Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive 5

message: What is the problem with the poll?  The poll is neutral data and it should be there.  If you have contrary data, then you should quote, paraphrase, and cite to the scholar or poll that gives the contrary data.  ---Rednblu | Talk 20:32, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be missing currently!Dr Zen 01:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: No, actually it doesn't. The formulation originally posted by Ungtss did and you were right to want it excluded. I do understand what you're saying. The questions asked don't actually reflect most "evolutionists'" thinking about evolution, as I pointed out earlier. You'd need a question that said do you accept the theory of evolution and think the existence of God is not an issue as far as it's concerned. Still, the poll says what it says. It's often cited, not just by creationists. It made the news in the UK. I think we could perhaps make a more neutral "polls" section that presents the polls and their results absolutely without comment and does not draw conclusions from them. What do you think?Dr Zen 04:01, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Whether or not it is a scientific theory depends on which side of the debate you are on, so that is a POV statement.  Philip J. Rayment 16:54, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: The question "Do you believe in the scientific theory that . . ." would never make sense. As Mr. Rayment implies, the question "Do you believe in the scientific theory that . . ." is as nonsensical as the question "Do you believe in the true statement that . . . ."  You have combined two things in one question.  The two things are 1) Do you believe that A is a scientific theory? and 2) Do you believe A is a true statement?  ---Rednblu | Talk 08:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: what what you've really been saying all this time is you don't want the poll in the intro.  okay.  explain why it "cannot provide a reasonable representation of this debate" in a clear and concise way so we can understand it.  Ungtss 17:54, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: so how do YOU define the debate!?  that's what rednblue's been asking you for a week now -- how do YOU think the poll should have been done, to accurately show the sides of the debate?  Ungtss 18:14, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: you still haven't answered my (or rednblue's -- read again what he asked!) question.  if you were going to take a poll, what would you ask?  Ungtss 21:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: if you'd like to preempt the accusations of trolling and vandalism, i suggest you take a little time to work with us so we can try to understand what, exactly, you're talking about.  you've said the poll is misleading.  so what would a GOOD poll look like!?  Ungtss 22:00, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: that % would be the sum of biblically literal creationists and naturalistic evolutionists -- leaving only evolutionary creationists and those with some other opinion, or none at all.  how do the above labels not effectively represent the sides of the debate?  Ungtss 02:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet another section on how the poll is misleading

message: rednblue -- out of curiosity, what do you think of the "fact: viewpoint viewpoint" format on the views compared page?  is it misleading in any way?  does it allow a fair way to assess the strength of the two sides ... and allow the mainstream side adequate opportunity to explain itself ... or recognize that it CAN'T explain itself?  i look forward to clarification of argon dating ... in my opinion, creationism will be in a lot of trouble if a reliable dating method ever comes around which substantiates the age of the sediments ... so i'm curious as to whether you've got one:).  Ungtss 21:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  sidenote 

message: Does anyone still think there are factual problems with this article, as opposed to a lack of neutrality (which is probably unavoidable, given the topic)? Ben Standeven 01:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still factual problems? 

message: "In Europe, evolution by natural selection, with or without God's involvement, has nearly universal support." I think "evolutionary creationism" or whatever it was you called it is not a term current in Europe and my formulation exactly states what it is people do believe in.
"In the Middle East, biblically literal creation has nearly universal support." You cannot use "biblically literal creation" to describe what Moslems believe in. I'm changing it to "creation as described in the various religions' scriptures" and "support" should be "belief".
The poll needs to move if there is no other descriptive material in the opening section. I'll leave this for now.
"About 0.14% of earth and life scientists in the United States believe in biblically literal creationism." Let's use the correct figure. I'm trying to find the actual poll, so I can work out how many scientists this was. If it turns out that it was 1 from 700, I'm going to rephrase this to show that, because it would illustrate that there is no such debate in this area of science.
Why has "creationism" gained itself a capital letter? I'm going to be striking them all down to lower case unless I see a very convincing argument for keeping them. If this is not a religion but a scientific view, it should be treated as all other scientific views: little letters. 
Creationists dispute evolutionary biology in only two areas:
#Abiogenesis: that is, the origin of life, and whether it was brought about by purely naturalistic processes, or a divine, creative act, although the theory of natural selection has nothing to say about the origin of life;
The more I think about this, the more I feel it needs to be struck out. "Abiogenesis" is not a part of "evolutionary biology", as we've discussed.
I added this but you should edit it to what you feel correctly characterises the debate.
"However, the "debate" is much broader, because the creationist worldview does not agree with many areas of biology, chemistry, physics, geology and astrology."
More when I get to it.Dr Zen 05:01, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Small changes

