Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive 4

message: ----
CREATIONISM
How set are your opinions on the issue of teaching either creationism or evolution in public schools? Is your mind completely made up, or is it possible you might change your mind at some point in the future?
People for the American Way
Mar, 2000
                                       mind      mind       not
                                         is       can      sure
                                       made    change
                                         up
      should teach evolution only       59%       37%        4%
  teach evolution and creationism        46        53         2
    should teach creationism only        75        24         1
Based on Americans who believe public schools should: teach evolution only = 20%; teach evolution and creationism = 63%; teach creationism only = 16%.
2000
Universe: United States
From: People for the American Way Action Fund
            Research and Forecast, Inc.
            301 East 57 Street
            New York, NY 10022
            (212) 593-6424
Method: telephone
Sample size: 1500
----
What is the debate?  It seems to me the debate is about whether or not evolution or creation is the best explanation for how people got here.  And, in America of all places, 63% of the voters think that creation and evolution are 50 - 50.  So, in my opinion, evolution is losing the debate. 8(( ---Rednblu | Talk 23:04, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  An actual poll.  What is the debate? 

message: <<Contemporary creationists believe that these geneologies are a selective report of the geneology leading from Adam to Abraham, the father of Israel. They believe this because the account of Cain's murder of Abel, Cain's banishment, and the subsequent birth of Seth is followed immediately by a geneology reporting only Seth as the son of Adam, and no account is given of any women in the geneology, or of the origin of Cain's wife.>>
There are some creationists that believe that there are, or at least could be, gaps in the genealogies.  Is this what the paragraph is about?  Is so, this is not because of the reason given, but because of Caanan being omitted from Genesis, but included in Luke, and because of other genealogies in the Bible that skip generations.Philip J. Rayment 13:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: the only reason i put that there was to explain why there's only a straight line of people named with no brothers or sisters ... and why people "lived 130 years and then had a child" -- because it wasn't necessarily their first child.  just indicating that the list was trimmed for relevence.  any way to make that point clearer?  Ungtss 15:28, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genealogy 

message: The page read: "Some mainstream scientists believe that the fossil record shows ample evidence for gradualistic evolutionary change. Others, such as Stephen J. Gould, believe that transitional forms are sparse in the fossil record, and explain it by means of non-darwinian theories of evolution."
This is misleading.  This text does not point out that the only point under consideration here is the fossils.  Gradualistic evolutionary change is not the same as gradual genetic change.  Also the usage of "some" and "others" replacing "main stream" and "many" is wrong because these descriptions were correct.  Darwinian theories of evolution refer to the mechanism of change of the genetic material.  Stephen J. Gould does not believe in gradual morphological change.  This does not make him non-darwinian.  Barnaby dawson 18:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: i can see that there's some disagreement on that subject, so i think you're probably right.  however, this article (in the section, "The Punctualist Response") shows that at least some evolutionists consider PE to be non-darwinian -- but you're right -- it's probably a misleading characterization.  all i wanted was reference to some scientists, like gould + eldridge, who think that the fossil record is "discontinuous."  I'll try again:).  Ungtss 18:27, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding reverting of third paragraph

message: Main stream geologists would point out that if there had been a worldwide flood we would have expected very small populations of various species to have seeded current populations and this would be evident in their genetic variability (this is not the case).
* can we flesh that out a bit?
**The problem I have with this page is that there is simply too much evidence to put into it.  I think maybe we should create some pages to house evidence for common "facts" that we wish to put on this or other similar pages.
* 1) doesn't evolution (especially punc eq) predict that small populations seeded ALL new species?
**Not populations of less than 10.  Punc eq would predict new species to be formed from small initial groups occasionally but not most or all of the time. Barnaby dawson 19:05, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: << 1) doesn't evolution (especially punc eq) predict that small populations seeded ALL new species?>>
Never.  :))  Please cite to the article. :))  Let's stop this personal research.  :)) Punctuated equilibrium grew from live observation of existing speciation events, such as in insects, parasites, and fishes.  All observed speciation events have consisted of at least a gene pool of several hundred individuals.  For example, a daughter species of coral-dwelling goby fishes has been observed in a patch of rare A. caroliniana coral on the ocean floor just outside Bootless Bay Papua New Guinea.  The daughter species speciated from the parent species about 300,000 years ago as measured by DNA comparison of daughter species with parent species.  Currently, the daughter species is reproductively isolated from the parent species, though the daughter species is surrounded by the parent species and hence is not geographically isolated.  The daughter species mutated to take advantage of the unique biochemistry of the A. caroliniana coral which the parent species shuns and cannot reproduce well when force to live in it.  The patch of A. caroliniana off Bootless Bay is only several hundred square kilometers.  There are other patches of A. caroliniana in the world but the daughter species has not found a way to get to any of them and so is limited to Bootless Bay.  The daughter species consists of only several hundred individuals.  Goby fishes occasionally migrate to a coral patch different from their birth.  The authors hypothesize that there was a punctuated equilibrium event in the parent species over several hundred years in which a few individuals of the parent species were forced because of lack of good coral space to take up a severe life on the hostile A. caroliniana coral.  At first there was a gene pool of the whole parent species.  And then after a few mutations, the emerging daughter species found the A. caroliniana coral more hospitable than the coral patches of the parent species.  At all times there was a gene pool of several hundred individuals, though generally goby fishes live and die in the coral patch of their birth.  (Munday, Philip L., Lynne van Herwerden, and Christine L. Dudgeon.  2004.  "Evidence for sympatric speciation by host shift in the sea." Current Biology 14 (16), pp. 1498-1504.) ---Rednblu | Talk 21:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: thanks for the research -- the above wasn't personal research on my part -- this was in response to some edits barnaby made to the flood geology section -- "mainstream responses to flood geology" -- i was trying to flesh out those arguments against the creationist model with some cites:).  Ungtss 21:45, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: * We are getting there.  It is all adaptive work; we are evolving "gills" in the process. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 21:52, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  great stuff! 

