Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive 14

message: "The debate is most prevalent and visible in certain regions of the United States"
There is no citation or backing for this statement what so ever. I can assure you, it is an issue of just as much contention in countries such as Turkey (which is caught between European secularism and Middle Eastern Islamic traditions). This statement is not only ungrounded, but enormously Americanocentric, and thus arrogant. Please change it.
-Jackmont, Dec 7, 2006
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.207.75.142 (talk) 09:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure a statement that refers to much of the US as backwards and ignorant can really claim to be arrogant from the US perspective, just the opposite!  Still, the statement does need some improvement. --Suttkus 14:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If might be more accurate to say "In the Western world" or "In historically Christian countries" or something like that. Possible citations become  and Evolution vs. Creationism:An Introduction (Eugenie Scott's book) which discuss how for Western countries is almost exclusively a US thing among developed nations (I don't have the book available at the moment- can someone else track it down?). JoshuaZ 16:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure about that. We really need some sources about the differences between the US and the rest of the "western world". Although we cannot use them as sources, interesting info comes from fr.wikipedia.org, de.wikipedia.org and nl.wikipedia.org (the ones I can read). They state that the proportion of creationist Christians in Europe is much smaller than that in the US. The American type of creationism is on the rise, but its role is marginal when it comes to the issues described in this article (such as teaching evolution or media attention). Also note that in many European countries the Roman Catholic church is the prevalent (if not virtually only) Christian denomination, and opposition to evolution etc. died down when the church adopted its current position. (Europe is not understood to include Turkey in this context and it is quite possible that this debate/controversy is also very prevalent there. Another country that comes to mind is South-Korea.) AvB ÷ talk 19:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  JoshuaZ, on rereading it dawned on me what you meant. Struck out part. AvB ÷ talk 20:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'most prvalent in the United States'? 

message: Does it bother anyone that just about every theory of organic macro-evolution that has been put forward, modern or otherwise can be easily disproved based on either (a) logical fallacies or (b) factual inaccuracies?
Just wondering,
Daeg Star
:1) Please do not create two subsections for one comment. It's a bit confusing for the other editors.
:2)I'd suggest you read up on the matter before coming up with such a demonstrably incorrect statement as the one you added.--Ramdrake 18:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Daeg Star, please provide these logical fallacies and factual inaccuracies.  You can't just make such a bold statement and then leave it unsupported; that is not how Wikipedia works.--Roland Deschain 21:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Evidence - Lack of Tenable Position

message: Amusingly, perhaps, this article has tonnes of weasel wording.
In any article on theories of mental levitation, tabletop cold fusion, the queen of England being a reptile, alternate HIV transmission theories, Dogon astronomy, and so on and so forth, the article come right out and blatantly calls the idea pseudoscience.
In a case where a vast number of people are clinging to a literal interpretation of mythology and grasping at every straw possible to 'prove' that their myth's account of the genesis of the universe is somehow scientifically accurate and consistently perpetuating fraud and hoaxes, people weasel around and say things like 'some consider it pseudoscience'.
This is what I'm starting to hate about Wikipedia. This kind of nonsense, combined with the  tags making it impossible to read a single sentence without encountering the tag thrice and being used obviously to inject POV to an article by claiming the apparent is suspect -- this site is no longer what it once was.
If creationism is so convinced that evolution is wrong (despite the existence of Chihuahuas and Pugs -- selective breeding IS evolution, where man is the specific environmental factor contributing to selection in such case), then it needs to answer one simple question:
Why is it just the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic creation myth that is supported in converse?
Why not Norse, Celtic, Chinese, Mesoamerican or African primitive myths?
I think this simple factor right there is enough to call their crap hand. I don't even see why the whole thing is a discussion.67.169.63.116 22:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point on the bottom, but some people think their religion is the best and everyone else is screwed. Personally, I believe that no religion is right or wrong, or that anyone is condemned for what they do. --24.22.212.250 04:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel Words Abound 

message: Some editor has added in their edit summary that under some deinitions "catholics are not Christians". I must say that, as a Catholic and a Christian, especially considering Catholics form the majority of Christians, this is somewhat offensive. You may go ahead and say I'm overreacting, but for a Catholic to be told he's not a Christian is offensive, at least as far as the people I know are concerned.--Ramdrake 03:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that too, and was staring at it oddly. I had heard it before (my mother's an ex-Catholic Fundamentalist, and I was a voracious reader when young), but never really thought I'd see it again. Adam Cuerden talk 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind ye, I suppose the description of the Pope as Catholic is accurate enough, but the logic for the change.... Adam Cuerden talk 07:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking as a non-theist (in other words, no axe to grind in the issue), catholics are most definitely Christians.  I too have heard this claim before, but the logic of the claim escapes me. •Jim62sch• 11:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't take it the wrong way, I still find it's offensive. AFAIK, what separates any denomination from any other within Christianity is some difference (sometimes minute) in their beliefs and/or rites. If we were to say that Christians should have a single, monolithic set of beliefs and rites, then every denomination could claim they are the ones and only Christians and that all other denominations are not really Christians. Oh, wait, some already do that! ;)--Ramdrake 16:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know at least one creationist who argues that the Pope is "effectively an atheist".  Arguments that anyone who accepts evolution can't actually be Christian are common as dirt online.  The "by some definitions" argument is laughable.  By some definitions, only Catholics are Christian.  In fact, that's why they call themselves Catholics (catholic meaning true, in other words, the true church). --Suttkus 14:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Catholic means "universal" not "true", but point taken. --ScienceApologist 12:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems you are correct.  I wonder where I picked up that error.  I hate being wrong! --Suttkus 13:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I have encountered this over and over. Many sects want to deny that the other sect of the same religion is valid. So they brand them as blasphemers or idolators or infidels or atheists etc. Islam clearly does this quite a bit as well; look at the tensions between the Sunnis and the Shiites and the Sufis and even among the subsects such as Alewites etc. However, when it suits them, like to declare how many people belong to their religion, they will then gladly include the blasphemous sect in to bolster the numbers !--Filll 04:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholics are not Christians???

