Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive 18

Arkansas law

The Arkansas law cannot be broken; the law states a "lower order" of animals, but there is no way to define what a "lower order" is. If the law said "lower intelligence" then that's fine, but that's not what it said. 60.240.85.65 08:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

ID paragraph

Looking at the ID paragraph, it's a bit awkward in putting Bush after Kitzmiller out of historical sequence, and doesn't make clear the context of Kitzmiller. Adapting it to include Sternberg, here's a suggestion:

More recently, the Intelligent Design movement has taken an anti-evolution position which avoids any direct appeal to religion. Leonard Krishtalka, a paleontologist and an opponent of the movement, has called intelligent design "nothing more than creationism in a cheap tuxedo". Its leading proponents, the Discovery Institute, made widely publicised claims that it was a new science, though the only paper arguing for it published in a scientific journal was accepted in questionable circumstances and quickly withdrawn in the Sternberg peer review controversy. President Bush commented endorsing the teaching of Intelligent design alongside evolution "I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught ... so people can understand what the debate is about." However, when intelligent design proponents presented their arguments for detailed examination in court at Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, but is grounded in theology and cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. Scientists argue that Intelligent design does not represent any research program within the mainstream scientific community, and is opposed by most of the same groups who oppose creationism.

Even without Sternberg, it's worth reviewing this paragraph. .. dave souza, talk 07:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Love to use the "cheap tuxedo" quote in the Intelligent design article. That might send a couple of editors into apoplexy. At any rate, if we removed some of the harsher POV, it's a good paragraph. Orangemarlin 08:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Right enough, I was just taking that from the existing paragraph but it's a bit unnecessary, and the last few words about "is opposed by most of the same groups who oppose creationism" seem very weak. Here's a modified version:

More recently, the Intelligent Design movement has taken an anti-evolution position which avoids any direct appeal to religion. Scientists argue that Intelligent design does not represent any research program within the mainstream scientific community, and is essentially creationism. Its leading proponents, the Discovery Institute, made widely publicised claims that it was a new science, though the only paper arguing for it published in a scientific journal was accepted in questionable circumstances and quickly withdrawn in the Sternberg peer review controversy. President Bush commented endorsing the teaching of Intelligent design alongside evolution "I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught ... so people can understand what the debate is about." However, when intelligent design proponents presented their arguments for detailed examination in court at Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, but is grounded in theology and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".

Improvements welcome.. . dave souza, talk 08:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Vague

"While the controversy has a long history".

What constitutes long? This needs changing either to a verifyable specific or removing. Candy 17:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It is necessarily vague, as there is no fixed start-date. The modern controversy can probably be dated to when the Theory of Evolution became the dominant scientific viewpoint (itself a vaguely defined point in time). The Numbers reference makes mention of both the late 19th century and 1920s as milestones, but anoints neither as the official start of the controversy. It thus supports a "long history" but no specific start date. Hrafn42 17:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sensational?

"Kelly Segrave's sensational Sons of God Return" — ICR and the co-opting of the creationist label

Is this sensational as in fantastic?

Or is this meant to be sensationalist?

Thanks, Monkeyblue 12:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Less "recent" court cases

The 'Controversy in recent times' section is getting a tad long. How would people feel about moving the less recent court cases (Epperson v. Arkansas, McLean v. Arkansas, Edwards v. Aguillard) into their own section (between 'ICR and the co-opting of the creationist label' & The 'Controversy in recent times')? Hrafn42 07:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps we could get a lot of mileage from the idea of breaking up the history into more conceptual sections:

1. Natural Philosophy (perhaps this is a bit too early)
2. Creationism
3. Creation Science
4. Intelligent Design
5. Teach the controversy
6. Evolutionary Informatics (or whatever comes next)

SheffieldSteel 13:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be agreeable to such a restructuring. I presume it would look something like:

• ???
  • Creation-evolution controversy in the age of Darwin
• Creationism:
  • Scopes
• Creation Science:
  • ICR
  • Epperson v. Arkansas, McLean v. Arkansas, Edwards v. Aguillard
• ID:
  • Controversy in recent times
  • Dover
  • Kansas

'Evolutionary Informetrics' gives at least some appearance of being a legitimate field. Whether this field has anything to do with the title bestowed upon himself and his two grad students by a Baylor Electrical & Computer Engineering Prof, without any apparent official recognition (or even a link from his own Baylor webpage), is another matter. It would be interesting to discover if the Baylor hierarchy is even aware that this "Evolutionary Informetrics Lab" exists. Hrafn42 15:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: this should be added. (Report from the Council of Europe)