message: Lets start from scratch, salvaging bits and pieces.
Lets have
*Players in the debate
:(various discussion of who it is on each side of the debate)
*Methodology in the debate
:(the arguments over therof)
:*Ockham's razor
:*Endless requests for ever more specific evidence (i.e. nitpicking)
:*Falsifiability
*Arguments in the debate
:*Variation of the speed of light and its effect on carbon dating
:*Irreducable complexity (or lack therof)
:*Life from non-life (e.g. Miller-Urey experiment, synthetic Polio virus)
:*Macroevolution is seperate to microevolution (or not)
:*Humans and dinosaurs co-existing
:*The Flood as an explanation for fossils
:*General relativity and its effect on the age of the earth
*External Links
CheeseDreams 14:37, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your proposal seems reasonable, the article certainly needs some reorganization, though your recent “EDITORIAL NOTE” about 100% pro-creationist links seems somewhat less reasonable. Due to the character of this article, most of the relevant links will be either 100% pro or 100% against, so maybe a better idea would be to split both the References and the External links sections into subsections corresponding to the sides of the debate. Rafał Pocztarski 16:18, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: i'd be up for reorganizing, but not starting from scratch.  there's a lot of good npov stuff in there, IMO -- reorganize and reword, but don't scrap.  Ungtss 16:25, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: ** I would appreciate it if each of us begin each of our edits after looking at an actual published scholarly article or poll.  I suggest that each sentence in the Creation vs. evolution debate page should be testable by going to a published scholarly article or poll to verify that what is in that sentence some specific scholar or poll actually said.  Far too much of the current page is original research  :)) in my opinion.  ---Rednblu | Talk 20:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: i know ... i know ... i'm a moron.  Ungtss 00:50, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: name what's disputed and we'll talk about it, ben.  that's what this forum is for.  Ungtss 18:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: When to provide references

message: I think the article is a muddled and definitely needs revising.
Evolution is a theory generally accepted by the vast majority of scientific opinion. It is concerned with the history of life on the planet but, in itself, can give no clue as to how or why life originated. At the present time, there are a number of competing theories, none of which have - or perhaps ever will have - sufficient scientific evidence to sway scientific opinion one way or the other. 
The majority of scientists freely admit that the origin of life is a mystery. This is not to say that they deny that a divine hand was involved - they just dont know. There are no absolute truths in science. 
What the theory of evolution does tell us, and we can be almost certain of this, is that life was not created exactly as we see it now and placed own this planet 4500 years ago. Science has no quarrel with those who believe that life was created by god; this is where science lets philosophy and theology take over. 
The scientist has a problem with those whose faith precludes them from considering other theories regarding the world around them other than their own. Essentially, creationist vs evolutionist = closed mind vs open mind.
:that is certainly one point of view.  however, it is not the only one.  almost 50% of the US population believes that a biblically literal creation is supported the evidence, and that the scientific community is close-mindedly ignoring the evidence due to its naturalistic philosophical assumptions (and questionable methodologies such as uniformitarianism).  I for one am not convinced there is ANY substantive evidence for the theory of evolution as it is currently understood.  The goal of this article is to find a "middle ground" through those two ways of thinking, reflecting each fairly.  were the article to take your point of view as Truth ... i do not think it would fairly represent the issue, any more than if it took mine as Truth.  Ungtss 21:27, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The vast majority of biologists do not agree that biblically literal creation is supported by the evidence.  Most usages of uniformitarianism can be seen as usages of ockham's razor.  To reject ockham's razor is to reject modern day science.  I disagree with Batholith below as I think it is very important to have this page in order that people can make their own minds up with the necessary facts and figures at their fingertips.  Btw could you refrain from capatilising key words in your text as it is rather off putting.  Barnaby dawson 23:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: we all know what the majority of biologists think -- some of us just think occam's razor is slicing a bit too close these days:).  Sometimes you gotta acknowledge things you can't see to explain the things you can (Relativity).  Ungtss 02:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: The three links you give do not support the statement that there is a debate within the scientific community they mearly show evidence that the scientific community disagrees with creationism.  I would observe that creationists also use the "tactics" you deride to a much greater extent imho that main stream scientists.  I deplore such tactics also.  Barnaby dawson 18:31, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: The creation vs. evolution debate is a debate between people holding a number of different scientific and religious viewpoints regarding the origin and development of life on Earth.
This is POV for the following reasons:
*There aren't "a number of different scientific" viewpoints. There is only one scientific viewpoint being debated (evolution).
*There aren't "a number of different religious viewpoints" there is only one religious viewpoint being debated (creation).
*The intro fails to mention that this debate has two sides and they are clear. On one side there are the people that insist they know with certainty exactly how their holy text is meant to be read and interpreted. On the other side are the supporters of the theory of evolution whos viewpoint on the holy text has no relevence to their argument and therefore varies widely.
*Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life on earth.
Find a reference that says this or delete it.Bensaccount 17:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: can you two hear yourselves?  so obsessed with cutting the other side out of the debate that you refuse to acknowledge any scientific validity to their claims, and wish to retitle the page accordingly?  how can you look at yourselves in the mirror, knowing you've become just as closed-minded as the dogmatic religious people?  there ARE a number of scientific and religious viewpoints -- there are THEORIES for why both happened, and evidence THAT each happened.  the page SHOWS that.  creationism was the dominant SCIENTIFIC opinion for almost TWO THOUSAND YEARS.  why don't you stop obsessing over this bs and provide some facts to support your view?  Ungtss 19:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: look right below this text, my fine, intelligent friend.  Ungtss 19:49, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Disinformative first sentence