message: This article has been drifting a bit towards a less-critical view the creationist position, which seems to be undue weight. If there's agreement on this, I propose to do a good copyedit? Adam Cuerden talk 18:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Creationism is definitely a minority position, and that certainly should be clear. I'm all for it, where specifically do you see problems? Seraphimblade 19:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe you should provide diffs of how the article has changed for the worse, or simply be bold and edit away to improve it. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did someone say bold? Allow me to introduce myself   ; ) Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 01:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh! Glad to have you with us! I'll do what I can, but be warned I have flu just now. Still, I should at least be able to fix that quote mining section =) Adam Cuerden talk 02:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If my last name were Tam instead of Tropics, I could maybe help with your flu...as it is, you'll just have to soldier on : ) --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 06:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Apparently was already done. I've also removed the "Claims of immorality" section, this basically appeared to be a rant and was unsourced. If anyone can source any of this information, put it on back. Seraphimblade 08:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had switched "Evidence against Evolution" to "Arguments...", but "Claims..." is just as accurate; feel free to change if you have a preference. Also, no objections here to removing unsourced material. Verifiable cites are a necessity. --Doc  Tropics 08:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually like "arguments" better, just didn't see that had been done when I made the comment. Seraphimblade 08:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drifting away from NPOV? 

message: I did a quick scan of the article and a few of the discussions on the talk page, and I had a couple of comments:
*I have encountered web pages (which I can dredge up for you if required) by Jewish fundamentalists opposed to evolution, Hindu fundamentalists opposed to evolution and Muslim fundamentalists opposed to evolution, in addition to you know who opposed to evolution. 
* It really makes my skin crawl when creationists lump cosmology and the big bang and the Hubble constant and geological processes and plate tectonics and magnetic core dynamics and radioactive decay and the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram and abiogenesis and Darwinian theory all under the same rubric of "evolution". In fact, it is completely ignorant and it makes me nauseous. Is it possible to be any more willfully anti-intellectual and backwards? My goodness.
*The persistent charge that science or evolution or whatever is a "religion" or based on "faith" displays a misunderstanding about what the differences are between religion and science, which should be made clear, either here, or maybe on another page linked in (like a list of "Differences between Religion and Science"). This is one of the most ludicrous and weak arguments that I have ever heard. But it needs to be addressed, head on and very agggressively.   
I will probably have a few more comments as I ponder the page and talk page more.--Filll 05:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of this is political postering. I have seen creationists call evolution a religion, not so much science in general. Also trying to make it an "ism". The idea is to make it "no different" to creationism, at least in the publics mind, thus making their message more respectable. May be worth noting in the article if you can find a reference. --Michael Johnson 08:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I've started fixing the lead. However, the more I look at this article, the more I wondered why I was ever impressed by it: Frankly, it has some shocking errors. Adam Cuerden talk 08:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. Errors? Review ref #4. It is attached to the last half of the last sentence in the 4th para which reads: "...and those who actively dispute creationism, characterizing the controversy as an important battle between truth and falsehood."  Is it my imagination, or does using that cite require OR to divine Dawkins 'inner thoughts', since he never uses those spefic terms? Doc  Tropics 08:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is an accurate summary of what Dawkins said-paraphrasing is acceptable. He clearly, with his satirical "Rome deniers" piece, characterizes the debate as one between those who accept that 2+2=4 and those who deny it "on faith". Seraphimblade 08:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably an accurate enough description of Dawkins, but it's not being said to be Dawkins' opinion, it's said to be that of all scientists who participate in the debate. Which is awful. Anyway, the whole paragraph's badly phrased.Adam Cuerden talk 08:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean now, and agree that some clearer phrasing would be helpful. Seraphimblade 11:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Made a bit of a change there, is that an accurate summation or should further change be made? Seraphimblade 11:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point, in complete agreement there. Seraphimblade 19:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: Adam added a much-needed  tag at the end of the para. The last sentence reads:
:"The key contention of such creationists is that only a supernatural miracle and not "unguided evolution" can account for origins."
Perhaps adding  something immediately following that would help:
:"However, evolution itself does not specifically address origins, but rather describes a process. It is accepted by 99.5% of all biologists as being an accurate description of that process."
This would also segue rather neatly into the next paragraph, which describes the expansion of Evo. I won't insert this yet, maybe others can polish it or come up with a better alternative. Just a suggestion. Doc  Tropics 09:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro, 2nd para

