Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive 15

message: Part of the problem is that the word "evolution" has more than one meaning, as well as the word "fact" and the word "theory". Evolution is a theory. However, what we call "the Theory of Evolution" is really the "NeoDarwinist Theory of Evolution". It is not the only theory of evolution. There are several others. Some of these other Theories of Evolution have been discarded or are obsolete or are not widely accepted. Evolution is also a word that describes a change. This change has been seen. So it is both. It is a change, and it is a theory that explains WHY and HOW the change happens. And I could probably come up with some more nuances as well. --Filll 23:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I think part of the problem here

message: Have you argued with a creationist before? How many publications have you refereed? How much experience in science do you have? You say you are a chemist. I am guessing you are a chemistry student. No offense, but you do not seem to have been around the block with a creationist very often to me. Because just claiming evolution is a fact, and true just because it would be perverse to not say evolution is a fact and true (since there is so much evidence supporting it) is not going to help much:
*It will not convince creaetionists. It has been tried and failed. Been there, done that.
*It will not help with people trying to understand the evolution literature. 
*It will not help someone who wants to take this sort of argument into a neighboring field of science where there are different definitions operating than the ones you claim 
* Your argument is based on accepting ONE of Gould's statements in a nonpeer-reviewed journal, and rejecting the others. Not a very sound basis to stake your argument on, frankly. A lawyer would tear you to shreds in deposition. Might even buy yourself some jailtime with that sort of reasoning.--Filll 00:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not suprised your arguments against creationists failed you. You seem to have a tendency to rant hysterically and resort to character assassinations when you are having difficulty forming your own coherent arguments. — Axel147 16:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and by the way: Filll here's arguments seem more than adequate, certainly more than I would be capable of without at least some extra preparation. Go read the last post he made, where he summarized what a good argument would sound like. I don't know a damn thing about the man you're citing, Gould, but as long as you two are catfighting over "what's a better argument," I recommend just working with what he said instead of attacking it because he's trying to tell you what to say. Not only would a lawyer rip you apart, so would a competent Public Forum or Lincoln-Douglas debator. Got it memorized?
...sorry, couldn't help myself.~Kazu 18:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I have to ask

message: The label "Religiously conservative" is used, particularly in the US, to describe a particular way of viewing religion, tending toward
a literal interpretation of the bible.  
Elsewhere, "Religiously conservative" would mean belonging to a long-standing religious organisation, most likely Eastern Orthodox, RC or Anglican, with an emphasis on tradition.
To avoid confusion, I have replaced the term "religiously conservative" with "literal".
Trishm 01:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is very reasonable.--Filll 15:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religiously conservative - semantics 

message: "The main opposing positions are held by those who hold religious origin beliefs and those who support naturalistic or scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology. "
We really need to cut to the chase in the intro.  This is the only description of the positions in the first paragraph, and it just sounds like religion vs. science.  This is simply not true.  The predominant religious position is compatible with evolution, and indeed the Archbishop of Canterbury says is most clearly when he describes the controversy as a "category mistake" - that creation as taught in the bible is not, and never should be compared to, a scientific theory.  The predominant scientific position is that creationism addresses issues (supernatural events) that are simply not addressed by science.
As I see it, the position of the scientific community is that creationism is not science, and should not be taught in schools as science.  
The position of the creationists is that creationism and evolution are incompatible, and that creationism should be given at least equal weight in school science classes with evolution.
Trishm 03:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen several quotes from experts of various sorts who claim that the creation-evolution controversy is not really a controversy between creationism and evolution, or between religion and science, but instead between those with moderate religious views and those with literalist religious views. Really a dispute WITHIN religion, and having nothing to do with science at all. This does have quite a bit of merit, in my mind. In the US in particular, the creationist position gets a lot of other issues shoved under its rubric:
*cosmology and abiogenesis and many other fields are defined as creationism
*evolution is defined as atheism
*evolution is defined as materialism 
*evolution is defined as humanism
*evolution is defined as secularism
*evolution is claimed to be responsible for 
**the breakdown of family
**illiteracy
**racism
**Stalin
**Hitler
**the holocaust
**Mao
**communism
**divorce
**unwed mothers
**teenage pregnancy
**drug abuse
**smoking
**alcohol usage
**riots
**wars
**handgun crime
**reluctance to impose the death penalty
**liberalism (a dirty word in the US)
**welfare cheats
**illegal immigration
**adultery
and so on and so forth. Things get very confused very quickly, and someone who is trying to argue for evolution soon is found in a terrible morass where evolution is blamed for all of the ills for society.--Filll 15:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Fear not: I and my collaborators are working on our own suite of articles and we will have our own big box. Although I do admit that two boxes for creationism and none for evolution or the evolution side of the argument is a bit much (the evolution box is really about the science, not this controversy nonsense).--Filll 16:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro 

message: In the hopes of avoiding a 3RR revert war between me and User:ScienceApologist on what appears to be a very minor point regarding a POV issue.  Since we are both on the same side of the whole controversy, I think we need to come to some consensus, so we can get rid of the small POV tag, which upsets the balance of the universe, or at least this section of the article.  As part of the "'venues'" for this debate, I contend that we should include that the creationists claim 9 articles that they consider peer-reviewed [].  I had added this part to the section, just to be balanced.  In reality these 9 articles don't support their cause very much--most of them do not mention design or creation, several of the authors support a natural law to evolution, and all of them discuss minor adjustments to the evolutionary process rather than explicitly mentioning or supporting a Creation myth.  I could add that, "the entire history of purported creation supporting peer-reviewed articles would be overwhelmed by the number of peer-reviewed articles supporting evolution published in one week." []  I think it would be an appropriate level of NPOV to show that part of the battle was fought in the realm of real science, and the creation mythmakers were soundly defeated to the point where they gave up.  Orangemarlin 16:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the creationists in question are the DI claiming that peer reviewed articles support ID: where dates are obvious, they predate the Kitzmiller trial where the defense team were unable to provide any such properly peer reviewed articles – in other words the DI claims proved false. Of course they've not given up: as the New Scientist article showed, they have a secret research program that may find some amazing proof. God willing. .. dave souza, talk 23:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Common venues for debate 

message: For example, why is criticisms of christianity there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filll (talk • contribs) 05:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who knows? Deleting it. Adam Cuerden talk 05:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I am a bit unsure about the external links section