message: :The creation vs. evolution debate is a debate between people holding a number of different scientific and religious viewpoints regarding the origin and development of life on Earth.  In some areas, such as Europe, acceptance of evolution has achieved near-universality, among religious believers and atheists alike. In other areas, such as the Middle East, creationism is nearly universal.
:However, in places such as the United States, opinions are widely mixed. According to a 1997 Newsweek poll, among the general population, 44% believed in biblically literal creation, 39% believed in theistic evolution, and 10% believed in purely naturalistic evolution. Among American scientists, 5% believed in biblically literal creation, 40% believed in theistic evolution, and 55% believed in naturalistic evolution.  Less than 1% of earth and life scientists in the United States believe in biblically literal creationism.
:The debate covers a number of areas, including geology, biology, and astronomy. This article will focus on differences between evolutionists and creationists on the origin and development of life on Earth.
The first sentence of this article is biased. It says there are more than two sides to the debate. This is in reference to such categories as young earth creationists, old earth creationists, gradualistic evolution, and punctuated equilibrium. However, the debate between young earth creationists and old earth creationists is about the date of creation and does not conflict with evolution. Similarly, the debate between gradualistic evolution and punctuated equilibrium is certainly not about creation vs. evolution. 
When defining a debate it is necessary to find the unifying characteristics for each side. In this debate, the obvious unifying characteristic for the creation side is that the people on this side all insist they know with certainty exactly how their holy text is meant to be read and interpreted. The other side is unified only by their support for the theory of evolution, as their viewpoint on the holy text has no relevence to their argument and therefore varies widely.
The statistics in the introduction to this article are misleading. One who believes in 'naturalistic evolution' or 'theistic evolution' does not necessarily disagree with creation. However, the fact that this poll is presented at the beginning of a page on a debate obviously implies that there is a debate between these groups of people. This is a false implication; the groups surveyed do not represent the sides of the debate. The poll is misleading is various other ways, and has been changed from the original source. 
The second and third sentences of this article exemplify one place where evolution is highly accepted and one place where creationism is highly believed leading to the biblically-literal creationist point of view that that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive. Vague language is used to assist the clarity of this bias. 
The fourth sentence is biased towards the creationist point of view. It misrepresents geology as evolution to make it seem like the conflict between creationist-geologists and regular geologists over the great flood is part of this debate. Similar misrepresentations are made with the other sciences. Bensaccount 18:03, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: that is factually incorrect.  when there are different models of creation and different models of evolution, they debate each other in different ways.  for instance, an old earth creationist and an evolutionist will not debate over the age of the earth, while a young-earth creationist and an evolutionist WILL debate over the age of the earth.  the recognition and identification of those sides is absolutely essential to realizing how complex the debate is.  your attempt to remove factual information adds nothing while only pushing your simplistic pov, and two obviously non-creationist administrators found your proposed intro to be extremely pov as a result.  Ungtss 23:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: that is utter nonsense.  the unifying characteristics are identified in the title: "Creationists" believe the world was created.  "Evolutionists" believe world evolved.  theistic evolutionists believe that their holy book and evolution are consistent.  ID people like Behe don't even USE a holy book in their form of creationism.  your attempt to frame this in terms of "holy book versus scientific method" distorts the issues and adds nothing.  Ungtss 23:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: it does no such thing.  the fact that most new yorkers are liberal and most montanans are conservative does not mean there is no such thing as a moderate.  you still haven't given any explanation for why it leads to that conclusion.  it is simply a FACT that nearly all muslims believe in biblically literal creationism, while nearly all europeans believe in evolution.  you're seeing bias where there is none.  Ungtss 23:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: flood geology IS part of the debate, as it is INDISPENSIBLE to both biblically-literal creationism and evolution.  evolution is grounded on the fossil record for a historical account of evolution, and creation depends on flood geology to give a different explanation for the fossils that is consistent with creation.  Ungtss 23:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: dude.  ben.  why don't you go find some relevent facts and add them to the page instead of finding bias where there is none?  Ungtss 23:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of bias in the introduction

