Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive 8

message: Anyone got an image to represent the controversy? Creationist protestors holding signs maybe? Bensaccount 17:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Fair use; fair use should apply, especially at that resolution. I've pinched pictures of some of the protagonists; that might be appropriate, they probably won't bother to challenge the fair use. Dunc|☺ 20:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Back to the image anyway, Creation doesn't debate anything; it just one side's propaganda . Dunc|☺ 15:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because it is unbalanced doesn't mean it is not an attempt to take part in a debate.It is obviously just one side's propaganda, but I think it is an excellent representation of the controversy, which can be thought of as one sides propaganda vs the other's. Bensaccount 15:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Is that cartoon series satire or genuine? ~~~~ 16:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

text: But that completely ignores intelligent design for a start; the idea is to put something in that if you were writing a school project for would look good. Dunc|☺ 22:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should the image have anything to do with intelligent design? What does this "school project" criteria demand that is not covered? I like it when the image conveys the subject. A good picture is worth a thousand words.  Bensaccount 23:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, when someone says "creation-evolution controversy" what image should come to mind? (It is not a picture of the Earth). Bensaccount 23:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Twisted oversimplified science. - RoyBoy 800 03:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for an image?

message: Why was this link removed?  I  did a google search and got 474 pages that link to it, not 60 as Brian0918 states.  Isn't useful to have a link to a participant in the debate who comes from a non-Christian perspective? -- Temtem 21:30, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
:I see how you got the 38 number.  Still, you'd expect a much lower number for a creationist site based on Islam rather than Christianity.  Unless there's a more popular Islamic creationist site, I think it's appropriate to link this one. -- Temtem 21:43, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
::Isn't any islamic site a so-called "islamic creationist" site? --brian0918™ 00:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but this one goes to great lengths to argue against evolution explicitly.  I suspect most Islamic sites don't. -- Temtem 00:18, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Temtem. Creationists websites from other religions should be included. - RoyBoy 800 06:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing EvolutionDeceit.com 

message: Can editors on this page check out the Theistic realism page? I think we need to have more people look at it so that we can get it moving along editorially. Joshuaschroeder 01:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theistic realism article 

message: I removed the reference to "fundamentalist" which was followed by a list of denominations, many of which are not, and would not call themselves fundamentalists. As in this case, term is often thrown about with little understanding of who is and is not a fundamentalist, and often with a derogatory purpose. The best way to keep NPOV to follow the Associated Press guidebook, which recommends that the use of the term be restricted to those who use it to apply to themselves.   Pollinator 02:07, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
:But I'm not sure I agree with your edit, either.  
::Many conservative Christian denominations unapologetically promote creationism
:The Roman Catholic Church is quite conservative, but does not promote creationism.  Perhaps "conservative Protestant denominations" would be more appropriate. -- Temtem 04:39, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
::Works for me. Be my guest. The official version of the church is a form of evolutionary creationism, but it's not actively promoted. Pollinator 04:48, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
What is wrong with "fundamentalist"? This is merely a term meaning anyone that fits the description in the article Fundamentalist Christian. ~~~~ 16:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 'fundamentalist' labeling problem 

message: I am concerned that the page title ("Creation-evolution controversy") might be verging _very slightly_ on being a POV. As the introduction to the page says, 'evolution' is a term used in a slightly derogatory, and arguably inaccurate, manner to describe adherents to the ToE, Big Bang, old-Earth and other theories that do not agree with the literalist, young-Earth theory of origins. I suggest therefore that the page be moved to a new one called the Origins Debate, which takes an entirely NPOV on the matter by not using the term 'evolution'. Polocrunch 10:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but I'm afraid your new title doesn't quite capture the article's contents. Creation-evolution controversy is the most common name for this "debate" (which isn't really a debate but rather a controversy) so any title change we make should link from creation-evolution controversy. For example, the [www.talkorigins.org talkorigins website] uses this term. The problem with "origins debate" or "origins controversy" is that it is too all-encompassing. There are many debates and controversies over "origins" -- not all of them have to do with this particular wrangling. Joshuaschroeder 04:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. You are wise, young padawan, and I accept your judgement. Polocrunch
No, I think it would be wise to rename the article Origins Debate.  Evolution is at odds with most any religion, not just christianity.  Along that line, I think the article needs to have most if not all references to christianity changed to religion to reflect that fact.  It's either that or start talking about Islam and other major religions.the1physicist 02:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: your definition of "religion" seems uncommonly restrictive: try looking at Evolutionary creationism. Touched by His noodly appendage, ...dave souza 11:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please elaborate on what you think I meant?  Also, I am aware of FSM, but I have no idea why that is relevant.  More importantly, the definition of religion has nothing to do with what I was saying.  All I am saying is that evolution is not solely in conflict with Christianity, hence the title is invalid and needs to be generalized.the1physicist 00:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Title POV? 

message: Greetings,
Myself and a few other Wikipedians are working on remodifying the Creationism article.  Conclusively, this cartoon is neither neccessary nor appropriate for the article, so User:Ec5618 proposed that we move it to the creation-evolution controversy page, which seemed to be a reasonable suggestion.  What say you all?  Salva 20:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a copyvio.  Deal with as such.  Nowhere as famous as the Darwin ape. Although funny, we do not want to resort to cartoon warface, but the same goes for 'Darwin in a vice' (sic).
  