This is a recent report from the Culture, Science and Education Committee of the Council of Europe, entitled "The dangers of creationism in education". I consider it of critical importance to the debate, but do not possess the time to add it to the article. Perhaps someone can, in that case I'd be grateful. Link: [1]

83.36.253.123 11:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Creation-evolution_controversy#Falsifiability

This section contains severe errors. It begins with "Philosopher of science Karl R. Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery set out the concept of falsifiability as a way to distinguish science and pseudoscience" Noone who has ever read the Logic can seriously claim that. The mere word pseudoscience in fact doesn't appear even once in the Logic. Popper's Logic distinguishes empirical from non-empirical theories. Science, he emphatically stresses, is not characterized in that it holds theories that satisfy the demarcation criterion, but in that it applies the scientific method, which is falsification! His criterion for pseudoscience, the reinforced dogmatisms, which he discussed only long after that, is completely different and has nothing to do with falsifiability. Then comes "However, creationists claimed that a key evolutionary concept, that all life on Earth is descended from a single common ancestor, was not mentioned as testable by Popper, and claimed it never would be." The truth is that Popper had much less of a problem to see common descent as a falsifiable theory than natural selection. (He separated these two strictly) He used an automobile in cambrian rock as an example that would falsifiy common descent. See Les chemins de la vérité. L'Express va plus loin avec Karl Popper. L'Express 1598 (1982, 26th February), 82–88. --rtc 15:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree about the errors. I think you could correct it. Did he really say that about the automobile? It does not seem correct to me. Do you have a url? Octoplus 16:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This section has long been in need of a rewrite. The sources for the first sentence, particularly Numbers, discuss Popper's views generally, but the only views that were solely attributed to The Logic of Scientific Discovery was this paragraph from John S. Wilkins: "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 [Popper 1974: sect 37]."[2] I do not think that this paragraph supports the claims made in the first sentence, therefore it would seem to be inaccurate to attribute them to this book. Hrafn42 17:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it odd that, after I agreed with rtc on one point (and excised the offending reference from the article) and suggested that this section needed a rewrite, they immediately lost interest in this article (as opposed to other articles where a disagreeing consensus yielded a flurry of comment from them). Hrafn42 06:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Conflation of science and religion

I'm eliminating this subsection, as being both mistitled and hopelessly internally garbled. I'll leave a copy here in case anybody wants to try to turn it into something intelligible.

While the controversy is usually portrayed in the mass media as being between creationists and scientists (in particular evolutionary biologists), in fact very few scientists consider the debate to have any academic legitimacy. Many of the most vocal creationists rely heavily on their criticisms of modern science, philosophy, and culture as a means of Christian apologetics. For example, as a way of justifying the struggle against "evolution", prominent creationist Ken Ham has declared "the Lord has not just called us to knock down evolution, but to help in restoring the foundation of the gospel in our society. We believe that if the churches took up the tool of Creation Evangelism in society, not only would we see a stemming of the tide of humanistic philosophy, but we would also see the seeds of revival sown in a culture which is becoming increasingly more pagan each day."

Hrafn42 06:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

How about:

The creation-evolution controversy is often portrayed in the mass media as being a scientific controversy between creationists (and in particular, creation scientists) and scientists (in particular evolutionary biologists). In fact, very few scientists consider the debate to have any scientific or academic legitimacy.

Many of the most vocal creationists blur the boundaries between criticisms of modern science, philosophy, and culture. They marshall these arguments against "modernism" as tools to promote a certain flavor of Christianity, and to engage in apologetics. For example, as a way of justifying the struggle against "evolution", prominent creationist Ken Ham has declared "the Lord has not just called us to knock down evolution, but to help in restoring the foundation of the gospel in our society. We believe that if the churches took up the tool of Creation Evangelism in society, not only would we see a stemming of the tide of humanistic philosophy, but we would also see the seeds of revival sown in a culture which is becoming increasingly more pagan each day."

Does this make any more sense?--Filll 22:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that makes a lot more sense. Are you happy with the original section-title (which now has a reasonable degree of relevance), or would you like to propose a new one? Hrafn42 05:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

How about "Confusion about the meaning of evolution" or "Confusion about what evolution is" or "Misrepresentation of the controversy" or "Confusion about the nature of the controversy"? Something like that might be simpler and more accurate.--Filll 12:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

To-do: "Explain what the leverage is for all beliefs (Holy Scripture, Scientific process...)." ????

