Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive 12

message: It's nice to see that there's a lively discussion about the ongoing edit war even prior to protection, but this edit warring must stop.  Because edit warring is harmful to readers as well as to the processes by which Wikipedia works, esp. consensus and civility, I have protected the article until the contentious issues are sorted out here on the talk page, or at least until the editors involved agree to sort them out here before modifying the contested sections of the article.  If anyone wishes to contest my protecting the article, please contact me on my talk page.  Thank you, and good luck sorting this out.  Tomertalk 21:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that was probably a good step to take. JoshuaZ 22:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protected 

message: Right now it is clear that ems has not been able to address the fundamental points regarding why the article should revert to the previous version. It is obvious that we are now at consensus. Will someone ask the admin who protected the article to allow for unprotection so we can revert to the previous version? Comments, questions, concerns? --ScienceApologist 18:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll wait until ems wakes up and addresses this request before acting upon it.  Another 12 hours or so should be sufficient for a response from him.  Cheers, Tomertalk 23:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No we have not. I need to go now. I'll be back in a few hours and continue. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 06:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am of the opinion consensus has been reached as well. Jefffire 09:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, consensus.  It looks clear-cut, despite the objections of ems.--ragesoss 18:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me. It was protected long enough. If there's a consensus of most editors, then 3RR should handle any further disruptions. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 15:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus has been reached

message: Here's the issue: Are there religiously conservative or fundamentalist Jewish accounts of origins that conflict with scientific accounts or origins? If there are, then the Jewish moniker deserves to stay. I think it's pretty clear from the above citations that these things exist. Any objections? --ScienceApologist 17:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to get too involved in this since I'm the one who protected the article, but from what I'm reading above, one of the biggest problems is the use of the word "fundamentalist" to describe any flavor of Judaism.  The phrase "religiously conservative" is somewhat problematic as well, since that description has almost the opposite meaning when applied to Judaism, from what it means when applied to other religions.  [I.e., "religiously conservative" Judaism is the Sadducees and Samaritans, and to a somewhat smaller extent, the Karaites.]  My take on the above citations is that ems is saying that Rashi and other commentators indicate that the Christian interpretation of Judaism's Torah account of creation is mistaken.  I'm inclined to unprotect the article if everyone can agree to leave that section stand as it presently reads until the minutiae are worked out here.  From what I see above, there is general agreement among "one side" in the previous edit war that ems is "wrong" in his persistent disagreement with the meaning of certain words, but that's not consensus.  I'll ask another admin to look in and see if we can't try to sort this situation out sooner rather than later.  Tomertalk 23:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know enough about the dispute to comment in detail, but I agree with Tomer that applying the words "fundamentalist" and "religiously conservative" to Judaism isn't straightforward. I admit to not seeing why this was removed, as it seems relevant and well-sourced. There's probably no harm in leaving the page protected for a couple more days if there are still issues to discuss. There may be something in Judaism and evolution that would help. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know why this was removed, but if you read my reasoning above you will see why I think it does not belong in the article. It may belong in the article on Haredi Jews (which is referenced in the article). It certainly belongs on this talk page as an argument brought forward to show that most if not all "orthodox Jews" have no part in this controversy. AvB ÷ talk 11:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In response to ScienceApologist's question: I disagree. As I've argued before, the issue is whether there are reputable sources reporting that there are a notable number of "orthodox" Jews who reject evolution as incompatible with the tenets of their faith. I have yet to see such citations. What I have seen is rejection of a citation of what I see as an honest attempt by a notable Jewish scholar to explain why he quite happily accepts both the Biblical creation account AND the mainstream scientific account. The article was incorrectly used as an argument showing that Orthodox Jews believe in the biblical creation story. Editors here surely missed the fact that this (mildly naive in the scientific sense, but for the main acceptable) article calculates Day One as having had a duration of 8 billion years. AvB ÷ talk 11:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article about creationism in general, not Young Earth Creationism. AvB has the two of them confused. The article cited was clearly supporting a brand of creationism, just not necessarily the Young Earth variety. Please don't pontificate like this when the point is so obvious. --ScienceApologist 12:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Confused? Pontificate? Who, me? <maniacal laughter> I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow. This is what happened: I embarrassingly misread your question (regarding the Judaism/Jewish in the lead) and responded with my arguments for a different point, one I had been making for a while (the assertion about Haredi Jews needing citations). I hope that explains it. As my daughter would say—"duh." AvB ÷ talk 18:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, misunderstandings happen. Not offended in the least. Thanks for the clarification. --ScienceApologist 18:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In response to user ems: you may want to reread WP:Consensus. To me it is clear there is consensus here regarding the removal of the large paragraph, while there is no consensus about the question whether or not Judaism belongs in the article as a religion that has a notable number of members that reject evolution as incompatible with their views. So far I have not seen one iota of evidence that this is the case. It may well be true, but we need citations. AvB ÷ talk 11:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about that Rabbi I found saying "Torah does not believe in evolution"? Does that not show some groups do not believe in evolution? Jefffire 12:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am trying to get contact to him. His is meant to be calling me soon. I got many statements from Chabad Rabbis on this topic. Unfortunantly I don't have a scanner so far I have only been able to get one of them uploaded. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: AvB, whether the groups are "notable" is not the matter of contention.  The issue at hand is whether creationism can be said to be "derived from fundamentalist or religiously conservative" Jewish "accounts of origin."  While the words may not be appropriate in the context of Judaism, the fact remains that creationism is largely pulled from Genesis, which is found in the Torah, and there are certainly some groups of Jews who believe in creationism. Ladlergo 13:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My response to ems simply argued that the assertion about Haredi Jews was in need of citations and perhaps consensus. (I note that the assertion was recently removed so it seems to have been settled.) AvB ÷ talk 18:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You might want to rephrase "Jewish sympathies."  It can get something of a knee-jerk reaction. Ladlergo 13:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beliefs? Ideas? Formulations? Approaches? You get the drift. --ScienceApologist 13:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To jump in again, briefly, "the drift" clearly is insufficient.  I have asked previously that the wording, not the drift, be worked out here on the talk page, prior to unprotecting the article, as the "drift" is not the problem that caused this edit war, nearly to the extent that the actual wording is.  Cheers, Tomertalk 00:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom, the wording has been worked out. --ScienceApologist 12:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The specific issue

