in itself. It is not as simple as that. In this topic, you have to define what exactly the controversy is about before you can take sides - and that is no easy thing.
But of course you feel the opposite. Of course.;) Australia takes in information from all over the world, in a way that the US does not. The US is terribly sheltered in its media coverage e.g. It took an Australian journalist to tell of Gitmo's existence. You wouldn't know the inmates' names, either, from traditional US press sources. If you don't believe me on this one - confirm it with someone you know who has lived in both places. There are enough of those around.
NOVA
What can I say? It appears in the US, such a documentary is considered still necessary. (And if you think that you are over-exposed to global warming, you haven't seen ice-bergs floating past New Zealand as they break off the South Pole. Who cares what's causing it? If we can do something, we should.)
characterizing what NPOV sources say, the way they say it, regardless of whose feelings it hurts.
I have no doubt that you characterized these sources fairly. What I doubt, and will need to check, is that these sources are NPOV. I'm sure they are NPOV within the US, but I would not be so sure about a global NPOV. And this is a global topic, as you noted with the Gish-Pilmer debate. Notice, though, that Pilmer did not take Gish seriously in the least. He saw it as a political stunt.
maybe the intro could be reworded without losing meaning to address your concerns
I should hope so. I wouldn't want to lose details, it is important to put the US perspective. But, and it is a big but, it is not the only perspective. Give me a little time to read and think. I hope Michael Johnson, above, has a go too.Trishm 10:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd be curious to see how Trish would propose changing the intro. JoshuaZ 06:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
me too! This is not trivial. I will work on it on a subpage to my talkpage first.Trishm 09:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Aye, it's not at all easy. (One note, though: I think we need to emphasise the Turkish perspective a bit more: That's probably the most important offshoot. Adam Cuerden talk 11:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Turkey is important. The global actions (getting political leaders to stop teaching evolution, and to teach creationism) are obviously important. It is a political controversy, not a scientific controversy, and the introduction needs to reflect that. The current introduction, second paragraph, that the dispute is over what is good science. Is there any decent source claiming that evolution is not good science? Is there anything that has been shown to be incorrect? Casting vague aspersions doesn't count. Incomplete knowledge of every step of evolution doesn't count. That doesn't invalidate what we do know.Trishm 23:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, what is the wedge document you refer to when you write "Not quite. You are accepting the definition of the controversy as hoped for in the wedge document..."?

The controversy has been described in numerous books and articles, and is defined on two levels in the second paragraph. Whether or not you agree with these books and articles is not relevant. There is a recognized controversy by neutral third parties who are reliable sources, and this controversy is the subject of this article.

Also, whether or not to include other controversies is a good question. I am not sure. This is an article on the "Creation-evolution controversy," not the "controversies." This is a tougher call. I think other aspects of the controversy warrant attention to the extent that reliable neutral third parties pay them attention.

Also, regarding the global aspects of the controversy^national bias^, I sometimes wonder if we should have a us.wikipedia and an aus.wikipedia and a uk.wikipedia. The other English speaking countries would of course be welcome to wholesale cut and paste articles as they see fit.

I think in Australlia and the United States it is probably acceptable for a documentary on Bonobos under the color of science to make wild leaps of logic regarding sex, war, and apes in relation to humans as very thinly veiled political and social propaganda. But to me, the show was ^supposed to be^ about monkeys (and there were many interesting parts). It was a science show. But it was taking far-fetched political and sociological leaps of logic under the cover of common descent. In Austrailia, and the United States, it might be acceptable to use a science documentary as a soapbox on political and social issues, but to me, it is goofy. (Even though I am and have always been against Bush's adventures in Iraq.) StudyAndBeWise 03:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


To my knowledge, no to the first question. Yes to the second. Pro-evolution supporters state that these normal adjustments of science as new information is gathered are exaggerated by anti-evolution parties. StudyAndBeWise 04:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what is the wedge document you refer to when you write "Not quite. You are accepting the definition of the controversy as hoped for in the wedge document..."?

You will find the wedge document very interesting reading, and if you are unfamiliar with it, my comments would seem to come out of left-field to you. I certainly don't find Hovind (first citation) neutral. The other writers may be neutral within their scope. Whether I agree with them, as you say, is quite immaterial. I disagree with the idea that a US scope for this article is sufficient - like it or not, this is global.Trishm 07:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The responses to my topic: "Introduction massively biased"

"is still widespread" is a term used almost universally with negative implications: "malnutrition is still widespread in sub-Saharan Africa", for example; we do not hear that "good nutrition is still widespread in Iceland". This is why I disagree with "is still widespread" and i would replace it with "is still normal/typical/convention". I suppose "some success" is acceptable, in line with StudyAndBeWise's notes.

While the last sentence is true, I still find it strongly pro-creation, by implying that ID and CS have valid places in the science curriculum. I would rephrase to:

In the United States, recent court decisions have affirmed this position, preventing creation science and intelligent design from being taught in public science classes [or classrooms].

I do not think that "national bias" in the introduction is a problem, as the issue is very much more significant in the US than anywhere else.

I have not gone ahead and made these edits, as I would like to hear how vehement my opposition is  ;) for your information, I am not a lurker, but entirely new to Wikipedia (in the last week or so) as I need something to do when i am not answering calls at my new job.

Asteroceras 17:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Added "[or classrooms]" Asteroceras 17:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, nice to have you aboard. I wish that you were right, that this controversy were only significant in the US, as it used to be some time ago. Now, largely thanks to the Discovery Institute, the controversy has been deliberately and forcefully pushed onto the rest of the world, it is now definitely a global political issue. The article needs to reflect that; the introduction needs to be clear about the scope of the article.Trishm 22:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I would favor Aster's changes but agree with Trish that the other issues need to be dealt with as well. (Also, my impression is that it isnt just the DI but AIG to a large extent as well). JoshuaZ 22:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I did say "very much more significant in the US", not "only significant in the US". Asteroceras 11:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is clearly becoming an issue in England, Australia, Scotland, Holland, Turkey (which in fact is in far worse shape than the US), Pakistan, Croatia, Iran, and several other countries. And it is not just the DI, although the DI is clearly involved in several of these, including England. --Filll 23:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Widespread" has no negative connotations in my dictionary

You are ascribing connotations not indicated in my dictionary (Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate). Indeed, it has an example with neutral to positive connotations "widewpread public interest". Please provide a reference (from a linguist or a dictionary) to back up this assertion that the term widespread has negative implications. StudyAndBeWise 03:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Main Entry:widespread Function:adjective Date:1582

1 : widely diffused or prevalent <widespread public interest>
2 : widely extended or spread out <low, widespread hood and fenders — Time> <a widespread erosion surface — C. B. Hitchcock>

Even so, after reading OM's comments above, I changed the word to a stronger but accurate synonym: predominant. Consequently, this point may be moot, unless predominant has negative connotations in others' minds. StudyAndBeWise 03:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think my examples work quite well at illustrating typical usage. Quoting a dictionary will give a literal definition, but is not very helpful when trying to find how a word is used in everyday speech.

However, I went to the first five results on Google.com for "dictionary" and found the following:

Dictionary.com: out of the seven quoted usage examples, six are negative and one is neutral but with negative connotations in modern usage: "widespread poverty", "widespread fallout from a nuclear explosion", "a widespread misunderstanding", "widespread fear of nuclear war", "widespread nuclear fallout" (repeat), "widespread hunger and disease", the neutral example: "a widespread doctrine".

Cambridge Dictionaries Online has three examples: "...widespread flooding in northern France", "Malnutrition in the region is widespread...", "The campaign has received widespread support" (one positive)

Mirriam-Webster Online only has one non-literal example, which is admittedly positive.

The 4th and 5th dictionaries had shared databases with Dictionary.com. Encarta online gave both "rife" and "epidemic" as synonyms, plus two neutral synonyms.

The top nine results for Google search "widespread site:bbc.co.uk" are negative (the 10th result is null). Nine of the top ten for "widespread site:cnn.com" are negative and one neutral. Foxnews.com gives nine negative and one null.

Therefore, I think I was justified in complaining about "widespread" in the context it was used in.

Asteroceras 11:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


Well, clearly, the word is neutral, and can be used in positively and negatively. Well, okay, maybe I am being stubborn. You may a good case that it has negative overtones. I am not a linguist, so I guess majority wins. I think I need a new dictionary. Wonder what the OED says. StudyAndBeWise 03:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Planet of the Apes

The original "Planet of the Apes" movie had a strong emphasis on it's social commentary regarding evolution. Since this is a controversial article I thought it'd be best to ask if this is an appropriate bit to include in the article(once I've found some profssional reviews which note this point and can be used as references)? i kan reed 03:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Followup statement specifically as an example of how this contraversy affected artistic culture of the United States. i kan reed 03:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I think finding a reviewer of films who makes this observation is not sufficient for this article. If that is all you can find (reviewers of films)--then I think it would go in an article on the movie. I have not come accross any references talking about the planet of the apes in my research for this article, but if I did, and it was more than a sentence, I think it would be worthy of inclusion in this article, especially if there was some real controversy. These are just my opinions, and what would guide me. StudyAndBeWise 03:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the introduction

Some quick notea about problems I have with the introduction:

Firstly it does read as if to equate evolution and creationism as equally valid positions. Note it does not say this specificly, but by the time you read it you get that feeling. My opinion: Evolution is mainstream and scientificly accepted. Creationists are attacking evolution because they want to see their theology adopted by the broader community. Creationism is not accepted by science, nor by considerable sections of the religious community Those statements are verifiable, and IMO factual. Also they represent how the issue is presented in other Wikipedia articles. That is the impression I believe a reader should get from the article.--Michael Johnson 05:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The statements are POV in that they attempt to decide the controversy. This article is not about who should win the controversy, but about the controversy itself. StudyAndBeWise 04:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Have to disagree with you as to them being POV. On the contrary, they are the starting point, the status quo. There is a controversy because those promoting creationism want creationism to be seen as mainstream, scientificly accepted, and the majority religious view. It is like two countries with disputed territories. Country A holds the territory, country B launches an attack to gain it. Creationists want evolution's territory, and that is the reason that there is a controversy. This is not reflected in the introduction. --Michael Johnson 05:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I have to go too, but quickly.... At the top of this discussion page is a reference to BBC documentary. It sounds like from at least one anti-evolution viewpoint presented in that documentary, the theory is that the Bible had a lock on the creation story, then biology wanted it, took it, and creation is trying to recover it. This is a simplification. But the point is there is bias in the presentation. Also, while some (or many) creationists want to bludgen people into their religious beliefs by suppressing evolutionary biology, I think there are some (at least one) biologists who want to use evolution as a club for atheism. (See google on biology professor Michael Dini and his religious test for Med. School recommendations, or wikipedia's article, which needs work. But if you have a NPOV reference on the country a/country b analogy, it would be worth looking at! StudyAndBeWise 05:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Secondly it defines the controversity in terms of religion vs science. In fact the controversity is some religion vs other religion and science. There is no mention of religious that support evolution. This plays towards creationists, who try to draw out evolutionary scientists, label them as evolutionists, and then define them as athiests. Yet one of the references used clearly outlines the religious division.--Michael Johnson 05:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

There is mention in the article. While you might think it deserves more prominence, I think the prominence it receives is in accord with the observations of third party observers as well as the common observations of (opposing) partisans. However, feel free to correct me if you have NPOV sources that indicate this deserves more prominence. StudyAndBeWise 04:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Peters, Ted & Martinez Hewlett (2005-12-22) is already quoted, and is primarily concerned with just this issue. --Michael Johnson 05:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I think I may have found this reference, or at least reused it. And technically, the controversy isn't even some religion v. science, but some religion v. some science (except for some flat earth held fixed wackos who discount most of science). I think, however, the point should be raised in prominence in the article to the extent that other sources can also be found. Even so, to make your argument, this might be difficult, because, while I find Larson and Numbers to be reliable sources, they both have a vested interest in not de-sensationalizing the controversy, if you know what I mean. The same goes for most mainstream press accounts. They wouldn't sell many books or newspapers if they wrote "there is no controversy here, carry on...." On this point, I think some academic papers are the most likely place to find citable material to support your theory, (e.g., by historians, science historians, religious historians, social scientists, etc.). Unfortunately, this is beyond my present abilities to research (I have wife/children/dog...the local library is about as far as I can make it...and being able to survey academic articles is difficult on the internet, as it seems only sensational ones are republished on the internet. It seems a large university library might be a better than the internet for conducting such research of source material.) StudyAndBeWise 05:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thirdly I think reading the article consensus is that the article is about biology. While creationist certainly hold different views on geology and cosmology, the "fight" is over biology. Yet the introduction takes two paragraphs to get there. This confuses the issue. What is the article about?

It is about the controversy. Over the years, the controversy has shifted, as well as the positions of the parties to the controversy. This history section captures much of this, but it could use more perhaps. Personally, I don't think the controversy is over biology. I think it is over philosophical and religious implications of biology, and the POVs of many outspoken biologists (see my citations above on this talk page). People aren't as up in arms about the big bang to the extent that they are up in arms about evolution because, for the most part, big-bang proponents are less in-your-face about the ramifications. StudyAndBeWise 04:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, but the "fight" today is about biology, or rather who owns biology. --Michael Johnson 05:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
To the best of my recollection, not according to Numbers or Larson, the two most recent books I read on this. (Books I recommend, books that seem to be reliable and neutral). Saying the fight is about who owns biology sounds like a biologist's perspective. If other disinterested parties have come to the conclusion that the fight is about "who owns biology", I'd take a look at the reference (it would be interesting). StudyAndBeWise 05:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Fourthly there is no sense that this is a religious and political campaign by creationists to amend the way science is being taught. They are attacking science, not science attacking their religion. Yet the feel we get from the introduction is of gentlemen scholars sitting round disgussing the issues while they sip tea. We get no sense the protaganists are different, that they have different reasons for being in the debate.

You can't put the whole article in the introduction. While it may be less than sufficiently covered, some of this is covered in the article. Also, you do realize that pro-evolution and seperation of church and state forces have organized political campaigns (and non-profit organizations) to keep CS, ID, prayer, ten-commandments, etc. out of the public schools (not that this is a bad idea, but the point is, there are political campaigns and alliances on both sides). I think the article does even less justice to this second aspect (largely because it is not addressed to a large enough extent in the references I have come across). This is a case of something that I think should go in the article, pending discovery of neutral reliable sources observing and commenting on this aspect--something I do not recall encountering. StudyAndBeWise 04:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, from my perspective this should be the essence of the introduction. There is no dispute about which is the better science, and for the introduction to imply that there is is incorrect. There is no question that evolution is not good science, there is no question that ID is even a science, let alone a good science. The controversy has been contrived as part of a religious campaign aimed at politicians and ordinary Protestant Christians to increase the amount of religion in schools and society as a whole, using attacks on science and evolution as the means of doing so.
In the US, the whole mess has other overtones as well, but this is what is spilling out into the world arena. It is easy enough to cite, you just need to read things that emanate from outside the US.Trishm 05:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
(more later --Michael Johnson 05:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC))

I guess this is where Australia comes in. We had no "native" creationist movement. It arrived here as the baggage in the growth of Pentacostal churches. It is in fact part of an Americanisation process, and draws strength from the US. We don't have a "controversity" as such, in that no-one is trying to tell public schools how to teach biology, yet. But we do see the strategies being pushed by creationists in other areas.

Sorry brief, hurried, not checked for spelling, and probably disjointed. --Michael Johnson 04:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have not studied the Australian controversy, or if it is organic. I'll have to take your word for it. I hope my responses address at least some of your concerns. StudyAndBeWise 04:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the point of contention with us is the balance of national perspectives, which are clearly quite different. It may be useful to look to the international press and literature to get a sense of perspective.Trishm 10:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

To address "inherently right" perspective

I don't think I addressed sufficiently another point:


I want to first quote the full sentence as it exists in the article at this time, because a key part has been left out in the critique.


The Courts have been thwarting, consistently. This is accurate. It is neutral. It leads one to believe that the courts are unjust if one is a creationist. It leads one to think that efforts to have the subjects brought into public schools is somehow wrong if you're an anti-ID or anti-CS type, or perhaps even if your neutral and just trust the courts when they are consistent.

Personally, I have a view, and it is that CS and ID should not be taught as science, and if it is taught at all, it should be perhaps mentioned in social science or current event classes. I try to be neutral in this article on the controversy, however. I make conscious efforts to be neutral, which is why I might be a little too sensitive. The contributions I have made to this article are not what I would write on my own blog, where I would take greater license in letting my own POV prevail on the article. In any event, my view is irrelevant, unless I am letting it seep into the article, or unless I am over-compensating for my own view.

So back to the point. To some parties to the controversy, it is inherently right for "creation science and intelligent design" to be taught in science class rooms of public schools. But I don't think those parties would like the sentence you're critiquing either. (They might not want the sentence in the article).

Let's try to change the sentence's subject without changing the form.


Which side is this biased toward? Or is it just poorly worded? StudyAndBeWise 04:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest stating that the courts are rejecting rather than thwarting the introduction. I don't expect this to be controversial, so I will go ahead and make the change, but if anybody think it has to be debated, just change it back. Terjen 04:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I will not change it back, at least for now. I will comment, though, that the courts are not merely rejecting arguments, they are also preventing the introduction (via injunctions and rulings). I think thwarting may not be precise enough, either. In fact, the courts listen to arguments, take sides, and wield some power while deciding legal controversies. Usually, a U.S. court cannot unilaterally decide something if one of the parties in the dispute hasn't requested it. (But I am no lawyer) I think a lawyer might be the most able to come up with better phrasing. Perhaps rejecting is okay, but to me it is incomplete (yes, they reject the arguments, but in making a decision on the merits of the case, the court has some power, and can prevent the introduction). A word or words that convey both rejection of an argument and prevention of the introduction would be best. StudyAndBeWise 05:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
"Thwart" is a loaded word - it implies that the courts are active in suppressing creationists, rather than being impartial. The result, of course, is that the creationists efforts are thwarted.Trishm 06:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Stymied?Trishm 06:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The legal term would be barring, as in the court is consistently barring the introduction of... Terjen 08:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Citation

Now I see that the harvard referencing should be replaced by Template:Citation. It seems to work. For others who are knowledgeable, pless see Template:Citation. It looks like the keywords have changed, no uppercase first word in the keyword. Other than that, harvnb still links to citation as it used to reference harvard reference. I have a problem, this should be called "reference" and not "citation"--either that, or I am have a gross misunderstanding of the terms (which is possible). StudyAndBeWise 06:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation please

How do you form a citation/reference for a documentary?

