Talk:Evolution/Creationism

message: I moved this paragraph from the main text:
:Although Evolution has been widely accepted by the scientific community, there have been some who point to possible flaws in the theory. The absence of “Transitional Species” has never adequately been explained. Darwin also talked about the absence of transitional species and stated that the theory of evolution would be a fraud without this evidence. Another flaw is the inherit contradiction within the process that supposedly drives evolution, namely “natural selection”. Scientists say that the theory collapses from the weight of its own premise. Natural selection would actually weed out those segments of the population with a mutation since the survival attributes would be compromised. For instance, the light weight skeletal structure of a bird that allows flight would compromise the survivability of a land creature.
from the main article, it should be discussed in Creationism if anywhere.  The "transitional species" issue is addressed there, as are criticisms of natural selectios.  It is certainly not true that "scientists say that the theory collapses...", although a creationist might say that.    This is based on an incorrect assumption and an a priori notion about what constitutes a "survival attribute".   Also a mutation may also achieve fixation in a population in the presence of selection due to genetic drift, or achieve equilibrium via mutation-selection balance, so the statement that natural selection would do this or that, depends on may other factors, which can be answered quantitatively via the application of the principles of population genetics. --Lexor 07:36, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved paragraph on "natural selection"

message: I think there is no place in a scientific article for religious views. The following paragraph from the intro I would gladly junk, but perhaps someone can still salvage something from it. I especially object to creationism being placed as another explanation, since it just transports the problem to a more complex level. Who created God? Of course as anyone knows it was Metagod :P Lamarckism on the other hand is a perfectly sound theory which could have been true if only our brains would manipulate our DNA on the basis of our actions, thus improving us as we live. Offending para follows:
"As the theory of evolution by natural selection and genetics has become universally accepted in the scientific community, it has replaced other explanations including creationism and Lamarckism. Skeptics – often creationists – sometimes criticize the presentation of evolution as proven fact rather than scientific theory; defenders object to these criticisms, maintaining that presenting it as "just a theory" constitutes an attempt to characterize it as an arbitrary choice and degrade its claims to truth. Such debates often relate to the scientifically accepted use of the word "theory" to mean a falsifiable and well-supported hypothesis." MarSch 13:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely correct.  What business do non-biologists have in determining the "state of the art" of biology?  Science is developed by scientists over time, not by religious pressure and legislation.  This has happened before, and the scientists won (e.g. see Galileo Galilei).  I also take issue with the denigration of the word theory (as in the term "just a theory").  If theories were not backed up by strong scientific methods (i.e. observation, testing, etc.), the advances of the twentieth century would never have happened.  The theories I rely on to do my job are the same ones that make your cellphone work.  If theories are just scientists' ways of dressing up wild guesses, then we have been extraordinarily lucky that anything has worked.  --Negative3 18:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  no place for reli views in science articles 

message: This is a great article for the evolution THEORY, but part of the introduction is not holding to its neutral requirements.  I'm sorry, but as long as evolution is a THEORY, it is prone to remodification.  Second of all, it has not replaced creationism as an explanation for the origin of life.  If this is the same evolutionary theory that happens along with the Big Bang, then consider this:  there are some galaxies that spin clockwise and some that spin counter-clockwise.  If the Big Bang is true, it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  (Think about it.)  My point is there are problems with both theories depending on who you ask, but neither has replaced the other.  You can't call the Big Bang/evoltuion science if it violates the laws of physics.  -Zach from MO  12:23pm, Central Time;  05 Apr, 2005
: What? --Ignignot 15:19, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
: I must add that it is only called theory because the name has stuck; even christians have given up and agreed to belive it by now. plus in the big bang the forces had not diverged so the laws of physics were different from today most likely
:Quote Merriam-Webster:
:Main Entry: the·o·ry
:Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
:Function: noun
:Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
:Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
:1  the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
:2  abstract thought : SPECULATION
:3  the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
:4 a  a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children :want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in :theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
:5  a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory :of light>
:By your logic, the idea that cells exist is prone to remodification, because cells are "just a theory".
:Evolution is not supposed to be a replacement for creationism.  Creationism if the origin of life.  Evolution is the origin of :species.  Evolution also has 'absolutely nothing' to do with Big Bang theory.
:And the Big Bang doesn't violate any universal laws, because "before" the Big Bang, there was no universe. 
:--Ryan Salisbury 01:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zach from MO is absolutely right. Evolution is just a theory and it is prone to remodification and it does not explain the origin of life. In fact I suggest Zach from MO go and correct the Wikipedia entries on Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Atoms, Elements, and the sun centered solar system, all of which are also just theories and all of which are prone to remodification and most impotrantly none of which explain the origin of life either. I also suggest Zach from MO go and fix the Wikipedia entry on snowflakes, because snowflake formation does (or does not) violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics for the exact same reasons evolution does (or does not) violate it. 19:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality is disturbed in intro!!!