Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive 6

message: I just dropped in here at the request of another user. I'm confused as to the purpose of this article--what, exactly, is the debate that the article is supposed to describe?  Whether Creationism should be taught in schools? Whether evolution is true? Aren't these covered in other entries?  Those aren't really debates, anyway; for purposes of an encyclopedia, the Lincoln-Douglas debates are the sort of debate worthy of an entry, actual debates that took place at a particular place and time, not just a broadly controversial group of topics. A general forum for ongoing argument isn't appropriate to an encyclopedia, is it? (And there are no shortage of such forums on the internet, in any case).  
The list of different creationist and evolutionist positions seems useful, but for the most part this just seems like a disorganized dump of all sorts of claims and arguments in the vicinity of creationism and evolution.  If some specific debate cannot be agreed upon as the subject here, then I suggest the entry be renamed to describe a specific topic not already covered.  And if this isn't addressing a concrete topic that is not covered elsewhere, why should the article exist? --BTfromLA 18:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, then, are you saying there is no point to having this article?  Is there no agreement here about what the subject of the article is?  --BTfromLA 01:50, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is "the debate"?  Why this article? 

message: One's view of the debate often depends on one's perspective. Advocates of secularism and the theory of evolution typically see the debate in terms of "science" versus "traditional religious belief and pseudoscience." Advocates of creationism typically see the debate in terms of "creation science" versus "Atheism and pseudoscience." Advocates of evolutionary creationism typically see the debate as a false dichotomy, because the religious belief in God as creator is compatible with the science of evolution.
The debate is a false dichotomy. Don't present facts as if they are points of view. Bensaccount 20:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't think it's a false dichotomy.  your "fact" is a pov.  Ungtss 21:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: what are you talking about?  do you have the slightest idea what npov means?  you are ONE pov on this page, not the ONLY ONE.  it's been two months now -- are you still as ignorant as when you showed up?  Ungtss 23:26, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, even that is only a point of view; many people do not believe in truth. Graft 03:27, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: the eye was created intact, even if everyone thinks it evolved.  Ungtss 18:37, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: belief is either fact or falsehood.  the eye convinces me that my belief in creation is fact.  your problem is that you mistake your own beliefs for fact, just because people like to call them "scientific."  that's fine if you want to hold that pov.  personally, one look under a microscope leaves me unable to believe in anything but creation.  Ungtss 19:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: which brings up the theme of rather stupidly holding that religious claims can have no basis in science and history.  Ungtss 19:16, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: yes indeed.  jesus lived around 4bc-30 ad in Judea, a Roman province, and was crucified.  egads!  conflation of religion and history!  Ungtss 19:30, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: listen, ben.  just for one second listen to voices other than the ones inside your head.  young earth creationism is a HISTORICAL idea.  it is the idea that God CREATED the Earth AS DESCRIBED IN GENESIS, IN THAT ORDER, IN THAT WAY.  it is the idea that God PLANTED A GARDEN where 4 rivers met, and filled it with particular trees, and MADE a man named Adam and a Woman named Eve, and those two people ate a fruit they weren't allowed to eat and got kicked out of the garden, and had Cain and Abel -- and Cain killed Abel.  it is not a belief about "what creation means" or the "religious implications."  it is the belief that 7,000 years ago, the EARTH DID NOT EXIST.  it is NOT a false dichotomy with evolution, because evolution says the earth is much older than that, and that humans are related to blowfish.  creationists read Genesis as a HISTORY, not just a "religious book."  do you UNDERSTAND that there are PEOPLE in this world who think DIFFERENTLY than you?  Ungtss 00:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: your evasion only serves to prove your ignorance.  Ungtss 03:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: <sarcasm>Share the love!</sarcasm>  Neocapitalist  01:24, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Ungtss' "fact" was nothing of the sort.  It was a rhetorical response to Bensaccount.  Creationists generally recognise and acknowledge that their views are views, whereas there are plenty of examples on Wikipedia talk and article pages of evolutionists stating their views as facts.  As for "belief", as a creationist, I have argued that very point myself, both on a talk page or two and on my user page, because a number of evolutionists don't like "belief" being used in connection with "evolution", because they consider evolution to be a scientific fact and "belief" to be an idea not based on evidence.  As for (not) proving religious claims using historical evidence, the problem with that is defining a "religious claim".  Creationists argue that creation, the flood, etc. are historical claims, whereas anti-creationists like to label them "religious" claims.  Philip J. Rayment 05:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Philip.  The whole strength of the scientific method is that everything is up for grabs.  If you can prove, with evidence, that a hypothesis is wrong, then you have to discount it.  Whilst I don't think this has happened with evolutionary theory - anyone who doesn't agree that it's possible misunderstands what science claims to be.  Nick 02:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The second paragraph