message: This section doesn't really seem to say much of anything at all, is unsourced, and seems to be POV (which variant of creationism doesn't "dispute scientific beliefs"?) Accordingly, I'm going to remove and save it for now, though I think if sourced, NPOV'd, and fleshed out it could be a good part of the article. Seraphimblade 19:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all creationists dispute various scientific theories - there are many who don't dispute specific scientific theories (YECs dispute a lot more science than do OECs, IDists tend to bob and weave so much it's hard to say what they endorse or oppose...)  As for being unsourced - it's a link to another article.  What's there to source?  Guettarda 21:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced this adds anything to the atrticle, as it's been covered in the lead in more detail. This says nothing. However, there is a much longer section in the older logs: I'm going to restore it.  Adam Cuerden talk 21:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spectrum of creationist beliefs

message: You know, we don't actually have a section about this. Why the hell not? Adam Cuerden talk 21:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence for Evolution

message: This was a long, listy section, I shunted it off. I'd appreciate if some of you would help watch it: It's probably prone to vandalism.Adam Cuerden talk 21:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy]]

message: These entire sections take multiple paragraphs of pointless waffle to explain very little. Cut the crap. Can we use those poll results about belief in various countries? Adam Cuerden talk 21:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut

message: What do all of you think of replacing the "Arguements against evolution" section with a rewritten copy of parts of the "misunderstandings of evolution" from the main article?
----
:I think that could work. I also do wonder why we don't have an "Arguments for evolution" section-other than that we couldn't possibly include all of them without this article going to the megabyte range. I think we certainly could include the strongest and best-known though. Seraphimblade 19:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree, in general, with both ideas. Per concerns about article length, we should include only the "highlights" while providing links to the relevant article(s). Doc  Tropics 19:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: This is not a parent-article, and at 69kb it is more than twice the optimum length of 32 kb. I would suggest we vigorously weed out uncited or irrelevant material and make a point of balancing what remains. Also, note that I have struck out items from the "To Do" list, with explanations. Doc  Tropics 20:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe as a simple list, without any descriptors. A graphic like a concept map would be helpful there maybe instead, too. FeloniousMonk 23:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had also considered removing the section entirely, but adding the links to "See also". On the other hand, a good graphic could add a lot to the article and wouldn't count towards the length. Since the page is somewhat lacking in visual appeal, I would strongly support that option, assuming a repreentative image can be found or produced. Doc  Tropics 23:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Go ahead and make one and we'll provide feedback. Seriously, does anyone here have the software to create concept maps?  FeloniousMonk 23:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. I thought you were volunteering! Actually, I think Adam might have some graphics skills....Doc  Tropics 23:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article length

message: ====Examples of the conflation====
Following are some examples of well known participants in the debate who conflate science and religion: 	 
*Henry M. Morris, an American young earth creationist, says: "Divine revelation from the Creator of the world states that He did it all in six days, several thousand years ago. The Bible is a book of science! It contains all the basic principles upon which true science is built". 
::Actually although this quote makes my blood boil, I think that it is very interesting as an example of the kinds of attitudes one finds among creationists and example of how they misunderstand what science is etc. It is the purest crap, but a great example of pure crap.--Filll 23:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It may be worth working it in. But this section used the very odd views of Huxley (science as religion) and presented them as being equally common as Morris' - quite wrong. Adam Cuerden talk 01:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's a somewhat common accusation that it *is* a religion. Adam Cuerden talk 02:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a very common weapon that creationists use against evolution and science. They completely misunderstand what is the difference between religion/faith and evolution and/or science, so they use the worst slur they can against what they see as the opposition. They claim science is based on faith, evolution is based on faith. They claim evolution is a religion, science is a religion. They claim atheism is a religion or based on faith. They claim all people who believe in evolution are atheists and practicing the atheist religion. They claim that people who believe in atheism are satanists. And on and on and on. Complete confusion and misunderstanding. Which I think would be worth trying to dispell.--Filll 02:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Freethought. Age of Enlightenment. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: c.f. Cultural Revolution - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut!

message: Following are some examples of well known participants in the debate who conflate science and religion: 	 
*Henry M. Morris, an American young earth creationist, says: "Divine revelation from the Creator of the world states that He did it all in six days, several thousand years ago. The Bible is a book of science! It contains all the basic principles upon which true science is built". 
::Actually although this quote makes my blood boil, I think that it is very interesting as an example of the kinds of attitudes one finds among creationists and example of how they misunderstand what science is etc. It is the purest crap, but a great example of pure crap.--Filll 23:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It may be worth working it in. But this section used the very odd views of Huxley (science as religion) and presented them as being equally common as Morris' - quite wrong. Adam Cuerden talk 01:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's a somewhat common accusation that it *is* a religion. Adam Cuerden talk 02:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a very common weapon that creationists use against evolution and science. They completely misunderstand what is the difference between religion/faith and evolution and/or science, so they use the worst slur they can against what they see as the opposition. They claim science is based on faith, evolution is based on faith. They claim evolution is a religion, science is a religion. They claim atheism is a religion or based on faith. They claim all people who believe in evolution are atheists and practicing the atheist religion. They claim that people who believe in atheism are satanists. And on and on and on. Complete confusion and misunderstanding. Which I think would be worth trying to dispell.--Filll 02:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Freethought. Age of Enlightenment. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: c.f. Cultural Revolution - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples of the conflation