message: Part of the Biology series on
Evolution
Research and history
Evidence
History
Modern synthesis
Social effect / Controversy
Biology Portal ·
As far as I know, for a page to have the series template it should be included in the list of links on the template itself. The "intelligent design" series was removed because of this reason and evolution also fails to be included in the series of links. I believe this is fairly related and might be included in the "Research and history" section below or along side "Social effect". An example of the change is on the right. Can we have some consensus on this? Pbarnes 18:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm you giving me an idea, which perhaps is what you are up to already. So is the goal to have one general template as your example at right shows, and then when you click on that appropriate category, you are sent to the main article in that  category, which its own template covering the category, plus of course the general template for the entire field. So for example, I could click on contoversy and be sent to the controversy page which would have its own template covering the controversy. Then as I drilled down, I could focus on the ID part of the controversy, which has its own template. I could focus on the creationism or creation science parts of the controversy, which might share a template or have their own. I could head off to the Islamic creationism controversy, which might eventually be big enough to have its own template. Even the Hindu creationism controversy might eventually be big enough to have its own template. So I guess I am asking, are you envisioning having a multiple layered set of templates, and on each page with a template, they would have a general one, and a more specific one for neighboring articles? --Filll 18:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, but if you want to work on that go ahead. In the mean time, I'm going to add the controversy link to the evolution series template. If someone objects please comment here. Pbarnes 07:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series on ??? 

message: Evolution is a theory with an overwhelming preponderence of evidence supporting it. It has long ago passed from the realm of hypothesis to theory, to established theory.
I took this qoute from this discussion, and I have to ask why it is an established theory when it is not supported by other more solid laws. For example, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. These laws have never been observed to be broken in the natural world, and yet the Theory that is Evolution(molecules from a primordial soup developing into man and all other life after vast amounts of time) depends on the contravening of these observed and accepted laws.
So I ask, why is the Theory of Evolution so widely accepted when it breaks such basic laws of biology? The "overwhelming preponderance of evidence" you speak of is entirely dependant on who is doing the interpretation of the evidence. 
In light of the contravening of laws required for Evolution to occur, evolutionary theory should honestly require some supernatural explanation, because that's what supernatural means:not within the laws of nature.
Now, when you refer to evolution, what exactly do you mean when you say it has been unequivocally observed? I remember a failed rags to rats experiment. And then there's that one about the proteins being produced in like conditions. The second is more supportive of creationism/intelligent design though, because the guy had to tweak the experiment to make it produce anything. And it still produced more destructive elements than creative ones, so that the actual proteins would have been destroyed if left in the resultant environment. So, by observable evolution, what exactly do you mean? To which examples of more genetic information being added to an organism in the natural world do you refer? I know of none, but my knowledge is admittedly lacking. Still, I would've thought the evolutionistic scientific community would've made big headlines if they had actually seen something of the kind.
But, if you're refering to things like the changes in moths to suit their environment, that's merely adaptation often mistakenly refered to as evolution. This is a common problem in this debate. In most cases, the changes we observe are actually a result of lost genetic information, and this is in keeping with the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
Please be define your terms before you use them in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.126.178.85 (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to inform you, but almost everything you put in the above post is incorrect. Try to get your information from something besides a creationist website, a creationist tract, or the lecturing of some ignorant preacher. If you knew a little science, you would not bother with such tripe. Thank you for your kind attention.--Filll 06:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can start your education with the Evolution page itself, and it's many daughter pages. On the evolution talk page you will find a guide to archived discussions on all the matters you have referred to - unfortunately you are far from original. If you do happen upon something new, please feel free to come back to discuss it. --Michael Johnson 06:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of any factual inaccuracies, note to the anon that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We are not here to debate the validity of a concept, idea, or theory, but merely to present the information that has been written about them by reliable sources. While I second calls that the anon should brush up on his or her understanding of evolution, the most important action he or she should take in this context is to become familiarized with the policies of Wikipedia.UberCryxic 23:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution established theory? 

message: I changed a sentence in the article that called evolution a "theory." Unfortunately, this is a poorly understood point that has been unnecessarily inflamed by the wider political context. Evolution is not a theory; it is a natural process, like erosion. The sentence stated that Darwin had "introduced" the "theory" of evolution through natural selection, but Darwin did no such thing. Evolution had been proposed as early as the 18th century. What Darwin did is give it a powerful mechanism through which we could understand it (natural selection). Natural selection is the scientific theory, and can also be thought of as a natural process, not evolution. I have changed that sentence accordingly.UberCryxic 23:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite correct. In my next version of the Theory vs. Fact section and article, I will make that far more clear, hopefully.--Filll 00:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, noobie here, but how can you say that evolution is a natural process when you can't even observe it (even partially) in your own lifetime? Timlee90 06:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I might buy that, but I might not. Certainly in common usage by people in GR, they use them interchangably. However, that might be incorrect, if one checks the dictionary of course. And I have done a lot of work in differential geometry etc and I have never heard that distinction. --Filll 00:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I know. And I know the title of MTW's tome is "Gravitation". And here is a news article from physorg.com (admittedly not the best source): . So physicists might be sloppy sometimes. We sure were and still are. Actually Einstein's would say the ball followed a geodesic path in curved space-time. And what would you call quantum gravity? And other more exotic theories? Theories of gravity or theories of gravitation?--Filll 00:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I am going to dig a bit deeper into dictionaries etc if need be, but we need parallel wording for this to work. If I cannot use gravity, I will use something else, like caloric theory, phlogisten theory, kinetic theory etc. Unfortunately that is less well known to the general public.--Filll 00:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I am weaker on the history of optics than I should be. But yes something like that. But I have to investigate your claims about gravity/gravitation before I throw in the towel on it.--Filll 01:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me research the issue carefully. I will get back to you with what I find.--Filll 02:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Theory of evolution"