message: Sorry I have been busy the last few days. We have defently NOT reached a consensus. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 15:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is irrelevant to whether creationism is influenced by the accounts of origins found in Judaism. --ScienceApologist 16:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is also one random Rabbi's opinion anyways, and I already gave you a citation for a book that contained numerous young earth creationist essays by chabadniks. Furthermore, the signed letter is vague and doesn't even begin to approach the relevant claim. Even if all these concerns could somehow be addressed, as ScienceApologist has pointed out, they are irrelevant. JoshuaZ 18:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ems, I'm sorry to say, I've been watching this debate for a bit now, and it looks like there is indeed a good consensus here; however, it seems you are not part of that consensus. I think the other editors have been trying to bend over backwards to address your issue so far. Sadly, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but even less a jury (it certainly doesn't require unanimous consent). I would suggest you please start trying to make a compromise. This is not what I conceive is the way to collaborate to an encyclopedia. --Ramdrake 18:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not resolved. 

message: Ems2, could you please explain why you don't accept this wording?  I find it quite satisfactory, as it references the fact that multiple religions that believe in creationism have the same root, and it does so without being overly wordy. Ladlergo 16:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Judaism... doesn't believe that Genesis teaches creation at all." -- I think this is obviously a ridiculous statement. It may not teach "creation" in the sense that many YECs believe it, but it certainly teaches "creation" by a deity. --ScienceApologist 16:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure but that isn't what the text says. ...accounts of origins ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ems2, as said above, Judiaism certainly does include a creator deity and hence a form of creationism (not YEC, but still creationism). Why should it not be mentioned? Would you accept "Abrahamic accounts of creation" instead? Ladlergo 16:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it does. We have to work throught the wording. We have not done that yet. The current wording is incorrect. Would the page be protected already? ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Working out the wording" might entail you offering a compromise. --ScienceApologist 16:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Would you accept "Abrahamic accounts of creation" instead? If not, could you suggest a change? Ladlergo 16:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article claims there is a controversy with Abrahamic religions. Judaism is a Abrahamic religion. Which I have sourced many places who see no conflict hence no controversy. the RCA notes that significant Jewish authorities have maintained that evolutionary theory, properly understood, is not incompatible with belief in a Divine Creator, nor with the first 2 chapters of Genesis.  ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguably, some creationists claim that evolutionary theory, properly understood, is not incompatible with creationism. So what's your dispute? ==ScienceApologist 16:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The conflict centers primarily around... this is not true for Judaism. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your contention is that there is no such thing as Jewish creationism, but the redirect article claims that there is. So I'm at a total loss for how to evaluate your claims. --ScienceApologist 16:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: While that may be true, can you claim that most forms of modern creationism are not derived from Abrahamic accounts?  If not, please give an alternate explanation as to why the statement is false. Ladlergo 17:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Is it Jewish belief that no Jew can be in conflict with scientific accounts of origins on religious grounds? --ScienceApologist 16:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of fundamental Judaism, yes. I think we have already been through what fundamental Judaism is. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So no Jew can argue with Richard Dawkins over his assertions regarding evolution's exclusion of deities acting in history? --ScienceApologist 17:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop being a smartass. His claims are not scientific. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 17:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ems2, please no personal attacks. Claiming that Dawkins' claims are not scientific is part-and-parcel to the creation-evolution controversy. I think you have just proven my point. --ScienceApologist 17:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Speaking of Dawkins, he interviews Rabbi Herschel Gluck at a Hasidic Jewish school in London near the start of the second programme in The Root of All Evil? two-part documentary, and the guy is fully convinced of YEC. That page includes a link to an online video of the programme. Rabbi Gluck advises that all the schoolchildren are made aware of evolution [as they must be under English educational standards], but is confident that the majority will believe that God created the earth in six days. He didn't go into whether he supported "flood geology". However this indicates it's not just Haredi Jews who take a YEC stance. ..dave souza, talk 22:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abrahamic accounts of origin 

message: Cut from intro:
:The debate is most prevalent and visible in the United States where it is often portrayed in the mass media in the broader context of the culture wars or a supposed dispute between religion and science.
Portrayed? Supposed? I thought the issue was primarily a conflict between religion and science. 
Depends. Most religious denominations of the Judeo-Christian group have no problem with evolution, thus you could say that there isn't any real conflict between religion and science. The controversy comes from the minority who think that there is one. --Ramdrake 18:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely. This is why these qualifications are important. --ScienceApologist 18:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Generally, these "5% of scientists" don't say very much beyond what is offered by the various creationist clearinghouses. It isn't a dispute in the academic or scientific communities, as the article reports. --ScienceApologist 18:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the war is in politics and the media, not in science, although it is to some degree about science. --Ramdrake 18:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Framing of issue 

message: CH, thanks for posting the link to Marshall Berman's article, "Intelligent Design: The New Creationism Threatens All of Science and Society"  You could almost derive Creation-evolution controversy in full, just from this one lource - at least the anti-ID side. 
Sometimes I see the controversy as two sides talking past each other. Berman sees ID as "anti-science". The ID movement sees itself as "anti-materialism". Is there widespread agreement that materialism and science are precisely the same thing? --Uncle Ed 17:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Uncle Ed, glad you liked the link; I agree that this is an excellent resource.  As for your question: I don't see where you are trying to go with this, since I don't know of any scientist who has proposed to identify science and materialism. ---CH 00:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ID as Creationism

message: A number of months ago I mentioned that we needed a new subsection on the immorality arguments by creationists. I have now written this section. Please improve it. --ScienceApologist 09:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New subsection

message: Since Ed does not seem to understand what I mean by defending his edits, I'll do so for the first three of his edits for him below. This, Ed, is how you defend edits. I'm showing your edits here one-by-one giving ample opportunity for other editors to respond. I also show you what my response might be to each of these attempts I have made to put on your hat. Note, I don't know whether these rationales I wrote down correspond to your thinking on the matter because you have failed to do this for all but one of your edits (which, I'll note you haven't addressed yet above). --ScienceApologist 20:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: the explanation for why to keep this sentence is included above. --ScienceApologist 20:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: what convention would that be? --ScienceApologist 20:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: Unfortunately, this wording changes the syntax from a sentence that deals with generalities of creation and moves to the specificis of creation according to Genesis to a wording that implies that all creationism is based on a "doctrine", monotheistic, and not based in demiurge. The "see" parenthetical also indicates, falsely, that there is only one creationist account of origins when in reality there are more than just creation according to Genesis. --ScienceApologist 20:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ha - that's pretty funny coming from you! For great justice. 22:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An example defense for Ed Poor

