Talk:History of creationism

message: :Darwin's ideas changed the "creationism controversy" in lots of ways, because they provided the first (and only) real alternative to creationism that anyone had come up with.  This led to millions abandoning creationism, and the rise of Old-Earth creationism, Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design, are those not massive changes in the controversy for starters?  It was only because of these alternative world views that any controversy (beyond the ocassional individual questioning a bit of logic) could get started, with a creationism movement directed against Darwinism.  Perhaps you should state what you think the "creationism controversy" actually is, because I really can't see how anybody familiar with the controversy that I'm familiar with can fail to understand how Darwinism has been crucial in shaping it. --Steinsky 03:59, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: <<This led to millions abandoning creationism, and the rise of Old-Earth creationism, Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design, are those not massive changes in the controversy for starters?>>
Surely, you don't really think Old-Earth creationism and all of those other pretenses are "massive changes."  They are just preacher homiletic tricks to package the same old faith.  Do they look like science to you?  Heaven help you if they do.  They were around long before Darwin got into the act.  These are all ancient ideas; they go back at least to the Greeks.  But let's just take "modern" examples before Darwin. For example, around 1824 the Reverand William Buckland in introducing the first dinosaur fossil Megalosaurus already was interpreting the "days" of creation as "ages" in order to explain that there had been giant beasts around long before men appeared.
The idea that there had to be an Intelligent Designer was argued by William Paley as early as 1809. on-line text And Theistic Evolution was argued at least as early as an 1845 London Times article where a reviewer says about Reverand Buckland's 1836 Bridgewater Treatise that "his general conclusion being, that the present world was constructed out of the materials of a former one; that former one from the wreck of its predecessor; and so upwards, ad infinitum."  (The London Times Monday, Jun 23, 1845; pg. 6; Issue 18957; col A) Darwin no more changed "creationism" than Lavoisier changed phlogiston theory; Darwin may have disproved "creationism" but he had negligible effect on the content of the "creationism" theory that he disproved.  ---Rednblu 08:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Whether or not they are big changes in the creationist philosophy (I believe they are major changes in the way the world is viewed) [note I never mentioned they were anything like scientific, I have no idea where you got that idea from] they are a major part of the creationist movement today, and therefore they belong in an encyclopedia entry about creationism.  The fact that preaching tactics like ID and OEC exist, that many people believe in them and that a major part of their remit is tackling perceived materialism and atheism in Darwinism, has to be covered in an encyclopedia entry on creationism. --Steinsky 17:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Darwin's ideas cause Old-Earth creationism, Theistic Evolution, and Intelligent Design? 

message: Nobody is denying that, you know, we are allowed to cover both pre- and post-Darwin Creationism in the article!  You seem to be set on removing the section on the effects of Darwin's idea from the article, but only because the creationism philosophy existed before Darwin? --Steinsky 17:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: <<You seem to be set on removing the section on the effects of Darwin's idea from the article>>
Yes--because Darwin's idea had negligible effect on the "belief," "controversy," or "theory" of creationism.  One of the predominant features of "creationism" is that it does not evolve in the face of the threats from the competition.  Instead of evolving, "creationism" responds to science--not with science--but with repackages of the old faith and common sense arguments--churning through the same old set of 2000 year-old interpretations and fudges of Biblical text packaged in modern language.
Do you still contend that Old-Earth creationism, Theistic Evolution, and Intelligent Design grew out of Darwin's idea?  In my opinion, it would be accurate to pull all of the Darwin material into a section "Creationism disproved."  But it is a disservice to the reader to embed the Creationism page with the current infestation of pop-up ads for Darwin's idea.  The reader comes to Creationism in the hope of reading a clear exposition of "creationism."  Why isn't the Evolution page a sufficient advertisement for "evolution"?  ---Rednblu 18:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: <<[Darwin's idea], along with uniformitarian geology, had quite a big effect.  They gave rise to various compromise ideas (day-age, gap theory, theistic evolution, etc.)
Can you get a copy of Reverand William Buckland's 1836 Bridgewater Treatise?  I once had a link to an on-line copy; I would give you the link, but the site disappeared.  In my opinion, Buckland sketched out the logic of day-age, gap theory, and theistic evolution before he ever read Darwin.  And Buckland published those pieces of creationism theory before Darwin returned from his Beagle voyages.  Of course, Buckland  did not talk about how God guided natural selection, but he talked about how God guided a series of extinctions of life and how God built the next set of creatures from the fragments of the prior creatures, starting with an earth that had no creatures, then microscopic creatures, then vast dinosaurs--like the Megalosaurus that Reverand Buckland himself introduced to the science world--and finally, according to Buckland's 1836 treatise, God built man from the fragments of the creatures of the world in which no man existed.  And Buckland wrote about all of that day-age, gap theory, and theistic evolution before Darwin got back from his Beagle voyages--so, in my opinion, Darwin had little effect on day-age, gap theory, and theistic evolution--except maybe give a trivial label--"natural selection"--to what it was that God guided.  ---Rednblu 17:47, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, I didn't write exactly what I meant to write.  Just as evolutionary ideas were around before Darwin, some (or all?) of these compromise ideas were around before Darwin also.  But very few people accepted them.  They only became widely accepted as a result of uniformitarianism and evolution becoming widely accepted.  For example, the Gap Theory became popular as a result of it being promoted in the notes of the Schofield Reference Bible which was published in 1909 I think it was. Philip J. Rayment 18:19, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Darwin's ideas change [[Creationism]]?  Why mention Darwin in the [[Creationism]] page? 

