Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive 11

message: This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you still banned from changing BCE/CE to BC/AD? Aragorn2 11:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religioustolerance.org

message: I think one of the allegations about evolution that creationists make is that given what we know about how evolution would work, if it were an accurate theory, there wasn't enough time for humans to evolve.  Unless I'm misremembering, this is worth including, along with the scientific refutation
: Not really, if we started including every tired creationist argument, this page would be ridiculously long. There is however an attempt by Mark Issak to list all the common creationist claims, which can be found here: . JoshuaZ 04:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Enough Time

message: Several images overlap with text and need to be reformatted properly.--ragesoss 05:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image problems

message: Bearing in mind that some religions/denominations accept evolution as viable but others don't... what do others think about adding a section/chart to this article that lists the stance different religions or denominations take on evolution? This seems like a good, relevant venue for such information, which is hard to find elsewhere.
--Careax 17:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of religions and stances on evolution/creation 

message: According to www.washingtonpost.com,
:Paleontologist Leonard Krishtalka called intelligent design "nothing more than creationism in a cheap tuxedo." 
I suggest the article be modified to make it clear that design itself (not motivations) was being so characterised.Eiler7 14:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out Neo-creationism. I think that's what you are interested in. --ScienceApologist 22:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheap tuxedo 

message: Why the "when pressed" caveats in the first section? It looks a bit strange to the casual reader - like the subjects haven't bothered to think about the issue. CuteWombat 19:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The intention of that prose was to invoke exactly that impression. --ScienceApologist 15:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And in the first paragraph, "a dispute betweenreligion and science.... these two theories do not contradict each other" - what two theories? Science is an accumulation of theories, religin is a faith but surely not a theory? Please clarify. ...dave souza, talk 00:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've reworded the first paragraph as it appeared to be misusing the term theories. Jefffire 13:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Offer a suggestion. The wording was arrived at nearly a year ago when the article was going through heavy rewrites. I'm not fond of that set of prose, but the sense of the information is important to convey. --ScienceApologist 14:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's the proving the negative problem; it's very difficult to find cites to what people don't do or say. Take it out and see if it sticks. --ScienceApologist 19:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be possible to find a quote to say repeated attempts have had to be made to get certain leading scientists in the field to comment on this issue - if such quotes exist. I'll remove the "when pressed" and see what happens. CuteWombat 17:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: When pressed

message: The False dichotomy section says "This automatically precludes discussions of origin beliefs other than creationism and of scientific theories other than the current understanding of the theory of evolution." So, what are these other theories and beliefs? Surely some of them are notable enough to be listed elsewhere, and wouldn't it make sense to link to that list here? 16:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Macroevolution and Irreducible complexity aren't theories in the scientific sense: at best they're hypotheses trying to support faith positions. There are plenty of competing faiths, and indeed the Creation science lot do not agree or get on with the IDers. Judge Jones is clear about the false dichotomy Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 4: whether ID is science#Page 71 of 139  "ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. (5:41 (Pennock)). This argument is not brought to this Court anew, and in fact, the same argument, termed “contrived dualism” in McLean, was employed by creationists in the 1980's to support “creation science.” The court in McLean noted the “fallacious pedagogy of the two model approach” and that “[i]n efforts to establish ‘evidence’ in support of creation science, the defendants relied upon the same false premise as the two model approach . . . all evidence which criticized evolutionary theory was proof in support of creation science.”". ...dave souza, talk 10:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other theories and beliefs

