Talk:Objections to evolution

Overstatements about falsifiability

From the Unfalsifiability section:

human DNA should be far more similar to chimpanzees and other great apes, than to other mammals. If not, then common descent is falsified.

"If not" would not falsify anything here. If DNA is part of the construction code for organisms then morphological similarity should correlate with DNA similarity, whether or not the DNA has arrived in its current state through evolution.

DNA analysis has shown that humans and chimpanzees share a large percentage of their DNA (between 95% to 99.4% depending on the measure).[62]

We would not reject evolution if the similarity to chimps were only 89 percent. The 95-99 figure is confirmation of evolution, but not the result of a falsifiable test. The falsifiable prediction is much weaker: that similarity will be higher with chimpanzees than with animals of clearly bigger morphological distance from us, such as elephants or reptiles. Estimates of the expected amount of similarity can be made within particular models of how morphology and DNA co-evolve, but if the predicted numbers are wrong, that only disconfirms the model used, not evolution.

Also, the evolution of chimpanzees and humans from a common ancestor predicts a (geologically) recent common ancestor. Numerous transitional fossils have since been found.[63] Hence, human evolution has passed several falsifiable tests.

This probably falsifies "no evolution at all", i.e., an unchanging set of species, but it does not falsify "limited morphological random walk (or extinction) within each species, but no genuine speciation". It is, after all, believed that modern humans interbred with many of the earlier forms so an anti-evolutionist could just say that the nature of humans changed over time but no real speciation happened.

Even if the transitional fossils falsify all nonevolutionary accounts of human-chimpanzee origins, that doesn't mean evolution has passed another falsifiable test. For falsifiability, it would have to be true that if numerous transitional fossils had not been found over time, evolutionary theory would have been modified or discredited. What would probably have happened in that case is to continue searching, based on confidence in evolution and a lack of competing explanations. So the quoted passage is confusing confirmation of evolution and disconfirmation of alternatives, with a falsifiable test.

The current wording in the article is overstated. Rather than BRD this I am posting on the talk page first, as this subject is prone to edit wars. Sesquivalent (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• "DNA should be far more similar" - it does not matter that one can construct other models which predict the same thing as evolution does. This is one possible falsification of evolution.
• "humans and chimpanzees share a large percentage" - We would indeed not reject evolution if the similarity to chimps were only 89 percent, but 89 percent are still "a large percentage". Try 10%. This is one possible falsification of evolution.
• "(geologically) recent common ancestor" - Again, one can construct other models which predict the same thing as evolution does. This is one possible falsification of evolution.

More to the point, those refutations of creationist poppycock come from reliable sources, and your original research trying to find fault with them is 100% irrelevant. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding transitional fossils, the concept of Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian is relevant. Kauri0.o (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

NPOV issues 2023

Can I give an opinion on what I am reading? B/c I might be an editor but I also use Wikipedia to learn stuff. An on controversial issues I like to read NPOV to get a balanced reading of the conflicts. am... I am not getting that here. Someone mentioned "Wikipedia's voice"? It is like A and B have a debate and both parties have conflicting beliefs. Yet only B (pro-Darwin) gets to invoke Wikipedia's authoritive Voice over what A said. And that is what this article reads like. To the point where me (no horse in this race) reading this knows 100% that this article was controlled by subject B in the debate. I have seen others raise this objection and been closed down. So what hope do I have? But let the record reflect the tone of this article is not a NPOV position unlike other articles where there is a conflict of views. (Israel-Palestine) for example. Every device has been used to dismiss position A (against evolution). Start with the slant in the lede. Hausa warrior (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Evolution is consensus within science. This is not a conflict between two equally valid standpoints. It is a conflict between science on one side and religious ignoramuses, nutcases and liars on the other.

See WP:CHARLATANS and WP:FRINGE. Also WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree, to me this article feels like it should be called "Refuting Objections to Evolution". 2601:547:E01:1DC0:12D8:FE21:840E:90E6 (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course it does. Those objections are all stupid and ignorant, and it is not Wikipedia's job to spread anti-science propaganda. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Accurately representing an opposing viewpoint is not spreading anti-science propaganda. 2601:547:E01:1DC0:1C34:FFF1:FA7C:EC11 (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

We do represent it. Just we don't represent it as valid/true. It is a conflict between mainstream science and scientifically inane views. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it fair to include Plantinga on this page?