message: I'm going to try to track down the PDFs that are missing from this. I think if we do cover polls, we should certainly have the one that says that most Americans don't think creationism and evolution are exclusive, and if they say creationism is not science, we should have that. We should have some quotes from scientists saying that creationists are charlatans, and we will when I have time to gather them. (Naturally, the creationists can put in quotes from creationists saying that science is not scientific if they like. I'll have a hunt through CRS etc myself to find some juicy ones.)Dr Zen 05:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another poll 

message: This claim is often repeated around the net and seems to trace back to the Newsweek article that was originally cited and not a poll. However, Newsweek said no more, no less than that "by one count 700 [scientists of those types" were creationists. It didn't say where it got this count from (I'm guessing it has taken the 650 PhDs figure from the Discovery Institute but even DI fesses that those are not even mostly bio/earth scientists).
I think we have to leave this claim out unless it is properly substantiated. I'm going to keep looking for a decent source but let's not just put in every piece of baseless supposition we can find, hey?Dr Zen 05:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Naturally as a creationist I'd rather not see that figure there!  However I had no objection as long as it was accurate, but if, as you say, it is suspect, then of course I agree with its removal.  Philip J. Rayment 16:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should be removed. It very much overstates the support among life and earth scientists for antievolutionism.Dr Zen 03:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Possibly a more accurate poll would be that 5% of all scienists, including those who work outside of the life and earth sciences, do not accept evolution. This one is backed by Gallup 
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm --JPotter 17:09, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
That poll is mentioned, Jason. It's not all that "accurate" on account of not actually being sourced to Gallup. If we could find the actual poll, with the actual questions asked, that would be really helpful.Dr Zen 03:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/US/724_public_view_of_creationism_and_11_19_2004.asp --JPotter 20:04, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Jason, I know this is a really minor point, but this is the poll of the public, which I have already sourced directly to Gallup. There is no mention of a poll of scientists. In fact, all I can find is a bunch of sites all referring to the same site we refer to -- the religioustolerance one (this sounds like one of those facts that gains currency because it is widely repeated but it actually only has one source -- a bit like the Saddam shredder story). It's not a reliable source at all, so we need to find a reference to the actual Gallup poll, or take out the item, or say that some guy who has a website "claims" Gallup said 5% of scientists are creationists.Dr Zen 23:14, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 0.14% of earth/life scientists 

message: How about something like this
Evidence for evolution and the criticism
×                                                     	Young Earth Creationists                                         	Old Earth Creationists                                                                    	Theistic evolutionists                  	Intelligent Design Creationists
biostratified fossil record                                 	fossils are distibuted as would be expected in a world wide flood	new organisms appear suddenly in the fossil record but no evidence of transitional fossils	evolution occurred but guided by a deity	apparent evolution may have occured but tinkering occured by a deity
organisms that share characteristics share a common ancestor	similarities are due to a common designer                        	similarities are due to a common designer                                                 	accept common descent                   	some accept common descent, other say similarities are due to a common designer
similarities in DNA indicate common descent                 	similarities are due to a common designer                        	similarities are due to a common designer                                                 	accept common descent                   	some accept common descent, other say similarities are due to a common designer
the existence of transitional fossils                       	none exist/fake                                                  	none exist/fake                                                                           	accept common descent                   	some accept common descent, others claim transitional fossils are fake, others claim deity tinkering
vestigal structures                                         	modern vestiges have a purpose                                   	modern vestiges have a purpose                                                            	accept common descent                   	unclear
--JPotter 23:25, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
This would only be of value in an article that was concerned solely with pointing out creationist quibbles with science... 
<thinks>
... oh, I see.Dr Zen 02:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, with uniformitarianism! Philip J. Rayment 14:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you can know what that means, if you think that is what creationists have a quibble with. I don't think there would be even one latterday scientists who is a uniformitarian sensu Lyell. There are, by my understanding, reasonably few creationists who do not believe the laws of physics are if not constant then at least explicable in terms of the laws of today (IOW, not too many active in the debate who would claim that the water of the flood just appeared from nowhere or that the speed of light was faster in the past, but plenty who will argue for underground reservoirs of water or longer days or even God creating photons to give the illusion of a vast universe, or God creating a vast universe with I forget what mechanism to get the light here quickly enough). Dr Zen 05:40, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that you know how much of a problem creationists have with the idea that processes that we see today are what shaped the past.  As you say, they don't have a problem with the universality of the laws of physics.  Philip J. Rayment 14:38, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: i think it's an absolutely brilliant table, jason.  what does everyone else think?  Ungtss 02:39, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Great table!  But shouldn't it go on the Creationism page?  That brilliant table seems to be only about "creationism" and is not about the "creation vs. evolution debate."  ---Rednblu | Talk 08:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Either it should go on the Creationism page, or it should have an extra column for the evolutionary view.  Philip J. Rayment 14:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: The table has potential, but with the number of repetitive statements (Young- and Old-Earth Creationists are identical except for one entry, Theistic Evolutionists says the same thing every row except the first) I wonder if it is really worth it. Philip J. Rayment 14:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  table proposal 