message: It seems we have here:
*Anti-creation, pro-evolution 
*Pro-creation, pro-evolution 
*Pro-creation, anti-evolution 
*Anti-creation, anti-evolution (no one here)
*Add yourself to the list?
These are not necessarily sides of the debate, but they are evidently different points of view. The best way to get this article NPOV imhop is to have everyones view represented fairly for each section. Shall we try this? Bensaccount 21:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: * Nope.  In my opinion, that would be personal research.  I suggest we should be quoting, paraphrasing, and citing to published scholarly opinion.  If you can find a published scholar's opinion that you think should be added, then you should bring it forward. Which published scholarly opinion do you think is not represented already?  ---Rednblu | Talk 04:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: thereyago:).  modifying the list:
*Evolution without creation
*Creation through evolution
*Intelligent design (creation in unknown way by unknown creator at unknown time)
*Old Earth Creation without evolution
*Young Earth Creation without evolution Ungtss 21:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: i am not "pro-creation, anti-evolution!"  if you want my opinion, it's old-earth, special creation, MICROEVOLUTION."  from what i gather, mr rayment's opinion is young earth, special creation, microevolution.  charle's darwin's opinion was old-earth, special creation, MACROEVOLUTION.  as i understand it, mr. rednblue believes in an old-earth, no special creation, macroevolution.  your oversimplification does not WORK, ben -- you keep repeating it, but it MISREPRESENTS the POSITIONS.  the debate is MORE COMPLEX than the little "religious text versus science" mold you keep trying to force it into.  Ungtss 01:07, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: what do you mean those aren't sides of the debate?  the issue is: "how did the world and life come to be?"  every different opinion is a side of a debate.  and a scholarly opinion is written by someone with an advanced degree in the subject in the form of a study or a published article ... rather than the opinions of a bunch of shmo's like us:).  Ungtss 20:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: What Mr. Ungtss says makes sense to me.  I would add an example for those of us who are a little slow and did not pay attention in Biology class.  An example of "scholarly opinion" would be any opinion expressed in any article indexed on the National Center for Biotechnology Information Search Engine.  In my experience, "scholarly opinion" indexed on the NCBI site provides a paraphrase, quote, survey, and citation to the origin of the opinion. :)) An example of "non-scholarly" opinion would be any opinion of Wikipedia editors that is not a paraphrase, quote, poll, and citation to "scholarly opinion."  And since some of us here have an agenda quite different from writing a good Creation vs. evolution debate page, I am quite sure someone will find both of those examples dissatisfying and hence debatable.  8))  ---Rednblu | Talk 21:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A possible solution?

message: The introduction says the debate covers astronomy. I assume that this supports some creationist bias, since Untss refuses to remove it, but I am curious as to HOW DOES THIS DEBATE RELATE TO ASTRONOMY? Bensaccount 17:26, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: dude -- chill.  quit friggin' attacking me and get to the facts.  the creation or evolution of celestial bodies is also an issue in the debate.  could stars have come about naturally, or did a Creator have to make them?  could the planets have come into orbit naturally, or did a Creator have to place them in orbit?  could the universe itself, with all its laws of physics and atoms have come into place without a creator ... or are they somehow self-existent ... or was it all Created?  how did the moon come to orbit the earth?  if the universe is expanding, was there a big bang, or is the red-shift due to gravity, or something else?  where did comets come from, and if they're really old ... how come they still have ice?  on and on.  those are some of the creation vs. evolution astronomy questions. Ungtss 20:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Surely it relates to astronomy because astronomy gives us evidence for an old earth.  Some creationists put forward theories involving time warping to explain a universe which appears way older than they think the earth is.  I think that we should emphasise just how much of science is questioned by young earth creationists (it's not just evolution by any means).  Maybe this page should be renamed Creation vs. mainstream science.  Barnaby dawson 21:54, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, the page is named appropriately--for the empirical evidence indicates that the creationists are using the 1600s definition of "evolution" which includes explanations for the origin of stars, worlds, life, astronomy, astrology, and species diversity.  :))  I can provide you with a continuous list of citations to the creationist and non-life-science use of this 1600s definition of "evolution" if you are unaware of the phenomenon. 8((  The NON-astronomy definition of "evolution" that you and I use was not invented until around 1872.  And that NON-astronomy definition has not caught on among the non-life-scientists who speak and write English.  ---Rednblu | Talk 22:23, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, young Earth creationists get into their usual nonsense trying to explain where the light from stars that we can see that is several million years old came from, hence astronomy. It isn't really a problem for old earth creationists, though it could be.  Theories of Big Bang etc that provide scientific theories of origins of the Universe of close off some of the gaps that some people fit God into too.  See Answers in Genesis Dunc|☺ 22:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text:  No I still think it should be renamed as the creationist understanding of the word evolution is not how the word is understood in general.  We should add a note in the introduction to point out how many creationists use the word.  Barnaby dawson 09:40, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Astronomy?