BBC, Horizon, A War on Science

A War on Science

(I think this is a fairly good documentary, I give it a B, and has value for being able to provide alternative sources to existing parts of this article). StudyAndBeWise 06:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Horizon: A War on Science copyright 2006, edited by Andrew Cohen

What is a proper citation?

Thanks. StudyAndBeWise 06:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

New AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Level of support for evolution Please comment. --ScienceApologist 19:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Creationism and Common descent

Please vote on the relevance of this section on the article common descent. -- Pbarnes 03:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

evangelized for Darwinism use by NPOV RS

"evangelized for Darwinism" is the term used by Larson on p=253. As a NPOV RS, I don't think we need to say thing like "in the words of Larson, evangelized for Darwinism." I understand that this phrasing is objected to by people who are sympathetic to one side of this controversy, but I reverted because Larson is a NPOV RS. I am willing to listen to counter-arguments, but meanwhile, I don't think we should get in the habit of re-packaging the presentation of the controversy, when NPOV RS's have presented it in a way that partisans dislike. This article is not about science. It is about a controversy. StudyAndBeWise 17:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I want to add that I understantd the scientific perspective. However, NPOV RS who are not involved in the controversy present the controversy in ways that rub participants the wrong way. This is not grounds for removing these NPOV RS material, though. Edward J. Larson is a pulizer prize winning historian, who won his pulizer prize for a book having to deal with the controversy (The Scopes trial). I am going to quote, for the sake of those who have not read the citation, from page 247-250 of Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory. In this section of the book, it does not portray the evolution (or the creationist) in good light, but it does, it seems, portray them in honest light. The POV, if any, of this author is that this controversy is part of a culture war, but that is my POV his his POV. I am going to focus on the portrayal of evolution promoters, since that is where the dispute is:


[italics and bold added].

Clearly, Larson is describing more than just the promotion of science here. You might disagree with Larson, but you'll have to attack him as an unreliable source or POV. I think this will be difficult.

Now, quoting Larson in an article on the science of evolution would probably be questionable. But citing him in an article regarding the creation-evolution controversy is necessary. He is an authority, NPOV in the dispute, and recognized for his works in this area. StudyAndBeWise 18:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The original version paraphrased Larson, rather than quote him as it does now. We can paraphrase without using the same words, hence changing the term evangelized to a synonym should not be controversial. Larson may have intended the term as a pun but that is lost when out of context. We don't have to quote Larson instead of paraphrasing him just to be able to keep evangelized in the sentence.Terjen 18:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
By softening the characterization (see the quoted text above....it took a good deal of time to type, please read it before commenting...I can't make it much easier than this for you), you would be inserting your own POV. StudyAndBeWise 18:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, I do want to apologize for being too defensive. I still think the word should indicate a pseudo-religious zeal that promoting does not. StudyAndBeWise 22:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that there's one major problem with that quote: Huxley and Simpson were early proponents of the Modern synthesis. Larson is obviously a powerful writer, of great intelligence, but you can't accurately use "Darwinism" to refer to the modern synthesis. The correct term is Neo-Darwinism, because the modern synthesis combines two theories that were, before then, in conflict: Darwinism (Natural selection) and Mendelian genetics. It works fine in context, as it's perfectly clear what Larson's referring to, and the rhetorical merit of the phrase (and it is a finely-crafted phrase) wins out over perfect accuracy, but there is a difference, and that means we shouldn't use the phrase exactly when there are not literary reasons to trump precision. However, I've tried to capture the flavour of it. Adam Cuerden talk 07:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
He does identify them in the opening sentence as "As leading neo-Darwinian scientists...". And in the context of the disputed sentence, they were identified as neo-darwinists, and described as promoting darwinism. The difference between neo-darwinism and darwinism is not relevent in this context. Anyway, "advocated evolution with an almost religious zeal," as somebody changed it, is accurate but verbose and less than complete, and somewhat softer. And by making the description softer, I am against it. I'll work on it some more. StudyAndBeWise 08:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm going tohave to give you a very important warning - and I'll PM this to you too: Julian Huxley literally turned science into a religion, and became a strong advocate of transhumanism. [6] We must not describe other biologists of that period with the language suited to Huxley. Adam Cuerden talk 08:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
He does identify them in the opening sentence as "As leading neo-Darwinian scientists...". And in that spirit, they were identified as neo-darwinists, and described as promoting darwinism, in the same sentence. The scientific difference between Neo-Darwinism and Darwinism is not relevent in this context. In this context, Darwinism refers to a pseudo-religious crusade of prominent scientific intellectuals, not the scientific theory that existed before Neo-Darwinism. Anyway, "advocated evolution with an almost religious zeal," as somebody changed it, is accurate and incomplete, as well as verbose, and somewhat softer. And by making the description softer, I am against it. I'll work on it some more....I changed it back. The change that was there suffered from the problems I identified above, and also, as a minor nit, repeated words like evolution and promote within two sentences. StudyAndBeWise 08:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't want to edit war with you over this, so if you see fit to change it back again, I'll hold my peace, but I don't think we should say all Neo-Darwinists were like Julian Huxley, as we currently are. We should be softer when referring to the whole group than when referring to Huxley alone. Adam Cuerden talk 08:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Julian Huxley, I did not know that about him. I did know about other efforts from the victorian period to turn science, reason, and logic into a religion. It would be unfair to paint all evolution promoters as overly zealous if they were not, but in the context of what lead up to the BSCS, that is who is mentioned by Larson. I'll add some weasle words to address your concerns about Huxley. StudyAndBeWise 08:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Sorry to be difficult, just that what's good for Huxley isn't really good for the group as a whole, if you see my point. That Larson quote about "Julian Huxley championed a nontheistic "religion without revelation" that worshiped natural selection as its guiding process." should be pretty much read literally Adam Cuerden talk 08:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Actually... I don't know that much about Simpson. If Simpson's the same, we could just remove the mention of the other Neo-Darwinists. Adam Cuerden talk 08:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I am done. It's late, and I may not have adequately addressed your concern, but I tried. You're being reasonable, so if you want to take another stab at it, try to rework surrounding sentences to 1. correctly characterize the zeal and motivation that went beyond merely promoting science. 2. not use the words "evolution" and "promote" too close together (Thesaurus). I do not consider this an edit war is what I mean, and I may not have addressed your point about Huxley adequately. StudyAndBeWise 08:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Politics of Creationism

I am considering creating a new entry on the Politics of Creationism. This should take the pressure off the Creation-evolution controversy entry to cover both the political and the historical/philosophical aspects of the controversy. Terjen 17:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea.--Filll 18:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
While it might be a good idea, you should find NPOV RS to back up the premise article first ^(which is probably doable)^, lest you turn wikipedia into a soapbox or a place to publish personal OR. Also, what pressure do you refer to? The problem you're attempting to fix, I did not know existed. StudyAndBeWise 18:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The pressure I refer to is manifest in that 3/4 of the introduction currently is about the politics of creationism rather than historical/philosophical aspects.Terjen 18:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see it. While 3/4 (accepting your figure) of the introduction focuses on the most recent aspects of the most noticable parts of the controversy (this is what it should do, and if it does not, it should be reworked), the article does delve into the historical/philosophical aspects, in some detail, with branches to other more complete articles. An introduction is not an article. If the introduction is incomplete, work on it, or state why that is impossible. The introduction of most articles do not touch on every point of the article, except where the introduction is the article (stub?). StudyAndBeWise 18:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, it seems you could simply add a sentence or two to the first paragraph to address your concerns. I still don't see the pressure. StudyAndBeWise 18:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Except the first paragraph, the introduction is about the recent ramifications of the controversy, mostly Creation and evolution in public education. Both are political aspects of the controversy. Terjen 18:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I will go ahead and create Politics of Creationism based initially on content from this entry. This will make it somewhat similar to Creation and evolution in public education at first, but should quickly evolve to become more comprehensive.Terjen
I propose adding a sentence about the politics of creationism in the opening of the Creation-evolution controversy article. Some quick suggestions: "A ramification of the controversy is the ongoing politics of creationism"; "The controversy is manifested in the politics of creationism"; "... and manifested in the politics of creationism." Other ideas?Terjen 20:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I would put in more about laws...which is a huge job.--Filll 20:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Why can't I just go along to get along? Anyway, the ^new^ aritcle seems like an unncessary fork. There are too many of these on wikipedia, and I don't have the energy to fight them. Have fun. (Maybe you should do what filll does, and move the proposed new article to a talk page and seek wider feedback.) StudyAndBeWise 22:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The Creation-evolution controversy page is now 104 kilobytes long, and as it says, it is appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. It makes sense to separate and extract the political aspects from this article documenting the philosophical/ideological/historical controversy over which view is correct.Terjen 23:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that political issues can be explored in depth like the educational issues have been. However, it has to be substantially different than the current version which is just material from other articles. If this was done, however, and listed real political machinations in many countries over the last 100+ years, it would be a valuable contribution. This will take a lot of work. I suggest that having in a sandbox for a few weeks and working on it would be useful.--Filll 23:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, all the content in the current politics of creationism article is taken from the Creation-evolution controversy entry. It allows the latter to focus on the philosophical debate, in contrast to the political jockeying for position.Terjen 00:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I will say this: This is a very broad subject, and is thus making a somewhat unweildy article. Lopping off bits into sub-articles may be the best way to make it more manageable, but, that said, "Politics of..." doesn't seem the most sensible division. Adam Cuerden talk 03:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of the Creation-evolution controversy article is about the recurring dispute about the origins of the Earth, humanity, life, and the universe. However, a considerable part of the contemporary controversy is not a discussion about which view on this issue is right, but is instead an orchestrated effort to position creationism through political and legal means. The current article takes that perspective in most of the introduction beyond the first paragraph, presenting the controversy of today as mostly political attempts to affect what should be taught as science in schools, yet most of the article is about the historical and philosophical debate. The politics of creationism is not about this debate, but about advancing the position of creationism politically rather than through a discussion of its merits vs evolution. Terjen 04:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, but if we just look at which side is right, this would be a very short article. The ONLY controversy is political. Adam Cuerden talk 04:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: "ONLY Controversy"...Many other wikipedia articles' sole premise is to show that evolution is right and creation is wrong (or worse, an evil plot to convert everybody ram Christianity down everybody's throat.). This article is about a creation-evolution controversy that exists outside of wikipedia, and to a large extent, outside science. Read NPOV RS material, and not the evolutionary apologetics you get from zealous evolutionary "defenders" (who, as this article describes, not just defend evolution, but promote, preach, and lobby for evolution in the schools). While such evolutionary defenders have credentials to comment on the science of evolution, they most usually do not have the NPOV necessary to comment on religion or creationism. To find an NPOV presentation, you need to read what disinterested parties who have taken the time to inform themselves have found.
To comment on Terjen: "However, a considerable part of the contemporary controversy is not a discussion about which view on this issue is right, but is instead an orchestrated effort to position creationism through political and legal means." Do you have an authoritative reference from some RS not a party to the controversy, or is this a personal observation?
In closing, please do not take wikipedian wars against creationists to this article. Cutting out the history censors context of the modern controversy, as very recent events are unlikely to be covered by NPOV historians, and this leaves the words of creationists (POV and questiable reliability) to balance the presentation by evolutionary defenders. On the other hand, if you have NPOV RS material that should be included, add it. Islamic creationism as part of the creation evolution controversy...who says? I see a lot of suggestions, but not a lot of references to back up these suggestions. StudyAndBeWise 06:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Here are some quick references re the politics of creationism and the "orchestrated effort to position creationism through political and legal means" [7] [8] [9] [10] Terjen 20:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
See also the Creation-evolution controversy#Scopes trial: "The controversy became political when public schools began teaching that man evolved from earlier forms of life..." Terjen 21:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah! I now see why you're worried about my suggestion. I'll explain below. Adam Cuerden talk 07:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I say "Only controversy is political", because I'm defining political fairly broadly here, and remembering that almost all the documentation is going to be on the political side of the social movements, so that subarticle would end up with a lot of the content.
For instance, the attempts to get Creationism and ID into schools is political. The suit against Berkley by Calvary Christian school - or whatever the names are - to get the university to accept its courses as not requiring remedial classes to replace them? Arguably political. Debates? Attempts to gain more support are arguably political. Perhaps I'm defining political too broadly? Adam Cuerden talk 07:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
It is a stretch to include attempts to win the hearts and minds through debates as political. I think you are right in foreseeing that an entry on the politics of creationism would end up with a lot of content though. I don't intend it to be another forgotten fork, but to become a prominent article on par with the current Creation-evolution controversy, perhaps listed right after it on Template:Creationism2. Terjen 21:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Shrinking the current article

While this may not make much of a dent, somebody (not me) tagged the Common venues for debate section with {{importance-s|date=February 2007}}. This may have been in repsonse to some hidden comments I instered. I have no problem deleting the section, but I am a ludite who hates computers. However, maybe it can just be reworked. But deleting it would shrink the file. Comments? StudyAndBeWise 01:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It is one of the more tangental sections... Obviously, I don't want to denigrate all your extremely good work, but I think in this case a cut will end up making the article stronger. Adam Cuerden talk 03:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I support deleting the Common venues for debate section, but leave a reference to the TalkOrigins Archive in the See Also section. Terjen 03:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't take full credit for this section. I think Filll or Dave S. may have added some of it, and I may have later attempted to rework it. But if you cut it, I won't complain. I'll cut it and post it here in case one of the previous contributors wants to add it back or rework it. StudyAndBeWise 06:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Here it is, cut and pastable....StudyAndBeWise 06:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

==Common venues for debate== {{importance-s|date=February 2007}} Conflict occurs mostly in the public arena. <!-- this is a nice quote, but does not support the assertion that there's conflict: instead it points wo wide early acceptance of evolution... Indeed, controversy has existed since the publication of [[The Origin of Species | ''The Origin of Species'']] in 1859, with [[Thomas H. Huxley|Thomas H Huxleys]] [[1861]] working-man's lectures promoting Darwin's evolutionary ideas, about which Huxley boasted: "My working men stick by me wonderfully, the house being fuller than ever last night. By next Friday evening they will all be convinced that they are monkeys."<ref>{{Harvnb|Huxley and Huxley|1874|Ref=CITEREFHuxleyHuxley1975}}, Chapter 1.15</ref>--> Books and articles targeting the mainstream public have been published on both sides of the issue. For example, Creationists publish works intended to cast doubts about evolution, and biological scientists and similiarly minded individuals publish works casting doubts about creationism. These publications, and numerous public debates have been sponsored by churches, [[universities]], and scientific clubs.<ref name=Larson252/> ===Debate on the Internet=== With the rise of the [[Internet]], the battle between antagonists has also been waged [[on-line]]. One of the first [[usenet|Usenet newsgroups]], [[Talk.origins]], was created in [[1986]], and became a hotbed for debating the controversy. Since then, the Talk.origins newsgroup has been a forum for sundry discussions of nearly every topic and issue ever conceived on both sides of the controversy. In 1994 [[FAQ]]s from the Talk.origins newsgroup were put together into [[TalkOrigins Archive]], which has since developed as a website resource presenting mainstream science perspectives on the various antievolution claims made by Creationists. Subsequently, Creationists' websites followed suit with their own clearinghouses, the most famous of which are [[Ken Ham]]'s [[Answers in Genesis]] and the [[Institute for Creation Research]] website. [[Chatroom]]s, [[message board]]s, and [[blog]]s continue on both sides of the controversy to promote their views with many arguments printed and reprinted.

Hmm, the article most definitely need shrinking – I bug-fixed the reference links one-by-one, and the wikiservers response was slow. Unless the text actually can be packed to say what it says now with less words, I suggest splitup. Rursus 13:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible split?

What do you think of splitting the entire history section off into a new article, leaving just a short summary in this one? It WOULD be a major step to getting this article to a reasonable size, particularly as we still have all that Islamic creationism to deal with to really make this comprehensive... Adam Cuerden talk 03:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so much pain. Where, aside from this article, is Islamic creationism even mentioned when you encounter the phrase "creation-evolution controversy" in a NPOV source? It is not even a footnote in the treatments I have read. Meanwhile, the history is covered by a number of authors.
I think you'd be given due weight to mention it, and write an article on Islamic creation instead. I understand that evolutionary partisans are concerned about Islamic anti-evolutionary forces, but this is an article on a specific controversy, described by NPOV sources, and not a review of all the creationists of the world.
I will assume good faith, but really, this suggestion would seem to be motivated by goals unrelated to making this article better, if I did not assume good faith. StudyAndBeWise 06:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm? Remember? I gave this link a while ago, that I found when researching? For a worldwide perspective, we can't just ignore Turkey, so we ought to put it in. I was also looking at a Turkish creationist's site in English, so it shouldn't be too hard if we limit ourselves to Turkey.
But my main point is that we can split off the history section without too much trouble - there'll be some duplication, but it shouldn't be awful - and it ought to get us within length limits in the two half-articles. Then we can fix up the worldwide view, and get the two half-articles through GA and FA fairly easily. Adam Cuerden talk 07:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I've just seen your comment above - I was working upwards. I now understand your worries, and can explain what I was envisioning.
Of course, we need to include the history of the controversy. However, we currently have about five pages of information on it. It ought to be possible to reduce this significantly, to, say, a page or two while still giving a flavour of the history, indeed, while going into fairly reasonable detail, and link to a main article that deals with it in full, basically containing the more lengthy version we have now. See, for example, William Shakespeare, Charles Darwin, etc. - lots of sub-articles, but very easy to jump around between. Adam Cuerden talk 07:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Splitting most definitely needed. Rursus 13:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sections out of place?