message: #Remove the lies and evasion.
#Inform the reader that:
#*The debate creates a false dichotomy.
#*The debate is based on popular but not standard definitions
#*The debate involves the conflation of science and religion. Bensaccount 22:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: <<#*The debate creates a false dichotomy.>>
How about we use terms the way that mainstream scientists use them?  Here is an appropriate use of "false dichotomy."  "The creationists assert a false dichotomy between micro- and macroevolution (Antolin & Herbers 2001)."  Is that what you meant by "false dichotomy"?  If it is, we could quickly dispense with this "problem" by inserting a section called "The false dichotomy in the debate" in which we could cite to all the published uses by mainstream scientists of the phrase "false dichotomy."  8))  
* Antolin, Michael F., and Joan M. Herbers.  2001.  "Evolution's struggle for existence in America's public schools."  Evolution 55 (12): 2383.  ---Rednblu | Talk 00:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: jeez.  Ungtss 01:03, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: what are you waiting for?  everybody else to give up logic and reason so they can agree with you?  i'm tired, ben.  i'm tired of revert wars and votes for deletion.  you obviously have no interest in reality, so i'm gonna let you leave the intro a mangled mess, while i work on other pages you haven't yet decided to destroy.  hopefully somebody else will fight you, or you'll decide to move on to mangle other pages.  whatever.  you've had this page in a do-loop for 2 months now.  i'm moving on.  Ungtss 00:07, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: henry morris and stephen gould disagree with you.  Ungtss 17:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Goals for the intro

message: well ... it seems that the "views compared" page is here to stay, and this page doesn't know what it is, but it's got a lot of good material.  here's how i propose dividing up this megalith:
:to stay on this page: spectum of debate, nature of debate, causes of debate -- issues related to the debate itself, but NOT to the history of the debate.
:to go to views compared: abiogenesis, macroevolution, irreducible complexity, flood geology, radioactive dating etc.
:to go to a new wikiquote entitled "Creation and evolution": the quotes section.
:to go to a new page entitled "Creationism and philosophical naturalism" -- discussion of occam's razor, stuff by phillip johnson, etc.
Thoughts? Ungtss 20:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed daughter pages 

message: Not having been on this page for about a week, I have now responded to some earlier points that were archived.  See this revision comparison for my responses.  Philip J. Rayment 02:21, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive edits 

message: : <<The creation vs. evolution debate creates a false dichotomy, involves the conflation of science and religion and is based on popular, but not standard definitions.>>
I removed the above statement.  The lead section should summarize what the scholars cited in the article say.  The above statement contradicts every scholar cited in the "References" section.  ---Rednblu | Talk 23:04, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing uncited, unsupported, and unexplained statement 

message: : <<There is absolutely no doubt that evolution, though possibly not in its current form, is fact. Creationists may be sympathized with, but they are just like little children- believing what is taught to them by others. In this way, believing in Creationism is a bit like believing in Santa Claus. But your parents aren't there to tell you the truth when you're older.>>
I moved the above comment here for discussion.  Can somebody please explain this?  It would help if there were a citation to a published scholar.  8))  ---Rednblu | Talk 09:47, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yikes.  if evolution is indeed scientific fact, i do hope you succeed in your goal of presenting evolution in a persuasive manner to us ridiculous "child-like" creationists, because the endless stream of garbage spewing from the mouths of these evolutionist fundamentalists convinces me they have nothing but rhetoric, ad hominem, proof by assertion and authority, raw bullying, and baseless assumptions to back their religion ... and they don't seem to notice, or care :(.  Ungtss 13:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: * 8))  In my opinion, the contributor of the "There is absolutely no doubt . . ." paragraph gives us an opportunity to discuss how we should deal with vandals.  Mr. Vandal has no interest in developing a NPOV page--even within Mr. Vandal's understanding of NPOV.  Mr. Vandal is merely expressing "what is so" for him, and the expression of "what is so" is a violation of NPOV.  Our job here is to write about "what people say."  If I had found Mr. Vandal's paragraph in the Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, I would think I had a good quote for my side--because I could expect that the article would develop some survey data and hypotheses correlating something like 1) "parents' beliefs about Santa Claus" vs. "child's beliefs about Santa Claus" compared with 2)  "parents' beliefs about Creationism" vs. "child's belief about Creationism."  In my opinion, it is crucial for Americans at this time that we would take very seriously the question of "Why do people still believe in Creationism?"  So the difference between Mr. Vandal and any one of us is that Mr. Vandal does not want to work within the rules of NPOV which require writing about "what people say" rather than "what is so."  ---Rednblu | Talk 18:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion? 