message: Let's keep the debate focused and on topic. The original question and purpose of this Talk is the question: Should Darwin be Darwin be mentioned in the Creationism article? Remember wikipedia policy: "The Talk pages are not a place to debate which views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis."
---
My position is yes, mention of Darwin needs to remain as part of the creationism article. 
A Creationism article without Darwin is like a Goliath article without David.--FeloniousMonk 09:59, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to the original question: Should Darwin be mentioned in the Creationism article? 

message: Sorry about this. The best way about this would be to increase its size, reasonably easily, mention pre-Darwinian ideas through to ID from the 1990s.  Some of its tone is wrong, comparing Mendel to Darwin for example is wrong.  Mendel had read Darwin, but didn't understand the significance of his own work.  Darwin didn't know about Mendel, and it was then until 1901 that Mendel's work was rediscovered, and then until 1918 that Fisher worked out how it could apply to continuous variation, thus kick-starting the modern synthesis.  The first stage would be to split it up into sections by era. Dunc|☺ 12:58, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that Mendel deserves to be mentioned.  Philip J. Rayment 14:51, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, he needs a mention somewhere, but it needs to be proportional and accurate!  What was there before was a ridiculous comparison between Darwinism and Mendelism suggesting that the latter was somehow an alternative to the former. Dunc|☺ 16:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  they WERE alternatives.  darwin thought there was no stability within species.  mendel thought there was.  they were opposites, and that's why mendelism made darwinism irrelevent for a time.  creationism today emphasizes the mendelian side -- evolutionism emphasizes the darwinian side.  Ungtss 18:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes and no.  There is a theory that Mendel thought that he had discovered immutable "types", but what Mendelism lead to, i.e. genetics is fundamental to ToE. If you like Darwinism is the wheel of the bicycle, genetics is the frame.  Darwin just had the wheels, a unicycle perhaps!  Anyway, Dobzhansky didn't do the modern evolutionary synthesis by himself, Wright came before him, though he did define evolution as a change in the frequency of an allele within a gene pool, and he certainly did write Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution. Dunc|☺ 22:45, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  agreed, with one caveat: in melding darwinism + mendelism, the ToE stripped mendelism of stability within kinds -- creationists won't have it stripped -- creationism depends on it.  Ungtss 22:51, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  um ... excuse me.  you keep cutting any reference to the orthogenetic period.  you're drawing a straight line from darwin through mendel to the synthesis, and that line is patently false.  put up or shut up.  Ungtss 23:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text:  Wait a minute, I have an explanation.  Some more notes; Dobzhansky wasn't Soviet, he left quite early for the States.  On the other hand, Haldane and Maynard Smith were both communists and Fisher was a fascist.  The modern evolutionary synthesis was a synthesis of Mendelian genetics and natural selection, not micro/macroevolution.  All sorts of theories were proposed in the period between Darwin's death and rediscovery of Mendel's work there was the eclipse of Darwinism, and then Mendel's work kicked off a feud between Bateson and Pearson that lasted until 1918 at least.  We need more on Lamarckism, perhaps Lineaus too.  The idea of "kind" should be mentioned in the original description of the biblical myth.  Let's get the groundwork in first. Dunc|☺ 23:20, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  fair enough:).  Ungtss 23:22, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  the synthesis was a fusion of micro/macro too -- there's a theodosius quote right on point.  Ungtss 23:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally disputed 