"Evolutionary opponents defining evolution" and "Evolutionary defenders defining evolutionary opponents" seem... very oddly placed, especially as a second-level heading, which makes them part of the history section. Have we cut something that left them orphaned? Adam Cuerden talk 03:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I added these sections, but with reservations. They don't seem placed right, and have other problems. I was hoping to find more inforomation on this, but I have not tried very hard. Not sure what to do. StudyAndBeWise 05:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Article length

I am not sure the article length as reported is fair. For example, are hidden comments included in the article length? Are references and citations (which are more numerous here than many articles, and also presented in a more bloated format (harvard referencing). Does anybody know how the length is calculated, and how one would go about gauging the true length of the article proper? StudyAndBeWise 06:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it: Copy the visible text, ignoring the references section. Paste it into a new article. Hit preview (NOT SAVE), and you'll get the "actual" length. I'll do that now. Adam Cuerden talk 07:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
52 Kilobytes. Still pretty long. Adam Cuerden talk 07:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the instructions. 52k is a significant drop from 102k, though. Not to say that everything should stay, or that the article's organization couldn't be better. StudyAndBeWise 07:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The article should be re-reviewed in light of recent changes

Because a lot of changes have been made since the last reviews, and a lot of changes are being proposed right now. I'd like to have people who are not actively editing creation or evolution articles read this, and ideally these will be persons who can seperate their personal beliefs from what is the best presentation of this article, given its subject matter. StudyAndBeWise 06:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but I'd suggest personal invites might work better than a general call: You get fewer disruptive people in that way. Adam Cuerden talk 07:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Original research

In the section Arguments against evolution, the following exists:


This is original research as it is now. It is an example of what looks like a contributor saying "see this reference to understand why I reached this conclusion." It would be much better to have a reliable NPOV source for this, or a reference to a creationist reaching the conclusion that the contributor did. I have had a hidden comment tagging this for awhile now, but nothing has happened. I don't want to just delete it, though. Does anybody here have the background to rework this section to read less like "creationists are bad, and see these creationist writings to see why". StudyAndBeWise 06:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, read that again: It's saying that Creationists claim evolution is based on false assumptions, etc, so the source holds. But it did take me three readings to realise that. Adam Cuerden talk 06:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, you're right. It took you three times, and me at least three, so maybe it needs to be reworded (or I need to read more carefully). StudyAndBeWise 07:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's one convoluted sentence. Adam Cuerden talk 20:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Poland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Poland#Polish_government_vs._Evolutionism_dispute Adam Cuerden talk 06:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Adam, please add more than a link. Is this link an FYI, or something else? StudyAndBeWise 07:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I'm putting up links as I fiind them that might be useful to handle a more whole-world perspective, since it's pretty easy to fall into a "just America" POV with this. Hence, I'm collecting things as I'm able to, for future improvements. Adam Cuerden talk 08:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Quote mining

I agree that quote mining happens, on both sides of this controversy, and in many other controversies. However, the sub-section in this article needs improvment. I'd like to delete it, but it has been here for awhile, and I think filll and perhaps others believe it to be an important part of the controversy. I do not want to edit it because I don't like it. I don't want to search for creationists making similar accusations against evolutionists, because I have not found NPOV RSs that have commented on this aspect. So instead, I will just make some suggestions to improve the sub-section as it is now:


Recommendation 1: Mention Dobzhansky's name in the first sentence, and rework the first sentence. Dobzhansky is a party to the debate, and his observations about creationists, while interesting, are not NPOV (in the context of this article). Alternatively, find a NPOV RS that also makes the observation, or find a creationist reference that admits to doing this. I have not come accross an NPOV RS that makes this observation, or I would have improved the reference to this sentence.


This sentence is again backed up by POV references.

Recommendation #2. Rework the sentence to something like "Online evolutionary defenders argue that these have been out of context or misleading quotations. They have created lists, such as the quote mine project, to counter provide fuller context for these quotes."

As you can probably tell by my proposals to fix this, my heart is not really into it. However, I think my criticisms and general advice is valid. So please somebody tackle this section, or delete it. StudyAndBeWise 07:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I do think your views on sources may be a little extreme: Sources need not be NPOV, as long as they're verifiable and the article itself is NPOV. There's quite a lot of verifiable evidence of quote-mining, including, if I remember correctly, two books published by creationists around the time of the Supreme Court case (meaning that, in this case, the creationist side can be definately said to be the one primarily making use of it). Frankly, in this case, there is a simple right and wrong. It is provable, for many of the quotes, that they are taken radically out of context, to the point where in some cases elipsis edit out the bits that make it clear that it's saying nothing like support for creationism. It's hard to see clearer evidence. Adam Cuerden talk 08:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I do seem to remember some charges of quotemining made by both sides, but it does appear that this is mainly a creationist activity. It is so pronounced, and has been going on so long that it is basically a tradition. I recall when I first encountered it and was confused with what I was reading. Quote mining is a tool used by creationists to trap the unwary. It is not as dangerous now as it once was, since these putative quotes can more easily and quickly be revealed to be falsehoods with internet sources. The idea is to sow doubt and confusion among the opposing side. The general brazen perfidy of creationists that this practice exposes should give any person studying the situation pause. I believe that a discussion of quote mining definitely belongs in this article. It has been a major tactic for many years and obviously fairly successful in the past. I think that since creationists want to use this tactic, it should be identified for what it is; mendacious and unethical behavior, and a blatant violation of one of the 10 Commandments. I have often held that creationists really are not what they pretend to be. In spite of all the heated revival-tent rhetoric, they are just sleezy crooks for the most part, IMHO.--Filll 14:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Really? I am unaware of any quote mining used to debunk creationist ideas. I suppose the main thing is - why would anyone bother? (The possible exception being biblical verses, since just about any quote from the bible probably counts as quote mining unless you discuss the difference between versions, the scholarly opinion on reliability, and some discussion of what it meant in the culture of the time...) Guettarda 15:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


Yes, really. John Richard Schrock, in an editorial, was caught red handed (by me, thanks to Filll) quote mining Matsumura in an editorial. I have sent him an email on this, and received an insufficient response (which was "No one who reads Matsumura would reasonably hold the 89.6% as a precise measure."--which was interesting, since he did not provide a proper citation, only the quote mine, in his own editorial). The Bible is a great example, too. For example, it is often said that the Bible contradicts evolution, when in fact the Bible describes artificial selection in Genesis (Jacob's goats). Indeed, it shouldn't surprise you; in any controversy of significance, interested parties often misquote the opposing parties, in attempts to make them look stupid, cherry pick weak arguments for strawman slaughter, etc. Any time a scientist takes off his scientific hat, and steps up on a soapbox, I say look out. Scientists are as human as any other person in any other controversy. That you think scientists who are soapboxing are above quotemining is to elevate scientists to some sort of priesthood. I would no more believe (automatically) a scientist who is editorializing about a controversial subject--it calls for critical thinking.
Mind you, my own personal examples of quote mines should *NOT* be included in the article. I am merely observing that they exist, that it should not be too surprising, and if they are commented on by a recognized RS, they should be included. StudyAndBeWise 06:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Darwinism

I removed a couple uses of the term "Darwinism" that were either inaccurate (It really shouldn't be used when describing things around the time of the modern synthesis, because before then biology was in conflict between Darwinists and Mendelians. Better to use "evolution", "Neo-Darwinism", or "the modern synthesis".) or simply made the reading of the article more difficult - "Darwinism" is not actually a common word, after all, so unless there's good reason for it (book titles, quotes, etc) there's no justification for using it in preference to the more readily-understood "evolution" unless, as I presume Larson decided, it was convenient for writing a history book to not go from Darwinism/Darwinist to Neo-Darwinism/Neo-Darwinist to suddenly and abruptly switching to evolution and evolutionist.Adam Cuerden talk 08:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

(There are good reasons NOT to use evolution and evolutionist in Darwin's period: There were a whole raft of evolutionary ideas at that time, most of which were concerned with progress (hence evolve - which means an unfurling) - Darwin's theory was unique (well, except for Wallace coming up with a less well-detailed version), and thus needs singling out.) Adam Cuerden talk 08:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Biologists do not get to dictate the words that others use. Niether do those on the evolution side of the controversy get to decide what terms are used by disinterested parties. In the context used, Darwinism refers to a paradigm, not a scientific theory. You do understand, I hope, that many English words have multiple definitions. I agree that using the term Darwinism to describe neo-darwinism in a scientific context is bad. StudyAndBeWise 03:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
But why are you using the word "dictate" here? That sounds a bit stronger than it needs to be. It is important that Wikipedia the words chosen are unambiguous. That will generally mean using scientifically accepted terms for specific scientific ideas. It might be useful to add "sometimes known as X by such-and-such a group", but a common ambigous term should never have precedence over an unambiguous term. Trishm 00:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Who said Darwinism is ambiguous? It is more accurate, at least when describing promoters of evolution who do so with an energetic and religious zeal. This, I think, is clearly why Larson used the term (not for a clever pun, but to be concise and convey meaning and nuance while doing so). But have fun changing the article. This is probably part of the reason why upscale universities do not allow students to reference wikipedia--editors who have not read the references changing the work of those who have, to suit another agenda (e.g., PC, defense of science, etc.) I don't think you're intentionally causing problems, but your defense against the use of the term Darwinism (and who are we compared to Larson) is a bit much for me to take. I don't have the time and energy to debate this forever, and even if I can convince you, it won't be but a few weeks or months before another evolutionary apologist comes in seeking to quash perceived slights (as opposed to terms used by disinterested, highly educated and award winning authors like Larson) at the request of a few editorials by senstive evolutionary defenders (who falsely claim to never have heard the term Darwinism). Again, no hard feelings, if it weren't you, it would be somebody else, and eternal vigilence for the sake of intellectual honesty is more than I am willing to donate to wikipedia. The best I can hope for is that readers of this page will read disinterested accounts of the controversy per the citations. StudyAndBeWise 05:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't more accurate. Larson probably used it because there werre many other evolutionary ideas around the time of Darwin, so distinguishing between them and Darwin's was important. We are *not* writing about the early history of Evolution, so why are we using an obscure word that most people won't have seen before? Adam Cuerden talk 06:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
"Larson probably used it because there werre many other evolutionary ideas around the time of Darwin, so distinguishing between them and Darwin's was important." In the context of religious zeal, Larson clearly did not use it for what you assert he probably used it for. In fact, he called them neo-Darwinists when referring to their scientific views, and talked about preaching Darwinism when referring to their religious-like zeal. But I supposed you're probablies are better than an actual citation from Larson. StudyAndBeWise 03:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that a single source, however good, is being used to lambast the research and opinions of every other editor? Adam Cuerden talk 06:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it is because he is an NPOV RS. On the other hand, your opinions are not backed up with references to verifiable sources. In weighing the two, I have to side with Larson. (Note: If you want to discuss why Larson is wrong, or why he is not a RS, or why he is POV, please be able to provide references to your arguments).
Why is it that some contributors think they know better than a man who makes his living studying and publishing about the controversy (Larson). If Larson is wrong on something, let's discuss it. Otherwise, I think perhaps you're letting your personal stake in the controversy influence your edits (removing important sentences, "toneing down" phrasing that is an accurate representation of the reference). StudyAndBeWise 20:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
May I remind you of Talk:Creation-evolution_controversy/Archive_15#Creationists.2C_Creationism.2C_Scientists.2C_Sciencism.2C_Darwinists.2C_Darwinism.2C_Evolutionists.2C_Evolutionism and this link [11]? PZ Myers is a well-known participant in the controversy, linked on the relevant page of participants. Why should one single neutral source using Darwinism in a neutral way, possibly for historical reasons, mean that we must use a loaded term every time, because ONCE in the book he used it as part of a pun about evangalisation? Adam Cuerden talk 21:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Larson, terminology, and NPOV

Per Guettarda's invitation, I'll chime in. As someone (else) who has read most of Larson's work, including Evolution, I'd suggest not using Larson as the final word on the terminology of "Darwinism", "neo-Darwinism", "evolution", and "evolutionism". Larson's Evolution is a synthesis of historical work, written for a popular audience, and he explicitly (p. 107) uses these terms in the ways he does to avoid confusion rather than maximize historical and/or contemporary precision in usage. Furthermore, terminology has been historically and continues to be a part of the creation-evolution controversy itself (and to the history of evolutionary thought more broadly), so it seems like using the least-loaded synonyms is best. Also, being a neutral, unbiased, reliable source is not the same as being an NPOV source. With respect to Wikipedia, there is no such thing as an NPOV source; the neutral point of view is what we create on Wikipedia by presenting opposing views as views attributed to their sources. Larson, and indeed any historian writing in his/her own voice, has a bit more freedom with language and tone than we should take in Wikipedia articles. So, for example, Larson relies heavily on the terms "Darwinism" and "evolutionism" to emphasize the close parallel between creationists and evolutionists historically, and the religiosity (of sorts) of each side. Outside of the context of Larson's book itself, it's easy to misinterpret the connotations Larson creates for such terms.

In general, I think the more this article and the other creationism articles can use work by professional historians and sociologists, the better. Most sources used here are essentially primary sources, while a number of good secondary sources go unused (including Larson's much more relevant Trial and Error, 3rd edition and Michael Ruse's The Evolution-Creation Struggle, and a host of peer-reviewed journal articles).--ragesoss 18:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What should be taught as science

The statement about the controversy in the introduction saying that "today it primarily concerns what should be taught as science in schools" is not substantiated by page 1 of The Evolution Controversy: Who's Fighting with Whom about What? There are so many articles that substantiate it, so I suggest picking one of the better ones instead of leaving it dangling. Terjen 05:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll be bold and submit a change that resolves the issue by linking to the creation and evolution in public education entry. I'll also incorporate a link to the new politics of creationism entry so you can see how that may work. Terjen 05:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The PDF you linked - The Evolution Controversy: Who's Fighting with Whom about What? - is absolutely atrocious. It attributes all modern social, economic and political ills to Darwin but makes only a single passing reference to problems caused by people who do not believe in evolution. There is no scientific analysis of why ID and CS are wrong. Despite its claims on page 1, it is entirely non-neutral and has no place in this discussion as a neutral reference. Please do not make alterations based on that article, as they will only have to be fixed by someone else later. *Take special note of the irony one of their spellings of intelligent... "intelligtent". Asteroceras 17:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just so it is clear, I didn't link to The Evolution Controversy: Who's Fighting with Whom about What?. It has been linked for some time in the introduction of the Creation-evolution controversy entry to substantiate that the controversy "primarily concerns what should be taught as science in schools, and what is good science". I have not made nor do I intend to make any alterations based on the article. After my recent changes the article is no longer used to substantiate that the controversy primarily "concerns what should be taught as science in schools" Terjen 17:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I was thinking that you were using the PDF as evidence, while you are in fact, saying that the PDF is not suitable for referencing. Sorry for any confusion caused. EDIT: I wrote "PFD" once. Asteroceras 18:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The controversial link still remains after "today it is mainly over what constitutes good science". The link is in the first paragraph as the fourth link in the entry. I left it there because it was used to substantiate "primarily concerns [...] what is good science" before I made any changes, and because page 1 of the linked article makes a statement to that effect. I am not defending its inclusion, but I think StudyAndBeWise may. Terjen 19:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


The reference is, in my opinion, of questionable reliability. I will look for other references to what the controversy primarily concerns. I do think one side of the controversy asserts that it also concerns what is good science, and the other side of the controversy asserts that it concerns what is science, period. But as always, a reference from a disinterested party would be better. So, to keep it succinct, the controversy primarily concerning education and biological science seems reasonable to me. Of course, we could take the time to repeat and attribute the back and forth allegations instead, but in the end, won't we just take more time and space to communicate the same thing?
In any event, a better reference is called for, I agree. StudyAndBeWise 20:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a couple references from s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, et al., including parts of the history of the controversy, and the lengthy section on ID as science. Adam Cuerden talk 10:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ernst Heinrick Haeckel's dogmatic affirmation

Perhaps the most uncompromising of the evolutionary philosophers was the German, Ernst Heinrick Haeckel, a professor of biology, who dogmatically affirmed that nothing spiritual exists.

The use of the word dogmatically constitutes a weasel word and should be removed.

This sentence seems really out of place and random, so I'm cutting it....

I have to disagree. This is the history of the controversy, and the specific sentence cut (see this diff) is an important part of the controversy (critical). Without this, the controversy would be much different today. Mind you, this is again from a reference of a critically acclaimed author who is largely viewed as being NPOV and a RS. I am going to insert it back based on these reasons. Please try to form a concensus if you honestly think I (and Larson) are wrong. StudyAndBeWise 20:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was wrong, I said it seemed out of place. There's a difference. Adam Cuerden talk 21:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this really true?

"The creation-evolution controversy originated in Europe and North America in the late eighteenth century, when natural history categorised an enormous number of species, and traditional belief in created kindss developed into a new idea that the original pair of every single species had been brought into existence by God at the Creation."

I find this highly dubious, particularly as created kinds are a modern concept used to allow a little evolution, but not beyond certain barriers. This paragraph is almost surely nonsense. Adam Cuerden talk 16:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Created kinds is a modern term for an old concept, which in the 17th to 19th century meant an essential belief in "kinds" as in Genesis (and hence "species" as defined by Ray and Linnaeus) being individually created by God and immutable – inherently unable to change or develop from one species to another. This History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth is very informative about the period. The section should describe this earlier creation-evolution controversy that developed as findings in geology and discovery of more species than could logically fit into the ark led to new and controversial ideas of evolution from the likes of Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck and Grant. They also led to concepts such as the catastrophism of Cuivier and Buckley which anticipate the modern old earth creationists.
In my opinion the start of the section as of this date was much more informative than the present version, making it clearer that Darwin published at a time of lessening controversy in the public, when religious controversy was diverted by "higher criticism", so his greatest impact was on the scientific establishment as a new generation of professional scientists took over from the clerical and amateur naturalists who'd believed that God miraculously created every individual species. While it would be ideal to improve the created kind article to clearly describe the development of earlier ideas of individually created immutable species, until this is done there's certainly a case for not linking or using that exact phrase. I'll think about how to phrase that and try to draft a brief summary of the controversy in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. .. dave souza, talk 23:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to call the old one "fixity of species", myself: Created kinds is a modern term for ad hoc groupings that are unfixed. However, I'm not quite sure how to fit that much background in while trimming the article enough to get it to a reasonable size. Any suggestions? Adam Cuerden talk 00:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The title "fixity of species" has already been (speedy) deleted, and it doesn't really seem to be a historical term. However a bit of hunting around Wikipedia indirectly led to "LET us now see whether the several facts and rules relating to the geological succession of organic beings, better accord with the common view of the immutability of species, or with that of their slow and gradual modification, through descent and natural selection." from [page 312 GEOLOGICAL SUCCESSION. CHAP. X.] – the same term is used a few times elsewhere in the Origin, so I'll try to put together a stub on the subject with a couple of solid references, probably from Desmond & Moore and Browne. The reference above is the best overview I've found, but essentially it's an evangelical Catholic blog article. Note that Immutability disambiguates to Immutable object in computer science, and to a very brief stub on Immutability (Theology) which is about God rather than species being immutable. Will try to get brain in gear to improve this article. ..dave souza, talk 15:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Trimming

I've trimmed it fairly severely - nothing, except those two sections we all agreed didn't really fit into the article, is lost (see History of the creation-evolution controversy), but the main article is much more reasonable in size. Adam Cuerden talk 17:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have moved all content in the Ramifications of the controversy section to the Politics of creationism article. Nothing is lost. I have also added a reference to Politics of creationism prominently on template:Creationism2. Terjen 17:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you point us to your modification of Politics of creationism where you add th content to that article? I certainly can't see it. --Kristjan Wager 18:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
All the content expect the introduction is a raw copy of Ramifications of the controversy, starting with the Public education in the United States section. Terjen 19:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Differing Religious Opinions