message: I am withdrawing from editing this article. For one thing, the article needs more NPOV work than I could possibly do even if there were no other editors to discuss things with. More importantly, the appearance would be too strong that I am arguing the case (or pushing the POV) of creationists (which I am not) instead of the case of Wikipedia NPOV policy (which I am). Please note that my personal beliefs have little to do with the "creationists" described here - I would typecast them as liars and swindlers.
Please deal fairly with the problems I have mentioned. Editors should be interested in building an encyclopedia, not in re-enacting in Wikipedia a battle being fought outside of it. It would be good to see the many infractions of WP:NPOV and its corollaries addressed. Perhaps I'll be back to see if I can help reach a consensus regarding the points I've already raised. AvB ÷ talk 18:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you really don't have any good points to work from. In particular you want to dispute the claim that the vast majority of scientists aren't creationists. This is sort of a no-brainer and we have references to prove it (including a number of polls). I can't decide whether your contributions are part of your own bias with regards to the subject or if they are due to a genuine ignorance about the subject, but the article is a far cry from being unverified, unreferenced, or POV. --ScienceApologist 18:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not revert the citation needed tags. These citations are needed regardless of whether or not I'm editing here. If it is easy to provide them, you should provide them. "No-brainer" is an opinion. The fact that you think you can remove the tags makes it look like you do not have the evidence. And your conclusion about no good points is just that - your conclusion. You do not know me, you do not address any of the points I've raised, you just jump in with assertions. That was uncalled for. In the edit summary of your rv you wrote I had opted out (of the article). That is not entirely true. I wrote: Perhaps I'll be back to see if I can help reach a consensus regarding the points I've already raised - well, I'm back to do just that. That's what challenges do to some people, you know. You'd better start (re)reading the policies and guidelines I quoted. AvB ÷ talk 19:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  While AvB is being extreme, it might not be a bad thing to reference such polls and similar issues. JoshuaZ 19:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not against adding references, but I do oppose all this extremeness. Alienus 19:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Extremeness? Three tags requiring citations that are, indeed, required? Also, please remember to approach other editors with kindness. AvB ÷ talk 19:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JoshuaZ, Alienus, perhaps my questions were not clear - at any rate they have not been answered. What exactly was so extreme? Was it perhaps the idea also expressed by ScienceApologist and JoshuaZ that I was requiring sources stating that most scientists oppose creationism? If you would care to look at what I wrote right at the start of the section where I described the two required citations, you will see that I had written something very different. AvB ÷ talk 05:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I considered the placement of the POv-warning sticker to be extreme given that the only substantial issue was citations. JoshuaZ 05:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I haven't started an edit war. I left the reversions of my edit to discussion and only added the required tags. Immediately reverting without discussion or acceptable edit summary is not good. And trying to cast me as a vandal sort of means you haven't read my edit history very well. AvB ÷ talk 19:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm back and the tags will return unless citations are provided. Please clarify your reference to the Abortion article.  AvB ÷ talk 19:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding tags to an article and then declaring your intention to leave is poor form. I think some of your tags are unwarranted and others can be addressed, but you need to take a good dose of good faith with respect to other editors who have been working on this page for a lot longer than you have. --ScienceApologist 19:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing tags without addressing the reason why they have been placed is not allowed. Wikipedia policies do not require editors to stick around. in this case they require editors to provide sources. If they don't, the edits are fair game and may be deleted by anyone passing by. Editors who have been working longer on a page than I have are supposed to be able to quote their sources much easier than I ever could. Why spend so much time being decidedly unkind to me where all you have to do is provide two simple references? AvB ÷ talk 19:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) AvB, most people interpret "I'm out of here" to mean that one is leaving for an indefinte, generally long, if not permanent duration. JoshuaZ 19:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't opt out with respect to the points already raised. Like I said, perhaps I'll be back. Well, I'm back sooner than you thought. AvB ÷ talk 19:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm out of here

message: My previous edit concerned the first paragraph that had some real problems. I'm now reading the rest of the article for the first time. The few additional paragraphs I've read so far are in themselves sufficient reason for me to add the  tag. Secondly, I haven't checked why another user keeps adding the POV tag but if it hadn't been there, I would have added it myself. Please leave it in place. AvB ÷ talk 18:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: <nowiki>{{unreferenced|date=August 2006}}</nowiki> and POV tags