message: Though this is a just a small issue of language, I still think that it is important that I point out that I feel that the beginning of this article is misleading with respect to the scale of the creation-evolution controversy in the UK. The claim that the dispute is present in the UK to a lesser extent than it is in the US implies that the scale of the dispute in these countries is at least remotely comparable. To my knowledge there has been only one incident in the UK that can qualify as a creation/ID - evolution dispute, as reported by the bbc here and here.
With the exception of this incident and a few lone voices in the jewish and muslim communities, evolution by natural selection is effectivly undisputed and is uncontroversial in the UK; it is even officially accepted by the church.
While personally I don't think that the UK's minimal participation in the controversy is sufficient to merit a mention on wikipedia, I would find "and to a significantly lesser extent in the UK" to be a more acceptable and a more accurate restatement.
Heihachi 04:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is misleading and have removed the phrase from the intro. The UK example mentioned in the article itself needs more citation, but that's another debate. If anyone wants to restore what I cut, please provide a good source. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 04:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Speculation and anecdotal evidence are fine, but they can be quite misleading. This article may be interesting on the issue of Australia. If you can find a credible source for any information, that's what we need. Xiner (talk, email) 14:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Creationism is not the issue in Australia that it is in the USA. One reason is that the education system is very different. State schools are very centralised, giving little opportunity to local communities to influence them, while the State also supports private schools, allowing Christian fundalmentalists and Islamists to start their own schools where their POV can be reflected. Australia is also not a very religious country. A politition who proclaimed their religion in the way that is done in the US would be regarded as absurb. Only about 7% of the population are church goers, and a recent (very popular) Prime Minister was an athiest. And the body politic is quite secular. For instance measures banning both an abortion pill and stem cell research were recently overturned in Federal parliament, despite the opposition of both the Health minister and the Prime Minister. Creationism is seen as a religious belief rather than a contender for scientific respectability. The only thing is that there has been a growth in fundalmentalist churches in recent years, and they have become more visible. --Michael Johnson 00:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey hey hey, us "religious kooks" have to stick together, how do you think we even organize all these boycotts and protests and things? It's not exactly a spur of the moment sort of deal, this stuff takes planning and communication. Homestarmy 00:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Pfft, that's not planning, that's just driving somewhere and waving some signs and being as obnoxious and anti-Christian as you possibly can while still barely pretending to be Christian. Discovery Institutes don't build themselves you know, and evangelists don't travel to africa by just clicking their red heeled shoes together. Homestarmy 01:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realize, when we read this stuff, it's scary to us.  They are more noisy and obnoxious than you are, but we don't hear the rational discussions of people like you.  I don't agree with what you say, but at least I don't think I need to lock my door, buy a shotgun, and worry that these nuts will burn me at the stake.  I just thought Christianity had something to do with love. Orangemarlin 15:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, guys, you're going off-topic here. You don't want me to wave the Delete wand again, do you? Xiner (talk, email) 01:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intelligent Design/Creationism in the UK

message: Does this section actually have anything in it worth keeping? It all seems to be covered in "Accusations of bias", in a more NPOV way. Adam Cuerden talk 10:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This by itself is not particularly useful, in my opinion. It is more like the introductory paragraph of a longer article. Silence is working on a rough draft of what might turn into Objections to evolution that includes a longer section on this at User:Silence/Evolution. Orangemarlin and I are also working on a rough draft that might turn into an article like Obections to evolution or be merged with Silence's effort, and the writing Orangemarlin and I have on the subject is also much longer. In both the Orangemarlin-fill draft and the Silence draft, this section is longer with more details, references, cites, sources, etc.  Also another draft that might turn into an Evolution as religion article (or something similar) is at Talk:Evolution/evolutionreligiondraft. Orangemarlin and I again have mainly worked on this, but with community input. So it is not that there are not people interested in fleshing this argument out considerably. At least I, Silence and Orangemarlin are. So we have some options:
*add a reference or two to this situation and wait until a longer subarticle or two on this subject is available to link to
*remove this section until an Objections to evolution article exists with a subsection on this area, and a link to a longer article on the topic
*leave the subsection as it is, knowing it is not incorrect, just uncited and not fleshed out, but that this area will be fleshed out eventually. 
*maybe another option. 
Comments?--Filll 14:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut section 

message: Most creationists involved in the controversy posit that they have alternatives to mainstream science in the form of creation science or intelligent design. They argue that science needs a paradigm shift and that a scientific revolution needs to occur in order to remove what they perceive as anti-religious bias from science. This conflation of religious and scientific ideas has come to define the controversy separately from either theological or scientific discourse.
:This by itself is not particularly useful, in my opinion. It is more like the introductory paragraph of a longer article. Silence is working on a rough draft of what might turn into Objections to evolution that includes a longer section on this at User:Silence/Evolution. Orangemarlin and I are also working on a rough draft that might turn into an article like Obections to evolution or be merged with Silence's effort, and the writing Orangemarlin and I have on the subject is also much longer. In both the Orangemarlin-fill draft and the Silence draft, this section is longer with more details, references, cites, sources, etc.  Also another draft that might turn into an Evolution as religion article (or something similar) is at Talk:Evolution/evolutionreligiondraft. Orangemarlin and I again have mainly worked on this, but with community input. So it is not that there are not people interested in fleshing this argument out considerably. At least I, Silence and Orangemarlin are. So we have some options:
*add a reference or two to this situation and wait until a longer subarticle or two on this subject is available to link to
*remove this section until an Objections to evolution article exists with a subsection on this area, and a link to a longer article on the topic
*leave the subsection as it is, knowing it is not incorrect, just uncited and not fleshed out, but that this area will be fleshed out eventually. 
*maybe another option. 
Comments?--Filll 14:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion as science

message: I've made a start at converting some of the citations to harvard style referencing.  In one case, I added a sentence after quickly reading the article.  I hope it is justified, but if not, please undo the sentence.  However, please keep the harvard style referencing.  And please feel free to convert any citations to the harvard format.  Please see Wikipedia:Harvard_referencing and Template:Harvard citation and Wikipedia:Harvard citation template examples. StudyAndBeWise 06:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harvard Referencing 

message: While updating the citations and references, I came accross this:
:'As reported in Newsweek magazine, 29 June 1987, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."'
This is widely quoted, but as far as I can tell, only in the context of evolution/creationism tensions.  Worse, nobody that I can find has a good reference (e.g., article title, author, etc.)  Could somebody please verify that this is the correct Newsweek issue, and provide details necessary for a proper citation (e.g., author, article title, issue, volume, etc.)  Without this, we have no way of knowing if this was a letter to an editor, or something Newsweek will stand behind.  Considering the high tensions in this subject, we don't even know if the quote was there.  Providing other information usually associated with a quotation from a weekly news magazine will make the quote more believable.  As it is now, it could just be an original mis-characterization of the article widely repeated.
So if you have access to a large library that has this stuff archived somehow, could you please provide details.  (Or maybe you even have the issue in question).  You can either update the reference, or provide the information here, and I will do it for you. Thanks StudyAndBeWise 17:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this fully. I as well have felt very uneasy with this quote. I might ask around and I suggest others do the same as well. Thanks.--Filll 19:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks filll.  I just removed the citation because it is unnecessary.  There are five other references combined in one citation to justify the sentence.  Meanwhile, the point made in the citation might be useful in other places in the article, especially if we can get more detail for a harvard reference.  
StudyAndBeWise 04:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Great job.  Newsweek is a reliable source, and providing the citation is sufficient.  Leave it to something other than wikipedia to show that the data is not correct, as that would be original research.  Contacting authors to verify their data in the absense of other articles disputing the data is not necessary in my opinion.  I'll go create a harvard reference with what you provided. StudyAndBeWise 03:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Not only did I get the authors and title and volume and so on, but the actual quote itself is wrong. So you should correct it. I do not know how to do it I am afraid.--Filll 05:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, sorry, I missed that.  Thanks for proofreading.  I'll go fix it. StudyAndBeWise 07:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Widely quoted Newsweek article 