message: Does anyone have a citation for the claim in the article that evolution is not taught at universities in Pakistan? I'm unable to find a citation. The closest I can find is . JoshuaZ 02:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked a friend who is a Pakistani lawyer. She confirms that it is not taught in any schools or universities in Pakistan. She is looking for a reference. Very interesting to discuss with her and her views. Amazing. She buys into the Muslim creationist story hook line and sinker.--Filll 16:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There could be some cases. But Pakistan Academy of Sciences is a signatory of IAP Statement on the teaching of evolution dated 21st June 2006. --IsleScapeTalk 15:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Just discovered that Richard Dawkins' titles The Blind Watchmaker etc are also available in Urdu language,  here. --IsleScapeTalk 20:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan and Evolution 

message: A category has been added at some point to the article:
:NPOV disputes from it neglects the vast body of evidence for evolution, thus giving undue weight to creationism
I'm not completely familiar with how wikipedia categories are used, but does that really qualify as one?  First of all the reference to "it" seems horribly out of place. --Suttkus 13:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was from the POV boilerplate at the top of the page. Since I cannot ascertain that there is any active POV dispute regarding this page, I removed the boilerplate and the category. --ScienceApologist 13:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh. That's from me abusing the POV template to get that message at the top. They removed the template that lets you say what the problem is in a sane way, for good reason, but in this case, where the reason is fairly well agreed, it seemed useful to mention at the top, even if a weird Cat results. Adam Cuerden talk 13:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really much of a "dispute", Adam. Try the  tag instead. --ScienceApologist 13:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd category

message: I've just knee-jerk reacted and removed most of a category of external links whilst moving it:
*Answers In Creation Support for Old Earth Creationists
*Institute for Creation Research
*Answers in Genesis, one of the largest Creationist organizations.
*Creation Ministries International A splinter group from Answers in Genesis including most of their non-US chapters. 
*The True.Origin Archive
*Reasons to Believe - Offering a biblically based old-earth creation model
*CreationWiki Encyclopedia of Creation from a young-earth perspective
...We obviously need to put *some* of this back,  but the amount of pseudoscience in there is frankly, terrifying. Which should be restored?
::Well from the point of view of a scientist who supports evolution, I would like to have access to a nice concise list of the best creationist websites, the most "rational", the least rational, etc, even if there is a good dose of pseudoscience in some of them. How about inviting someone from the Creation Wiki to help? When I glanced at some of the Creation Wiki pages, they seemed pretty rational and actually embarassed by some of the more extreme pseudo science. If we do include pseudoscience links, maybe we could put them in a separate category for easy access? This is helpful to have really. --Filll 18:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Admittedly, this was in a "Creationist claims" secttion, but part of my terror was the order: A list of debates, a sample of which seemed heavily biased in moderrator towards the creationist side. Then a huge section on creationist claims, then a second section of creationist claims. Needs fixed. Another, possibly more minor problem is that we're giving links to creationist sites and creationist rebuttals of science, but only scientific rebuttals of creationism, not scientific evidence. I agree (as a biology student) that it's useful to have them, but I think we need to think about orginisation carefully.Adam Cuerden talk 18:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I see it, ay this point, AiG should stay as they are one of the world's largest creationist ministries, as should CMI. Reasons to Belive and Answers in Creation should stay as prominent examples of OEC. The other I'm less convinced we need (although the ICR is probably worth having). CreationWiki and True Origin are both not notable enough to be listed (the only reason I see to list CreationWiki is to prevent claims of censorship- this is a weak argument). Also, Filll, I'm not sure it is our job per NPOV to decide which are more or less pseudosciency and I would note that the Talk Origins Archive has an extensive listing of creationist sites which would make an extensive listing here redundant (and [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a collection of links). I see no reason to include links to creationists rebuttals, scientific rebuttals, creationist rebuttals of those etc. We should just have links to the major sites. JoshuaZ 18:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think all of them qualify as notable, although the ICR is primarily notable for historical reasons rather than for current contributions.  I'd also add Kent Hovind's and Carl Baugh's respective drool-fest simply due to their extreme popularity among creationists.  We don't get to define creationism; they do.  Any attempt to restrict the list to "good" creationist sites will result in a blank list by any standard you might consistently apply.  Even AIG has pulled some right boners, for instance, their long standing article which claimed Archaeopteryx was probably just a dinosaur fossil with fake feathers added, but if it wasn't a dinosaur with fake feathers, then it was a pure bird and had no dinosaur features at all.  None!  This article was kept up for about two years after I found it, despite efforts to make them correct it and it being the source of much mirth to their opposition.  And AIG definately has to qualify as "better" because at least it's self conscious enough to put up the "arguments creationists shouldn't use" page (on which the "Archy is fake" argument appeared). --Suttkus 19:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I would suggest general Creationism sites with YEC first, then OEC sites then ID sites. The general anti-creationist or evolution sites, then debates andthen  miscelanea(sp? is that even a word?) that we think should be in but we can't put in any obvious category JoshuaZ 18:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Bin. Neither are major fora. JoshuaZ 18:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They might not be major, but they sure are amusing :) --Filll 19:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks much much better overall. While reviewing, I did move "Theistic evolution" up to the middle and establish it as a subsec, because it seems an important middle-ground. I tend to see the list of links/beliefs as a "spectrum", or progression, and "Thei-evo" should therefore appear between the two more polarized views, rather than at the end. However, even after all this justification, I'm not actually opposed to any other placement, that's just what looked right to me. Doc  Tropics 20:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense: I wasn't quite sure where to put it, but the article used to come down pretty strongly on it as a form of minor creationism (which I guess it *technically* is, so... =) Adam Cuerden talk 23:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yeep!