I think this section could probably be cut and/or moved elsewhere with little loss. What d'ye think? Adam Cuerden talk 17:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Conflicts inherent to the controversy

I suggest moving the three subsections of the Conflicts inherent to the controversy section to the top level of the article, eliminating the section itself. Terjen 18:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Falsifiability section has to change

There are strong tests that allow evolution to be falsified - see here, for instance, for my favourite. This section implies that it isn't falsifiable, and has no tests that could falsify it, when, in fact, it has been tested over and over, and found to be working every time. To that end, I've moved it here until we can fix it. Adam Cuerden talk 19:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Falsifiability

In what one sociologist derisively called "Popper-chopping,"[2] creation scientists found a reluctant hero in Science Philosopher Karl R. Popper.[3] The concept of Falsifiability, coined in Popper's book, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, led Popper to classify evolution as a "metaphysical research programme."[4] The falsifiability principle essentially states that scientific theories are testable, and theories that are not testable are not scientific. Evolutionary opponents wielded Popper's critique as a double-edged sword both to disqualify evolution as science, and to argue that creation science is an equally valid metaphysical research program.[5] For example, Duane Gish, a leading Creationist proponent, wrote in a letter to Discover magazine (July 1981): "Stephen Jay Gould states that creationists claim creation is a scientific theory. This is a false accusation. Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious)."[6]

Popper responded to news that his conclusions were being used by anti-evolutionary forces by affirming that theories regarding the origins of life on earth were scientific because "their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."[7] Creation scientists noted that Popper's statement stopped short of granting full scientific standing to evolution, and continued to argue that evolutionary origins failed to meet the falsifiability criteria.[8]

Debate among some scientists and philosophers of science on the applicability of falsifiability in science continues.[9] Even so, renowned Biologist and prominent creationism critic Richard Dawkins responds to claims that evolution is not falsifiable by pointing out evolution "is a theory of gradual, incremental change over millions of years ... If there were a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water."[10] Similarly, according to a Time Magazine article, Dawkins also quotes evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane's example: "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era" would falsify evolution; therefore, evolution is falsifiable.[11]

The point has also been turned against creation science. In his 1982 decision McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, Judge William R. Overton used falsifiability as one basis in his ruling against the teaching of creation science in the public schools, ultimately declaring that Creation Science "is simply not science."[12]

You are vandelizing the article, and are under the mistaken and zealous impression that this article is about deciding the controversy. It is describing it. Many others including Dave and Filll have seen this. Please build concensus before vandelizing such well cited sections. You're trying to make a point of some sort it appears. But removing a whole section because you make a claim is not exactly the best source, given your recent history on this page. Please do some research before making uninformed accusations. And try to get others like filll or orangemarlin to comment, they did not seem to have a problem with this section (but they might, why not go to their talk pages and ask them to chime in). StudyAndBeWise 05:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

My good Sir,

It is not vandalism to remove a section that unfairly implies that one side has no real answer to the other side's accusations, when clear, scientific, strong answers exist. This section is terribly misleading as to the scientific side, to the point of gross misrepresentation. Gross misrepresentation is about as far from NPOV as you can get, so the section is clearly not held to the agreed standards. As this one section was violating an otherwise reasonably balanced article, I removed it until it could be fixed up, because it's full of misinformation.
Frankly, to be told to research a subject like Biology that I have been studying most of my adult life, because one book written by a layman did not fully get across the scientific side seems nonsense. What, exactly, do you expect me to find? "Oh, all that evidence and falsifiable tests for evolution were clearly mistaken?" "Oh, I guess we should only take Popper at his word the first time he speaks, not the second time?" Really, now. Adam Cuerden talk 05:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
"Frankly, to be told to research a subject like Biology that I have been studying most of my adult life" --This is NOT an article on biology. It is an article on a creation-evolution controversy.
"It is not vandalism to remove a section that unfairly implies that one side has no real answer to the other side's accusations, when clear, scientific, strong answers exist." The text you quote ^removed makes reference to^ refers to Precambrian rabbits^, the classic response to the falsifiability argument^. This one example addresses the point conclusively. In light of the precambrian rabbit reference in the section you vandelized, how can you say it "unfairly implies that one side has no real answer"? StudyAndBeWise 05:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Adam, please have others comment. This section that you deleted has been here for some time, and has been presumedly read by people who are presumedly strong anti-creationists such as filll, dave souza, and orangemarlin. It had the ultimate argument that evolution is in fact falsifiable (precambrian rabbits). If you think the list needs to be expanded, it is no reason to delete it. (And since this is an article on the controversy, and not biology, I don't think we need to list all the ways evolution is falsifiable in the popper sense on this article. In fact, filll has created such an article. Perhaps a link would allay your concerns? StudyAndBeWise 05:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Note: The RfC is for the page dispute, not the other issues beyond this page.


As can be seen above, a dispute has broken out: I removed a section from the article, "Falsifiability" for misrepresenting the science - it leaves out most of the more important falsifiablities of evolution, and, to some extent, misrepresents Popper, by letting one side put words in his mouth which he explicitly denies. StudyAndBeWise has... interesting views on sources for this article, to whit, anything written by anyone but a historian of science is inherently suspect, and inappropriate as evidence. As can be seen above, even the phrasings of these historians of science, however, are considered by him inviolate, as can be seen above in the section Evangelized for Darwinism use by NPOV RS. Also see, for example, this revision, made after I explained to him that Julian Huxley could not be considered typical, as he was well known for extreme views, where he removed actual discussion of the events in favour of Some neo-Darwinists including leading scientific intellectuals George Simpson and Julian Huxley evangelized for Darwinism, and urged that public schools teach the "fact of evolution". - using as his cite the text he quoted above that only used that phrase he prefered in reference to Huxley, with no evidence it applied to Simpson, or anyone else. He was aware of this - if you page forward, you'll see the mention of the changes which he reversed.

However, I was trying very hard to show good faith, until my moving of what I feel is an extremely misleading section to the talk page caused him to accuse me of vandalism, Go around posting notes about me as a vandal, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAdam_Cuerden&diff=110759153&oldid=110691313 repeatedly adding vandalism tags (two times, showed two other edits for context) despite being warned. This makes things a little bit harder, but I'm willing to try and work with him still, if he'll calm down.

He is obviously trying hard to improve this article as he sees fit, however, he has a bad case of WP:OWN, and I'm honestly not sure how to continue working with him, despite a recent two-month disappearance from this article in hopes that he'd have calmed down. Comments? Adam Cuerden talk 06:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried mediation? futurebird 06:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Not yet. That's where I'm going next, if anything further happens, and the admin action towards that event doesn't settle the issue for us. Adam Cuerden talk 06:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


In what one sociologist derisively called "Popper-chopping,"[13] creation scientists found a reluctant hero in Science Philosopher Karl R. Popper.[14] The concept of Falsifiability, coined in Popper's book, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, led Popper to classify evolution as a "metaphysical research programme."[15] The falsifiability principle essentially states that scientific theories are testable, and theories that are not testable are not scientific. Evolutionary opponents wielded Popper's critique as a double-edged sword both to disqualify evolution as science, and to argue that creation science is an equally valid metaphysical research program.[16] For example, Duane Gish, a leading Creationist proponent, wrote in a letter to Discover magazine (July 1981): "Stephen Jay Gould states that creationists claim creation is a scientific theory. This is a false accusation. Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious)."[17]

Popper responded to news that his conclusions were being used by anti-evolutionary forces by affirming that theories regarding the origins of life on earth were scientific because "their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."[18] Creation scientists noted that Popper's statement stopped short of granting full scientific standing to evolution, and continued to argue that evolutionary origins failed to meet the falsifiability criteria.[19]

Debate among some scientists and philosophers of science on the applicability of falsifiability in science continues.[20] Even so, renowned Biologist and prominent creationism critic Richard Dawkins responds to claims that evolution is not falsifiable by pointing out evolution "is a theory of gradual, incremental change over millions of years ... If there were a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water."[21] Similarly, according to a Time Magazine article, Dawkins also quotes evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane's example: "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era" would falsify evolution; therefore, evolution is falsifiable.[22]

The point has also been turned against creation science. In his 1982 decision McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, Judge William R. Overton used falsifiability as one basis in his ruling against the teaching of creation science in the public schools, ultimately declaring that Creation Science "is simply not science."[23]

I'm new here, and lazy, so you need to help me out. What is wrong with this section? If Popper is being represented in the wrong way then is there sourced information you can add here to show that? I've found that the best tactic for dealing with this kind of dispute is to simply add more information and to frame each sentence in this manner "So-and-so writes that ..." thus avoiding blanket statements of fact without a source. futurebird 06:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The main problem is this is third-hand commentary on Popper, that's implying things that aree not supported. E.g. It says that Popper classed Evolution as a metaphysical research program, then draws an Original research conclusion by saying "The falsifiability principle essentially states that scientific theories are testable, and theories that are not testable are not scientific." This is inaccurate. Metaphysical research program, science, and pseudoscience are three classifications in Popper's scheme.


As seen here, "Real Scientists Make Predictions. This was the True Scientific Method. A minor quibble should be dealt with - Popper knew that the Falsification Principle could not be falsified. It was openly metaphysical. In this context, it makes sense why a pro-evolutionist like Popper called Darwinism a metaphysical research program. It was no more falsifiable (he thought) than the view that mathematics describes the world, and it was just as basic to modern biology."

In short, Popper found evolution to not fit as a fully-falsifiable theory, in the way that, say, Newtonian Mechanics was - but found that it *WAS* the key to all biology, just as maths is the key to physics. This is hardly what is being implied by that juxtaposition.

As well, the selection of falsifiability criteria is trite and surface-based, philosophy of science after Popper is ignored, and the whole section is an awful mess. Adam Cuerden talk 07:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: I've rewritten it now (as I had intended to do on the talk page, before all this happened) Not entirely happy with it, but better to fix highly misleading information quickly and polish later, if you can't remove it temporarily while you work on it. I would have rather liked to not have to rush it, but such is life. Adam Cuerden talk 09:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


It is clear that Adam Cuerden is being intellectually dishonest. He writes for example that "it leaves out most of the more important falsifiablities of evolution," when it is clear when reading the article on falsifiability that only one needs to be listed. Also, the section he cuts cites biologists well-known response, pre-Cambrian rabbits.

It is also clear that Adam Cuerden is being intellectually dishonest when he writes "what I feel is an extremely misleading section." Feeling something is not justification for removing well cited and balanced material.

It is also clear that Adam Cuerden is being intellectually dishonest when he asserts that "The falsifiability principle essentially states that scientific theories are testable, and theories that are not testable are not scientific" is original research. This is well known to anybody who has examined falsifiability.

It is also clear that Adam Cuerden is being intellectually dishonest when he asserts "The main problem is this is third-hand commentary on Popper, that's implying things that are not supported." What is not supported? Vague accusations and no references are not a way to defend your removal of well cited material. The third-party commentary, is it false?

It is also clear that Adam Cuerden is being intellectually dishonest when he asserts "This is inaccurate. Metaphysical research program, science, and pseudoscience are three classifications in Popper's scheme." How is it innaccurate? You write that there are three classifications, but if you draw a Venn diagram you can see that the article did not contradict three classifications, it focused on the two pertinent to the controversy. Adding the three classifications might be warranted, but it might also be esoteric minutia that would clutter the article with no benefit.

It is also clear that Adam Cuerden is being intellectually dishonest when he makes scurrilous accusations such as "anything written by anyone but a historian of science is inherently suspect, and inappropriate as evidence." It is clear that StudyAndBeWise has used other references beside historians of science, as well as historians of science and historians of the creation-evolution controversy. It is also clear that StudyAndBeWise is wary of using quotes from scientists to describe creationists and is also leery of using quotes of creationists to describe science. Even in this case, it is clear that StudyAndBeWise has in fact used such quotes with suitable prose to make it clear that what is being quoted comes from a participant of the controversy.

It is also clear that Adam Cuerden is being intellectually dishonest when he asserts that "As can be seen above, even the phrasings of these historians of science, however, are considered by him inviolate" A quick reading leads me to believe that he simply preferred the descriptions of neutral third parties over the objections of an overly eager de-contributor, and over the linguistic objections to parties of the controversy, on the grounds that participants to not get to dictate the adjectives used in the descriptions made by reliable neutral sources.

TCMike 22:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
...It's so very nice that you are able to say so very much I didn't know about myself. The key comes down to this: Popper classified Evolution as a metaphysical research program. That makes the definition of that at the centre of the controversy. This article was implying that metaphysical resarch program was the same as Popper's pseudoscience classification, which it is not. That is a gross misrepresentation of Popper. As Popper explains, "Some of its preduictions can be tested" - a metaphysical research program is partially testable, but not fully, existing in a middle ground, according to Popper's classification. That is the very heart of the controversy, and to claim that it's not is disingenuous.
As well, Studyandbewise has lambasted anyone whoo dares question Larson's wordings, the use of the phrase Darwinism (even when provided with several links saying that it's strongly disliked by the scientific side).
Thirdly, you call me a de-contributor for moving a section temporarily to the talk page so we could debate it and fi it up without disruption or weak intermediates in the article. That's simply insulting.
Finally, the evidence for falsifiability was being presented as if only these fairly trite falsifications were possible. They are simply the easiest to explain. To imply that only such basic falsifications exist seems inappropriate. Adam Cuerden talk 03:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I start to lose interest in a discussion once someone violates proper civility and does not assume good faith. Everything after "intellectually dishonest" is ignored. You should do the same Adam. Orangemarlin 17:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


More comments

In short, Popper found evolution to not fit as a fully-falsifiable theory, in the way that, say, Newtonian Mechanics was - but found that it *WAS* the key to all biology, just as maths is the key to physics. This is hardly what is being implied by that juxtaposition.

I think I understand the distinction you're making here. I think you have a good point. This section makes Popper seem perhaps a bit more "anti-science" than you have described him in this sentence. (If that makes sense.) A distinction must be made between what Popper said and how others used what he said. I also find this sentence a bit confusing:

Creation scientists noted that Popper's statement stopped short of granting full scientific standing to evolution, and continued to argue that evolutionary origins failed to meet the falsifiability criteria.

I'd rather see a direct quote from a source there. It leaves one with the impression that Popper was a closet creation scientist. (Perhaps that is true, I'm just explaining how it reads.) Right after this sentence would be a good place to clarify and refine exactly what Popper said, again, with a direct quote.

Good point: That's also extremely misleading. I've replaced that section with "Popper responded to news that his conclusions were being used by anti-evolutionary forces by affirming that evolutionary theories regarding the origins of life on earth were scientific because "their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."[24] However, as he did not reclassify it, creation scientists continued to argue that evolutionary origins failed to meet the falsifiability criteria.[25]"

In what one sociologist derisively called "Popper-chopping,"

This info should come later, it's sourced, but it seems no one can provide a name for the sociologist. It would be better to start this section with a neutral sentence from a source that can be named. futurebird 03:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

For the moment, I've removed it, until we can find an appropriate source. Worryingly, a google search for the term only returned a handful of hits, most of them Wikipedia clones: Better to leave it until we find a named source, or someone finds a good way to work it in. Adam Cuerden talk 05:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I've moved it to just before introducting the creationist usage of Popper, starting off with a summary of Popper's views. Adam Cuerden talk 05:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


For the sake of a civil discussion, let me respond to the points you make regarding the section you deleted:
Adam's Statment StudyAndBeWise's Response
"...it leaves out most of the more important falsifiablities of evolution..." Do you not agree that it includes the most famous response, PreCambrian Rabbits?
"and, to some extent, misrepresents Popper, by letting one side put words in his mouth which he explicitly denies." Perhaps you midsed the (fully cited) part you cut that stated: 'Popper responded to news that his conclusions were being used by anti-evolutionary forces by affirming that theories regarding the origins of life on earth were scientific because "their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."'
"This is inaccurate. Metaphysical research program, science, and pseudoscience are three classifications in Popper's scheme." Do we really need to get into the esoteric details of Popper's "Problem of Demarcation" in an article on the Creation-Evolution Controversy? Is science versus non-science (including pseudo science and metaphysical research programs") all that inaccurate? If so, how?
"It was openly metaphysical. In this context, it makes sense why a pro-evolutionist like Popper called Darwinism a metaphysical research program. It was no more falsifiable (he thought) than the view that mathematics describes the world, and it was just as basic to modern biology." Popper wrote: "The problem of finding a criterion which would enable us to distinguish between the empirical sciences on the one hand, and mathematics and logic as well as 'metaphysical' systems on the other, I call the problem of demarcation." Your implication that Popper also classified mathematics as a metahysical research program is too much. Instead of relying on your memory, or the writings of participants to the controversy, please refer to primary sources.

If I missed anything of import, let me know. I will not respond to your other accusations. If, on the other hand, you would respond to the important statements I made that deserve acknowledgement, I would appreciate it.

1. "This is NOT an article on biology. It is an article on a creation-evolution controversy." 2. Do you think more than a list of one good example response to creationists falsifiability arguments is necessary?

StudyAndBeWise 01:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Leaves out the more important falsifiabilities: Yes, it contains the rabbit falsifiability. However, as I discovered when I researched a bit, the creationists were specifically claiming common descent as unfalsifiable - with this information, the rabbit refutal is sufficient. Without, it quite simply isn't, as evolution is a large set of theories (metaphysical research programme, dontchaknow)
  • We need to explain metaphysical research program, since that's what he called evolution. However, per this and your later objections, I have replaced the TalkOrigins quote with an exact quote of what Popper said. I believe we can agree that that's utterly neutral.
Adam Cuerden talk 05:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "...the creationists were specifically claiming common descent as unfalsifiable..." I would say that some creationists argued this. Others argued that the theory of the origin of species was not falsifiable, or the whole theory of evolution in general.
  • "We need to explain metaphysical research program..." If you can do it succinctly, and with a good reference, I agree.
  • "This is inaccurate. Metaphysical research program, science, and pseudoscience are three classifications in Popper's scheme." By the way, I need to challange your reliability again. I dusted off my borrowed copy of Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery (2nd English Edition), and while the index does contain several entries for Metaphysical Research, it contains zero (0) entries for pseudo-science. (See below)
  • A big problem with your cut from the article of the section is that it was done for reasons that, to paraphrase Darwin's critique of an evolutionary predecessor, can be grouped into two categories. Half of your reasons were irrelevant, and half were erroneous. (My apologies)
  • The second problem is that you could have simply done your research and then made the additions. To argue that that section was biased is ludicrous ^in my opinion^. To argue that your "feeling" that it was biased justifies the removal well cited material is equally preposterous ^in my opinion^. StudyAndBeWise 16:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Problems of Falsifiability

This is just a tentative contribution to the debate, but is Falsifiability valid as part of this article? I seem to recall that Popper's ideas were pretty thoroughly debunked by no less than Wittgenstein, who demonstrated that the whole concept of Falsifiability was invalid because it, itself, could not be falsified - and that Popper too turned his back on the concept eventually. I realise that modern science still relies to a large on the concept, and arguments have been made for both sides using it (making it worthy for inclusion as part of the historical debate). There perhaps should be some mention, though, that as a method of testing theories it is regarded by many as deeply flawed... and at this point I should really give a reference, but unfortunately I've returned the book where I read the above (Wittgenstein's Poker, David Edmonds & John Eidinow, Faber & Faber, ISBN 057120547X, can't remember the page!) EyeSereneTALK 21:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

More for a worldwide perspective

[12] There seem to be more detailed sources in Russian about this, unfortunately, I don't know any Russian so I can't use them. Hopefully someone else who can read Russian could help out? JoshuaZ 19:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

TalkOrigins Cult Members should be banned

Really, just like LaRouche cult members are banned from certain articles, those who like to use talkorigins, an anonymous archive of USENET, as reliable sources, should be banned from editing this article.