message: I removed the following reference because it is not available.  I assume this is termporary so I am noting it in the discussion.  http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp 
Here is the diff in case anybody finds the position statement and wants to add it back:  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation-evolution_controversy&diff=100783589&oldid=100782893
National Association of Biology Teachers Statement on Teaching Evolution
StudyAndBeWise 02:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed citation to National Association of Biology Teachers Statement on Teaching Evolution 

message: Please look at it and give me your comments: User talk:Filll/AllAboutGod--Filll 02:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rough draft of article on creationist organization

message: Just want to provide context of the reference.  Somebody asked for a reference to some material I gathered.  It turns out to be on the same page as the previous sentence's reference.  I did not originally duplicate the reference because it seemed to be too much, but I will duplicate it now in the article since a request for a reference was made.  
:The most uncompromising of the evolutionist philosophers was Ernst Heinrich Haeckel (1834-1919).  Originally a physician, later a professor of biology, Haeckel was the first outstanding scientist on the Continent to subscribe wholeheartedly to Darwinism.  At the age of sixty-five he summarized his conclusions in a book entitled The Riddle of the Universe.  The philosophy of Haeckel comprised three main doctrines:  atheism, materialism, and mechanism.  He would have nothing to do with Huxley's agnosticism; on the contrary, he dogmatically affirmed that nothing spiritual exists. --- Burns, Ralph, Lerner, & Standish 1982, p. 965, Huxley 1902 
In my summary, I softened with the words "Perhaps the most uncompromising" instead of Burns et al "The most uncompromising..."
I hope this helps clear things up.
StudyAndBeWise 04:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ernst Heinrich Haeckel (1834-1919):  uncompromising evolutionist philosopher 

message: Edward J. Larson's book Evolution has an interesting account of the modern culture wars regarding Evolution in chapter 11.  I am adding content based on his account, which seems to be perfect in that he does not seem to be either a creationist or an interested relevant scientist.  He also seems fair in characterizing both sides of the debate, probably because he is a disinterested party.  I will continue to add content, and urge others to read this Pulitzer prize winning author to help out...especially in summarizing without plagiarizing this account during this period.
StudyAndBeWise 06:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edward J. Larson's Evolution 

message: I've cut this as it's wandered far from balance and coherence:
:Creationists argue that both evolution and creation are beliefs that attempt to answer the philisophical question, "Where do we come from?" Biblical creationists and theistic evolutionists both find themselves making a case for Intelligent Design, their explanation of the source and workings of the complex world around them. Leaders of many mainline-denomination churches and the scientific community maintain that creationism is not science, and therefore has no place in a science class. The Archbishop of Canterbury, for instance, stated that public schools should not be teaching creationism in the science class., , 
I have no idea what "Biblical creationists and theistic evolutionists both find themselves making a case for Intelligent Design, their explanation of the source and workings of the complex world around them." is supposed to mean, but it's almost assuredly inappropriate without a really, really good cite, that can't vbe counteracted by several others.  The first sentence is Kent Hovind's view, I believe, and needs a balancing refutation from the scientist side. "Leaders of many mainline-denomination churches and the scientific community maintain that creationism is not science, and therefore has no place in a science class. The Archbishop of Canterbury, for instance, stated that public schools should not be teaching creationism in the science class" Is just stating opinions, without any evidence or reasoning behind them, whereas every creationist claim is being given the full logical chains, except where a particularly bold claim is given with no evidence whatsoever. We can't do that. And it doesn't help this paragraph is incoherent. Adam Cuerden talk 13:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "argument from design" approach is used by some creationists, and not by others. It is more prominent in some   creationist rants and less in others. I think they all probabl subscribe to it on some level, but how firmly they stress it is different. Intelligent design from the Discovery Institute is really a separate movement and there are some tensions between the ID/DI group and the regular creationists schools. I can imagine why, since the ID/DI group is far more sophisticated, and has real degrees and credentials instead of degrees from diploma mills. Also, a lot of the traditional "prayer meeting" arguments of creationists that have been in vogue for about 100 years or so are roundly rejected as nonsense by the ID/DI crowd, so I am sure that causes some hard feelings. I would be loathe to use the words intelligent design here since that has taken on a special meaning since the efforts of the DI. I would use something like teleological argument or something that is similar, without using intelligent design in this paragraph.--Filll 15:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok let me try it again. I agree with you that the sentences you present are unclear. I also agree that the use of the phrase "intelligent design" in that paragraph is not the best, and possibly inaccurate or misleading or both.--Filll 21:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead, paragraph 2 

message: The article says:  "Creationists tend to respond at length to such criticisms, sometimes to the point of responding line-by-line to anti-creationist articles, though it is disputed whether these succeed in addressing the issues." with a reference of <rref></rref> 
I quickly read this citation, but I did not see how it is a reference to the sentence.  I very quickly read it.  Would somebody please verify that this citation is appropriate for this sentence.
StudyAndBeWise 01:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't see how the citation/reference relate to the article.  Consequently, I removed it.  I am putting notice here in case somebody wants to add it back, and/or explain how the citation justifies the sentence.  Alternatively, a different reference may be found.  Meanwhile, below is the reference for the citation, said citation not supporting the sentence.  StudyAndBeWise 03:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somebody please check citation 