From what I've read, his 'evolutionary argument against naturalism' is not an objection to evolution, but an argument against metaphysical naturalism. I've never read anything that suggests he intended to disprove evolution, or even to critique it as unviable in the light of humans' reasoning capacities. Phil of rel (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Since he says, a God would be expected to create beings with reliable reasoning faculties and people are very obviously very fallible, it sounds rather like an argument for atheism.

I think he is mentioned because creationists use everything that can get, including non-creationist Fred Hoyle. Of course, none of it makes any sense, including Plantinga. I have no objection to deleting him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

It's fair to include him; as shown at Alvin Plantinga#View on naturalism and evolution he supported ID for a decade, eventually backing off a bit in 2010 – five years after Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District . . . dave souza, talk 08:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

His "ID" belief is different from others. Technically speaking, all religious (particularly Abrahamic faiths) believe in an "Intelligent Designer", even theistic evolutionists like Dobzhansky, Fisher, Simon Morris, Francis Collins, Francisco Ayala, etc. The only thing common here is the name, but what each label means is different. The traditional "ID" belief is only considered problematic because of it's rejection of evolution and denial of natural causes. There's nothing wrong with believing that the "Intelligent Designer" designs through the natural process of evolution as a mechanic. One can take the designer as the first cause and natural causes as secondary. Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, you're argument is an example of genetic fallacy. Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

different from others - All beliefs are different from all other beliefs; Plantinga is not special in that regard.

Technically speaking - Wikipedia does not speak that, unless reliable sources already did it before. Antievolutionists have always tried to include non-antievolutionists into their groups; your rhetorics is not new.

The traditional "ID" belief is only considered problematic because - Wrong. It is considered problematic because it uses bad reasoning.

an example of genetic fallacy There is no trace of that fallacy here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not an anti-evolutionist. Check my en wiki profile.

Also, I don't understand what you're trying to say in the second statement. As I said, even theistic evolutionists like Francis Collins counts as believers in intelligent design if we were to apply the basic definition and principle of the concept of "Intelligent Design". The technicality matters here because as Plantinga said, he does not object against evolution and does not subscribe to the anti-evolutionist beliefs of the more traditional ID advocates. The technicality matters here because he himself uses the term ID in that way. Additionally, his argument was never used against evolution because it only applies to philosophical naturalism. Also, no. Traditional ID advocates never tried to add non-anti evolutionists into their group. The Discovery Institute literally wrote a book and has an entire website dunking on theistic evolution.

Also, you didn't even finish what I said. That's quoting out of context. The "because" here matters because "ID" isn't seen problematic because of it's mere name. It is seen problematic because it is traditionally used to object against evolution. Yes, it is problematic because of bad reasonings against evolution. But, Plantinga's argument is completely different.

Also, there is, in fact, trace of that fallacy here. The individual was trying to justify adding Plantinga's anti-metaphysical naturalist argument because Plantinga was involved with the ID movement even though his argument doesn't even object against evolution. It counts as a genetic fallacy because an opinion (that his argument should be added) is being validated purely because of it's origins even though it's completely irrelevant.

Literally, you're entire comment is an argument from ignorance. I'm not here for some sort of debate. Plantinga's argument, regardless of how strong or stupid it is, isn't against evolution. So thus, it is to be removed. Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

theistic evolutionists like Francis Collins counts as believers in intelligent design if we were to apply the basic definition We don't apply definitions here. See WP:OR. This is one of the most important Wikipedia rules. Another is WP:RS: If reliable sources say that Collins is ID, we write that he is ID. If no sources say that, we don't say it. End of story.

Traditional ID advocates never tried to add non-anti evolutionists into their group Creation scientists did. They made lists of creationists including Newton, Linnaeus and lots of other pre-Darwin scientists that never had a chance to take of position on evolution because they never heard of it. But all this is beside the point. Just don't gather random people and call them ID.

I am ignoring your fallacy claims because it would take forever and they are beside the point of this page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

But, that's not OR. It would counts as OR if some drastic information was added which would require compelling evidences to be valid. (For example, if I gave a description of his childhood without adding any sources) There's nothing wrong with applying definitions and lack of it will create confusions (like how you initially claimed that Plantinga is an anti-evolutionist because of the label of ID even though that is wrong). Applying definitions are important especially when things are ambiguous and nuanced. For example, in the article eclipse of Darwinism, there is a note clarifying the difference between 19th century "theistic evolution" and modern theistic evolution because these two things actually are different and refer to different things. That honestly makes Wikipedia itself un-trustable with it's information if words and labels were accepted as mere face value.