message: I changed quite a bit around. It should be more clear and doesn't give undue weight to anyone. What do you guys think? Pbarnes 18:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still claiming equality for non-scientific concepts to evolution. I'm afraid I still feel it misses the point. Adam Cuerden talk 19:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid that when I read it, I still get the impression that you are claiming that creationists agree with evolution, except in a few irrelevant details. Part of the difficulty is that there are so many flavors of creationist. Some acknowledge microscopic evolution. Some deny it. Some want an old earth, some a young earth. Some include stellar evolution and the big bang theory and all kinds of other theories in with the process of natural selection. Many are completely confused about the difference between facts and theories. Many do not know what science is. Many do not know what proof is. Many do not understand the data or even the foundation of their own religions. Contributing further to this confusion is not helpful, in my opinion. --Filll 20:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better? Pbarnes 22:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I am still not that happy with the wording but I do agree on a couple of points, although I think it would be hard to find references to substantiate them. I do have the impression that the two main problems creationists have with evolution are the age of the earth (at least for the Young Earth Creationists) and the idea that mutations and natural selection together could produce new species. However, this ignores the fact that there are many other objections that creationists of various stripes have with what they call "evolution" (often completely distoring or misdefining evolution). I do think that a very large fraction of creationists believe that the species we see now are those that were loaded onto Noah's Ark and survived the flood, and these species have not changed since God designed and created them. There might be some who believe in evolution for all species except for man, and deny that man is an animal etc. However, I suspect there is not good survey data on the variety of creationist viewpoints and how many hold to each view. There might be dozens of differing creationist views I suspect. If you can find that sort of survey data, I would like to see it. I think it would be interesting.--Filll 22:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The confusion comes with the misconceptions about the definition of species. Some creationist see macro-evolution as the evolution of kinds. In reality though, foxes and wolfs having common ancestry is an example macro-evolution. I have heard many creationist refer to this example but they believe it is micro-evolution because of there misconceptions on definitions. Creationist do believe in evolution and if you look at the orchard theory page there are some links that show exactly what I mean. Pbarnes 23:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: TE is a belief in neo-darwinism and God. Therefore neo-darwinism DOES include TE. If it makes you feel any better, I will make it a slash. It's amazing how critical some people are. Pbarnes 23:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, if I take your claims at face value, that most creationists believe in evolution and the phenomenon of species creation through evolution, then why do they object to evolution? What is their main problem? Is it  pure misunderstanding? Is it the origin of man? However, I think you would have to demonstrate quite a bit to me to get me to buy that creationists believe in evolution and there is no real dispute between creationists and evolution. I have read some of their literature. I have sat through some of their lectures. I have had them try to debate me in person. I agree that there are a lot of things they misunderstand, but their objection to one or more forms of evolution is definitely not one of them.--Filll 23:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TE is a term used to describe people who belive that 1. God exists and 2. life evolved. These two beliefs are not interdependent, they are in fact entirely unrelated. One is the product of faith, the other science. TE's may reconcile their beliefs in various ways, for instance believing God "set up" evolution, or that, while the human body evolved, God implants the soul into humans at time of conception. These beliefs belong to the provence of theology, they have nothing to do with science. Personally I've never heard of a creationist state a belief in anything more than "microevolution", by which they seem to mean breeds of dogs and such. I think any using a fox/wolf analagy are more showing an ignorance of taxomony than any acceptance of evolution. --Michael Johnson 00:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a scientific article. It has more to do with belief systems then scientific theory. Pbarnes 00:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that being a TE has nothing at all to do with the creation-evolution controversity, except that you are on the evolution side. And there are two distinct sides - those who accept the processes and product of science, and those who want to modify or misrepresent science to reflect their religious preconceptions. There is no middle ground. You seem to want to map it out as if there is some sort of continuim, which there is not. --Michael Johnson 00:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Filll - As I have stated over and over again. The accepted definition of evolution (biology) falls into the creation belief system. [see "Adaptation and natural selection"]. In summary, many creationist believe God created various kinds. The kinds evolved into different species like a wolf and fox were once once "kind" (that's how they all fit on the ark). The creation of the species of wolves and foxes is evolution. Pbarnes 00:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary Proposal 