message: The  template should be removed from the article for the following reasons:
*The article is pretty well cleaned up.
*The article is receiving plenty of attention, and will probably continue to do so even in the absence of the template.
*The {cleanup} template is generally useless and should never be used.
--Yath 07:31, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: motion seconded.  the effort spent tagging articles would be better spent actually cleaning the article up.  Ungtss 07:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes, the Cleanup tag should be removed.  The person who put the Cleanup tag on this page does not understand either the purpose or procedures for the Cleanup tag--because that person did not engage all the other system flags that need to be engaged to make the Cleanup tag work.  :)) Hence, the tag is nonfunctional.  However, all of us here are very tolerant of intolerant people. :)  So we leave the Cleanup tag on this page as a generous gesture to the kind of senseless but benign vandalism that goes on here. 8))  I would not even waste my time removing it.  :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 09:07, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove {cleanup} 

message: For example of how little has changed, look at the misleading poll in the introduction. One who believes in 'naturalistic evolution' or 'theistic evolution' does not necessarily disagree with creation. However, the fact that this poll is still presented at the beginning of a page on the debate obviously implies that there is a debate between these groups of people. This is a false implication; the groups surveyed do not represent the sides of the debate. The poll is also misleading is various other ways, and has been changed from the original source. Bensaccount 17:23, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Current sentence:  <<According to a 1997 Newsweek poll, among the general population, 44% believed in biblically literal creation, 39% believed in theistic evolution, and 10% believed in purely naturalistic evolution.>>
How about the following paraphrase of the poll results?  A 1997 Newsweek poll revealed the following: 44% said that God created man without evolution, 39% said that God intervened at crucial stages in evolution, and 3) 10% said that man evolved by naturalistic processes in which God had no part.  ---Rednblu | Talk 18:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove clean up? We can't even remove the obviously biased poll from the introduction.

message: : <<Care must be taken when interpreting the above statistics because the poll did not ask people whether they believed the evidence supported their position.  This leaves open the possibility that many people may believe in something they think cannot be justified by the evidence.>>
The above paragraph inserted into the leading section may make sense to somebody.  But it does not make sense to me.  I suggest that you find some scholar who gave that interpretation to the data so that we can examine the issue.  As it is now that paragraph is only unsupported speculation and personal research--in my opinion.  ---Rednblu | Talk 23:55, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: it was put in by barnaby ... as best i can understand it, it's intended to argue that the polls are misleading because most people who believe in creation do so not because of evidence, but because they've been brainwashed by their churches ... and in fact believe in creation on a purely religious basis, even though they "know" the evidence disproves it.  Ungtss 00:42, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: * Is there any evidence for this interesting belief about polls--or is it the result of brainwashing?  :))  As far as I know, that series of polls is fairly stable, going back to the classic 1916 polls by James H. Leuba published in his The Belief in God and Immortality: A Psychological, Anthropological, and Statistical Study (Boston: Sherman, French). Leuba was truthful enough with his polls  in 1916 that he really upset William Jennings Bryan.  8((  I suggest we curtail all of this personal research. :) Speculations about why the polls turned out the way they have for the last hundred years should go into a section of the main body of the article, in my opinion.  Many scholars have already explored those questions in detail--and they all disagree with the paragraph above, as far as I know.  ---Rednblu | Talk 01:38, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: dude.  follow the link and you'll see everything we've got.  Ungtss 20:37, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: dude.  the current stats are cited.  if you want some that are BETTER cited and described, go GET them.  you can't just say, "these aren't up to my standards" and delete them.  that's the same attitude that drove you to VfD the whole page.  and the response there is the same as the one here -- don't delete it -- improve it!  FIND BETTER STATS OR QUIT WHINING.  Ungtss 21:41, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: how can you change the wording to spin the results?  biblically literal, evolution with god, evolution without god.  the definitions are clear.  you're on there(theistic evolution), and happen to have a whole lot of people who agree with you, and a whole lot of people who disagree with you (biblically literal creationism and naturalistic evolution).  if you want something better, go find it!  Ungtss 21:56, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Biblical creation does conflict with goo-to-you evolution.  Apart from people who believe two contradictory things, there cannot be people that think God created the universe, Earth, the sun, moon, and stars, and life, including human life, in six days and also accept goo-to-you evolution over millions of years.  Of course there are also the compromisers who believe that God used evolution, but they have to ignore most of Genesis 1 and a few other passages in order to believe that.  Philip J. Rayment 15:30, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: have you read the article, ben?  the sides agree on microevolution, but disagree on macroevolution.  microevolution is your "empirical theory" that can be observed today -- and nobody's arguing about it -- everybody agrees it can explain a lot of things.  macroevolution is the point of dispute.  that's the issue of whether all life evolved from a single cell (as evolutionists claim) or whether life was created in discrete forms and adapted to its environment through variation and natural selection (as creationists claim).  the article addresses this point head-on, ben.  but that doesn't change the fact that there IS a conflict over whether MACROevolution occurs.  Ungtss 23:59, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: it addresses abiogenesis, and it addresses microevolution and macroevolution.  what else do you want?  there's no such thing as a "layman's definition" of evolution.  the term is used in both ways by scientists and laymen alike, and has for hundreds of years.  Ungtss 02:13, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: i never said it was.  Ungtss 05:07, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: no, i never did.  i said evolution was variation and natural selection.  there are three models for that: gradualism (small changes over long periods), punctuated equilibrium (a rapid sequence of small changes in a small population), and macromutation (1-time huge mutations starting new taxa).  all of those models are variation and natural selection.  that's no layman's definition.  that's THE definition.  Ungtss 10:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: well your layman's definition is not used anywhere on the page and i've never heard of it, so don't worry about it.  Ungtss 21:33, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: i haven't admitted that there is more than one real definition for evolution.  i've only realized that you've invented a new definition for evolution, just as you did for "similarity" and "relationship."  the next step is for you to quit obsessing over your new and imaginary definition, since it is not used on the page and is therefore irrelevent, and come up with something productive to add to this page.  Ungtss 01:22, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: that second definition doesn't have anything to do with biology, dude.  the first definition is the only biological one, and it's the only one used on the page.  and relationship and similarity are NOT true synonyms, because they are NOT interchangeable.  a thesaurus does NOT give true synonyms -- it only gives similar words! Ungtss 14:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: jeez, dude.  there is only one definition of biological evolution.  it is the one used on the page.  it is, "variation and natural selection," which is the definition you originally called the "layman's definition" and told me i wasn't permitted to use, before you changed your position to avoid admitting that you were making no sense.  "evolution" can be used in other contexts to mean only gradual change, but it is NOT used that way on the page, EVER, and the different models of evolution are EXPLICITLY contemplated.  there is no REASON to define it in the header, except in your effort to hide the facts and confuse the issues.  Ungtss 22:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsubstantiated interpretation inserted 