TCMike 13:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
You remind me of someone. Hmmmmm. It'll come to me. First of all, Talk.origins is hardly a cult, despite your rantings to the contrary. Secondly, it is not an anonymous archive of USENET. Everything written has verifiable sources. It summarizes and gives references to counter nearly every creationist claim. About the only accusation that holds water with respect to Talk.origins is that they make countering Creationist irrationality quite easy. They did all the hard work in organizing, writing, and finally verifying the data. Talk.origins is one of the best Evolution sites on the internet, and if they converted the site into a book, it would be a scholary printing that could be used by biology courses worldwide. You really need to relax Mike. Further comments like that are going to lessen your impact on the community. This is your nice counsel and advice. Keep this up, and several others will be much more harsh. Orangemarlin 13:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the Archive is not anonymous but has names associated with almost everything in it, including a number of biologists and other experts in their relevant fields. Furthermore, the archive has been recognized by Scientific American among other science media sources, and has been listed as a useful resource by the Smithsonian Institute and the National Academy of Science, among others. JoshuaZ 15:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
What are you, a T.O cultist? Don't you know that Scientific American and the NAS are just front organisations for the cult of T.O? Don't you know that all biologists have been brainwashed by Nicolae Carpathia (except for the handful of True Believers who have been divinely protected and can see past the brainwashing? Guettarda 15:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, how do I get help? I know that I've been a member of this cult for a long time, and I've been brainwashed by it. Can you help me? I've been enabled by the Communist Party and their band of Evolutionary Scientists, and it's time to find the truth. Please help. Orangemarlin 16:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
But Marx loves you! (for extra fun, check out the back cover in the printable version) Adam Cuerden talk 18:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Creationist, Evolutionist, or disinterested third party

I came accross this. As you read it, try to guess who wrote it:


and


Did you guess Popper? Did you guess Larson? Did you guess Darwin? Did you guess Carl Sagan?


The answer is here. Darwin's Bulldog. StudyAndBeWise 02:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Evolution has been exposed to numerous tests and verifications. Only Popper's more subtle, philosophical classification scheme is relevant. Adam Cuerden talk 05:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It is not relevant to the article, but it is interesting how an idea that was at least mentioned by Huxley, was written about carefully by Popper, later abused by Creationists, was ultimately what did them in an a court case. StudyAndBeWise 15:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

"This is inaccurate. Metaphysical research program, science, and pseudoscience are three classifications in Popper's scheme." By the way, I need to challange your reliability again. I dusted off my borrowed copy of Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery (2nd English Edition), and while the index does contain several entries for Metaphysical Research, it contains zero (0) entries for pseudo-science. In light of this, I doubt, short of somebody confirming that Popper actually wrote this (as a way to distinguish science and "pseudoscience") in his autobiography, that Popper was concerned about pseudoscience. My reading of Popper is that he was concerned with 1. Asking a meaningful philosophical question and 2. using philosophy to precisely define emperical science. Adam seems to be at various times either extending a two-part classification scheme into three, or at other times to be confusing pseudosciene with metaphysics. While he may be correct, I do not have sufficient cause to believe it, and logic tells me he is contradicting himself. Adam might start by looking up the definitions of metaphysics, pseudoscience, and by obtaining a copy of both Popper's biography and his Logic of Scientific Discovery and then studying them. StudyAndBeWise 16:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit that I'm going by second-hand descriptions, and if they're inaccurate, so am I. However, Popper in any case said Evolution had a scientific character, as admitted by the creationist I cited for the common descent bit. I'll try and dig out a copy of Popper's letter when I'm next in the library, which may cast further light on the matter. Adam Cuerden talk 16:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
"Popper in any case said Evolution had a scientific character, as admitted by the creationist I cited for the common descent bit." Yes, but this is a false controversy. The section you cut also touched on this before you initially deleted it. Let me quote:


I'm glad you're going to take the time to double check your references. It seems to me though that you deleted the section then went looking for references, and some of those simply backed up what was already written and cited. I think this is backward, in the case of a section that was well cited, had a neutral tone, etc. (I know you think it was biased, but you really haven't backed up your feelings.) StudyAndBeWise 17:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It seemed to be making a lot of assertions by proximity, not necessarily what the references justified - it's not hard to do, and may not have been intentional. Ah, well. Whole thing's mostly blown over now. At this point it's more down to reading Popper.
Of course, annoyingly, it's Unended Quest that has his classification of Evolution, so that's probably the really relevant one, and the less quoted one. Adam Cuerden talk 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've used Amazon's Search inside feature to get hints of Unended quest. Here's the results for a search for Evolution:

1. on Page 30: "... you with an arsenal for future use in tackling problems which have not yet arisen. They may never arise, the evolution of the theory may bypass all your efforts. ..."

2. on Page 129: "... of changes which the theory tries to explain away. I also brought in the somewhat obvious biological arguments: that the evolution of life, and the way organisms behave, ..."

3. on Page 130: "... to put everything into the world from the beginning, He would have created a universe without change, without organisms and evolution, and without man and man's experience of change. ..."

4. on Page 131: "... may lead to a new theory which not only "explains" the old theory, but corrects it.` This is why the evolution of physics is likely to be an endless process of correction and better approximation. ..."

5. on Page 134: "... 134 Unended Quest the evolution of a tpecies or a phylum. (Most problemsperhaps all--are more than "survival problems", they are very concrete problems posed by ..."

6. on Page 151: "... of dispositions and on the propensity interpretation of probability. (This view, I now think, is also helpful in connection with evolution. ..."

7. on Page 167: "... Darwinism as a Metaphysical Research Programme I have always been extremely interested in the theory of evolution, and very ready to accept evolution as a fact. I have also been fascinated by Darwin as well as by ..."

8. on Page 171: "... we shall say the same if there is only one species (or none). Thus Darwinism does not really predict the evolution of variety. It therefore cannot really explain it. At best, it can predict the evolution of variety under "favourable conditions". ..."

9. on Page 172: "... research programme of Darwinism, as formulated above under points (1) and (2). First, though (2), that is, Darwin's theory of evolution, ..."

10. on Page 176: "... The theory sketched suggests something like a solution to the problem of how evolution leads towards what may be called "higher" forms of life. Darwinism as usually presented fails to give such an explanation.

11. on Page 178: "... ` we may in this way give a rational account "in principle", of course-of emergent evolution. I conjecture that the origin of life and the origin of problems coincide. ..."

12. on Page 180: "... theory (the theory of "organic selection" of Baldwin and Lloyd Morgan) can be used to justify certain intuitive aspects of evolution, stressed by Lamarck or Butler or Bergson, ..."

13. on Page 186: "... More precisely, I regard the world 3 of problems, theories, and critical arguments as one of the results of the evolution of human language, and as acting back on this evolution. This is perfectly compatible with the timelessness of truth and ..."

14. on Page 187: "... Hut it also seems clear that mental states are products of the evolution of life, and that little can be gained by linking them to physics rather than to biology. ..."

15. on Page 189: "... I explained in section 37, I do not think highly of the theoretical or explanatory power of the theory of evolution. ..."

16. from Back Matter: "... " (See Konrad Lorenz, Evolution and Modification of Behaviour [London: Methuen & Co., 1966), p. 47.) But he does not seem to draw from it ..."

17. from Back Matter: "... I have read only two or three (very interesting) books about life in the Ghetto, especially Leopold Infeld, Quest. The Evolution ..."

18. from Back Matter: "... However this may be, this example shows how the behaviour of organisms can be a "spearhead" of evolution: a type of biological problem solving which may lead to the emergence of new forms and species. ..."

19. from Back Matter: "... (h) "Philosophy and Physics", Atli del XII Congresso Internazionale di Filosofra, 2, G. C. Sansoni Editore, Florence, pp. 367-374. (j) Evolution and the Tree of Knowledge, Herbert, Spencer Lecture, delivered on October 30th, 1961, in Oxford. ..."

20. from Index: "... R., l I , , , , Gomperz, H., 20-1, 74-5, 81-3, 85, 156, Euclid, 78, 183 183. Nn 89 evolution 30 129-30 133-4 140,151-2, 167-80:18�7,189.Wn 274 278,287-8, Gompers, T., 1l, 74, 118, 136 Good, I. J., Nn ISO vo Goodman, ..."

It sounds like it might be a somewhat conflicted book. Adam Cuerden talk 18:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, a search for Darwinism (which it looks like (from quote 13 below) he may use to distinguish from Lamarckian evolution)

1. on Page 13: "... Sunday excursions, arranged by the Monists, to the Vienna Woods, and on these occasions he explained and discussed Marxism and Darwinism. ..."

2. on Page 167: "... .�7. Darwinism as Metaphysics 167 continue, I fear, to grow; and we will continue to hear that "entropy-like probability-measures the lack of ..."

3. on Page 168: "... The logical untenability of the ideas on the right-hand side of this table establishes a kind of logical explanation of Darwinism (i. ..."

4. on Page 169: "... 37. Darwinism as Metaphysics 169 in a situation without life Darwinian selection can apply to some extent: atomic nuclei which are relatively ..."

5. on Page 170: "... 170 Unended Quest am using the term "Darwinism" for the modem forms of this theory, called by various names, such as "neo-Darwinism" or (by Julian Huxley) "The Modern ..."

6. on Page 171: "... 37. Darwinism as Metaphysics 171 I now wish to give some reasons why I regard Darwinism as metaphysical, and as a research ..."

7. on Page 172: "... And it is the only theory so far which does all that. This is, of course, the reason why Darwinism has been almost universally accepted. Its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was ..."

8. on Page 173: "... 37. Darwinism as Metaphysics 173 within one species); all we can say is that if it is not a small change, there ..."

9. on Page 175: "... 37. Darwinism as Metaphysics 175 and the hope of explaining certain striking maladjustments (maladjustments from a survival point of view, such as ..."

10. on Page 176: "... something like a solution to the problem of how evolution leads towards what may be called "higher" forms of life. Darwinism as usually presented fails to give such an explanation. ..."

11. on Page 177: "... 37. Darwinism as Metaphysics 177 able.see My theory may also be presented like this: higher forms arise through the primary hierarchy of ..."

12. on Page 179: "... 37. Darwinism as Metaphysics 179 a man-made problem = a problem like: How do we control waste? From these distinctions we are ..."

13. on Page 180: "... 2s2b) At first sight Darwinism (as opposed to Lamarckism) does not seem to attribute any evolutionary effect to the adaptive behavioural innovations (preferences, wishes, choices) ..."

14. from Back Matter: "... For Darwinism, see section 37. �� W. von Bechterev, Oblektive Psychologie oder Psychoreflexologie (originally published 1907-12), German ed. (Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, ..."

15. from Back Matter: "... n. 4 on p. 9. For Darwinism and the production of "a great variety of structures", and for its irrefutability, see esp. p. 32. "' Darwin's theory ..."

16. from Table of Contents: "... Boltzmann and the Arrow of Time 156 36. The Subjectivist Theory of Entropy 162 37. Darwinism as a Metaphysical Research Programme 167 38. ..."

I'm not sure if this is helpful. Certainly, the discussion seems to range throughout the book, so reducing it to one quote is probably a disservice in itself. Adam Cuerden talk 18:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

One more: 2. on Page 151: "... (2) Because I intend to argue that the theory of natural selection is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme; and although it is no doubt the best at ..."

Taking a step back

Is the problem that the text was too concise? It described Popper as a "reluctant hero". I don't think Popper was a creationist or a closet creationist, and I don't think the text implied this. Popper's philosophy (itself disputed among philosophers of science) was merely used as a weapon, by both sides, and in ways that were interesting and/or noteworthy to the creation-evolution controversy. Falsifiability, or Popper's view of emperical science, is in and of itself not without controversy. But in the context of this article, the point I hope one would take away is that Popper delimited science and metaphysics with falsifiability, he was not a participant in the political creation/evolution controversy (or he was an unwilling participant). Meanwhile, Creationists latched onto this, Popper, when he learned of this, distanced himself from those who were using his philosophical arguements, Creationists ignored and/or made the best out of Popper's distancing, and, ironically, the Creationists had Popper's arguements used against them. This is a paraphrase from memory. I don't see how it is biased. I don't think it is inaccurate (to the best of the information I have sought out). StudyAndBeWise 20:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that it was relying a little too much on other people's interpretations of what Popper said, and not quite enough on what he said. Combined with it also not being cautious enough in its language, it ended up - probably accidentally - muddling the interpretations of his statements with what Popper said. For example, "Creation scientists noted that Popper's statement stopped short of granting full scientific standing to evolution." strongly implies that Popper's statement actually stopped short of granting full scientific status.
We need to be careful not to muddle Popper's statements and others' interpretations, particularly as neither of us has easy access to the two most relevant primary sources: Unended Quest and the New Scientist letter. Most notably as to the problems caused by this muddling, Kofahl, a creationist - one quoted by Numbers, as it happens, though not the article I used - was my source for the revised statement of Popper's views on metaphysical research programmes in the first paragraph. His interpretation of Popper was far more nuanced than what was there, quoting what a metaphysical research program was, and saying Popper said evolution had scientific character.
Compare this to the phrasing we used to have (viewable on this page from where I pasted it in), which mixed The Logic of Scientific Discovery and Unended Quest, making Popper say outright that evolution wasn't scientific.
Obviously, I know this wasn't intentional, but with all the debates over what the meaning of Popper's statements are, I think we're best sticking to quotes as much as possible. Adam Cuerden talk 22:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
"strongly implies that Popper's statement actually stopped short of granting full scientific status." Popper's statement actually stopped short of granting full scientific status under his definition, according to the references, and I find this credible. And the Creationists did attempt to exploit the hedge, again according to the references, and again I find this credible. In the context of this article, Popper is important. In the context of the science of evolution, it is probably not important (as Popper is not the final "decider" of what is and what is not scientific, and besides, his proposals are not universally accepted). It's not that Popper was a creationist or wanted to leave wiggle room for the creationists--it is that Popper proposed this "falsifiability" criteria as a bright line between empirical or scientific theories and metaphysical statements, and under that restrictive criteria, many theories widely viewed as scientific fail to meet the standard, and he is frank about that. Other philosophers of science distinguish between science and metaphysics using other criteria, and philosophers of science are still, to my knowledge, debating whose framework is better. This is why I don't think Popper's pronouncements are necessarily worthy of inclusion in an Evolution (science) article on wikipedia. But in the context of the Creation-evolution controversy (a socio-political phenomenon), I think certain points are noteworthy. (Said points centering on the use of falsifiablity to support creationism by creationists, to diminish evolution by creationists, and to thwart creationism in the schools by the courts.)
Also, I have an interesting quote from Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery:


It is interesting because Popper was using Darwinian language to describe his purpose in proposing his falsifiability criteria. Trivia, perhaps--but interesting to me. StudyAndBeWise 02:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you, but I prefer using Popper's own words where possible, as that way, no interpretation is involved. It's hard to argue his own words are POV, unless they can be shown to be wildly out of context, and if we include any qualifiers to the statements we quote, that problem is more or less solved. It also clearly differentiates what he says from others' interpretaions, which seem to vary fairly widely. Adam Cuerden talk 06:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
"but I prefer using Popper's own words where possible" Yes, I agree with this, with one general proviso. What makes Popper important to this article is not that he commented on evolution, but that participants in the controversy took advantage of this, *AND*, disinterested NPOV RS took note. To help explain what I mean, suppose I, in the course of my research, discover that Einstien said that Darwin was a closet Satanist. I personally don't think this should be included in this article unless some recognized disinterested third party commentator on the controversy commented on it and also stated or implied that it was noteworty. Without the disinterested third party, my inclusion would be original research, even if talk.creation quotes Einstein all the time.
In short, if we can find the original words or work of Popper when he initially classified Evolution, we should add that to the existing reference. Or, if we can determine that the RS is not actually a reliable source, we should have a big discussion. If it turns out that Poppers views were much more nuanced than can be explained within the context of the Popper Chomping section, I think we may need to have a discussion (because the subject is the use and abuse of Popper's philosophy, and not Popper's nuanced views on evolution.) E.g., Popper might have classified evolutionary theories A, Y, and C, as emperical scientific theories, but not theories X, B, and Z. This level of detail and explaining is not warranted, as it would be apologetics (and actually participating in the controversy) not supported by disinterested commentators to the controversy. But I guess we'll cross that bridge if we get to it. StudyAndBeWise 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