I've been updating the to-do list for recent improvements, and found that I could not make heads nor tails of the above bullet-point. Could anybody translate? Hrafn42 06:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I will guess that what the person means, is: "what is the basis on which anyone takes the Bible as a reasonable foundation for their beliefs? Why would someone believe the bible to be true, or accurate, or literal? What is the reason for this expectation?" There is a huge amount on this in WP. I would direct you to biblical literalism and biblical inerrancy to start. There are also many articles about inconsistencies and problems with the bible, and decisions about what to include in the bible and what to exclude. So there is a lot to work with. The second part of it is, why does anyone think the scientific method is useful at producing valuable information, and why would anyone trust it? There is a huge amount of historical material about how the scientific method developed. A scientific theory is used to make predictions, which are checked against empirical evidence (either from observations or laboratory and field experiments). If the predictions are wrong, then a new theory is sought which agrees. Everything has to be repeatable. And we have learned so much that we are able to create technologies based on what we learn. And so on.--Filll 12:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, that looks potentially messy. At the simplest extreme, you have a hardline Protestant Fundamentalist position of B(iblical)L(iteralism)+BI(nerrancy)=YEC. But Catholicism's BI+not(BL) can yield anything from TE (Kenneth Miller) to, among conservative Catholics, a range of ambiguous anti-evolutionisms (e.g. Behe, Benedict XVI, Schönborn). My suspicion is that one's position will depend on:

1. the degree of importance one places on science and reason;
2. the degree of importance one places on faith and religion;
3. the theological viewpoint of one's denomination (e.g. as Catholics reject BL, there are unlikely to be many Catholic YECs, even among devout, scientifically-illiterate Catholics).

The first two categories are likely to be continuous (though only at best approximately unidimensional), the third discrete. I suspect even a rough mapping would be messy and OR-ridden. Would this be worth pursuing? Or am I making it overly complicated and missing a simpler and more elegant way of representing this? Hrafn42 15:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Many people subscribe to different beliefs than their faith. Many people do not understand what the doctrine of their faith even is, to be frank. About half of all Pentecostals, for example, do not subscribe to the biblical literalism that their church officially subscribes to. Surveys show that even about 10% of Catholics subscribe to biblical literalism (see level of support for evolution), even if their faith officially does not. In fact, many Catholics are surprised to find out that the curia and Pope etc have issued repeated statements supporting evolution to various degrees for about 100 years. If a person wants to defend biblical literalism, depending on exactly how one interprets "literalism", it can result in an attack on evolution, which is sometimes perceived as a challenge. This is coupled with some of the apparent incredible statements of evolution; for example that we all share a lot of features with the genetic code of other living things, and that our ancesters were likely to be microbes in a primordial soup. These are counter intuitive, and different than "common sense" and so easy to reject for many people. I do not think this section has to be too complicated, and does not even have to mention what denomination the person is from to any great extent, since this is more of an individual thing. It just has to be pointed out that the reason that people are attacking evolution is that they perceive it as being in conflict with a literal interpretation of the bible, and that would undermine all kinds of other beliefs they hold.--Filll 15:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The return of you know who

SA is back with a new login ID apparently and back to his old tricks again, now claiming that there is no controversy since there is no scientific controversy. While I appreciate his efforts, he basically works at cross purposes to doing anything constructive here. It is hard enough to write these articles without POV warriors from all sides causing chaos.--Filll 03:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

SA, a trusted editor of the community(tm), back with a sockpuppet, and supposedly maliciously editing? Sounds like just the sort of thing a....CREATIONIST WOULD SAY! :D Homestarmy 04:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

As you know Homestarmy, I and OM do not like POV warriors from the creationist side OR the science side. We want to make NPOV articles. And pushing things too far either direction does not result in a reasonable, balanced, professional product.--Filll 04:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

SA? I didn't know he was gone, and I didn't know he would use a sockpuppet. Which one? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not obvious? Look at the contributions of WTP on this article and level of support for evolution and tell me who that reminds you of. No wonder my number of Talk page edits is so high with this sort of nonsense to contend with.--Filll 04:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh Filll, you can't hide what's inside! (Creationist leanings, that is) Homestarmy 05:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Karl Barth

KARL BARTH'S RESOLUTION OF THE EVOLUTION/CREATIONIST CONTROVERSY

This is posted on http://faith-theology.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_archive.html but was authored by Karl Barth. It would seem to be public domain.