message: I'd like to briefly address a couple of points unrelated to current discussions:
===Archiving===
A number of sections at the top of this page have useful commentary, but they are inactive, and a few weeks old. If no one objects, I'd like to archive them to reduce this page length; it seems the discussion has progressed into new areas. Doc  Tropics 02:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A brief Interlude

message: A number of sections at the top of this page have useful commentary, but they are inactive, and a few weeks old. If no one objects, I'd like to archive them to reduce this page length; it seems the discussion has progressed into new areas. Doc  Tropics 02:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: Since major revisions are being discussed, it seems reasonable to point out that this article is significantly longer than optimum. Guidelines suggest 32kb, but allow some margin for excess. The page is currently 62kb, and the subject really doesn't seem to warrant such length. This is not a top-tier article, and we should try to stay within the normal standards. That means that "major revisions" should include some drastic reductions, in addition to rewrites. Just a thought... Doc  Tropics 02:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page length

message: The reason I put that in there is I do not believe Christianity has any such mandate to evangelize. I think that is the purest hokum and nonsense.--Filll 00:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20). -- Cat Whisperer 01:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I reverted the addition of purported because I thought it was clear from the context that it was only some Christian groups. Do you think it isn't clear? Also purported has negative connotations it might be better just to say something like "what they see as Christianity's mandate to evangelicize" or something like that. JoshuaZ 05:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Evangelism is not exactly a practice of extremist groups, its simply that the metholodigy is often radically different. For instance, whereas I personally would propose that the best way to evangelize would be to grab a bunch of gospel tracts, head into the city, and hand them out to people while using The Way of the Master, others may believe that it would be a better idea to send missionaries to Africa than bother with anything in the states, others still that evangelizing to someone is best to do only when you become their friend, and yet still others that, well, err....lets not discuss the real extremist forms of evangelism, which certainly aren't Christian at all. (cough Flirty_Fishing cough) There's a reason that almost all denominations have been known to send out missionaries to remote locals, although many Christians do not take evangelism as seriously as they really ought to, the drive is still there to do it, even when its not being practiced to the degree it should be. I know of no denominations which publicly state that Evangelism is not commanded by Christ, and therefore in summary, I don't think its very accurate to propose that evangelists only belong to extremist groups. Homestarmy 18:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all well-and-good, Homestarmy. But your assertion of word ownership over "Christianity", "evangelism", and "extremism" is highly debatable. I definitely consider Way of the Master to be an extermist group -- bent on hellfire, damnation, fundamentalism, distrust of the secular, and promulgation of creationism. I would say that most Muslims would also consider any form of evangelism to be proselytization and therefore akin to extremism. So this kind of comment is really nothing more than a personal opinion and shouldn't be informing our articles. --ScienceApologist 20:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree. Way of the Master looks like the same sort of fire and brimstone organization like countless others that appear overnight again and again in the US, full of anger and hatred for those who do not believe what they have decided is the "truth". Is there any speaking in tongues? Playing with poisonous snakes? Healing the sick by laying on of hands? Thrashing around on the floor like epileptics, full of the Holy Spirit?  Brimming with confidence that science and progress and knowledge is evil and the work of the devil. Claiming that scientists are evil and maybe even Satanic figures. I have had so many experiences with groups of this ilk that it makes me ill. People who just stand up and proclaim that every word out of their mouths is the word of God so no one is allowed to disagree with them. And other people who all decide they must be correct and they should send these religious leaders money. Amazing. But somehow these religious extremists have decided they have to stick their noses into science and education and politics and throw their weight around.--Filll 02:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the feeling my answer won't really matter to you, but to answer your questions in order, it is not explicitly required, (i've never heard it once on their radio show) no, not required again, and that one I think I recall them being suspicious of because there's little Biblical precendece for it. I'd respond to the rest, but i'd rather not unless I could be more confident that you'd really care about anything I type. Homestarmy 02:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, there are too many evangelists full of anger and hatred at the rest of the world. Completely the opposite of Christianity in my opinion. And I have been in the firing line of their attacks over and over and over. And accused of horrible things. It gets old. You know what I am saying? Science is not the work of the devil. Reason is not evil. Using your brains is not some sort of Satanic act. But religion has a long ugly blood soaked history that just continues to repeat itself as we even now are on the cusp of more religious wars, but with far more deadly weapons that are capable of killing millions of innocents. Ah, isnt religion wonderful?--Filll 03:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think their television show episode on Evolution has some flaws, (Hey, it's harder to be a Creationist than you might think, we have to sort the AiG's from the Kent Hovinds, you know?) that's the only one I know of where they talk about science at all, and I don't recall anything in there about Science being the devil, reasoning being evil, or using your brain being a Satanic act. I've also never heard them advocate that we all go to war against everyone else, you've really got to look at each group of people on its own, promotes better critical thinking skills in my opinion. Homestarmy 03:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that there are some areas where potentially look for evidence of the supernatural or evidence of a creator if a person wanted, but I think it is pretty fruitless to do it in evolution. I can give a list of places to look, but the problem is, they actually require thinking instead of listening to some uneducated boobs spewing warmed over arguments that were dismissed 50, 100 or even 200 year ago.--03:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call it fruitless, but it certainly does seem to be an extremely roundabout way of going at it in my opinion, since most of the time you just end up with a very long train of thought when a short one will do, and it ultimatly ends up as the teleological argument in the end anyway. Homestarmy 03:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: My point was not that all Christian groups clearly know that they should evangelize like The Way of the Master, but that I know of not a single Christian denomination which specifically disavowes evangelism of all varities, and specifically states that we have no mandate to do such. I did, if you'll notice SA, mention several different forms of evangelism that many Christians or Christian organizations take part in which certainly are not like the kind I personally think is most effective. However, since we are, you know, in an encyclopedia here, I don't think my definition of Evangelism is highly ambiguous or debatable at all, I mean its at the Evangelism article. Anything which proclaims the gospel is evangelism, and while of course I would disagree that everyone who calls themself Christian is really spreading the right gospel, my opinion really doesn't matter here. The method or the message doesn't matter, its whether Christianity has the mandate or not, and considering the massive support among pretty much every Christian denomination there is and was throughout history that evangelism is indeed a mandate/responsibility/what-have-you of Christianity, I really don't think qualifiers would be appropriate, per undue weight. Homestarmy 02:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: However, I do wonder which groups precisely see Creationism in particular as something we have a responsibilty to evangelize over, as it isn't really explicitly part of the Gospels per-se, and I assume the person who put up a fact tag wondered the same thing. Homestarmy 02:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Purported