CREATION-EVOLUTION Controversy article forks

I am sorry to say that I am not convinced that these forks were a good thing, or that they were handled well. I think doing what filll does for potentially controvesial changes would be more appreciated, and would have more likely resulted in a better outcome. (filll has been known to make drastic changes on his own user talk pages, and then seek feedback and concensus). I think others may agree with me, but not enough to spend time arguing. Is there a way we could rewind these changes and do it in a less "bold" way? I would have preferred to fix the present article and then to discuss possible divisions if it were still too long. StudyAndBeWise 03:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we could, but there's still the length issue. Is there any other way to deal with that but the content forks? Adam Cuerden talk 06:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been burned a few times by being "too bold" in controversial articles. I would advocate removing the section and doing it in a sandbox and inviting the discussion and comments there. Then we can iron it out hopefully and once we reach some sort of consensus, then incorporate it. I am sorry I have not been available to mediate this problem. I respect and admire both of you and I think both of you are great contributors to WP and I would hate to upset either one. I am sure we can come to some reasonable resolution of this situation here and move forward. What do you say?--Filll 17:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed something. I am going to review the falsifiability changes later, and it appears that we are cooperating here, or are at least communicating.
The article fork complaint goes back to the fork (or forks) that were made ostensibly to shorten the article and reorganize it. The division was done, in my opinion, without regard to how other disinterested commentators have partitioned the subject (or at least without offering such rationale). Rather, the division was done, it seems, by those who are sometimes motivated by wanting to defend evolutiion against perceived threats (in my opinion). And whatever the motives, partitioning an article can lead to POV issues if not handled carefully.
There was much potential for deletion of sections from the article (not to be moved to any other article). But this was not done until after the fork (and to be fair, some of it still has not been done). Instead, both before and after the fork, a lot of energy has gone into "defending science" on the false (in my opinion) "feeling" that some well researched section had bias, or some adjective was used even though some participant to the dispute has written an editorial complaining about such useage (as though participants get to dictate the words used by disinterested commentators).
I think the perceived bias said more about the perceiver than the object being perceived.
But I am digressing. Keeping the article long before the fork helped justify the fork, as keeping the inferior content made the article longer. The fork division was not, to my knowledge, based on anything other than the preferences of the forkers. (E.g., it would have been better, in my opinion, to say something like "I read a lot of articles on X.1, and a lot of other articles on X.2. Consequently, separating X into X.1 and X.2 makes sense.)
The fork dispute might also be similar to OrangeMarlin's observation that a lot of articles are starting to read too identically. StudyAndBeWise 18:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Calling it "forking" is unfortunate as it's associated with POV forks which are a bad thing. Better to treat it as splitting, taking care to carefully follow the procedure in Wikipedia:Summary style. As discussed above at #Is this really true?, the historical summary for one looks pretty unsatisfactory to me, which is why I've tried to find a quick source on the earlier period. There seem to me to be two common misconceptions – that the controversy started with Darwin, and that it's religion versus science: both are addressed by the period up to the early 19th century when a search for evidence of God's works found evidence that made a literal interpretation of Genesis rather problematic, and in response many of the ideas of what we now call old earth creationism were explored. But I digress. Splits forming main articles which can be summarised in many articles may help with the problem OrangeMarlin's seen. .... dave souza, talk 19:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, Dave, I have been listening to a series of lectures on audio CDs entitled "Darwin, Darwinism, and the modern world" by Chandak Sengoopta (who has an impressive list of credentials and degrees from history to MD). He makes the same point regarding the controversy before Darwin, but still focuses most attention on Darwin (and not just socio-political, but also scientific controversies). If you get get a copy from the library, and have a commute, it is worth a listen. Regarding the terminology, I'll try to be more precise (fork v. split) StudyAndBeWise 19:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, the terminology's probably not important, but the procedure is set out well for anyone doing such splitting. The library facilities here are a bit limited and I work at home rather than commuting, but it sounds of interest. I've been thinking that the earlier controversy involved four phases, firstly Noah's ark holding all species of animals coming unstuck as more species were discovered in the New World, then geology showing an ancient earth, followed by competing theories until Lyell's uniformitarian ideas overcame catastrophism, and finally Darwin putting paid to immutability of species. The post 1918 controversy then develops outside science, in the political as much as the theological sphere. Not quite repeating the earlier political crackdown on evolutionism and radical dissent from around 1790 to 1850. Darwin's part was a crucial turning point, but his colleagues in the scientific establishment had already come a long way from biblical literalism. .. dave souza, talk 20:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

Moving on from the recent controversy, I think this article is getting near the stage where Peer review would be beneficial, followed by an FA nomination. (Though there's a bit of citing to do first) What does everyone else think, and would a GA nomination be appropriate after citing up? Adam Cuerden talk 20:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Useful source for international issues

this report has among other things the acceptance rates of evolution in Denmark, France, Germany, Austria, Britain, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and the US. The article also contains a fair bit of comparison of the trends in the different countries. JoshuaZ 02:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

References are broken

The third-column of references is compleely broken. What's going on? Adam Cuerden talk 12:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

An end tag /ref was missing, replaced w/ }}. Looks like Orangemarlin fixed it. Vsmith 13:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm getting somewhat proficient at this reference thing. Lots of fun!!!! Orangemarlin 15:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of the references, I'm not in favor of how they are laid out. It's using the system that I think is rather old-fashioned, or not very wiki-friendly at best. The footnotes themselves do not have the references, so you have to actually read down through the citations to find the reference. My Master's thesis did this, but that was done WAY before computers, internet and Wiki existed. I'm going to work my way through the references, and try to clean this up. I'm enjoying this anal-retentive fun stuff. Orangemarlin 15:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. However, I think the alternative system for multiple references is subtle pov. E.g., referencing this way: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10] is piling on.

Fact tags added to Debates

I had to add fact tags to the first two sentences of the Debates section. They clearly appear to be unsourced, controversial, and arguably nonsensical in the case of the second sentence - almost as if a creationist POV-pusher were trying to goad scientists into a debate, but lost their train of thought halfway through. Anyway, here they are for your convenience (without tags):-

Many creationists and scientists are engaged in debate regarding creationism (intelligent design) and evolution. There is some disagreement within the scientific community as to whether letting a creationist audience learn about science is positive or whether it has the negative affect of giving the false impression that scientifically there is anything to debate about the creationist claimed "controversy."

Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary verification. The claim that any portion of the scientific community opposes people learning about science is certainly... extraordinary. Didn't Sagan argue in "The Demon-Haunted World" that future generations might judge us harshly for allowing our children to grow up ignorant?

If there are no objections, I think it might be best to just cut them out and let the rest of the section stand on its own. SheffieldSteel 16:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is worded well, but I think what is being said is that many scientists do not feel that public debates are a useful way to counter creationists. Debates are more about emotion and tactics than about actually discussing the issues. The lengthy and complicated arguments from scientists are not well suited to the debating arena. I would suggest trying to reword the passage rather than deleting it. There is also the feeling, among some scientists, that "debating" with creationists accords an unwarranted equality, in the public eye, to the Creationists. I cannot source this info, right now, but I have seen discussions of it in Skeptical Inquirer, as well as in T.O. Boomcoach 18:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Boomcoach. I'm certainly familiar with the points you've raised. Let's see what others have to say. SheffieldSteel 00:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Boomcoach, I'm sure, is quite correct about the worry scientists have of legitimizing creationism. It would be as if black people were to hold a debate with KKK members as to whether they were an "inferior" race or not - it would give a farcical amount of credence and legitimacy to the KKK's extreme fringe viewpoint. See here. :P Although couched in terms of the 2004 election as a politican cartoon, the same muddled thinking applies equally to the evolution-creation false dichotomy.

The real problem is making sure WP is not appearing to make the astonishing claim that scientists are against teaching science to the unscientific. The specific sentence that is problematic begins, "There is some disagreement within the scientific community as to whether letting a creationist audience learn about science...". I would recommend deleting this entire sentence and replacing with this one:

"There is some disagreement within the scientific community as to whether openly debating self-described creation scientists would serve a purpose or would merely serve to lend an appearance of legitimacy to what they have frequently described as pseudoscience."

How would this work? Oh, and by the way, I'm much more comfortable with "scientists" than "evolutionists", since the latter seems to be more often used in a pejorative manner these days. But then, YMMV. Kasreyn 21:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Kasreyn; I quite agree. SheffieldSteel 22:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

New Section: Viewpoint Summaries

There really should be a section explaining the continuum of beliefs in this debate. These beliefs are Young Earth Creationism; Old Earth Creationism which includes Gap Creationism, Day-Age Creationism, and Progressive Creationism; Theistic Evolution / Naturalistic Evolution. Pbarnes 05:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Creationist terminology

I have seen objections to using the terms evolutionist and darwinist. But the term creationist seems to be used very often and many times inaccurately. What would be the accepted term for someone who believes in common descent and modification by natural selection and what term should we use for someone who believes that life was created by a some sort of intelligence? 69.211.150.60 13:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"Supporters/critics" of "evolution/creation" can be combined where appropriate in an NPOV way. Wikipedia's policy on being guided by "self-identification" is useful here. For example, it is unfair to refer to proponents of Intelligent Design as "Creationists" or "Neo-creationists" because they may object to those terms, arguing that ID is different from creationism. Similarly, since the term "evolutionist" is regarded as a pejorative by many who support evolution, it should be avoided. The objection is that it puts supporters of evolution on the same footing as "creationists," whereas they may prefer to differentiate between evolution as science and creation as religious belief. As I understand things, those who support creationism do not object to "creationist," but perhaps that term should be avoided, too, for balance. You raise a very good point, and articles like these often have a big problem with allowing a subtle bias in how groups are identified. See, e.g., Objections to evolution, where many sections start with "Creationists claim...," followed by unattributed arguments against those claims. Gnixon 15:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, wiki claims that Intelligent Design is just a cover up for God belief. Then what term should be used for the concept that life was designed but not by a supernatural being? 68.109.234.155 00:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

But what term can be used for a person who supports evolution if not evolutionist? And a person who supports Darwin's theory is not a Darwinist? Evolutioner? Darwiner? Then is atheist wrong also? It uses the ist suffix. Impressionist is wrong? Socialist? Pragmatist? Feminist? Are those all perjorative terms? What term should be used to describe those that support evolution? 68.109.234.155 00:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Scientist? SheffieldSteel 14:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Surely not everyone who accepts evolution is a scientist. Gnixon 21:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems odd to try to label someone who simply acknowledges accepted science as "Darwinist" or "evolutionist". Do we call people who accept the fact of gravity Newtonists? Boomcoach 16:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Some people accept science but do no accept Darwinism. Then how should we label a person who accepts Darwinism as opposed to a person who believes in sudden appearance? What label would be acceptable to you? And Newton was so broad we could not say a person who accepts his theories and gravity a Newtonist. And word like Einsteinist just are not easy to say. A person who accepts Lamarckism is not a Lamarckist? 209.101.205.82 17:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Some people accept science but do no accept Darwinism. Perhaps those should not be referred to as scientists - depending, of course, on their reasons for not accepting "Darwinism." SheffieldSteel 17:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's productive here to debate which terms are most descriptive. Many supporters of evolution object to "evolutionist," for whatever reason, and many supporters of Intelligent Design object to "creationist." (Edit: Sorry, "neo-creationist" would be more to the point. Gnixon 00:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)) It's not hard to avoid those terms, and supporters/critics or something similar will do just fine. Let's use simple language so we can get the facts across without bickering over terminology. Gnixon 21:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the terminology is important since this is and encyclopedia. And an IDer would not want to be called a creationist because they are 2 different things. How ever a person who accepts Darwin's theories IS a Darwinist. It is just the way our language works. If you accept captialsim you are a capitalist. Someone who practices psychology is a psychologist. This is the language. 68.109.234.155 23:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
But many object to the term, and it really doesn't add anything to use it. Why is it a big deal? In fact, Wikipedia policy is clear on the issue. The relevant guidelines from Wikipedia:Naming conflict#How to make a choice among controversial names
  • The most common use of a name takes precedence;
  • If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves.
My understanding is that only critics of evolution apply the term "Darwinist" and that "Darwinists" would not use the term to describe themselves. Gnixon 00:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The term 'Darwinism' is used often in the scientific literature by those who are supportive of evolution and evolutionary theory. OK then what term should Darwinists be referred to by? What is an alternative? 68.109.234.155 00:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
No term is necessary, because accepting Evolution as a fact just appears to be rational thinking. So every rational thinking human being is the standard. When you deviate from that standard, you get a term to cover your thinking, in this case Creationist. Orangemarlin 00:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
So people who do not accept Darwinism are irrational? And creationists are irrational? The Pope is a creationist and so is at least half the world. So to you most humans are irrational? 68.109.234.155 00:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
You claim the Pope is a creationist. I would claim otherwise. Unless you want to claim that those who support evolution and the existence of a supreme being simultaneously are creationists. This sort of discourse is unhelpful, to say the least. I think that calling people by a term that is offensive to them is not helpful. And yes, most human beings are completely irrational, and probably worse. You dispute that?--Filll 18:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, that would be my description. However, you missed the point--you are trying to put a label on a group of people who, in general, accept the rational scientific explanation of the world. If you want, call us anti-creationists, I don't really care. We'll dismiss any label you throw at us, because they are, in general, incorrect. Orangemarlin 00:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
You are so incredibly POV you missed the whole point. I agree with GNixon. You are too biased to be editing these articles 68.109.234.155 00:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that similar charges could be leveled at you. Do you just want to start fights?--Filll 18:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm attempting to have him blocked. I recommend just ignoring his silly comments. Gnixon 01:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Doubt it would work. But if it does, you can continue with your Creationist edits. Others will follow-up however. You think I'm the only one that cares? Orangemarlin 01:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Back to the issue. Regarding "Darwinism" and "Darwinist," I think you have a good point, and I apologize for missing it the first time around. I was thinking of "evolutionist," where the objection is that evolution generally isn't considered an "ism". "Darwinist" surely is an appropriate term, but I agree with others that it would be strange to call people "Darwinists" because it's not very useful as an identifier---virtually all biologists and other scientists are Darwinists (or neo-Darwinists). I think people are objecting to the implication that if you have to identify Darwinists, there aren't that many of them. Gnixon 01:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of a single scientist who refers to him or herself as a "Darwinist." Where do you come up with this stuff? Orangemarlin 02:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the main problem with 'Darwinist'/'Darwinism' is that it is highly inaccurate. The Theory of Evolution has progressed enormously since Darwin's time:

  • Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection -- 'Darwinism'; 'Darwinist'
  • The Synthetic Theory (modern evolutionary synthesis, new synthesis, modern synthesis, evolutionary synthesis) of evolution by genetic mutation and natural selection -- 'Neo-Darwinism'; 'Neo-Darwinist'
  • The current Theory of Evolution, containing a heavily heterogeneous group of sub-theories (relating to such subjects as Speciation, Sexual Selection, Neutral Selection, etc), that is impossible to contain in a single synthesis, and which are underwritten by the mechanisms of mutation, recombination, natural selection, genetic drift and genetic flow. These advances have been sufficiently substantial as to lead some Evolutionary Biologists to declare the Synthetic Theory to be "dead" (presumably because it has been so heavily overwritten by later advances).

As such, nobody has really been a 'Darwinist' for several decades, and it could be claimed with considerable justification that nobody is a 'Neodarwinist' any more either. Although some may consider it a pejorative, 'Evolutionist' is more accurate than either, but 'Methodological Naturalist' may be the most accurate term of all, given the main underlying objection of most anti-evolutionists to the evolving Theory of Evolution since Darwin's time. Hrafn42 18:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with 'evolutionist' is that many people who are creationists and IDers accept the theory of evolution in that small changes are possible. But many feel that large morphological changes cannot be accomplished through natural selection. And I believe when people use the term 'Darwinist' now they are inferring neo-Darwinist. What term should we use to describe a person who accepts speciation through natural selection as opposed to one who does not. I think Darwininst comes the closest and it is used in modern scientific literature (unsigned, added by 68.109.234.155)
Such people typically do not substantively "accept" any meaningful form of the Theory of Evolution (historical or current) but rather may "accept" some self-described version of 'microevolution.' All forms of the Theory of Evolution include "large morphological changes" by a number of natural mechanism, including natural selection. Rejection of this is therefore rejection of the Theory of Evolution and is therefore 'anti-evolutionism.'
Agree. Gnixon 05:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I would point out that speciation is a scientific fact, in that it has been directly observed in both the lab and in the wild, and has been shown to relate more closely to genetic drift and (reduced) genetic flow than to natural selection. If some '-ist' needs to be applied to people who accept this, it should be 'empiricist.'
In the context of this article, what you've just said is a POV. Let's stay on point here and avoid inflaming debate. Just the article, folks.  :) Gnixon 05:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
My point was that 'accepts Speciation'='Darwinist' was an inaccurate equivalence, as well as corrrecting a misconception about speciation. Hrafn42 05:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, what are you calling 'POV'? That speciation has been directly observed in the lab and in the wild? Or that somebody who accepts direct observation as valid evidence is an 'empiricist'? Neither would appear to be even remotely 'POV'. But then reality has a well-known liberal bias. ;) Hrafn42 04:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Further, I would challenge your unsubstantiated assertion that 'Darwinist' is "used in modern scientific literature" to any meaningful extent. Hrafn42 04:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Technically, I agree, but I think I've recently heard a biology professor describe modern evolutionary theory as neo-Darwinist. (Don't hold me to that.) Gnixon 05:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
People frequently use words inaccurately or casually. My central point however is that the Theory of Evolution has developed so far that calling acceptance of it 'Darwinism' would be like calling the leaf of an oak tree an 'acorn leaf' -- completely inaccurate, even if it has a germ of truth to it. Hrafn42 05:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there are three broad groups to be referred to here:

  • Biologists and other scientists, among whom there is overwhelming consensus in support of evolution in a form that evolved from Darwinism and the modern synthesis, and includes macroevolution, speciation, etc. It may sometimes be useful to apply the qualifier "mainstream," as in mainstream scientists, to distinguish from those who consider themselves scientists and support, e.g., intelligent design.
  • Creationists, which encompasses a large group of people who believe God created life largely in its present form. Sometimes it may be appropriate to use qualifiers, as in young-earth creationists or neo-creationists, but care should be exercised with the latter.
  • Others, who are most conveniently referred to as supporters of..., critics of..., those who accept..., etc. This applies to supporters of Intelligent Design simply because "intelligent designist" is as odd-sounding as "evolutionist". It also applies to people who accept evolution but are not biologists or scientists (and so are not specially qualified to judge it). It may sometimes be appropriate for people whose beliefs align with Creationism, but who are not active promoters of that view.