message: ===Removing uncited, unsupported, and unexplained statement ===
: <<The creation vs. evolution debate creates a false dichotomy, involves the conflation of science and religion and is based on popular, but not standard definitions.>>
I removed the above statement.  The lead section should summarize what the scholars cited in the article say.  The above statement contradicts every scholar cited in the "References" section.  ---Rednblu | Talk 23:04, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: that's a lot of scholars, ben.  Ungtss 17:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: truly a master of illogic.  name ONE SCHOLAR who SAYS what you think is "OBVIOUS."  Ungtss 18:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: if you can't cite it, it's PROBABLY NOT OBVIOUS -- and CERTAINLY not obvious for purposes of npov.  Ungtss 18:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: jeez man.  you're saying it's obvious.  i'm saying it's not.  i'm saying if it WERE obvious, you'd be able to name a scholar who says it.  i can name scholars who disagree (including gould, dawkins, dobzhansky, and darwin).  therefore it's disputed.  where are your scholars?  Ungtss 17:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: you're stuck on one stupid little point: "yes, God can create through evolution."  so what?  Darwin thought genesis was wrong.  THAT'S A DICHOTOMY.  DID GENESIS HAPPEN OR NOT?  i get too pissed talking to you.  ben, listen, you've obviously had your head up your butt your whole life.  as you were.  Ungtss 17:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  evidence 

message: : <<The creation vs. evolution debate creates a false dichotomy, involves the conflation of science and religion and is based on popular, but not standard definitions.>>
I removed the above statement.  The lead section should summarize what the scholars cited in the article say.  The above statement contradicts every scholar cited in the "References" section.  ---Rednblu | Talk 23:04, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: that's a lot of scholars, ben.  Ungtss 17:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: truly a master of illogic.  name ONE SCHOLAR who SAYS what you think is "OBVIOUS."  Ungtss 18:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: if you can't cite it, it's PROBABLY NOT OBVIOUS -- and CERTAINLY not obvious for purposes of npov.  Ungtss 18:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: jeez man.  you're saying it's obvious.  i'm saying it's not.  i'm saying if it WERE obvious, you'd be able to name a scholar who says it.  i can name scholars who disagree (including gould, dawkins, dobzhansky, and darwin).  therefore it's disputed.  where are your scholars?  Ungtss 17:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: you're stuck on one stupid little point: "yes, God can create through evolution."  so what?  Darwin thought genesis was wrong.  THAT'S A DICHOTOMY.  DID GENESIS HAPPEN OR NOT?  i get too pissed talking to you.  ben, listen, you've obviously had your head up your butt your whole life.  as you were.  Ungtss 17:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing uncited, unsupported, and unexplained statement 

message: : <<. . . is a disagreement among people who think that creation and evolution are conflicting notions regarding the origin . . .>>
I cut the above statement from the first sentence because it is logially inaccurate.  The "controversy" is a religious and political argument among many different viewpoints: some say 1) creation and evolution are conflicting notions, some say 2) creation and evolution are compatible notions, some say 3) creation is religion and evolution is science, some say 4) 8))) creation vs. evolution is a false dichotomy, some say 5) creation and evolution are both just different speculations, . . .   (Scott 1997).  ---Rednblu | Talk 04:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut an inaccurate statement here for discussion 