message: I do not think that creationists object to scientific explanations per se. In fact, I think that creationists would point to creation science or intelligent design and claim, "hey science supports our belief not yours". I do not think they necessarily object to naturalistic explanations either, as long as they do not violate what is in the particular religious text or religious belief they are following. I think that creationists reject anything that does not include either a supernatural explanation, or the possibility for a supernatural explanation, when these are dictated by their faith, because that is what they are really counting on: the existence of the supernatural. Naturalistic explanations that do not trod on the preferred supernatural explanation are fine. Scientific explanations that do not trod on the preferred supernatural explanation are fine.--Filll 15:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is, though, that they reject scientific explanations. There are explanations that are not scientific which also are not supernatural, but creationists don't normally comment on those. Of course, we all realize that creation science/intelligent design is not verifiably science, so their insistance that "science supports creationism" is wholly misleading. --ScienceApologist 16:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: they want to preserve some supernatural component in the explanation of natural phenomena -- This is a desire that is wholly unscientific, so when creationist criticize science, they are criticizing the scientific aspect of science not just the "nonsupernatural" aspect. The point is that the creationists reject the parts of science which do not fit in with their worldview. This is illustrated in the text of the article very carefully. --ScienceApologist 16:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also pretty inaccurate. For instance, Christian fundamentalists are just as unhappy about Hindu creationism as they are evolution, so you can't say they examine issues neutrally among different supernatural options. --Davril2020 16:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good point. Yes, what they really are doing, is trying to argue just to preserve some particular world view of their particular sect, which might different than another sect. It might be even at variance with the sacred text that their sect follows, or based on a different interpretation of the text than the interpretation of other sects. This can make it difficult to argue with them since they are dogged in their pursuit of some particular goal. They already know the answer, and everything else is summarily rejected, including definitions of terms they do not like, techniques they do not like, scientific theories, logic, reason, etc. Extreme extrapolations and convoluted explanatons will be dredged up to protect their beliefs, such as "God made the world look old to test our faith" and "The devil made the world look old to tempt us from our faith" and "coral produced more than one growth ring per year in past millenia making them look much older than they are" and "God created the earth already pre-aged" and "Radioactive decay rates are not constant" and "God created light already redshifted so it looked like it came from a great distance" and on and on and on. This makes it impossible to "win" an argument with them since they are allowed to bend the rules to make sure that the one answer they have in mind is always the "right one".--Filll 17:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's a couple points to make. Firstly, reading material from creationists, it is obvious that they regard science that leaves out their particular theological belief with hostility. One quote from, I believe, a DI member went along the lines of saying Christ should be central to science, not an afterthought. So in that sense it is not just the case that creationists reject science that disagrees with particular religious interpretations - they are fundamentally opposed to anything that ignores their ideological beliefs, not juse those that actively contradict them. On the other hand, this demonstrates that the problem is not with science or the supernatural - it's simply an unwillingness to engage with ideologies or methodologies that disagree with their worldview. So you might be able to say that creationists typically reject any argument that disagrees with them regardless of source, and be accurate. However, given that in this case we're dealing with objections to a scientific theory it seems excessive to note down such a general point. While creationists are inevitably hostile to opposing religious traditions with different origins stories, you can comment on that in those relevent articles - I don't think it has a place here. --Davril2020 18:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was said by William Dembski - the full quote is "Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ." JoshuaZ 18:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think he is saying pretty close to the creationist view there. He does say "the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ" and he has other similar quotes which I can locate if you want where is more explicit. JoshuaZ 18:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Which is odd since most of the time the Intelligent Design people are accuse of being more dishonest about their goals rather than less so. Incidentally, two more quotes from Dembski of the same sort: "any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient" and "all disciplines find their completion in Christ and cannot be properly understood apart from Christ" JoshuaZ 19:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific vs. non-Supernatural vs. Naturalistic

