Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive 15

Evolution not a scientific fact?

Filll, I vehemently disagree with this but this is what the article implies! For example if we use Futyama's version: evolution is the claim that "organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors". This is clearly a hypothesis and also a theory but is it a fact??

1. FACT - An observation or a piece of data. A measurement or some evidence or the result of an experiment.
2. FACT - A hypothesis for which there is overwhelming evidence

It is clearly not a piece of data and is only a fact in sense 2.

I think it is totally wrong to imply 2 is not a scientific usage of the word fact. In doing so you reach the absurd conclusion that EVOLUTION IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC FACT. I think you are well meaning well here but in danger of adding a great deal of confusion.

I strikes me that you have taken the puzzle "how can evolution be both a fact and theory" and solved it in wrong way. (Probably after reading too much Gould!) — Axel147 21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I am totally confused. Let me go and look and see what you are complaining about. Maybe there is a typographic error or something that you found. At least to my knowledge, evolution has definitely been observed multiple times, and so in that sense it is a scientific "fact". I also understand evolution to also be a "fact" under several other possible meanings of the word "fact".--Filll 22:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. We are talking to each other on different pages. Let me read your comment first. Just a sec — Axel147 22:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not understanding what you are getting at. I just looked at the section here, and unless I am blind and missing something, I do not understand what you are talking about. --Filll 22:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically I'm saying that Gould's assertion that “fact can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” is correct. His assertion that fact is a datum is bollocks (too naroow a definition). In any case in this controvery we should use fact as a "hypothesis proven beyond reasonable doubt" not as a "datum". That's how Dawkins, Sober, Futyama etc. seem to be using it — Axel147 22:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah so now the truth comes out. You want to pick and choose among the statements that Gould has made, even though they are mildly contradictory, or at least appear to be if one does not parse them carefully. So some claims of Gould are ok, and others are nonsense. Is that it? And of course, we ignore the common usage in the REST of SCIENCE which is far bigger than this little backwater.

I think that the word "fact" has MANY narrow definitions. Just look in the dictionary. So what? This is true for lots of words in English. Many many words have multiple meanings. I am sure I can find multiple examples of the word "fact" being used with different meanings in scientific documents in evolution science, and in the rest of science. Of course this is confusing, but it can be made a little more clear if we recognize that the word "fact", like a very large fraction of other words in the English language, has multiple meanings. And in any given instance, one or another might be used. That does not mean that in one document the same meaning is always intended. That does not mean that in a single usage only a single meaning is intended or appropriate either. If you have ever been in a legal deposition, with lawyers screaming at you for 10 hours a day for day after day about the meaning of every usage of a given word, used mutliple times in a document, then you might understand that this is nothing mysterious. It is well known, and there are mechanisms developed in various fields like law and computational linguistics etc to cope with this eventuality. Why is this hard to grasp?--Filll 22:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

None of this is hard to grasp. I am agreeing that fact has multiple meanings. It has multiple meanings even within science depending on context. This is where the problem lies. If you give a very precise 'scientific' definition fact, it suggests all other meanings are not scientific, even when they are widely used by scientists.

Ok good. So now we agree that "fact" has multiple meanings. And it might within science, although there is clearly one dominant meaning, which even Gould uses before he switches to a different one (or slightly different, but related). And yes, I would say that it is a huge advantage to stick with the main meaning that scientists use and call it scientific, otherwise the phrase "scientific" ceases to mean anything at all. It is sort of crazy to say that I can transform a theory into a "scientific fact" by claiming that there is a lot of data that supports the theory. A scientific theory has a lot of data that supports it. It might have so much data supporting it that it approaches the layperson meaning of the word "fact". Let's look at gravity. Gravity is both a "fact" and a "theory" in the same way that evolution is a "fact" (datum) and a "theory" (explanation of the data). Can I turn Newton's theory of gravity into a scientific fact? Not really. I can claim that Newton's theory of gravity makes great scientific predictions that match the data in some circumstances. I can even substitute those predictions for real measurements because the predictions are so good in some instances. But Newton's theory is not a scientific fact. Newton's theory of gravity is a scientific theory. However, Newton's theory is so powerful that one might easily slip into colloquial language and call Newton's theory a fact. Of course, we all know that no matter how great Newton's theory is, it is in fact, wrong. And this was proved conclusively about 85 years ago by Eddington. After that, it was all over for Newton's theory.--Filll 23:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The claim "the sun is at the centre of the solar system" is a fact. It is not something I can observe directly, not a datum in an experiment. It is a fact because it is a "hypothesis proven beyond reasonable doubt". Layperson and scientist would both say this. So I think we have to be very careful about labelling this usage of fact as unscientific. — Axel147 22:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The statement that