message: While restoring the word "ostensibly" FelonoiousMonk wrote the following in his edit summary:
:ID proponents are an example of those who claim to not push religion while doing just that
Are you saying that the controversy is not between religion advocates and science advocates, or what?
If you think that ID advocates are stealth creationists, you should say so explicitly in the article. --Uncle Ed 21:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the subject of this article.
By the way, Ed, you just violated 3RR again. --ScienceApologist 21:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sides in the controversy

message: I'm cleaning up the article a bit in my spare time - mostly single words and phrases, which are explained in the edit summaries.
I'm about half way through. I'll post up some more major revisions here if I can see any are needed. Stephen B Streater 08:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the sentecne about speciation back, as the discussion is not about the terminology, but about the actuall point in the process were it is a new species. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 09:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [Edit conflict] Isn't the issue here merely a question of what the word speciation means? I marked this as a major edit because I think the current version tries to make out that there is actual controversy about something real, whereas in fact all that biologists disagree on is exactly what the word means. By its very nature, speciation is not a black-and-white concept when you look at single generations, but it is clear after millions of years that it has happened. Stephen B Streater 09:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I changed "undecided" adjective describing religion and morality to "subjective". I'm pretty sure a lot of the creationists are "decided" about this subject, but the point is that the ideas differ from person to person about what they entail. --ScienceApologist 13:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Stephen B Streater 06:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fresh view 

message: I'm somewhat uneasy by the use of the word "ostensibly" in the introduction. By definition, it seems, "apparently, seemingly, on the surface" (as per wiktionary). The way the sentence reads, it could be construed to mean that the conflict is apparently between the proponents of science and those of religion, but that reality differs. If such is the case, what is the underlying reality that his hidden? I guess I'm just trying to say I'd like somebody to explain to me what ostensibly is used to mean in this context, as the way I read it it opens a door the approximate width of the side of a barn =) to all sorts of possible interpretations. My feeling is that another word here may be more accurate of the intended meaning, but not being sure of the intended meaning, I can't tell what word would fit better here. --Ramdrake 13:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can think of better wording, please insert it. --ScienceApologist 13:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think "ostensibly" is a good choice.  Guettarda 13:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of the word "ostensibly"

message: There are several problems with the proposed changes:
* "Scientists also point out the distinction between  microevolution and [[macroevolution | macroevolution]" - the differences between macro and micro are differences in scale, they are differences in terms of the level of analysis.  So this bald statement isn't really accurate.
* "Creationists argue that macroevolution is controversial because it is not directly observable and its mechanism of action is controversial within the scientific community" - to begin with, as made this statement is misleading, since it suggests that the assertion is actually true (when in fact it isn't).  In addition, it is unsupported - which creationists have made these claims, etc?  Guettarda 05:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cbruno's proposed changes 

message: First of all, I'm not a creationist troll. Some of the rv'ed responses seemed to hint that I was trying to insert my own creationist point of view into the lead of the article. I admit I gave to much detail on the micro vs. macro evolution. This made the introduction unbalanced. I do think however that SOMEWHERE in the lead passage of the article should mention the fact that there are creationists who accept parts, but not all, of the modern systhesis theory of evolution. That way, readers who skim the intro to the article are exposed to this. I think the one-sentence on how SOME creationists differentiate between micro and macro is sufficient.
Cbruno
:I did the revert, so I owe you an explanation.
:The material you added was inaccurate.  In fact, macroevolution is any evolution at the level of speciation or higher, and while this takes longer to generate in the lab, it has been observed.  In other words, macroevolution is a proven fact, contrary to standard Creationist claims.
:In addition, that text was entirely uncited.  If it were restored with citations and quotes, it would be acceptable as an accurate summary of inaccurate Creationist beliefs.  As it stood, however, I felt I had to remove it in order to adhere to Wikipedia standards.  Thank you for understanding. Al 05:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the later sections we discuss the distinction. The distinction does not belong in the intro as it is a level of specificity removed from the actual nature of the controversy. Please read the whole article before editting it. You would have found the section dealing with macro/microevolution if you had read down to the later sections. --ScienceApologist 06:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cbruno's Answer