It shows that the controversy is needless because it assumes EITHER Bible OR Science, but the truth is that it is BOTH/AND, since there is no conflict as long as you treat these as two different accounts of the origin of man, both true in their own way. One (the scientific) is factual, written in the language of biology and the other (Genesis) a spiritual allegory. In other words, the Bible was never intended to be a biology textbook, nor does science discuss or make a good vehicle for discussing spiritual issues.

Rbclough 11:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC) July 30,2007

---

Creation and evolution: a letter from Karl Barth

Karl Barth wrote the following letter to his niece, who had written to him asking about creation and evolution:

Basel, 18 Feb. 1965

Dear Christine,

You have had to wait a terribly long time for an answer to your letter of 13 Dec.—not because of indifference, for I am sincerely interested in your welfare, and in that of your mother and sisters, and am always pleased to have good news from Zollikofen [near Bern, Switzerland].

Has no one explained to you in your seminar that one can as little compare the biblical creation story and a scientific theory like that of evolution as one can compare, shall we say, an organ and a vacuum-cleaner—that there can be as little question of harmony between as of contradiction?

The creation story is a witness to the beginning or becoming of all reality distinct from God in the light of God’s later acts and words relating to his people Israel—naturally in the form of a saga or poem. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the same reality in its inner nexus—naturally in the form of a scientific hypothesis.

The creation story deals only with the becoming of all things, and therefore with the revelation of God, which is inaccessible to science as such. The theory of evolution deals with what has become, as it appears to human observation and research and as it invites human interpretation. Thus one’s attitude to the creation story and the theory of evolution can take the form of an either/or only if one shuts oneself off completely from faith in God’s revelation or from the mind (or opportunity) for scientific understanding.

So tell the teacher concerned that she should distinguish what is to be distinguished and not shut herself off completely from either side.

My answer comes so late because on the very day you wrote, 13 Dec., I had a stroke and had to spend several weeks in the hospital.

With sincere greetings which you may also pass on to your mother and sisters,

Yours, Uncle Karl

Barth's position is one that is accepted by Theistic Evolutionists but rejected by Creationists. It is thus part of the controversy, not the end of it. See Karl Barth#Barth, Liberals and Conservatives. Hrafn42 12:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

And atheists would argue that evolution points specifically to a lack of any god, certainly a Judea-Christian-Islamic God. This ends nothing. Wikipediatoperfection 15:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Creation-evolution controversy is a creationist term

Creation-evolution controversy is a term used by creationists to confuse the public into thinking that there is a scientific controversy between creationism and evolution, when there is absolutely none. In political debate it is meant to invoke the Discovery Institute's teach the controversy talking point, which is meant to confuse the public into thinking that there is a scientific controversy over evolution, and thus evolution and creationism should be taught side by side in science classrooms. This term is POV, by definition. It is part of the religious right assault on science. It should be labeled as a creationist term. Wikipediatoperfection 14:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. This term is used by all sides: science, creationists, the public, the media, etc. It describes the social controversy, not any scientific controversy, which scientists mention frequently. If we do not call it this, what is it called? Just ignored? An attempt by WP to rename this is definitely OR.--Filll 14:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

While strictly speaking, it might be better termed the "Creationism-science controversy", this would serve only to confuse most people, including many on the pro-science side. I think this is an occasion where accuracy needs to be sacrificed to comprehensibility. Hrafn42 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"Religious right's assault on science" may make for a good (if not oversimplified and overused) catchphrase, but this article concerns the conflict between a specific religious belief and a specific scientific topic. If it concerned every instance when creationism and biology in general came into conflict, perhaps then the article would warrant a broader title. Still, I don't see congregations lining up to deny the existence of DNA. Given the context of the controversy, the present title is perfectly appropriate. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 22:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No, strictly speaking creationists do not deny the existence of DNA. However, DNA provides some of the strongest evidence for evolution, and they certainly do not recognize that. Wikipediatoperfection 06:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What does OR mean? The media may use the term, but a journalist would not. Public opinion does not determine the content of an encyclopedia, or Wikipedia would link Saddam to Al-qaeda. And scientists do not use that term, as it is not scientific. What would be a neutral term, keeping in mind that no term is neutral, certainly not on this issue? Why not call it a political dispute? That is what it is. It is not a controversy. There is no serious debate as to who is right. The absurdity of calling it a controversy is contained in the level of support for evolution page:

Although there is undeniable evidence of evolution and the scientific consensus supporting modern evolutionary synthesis is nearly absolute, some creationists have asserted that there is a significant scientific controversy and disagreement over the validity of evolution.