message: And on Mendel...
Mendel did his work on plant hybridisation in 1865.  It seems he had read Darwin and was probably familiar with the theories of orthogenesis around at the time.  It seems that he did not realise what his findings meant and that perhaps he did believe that it supported the unmutability of species.  However, his work was then cited three times in the next 35 years — No-one read it, so it did not and could not have influenced anyone.  To go to the true roots of orthogenesis you need to look to earlier works (as explained in the article).  Drop out Mendel, it sounds so much like a misguided plea to authority.
When Mendelian genetics was rediscovered in 1901, it was recognised as giving a method of heredity, not orthogenesis and which discounted orthogenesis.  A feud between the Mendelians and the Biometricians would take until 1918 before it was realised that continuous variation could arise from Mendelian inheritance, but from then on it was plain sailing for the modern synthesis.  This period really is the eclipse of Darwinism.
The modern synthesis came initially from three population geneticists, Ronald Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane and Sewall Wright in the 1920s.  Gradually other areas of biology such as palaeontology realised what these mathematical treatises meant and came aboard.  Dobzhansky's principle work was studing the genetics of fruit flies on Hawaii; he only left Russia in 1927 and it would be until 1937 that he published Genetics and the Origin of Species.  Dobzhansky was important but he wasn't the father of the modern synthesis; Fisher is more important. Dunc|☺ 17:04, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mendel and Orthogenesis.

message: i think uniformitarianism is better described as a presumption, rather than an assumption.  pre implies deliberation -- a implies no thought at all.  uniformitarianism is chosen by the mainstream geologists because they consider it most parsimonious -- it's deliberate, although they don't like to talk about it very much:).  Ungtss 13:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll accept that, although I figured that a- meant that there was no basis for it, whereas pre- suggested some basis.  Plus pre- has connotations of arrogance.  Philip J. Rayment 14:30, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah -- i hearya -- that's the thing -- their basis for it is occam's razor -- don't presume things were different if you can presume they were the same -- it's simpler.  i think it's got a certain logic to it ... but so did Newtonism -- and parsimonious theories are only as good as their explaining power.  IMO, uniformitarianism fails miserably to explain a lot of things:).  Ungtss 14:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Namely? Uniformitism is a theory to explain how the universe works; it is not really an assumption but a theory. There are no indications the constants of the universe have changed to any signficant degree since the Big Bang. There is no evidence that radioactive decay rates are changing in either direction to a significant degree, or that the speed of light has changed to any significant degree. Of course, one could argue we could only measure them with precision in the last century or so, but still. There is no scientific reason to reject the theory of uniformitism. Titanium Dragon 02:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: uniformitarianism is a THEORY?  how so?  what are the falsifiable predictions:)?  Ungtss 03:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I notice that you are arguing from a lack of evidence ("There is no evidence that...", etc.).  But there is evidence that radioactive decay rates have changed to a significant degree.  I'd agree with you on the other two points (universal constants and the speed of light), but point out that they are assumptions, not facts.  Science was predicated on the assumption (among others) that the laws of physics don't change, because they were created by an unchanging God, whereas naturalistic beliefs believe that they don't change because...?  The main objection that creationists have to uniformitarianism is not the idea of the constants not changing, but that geological processes that we see today are (almost) sufficient to explain the entire geological record, thus ruling out a global catastrophe such as the Noahic deluge on the basis of this assumption.  Philip J. Rayment 14:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: presumption