message: Creationists often see advocates of evolution as rejecting creationism's main premise, that is, asserting that there is no God. Advocates of evolution, on the other hand, see the idea of supernatural beings existing or intervening in the physical world as irrelevant to science. 
Creationists often represent evolution as positing "unguided evolution" as an account for origins. Supporters of evolution frequently assert that 
evolution is indeed guided, i.e., by Natural selection.  
:Not bad, but needs to be reworded. The way it is, it reminds me of a ping-pong match (no offense intended: tit-tat-tit-tat) --Ramdrake 16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How each side sees the other

message: Some Creationists regard certain aspects of evolution as true, notably the idea that fossils show an accurate record of the appearance and extinction of the various species of life.
:Already mentioned in a previous part of the intro (when introducing OEC without naming it). Redundant in an already overlong intro. I would just snip it out. --Ramdrake 16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Common ground between the sides

message: The debate is most prevalent and visible in the United States, where it is often portrayed in the mass media in the broader context of the culture wars or a supposed dispute between religion and science. 
Some Creationists see religion and science as being in dispute with each other on issues in addition to that over Creation and evolution. The forms of creationism derived from fundamentalist or religiously conservative Abrahamic accounts of origins assert that the scientific explanations of origins are antithetical to creation theology, and oftentimes, more specifically, Creation according to Genesis.
Some supporters of evolution see religion and science as not being in any significant dispute. 
<-- We should give an example of this "no dispute" assertion. -->
:The Roman Catholic position (official papal position, not that of any specific cardinal) is a prime example of this, why not use it? --Ramdrake 16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The members of the scientific community do not overwhelmingly oppose creationism. They do not spend much of their time attempting to stop the progression of creationism (which is the primary definition of oppose). If anything, they overwhelmingly ignore creationism. --Ramdrake 16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We used to have the phrase -when pressed- included to address this objection. --ScienceApologist 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't say anything about what may or may not be included, legitimately (or overarchingly) or not in the term evolution. This paragraph doesn't make a point. I'd cut it out. --Ramdrake 16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd reword it. We need to make the point that "evolution" is a catch-all phrase (as is made in the defining evolution section below). --ScienceApologist 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, no. ID states that a designer is required to explain the variety and complexity of life on Earth. They will not entertain the notion that life may have evolved on its own into what we witness now. The way it was phrased made it sound like biology didn't want to include the possibility of a designer (which it doesn't refute - the existence of a designer is just irrelevant to the question). It is ID who insists life cannot have evolved on its own, so that argument is backwards. --Ramdrake 16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: My conclusion would be that this is the best way to go. However, I first wanted to explain to Ed Poor all the problems that I saw with his version of the intro, so he could see for himself that we are not reverting just for the sake of keeping our own version. Possibly the best thing to do is to decide which points to save from his addition and work them into the existant text, as I'm at a loss how to redress the specific version of the introduction he presented. --Ramdrake 17:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope of debate