message: The article states "Methodological materialism is the acceptance of the operating procedures and logical standards of the modern scientific method, rather than supernatural causes." This <Methodological materialism> is linked but goes nowhere. The definition frankly sounds like science, which does have an article. Is this serious, or some propaganda stuff?
* Yes, something like that.  8))  You have made a fair criticism.  Some of the personages hovering over this page do not want anything to be clear, logical, or cited on this page; so they keep removing anything that is clear, logical, or cited.  8))  Consequently, the page stands right now in a defaced condition; it is only a temporary state of affairs.  If you want a clear, logical, and cited version of this section, you will have to go back into the history file to about here.  ---Rednblu | Talk 17:02, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methodological materialism 

message: The Gallup Poll is still heavily biased.
If you add up the figures you get "0% stated that they believed that there was no God", clearly evidencing that the poll's figures only correspond to the already-religious group of people. Compared to a more mixed population,  the figures become much more clearly a tiny minority of pro-creationists.
There is, after all, no county, state, or nation, with a majority of voters supporting the abolition of the teaching of evolution in favour of creationism. An important point showing the opinion of the populous, which is often overlooked.
:What are you talking about?  How can you get "0% stated that they believed that there was no God" when that wasn't one of the questions?  Of course the figures only correspond to already-religious people—everyone is religious, even if their religion is atheism.  And one of the choices in the poll was "Humans developed, but God had no part in process".  That is the option (apart from "other") that caters for believers in no-god.
:If the "opinion of the populous" is relevant (and I'm not suggesting it isn't), then why is the "opinion of the populous" ignored when the majority want both creation and evolution taught?  Why do you only raise the "opinion of the populous" when it suits your POV?
:Philip J. Rayment 15:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: <<everyone is religious, even if their religion is atheism.>>
8)) Not a good argument--in my opinion.  I would not mind if you say that I am religious, but it does not make sense to say that I am religious.  You could as well say that I am a Martian.  I would not object, but it does not make sense.  8))  As for your criticism of Mr. Dreams's comment, I agree.  Mr. Dreams's comment does not make sense.  I am signing off before I say something that does not make sense.  8))  ---Rednblu | Talk 19:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: and which definition of Religion is everyone using:)?  Ungtss 20:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: For the definition I'm using, and why, please see my user page.  Rednblu can't be a Martian, as there are no such beings as Martians.  But there are religions, so that is not a valid analogy.  Philip J. Rayment 02:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallup Poll 

message: Yet again, someone (Bensaccount in this case) has put an "Totally Disputed" tag on without adequate explanation of what's wrong.  All he said (in the edit comment) was "Unfortunately we need this tag again. There are certain short descriptions of the participants and the external links that are POV and incorrect. Not to mention the section dedicated to Eugenie Scott.
Because that has been discussion about Scott, I will not remove the tag.  But the other reasons for putting the tag have not been explained sufficiently for someone to identify them and do something about it.  Bensaccount, here is your opportunity to explain those other reasons (which you should have done at the time of including the tag).  Others might actually disagree with you on Scott, and if so that would leave no legitimate reason for the tag remaining.
---
While I'm discussing that section, I want to mention a bit of POV editing that occurred recently.  First, I wrote most of the "Participants" section, and I included the following two sentences:
* CRS has a voting membership of about 650, and a total membership of 1700 people.
* The National Center for Science Education ... is a membership organisation with 4000 members ...
I got both figures from their respective web-sites.  Although I am a creationist, I saw no reason to dispute the latter figure, even though it was a larger number than claimed by CRS.
However, Old-copy-editor saw fit to change the first of these only to read (emphasis added):
* CRS claims a voting membership of about 650, and a total membership of 1700 people.
Apparently a claim by a creationist group must be suspect and therefore qualified, but a similar claim by an evolutionist group is to be accepted!
I am reverting the change as I don't think he has any reason to question the CRS figure.  If someone disagrees with me, at least have the courtesy to be consistent and change both sentences, please.
Philip J. Rayment 15:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag by Bensaccount, 10th Feb 05 (Australian time) 

message: "The consensus in the scientific community is firmly against creationism". This is "evolutionist" bias; the scientific community is not firmly against creationism. Bensaccount 21:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Evolutionist" bias