message: How about the following introduction to replace the current introduction?
What is generally known as the creation vs. evolution debate is a debate over more than just the General Theory of Evolution.  Rather, it also a debate about the origin, age, and development of the universe, Earth, and life itself.  As such, the debate covers a broad set of issues, including the philosophy of science, abiogenesis, evolution, astrophysics, and geology.
In Europe, evolution has nearly universal support. In the Middle East, creation has nearly universal support. In the United States, opinions are mixed. According to a 1997 Newsweek poll, among the general population, 44% believed in biblically literal creation, 39% believed in theistic evolution, and 10% believed in purely naturalistic evolution. Among American scientists, 5% believed in biblically literal creation, 40% believed in theistic evolution, and 55% believed in naturalistic evolution . Less than 1% of earth and life scientists in the United States believe in biblically literal creationism.
Support for a "young" Earth (i.e. around 6,000 years old) is not as broad as for the creation of life.
Philip J. Rayment 16:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How has it been changed from its source, and how is it biased?  As I said above, I have reread your comments and I don't agree with them.  Gallup is a reputable polling firm, so a charge of bias really needs to be substantiated.  Philip J. Rayment 16:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: i'm aware of no-one on this page who thinks there is no conflict but you.  that includes Duncharris (with a biology degree, who thinks there is a conflict) and barnaby (another biologist who thinks there's a conflict), as well as every other evolutionary biologist i have ever heard of or met.  they think that creation is fundamentally wrong and even stupid, and they miss no opportunity to tell us so.  Ungtss 22:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I cannot speak for anyone else. :) But I would agree that "there is no conflict between creationism and evolution."  In my universe, science covers one universe.  And religion covers a completely orthogonal universe with zero intersection.  How could there be conflict?  However, there is reality.  And most United States voters are of the opinion that there is a conflict.  For example, the United States Supreme Court will not allow public school teachers to teach creationism in evolution classes, so there must be some kind of conflict--at least in someone's perception, is there not?  And the purpose of the Creation vs. evolution debate page is to describe what scholars and polls have said about the debate, would you agree?  ---Rednblu | Talk 23:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: i suppose the real conflict is whether there are two universes or just one.  young earth creationists won't have them separated -- because when you have a separate universe of religion that exists only in our heads and has no connection with the hard facts of the physical universe, it falls to occam's razor.  God is only relevent if he DOES stuff, y'know?  the real conflict is ... what (if anything) does He DO?  and more importantly, did he do what the bible SAID he did?  Ungtss 00:36, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: those quotes show two people who think that whether or not evolution occured is irrelevent to the spiritual message of Christianity.  neither of them state an absolute opinion as to whether or not evolution is true -- they merely state that the message of christianity is still relevent, whether God created life exactly as described in genesis, or by evolution.  they are saying, "you can be a Christian whether you're a creationist or a theistic evolutionist."  so how does that make the statistics misleading?  Ungtss 05:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text:  I'm sure we all have personal ideas about how the poll should be done.  But all those personal ideas are just personal research.  Do we know of any published scholar who has criticized those long-standing poll results?  ---Rednblu | Talk 05:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for a revised introduction. 