• the sun is at the center of the solar system

can be parsed many ways, and in some of those ways, it might be deemed a fact, or an approximate fact. For one thing, the center of mass of the solar system is sometimes outside the outer limb of the sun's atmosphere because of the mass of large planets like Saturn and Jupiter. So the earth and the other planets do not really orbit the sun, they orbit the center of mass, or at least they do so approximately. So the statement above is only roughly correct, and only an approximate fact. When you include multiple body effects and general relativistic effects and most Einsteinian effects, this statement that the planets orbit the center of mass of the solar system is probably only approximately correct, and not the precise truth.

So I have just demonstrated that depending on what you call the center and what you call a fact, this statement might be deemed a fact, or not. That does not even take into account problems with defining what the sun is and what its boundary is, and what the solar system is with the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud etc. These complications make it a far more difficult statement to evaluate.

However, at least in one definition, the most common one used by scientists in fact (which I see I am going to have to get about 100 references for you since you do not seem to be ready to accept it), a scientific "fact" is a datum. It is an observation. It is a measurement, a piece of evidence. It can be quantitative or qualitative. It is a bit difficult to imagine a direct measurement or observation of the solar system giving the sun as the center, or center of mass. I will not say this is never possible, however, since people can be very clever. But for most scenarios I can imagine, this statement is not a scientific fact by that definition of scientific fact.

Is it a hypothesis? Well it was a hypothesis at one time, but I think that now we have enough evidence for this hypothesis we might more properly call it a theory; I think it used to be called the Heliocentric theory, or the Copernican theory, if I am not mistaken. So that statement historically was a hypothesis, and historically a theory as well. Some, including Gould with his "preponderance of evidence" definition, would define it as a "fact" in that sense as well. .I can probably go through dozens of definitions of the word "fact" and the phrase "scientific theory" and the phrase "scientific hypothesis" and the phrase "scientific prediction" and so on and evaluate that phrase with each of those definitions in mind to try to decide what that phrase means by applying a variety of definitions. --Filll 22:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

So we're in agreement? 'This statement is not a scientific fact by that definition of scientific fact'. By that token do you agree the hypothesis 'organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors' is not a scientific fact? — Axel147 22:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not know if we are in agreement or not. I am still pretty confused. I would call the phrase "organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors" several different things, depending on what definition we want to apply. So according to the datum definition of "scientific fact", I think that one is a little tougher to classify as "scientific fact", although some might do so. I do not think I would, or at least someone would have to try very hard to convince me that we have observed that unequivocably. I would probably call it a hypothesis with a lot of evidentiary support, or a theory with a lot of evidentiary support. I might also call it a prediction of a theory, or a corollary of a theory, that might make predictions of its own. Now if I use the Gould definition of "fact" (or at least one of the multiple Gould definitions, but the one that states "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent", which is his own invention for this popular nonpeer-reviewed article), then I would probably call it as approaching a "fact" under the Gould definition, and possibly even a "fact" under the Gould definition. Now I can find other definitions of the word "fact" like the legal definition of "fact" that we could apply and get a variety of answers. It all depends on what you mean by "fact". Even Gould himself uses more than one definition in that one article. But should that surprise anyone? We do this in English all the time!--23:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I will need a few references that datum is the most wide usage of scientific fact. Can you provide 3 or 4. Even if it is I suggest "preponderance of evidence", "hypothesis proven beyond reasonable doubt for which there is overwhelming evidence" fits the claim "evolution is fact" far better than "piece of data from an experiment". — Axel147 23:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree. First, evolution is not some sacrosanct field. It is a tiny little outpost in the field of biology, which is not the whole of science by any means, but a small piece of science. And in science "fact" usually means datum. If you confuse the issue by claiming that "scientific fact" means "theory that I personally really like" or "theory that has some data behind it" or something similar, then you have basically called almost every single theory a fact. And that is nonsense. Because theories change. That is what theories are. To claim otherwise is to deny the entire nature of the scientific enterprise. And slit your own throat. And why the creationists are having a field day making scientists in evolution look like morons and liars. So I would disagree that evolution is able to make up its own definitions, divorced from the rest of science. Heck, that definition even ignores a few statements to the contrary by Gould in the same article! Also, I would claim that just claiming by fiat that "evolution is right because I say it is right and it is a fact so there" is a recipe for disaster. Why do you think that the creationists are winning this battle? Because if you cannot speak and think clearly, they will take you to the cleaners and continue to whip the ass of evolution scientists, the way they are doing at present. Something like 80 percent of the US public does not believe in evolution. Face it ! Evolution is LOSING. And it is losing because they are not confronting the threat clearly and succinctly. I have also shown my article to two or three creationists that are out for blood and hate evolution with a passion. They all agreed that what I had written was extremely clear and they understood now what was being said. If you pursue the same strategy of claiming "I am right because I am right because I am right I say I am right so there and plus Gould was a famous fat guy you never heard of who wrote some books with big words", then you will get the same result as you have been getting for the last few decades. You know Einstein's definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting to get a different result. So...--Filll 23:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Which sounds more convincing:

1. Evolution is a hypothesis proven with overwhelming evidence
2. Evolution is a piece of data in an experiment

For my money it's the first one. — Axel147 23:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You are using a strawman argument. That is not what I am claiming is an effective argument. I am claiming the argument should be

• Evolution has been unequivocably been observed. It cannot be disputed. It is an observation. It is data. It is real. It is a fact in the scientific meaning of the word fact. Even creationists accept this (that is why they want to fool around with microevolution and similar nonsense).
• Evolution is a theory with an overwhelming preponderence of evidence supporting it. It has long ago passed from the realm of hypothesis to theory, to established theory.

This has several advantages.

1. It agrees with the generally agreed upon notion of the word "fact" with the rest of science.
2. It also uses the layperson definition of the word "evolution" which means change.
3. It also explains completely confusing statements like that of Gould and others that "evolution is a theory and is a fact", when in fact theories and facts are different in layperson's understanding and in scientific understanding.
4. it avoids the claim that "believe me because I am right because I say so" which is not particularly effective. Gratuitous assertions will be just as gratuitously rejected. This in fact is the same sort of argument that the creationists use. This is the reason why they claim evolution is a religion. It is not. It is part of science, which is different than religion.

I could probably come up with quite a few more with a bit of time.--Filll 23:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think part of the problem here

Part of the problem is that the word "evolution" has more than one meaning, as well as the word "fact" and the word "theory". Evolution is a theory. However, what we call "the Theory of Evolution" is really the "NeoDarwinist Theory of Evolution". It is not the only theory of evolution. There are several others. Some of these other Theories of Evolution have been discarded or are obsolete or are not widely accepted. Evolution is also a word that describes a change. This change has been seen. So it is both. It is a change, and it is a theory that explains WHY and HOW the change happens. And I could probably come up with some more nuances as well. --Filll 23:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to ask

Have you argued with a creationist before? How many publications have you refereed? How much experience in science do you have? You say you are a chemist. I am guessing you are a chemistry student. No offense, but you do not seem to have been around the block with a creationist very often to me. Because just claiming evolution is a fact, and true just because it would be perverse to not say evolution is a fact and true (since there is so much evidence supporting it) is not going to help much:

• It will not convince creaetionists. It has been tried and failed. Been there, done that.
• It will not help with people trying to understand the evolution literature.
• It will not help someone who wants to take this sort of argument into a neighboring field of science where there are different definitions operating than the ones you claim
• Your argument is based on accepting ONE of Gould's statements in a nonpeer-reviewed journal, and rejecting the others. Not a very sound basis to stake your argument on, frankly. A lawyer would tear you to shreds in deposition. Might even buy yourself some jailtime with that sort of reasoning.--Filll 00:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not suprised your arguments against creationists failed you. You seem to have a tendency to rant hysterically and resort to character assassinations when you are having difficulty forming your own coherent arguments. — Axel147 16:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And by this, I take it that you claim you have successfully defended yourself in debates with creationists? If that is true, that is quite interesting in itself. Also very interesting that you did resort to a certain strategy in your second sentence. Quite instructive.--Filll 16:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Just an interjection. I don't think it's even possible to defend oneself in arguments wtih evolutionists. By defend I don't mean "know evidence on your side to the point of not looking stupid," because that's easy, but rather "know evidence on both sides to the point of making your opponent move to a different argument." Creationists have no argument. That's why they can't change it. Every time I get into a debate like that, it always comes down to one of us conceding some minor point like "okay, at least you agree that it was natrual mecahnisms that made things the way they are." These people are my friends, so I can do that.