message: I have read the origin of species, and Darwin used the word Kinds many times in it.  E.g., 
:* The lake-inhabitants of Switzerland cultivated several kinds of wheat and barley, the pea, the poppy for oil and flax;
:* I have discussed the probable origin of domestic pigeons at some, yet quite insufficient, length; because when I first kept pigeons and watched the several kinds, well knowing how truly they breed, I felt fully as much difficulty in believing that since they had been domesticated they had all proceeded from a common parent, as any naturalist could in coming to a similar conclusion in regard to the many species of finches, or other groups of birds, in nature.  One circumstance has struck me much; namely, that nearly all the breeders of the various domestic animals and the cultivators of plants, with whom I have conversed, or whose treatises I have read, are firmly convinced that the several breeds to which each has attended, are descended from so many aboriginally distinct species.
:* how much the fruit of the different kinds of gooseberries differ in size, colour, shape, and hairiness, and yet the flowers present very slight differences.
In any event, the article states:  
"Kinds" and "baramin" are terms invented by creationists and derived from the book of Genesis.
In any event, the sentence needs clarification, in my opinion, because it does not at first blush seem true.  (Of course, when Darwin used the words kinds, as in the above quotes, the word may have had a different meaning then when Creationists use it).  Appreciate comments.
StudyAndBeWise 07:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I think I understand.  But the article claims that creationists invented these terms.  Minor point, but I am striving for accuracy.  Is this too pedantic? StudyAndBeWise 03:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I always thought that the Creationists have used "kinds" as a canard to obfuscate some of the verbiage in the Genesis Myth.  When I read "kind" of plant or "kind" of animal, it's almost at the species level.  I think that our friend Richard Dawkins agrees (I can't remember which book, but it could be Panda's Thumb) that humans can identify organisms at the species level and the writers of Genesis knew this.  But the Creationists, to simplify items like the myth of Noah's Ark, have attempted to convince everyone that kinds really equals genus, so there are fewer organisms on the planet.  Let's not go there would be my opinion.  Orangemarlin 04:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly.  "Kind" as Darwin used it is standard vocabulary.  "Kind" as used by these creationists is jargon, not standard vocabulary.  When a computer repair technician speaks of "heads" and "platters", he is not attempting to calculate how much to cook for a dinner party; he is referring to internal parts of a hard drive.  Cheers,  Kasreyn 22:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As that says, it comes from Genesis 1:12-24: "the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind..." erc. which, as Moore says, developed after the Reformation into a belief that every species had been directly created, and so to elaborate efforts in the early nineteenth century to explain both the number and distribution of different species – hence Charles Lyell's concept of "centres of creation". So creationists introduced a more pedantic or literal reading of the terms in the bible rather than inventing them. As Adam says, Darwin used kinds (and races) to denote varieties. .. dave souza, talk 09:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Kinds" and "baramin" are terms invented by creationists and derived from the book of Genesis 

message: I proceeded to demonstrate that creationism had a blatantly religious foundation by displaying excerpts from the CSAO's own Fall 1990 Newsletter, in which an editorial stated that a central tenet of CSAO was "To glorify God as he has revealed himself ... to obey him and enjoy him now and forever. Certainly this is central to CSAO ... Creation evangelism is indeed a major unique thrust of CSAO." I emphasized that, if groups wished to gather together and publish for the purposes of evangelism, I had no objection. However, it was deception for the CSAO, and consequently Ian Taylor, to indulge in evangelism in their newsletter, then to state at their presentations that creation science has nothing to do with religion.  Adam Cuerden talk 16:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote? 

message: This approach to redefining the aspects of evolution has been criticized in other ways as well. For example, in the context of evolutionary biology, "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are distinguished only by the total amount of evolutionary change and the number of generations that had passed between ancestors and descendants. Evolutionary changes are often so gradual that biologists can disagree over exactly when speciation occurs. A few scientists have attempted to posit different mechanisms for macroevolution (see saltation), but none has been generally accepted. Creationists, however, generally accept microevolution while rejecting macroevolution.
,  , ,    An example of this is the creationist endeavor baraminology which purports to study the biology of various "kinds".  "Kinds" and "baramin" are terms invented by creationists and derived from the book of Genesis.  They are not used in mainstream biological research, and those who debate creationists claim that they are a patchwork-fix meant to allow creationists to accept short-term manifestations of evolution (such as the development of new dog breedsWhat is Evolution? - AllAboutGod.org or antibiotic-resistant bacteria) as change within a "kind", while arbitrarily rejecting speciation, the appearance of entirely new species that generally takes much more time.
This is a long, babbling paragraph that fails to say much of anything, while giving a huge amount of Undue Weight to the incrediably marginal "baraminology", which I believe has about 4 people working on it in the entire world. Can we just cut them? Adam Cuerden talk 19:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I  think it is nice to have a link to baraminology, but this entire paragraph could be 1/4 the length and much clearer, in my opinion. I also want to see a link or two and some discussion of how the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is a big part of the creationist arguments, and how that it is basically a nonsense objection. --Filll 19:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: While it is being rewritten, I have removed the following "references" since they are no longer cited in the article.  I harvardized the references, but now that they are not cited in the article, I have moved them to this discussion, since this is where they were used.  Please add them back if your rewrite relies on them.diff
*Retrieved on 2007-01-20
*Retrieved on 2007-01-20
*
* Retrieved on 2007-01-14
StudyAndBeWise 20:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From "Defining evolution" 

message: My opinion is that a section specifically dedicated to enumerating the key or most vocal participants in the controversy should be created.  I know this is difficult, but maybe somebody else knows more than me.  There should be two sub-sections, one for the creationist camp, and one for the evolution/mainstream science camp.  This section and sub-sections would be highly valuable in this article, in my opinion.  In any event, if you think this would be a bad idea, let me know before I spend too much time starting these sections.  (I don't plan to insert anything for one or two weeks, at the rate I am moving.) StudyAndBeWise 04:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed that there is an article List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy provided in the See Also section after I moved it.  This article may be distilled for a sub-section, or otherwise referenced earlier in the present article to meet, at least partially, my request.  Anyway, I think an article on the controversy should enumerate specifically key participants.  StudyAndBeWise 04:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a section on key or most vocal participants in controversy 

message: It seems it ought to be, at least in theory: Judge Jones has no reason to choose one side over the other, and was set the task of dispassionately analysing both sides. Adam Cuerden talk 06:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially a Republican appointed judge, who presumably had the support of Rick Santorum to receive the appointment. Orangemarlin 23:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Right. Let's cite from it freely, then. They'll probably howl about it a bit, but it's certainly a neutral view of the evidence. Adam Cuerden talk 13:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be forgotten that it includes extensive citations of both sides speaking under oath, which makes it uncommonly valid. The selection and analysis was based on the prosecution case, developed and endorsed by Jones as his findings. The trial documents as a whole are also useful as a source of evidence under oath. .. dave souza, talk 09:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are the findings of [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]] a neutral source? 

message: The only part of this section that is on point is the first sentence.  After that, it seems to be an off-topic rehash or restatement of things already discussed.
Is there anything there worth keeping?Trishm 07:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: let me look. We might steal it for our new article.--Filll 23:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  science as religion - delete? 

message: This (?!) is the so-called Argument against Evolution?
:====Arguments against evolution====
:Creationists are best known for their claims that evolutionary theory is incorrect. These claims are not taken seriously by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, where the evidence of evolution is considered to be overwhelming in quality and amount, without a single contradiction. Richard Dawkins, a prominent biologist and professor at Oxford University, explains that evolution "is a theory of gradual, incremental change over millions of years, which starts with something very simple and works up along slow, gradual gradients to greater complexity. ... If there were a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found."As quoted by Wallis, Claudia. The Evolution Wars. Time Magazine, 15 August 2005, page 32 . Also see  and  Similarly, the evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane when asked what hypothetical evidence would disprove evolution in exchange for a creationist concept replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era", a period more than 540 million years ago, a time when life on Earth consisted largely of bacteria, algae, and plankton.
You're kidding right? I mean, I'm not challenging any of the alleged facts in this paragraph. I'm not smart enough to challenge these facts. But I know enough to know that this is NOT an "Argument against evolution". This is a once sentence strawman followed by a evangelical dismantling of that theory by a high-priest of the church of evolution. Are there no conservative leaning editors, or is this typical Wikipedia POV? 70.108.89.17 02:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: You've got to be joking ... 