message: I cut the humanist manifesto, the reason being (1) that it's too early, theists were complaining about Godlessness way before then, and (2) atheism has traditionally been a rather unorganised church-less movement, perhaps it's something to do with rebellion.  Anyway, what is important and is difficult starting from event driven basis is to get the social history right, i.e. subtle changes over time rather than significant publications or trials. Dunc|☺ 20:48, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: all good points.  however, without the humanist manifesto, your reference to the fundamentalists leaves the false implication that creationism grounded in fundamentalism, as opposed to all other non-religious rational scientists, who have no bias and have come naturally to the conclusion of the historical fact of evolution.  that is pov nonsense.  the majority of creationists are not fundamentalist (almost 50 percent in america), and many atheists have called themselves religious, so the implication of "fundamentalism " versus "unbiased rational thought" is patently unfair.  here's my proposal: leave both in, or take both out.  i'm gonna try and put it back in in an appropriate place -- take it out if you still don't like it -- other than that, tho, great work:).  Ungtss 22:27, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: i'm all about some subtlety, as long as there's a reference:).  likewise, there are many things more significant than the fundamentalist treatise (there are a lot of creationists who DON'T believe in inerrancy, but DO believe it's as accurate as any historical document of today, if not more -- i for one think inerrancy's a joke:); and i'm only pushing my pov as hard as you push back, my friend -- i think we're on our way to a really good article:).  Ungtss 01:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  humanist manifesto 

message: it seems that hume died before paley wrote his book ... so i've got paley responding to hume, as requested:).  Ungtss 20:35, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps Paley should've read him then! Dunc|☺ 21:19, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: lol:).  maybe he wasn't convinced:)  Ungtss 21:24, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hume 

message: Orthogenesis is part of Lamarckism; it is the differential needed.  Thus it is covered in the eclipse of Darwinism, but further elaboration is not required, and Ugtgss's edits are in disagreement with orthogenesis. Dunc|☺ 22:16, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: two totally different differentials.  lamarckism held that traits were passed on "as needed."  orthogenesis held they were developed "as God planned."  Ungtss 22:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Orthogenesis shows neo-lamarckism as separate from ortho, and classic lamarckism as a type of ortho, among others. nowhere does it say that ortho is part of lamarckism.Ungtss 23:06, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Rubbish.  (1) Creationists have repeatedly pointed out that they are not against science.  (2) Many creationists are scientists.  Your comment is nothing more than ignorant, anti-creationary rhetoric with no substance.  Philip J. Rayment 15:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: may i suggest that your reluctance to mention the 50 years during which darwinism was considered irrelevent by the scientific community and God was cited as the driving force behind the ever elusive "macroevolution" is inspired by your fear that people will discover that God and Science are not mutually exclusive?  Ungtss 17:00, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthogenesis 

message: The introduction currently says:
:Up until the early 20th century, most Europeans, Americans, Jews, and Muslims believed that a supreme being had existed and would exist eternally, and that everything else in existance had been created by this supreme being, known variously as God, Yahweh, or Allah. This belief was based on the authority of Genesis and the Qu'ran, which were held to be historically accurate. As a result, no systematic inquiry was made into the historical validity of the history reported in the text. With the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, a variety of scientific and philosophical movements challenged the traditional viewpoint in Europe and the Americas. As a result, Creationism arose as a distinct movement in an effort to justify and reassert the historical accuracy of the recorded events, particularly those recorded in Genesis.
First, I reckon the previous wording was cleaner and better.
The bit about no systematic enquiry I don't think is fair.  It effectively says that no systematic enquiry was done because everybody accepted it, rather, as I suspect is the case, that in those days no systematic enquiry was done on any historical accounts.  And whilst it is true that subsequently various movements did challenge the accepted viewpoint, that was, on the whole at least, not until after the rise of science and many scientists did investigate creation as scientifically as they were able.  In other words, the paragraph as it stands gives the impression that no-one questioned creation until science etc. came along and did so, rather than saying that nobody questioned it because nobody questioned history in those days, and questioning it was not a result of the rise of science but subsequent to that.
And lastly, it could be read as saying that as well as Muslims,  (Christian) Europeans and Americans, and Jews, based their views on Genesis and the Qu'ran.
What do others think?
Philip J. Rayment 01:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone capable of systematic reasoning at the time would probably have also realised that a bit of ground work needed to be done before moving on to the big questions.--Jirate 02:19, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
---
I agree that the previous shorter lead section was clearer.  The current lead section make me think that the page is about how long God is going to live. :)) Where is the "creationism"? It kind of flashes by as if it is just a roadsign that blips by as I am looking at the awesome scenery of how long God lived. :)  ---Rednblu | Talk 05:43, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction as at 13th December 2004