Oh, and by the way: Filll here's arguments seem more than adequate, certainly more than I would be capable of without at least some extra preparation. Go read the last post he made, where he summarized what a good argument would sound like. I don't know a damn thing about the man you're citing, Gould, but as long as you two are catfighting over "what's a better argument," I recommend just working with what he said instead of attacking it because he's trying to tell you what to say. Not only would a lawyer rip you apart, so would a competent Public Forum or Lincoln-Douglas debator. Got it memorized?

...sorry, couldn't help myself.~Kazu 18:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks kazu. I fought him to a standstill and I realized some of his problems. He is not a creationist, but an evolution supporter who makes awful arguments to support his side. So I am rewriting the article and sections in question and adding a lot more references to nail it down very tightly. It was valuable to go through it because it focused my attention on the weak part of the article. The problem is, they are all in love with the Gould quote. And Gould makes sseveral seemingly contradictory statements in the article. Now if you do a bit of research, they are not contradictory at all. They make perfect sense. But he wanted to ignore the statements of Gould's he didnt like, and keep those he did like. I say, if we are going to use Gould, lets use ALL of Gould. Because for the reader, if you edit Gould and they look at the original source, they will just feel you lied to them and were BSing them. So I say, if we do it, lets go all the way. And get it right. No short cuts.--Filll 23:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Evolution not a piece of data from an experiment

Filll, let me try this one more time. I beg you to revise your claim that evolution is a piece of data in a experiment. It never has been, never will be. And even allowing for more than one meaning of evolution it cannot possibly be justified like this.

It appears that you (and many others) have been bamboozled by the ambiguity in Gould's famous piece. But you have acknowledged Gould's inconsistency in using fact as "datum" so why don't you go a step further and admit that in ALL cases in the literature evolution is only a fact in the sense of being a "hypothesis highly substantiated with evidence".

That the earth is at least 3.6 billion years old is also a fact but not because it is a single observation: it is fact because it is supported by an entire body of evidence, including several independent dating methods support this claim. Evolution is no different and the sooner you recognise this the better.

Douglas Futuyama has explained "the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun." Ernst Mayr writes "The basic theory of evolution has been confirmed so completely that most modern biologists consider evolution simply a fact." And George Simpson, stated that "Darwin...finally and definitely established evolution as a fact."

The point is that evolution is not fact in the same way the sky is blue by virtue of a single experimental observation. It has become a fact as a result of the accumulation of a huge body of evidence: many supporting experiments and hypotheses of different kinds. If you still are unsure about this please have a look at this which states it I think more clearly than I can: Evolution: Fact, Theory Controversy

Please do not persist with your highly confusing and bogus argument (at least not without providing evidence for it in the literature). — Axel147 13:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Bogus argument huh? Never has been, never will be? Those are awfully big statements. We will see what happens I guess. I personally do not put much stock in what is an un-peer reviewed bloglike column on what appears to be an anticreationism web site hosted at the San Diego Supercomputer Center. The apparent ambiguity in Gould's article which is so cherished by those in this area is real. And it is there for a reason. And to deny it is to ask for trouble, besides being intellectually dishonest. It makes perfect sense if you do a bit of scholarship. It just was not stated as clearly as it might have been. A good reviewer or editor might have helped Gould with that. I am sure it was not anticipated to be poured over for decades and examined like a religious text, so it was not very carefully written or vetted.--Filll 14:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The statement that "the earth is several billion years old" can be defined as a fact according to some definitions of the word "fact", and as something else by other definitions:

• using many techniques and measurements, all based on theories of their own, we have data that support that statement. It is a statement summarizing a number of measurements. In this sense, one might say that according to the "scientific facts=observations" definition, this statement might be judged as a "fact" in the scientific sense.
• The relevance of these measurements to the statement depends on theories and assumptions of various kinds (constant radioactive decay rates, etc). In that sense, this statement is the summary of the predictions of a number of theories. It is also implied that the various predictions match each other, so that this statement is an expression, at least indirectly, of the agreement between these predictions.
• Some might want to call this statement a theory, since it is no longer a hypothesis supported by evidence, but a very well supported statement. In this sense, it might be viewed as a theory with very substantial support.
• Some people want to define "fact" as being something so well supported by evidence that it would be perverse to not offer provisional assent. Some even have tried to call this definition the definition of a "scientific fact", but I believe they are in the minority. However, the statement is a fact in this sense as well.
• In the layperson sense of the word "fact" it might be viewed as approaching a fact, or even a fact, since it is fairly certain.
• However, it is not "truth", since like all data, it has error bars on it. *However, it is not "truth" or absolutely certain or correct. It is subject to change, as are all:
  • summary statements of observations
  • theories
  • hypotheses
  • predictions

based on changing data and measurements are. This statement is not static, the way truth is, or a correct statement is. It has changed drastically and might very well change again. In this sense, it is not a fact as many would understand it. It is good that you have looked into the literature a little. It is clear that there is some confusing statements on this topic, which is why it needs to be carefully addressed here. The basic question is, what is the purpose of writing on this topic or discussions? Do biologists need to know if evolution is a theory or a fact? Are there learned research articles on the topic? I think that the clear answer is that these articles are meant for consumption by the public and nonspecialists. The only scholarly interest in this topic is by philosphers of science, or by scientists appealing to the public to protect their discipline. For public consumption, or for arguing against the creationists, just claiming "I have overwhelming evidence behind my statements about evolution so I will call it a fact even though it is really a theory" is just confusing. Everyone knows it is called the Theory of Evolution. It is a theory. Trying to win the argument by claiming "wait no it is really a fact now" is not particularly helpful. It has not helped for decades and decades. If it was useful to argue this way do you think that we would have even seen the Dover school board court case? It and several others are completely based on a misunderstanding of fact and theory in evolution by the creationists and the public, and by what appears to be a confusing obfuscation by evolution scientists on the other hand.--Filll 14:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This article contains a false argument. A fact is an observation. Evolution is a fact. Therefore evolution is an observation. Evolution is not an observation but a hypothesis highly substantiated by many observations. This is critically different. The confusion originally caused by Gould remains in this article. Please admit it. — Axel147 15:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I will admit nothing of the sort. As I said before, this has to be resolved by scholarship:

• A "fact" in science, sometimes called a "scientific fact" is an observation or set of observations that agree. They usually have error bars.
• There are two things called evolution here; (a) the process of evolution and (b) the theory of evolution.
• The process of evolution (choice a) has been observed, so the process of evolution is a fact in this sense. Definitely. Not question about it. Even creationists admit this.
• The second thing called evolution, (b), the theory of evolution has a lot of documentary support behind it. So much that this theory approaches a fact in the sense of something that it would be perverse not to give provisional assent to.
• The confusion about these issues is not just in Gould but throughout the field and the literature (some due to Gould himself). So it would be a service to shine a light on it and clean it up.--Filll 15:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What you call a) is normally expressed as the claim "we have evolved from common ancestors". This is not directly observed. (We are not currectly debating b) which includes natural selection etc.) I maintain the word "fact" when used in the context of discussing evolution is nearly always used in the sense of "overwhelmingly supported by evidence" rather than "a piece of data from an experiment". This is true of scientists and laypeole alike. Since you question my link, why don't you provide a better one in support of your position. — Axel147 15:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have stated this before in our discussions but maybe you missed it. We have direct observations of evolution. We have seen evolution in the laboratory of (a) in fruit flies. We have field observations of (a) in tilipia and the nylon eating bacteria etc. I have included one or two references in my article on this but I will probably include more. We even have observed speciation in the laboratory apparently. I am tracking down references on that. So even in the case of "macroevolution" we have direct observations, not just microevolution apparently. The overall theory and its predictions that mankind's ancestors are the same as primates, and other lower life forms are what is disputed by creationists. However, this theory has overwhelming support from evidence, so it is highly likely to be true, or at least it would be "perverse to withhold provisional assent". It would also be "perverse to withhold provisional assent" of observed processes, which few if any educated creationists do. That is why they will often agree that microevolution happens and dismiss macroevolution. And scientists can use the word "fact" in several contexts, but the most prominent formal usage of the word "fact" is as "datum or observation". I will provide my full argument in due time. As I said before, this will only be resolved through scholarship. --Filll 15:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not deny there are direct observations (i.e. experimental data) that show evolution in action. What I said is that the specific claim, generally meant in this context, that "we have evolved from common ancestors" cannot be directly observed. It is a fact by virtue of being a hypothesis overwhelming supported by evidence. — Axel147 15:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that the prediction/hypothesis/theory that "we have evolved from common ancestors" cannot, and will not be directly observed, and never has been observed. However, it is a very heavily supported hypothesis/prediction/theory. It is so well-supported that many would consider it to approach a fact, in the sense of something to which it would be "perverse not to give provisional assent".--Filll 15:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Good. But is there a way of saying something like this in the article without confusing the average reader? — Axel147 15:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I never said that one should not say this. I just would argue that you should not say that alone. For several reasons:

• it divorces evolution from the rest of science and its usage of terms
• it does not help in reading and understanding Gould and others on evolution, and parsing ALL their statements
• it is not as powerful as it could be, because you are ignoring the fact that the process of evolution has been observed:
  • directly in the lab
  • slightly less directly in the field over the last few decades
  • still less directly in the "record in the rocks", in fossils

Many people know that evolution has been observed. Many do not know, however. This should be stated as clearly as possible to dispell the claim that "evolution has never been observed". And if speciation has been observed, this should be stated as clearly as possible as well to puncture the claim that "yes we believe in microevolution but only within 'kinds' i.e. species. New species are not possible"

• it does not take advantage of the opportunity to distinguish clearly between the "process of evolution" and the "theory of evolution" which is a source of confusion over and over
• the weaker argument ignoring the compelling direct observational evidence has been attempted for well over 100 years. It has failed. Miserably. Over 80% of the US public do not believe in evolution. Been there, done that. It did not work.
• It does not clearly address the confusion about the term "theory of evolution" which has been used over and over, including in recent court and school board battles.--Filll 16:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

And I never said we should not emphasize the fact that "evolution can be observed directly in the lab". I agree this should be emphasized, but some creationists would accept this. What they find contentious are claims such as "man and monkey have common ancestors". We have to give such a hypothesis proper consideration. Consider these...

1. Man and monkey have common ancestors
2. Dinosaurs once roamed the planet
3. The Earth is hotter at its core than on its surface
4. The African and South American continents were once locked together in a supercontinent

All facts. To suggest any of these is not a fact because they cannot be directly observed is intellectually dishonest. It is not true to the way the word fact is used generally in science and more relevantly not true to the way it is used in this particular debate.

The irony here is that as far as creationists and evolutionists are concerned there is no debate about the meaning of the word fact. When an evolutionist says "man and monkey have common ancestors" they mean it is a near certainty highly substantiated with evidence. When a creationist contests this he is disputing that the claim is a near certainty. — Axel147 22:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said, some know about the direct observations of evolution, and some do not. Nevertheless, they should be mentioned for the benefit of those who do not know and might be swayed by it (many would reject just about anything, even with evidence supporting it). Most find the "common ancestor" type statements distasteful, particularly when Man is involved.

All four of the examples you quote are not "facts" in the scientific sense, but theories or predictions of theories based on data. All are subject to change as more data and better models become available, as similar statements and the precursors of these statements all have in the past, which is not really what the public means by the word "fact". All I would put in the "perverse not to subscribe to" category since these theories or the theories these predictions are based on explain a lot of data. The only thing one can do in this section is carefully document the linguistic confusion and misconceptions. One will not be able to address in this section whether man and monkey have a common ancestor or not. That is for another section.--Filll 23:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally understand what you're saying. As my last word on this I will quote Douglas Futuyma and ask respectfully that the article is careful to accommodate this view. — Axel147 14:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Any statement in science, then, should be understood as a HYPOTHESIS—a statement of what might be true. Some hypotheses are poorly supported. Others, such as the hypothesis that the earth revolves around the sun, or that DNA is the genetic material, are so well supported that we consider them to be facts. It is a mistake to think of a fact as something that we absolutely know, with complete certainty, to be true, for we do not know this of anything. Futuyma - Evolution Fact and Theory.