message: The introduction states The controversy is not occurring within the scientific community or academia, whose members overwhelmingly tend to oppose creationism. This seems contradicted by the Common venues for debate section which states that Conflict occurs mostly in the public arena, as creationists have been unwilling or unable to publish their ideas through academic channels or in scientific journals. Both statements pretend to explain why the controversy is not discussed in academia but in the public arena. Is only one of them true? Are both true? Are both untrue? Is one of them intended as an explanation and the other as a qualification of scientists and indirectly of creationists? Does this article deserve the  tag? AvB ÷ talk 18:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no contradiction. Both points are correct and do not contradict each other. In fact, creationists are known to whine and moan about both phenomena simultaneously. --ScienceApologist 18:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I fail to see a contradiction, please explain. Mikker ... 13:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: <nowiki>{{Contradict}}</nowiki> tag

message: First a reminder of what this dispute is about: I have required a citation underpinning who (...) dispute creationism as an important battle between truth and falsehood. The citation has not been provided. When I added the  tag, it was removed. This does not change my opinion that this part of the sentence must be removed as original research. The only person who has discussed this specific dispute with me so far is Guettarda. I'm now continuing this discussion. 
I've discovered you are an admin so I feel I do not have to explain all aspects of NPOV to you. I'll just touch briefly on the very heart of WP:NPOV, its basis. And we're talking basic NPOV here. The new and shiny interpretation of NPOV happens to be the revival of something very old. Please listen to an explanation from Larry Sanger's 2001 NPOV draft:
:Wikipedia is devoting to stating facts and only facts, in this sense. Where we might want to state opinions, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "God exists," which is an opinion, we can say, "Most Americans believe that God exists," which is a fact, or "Thomas Aquinas believed that God exists," which is also a fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing it to someone.
As you can see, Wikipedia articles can state an opinion for a fact by attributing it. (Please also note that, in this context, "believe" has the same meaning as "view".) Whether or not an editor believes what is reported does not make a difference. Sanger's example is a nice one. At the very core of NPOV we find an explanation that tells us we cannot publish our opinion on what people say about themselves. All we have to do is report what they say. Granted, the current WP:NPOV has dropped the "God exists" example, but its replacement is:
:"Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results.
What exactly can be verified: That people say they believe something. And still we take their word for it and report it as a fact. 
I trust you as an admin will not be arguing that something as fundamental as the core principle of WP:NPOV can be trumped by consensus on an article talk page. Applying this core explanation of WP:NPOV to the disputed sentence: 
IF you report from a survey or other source that all people who dispute creationism view this as a battle of truth (people that are speaking the truth) against untruthfulness (creationists who are lying)
AND you attribute that as an opinion
THEN the statement can be left in place.
As you can see, I am expanding the dispute. Even if the required citation is provided, the disputed text still has to be rephrased, attributing it to those who hold the viewpoint instead of stating for a fact that opponents of creationism speak the truth and that vocal creationists lie. For now, in anticipation of the required citation, I will edit the sentence to read: 
:Rather, the controversy is promoted by vocal creationists and those who actively dispute creationism, a dispute characterized by the latter as an important battle between truth and falsehood.
I propose we give it another week. Providing a citation should be easy if this characterizes the dispute according to many creationism opponents. I should add that I could not find anything like it when I tried.
AvB ÷ talk 18:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Creationists, scientists, and good vs evil (cont'd)

message: ... for recently improving the article in many places and also making it stronger by adding many citations. I also like your sourcing, copyediting and re-inserting of information I added (and saw reverted) a month ago - something I had meant to do myself but life happened... 
However, I seem to detect a problem with one of the citations [Johnson, Phillip E. 1990. Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. First Things (Oct.), 15-22. http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pjdogma1.htm] (the one in support of my original edit, of all things). It doesn't cite a creationist calling their own plight a battle between good and evil:  Johnson attributed the "good and evil" dichotomy to someone else, "William Provine, a leading historian of Darwinism," who blamed the scientific establishment itself for misleading the public about the absolute incompatibility of contemporary Darwinism with any belief in God, designing forces, or absolute standards of good and evil. Johnson goes on to write: According to Provine, "These rationalizations are politic but intellectually dishonest."' (Also, I'm not sure that Johnson is a creationist in the sense of "biblical fundamentalist".)
Am I reading this correctly? AvB ÷ talk 11:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tone of Johnson's article was indeed more implicitly calling the evolution supporters evil rather than explicitly. I have found an article which defends an explicit labeling from AiG. Better? --ScienceApologist 14:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is a good example. Thanks again. AvB ÷ talk 22:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks, [[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]]