Finally, and most important of all, we should remember it is always best to attribute perspectives, beliefs, and statements to specific people, citing specific sources. Gnixon 21:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Your definition of 'Creationists' would seem to exclude Progressive creationism, of which Intelligent design is arguably an offshoot. I would also draw to your attention Ronald Numbers' formulation of calling the wider grouping of people who reject large parts of the facts and/or theory of evolution, 'anti-evolutionists.' While I personally consider all such to be legitimately 'Creationists,' it is a useful compromise to avoid continuous arguments from 'Creationists-who-don't-like-to-be-called-Creationist' (especially ID-Creationists). Of course this still doesn't get you past the "I believe in Evolution but... [insert long list of caveats denying large amounts of the facts of Evolution and/or effectively gutting the Theory of Evolution]" crowd. Hrafn42 05:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the groups you're calling "creationists-who-don't-like-to-be-called-Creationist" should just be referred to more specifically, like as "proponents of ID," for the reasons you give. Since evolution is so well-established among scientists in a well-understood form (i.e., one that includes macroevolution and speciation), it should be made clear that "I believe in Evolution but..." groups are not part of the scientific mainstream. That is to say, I think they fall under the "proponents of something-or-other" category, not some "people who accept evolution but..." category. I'm not saying who's right or wrong here, just what the mainstream thought is. Gnixon 05:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this course of action is problematical. At an individual level, many anti-evolutionists are sufficiently ambiguous or eclectic in their professed beliefs that assigning them to a specific category is rather arbitrary. How would you describe Dean H. Kenyon has advocated on behalf of both Creation Science and Intelligent Design, Paul Nelson who is simultaneously a proponent of ID and an explicit YEC (and many lesser ID proponents who are also YECs), Jonathan Wells, who has made numerous anti-evolutionary claims, is a member of the pro-ID Discovery Institute, but has never articulated a positive belief system? Further, it is often necessary to make generalisations across the 'Creationist'/'anti-evolution' movement (e.g. when they make common arguments against evolution), which requires some sort of generic term. Hrafn42 07:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I think "critics of evolution" would do nicely. Gnixon 18:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
This would get cumbersome if you needed to talk about a "arguments of critics of evolution" rather than an "anti-evolutionists' arguments," etc. It also implies that this is just a bunch of independent individual critics, rather than a long-lived, organised, movement. Hrafn42 23:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It's interesting that a historian who has been professor at two fairly liberal universities (including one named professorship) would use "anti-evolutionist." Does that also mean historians use the term "evolutionist"? Gnixon 05:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It does not necessarily follow that they would do so, let alone that it would be accurate to do so. Hrafn42 07:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course. Just curious whether the term was in use. Gnixon 18:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Among historians, probably not greatly. The 'evolutionist' view is merely the orthodox, Methodologically Naturalist, scientific view -- so would not tend to be given a specific distinguishing label. Also, prior to the advent of the internet, there was probably not much of a popular (as opposed to scientific) movement in support of this view -- making it less historically significant. Hrafn42 23:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I would also point out that there are many occasions where the term 'anti-evolutionist' might seriously underplay the breadth of a person's opposition. Many ID-advocates explicitly reject Methodological Naturalism, which is widely considered to be one of the cornerstones of the Scientific Method, and YECs necessarily reject large swathes of Geology, Palaeontology, Astrophysics, Nuclear Physics and a host of other fields that discredit their beliefs, in addition to Evolutionary Biology. Such people can be more accurately described as 'anti-science' rather than merely 'anti-evolution,' so calling them 'Creationist' may be more accurate in that it doesn't misrepresent this breadth of disagreement. Hrafn42 07:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins

Part 1

Since I'm not willing to violate WP:3RR, I totally disagree with calling Dawkins "an atheist." Yes he is one, but usually we don't identify people by their religious affiliation. If someone else feels like reverting, please do so. If not, then I'll let it stand, despite it's being very POV. Orangemarlin 01:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins is described as "a well-known evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist." The description seems particularly relevant and useful given that it introduces a reference to his book "The God Delusion" and his argument that evolution is much more likely than the existence of God. Gnixon 01:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I've rearranged the sentences so that the contested descriptive phrase is unnecessary. If anyone is still unsure of his religous position after reading that he's the author of a book titled "The God Delusion" which contains a chapter called "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God," they will almost certainly not understand the word "atheist" anyway. SheffieldSteel 01:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that's a good solution. Gnixon 02:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Not sure I agree with what you have done. Just because he is labeled an "atheist" does not lessen his authority on Evolution. He is a preeminent evolutionary biologist, that's all that matters. What does his religious belief have to do with things? Orangemarlin 01:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Did I remove too much? I'll take another look at it.
Sheffield, when we're quoting Dawkins on something that involves both judgements about evolution and judgements about the existence of God, I don't think it's reasonable to credit him as a "well-known evolutionary biologist" without mentioning that he's an "outspoken atheist." Both descriptions can be found in the intro to Richard Dawkins. I think both are useful, so I'm adding back the atheist description instead of deleting "well-known biologist". Happy to discuss further. Regards, Gnixon 03:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I've also edited the description of Dan Dennet, since I'm concerned about creationist POV trying to sneak into the criticism sections. The creationist position as set out in the article, not to mention the false dichotomy section, describes evolution as essentially atheist in nature (what does that make the Pope?). It is difficult to argue that these writers' religous positions are essential information - unless one subscribes to the above POV. SheffieldSteel 01:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about the edit regarding Daniel Dennet, though. It seems to me that if he's being quoted as an philosophical authority to lend support to the technical quality of Dawson's argument that there's no God, then it's very relevant if he's also an active advocate of atheism. I don't know the guy, but the lead of his Wikipedia article introduces him as such. The reference supporting it is sort of weak, though. If he is an active advocate of atheism, I think that should be noted for the reasons given above. If not, the article about him should be fixed. Gnixon 02:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I think someone way above (or maybe in another article) claimed that the Pope was a creationist. I was kind of flabbergasted at what people believe. As you can see, GNixon and I are battling over his POV edits. I appreciate your seeing the same thing I do, that calling someone an "atheist" is necessarily POV especially since this is not an article about religion, but about science being attacked by religion. By the way, most scientists I know are not atheists. I think, with respect to this article, what book Dawkins has written on Evolution are material. If he rants about atheism, it is not germane to this article. Orangemarlin 02:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm too weary to respond in detail, but I disagree for a number of reasons. Gnixon 02:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Part 2

It appears that you are unwilling to come to a consensus on several aspects of this article. Other editors have also indicated that the atheist label on Dawkins is highly POV, yet you keep reverting. In fact, you have reverted I believe 4 times, in violation of WP:3RR. I won't place an accusation, because that's not my style (unless someone is a sockpuppet, which I know you are not). I don't know for sure, but I think you've become an "owner" of this article, so my edits herein are just going to get reverted, and that's just a waste of my and your time. If other editors who have a much more NPOV come in and edit, I might return, because this was once a very good article. You have added POV in several areas, most of which have weakened the article unnecessarily. Please note that I am not alone in thinking your edits are POV, but you'll probably say it's not a large number, and you'd be right. I'm not sure why few people follow this article, maybe because it's not critical in the list of Evolution/Creationism articles. Good luck. Orangemarlin 06:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your civil comments. I'm not trying to drown you out here, nor have I ignored what you've said. However, I have disagreed with your assessment that describing Dawkins as an "outspoken atheist" is POV in the context of quoting his argument that God doesn't exist. Another editor attempted to work around our disagreement by eliminating the need for descriptions, but he thought you objected to removing Dawkins' qualification as a biologist. Part of why I re-added the "outspoken atheist" description in the context of that editor's revision was that I honestly thought you may not have noticed how the argument quoted is as much about religion (God doesn't exist) as it is about biology (creationism doesn't make sense). I don't think I've violated WP:3RR in letter or spirit, as I think you'll agree upon further review. If after reading my comments carefully and looking at that section of the article you still think it's important to describe Dawkins as a biologist but not as an atheist, I won't change it back without comments from others. (Also, in case you're concerned, I won't accuse you of 3RR violation here for doing so. I'd like nothing more than to return to a state of cooperation with you, since our interests overlap, and I would be glad if we can resolve our issues. I recognize we have serious differences of opinion about what is POV.) I *do* think comments from other editors would be very useful here, but (although I considered it) an RfC for this small issue seemed excessive. I hope others reading this page will comment. Gnixon 06:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, let me try to rephrase this and see if I can make it any clearer. If any reader needs to be told that the author of a book titled "The God Delusion" which contains a chapter called "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God," is actually an atheist, I contend that they have problems which the editors of this article cannot remedy; nor should we try.
Now here's the product of your edit: In chapter 4 of The God Delusion, Why there almost certainly is no God, well-known evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins goes further. Now, after Orangemarlin's comment that he wasn't sure about my edit, I restored the fact that Dawkins is a biologist; it is after all a relevant point and one which has not been made. But the words "outspoken" and "atheist" are absolutely redundant in that sentence; the only reason I can see why they should be included is to repeatedly belabour what is - or apparently should be taken as - the most important point, i.e. what Dawkins is, rather than what he says. As I said above, a key point of the creationist position as laid out in the article is essentially the assertion that evolution is tantamount to atheism.
The sentence as it standly is badly written and does nothing to raise the standard of the article it appears in. Its only apparent effect is to reassure or reinforce the beliefs of those who hold to the False Dichotomy or Creationist positions, i.e. that evolution = atheism. SheffieldSteel 10:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, frankly I thought identifying him first made the most sense, as in "Prominent evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist R.D. has argued...." Not identifying him at all is a mistake because "God delusion" doesn't immediately indicate that he's a respected biologist. On the other hand, "In Ch. 4 of God Delusion, well-known ev. bio R.D. ...." could lead people to believe R.D. was writing purely with his biologist's hat on, which would also be a mistake. The current version could suggest to some people that evolutionary science somehow necessarily leads to God being a delusion. That would confuse just the issue you were concerned about. I won't make further edits since this is obviously a contentious issue, but I'd really appreciate input from other parties. Gnixon 14:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Part 3

I think we should use the term 'atheist' as carefully as we would use a term denoting religious affiliation, such as Jewish or Catholic. In particular, 'outspoken atheist' is too strong because it is POV. If Dawkins describes himself that way in the book under discussion, then OK, but it's not likely he calls himself 'outspoken'. Note that even our article on Graham Greene is careful enough not to describe him as 'Catholic' in the opening sentence, even though religion is a major theme of his fiction. Our article on Jonathan Littell does not emphasize his connection to Judaism until halfway down the page, even though he writes about the history of the Jews in Europe. So we can be discreet and judicious when we need to. The 'outspoken atheist' jumps out at you like it's waving a flag, we are labelling the man, and I think it's unnecessary in this context. Thanks to SheffieldSteel for the version that exists now (at least temporarily, until the next revert). EdJohnston 16:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'd point out that editors of the Richard Dawkins article thought it useful to devote one of the three paragraphs in the intro to describing him as an "outspoken atheist." The other two paragraphs said his name and said he was a prominent biologist. Clearly those editors thought "outspoken atheist" was an important part of his identity. If a prominent Lutheran evangelist was identified as such before being quoted for his book "The Evolution Delusion," I hardly think there'd be such an uproar about mentioning his religious beliefs. What's POV about it? Why is the evolutionary biologist label not equally objectionable? Gnixon 17:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, here are the versions as they evolved during this debate, from oldest to newest, with edit comments:

  1. Dawkins goes further. In chapter 4 of The God Delusion, Why there almost certainly is no God, he says ... (version before debate)
  2. Richard Dawkins, a well-known evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist, goes further. In chapter 4 of The God Delusion, Why there almost certainly is no God, he says ... (wikify Dawkins and identify him at first mention) Gnixon
  3. Richard Dawkins, a well-known evolutionary biologist, goes further. In chapter 4 of The God Delusion, Why there almost certainly is no God, he says ... (Removed POV descriptions of anti-Creationist scientists and philosophers.) Orangemarlin
  4. (reverted to 2) (revert. Descriptions are non-POV, relevant and useful, and taken directly from leads of the main articles.) GN
  5. (reverted to 3) (Not relevant to describe his religious background. Discuss your creationist POV on the talk page.) OM
  6. (reverted to 2) (Revert. Dawkins is quoted discussing why belief in God doesn't make sense, so I think the description was probably relevant. Will someone please block this guy?) GN
  7. In chapter 4 of The God Delusion, Why there almost certainly is no God, author Richard Dawkins goes further. He says ... (rearranged sentence to make contested phrase supremely redundant) SheffieldSteel
  8. In chapter 4 of The God Delusion, Why there almost certainly is no God, well-known evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins goes further. He writes ... (replaced material erroneously cut during penultimate edit) SS
  9. In chapter 4 of The God Delusion, Why there almost certainly is no God, well-known evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins goes further. He writes ... (adding back description of Dawkins as "outspoken atheist" for referencing "The God Delusion". See talk.) GN
  10. (reverted to 8) (See talk.) SS

Note that during the debate, another editor made this change, cutting Dawkins concludes the chapter by arguing that his "Ultimate 747" gambit is a very serious argument against the existence of God, and that he has yet to hear "a theologian give a convincing answer despite numerous opportunities and invitations to do so." along with a bit more material. He edit-comments: (Dawkins's attempt to refute theism (as opposed to creationsim) is not relevant to this article.) Gnixon 18:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus here that 'outspoken atheist' should be included. I know that votes are evil, but it might come to that, if anyone truly thinks that 'outspoken atheist' is generally supported. EdJohnston 22:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree I've been the only one of 4 editors supporting that phrase, and I'm not going to insist on it if there's no support, but I really think I'm being reasonable here, and I can't understand why others don't agree. If I seem annoyingly persistent, it's just because I feel like I'm failing to make a point that should be clear to any impartial observer. The presence or absence of this little phrase is hardly going to make or break the article, but I think it's representative of a broader problem of systemic bias that *is* very damaging to the article. Gnixon 23:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Gnixon, I think we're all convinced that Dawkins is an atheist. That's not the point. It is highly pejorative to describe him as such, when nearly every Creationist is convinced that every person who believes in Evolution is almost by definition an atheist. It is a negative POV that demeans his studies of evolution. That's why I disagree with the description. Orangemarlin 22:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
"when nearly every Creationist is convinced that every person who believes in Evolution is almost by definition an atheist" very misinformed. most Christians, Catholics, Islams, and Hindus accept evolution. More than one pope has decreed that evolution is true. I think it was Pius, John Paul and the present one. 68.109.234.155 23:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I know we all agree he's an atheist. I don't intend to suggest that because Dawkins is an atheist, all who believe evolution are atheists. I don't intend to demean his studies of evolution. All I'm saying is that if we reference his evaluation of evolution *and* the existence of God, then it's useful to know *both* that he's a prominent, prolific, well-respected evolutionary biologist (not just some random biologist) *and* that he's an outspoken atheist (not just some guy who privately doesn't believe in God). If he was just writing about biology, I would see no need to mention that he was an atheist, just like I wouldn't care what his favorite food is, and if he was just writing about God being a silly idea, I wouldn't care if he was a biologist. These are basic, universally accepted, widely understood principles of attribution that any journalist would agree with. Why is there some special exception in this case? Gnixon 23:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Part 4

I'm not sure we should even be referencing Dawkins' philosophical viewpoints. He is notable for his work in evolutionary biology. Since when is he considered a notable philosopher? Just because I, or some others here, happen to agree with his philosophizing, is no reason to include it in the article. And just because some here disagree with it, is no justification for tainting his credentials as a notable evolutionary biologist with the clear insinuation that his atheism must be influencing his statements on biology (I can see no other purpose for the mention of his atheism). I say we leave both Dawkin's lack of religion, as well as his philosophy hobby-horse, out of this otherwise excellent article, and stick to citing him only on his scientific work on evolution. Kasreyn 00:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a good argument to me. SheffieldSteel 00:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Shall we just cut that Dawkins paragraph? Gnixon 00:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that is what Kasreyn is suggesting. If it is, I misread the post. SheffieldSteel 01:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Please clarify, Kasreyn. By the way, I would point out that nobody here has indicated they disagree with his philosophizing. Gnixon 05:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, all right. I didn't think I had been unclear, but my apologies if I was. Notability of a source is not just a matter of "is the person notable", but "is the person notable with respect to the topic at hand?" When the topic at hand is evolutionary biology or so-called "memetics", it would be quite difficult to argue that Dawkins is not highly notable. I merely expressed concern that where the article wanders into the area of philosophy or theology, I doubt Dawkins is a notable commentator. I can't recall ever hearing him described as an expert on philosophy or religion. Just because someone is brilliant and notable on one point doesn't mean that everything they say is as well. Naturally, if one were to exclude Dawkins' theological and philosophical statements on the grounds of lack of notability, it would necessarily follow that Dawkins' personal religious beliefs or lack thereof (ie., his expressed atheism) is also irrelevant and should be removed on the basis of lack of notability. I feel that both his philosophical and religious statements, as well as his personal beliefs, aren't particularly notable; his scientific work on evolutionary biology is. Others of course are free to disagree.  :) Kasreyn 23:25, 4 April 2007 (UT)
I agree with all of that. Gnixon 02:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the presumptions: It is dealing with philosophy and theology, but in the context of origins, which is the core of the creation-evolution controversy. As Dawkins is notable in the creation-evolution controversy, his views, set out in a best-selling book, are relevant and notable here, if not at religion. That said, I'd rather not have that much of Dawkins alone. Adam Cuerden talk 09:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how many of the commenters here have even read that section of the article. It says virtually nothing about evolution. Instead, it says that natural selection can be used to argue there's no God. I agree with Kasreyn that we shouldn't be referencing Dawkins' philosophical viewpoints because he's not a notable philosopher. That's why I think we should cut the paragraph. If we somehow feel the need to quote it in this article, how is Dawkin's status as a vocal promoter of atheism not relevant? Gnixon 00:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's what the article says, to save everyone from having to click on the "Article" tab:

In chapter 4 of The God Delusion, Why there almost certainly is no God, well-known evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins goes further. He writes that evolution by natural selection can be used to demonstrate that the argument from design is wrong. He argues that a hypothetical cosmic designer would require an even greater explanation than the phenomena the designer was intended to explain, and that any theory that explains the existence of the universe must be a “crane” rather than a “skyhook”. The “crane” hereby symbolizes an explanation that is built from the bottom up, standing on firm known ground(knowledge), while a “skyhook” works top-down and ultimately has no foundation itself. Dawkins holds out hope for a cosmological equivalent to evolution that would explain why the universe exists in all its amazing complexity. He uses the argument from improbability, for which he introduced the term "Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit", to argue that "God almost certainly does not exist":
“ However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747.[40] ”
The "Boeing 747" reference alludes to a statement reportedly made by Fred Hoyle arguing in favor of panspermia: the "probability of life originating on earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane sweeping through a scrap-yard would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747."[41] Dawkins objects to this argument on the grounds that it is made "...by somebody who doesn't understand the first thing about natural selection". A common theme in Dawkins' books is that natural selection, not chance, is responsible for the evolution of life, and that the apparent improbability of life's complexity does not imply evidence of design or a designer. He goes further in this chapter by presenting examples of apparent design.

Gnixon 00:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this for an edit that requires no mention of his philosophical activism:

Well-known evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has argued(^footnote citation) that a hypothetical cosmic designer would require even greater explanation than the phenomena the designer was intended to explain. He argues that any theory that explains the existence of the universe must be a “crane” rather than a “skyhook”. The “crane” hereby symbolizes an explanation that is built from the bottom up, standing on firm known ground, while a “skyhook” works from the top down.
Well-known astronomer Fred Hoyle, arguing in favor of panspermia, has argued that the "probability of life originating on earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane sweeping through a scrap-yard would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747."[41] Dawkins objects that the argument is made "...by somebody who doesn't understand the first thing about natural selection".(^citation) A common theme in Dawkins' books is that natural selection, not chance, is responsible for the evolution of life, and that the apparent improbability of life's complexity does not imply evidence of design or a designer. He goes further in this chapter by presenting examples of apparent design.