message: I am getting ready to nominate the Evolution and creationism page for deletion.  Does anyone see any reason to keep the Evolution and creationism page?--since the Creation vs. evolution debate page and associated pages already cover the territory, do they not? ---Rednblu | Talk 06:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason to keep it, though it does seem to actually lack many of the NPOV problems this article has, most likely because this one is far longer and recieves more attention. Titanium Dragon 08:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: like ben, i support a redirect -- didn't know that other page was out there.  contrary to our colleagues, however, i think the other page is more pov than this one ... particularly in its assertion that "creationism is based on biblical literalism" ... when in fact creationism is far, far older than the bible (and actually, there are more islamic creationists in the world today than christian creationists ... and the islamic ones haven't even READ the bible) ... so i think the other page should link to this one:).  Ungtss 18:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: it's called "creation vs. evolution debate," ben.  this is where we talk about the ideas in the debate.  if you'd like to start another page called, "Why mainstream scientists think creationists are stupid," go right ahead.  i'm sure you'll find lots of willing contributors.  and you'll probably find another page cropping up titled something like, "why creationists think mainstream scientists are stupid."  Ungtss 22:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: creationist views are not irrelevent to the debate.  they are half of the debate.  there can be no debate without them.  Ungtss 23:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[VfD]] for the [[Evolution and creationism]] page? 

message: Why do Untss, Rednblu and Rayment refuse the removal of these obviously misleading statistics or any kind of explanation of why they are included or what they mean? Bensaccount 16:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: they're not misleading, they're cited, they show the proportional strength of the sides of the debate both within the public and the scientific community (including the VERY germaine fact that the debate is primarily among the general public, while the scientific community has reached near-consensus).  in order to argue that they're misleading, you've been forced to invent new and fictional sides to the debate (my favorite being those who take genesis literally but still accept evolution).  those fictional sides are not included in the stats, because they do not exist.  the stats are good, accurate, and cited.  Ungtss 18:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Because they are not "obviously misleading", and the reason they are included and what they mean is self-evident, and your "explanations" are really attempts to dismiss them. Philip J. Rayment 15:28, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: We should keep in mind that there are vast and silent coalitions behind the varied opinions of those statistics as we can see at this link.  In my opinion, whether Mr. Ben, Mr. Ungtss, Mr. Monk, Mr. Dawson, Mr. Blu, or Mr. Rayment, none of us should let those various vast and silent coalitions sway our judgment.  But we should keep them in mind. :))  Why don't we open a section in the Creation vs. evolution debate page where we quote, paraphrase, and cite the various scholars who have analyzed those statistics?  I have found several good articles myself, but I have not had the time to summarize them for the page.  I must say that all the articles by published scholars I have seen support Mr. Ungtss's view rather than Mr. Ben's view.  When I get around to summarizing available articles I will open that section.  But I am afraid those articles will not satisfy Mr. Ben very much. 8((  So I suggest that Mr. Ben should find a published scholar who expresses his view of those statistics.  Would that not be better than repeatedly inserting unsupported and undocumented personal research? :) ---Rednblu | Talk 21:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the origin and development of man: 1) God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. 2) Man has developed over millions of years from less-advanced forms of life, and God had no part in this process. 3) Man has developed over millions of years from less-advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.?
And the people could answer 1, 2, 3, or other.  Why aren't the three options self-explanatory?  ---Rednblu | Talk 00:23, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: small wonder, if fluency requires the use of words like, "bannoron."  Ungtss 05:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I've reworded the paragraph in question to make it as clear as I can that the reason it's there is to show that US opinion (especially that of the general public) is mixed. If you're including me in "the local creationists' resistance" then let me state that I think that the only thing it shows is that far too many Americans take Genesis literally (to state my POV). I'm a evolutionary creationist- which means that I'm on the side of the evolutionary scientists in this debate (right up to the part where they start claiming that evolution disproves the existance of God). I genuinely can't see how the stats can be used as a bandwagon - they're in a minority -especially amongst those people who've spent time studying the issues involved. I removed the paragraph as the page is far too long anyway, and I thought (as I indicated in my edit summary) that what you had written was self-evident. Also, why does it need a paragraph? If people are still concerned can't you just add something like: "As with all opinion polls, this merely reflects people's beliefs and does not reveal which opinion is correct."? I still regard this as so self-evident that it doesn't need saying, but if people add a sentence similar to this I won't delete it. --G Rutter 13:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The misleading statistics and their misleading supporters

message: Broadly speaking, there are three main groups: Naturalistic evolution, that is, the belief that the current structure and diversity of life came into being purely through the naturalistic process of variation and natural selection, without the intervention of any deity; Theistic evolution, that is, the belief that the structure and diversity of life came into being through the process of evolution, but under the guidance of God. Biblically literal creation, that is, the belief that God created the Earth in exactly the way and timeframe described in the biblical book of Genesis. 
Nice obfuscating, but lets face it, naturallistic evolution is a conflation of evolution and athiesm. Its like making up a term to group bananna and moron. Bannoron. Its nonsense. Bensaccount 03:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: the only nonsense around here is comparing the "conflation" of naturalism and evolution with bannoron.  naturalistic evolution is not necessarily atheistic.  it makes no statement regarding the existence or non-existence of God, but only argues that evolution occured by naturalistic means alone.  in fact, naturalistic evolution can be seen as very pantheistic, as it argues that there is a "directing force" among all life and the universe.  cummon.  i'm tired of this crap.  why don't you actually read something and come up with something constructive to contribute to the article?  Ungtss 05:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Though naturalism and atheism are related, in reality all science is based on naturalism; that is, that the world can be explained without the need for supernatural phenomenon. Without naturalism you just say "because God said so". Naturalism seeks non-supernatural explanations for why things are the way they are. Titanium Dragon 07:33, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New nonsense