message: "Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution" Douglas H. Erwin, Evolution & Development,Volume 2 Page 78  - March\April 2000,doi:10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x,Volume 2 Issue 2  This seems to militate against the description in the article. Dan Watts 12:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Evolutionists consider this a matter of scientific debate: some would argue that repeated microevolution is entirely sufficient as an explanatory model. Ming the Merciless 14:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, the article is fair support of the distinction made in this article between macroevolution and microevolution (a difference of time and the amount of difference between organisms connected ancestorally). --ScienceApologist 14:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "These discontinuities impose a hierarchical structure to evolution and discredit any smooth extrapolation from allelic substitution to large-scale evolutionary patterns" (from ) does not sound like "The only difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is the total amount of evolutionary change and the number of generations that had passed between ancestors and descendants" to me.  Could you elucidate? Dan Watts 15:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: We do need to improve the prose in this section. In particular I think that the explication of the differences between microevolution and macroevolution in the article are correct, but the statement about what biologists "argue" needs to be changed. I'll try to make a clarification. --ScienceApologist 06:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Macro - Micro

message: The article is missing two very important topics:
#Conflations by creationists of social darwinism/racial theories/eugenics/misogyny with biological evolution
#First cause issues (infinite regression of turtles all the way down)
These two creationist points are completely lacking in the article right now.
--ScienceApologist 08:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pursuant to this, I have added a section on the second issue. Please comment/edit this section. The first issue remains unaddressed. --ScienceApologist 03:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two missing topics

message: I'm excited for this section, boys and girls! A lot of ins, a lot of outs. I've begun collecting Wikilinks. Please add salient articles you know of for this section below.
*Naturalistic fallacy
*Herbert Spencer
*Social Darwinism
*Survival of the fittest
*Scientific racism
*Devolution (fallacy)
*Religious attitudes to racism
*Religion and slavery
*Structural violence
*Race
*Eugenics
--ScienceApologist 06:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Useful material for upcoming section on race/gender-arguments and creationism

message: The assertation that evolution is supported by astrophysics in included in the opening paragraph. No references are provided, nor are their examples given within the article itself. The only applicable instance in which physics could be used to justify the field of biology is in verifying the age of the universe. This point is not necessarily valid in all creation-evolution debates, as not all creationists hold with the young earth theory (Talk.Origins). Unless a valid argument is presented for justifying this inclusion, it needs to be omitted.   --Coldbourne 14:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's refering to creation/origin models such as the Big bang and other cosmological theories of the begining of the universe (cosmology is a feld of astrophysics). Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 16:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The distinction is between Evolution (term) and Evolution. Though creationists mostly focus on the latter, as people often find biological evolution harder to come to terms with, many dispute other areas of evolution and science. And in the spectrum of beliefs, some consider Creation to be fully compatible with all the findings of science. I've amended the links in the intro to try to clarify this. ...dave souza, talk 19:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Apples and *&$%ing Oranges