Also, I know that ID advocates try to put pre-Darwinian scientists into their lists, but that's different. My statement only applies to post-Darwinian era. They wouldn't tolerate anyone who accepts evolution or thinks that it is compatible. Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Except Hoyle's argument very specifically supports an intelligent designer who designed things without starting with abiogenesis. Since it is an argument against abiogenesis, it makes sense to put the argument here. On the other hand, Plantinga's argument is specifically against metaphysical naturalism. And it cannot be and has never been used against evolution in any way. So, it doesn't logically belong here. The article itself makes it clear that it is an argument against metaphysical naturalism and not evolution. So, it doesn't make sense to put it here at all. It belongs to the article naturalism. Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Hovind

Young Earth creationist Kent Hovind blames communism, socialism, World War I, World War II, racism, the Holocaust, Stalin's war crimes, the Vietnam War, and Pol Pot's Killing Fields on evolution, as well as the increase in crime, unwed mothers, and other social ills."

Blames them on what or for what?

Young Earth creationist Kent Hovind blames communism, socialism, World War I, World War II, racism, the Holocaust, Stalin's war crimes, the Vietnam War, and Pol Pot's Killing Fields on evolution, as well as the increase in crime, unwed mothers, and other social ill" 86.191.214.39 (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

….Hovind blames [long list] on evolution, as well as [short list]. Not entirely easy to parse, but conveys the information you asked about. Sjö (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it is easier to read now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Isolated systems

"This, then, is the general statement of the second law of thermodynamics:

the total entropy of any system plus that of its environment increases as a result of any natural process." Physics, Principle with Applications, SIXTH EDITION, p. 425, D.C Giancoli, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey,1998

This excerpt from a physics text book is at variance with: "The claims have been criticized for ignoring that the second law only applies to isolated systems." LEBOLTZMANN2 (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello @LEBOLTZMANN2:, I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. Both statements agree. If your issue is that the words "isolated system" are not included in the first quote, It's most likely because it is presented as a general statement in the introduction of the book. And if not, here is an other source for the definition that explicitly mention it [1]. And again, since trying to apply the second law in a non isolated system doesn't make any sense anyway, it's obviously implied even if not mentioned explicitly. --McSly (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

In the ten years since your first attempt at inserting creationist pseudoscience into the article, neither physics nor biology have changed enough to make evolution suddenly contradict the Second Law. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Plantinga

A discussion was already held here on the status of inclusion of Plantinga's argument. First of all, Plantinga's argument was specifically against philosophical naturalism, not evolution. So, it doesn't matter what other views of Plantinga are, his arguments are simply not relevant here. Additionally, he never objected against evolution. He already stated that his belief in intelligent design was different from other advocates. They merely just carry the same label, but what the label means here varies. As he stated, all religious people (or at least of the Abrahamic faiths) believe in some kind of designer, including theistic evolutionists like Dobzhanksy. God could've just "designed" by the natural process of evolution. And even if he was an anti-evolutionist, trying to use his other views to justify a completely irrelevant argument here would be an one kind of genetic fallacy. This article is specifically for anti-evolutionist arguments. Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

ID is a form of antievolutionism. he never objected against evolution contradicts the following sentence He already stated that his belief in intelligent design. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Plantinga does not exactly deny evolution, and remains skeptical about intelligent design as science. He talks like a philosopher, not like a scientist. And, yes, if he means that epistemic responsibility is scarce in humans, he is spot on. Most humans have never attained the full-blown rationality demanded by embracing modern science. I don't think that our specie is a paragon of rationality. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Plantinga does not exactly deny evolution Neither does ID.

if he means that epistemic responsibility is scarce in humans, he is spot on He does not mean that. He uses that as a sort of reductio ad absurdum: if naturalism were true, it would mean that people's thinking is not reliable, which would mean that you cannot rely on... naturalism! His reasoning is full of holes and really stupid: you do not need naturalism to derive that, as you say, people's thinking is indeed not reliable. And picking naturalism as the thing that you cannot rely on at the end is purely arbitrary.

I had no problem with deleting Plantinga back then (see #Is it fair to include Plantinga on this page?, contribution from June 2023), but consensus seemed in favor of keeping him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Except, the mere concept of an intelligent designer is not really anti-evolutionist. The term ID is being used here in an extremely un-orthodox way. As I mentioned his "ID" belief is very different from the more traditional ID belief. The only thing common here is the name. It would be like if I renamed YEC into evolution and evolution into YEC. The only things that change here is the label, but the core beliefs would still be the same. Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, how do I even get a concensus? Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)