An apt summary of this sentence would be, "while the reality-based community recognizes that evolution is the way the world works, creationists live an alternate reality and somehow have managed to convince themselves that there is a scientific controversy where there is absolutely none." While this is obviously my biased interpretation, I do not think any non-creationist could reasonably argue that these two sentences do not say fundamentally the same thing: There is no scientific controversy, but creationist say there is a scientific controversy. This sentence from the level of support for evolution page shows as good as anything that this so-called controversy is manufactured by creationists. Thus, when discussing the politics of it all, the term controversy should not be used because it implies that there is on some level a scientific controversy. Wikipediatoperfection 06:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR means Wikipedia:Original research, something we don't do here. By using the words 'While this is obviously my biased interpretation...' means you are engaging in WP:OR, and therefore can't include it on the page. Read the policy, check out the link for what FIll is talking about. It's not solely a political dispute, it unfolds across all levels of society - education, church, politics, justice system, private museums, social lives. Your citing of creationists forcing a scientific dispute supports this, as a scientific dispute isn't a political one. Also look into WP:NPOV (WIkipedia:Neutral point of view) - statements must be accurate and non-inflammatory. Using terms like 'reality-based' is a POV-push; it's not just a matter of two sentences we think say the same thing, it's choosing the sentence that is most acceptable to the wiki community and the general public. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Read some of the links and you will see why other editors are objecting to your proposed changes. WLU 11:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I would never suggest that we refer to the reality-based community or use my sentence over the one currently in place. My point was that the sentence which I pulled directly from the level of support for evolution page says point blank, there is no scientific controversy, but creationists say there is a scientific controversy. Creationists have not forced a scientific dispute. There are no creationists publishing in peer-reviewed journals. There are no creationists doing scientific research to even submit to a peer-reviewed journal. When did I say there was a scientific dispute/where is the scientific dispute in this? I will take a look at the pages you recommended. However, I would say that using the word controversy to describe the science of evolution is inaccurate and inflammatory. If other editors do not want to change the term controversy, which I certainly find inflammatory, I would at least suggest that the intro state point blank that this is not a scientific controversy. Wikipediatoperfection 15:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky. This person, that I allege is a sock puppet of a sock puppet master because his outlandish views are identical those of an extremely uncivil editor that I have had run-ins with previously for months on end, has changed the level of support for evolution page himself, and then claims that is evidence that this page should be changed. Outrageous, frankly. If this is who I think it is, he knows darn well why his views are his own, madeup POV pushing. He defends science, in fact, you might say he is a 'science apologist', but he goes over the top to do it. Anyone who does not adopt his "take no prisoners" approach towards creationists draws his ire. And to him, *I* am a creationist because I try to have a balanced POV. He would rather us adopt twisted language constantly to smash the creationists over and over, rather than strive for clarity. Frankly, this gets a bit old.--Filll 12:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happened to assume good faith? The above post appears to be a blatant personal attack - Stop! If you have solid evidence for your claims of sockpuppetry, take it to the proper page. Your continued accusations are getting old. Vsmith 13:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have only edited on Wikipedia under this name. I have no clue who you are. I have nothing personal against you or anyone who disagrees with me. I do not think you are a creationist (creationists in general do not accuse people of being sock puppets). I make no apologies for science. There are not two equal sides to every story. Sometimes, one side just makes their side of the story up. The "creation-evolution controversy" is about as close as anything comes to this. Wikipediatoperfection 15:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Dragging the talk page back to a conversation about the main article - I've reread the intro to the page (I'd suggest everyone does so, to get a firm footing). I think the fact that it's a political controversy rather than a scientific one is amply demonstrated. I see no reason to change it. WtP, if you have a different wording, copy the paragraph to the talk page, make your modifications and post it. As is I can see no problems with it. Stop talking about it and just do it. Your vague comments seem unfounded to me. WLU 15:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I began this discussion the wording of the intro has been changed such that it is alright with me. I would, of course, prefer that we scrap the word controversy as the opening term and call it a political dispute, but there does not seem to be a consensus for that, so tant pis.Wikipediatoperfection 07:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