message: *Harold Aspden, Creation: The Physical Truth, Book Guild Ltd , 216 pages, , U.K., 26 Oct 2006
has nothing to do with evolution or creationism
*Rosicrucians: The Process of Evolution has nothing to do with biological evolution
by Filll at User talk:213.58.54.87 04:56, 12 December 2006
:As far as it concerns to the article Creation-evolution controversy it is not only about biology or science, it should involve all human knowledge aspects surrounding this central issue, including religion and spirituality. Failing to present all views central to this issue, the article, not surprisingly, is biased toward a materialistic conception of man, based upon the 18th-19th century positivism movement, which sadly became the foundation of current-day auto-proclaimed "society of knowledge". As it was said before, the almost 100 years text Rosicrucians: The Process of Evolution presents evolution from a Spiritual standpoint: not from a materialism  science view theorizing that man is an accidental end-result, without any real purpose for existence. However, here I leave some words from the same source to meditate upon:
::"Scientific materialism is based on the premise that nothing can be known except that which is observed through the five senses or measured by machines. Thus, materialism recognizes only the Physical World and its laws. It originates from the theories of Charles Darwin, Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Engels, among others. 
::These theories hold that man, as well as all life-forms that exist on our planet, are the result of chemical forces which interacted in a haphazard manner. Thus, man is an accidental end-result, without any real purpose for existence. Man's survival as a psychological organism requires balance between the inner forces, which surge from the unconscious, and the outer forces, which impinge from social and environmental sources. Although he must try to gratify his inner urges without provoking a threat from without, he has no direct control over either the inner or the outer forces. 
::The solution to the human dilemma, according to the logical implications of materialism, is to control the inner urges through such things as drugs and behavior modification and to control the outer forces through direct manipulation of political, social, and economic structures. 
::With this concept of man, there is no individual responsibility because, at any particular point in time, man is merely the result of factors over which he has no control. As an example, man's behavior often is blamed on "genetics" or "education" or "poverty." In this theory, man does not have an individual free will for which he can be held responsible; he simply reacts to the inner and outer stimuli which he perceives. If responsibility for man's destiny is placed on social institutions, rather than on man himself, the intrinsic worth of the individual ado is denied.
::As the materialistic view has grown stronger and stronger, especially in the Western World, there has been a corresponding increase in the number of people who reject it. They have grown disillusioned at the over-mechanized, over-intellectualized, de-humanized society which has resulted from materialistic thought.
::These truth-seekers perceive an intrinsic worth and integrity in the individual human being -- something of a transcendental nature. They feel that people possess an individual free will which is not merely a response to social or biological stimuli but an independent assertion of the identity of the individual. Also, they perceive that the Physical World is not all that exists -- that beyond outer appearances he inner readies which are the cause of what expresses itself outwardly."
:Regards (my English level is not enough to discuss deeper these points, as I gladly do it in my own mothertongue). Thanks. --213.58.54.39 13:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the subject of free will, I can recommend David Hume. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spiritual and physical spiral Evolution 

message: I have seen this issue be a huge hurdle over and over in discussions with creationists when I have encountered them for many years. I have also seen it cause trouble in the evolution article. Both this article and the evolution article have a section on this. Obviously at one time these sections in the two articles were the same. I and orangemarlin have been unhappy with the wording of the fact vs. theory sections in evolution and this article, and have created a rough draft of a replacement section in Talk:Evolution/FactvsTheory. Unfortunately, this replacement section is longer than I would like. I hope it is clearer. I think it is. I do not think it discards anything. It just changes the order a bit and adds a bit of explanatory material. I have several ideas/options I would like to propose for comment:
*replace both fact vs. theory sections in this article and in evolution with an edited version of what is now in Talk:Evolution/FactvsTheory.
*shorten drastically what is in Talk:Evolution/FactvsTheory and replace both fact vs. theory sections in this article and in evolution with the shortened section
*create a separate article on fact vs. theory confusion using the material from Talk:Evolution/FactvsTheory, fleshed out a bit, and provide links from both this article and the evolution article, and drastically reduce the size of the current fact vs. theory sections in this article and in evolution
*create a blue box with sections in it, comparing the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution as both fact and theory. This would show that the arguments are in fact parallel. Gravity is a fact and gravity is a theory. Evolution is a fact and evolution is a theory. This box could go in this article, in evolution or both, or in the proposed fact vs. theory article.  
Comments?--Filll 14:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do it. That section's needed a revamp for a while now. Adam Cuerden talk 03:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it. The philosophical stuff which someone had worked so hard on, but needs reworking, I shoved into a new section. It does not have much to do with theory and fact in evolution anyway. It is more about the philosophy of science, what is in science etc. That is a different topic really. --Filll 08:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact vs. Theory