I think this is sort of a weasely way to get around the fact that Dawkins' argument in that book is integrally related to his atheism advocacy (consider the book's title), but maybe it'll work as a compromise. Frankly, I think there must be much better sources available for referencing Dawkins' support for evolution without getting into his philosophical views, which is why I prefer simply deleting the paragraph and finding something better. I think it's equally silly to cite Fred Hoyle's astronomical argument without mentioning his promotion of the anthropic principle, but I'm trying to apply this no-philosophy rule you guys like. Gnixon 12:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. The God Delusion is more closely related to the Theism vs Atheism debate than to the Evolution vs Creationism debate. While the two debates are not completely unrelated, letting this article spill into the former will just make things even messier than they already are. It's not as though Dawkins is the first to make such a counter-argument to the Argument from Design. The main article on the Teleological argument has a large section (with 5 subsections) on counter-arguments. Additionally Dawkins' argument does not fit well into a section labelled 'Limitations of the scientific endeavor' -- to which his argument is only tangentially related. Hrafn42 16:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the section should be retitled. But then, perhaps I am just biased because I don't understand what it means. SheffieldSteel 23:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, me neither. Only the first sentence even remotely addresses the title via "infinite regression," etc. The rest of it's basically pointless, except for obliquely addressing teleological issues. What if we just cut the whole thing? Gnixon 01:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it has a coherent meaning -- so probably rewriting it should come before retitling it. Hrafn42 01:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Part 5

May I suggest the following course of action:

  • First, remove the Dawkins paragraph: "In chapter 4...presenting examples of apparent design." in its entirety.
  • Second, tighten up the remaining section.
  • Third, seriously consider renaming it - "Limitations of the scientific endeavor" is an inherently overly broad title, and will just encourage further contributions that cause the section to lose focus again.

Hrafn42 06:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

A good suggestion, I think. Gnixon 07:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, I added bits of Dawkins back when this article had strong Creationist POV to try and quickly balance it. I don't think they need to stand if we now have better sources or have balanced things around them.
The trouble was that a lot of sections read something like:
Creationists claim that blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, and furthermore that blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Scientists disagree.
You can see the problem. Adam Cuerden talk 22:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure. As to the article as it now stands, do you think it gives each side due weight? I'm not sure. SheffieldSteel 22:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Adam, it sounds like your edit was well-motivated, but maybe the quote could have been more tightly focused on creation and evolution without getting so far into theistic issues. Maybe the quote could have been trimmed, or maybe something from a reference with a less antagonistic title could have been used, or maybe we could have quoted a scientist who hasn't spoken so vocally against the faiths of those who promote creationism. I realize Dawkins is a well-respected evolutionary biologist and an articulate writer, but I think we need to be careful when quoting him on this topic. Gnixon 23:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Aye, I only ever intended it as a stopgap: It was just a bit of the wiki article on The God Delusion as it stood at the time. I wanted to provide a brief example of the scientific rebuttals, I didn't have many books to hand, as that was before I organised my books with the purchase of some more shelves, the only wiki article I could find that covered it well was the one on The God Delusion so I used that.
Have to realise that at the time, noone was editing this (that changed a few months later), so I was one person trying to revise a ridiculously long article, without really having the resources or time. So I gave up on going for top-tier and just tried desprately to balance POV and hope that I'd have time to make the discussion deeper later.
I do think, as I said above, that a little Dawkins (two-thre sentences) is appropriate, but the article is now fairly balanced - with a few problems clearly tagged. It's missing a few notable views - particularly [[Stephen Jay Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria, (See Rocks of Ages), and could probably use the views of more scientists, but it's nowhere near the state it was in before. Adam Cuerden talk 08:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I've had a read-through. I don't think any section can really be said to be without problems except, maybe, the history parts. Not all the problems are POV, though. One wonders whether we wouldn't be better off deleting and starting over. The structure is a mess, there's little good in the article... Adam Cuerden talk 10:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the intro and history are at least not terrible, so if we delete and start over, let's not lose those. Gnixon 12:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, though the history section is just a very slightly abridged History of the creation-evolution controversy, so it's really only the lead. Adam Cuerden talk 13:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

removal of deletion template

The reasons given for suggestion of deletion do not seem to be valid in my opinion.

I strongly object to the deletion of the article. As a creationist myself I admit there are some POV statements in the article both for and against creationism. Deletion of the article would be itself POV and censorship.

Statements that present a POV should be listed in such a way that it is the opinion of a particular group.

I think that the article can be salvaged and will try to work on it in my spare time.

Please put your suggestions here on what you think should be removed or added to the article. --Ted-m 16:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Although a rabid Methodological Naturalist, I agree with the above comment. The reason cited for proposing deletion (chronic POV problems) does not come even close to those sanctioned under the Deletion Policy. I do however think that this article needs an overhaul, with particular attention to:
  • improving coherence; and
  • enforcing NPOV policies, particularly:
    • WP:NPOV#Undue weight
    • WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience: "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories." There are a number of sections (starting with the introduction) that fail to clearly delineate this important issue.
Hrafn42 10:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I just think it'd be easier to make a fresh start. Adam Cuerden talk 11:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that there's a big difference between what is easy and what is Wikipedia policy. In this case the policy is against deleting text, let alone deleting whole articles, on the basis of POV problems. See WP:NPOVFAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete.
I therefore don't see deletion of the entire article as a serious option, so am interested in alternatives. Of course if somebody wished to replace large chunks (even whole sections) that violated WP:NPOV#Undue weight with ones that more accurately delineated the differences in (scientific) support for the opposing viewpoints, this wouldn't violate Wikipedia policy, I would be more than happy to lend my support. Hrafn42 12:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


Introduction

Here's a rough draft of of an attempted rewrite of the introduction, attempting to minimise 'Undue Weight':

The creation-evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) is a recurring political dispute about the origins of the Earth, humanity, life, and the universe,[1] between those who espouse the validity and superiority of a particular religiously-based origin belief, and the scientific consensus, particularly in the field of Evolutionary Biology, but also in the fields of Geology, Palaeontology, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology. The level of support for evolution is overwhelming in the scientific community and academia,[11] while support for creation based alternatives where evolution does not take place is minimal among scientists.[12]



This debate is most prevalent in certain, generally more conservative, regions of the United States, where it is often portrayed as part of the culture wars.[2] While the controversy has a long history,[3] today the politics of creationism primarily focuses on the teaching of creation and evolution in public education.[6][7][8][9][10]

The debate also focuses on issues such as the definition of Science (and of what constitutes scientific research and evidence), Science Education (and whether the teaching of the scientific consensus view should be 'balanced' by also teaching fringe theories), Free Speech, Separation of Church and State, and Theology (particularly how different Christian denominations interpret the Book of Genesis).

It'll need re-referencing of course. The phrase "the validity and superiority of a particular religiously-based origin belief" was pulled from the Creationism article. What do people think? Most of the issues listed in the final paragraph could probably do with sections of their own in the main article. Hrafn42 16:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it, but recommend dropping nuclear physics. Not sure of its relevance except as it relates to geology. I think the bit about "validity and superiority..." is vague and could be replaced by something simple like "those who believe life was created by God literally as described in Genesis" or "those who believe in a literal interpretation of biblical accounts of the creation of life" or "those who believe life was created by God in largely its present form." Recommend "...in certain regions of the United States, usually conservative ones, where ...." Many of the words shouldn't be capitalized. Also, I wish we could avoid all the parenthetical remarks, but I'm not sure how to change them. Gnixon 17:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Nuclear Physics is relevant to Radiometric Dating, which is a big issue to YECs. If somebody can give the formal name of a recognised sub-field that more tightly focuses on this, then I would be happy to substitute, but I feel that some mention should be made of this.
Sure, but radiometric dating is really more about paleontology and geology than physics. Nobody's disagreeing with decay rates. Rather YECs argue that samples are contaminated, assumptions about initial isotope ratios are bad, etc. I'm very familiar with the issue. It's not horrible to include nuclear physics, but like I said, dating is really part of other fields already mentioned, and it might be confusing (do YECs not believe in atoms?). Just a thought. Gnixon 18:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The applications of Radiometric Dating may be in palaeontology and geology, but the theory behind it (and thus its validity) lies in Nuclear Physics. The YEC arguments against it tend to be rather tortuous, so I'll leave it to Answers in Genesis & Talk.Origins to explain. Hrafn42 18:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'm familiar with both the dating and the arguments. Since the arguments aren't really about core aspects of nuclear physics, I think the reference is misleading. If we can't find something more specific (how about just saying RD?), I suggest dropping it. Just my opinion. Gnixon 19:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The arguments include one that "Radiometric dating assumes that radioisotope decay rates are constant, but this assumption is not supported. All processes in nature vary according to different factors, and we should not expect radioactivity to be different."[13] I would claim that constancy of decay rates is a very important core aspect of Nuclear Physics, and that "Nuclear Physics" is therefore justified for inclusion in the list of disputed fields of science. Hrafn42 02:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
"validity and superiority" isn't vague, it is merely putting into formal language the Creationists' belief that "our theory is a good one and better than yours." The Creationists' degree of literalism varies considerably (from Flat Earth at one extreme, to Progressive Creationism at the other), so I would disagree with your first proposed alternative. Your second would appear to exclude Progressive Creationism, so I oppose it as well. I would suggest that you read through the Creationism article and see if you can find a description that you like better. Hrafn42 17:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
No need to get combative---let's work together here. "Those who believe life was created by God in largely its present form" includes progressive creationism, right? In fact, I think that form is used in an oft-cited poll about acceptance of evolution/creationism. As for the current phrasing, I think "validity and superiority" has little content---almost by definition they think their POV is valid and better than the opposition. The phrase "a particular religion-based origin belief" is what I think is unnecessarily vague. Couldn't we easily be more specific? Gnixon 18:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
If you find that to be "combative" then you have a very low tolerance for debate. I was merely stating my opposition for the reasons I gave. Polls have to be comprehensible to the general masses, so tend to sacrifice accuracy for comprehensibility. I don't think this is a good basis for accurately defining 'Creationism.' Hrafn42 18:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just a little testy because you keep suggesting further reading for me, as though I need to educate myself. Apologies if I'm being oversensitive. In an introduction, we have some of the same limitations as polls. I don't think being more specific will falsely imply that we've covered all the nuances. Gnixon 19:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
At this point the choices are between further reading and descriptions that we make up ourselves (which would tend both to be controversial and/or to border upon 'original research'). The limitation on us isn't nearly as constricting as that on public opinion surveys. I would suggest that at a minimum the description of Creationism should be inclusive of all the major forms of explicit Creationism (i.e. Young Earth, Old Earth, Progressive). To do otherwise would be merely to perpetuate misunderstanding. Hrafn42 02:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
As to avoiding parentheses: I can think of two (and a half) options. We could use a bulleted list, or careful placement of semicolons and commas, to remove the need for parentheses while maintaining the clarity of the hierarchy of subjects and parenthetical phrases, or we could remove the parenthetical phrases and cover them in corresponding sections in the main article. SheffieldSteel 18:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
My default option would be the last one---move things to the body of the article---just because I think it's hard to get all that content into an intro without becoming unwieldy. I generally dislike bulleted lists, especially in the intro. The way with commas and semicolons is a matter of art. If someone can do it well, I'll support it. Gnixon 18:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to keep at least sufficient explanatory material in the introduction to demonstrate how these issues are relevant to the Creation-Evolution debate -- otherwise the Introduction will only serve to confuse. Hrafn42 18:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but it also has to be readable, and I don't think the current last sentence is so good that way. Gnixon 19:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to reword/reconstitute. As I said, it is only a rough draft, and I'm far more concerned about the contents (list of issue-areas + brief description of why they are connected to the debate) than the layout. One option would be to use bold instead of parentheses within a normal paragraph structure (as I have done below, but eliminating the bullet-point structure there), but I am sure that there are more. Hrafn42 02:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Final paragraph could be reconstituted as (for example):

The debate also focuses on issues such as:

  • the definition of Science,and of what constitutes scientific research and evidence;
  • Science Education, and whether the teaching of the scientific consensus view should be 'balanced' by also teaching fringe theories;
  • Free Speech;
  • Separation of Church and State; and
  • Theology, particularly how different Christian denominations interpret the Book of Genesis.

Hrafn42 18:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a criticism of your proposed intro, Hrafn42, but one problem does occur to me upon reading the first sentence. Either the debate covers wider issues than simply evolution versus creationism - in which case the scope and/or the title of the article may need correcting - or the opening sentence plays into the hands of creationists who would conflate or confuse issues of biological evolution with questions about the origins of life, the universe, etc.
Flood Geology is still really big among the YECs (e.g. Answers in Genesis, Walt Brown, etc). Intelligent Design activists are increasingly making arguments about 'Cosmological Intelligent Design.' While these issues aren't about Evolution (but then nor are Creationist arguments about Abiogenesis), they are part of the debate. It's not just the Evolutionary Biologists vs the Creationists, it's the whole scientific community vs them. Hrafn42 17:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
How ought we to proceed? Should we, in this article, document the wider debate between mainstream science and certain religous groups, or should we focus specifically and exclusively on the creation-evolution question? SheffieldSteel 16:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that this should be an expansive article, as long as the issues can be slotted into their own sections (and thus do not cause the article as a whole to lose focus). It should most certainly include every notable point of disagreement between the scientific community and Creationists, which could probably be put into an 'Other disputes with Science' (or some such) section, with subsections for Geology (which could probably be distilled from the article on Flood Geology), etc. Hrafn42 17:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, while scientists generally take (capitalised) Evolution to mean the Theory of Evolution within Evolutionary Biology (and thus Biology), Creationists often take it to mean everything from the Big Bang on, including Cosmology ('Cosmological Evolution'), the formation of elements (sometimes called 'Chemical Evolution') and Abiogenesis (also sometimes called 'Chemical Evolution'). Therefore the debate can't help but be wider than the ToE. Hrafn42 18:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The question of scope is a tough one. If we include broader issues, which might make sense, we need a paragraph in the intro explaining, like Hraf did here, why creationists consider those issues part of "evolution." I'm reluctant to get into questions about the title of the page, but it should be considered. Gnixon 18:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the scope should be the scope of the debate as it is conducted (e.g. by both pro-Evolution and pro-Creationism sites), rather than artificially trying to restrict it to the article's title (which, being a short title, may not be a perfect representation of the full scope of the debate). After all, if pro-Evolution and pro-Creationism advocates are arguing about it, then it is surely part of 'the debate'? Hrafn42 18:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

What if we cut most of the material after the hostory sections, saving the few salvagable ones, and rewrote from there? As it is, the very structure of the article has POV problems, as it's section after section on creationist attacks on evolution, with no or little scientific rebuttal, and this won't change without radical changes. Adam Cuerden talk 05:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any personal objection to this (though some may express policy objections to it). I would however strongly suggest that we immediately put in place the skeleton of a structure/hierarchy for the replacement article to follow. Otherwise, there's a good chance that the replacement will simply evolve into a similar incoherent POV mess. I think the sections on 'Theory vs. fact' & 'Quote mining' should be salvageable. Hrafn42 07:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Science as religion or Evolution as religion

See this edit. Perhaps someone can add a real (hopefully sourced) rebuttal here? This accusation (evolution is a religion) really goes to the heart of the problem and deserves a better explanation than being morphed into "science is a religion" followed by a rebuttal of the latter using OR. I know it wasn't intended as an OR straw man but what I removed had turned into one nevertheless. AvB ÷ talk 11:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the section removed. It is somewhat humorous but nonetheless annoying and misleading to have creationists and assorted fundamentalist extremists of various stripes branding science and/or evolution as religions or religious beliefs. However, I think this is done for several reasons:
  1. to try to suggest that science or evolution be subject to the same legal restrictions that religion is
  2. to try to level the playing field and confuse the unwary by creating some sort of false equivalence between these two radically different concepts.
  3. to attempt to smear science by branding it is as unsupported nonsense with no facts or evidence to back it up. What is funny is that one of the worst insults they can think of to say about science is that it is a religion. Interesting...--Filll 22:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Article in the economist, may be useful for the non-American creationism.

See [14]. The article also is helpful in synthesizing a number of observations about the movement internationally. I don't have time right now to add it in, but it looks like it could be very helpful. JoshuaZ 18:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ Christianity, Evolution Not in Conflict, John Richard Schrock, Wichita Eagle May 17, 2005 page 17A
  2. ^ Unknown sociologist quoted in Numbers 1992, p. 247
  3. ^ Numbers 1992, p. 246
  4. ^ Popper 1976, p. 167-180 as quoted by Number 1992, p. 247
  5. ^ Kofahl 1989 as quoted by Numbers 1992, p. 247
  6. ^ Lewin 1982
  7. ^ Popper 1980, p. 611 as cited in Numbers, 1992 & p247
  8. ^ Numbers 1992, p. 247
  9. ^ Ruse 1999, p. 13-37, which discusses conflicting ideas about science among Karl Popper, Thomas Samuel Kuhn, and their disciples.
  10. ^ As quoted by Wallis 2005, p. 32. Also see Dawkins 1986 and Dawkins 1995
  11. ^ Wallis 2005, p. 6 paraphrase of Dawkins quoting Haldane
  12. ^ Dorman 1996
  13. ^ Unknown sociologist quoted in Numbers 1992, p. 247
  14. ^ Numbers 1992, p. 246
  15. ^ Popper 1976, p. 167-180 as quoted by Number 1992, p. 247
  16. ^ Kofahl 1989 as quoted by Numbers 1992, p. 247
  17. ^ Lewin 1982
  18. ^ Popper 1980, p. 611 as cited in Numbers, 1992 & p247
  19. ^ Numbers 1992, p. 247
  20. ^ Ruse 1999, p. 13-37, which discusses conflicting ideas about science among Karl Popper, Thomas Samuel Kuhn, and their disciples.
  21. ^ As quoted by Wallis 2005, p. 32. Also see Dawkins 1986 and Dawkins 1995
  22. ^ Wallis 2005, p. 6 paraphrase of Dawkins quoting Haldane
  23. ^ Dorman 1996
  24. ^ Popper 1980, p. 611 as cited in Numbers, 1992 & p247
  25. ^ Numbers 1992, p. 247
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rejection_of_evolution_by_religious_groups/Archive_16&oldid=1137119885"