recommended reading

I would like to recommend to editors working on this article two books, not just to ass to the further reading list but as resources for editors to this article. Both are books by Philip Kitcher: Living With Darwin: Evolution, Design and the Future of Faith and Abusing Science: the Case Against Creationism. One was reviewed, and the other discussed, in an essay by H. Allen Orr in the most recent issue of The New York Review of Books. Orr is an evolutionary geneticist in the Biology Department of the University of Rochester; he has published in Science and Nature as well as other top peer-reviewed journals in evolutionary biology, so his credentials as a scientist are impeccable - and he argues that both of these books, while specifically polemics against creationism and ID, are also superb and accessible inroductions to the philosophy of science and evolutionary theory. Kitcher is himself the subjct of a Wikipedia article; he is a professor of philosophy (of science) who holds the Dewey Chair at Columbia University, and who has published on both creationism and sociobiology and has also published in a host of peer-reviewed journals. I have to say, I am especially impressed when a pracicing scientist heaps praise on a philosopher of science. Orr emphasizes that in addressing creationists Kitcher is really trying to lay out as clearly as possible the essence of scientific thought and the history of the development of evolutionary theory, as well as the history of creationist thought (including but not limited to ID). I do not have these books, but if any editors here has access to them they might provide us with helpful ideas not just of themes we might want to develop, but of ideas about how better to express certain ideas. I just read the review this week, and it really is an outstanding review, which is why I bring it up now. I would think that even advocates of creationism would want to consult these books - if they are interested in developing arguments to support creationism; a good argument for creationism would be strengthened if it could respond to the argumnts in these books. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Section on 'False dichotomy'

I've been trying to work out where to put this section & what to do with it. I've finally come to the conclusion that it shouldn't be an independent section of its own. This is for a number of reasons:

1. It is unfocused.
2. It is unbalanced, in that it mostly covers the Creationist & Theistic Evolution positions, with nothing on the Naturalistic Evolution position.
3. Most of its material would more reasonably belong in the Theistic Evolution & the various creationist sections.
4. It is badly worded, and in some cases outright wrong. E.g. "They claim that there are two and only two positions that can possibly be correct" is not (as a matter of simple semantics and logic) "grounds" to "strenuously reject the theory of evolution". It is a (fallacious) argument why if evolution is wrong, creationism must be right.

So I'm pulling it over onto the talkpage, to be either cannibalise bits into other sections, or completely rewritten if somebody thinks its worth playing with. Hrafn42 14:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

False dichotomy

2

False dichotomy

Many supporters of evolution (especially religious ones) disagree with the claim made by creationists and some scientists that there exists an inherent, irresolvable conflict between religion and evolutionary theory. Since many religious people do accept evolution (see Theistic evolution), they argue that this is a false dichotomy. This is part of a long history of the relationship between religion and science. Views on this subject cover a very wide spectrum, from strict biblical literalism (which to some, implies Young Earth Creationism) to atheism.

Intelligent Design, Old Earth, and Young Earth creationists strenuously reject the theory of evolution on two grounds:

1. They claim that "evolution" is an attempt to remove God from the natural world. "Evolution as understood by its ablest advocates is an inherently atheistic explanation," claims one. Such creationists claim that, because probability, chance, and randomness are used as explanations for mutations and genetic drift, God is necessarily excluded from the mechanisms of evolution. Creationists who are actively involved in the conflict tend to criticize those who advocate theistic evolution as having missed a claimed fundamental disparity between the naturalistic mechanisms described as explanations for the natural sciences and the theistic action inherent to the doctrine of creation.
2. They claim that there are two and only two positions that can possibly be correct: creation science (or intelligent design) or the scientific mainstream (evolution). This automatically precludes discussions of other origin beliefs and allows such advocates to claim that the only plausible explanation of origins that permits God is that which they are advocating. On this basis they claim that science itself is inherently atheistic, and lobby for a reversion to faith-based natural philosophy.

A point concerning this apparent dichotomy is provided by some Christian apologists, notably Stanley Jaki and Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), that God in his omnipotence, is fully capable of creating a universe which would bring forth the desired result - that is, humanity - as a consequence of the Laws of Creation inherent in it. Also, the literal view of creationism therefore propounds a "small" view of God's greatness. They qualify this theory with the assumption that after evolution brought forth the biology of humans, God breathed the Spirit into them to give them life in His image. Furthermore they promote the idea that there is no contradiction between the biblical account of creation and the latest scientific understanding.