message: Gallup's own news service explains what the wording was of the poll.  Clearly the figures do add up to 100. I don't think it shows that there are loads of "theistic evolutionists". Presumably many Christians believe God "guides" everything. If you asked them "Do you believe that the earth attracts falling objects by gravity under the guidance of God/without God's involvement?", I reckon you'd get the same results.
:you go ahead and take that poll, and see what happens.  i "reckon" the results will be slightly different than you're predicting.  Orthogenesis.  Ungtss 05:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: take your ad hominem bs and go home.  i have a doctorate, and have met more evolutionist dropouts than any other kind.  Ungtss 05:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no ad hominem. I'm reporting the results of the poll, just as you did. Lots of people have doctorates. They get them from all sorts of places. That doesn't change the poll's results.Dr Zen 05:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: the stats didn't draw the figure you're referring to, that i'm aware of.  best we've got is, demographically, just slightly over half -- 65% -- of those without high school degrees believed in biblical creation.  the rest of the undereducated either believed in secular evolution, theistic evolution, or didn't have an opinion.  that compares to 49% supporting biblically literal creation in the general population.  i don't find those numbers to be particularly telling ... any more than the statistically significant difference between men and women (15%!).  i'm sorry if i was a bit testy about the ad hominem.  i've just been repeatedly attacked and maligned as "ignorant" and "fundamentalist" so many times it's starting to make my blood boil -- no excuse tho.  my apologies.  Ungtss 09:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: The poll shows that 49% of the general population and 95% of the scientists questioned accepted the scientific theory of evolution. Having decided that they accepted the scientific theory, people then varied over which of two metaphysical interpretations they prefered - either "God guided this process" ("Theistic evolution") or "God had no part in this process" ("Naturalistic evolution"). I really don't understand the problems people have with this poll. --G Rutter 15:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm fully aware that there was only one stage to the poll, which asked 3 questions. To paraphrase, each person was asked to choose which most closely matched their view - Young Earth Creationism, Evolution with God guiding, or, Evolution without God. So, 2 out of the possible 3 answers include the scientific theory of evolution as a possible option. What's your problem with it? --G Rutter 21:08, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The poll

message: This is a list of claims without any rebuttal. You'd think scientists just stood openmouthed at the brilliance of these arguments.
For example, "creationists assert that while science has synthesized some organic ingredients of life, the organic components of life are different than life itself, because they are not self-replicating." The reason scientists don't bother with this argument is because it is like saying man could not have evolved from a fish because man is not a fish. Or better, it is like saying houses cannot be made of bricks because bricks are not houses. Brains cannot be composed of cells, because cells cannot think. Dogs don't have furry coats because fur cannot bark.
How about this pearl? "Creationists argue that in the absence of a demonstrable, verifiable mechanism for the origin of life, dogmatic belief in atheistic abiogenesis is just as dependent on assumption as dogmatic belief in creationistic abiogenesis, and is therefore equally "unscientific." Thus they conclude that creationism is an intellectually justifiable position as to the origin of life."
To which the answer is simple. Scientists do not have a "dogmatic belief" in "atheistic" abiogenesis. This is a disgraceful misrepresentation of what scientists actually do. They suggest mechanisms by which life might have arisen. They discuss whether life has the characteristics you would expect had those mechanisms in fact created it. Okay, God creating life might be one of the possible mechanisms. Now make some predictions contingent on that hypothesis. When you do, your position is "intellectually justifiable" (as far as abiogenesis is concerned but not in any other area, of course). If there were evidence only for that origin, science would (reluctantly, I daresay) accept it.Dr Zen 01:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Creationist abiogenesis hypothesis

message: The article says: "In a lecture on March 8, 1865, Mendel noted that his research described the mechanism of microevolution, but gave no grounds for belief in macroevolution, asserting that the tendency was toward stability, rather than toward instability."
Can you give a source so that this can be checked out? This sounds a lot like an interpretation of what Mendel said. 
It should be pointed out -- even though it's yawningly obvious -- that Mendel's mechanism alone would "tend towards stability". And it's totally besides the point. The "instability" in evolution is caused by mutation. Creationists would need to deny mutation occurs (a foolish thing to do given that it's observable) for this to be anything like a point in their favour.Dr Zen 01:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mendel's views on "macroevolution" 

message: Flat earthism is a very conservative form of special creationism, an "extreme Biblical-literalist theology," that maintains that the earth is flat like a disk no matter what the scientific evidence is--because the Bible says that the earth is flat.  For example, Charles K. Johnson, until 2001 when he passed away, directed the International Flat Earth Society with 200 members and headquarters in Lancaster, California.
Geocentrism is a more liberal form of special creationism that interprets as a figure of speech the part of the Bible that says that the earth is flat, hence accepts the fact that airplanes travel around a spherical earth, but contends that the earth, not the sun, is the center of the solar system--because that is how the Bible says that God made the solar system.
Young earth creationism is a collection of views including the above conservative views but also including more liberal views that accept the scientific evidence for the roundness of the earth and the sun being at the center of the solar system.  
---
The above sections from the (Scott 1997) article are archived here for future reference.  ---Rednblu | Talk 08:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving the Flat earthism and Geocentrism parts of the (Scott 1997) article