message: Please do not feed the trolls User:Filll 02:48, 23 January 2007, not added by me but I fully agree with the point made. .. dave souza, talk 09:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't feed the trolls

message: Filll removed the science as religion section.  I added it back, but removed uncited sentences, and also removed the images.  The argument is made, and I think quite commonly, by the creationist camp.  Per my comments above, I think this description is accurate, based on my understanding of some creationist's claims.  While I am not going to insist that it stay, (I think the section could use re-writing and better references, e.g., from linguists), I think it should stay pending further research.  If you disagree, please explain so here after you revert my edits, and I will accelerate my research, and/or participate in a discussion.  Thanks.  StudyAndBeWise 03:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it needs a better version. No problem with having a "placeholder" version until then of course.  I am not sure how we will eventually coordinate between this article and Objections to evolution.--Filll 03:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have moved the second paragraph to the "false dichotomy" section.Trishm 04:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with filll's implication, or at least what I understand to be his implication, that we can't address every creationist claim.  To that end, a reference that identifies the key players in the controversy, and their main arguments, would be very useful in helping us stick to the major points, instead of paying too much attention to what might be marginal views in the controversy.  This is complicated, of course, in that the most vocal participants in the controversy may not necessarily reflect the majority view of creationists or scientists.  This is why a disinterested reference, if available, would be useful.  StudyAndBeWise 04:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science as religion section 

message: I have read this a few times in the article, and I think it requires too much explaination to make a reader able to understand the point.  I'll look for a better example, but meanwhile, I wanted to know if anybody else could make this section easier to understand without having to explain esoteric references to Boeing 747s.
StudyAndBeWise 05:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that the point could be made more simply and clearly by leaving out all Boeing references. On a minor point, from memory (probably from reading TalkOrigins Archive) Hoyle referred to a 707. A rather dated analogy. .. dave souza, talk 09:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Esoteric Boeing 747 refeerence 

message: I actually support its removal because when I looked at their website for their official position, they said they currently have no official position about evolution and creationism.--Filll 20:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was leaning that way, (that is why I put the citation needed flag), because I did not find anything.  Now it is complicated because as you probably already figured out, JoshuaZ found a 1982 reference that is still available on their website.  Unfortunately, it is not signed, and may not be current.  I am beginning to suspect that they are backing down quitly.  I think we should keep looking to find out something more recent either confirming or denying this.  The way it is now, we have an unsigned statement purporting to be a resolution on a website.  I would love to see something better.  I think we should keep disucssing it and researching. 
StudyAndBeWise 03:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Southern Baptist church alone couldn't technically have a position, as the Southern Baptist church isn't much of a denomination in a more formal sense, membership is self-declared and there's no real governing body in a way. Perhaps it meant the Southern Baptist convention, which would have the authority to make such a statement, which would at least represent the views of the current SBC president i'd think and likely most of the churches or something like that? Homestarmy 03:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't find anything except the current ref in their resolutions search, you'd think if their going back on their previous resolution they'd file a counter-resolution or something.... Homestarmy 03:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The Baptist Church has no central authority that decides on matters of religious doctrine, and thus has no official position on Biblical infallibility and evolution. But individual members of the Southern Baptist Church were plaintiffs in the Arkansas case. John Buchanan, a Baptist minister, is the head of People for the American Way, an organization which opposes creationism and other fundamentalist attempts to impose their religious beliefs through the force of law.,
--Filll 03:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here, for refernce, is the citation in the article, which is not the best, but it is on the SBC website.   I will keep thinking and searching.  No additional comment for now.  StudyAndBeWise 04:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Filll, your link mentions the SBC, but its just a Geocities page and it doesn't reference where exactly its getting that notion about the SBC from, it doesn't look like its a direct quote of some SBC thing or anything. And as I said, the Southern Baptists aren't much of a denomination in a classical sense, without an official governing body that all member churches are obliged to follow, they can't really speak for every single church claiming to be Southern Baptist, and apparently not for John Buchanan either. (Though, "Baptist" isn't necessarily the same as "Southern Baptist") Homestarmy 04:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Southern Baptists

message: I am not arguing that talkorigins are publishing falshoods, but I sure do think it would be better if we could back up each talkorgins references with better references.  I am not saying delete them outright, but support them, or use them as support, for other references from reliable sources with little or no discernable interest in the outcome of the controversy.StudyAndBeWise 03:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Usually talk origins has good references with it already, so we just have to include a real reference for each talkorigins reference.--Filll 04:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Concur.--Filll 04:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well as long as it made sense, it would be ok. We do not want big long NPOV sections if we can avoid it.--Filll 04:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Most of the money spent, and most of the sound and fury has been in the US. Muslim creationists in Muslim countries often win with no controversy. We can mention controversies in other places, but by and large they are far smaller than the one in the US, so there is no problem with it being uS centric.--Filll 04:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree the source of the contraversy in "Christian" countries is the US. Here in Australia it is the recent import churches, the Pentacostals and similar, from the US who are pushing creationism. The old, European churches largely accept evolution. --Michael Johnson 04:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The peer-reviewed paper was published the year before. Actually, there was huge headway even among theologians by the end of the 1800s, according to Ronald L. Numbers.--Filll 04:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, I actually knew that.  Too much scotch whisky tonight, I guess.  StudyAndBeWise 04:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thing to remember that science as we know it did not exist The learned societies were clubs of wealthy, educated Gentlemen who got together to share their observations. Dons at Oxford and Cambridge (I think I'm correct here) had to be, or at least usually were, Church of England clergymen. It was Huxley and others around him who promoted the professional scientist. "Nature" for instance was first published in 1869. --Michael Johnson 04:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Some atheists did rub it in pretty badly I suspect, from what I read.--Filll 04:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What Darwin did to religion was make not believing in God a rational possibility. Prior to Darwin the question any athiest had to face was how do you explain the diversity of life, and of course there was no explanation besides a divine creator. --Michael Johnson 04:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The entire issue came to a head after the First World War. Many blamed WWI on evolution, and so it slowly became illegal to teach it in schools. And it remained this way in almost all US schools until 1958 or so. Then it started getting reintroduced after Sputnik, and then the court battles started up again in the 60s. Especially after the Morris book.--Filll 04:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually the 250K offer is just one of a long list of other offers. I have a list of about 6 or 7 at this point. Rimmer made a 100 dollar offer. Price made a 1000 dollar offer. A bunch of others.--Filll 04:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Science actually does not search for truth. It searches for efficient explanations which predict the data. These explanations may or may not have anything to do with the truth, but that is irrelevant as far as science cares. Science only cares about parsimony, and prediction.--Filll 04:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course.--Filll 04:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll respond to more of this in detail later, but a quick note about 4B- you'll have a bit of difficulty there- they don't exist. The only things that are at all close to that are 1) Piltdown man which was made by unknown individuals and was discovered to be a hoax by scientists (who accepted evolution) and 2) Archeoraptor which was made by a farmer and again was discovered by the  evolution accepting scientists. JoshuaZ 04:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Err, on Piltdown, the Wiki article seems to think that at first "experts" (whom I presume include evolutionary scientists) believed it to not be a hoax, "The fragments were claimed by experts of the day to be the fossilised remains of a hitherto unknown form of early human.". Homestarmy 04:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the point here is that these hoaxes were perpetuated ON scientists rather than by them. --Michael Johnson 04:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  It would be interesting to this article if this hoax were setups by creationists, or to other articles if major theories had their rested on Piltdown (doubtful)StudyAndBeWise 05:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, this would be work.  The person who wrote the Lincoln spoof seems to have disappeared, too, though I think his spoof, however designed to provoke responses, had some merit.  Also, somebody above said there are none on the side of evolution, so maybe that is why.  I haven't come across any, other than possibly the Scopes trial, which was argueably as much about publicity as it was about keeping religion out of the class, but hardly a hoax.  I am most interested in history, especially Victorian history.  StudyAndBeWise 04:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  talkorigins website, other thoughts, and a modest proposal 