message: In the Creation_vs._evolution_debate#What_is_driving_the_debate section I've rewritten the inaccurate and inflammatory phrase "informed by the religion of Atheism" to read "arising from the ideologies of atheism". It's deliberate POV spinning like this by a few that casts a cloud over the credibility of those creationists who are actually contributing in good faith.--FeloniousMonk 20:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can all agree that personal definitions have no place in an encyclopedia article. I didn't think you were the author, Rayment, as I've yet to see that you have much of an axe to grind with atheism. As Dr. Zen suggested, a direct quote with a cite would be the only way the phrase could worked back into the article I think.--FeloniousMonk 17:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing POV phrase about atheism

message: A number of recent additions to the article begin their postulates with the umbrella terms of "creation" and "creationism" but finish the same postulates by invoking "intelligent design/designer":  This is a bait and switch. Though closely related, they are essentially separate ideas-- the most common understanding of creationism claims a deity created the universe, intelligent design claims one or more powerful and intelligent beings created the universe (the criteria that differentiates them from deities seems undefined and ambiguous to me). Either way, the two ideas and terms should be split out and dealt with individually.--FeloniousMonk 20:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. That's what needs to be explained to the reader I think. You want to handle it?--FeloniousMonk 17:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to change the paragraph concerned, but then realised that it was correct as it was.  It says that "Other creationists, particularly adherents of intelligent design, dispute the modern theory of evolution only in the area of the origin of the adaptive complexity and diversity of life...".  Most creationists (i.e. non-ID people) don't dispute evolution only in that area.  It is primarily ID people that do, so the paragraph is really about ID-type people.  The last sentence I nearly altered also, as ID-type people mostly do not base their beliefs on scriptures, but it is probably true that some do, which is what it says.  The whole thing could be made clearer I guess, but at the moment I'm not sure the best way of doing that.  Philip J. Rayment 15:18, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Baiting and switching of terms and ideas

message: In Europe, support for evolution, with or without God's involvement, is nearly universal. In the Middle East, creation as described in the various religions' scriptures is nearly universally believed. In both of those places, there is very little debate, due to the dominance of one opinion.
This is personal research. A much more obvious, less biased reason for the lack of debate is that the debate is a false dichotomy. However the reason for less debate is certainly not as straightforeward as a simple dominance of one opinion.  Bensaccount 23:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ben, you've been repeating that nonsense for a month now and it makes no more sense than when you began.  the reason for lack of debate is not "false dichotomy."  the reason is that in those two areas, everybody AGREES.  have you BEEN to the middle east?  (somehow i doubt it, since you thought it was in the south central US)  please, ben, educate yourself before you vandalize the page.  your pov -- that the debate is a false dichotomy -- is just ONE POV HERE.  there are others who think there is a REAL dichotomy.  that paragraph is accurate, and important, because it explains why the debate is amerocentric.  your edit is DESTRUCTIVE.  Why are you so interested in destroying this page?  Ungtss 04:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: okay -- i'll add a qualifier if that will allow us to move beyond this silliness.  it is NOT an outright lie, however.  a short visit to either locale will reveal that it is very clearly the case, and that they DO see a dichotomy ... the dichotomy between a world that is 6,000 years old and humans were created separately and a world that is 10 billion years old and we're related to slugs.  Ungtss 23:14, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Second paragraph