Dunc|☺ 21:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Cartoon 

message: The criticism section in this article seems to have been copied directly from the creationism article. It has since been edited (and extended) in that article by several people. For example, the section on this page still contains the 'new cartoon' (see above section). It also doesn't include the part in which the Church criticises creationism.
I also don't feel that the tone of the section is really appropriate, especially since there is no 'critisism of evolution' section (though I'll grant that such a section would be short).
Still, removing or completely rewriting this section seems to me, to be the only way to go. -- Ec5618 10:58, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
I agree entirely. Also this is not really a criticism of creationism but moreso of creation science. Bensaccount 14:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: I just added a proposal to Talk:Creation science, and figured that any editors of this page might also be interested. To that end, a short recap, and a link: Talk:Creation science#New article proposal.
My suggestion: we create a new article (I'm not sure about a name). In it, we list the arguments made by creationists to object to evolution, and the arguments made by non-evolutionists (oh, alright, 'evolutionists') to object to creation. We first list a statement, including any quotes, then list (*) an argument opposing it, and so on. Creationists and evolutionists could test their argumentation against peer review.
-- Ec5618 18:48, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
:Creationists don't publish in peer-reviewed journals. Wikipedia doesn't need another forum for creationist claptrap. Ian Pitchford 14:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what that has to do with anything. There are undeniably certain arguments which are often used by creationists. List them here. We could then 'peer-review' them, and fix incomplete wording and such. -- Ec5618 15:18, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you would agree that the proposal does allow creationists to set the agenda though, and Wikipedia is already sodden with pseudoscience. To give some sort of balance, or rather a real impression of the status of creationism as a putative branch of scientific knowledge, we'd have to produce a list of all relevant scientific knowledge and then creationists could respond showing how their perspective has more explanatory power and is more fecund. Ian Pitchford 12:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation science argumentation 

message: Truthteller added a nice big criticism section, signed, with lots of external links but few specifics. I reverted the entire thing given its numerous problems, but a criticism section should be added... and rebuted. - RoyBoy 800 06:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Age of the Earth]] 

message: Hi, I've removed the last clause here:
: The creation-evolution controversy (also called the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) is a disagreement over the origin of the universe, life, and humanity, even though evolution has nothing to do with the origin of either the universe or life.
Mainly, I think the clause makes things too complicated for the first sentence (or even the intro) of the article.  I believe that few readers will be confused by wondering about the name, so there's no confusion to address.  This thought could be addressed (with more explanation) later in the article, IMHO.  It does seem wrong to relate the origins of the universe to evolution (although I'm no cosmologist).  But the origins of life seem related to evolution (although I'm again no expert).  The prevailing scientific theory seems to be that some basic molecules formed by chance that were able to replicate, and that led to life; random change plus selection seems like evolution, so it's not unreasonable IMHO to call this evolution.  I agree that the label "evolutionist" seems to be over applied by creationists, though.  Zashaw 06:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Evolution cannot really be applied until a molecule can self replicate. Until there are dynamic large (self-replicating) populations for natural selection to act upon; it is not chance which directs evolution; it is merely the engine. Prior to self-replication chance is the primary mechanism as molecules form and combine; that is only a part of evolution. - RoyBoy 800 08:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call: biological evolution can only follow after the start of life, and that's what the controversy is usually about, but "evolution" is also used in astronomy for the development of star systems, for example, and has other meanings which I think are fairly well covered in evolutionism. Creationists often muddle things, citing one field to justify their claims in another, but that's part of the controversy...dave souza 10:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  is the controversy about "evolution"? 

message: Dunno about his creationism, but can Dubya be included under the heading "Noteworthy debaters"? ...dave souza 15:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubya?

message: Writers bias is too obvious:
"but as almost all scientists do not consider the conflict to have any academic legitimacy"
Since when is science determined by a poll?  I prefer that we stick to the facts. -Unsigned 68.116.111.55
:How do we decide what are the facts? What if there are two theories consistent with the facts? What if scientists disagree? --pippo2001 04:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This statement doesn't say "science is determined by poll". This statement is merely commenting on the venues for the debate. The only reason it is relevent is to explain the debate's absence from the halls of academe. Joshuaschroeder 13:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Competing theories that are consistent with facts are considered protoscience, according to Kuhn. Joshuaschroeder 13:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes but Kuhn is one of the many... Popper would not agree, for instance. --pippo2001 19:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what's your point? Joshuaschroeder 19:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you started going off topic. I answered to the objection against "but as almost all scientists do not consider the conflict to have any academic legitimacy". Given that we agree on this... --pippo2001 21:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writers bias is too obvious