message: I am updating/harvardizing many of these references, and so far, they either don't stand alone, or are accuretly represented.  My mistake.  StudyAndBeWise 05:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I think I am going to disappear for a few days.  My wife needs attention, and I have been sucked into wikipedia too much of the time recently.  I hope my work on the history section and the harvardizing of refernces was helpful.  I tried to be accurate, tried to not plagiarize while capturing key points, and tried to be responseive (e.g., to concerns over words like "conservative".) StudyAndBeWise 05:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction on talkorigins.org 

message: I am reading this book, Creationists, and it is interesting, very well written, and has, I think, an NPOV.  Here are a few quotes from the introduction that I find interesting:
*Consequently, even relatively informed persons tend to overlook the substantial changes in the creationist thought during the twentieth century.
*The common assumption is that one creationist is pretty much like another.  As we shall see, nothing could be further from the truth. 
*Readers acquainted with such works as Andrew Dickson White's influential History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896) will not be surprised to learn that the history of modern creationism includes some of the fiercest skirmishes in the annals of science and religion.
*I should also warn readers that my aim is not to expose the defenders of creationism as "pseudoscientists."  Although such efforts no doubt have their place--one of my favorite journals is the Skeptical Inquirer--as a historian I am much more interested in how persons and parties used "science" and "pseudoscience" to further their ends than in judging whether they employed these labels appropriately by the standards of the 1990s. (This shows the POV, or NPOV, of the source.)
*Although I no longer believe in creationism of any kind, I am strongly committed to treating its advocates with the same respect I might accord evolutionists...For too long now students of science and religion have tended to grant the former a privileged position, often writing more as partisans than historians and grading religious "beliefs" by how much they encouraged or retarded the growth of scientific "knowledge."  Recently, we have heard persuasive calls for a more even-handed treatment.  But even academics who would have no trouble empathetically studying fifteenth-century astrology, seventeenth-century alchemy, or nineteenth-century phrenology seem to loose their nerve when they approach twentieth-century creationism and its fundamentalist proponents.  The prevailing attitude, colorfully expressed at one professional meeting I attended, is that "we've got to stop the bastards."   In other words, although many scholars seem to have no trouble respecting the unconventional beliefs and behaviors of peoples chronologically or geographically removed from us, they substitute condemnation for comprehension when scrutinizing their own neighbors.  I think it is profitable to get acquainted with the neighbors, especially so if we find them threatening.
The book has a historical POV, but I think in the context of a controversy between religion and science (or religous people and their supporters and scientists and their supporters), this is POV is more neutral than either a scientific, pseudo-scientific, or religious POV.StudyAndBeWise 03:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL.  I think a-holes existed from time to time on all sides:).  Now if the portrayal wasn't accurate, that's another story.  StudyAndBeWise 05:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creationists by Ronald L. Numbers 

message: This section states: "In the immediate post-Darwinian era, few scientists or clerics rejected the antiquity of the earth, the progressive nature of the fossil record."  But the antiquity of the earth was indeed subject to serious scientific controversy, which was not religiously based.  The issue was that Kelvin's calculations on the rate of cooling of the earth showed that it was maybe between 20 and 40 million years old.  (Radioactivity, which supplies an internal heat source to the earth, was unknown at the time.)  Accordingly, I think this sentence should be expunged or modified.--OinkOink 00:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, so it wasn't in the billions of years under Kelvin's calculation. It was still pretty old. No one disputed that the world was millions of years old. And even Kelvin expressed reservations about his calculation anyways. JoshuaZ 00:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Scott (2000) is a possible citation: "That the earth is ancient was well-established in science by the mid- 1800´s, and was not considered a radical idea in either the Church of England or the Catholic Church (Eiseley, 1958). From the mid-1700´s on, the theology of Special Creationism has been harmonized with scientific data and theory showing that the earth was ancient." ... dave souza, talk 10:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation/evolution controversy in the age of Darwin 

message: I am reworking the second and third paragraph of the article opening to focus on the current primary controversy.
I replaced:
With the current 2nd and third paragraph, because the above quoted text, while interesting, doesn't focus on the topic of the article, and delves too quickly, in my opinion, into minutia.  There are also other problems that I can pick apart in detail if anybody disagrees with my current approach.  But I will wait until somebody disagrees before going line by line.  Suffice it to say, it is not suitable for an article opening, in my opinion.  I will try to rework some the details I just cut back into the article as they fit.  Please be patient while I do this.  Thanks.  StudyAndBeWise 06:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where was the information originally?  While it was in the lead, I reworked the previous 2nd paragraph, and provided a reference for it.  I'll try to work it back in, but if you have a suggestion on where to put it, let me know.  Thanks.  StudyAndBeWise 03:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworking opening 