In a book titled Creation and Evolution published on 11 April, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI states that "The question is not to either make a decision for a creationism that fundamentally excludes science, or for an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science," and that "I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science" In commenting on statements by his predecessor, he writes that "it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory." Though commenting that experiments in a controlled environment were limited as "We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory," he does not endorse creationism or intelligent design. He defends theistic evolution, the reconciliation between science and religion already held by Catholics. In discussing evolution, he writes that "The process itself is rational despite the mistakes and confusion as it goes through a narrow corridor choosing a few positive mutations and using low probability.. This ... inevitably leads to a question that goes beyond science ... where did this rationality come from?" to which he answers that it comes from the "creative reason" of God.

"Science does not produce evidence against God. Science and religion ask different questions," according Martin Nowak, a self-described person of faith as well as a professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology at Harvard. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, the leader of the world's Anglicans, comes to a similar conclusion, albeit from a completely different perspective. In March 2006, he stated his discomfort about teaching creationism, saying that creationism was "a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories." He also said: "My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it."

Viewpoints section violates WP:NPOV

I am outraged that the view of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not included in the "viewpoints" section. Exclusion of the FSM viewpoint constitutes willful and malicious persecution of Pastafarians and their equally valid take on the origins controversy. First the "War on Christmas", now this. It's a sad day for religious freedom. :( Could someone please add it poste haste? Before I contact Bill O'Reilly. Thanks. — DIEGO ^talk 18:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Assuming for just a millisecond that this was meant seriously, three points:

1. WP:UNDUE
2. Should we also include the Discordian view that the whole controversy was created by Eris to keep everybody arguing?
3. This point intentionally left blank.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Should we also include the Discordian view that the whole controversy was created by Eris to keep everybody arguing?

Yes. Its only fair to the Discordians (and Eris, for that matter). I also think that my grandmother's view should be included. She's developed a highly nuanced amalgam of Neo-Creationism and Theistic Evolution that is distinct enough to warrant its own mention. As for WP:UNDUE, it says that articles "may not include tiny-minority views at all" (emphasis mine), which supports my recommendation because my grandmother is neither tiny nor a minority (130lbs., BMI=24.5, European-American ancestry) Also, the FSM is definitely not tiny, but I'll try to find some reliable sources regarding its minority status. Thanks — DIEGO ^talk 18:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, CFM is a significant POV that was developed as a response to Creationism. Other WP:FRINGE ideas are just thrown out. Thanks for your threat about Bill O'Reilly. His IQ of 28 will be welcome here.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That is better than most creationists.--Filll 18:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

One problem is that no self-respecting Discordian would ever admit to being a reliable source on Discordianism's religious views. This demonstrates a profound anti-"anti-hierarchic" bias in wikipedia's editorial policies. How can it fairly present a religious viewpoint that holds as one of its core principles that there are no reliable sources for its beliefs. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point! I think the impact of this serious problem could be significantly reduced by adding "divine revelation" and "plausible hunch" to the list of reliable sources. Furthermore, use of these sources would avoid any potential conflicts over the Wikipedia policy against original research because no actual "research" or "objective information-gathering" is involved. What could be more reliable than than a tidbit of truth implanted directly into an editor's consciousness by the hand of Providence? — DIEGO ^talk 19:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hume

Further information: [[:David_Hume#The_design_argument|David_Hume § The_design_argument]]

The history section of this article should mention Hume, as he was one of the first modern philosophers to argue against creationism. His point of view is also quite interesting (and useful to the reader), mainly because of the aim of his argument. He is not promoting evolution (which, after all, did not exist as such in his time) but rather attacking creationism as an argument itself.

As just about every edit to this page is controversial, I thought it to be wise to bring this suggestion up here first, rather than to be bold.

Discuss. User:Krator (t c) 17:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with it. You might want to investigate History of creationism instead, since this is an article dedicated to the history more than this article. You might also want to look at Teleological argument as well.--Filll 18:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The article currently only tracks things back to the time of Darwin (when the controversy started to hot up). If we take it back as far as Hume, we'd probably also have to cover Geology's rejection of the Genesis flood. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)