message: I don't have time to sort out the article, but the article should make mention Judaism takes no part in the Christians and friends crusade against science. The Rabbinical Council of America has issued a letter on Judaism say:
December 22nd 2005
21 Kislev 5766
In light of the ongoing public controversy about Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design, 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.
There are authentic, respected voices in the Jewish community that take a literalist position with regard to these issues; at the same time, Judaism has a history of diverse approaches to the understanding of the biblical account of creation. As Rabbi Joseph Hertz wrote, "While the fact of creation has to this day remained the first of the articles of the Jewish creed, there is no uniform and binding belief as to the manner of creation, i.e. as to the process whereby the universe came into existence. The manner of the Divine creative activity is presented in varying forms and under differing metaphors by Prophet, Psalmist and Sage; by the Rabbis in Talmudic times, as well as by our medieval Jewish thinkers." Some refer to the Midrash (Koheleth Rabbah 3:13) which speaks of God "developing and destroying many worlds" before our current epoch. Others explain that the word "yom" in Biblical Hebrew, usually translated as "day," can also refer to an undefined period of time, as in Isaiah 11:10-11. Maimonides stated that "what the Torah writes about the Account of Creation is not all to be taken literally, as believed by the masses" (Guide to the Perplexed II:29), and recent Rabbinic leaders who have discussed the topic of creation, such as Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch and Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, saw no difficulty in explaining Genesis as a theological text rather than a scientific account.
Judaism affirms the idea that God is the Creator of the Universe and the Being responsible for the presence of human beings in this world.
Nonetheless, there have long been different schools of thought within Judaism regarding the extent of divine intervention in natural processes. One respected view was expressed by Maimonides who wrote that "we should endeavor to integrate the Torah with rational thought, affirming that events take place in accordance with the natural order wherever possible.? (Letter to the Jews of Yemen) All schools concur that God is the ultimate cause and that humanity was an intended end result of Creation.
For us, these fundamental beliefs do not rest on the purported weaknesses of Evolutionary Theory, and cannot be undermined by the elimination of gaps in scientific knowledge.
Judaism has always preferred to see science and Torah as two aspects of the "Mind of God" (to borrow Stephen Hawking's phrase) that are ultimately unitary in the reality given to us by the Creator. As the Zohar says (Genesis 134a): "istakel be-'oraita u-vara 'alma," God looked into the Torah and used it as His blueprint for creating the Universe. 
(Yes, the RCA's website isn't so great) eeemess 15:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. This has been authorised by the developing sanhedrin who's President/Nasi Even Yisrael is chabad (and an author of chabad.org): . Rabbi David Brown (known is Bruan by Chabadniks thanks to Yiddish) - a chabadnik - published a 200 page book on this subject and shows how there is no confict at all. And then this from one of the biggest Jewish sites on the Internet: . ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 13:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judaism say 

message: Charles Darwin (1871) sagely noted over a century ago,
"ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
:So true. That is why the RCA very clearly says in the first line "when properly understood." ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 17:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Quote From Charles Darwin I Think Highly Relevant 

message: Notice "creationism derived from" as part of the statement under contention.  Whatever rabbis are saying now (and note that some Orthodox rabbis don't accept evolution), it can't be argued that creationism isn't heavily influenced by Genesis. Ladlergo 19:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some unnotable ones. They tend to be rabbis that just became rabbis yesterday and have no idea what they are talking about. The RCA is the bigggest council of notable orthodox rabbis currently. Don't get me wrong, I know many people in the orthodox community who think evolution is nosense but none of them are notable nor represent Judaism. The RCA was choosen by many if not a majority of Jews to represent them. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 06:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article just reports who the creationist are. Since there are Jewish creationists and we can verify that, it doesn't make sense to exclude this particular religion from the list. What the biggest council or the smartest people say isn't relevant. --ScienceApologist 06:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I choose what the biggest council say as they include most notable people. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 13:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we mention it but make it clear it is a minority opinion within the comunity? Jefffire 13:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Choosing "what the biggest council say" and leaving all other opinions out is like choosing what the majority of Christians say and leaving all other opinions out. And last time I checked, it looked like the majority of Christians didn't have a problem with evolution, either. (Well, outside the Excited States, anyhow.) - FlyingOrca 15:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given how many haredim there are, it isn't even clear to me that it is a minority view by a strict numbers count. See Nosson Slifkin for related info. JoshuaZ 16:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many Haredim agree with these opinions. Don't think because they banned one person's books they are creationist. Aish HaTorah who has taken part in the ban themselve have authored and published such materials (e.g. ). ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 06:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but it does make it a questionable enough issue that one can't just claim that straight out that the majority of Jews are not creationist. Also, Aish HaTorah is a bit different since they actually run from YEC to OEC but really don't at all like common ancestry. So if anything that backs up my claim. JoshuaZ 15:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike you I source my comments. Please bring me one place where they claim YEC views. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, I seem to be wrong about Aish. My apologies. JoshuaZ 17:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Jewish Thought Irrelevant