message: However, I am willing to remove it, and the following section I added for balance.  I think some of the information is interesting, but think it might be better suited for a different article.  Even so, I included it, and also an even more akward section on evolutionary defenders mis-characterizations of evolutionary opponents.  However, the second section needs a much better reference, or it doesn't belong here (even though I think it is true in at least internet debates).  I am going to look for the template to recommend both sections be reworked or deleted, even though I added them back in. StudyAndBeWise 04:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay, I added the 2nd removed paragraph back 

message: Beyond the dichotomy
Unsourced since December, and unclear prose.  Moved to discussion in case somebody wants to rework it back into the article. StudyAndBeWise 00:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing sub-section Beyond the dichotomy 

message: Of possible interest to editors of this page:
*:Level of support for evolution → :Endorsement and rejection of evolution —(Discuss) - According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision), this article has a very poor title. Note that both "level" and "support" are quite ambiguous. Would you know from the current title that this article would be about polls and open letters regarding both the endorsement and rejection of evolution in the context of the creation-evolution controversy? A number of the other editors have proposed equally ambiguous titles, the alternative is the only one that has seemed to have had at least a moderate (if somewhat guarded) support. Another idea floated was Popularity of evolution or Popular support for evolution, but I believe those two titles to be more ambiguous than the proposed one here. Note that there are a lot of ways to write an imprecise title to this article, but precision is absolutely necessary because we need to make sure that people are not misled in, for example, a POV-pushing fashion. For example, the simple title "support for evolution" rightly redirects to evidence for evolution because evolution's support isn't verifiably tied to opinion polls and open letters but rather to the scientific evidence. --ScienceApologist 05:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we have the makings of a disagreement on this issue.--Filll 05:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: I think it is important to give an indication of the number of people involved.  
*Assembly of God - 52.5 million.
*Jehovah’s witnesses 6.5 million
*Seventh-day Adventists 14 million
*Lutheran Missouri Synod - 2.5 million.
*SBC 16.3 million
*Presbyterian - 75 million.
*Christian Reformed Church 0.3 million
*Free Methodist Church 0.7 million
*Pentecostal 100 million
*Wisonsin Evangelical 0.4 million
total:~270 million
I have used worldwide figures wherever possible.
Total number of Christians: 2.1 billion.[]
Trishm 04:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have US figures? --Filll 04:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Give me a little time, I'll rustle them up.Trishm 05:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to comment on your change to the article , the list itself does not purport to be exhausitive.  I think it would be better to find a reliable reference to buttress your calculation, e.g., 13% of the world's Christians belong to churches that officially oppose evolution, often supporting Creationism, Creation Science, and/or Intelligent design as an alternative. Otherwise, it is original research, and potentially shaky.  I'll wait for others to chime in, unless I find such a reference.  As it is now, I am leaning toward the idea that the sentence is original research (no offense, I am also trying to avoid drawing logical conclusions that others have not already made).  StudyAndBeWise 05:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It has already been done in the US by National Center for Science Education. Just see level of support for evolution for details.--Filll 05:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked the level of support for evolution artilce  out.  The Project Steve petititon makes them an interested party.  Also, the framing of the statement, e.g., 89.6% support evolutionary education, is problematic.  It might be possible in the eyes of some churches to support evolutionary education without references to common origins of species and/or descent of man.  Statistics and polls commissioned or interpretted by parties to a controversy are highly suspect.  Even so, a reference that says "According to the National Center for Science Education, ..." might be better than what we have now.  As you know, I try to be careful on how and when to quote interested parties to the controversy, and prefer disinterested parties whenever possible.  StudyAndBeWise 06:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the concerns about original research.   All I did was take established figures for the list of denominations that were there, to give a sense of proportion.  What I did was less original research than due diligence. The figures are verifiable. If there is a problem with original research, and there might well be, the problem lies with the presence of the list, not the analysis. Trishm 08:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S.  I will leave the reworking of the sentence and citation to Trishm, and will address it later if Trishm doesn't get back to it.  StudyAndBeWise 06:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.P.S. I've removed the citation for now, because I think we need to consider, and even analyse, this section carefully.Trishm 08:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting.  That's partly why I put figures to it - to see if it made sense.  It could be that either some of those churches above shouldn't be in the list,  it could be that membership is overstated.  It could be that the pentecostal movement is bigger on a world scale than imagined. I will check the US situation as it appears from what we have.Trishm 08:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I will use that figure instead of mine, it is much better.Trishm 12:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like Assembly of God is counted as Pentecostal, so there is at least a bit of double-counting.  Looking at US figures,  source: []
*Assembly of God - 2.5 million.
*Jehovah’s witnesses 1.8 million
*Seventh-day Adventists .7 million
*Lutheran Missouri Synod - 2.5 million.
*SBC 16.3 million (from above, assume all in the US)
*Presbyterian - 5.6 million.
*Christian Reformed Church 0.3 million
*Free Methodist Church 0.7 million
*Pentecostal 4.4 million
*Wisonsin Evangelical 0.4 million
Total of above:~19 million
total christian 225 million
Given the figures for the pentecostal churches are a bit mushy, this accords more or less with the figures Fill gave above.  
I am surprised by how many Pentecostals are outside the US.  I am not sure that if the US branch of the church is creationist to the point of being against evolution, that this means that those outside the US have the same view.
By the way, I am not saying that these figures need to be in the article.  But I do believe that as editors we need to have a handle on who believes what, and what the relative proportions are. Trishm 12:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. When dealing with this controversy, many of the participants on both sides have a mistaken idea of what the actual dimensions of the sides are. For example, many creationists believe that all Christian churches believe in biblical literalism and in fact their church's interpretation of their version of the bible. Many have only the vaguest notion of different bibles or different interpretations. Many are shocked to find out that other Christian Churches believe differently. It is just pure ignorance. I have read creationist materials that claim that the Shintoists and the Hindus and the Muslims are evil because they are evolutionists. Many that claim the idea of evolution goes back thousands of years and is basically synonymous with Satan. And if they talk to their friends in their community, everyone seems to believe the same as them, so they cannot understand why museums and schoolbooks and the television do not reflect this. It seems like a vast horrible conspiracy. Scientists  on the other hand can be stunned to realize the dimensions as well-particularly the number of young earth creationists among engineers or other disciplines (even though it is only about 5 percent, that is still sort of shocking to someone who thinks of scientists as at least moderately rational). What it appears to me from level of support for evolution is that most mainline churches support evolution (the Catholics for example have supported it for almost 100 years), and the overwhelming majority of scientists do as well. The more training in biology that a scientist has, the more likely they are to accept evolution. However, there is a fairly substantial level of support in the US public for creationism, although that support level is fairly soft. So creationists should not take a lot of comfort in the size of their apparent advantages in the public sphere.--Filll 13:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counting the creationists