message: shouldn't this be moved to Creation-evolution controversy in the United States Midwest and other rural regions? It's not only not international, it really isn't even a national issue in the US, aside from a few bizaire religious cults that for some reason operate buildings and occasionally "news" papers, inside NY city limits like the moonies, etc, et al, et whatever.. there really isn't any notion of a "debate" anywhere other than extramly rural regions, with little or no access to education--205.188.117.14 16:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are other areas in the world (such as Australia, Great Britain and the Netherlands) that have creationist followings, though it is conceded that the vast majority of the action is in the United States proper, and possibly more concentrated in the Midwest. But it isn't limited to that, so we can't use that as a title. --Ramdrake 17:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, but even implying that this is a "debate" in any large part of the US, let alone the implication that it's even note worthy in academic circles, frankly makes it look like my country is full of idiots--205.188.117.14 17:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then maybe we should say that this is an intermittent rather than an ongoing debate, as the truth is, it seems to fire up sporadically and then keep quiet for long stretches at a time, at least judging from this side of the border. --Ramdrake 17:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ok with that change. Ladlergo 15:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've followed creationism for over 20 years. I do agree that it's predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, but it does have "outbreaks" in a few other areas (as previously mentioned). However, it is not just in the "Midwest and other rural regions" (the leading young earth creationist organization in the world, the Institute for Creation Research, is in San Diego, California; the leading neocreationist organization in the world, the Discovery Institute, is in Seattle, Washington; neither place is "Midwest" or "rural"), nor is it just "a few bizarre religious cults." Creationist, anti-evolution, beliefs are found among substantial numbers of religious believers in every major Christian religious denomination in the U.S., even in those denominations considered "liberal" where anti-evolution is not an official church position (including among Catholics, where respect for evolution as science is an official church position). Gallup polling has been conducted on this issue in the U.S. since the 1960s, and it has consistently found that creationist beliefs have dominated among religious believers in the U.S. the entire time. For example (from Creationism),According to a 2001 Gallup poll on the origins of humans, they estimate that 72% of Americans believe in some form of creationism.... They also estimate that about 45% of Americans concurred with the statement that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."Creationism in most of its forms is certainly wrong (my opinion; and I myself would dispute all of its forms), but this is no call to blind ourselves to the extent of the problem, or to use misrepresentative statements in a manner similar to creationist rhetoric. (Greeneto 01:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  more accurate name? 

message: At present, we have "Creationists have also claimed that because the Nebraska Man and other paleontology hoaxes were fabricated...".  However, Nebraska Man wasn't a _hoax_, merely a mistake.  Would it be permissible to change this sentence to "Piltdown Man and other paleontology hoaxes"? Tevildo 21:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Tevildo 05:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence against evolution section - minor change? 

message: *Approve.  The content of this section is already covered in the Creationism article, and doesn't, IMO, have a significant part to play in the controversy itself, rather than in the general issue of Creationism as a whole.  Tevildo 18:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Comment: A shorter section near the beginning, perhaps after or part of "Overview of the controversy" would make some sense.  Seems an afterthought at the end. Gimmetrow 18:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: * Comment: I put the tag there. My theory is that the section was once copied verbatim from the main article. I guess its purpose was to suggest (just look at the context) that even within creationism itself there is broad diversity of beliefs, to imply "They want to teach creationism. But which creationism?" I guess merging to main article would be fine (or deleting; it seems to have been developed heavily in the main article and hardly at all here). Instead make this implicitely suggested attack explicit and base it on sources? --Rtc 00:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of "Spectrum of creationist beliefs" section to main [[Creationism]] article 

message: This rather confused assertion was added to the intro. 
:At its root, the controversy describes a fault line running through Western epistemology.  We often somewhat uncritically assume that all science (in the broadest sense the organized pursuit and gathering of observable truth) must by definition be naturalistic in its assumptions to be valid; all else is relegated to the private sphere of "values" and opinions.  To exclude actual possible scientific explanations because they do not fit the unproven postulated paradigm of a naturalistic worldview creates circular reasoning (e.g. Intelligent design is not scientific) which is not especially helpful or interesting.  Many naturalistic scientists treat truth and how we can know it as something a lot simpler than it really is.
Removed as POV. ..dave souza, talk 00:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's perhaps an interesting idea, but the lead-in should be a summary of the article content - not introduce new ideas the article doesn't discuss, nor make an already long lead-in longer.  Gimmetrow 00:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fault

message: Hello. I was told about a debate here a few months ago. Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan wrote a book on this debate. The Age of the Universe - A Torah True Perspective. None of the Gedolie Yisrael oppose him. No Jewish authority has called him a heretic. etc... gtg 144.135.252.207 10:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, without some kind of a download, how old is it? ..dave souza, talk 17:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I downloaded it. A 30-page boring read that ends up advocating Gap Creationism. --ScienceApologist 18:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not very civil to call someone's thesis 'boring' just becasue you don't like the subject matter--F.O.E. 04:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  I know of no clause in WP:CIVIL that requires us to be civil towards absent non-Wikipedians.  Kasreyn 10:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, maybe the thesis *is* boring? (Haven't read it.) Accusing someone of lieing about the boringness of a thesis out of sinister personal motives is definitely not very civil, unless you have evidence, in which case you should present it. 213.235.241.220 15:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judaism