I agree mostly with that. Even if you have data, you have error bars on that data. To interpret the data (so it is evidence of what you think it is, or a measurement of what you think), you are relying on a model of the world that might later turn out to be incorrect, so you are not totally sure about data either. The only thing I would want to claim is a little more certain than other things in science (hypotheses, facts, theories, predictions, etc) is from those areas in science that overlap with mathematics and logic. I think we might be in a bad way if our mathematical proofs and logical proofs are uncertain. If tomorrow the rules of mathematics and logic failed or changed, then I have my doubts that life in our universe would continue, since lots of things that life depends on would stop working, the universe being very carefully balanced. Now of course one could claim "all those proofs depend on the assumption of axioms" and that is true. However, once the axioms are agreed upon, then one can proceed to execute the proof. If that chain of logic that leads to the proof fails tomorrow, then probably life wil cease. If we are being fooled somehow and what we think is logical is not really, then it is hard to imagine that mathematics would be so "unreasonably successfull" at being able to model the universe (see The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences). But of course, humans are mere mortals.--Filll 14:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well we seem to more or less agree. Futuyma says 'data in themselves tell us nothing: they have to be interpreted in the light of theory and prior knowledge' whereas 'a fact is a hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true' . He goes on to say 'in light of the preceding discussion, evolution is a scientific fact' . He is clearly arguing that evolution is a fact because it is a highly supported hypothesis rather than a piece of data . I think we are in agreement but the reason I keep going is that the Evolution as theory and fact article (which includes an expanded section on this) is not consistent with Futuyma and apparently contains a distorted version of the Gould argument. Specifically it says:

• "Fact is a piece of data" which is not the way Futuyama uses fact
• "Theories in science are different from facts" which is misleading as according to Futuyama they are both hypotheses

Would you like to update the article to reflect some of this? — Axel147 15:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am working on a new version that is far more heavily documented with references and citations and far more clear. I will let you know in a day or two when it is ready.--Filll 15:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Religiously conservative - semantics

The label "Religiously conservative" is used, particularly in the US, to describe a particular way of viewing religion, tending toward a literal interpretation of the bible.

Elsewhere, "Religiously conservative" would mean belonging to a long-standing religious organisation, most likely Eastern Orthodox, RC or Anglican, with an emphasis on tradition.

To avoid confusion, I have replaced the term "religiously conservative" with "literal". Trishm 01:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is very reasonable.--Filll 15:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

intro

"The main opposing positions are held by those who hold religious origin beliefs and those who support naturalistic or scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology. "

We really need to cut to the chase in the intro. This is the only description of the positions in the first paragraph, and it just sounds like religion vs. science. This is simply not true. The predominant religious position is compatible with evolution, and indeed the Archbishop of Canterbury says is most clearly when he describes the controversy as a "category mistake" - that creation as taught in the bible is not, and never should be compared to, a scientific theory. The predominant scientific position is that creationism addresses issues (supernatural events) that are simply not addressed by science.

As I see it, the position of the scientific community is that creationism is not science, and should not be taught in schools as science. The position of the creationists is that creationism and evolution are incompatible, and that creationism should be given at least equal weight in school science classes with evolution.

[1]

Trishm 03:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have seen several quotes from experts of various sorts who claim that the creation-evolution controversy is not really a controversy between creationism and evolution, or between religion and science, but instead between those with moderate religious views and those with literalist religious views. Really a dispute WITHIN religion, and having nothing to do with science at all. This does have quite a bit of merit, in my mind. In the US in particular, the creationist position gets a lot of other issues shoved under its rubric:

• cosmology and abiogenesis and many other fields are defined as creationism
• evolution is defined as atheism
• evolution is defined as materialism
• evolution is defined as humanism
• evolution is defined as secularism
• evolution is claimed to be responsible for
  • the breakdown of family
  • illiteracy
  • racism
  • Stalin
  • Hitler
  • the holocaust
  • Mao
  • communism
  • divorce
  • unwed mothers
  • teenage pregnancy
  • drug abuse
  • smoking
  • alcohol usage
  • riots
  • wars
  • handgun crime
  • reluctance to impose the death penalty
  • liberalism (a dirty word in the US)
  • welfare cheats
  • illegal immigration
  • adultery

and so on and so forth. Things get very confused very quickly, and someone who is trying to argue for evolution soon is found in a terrible morass where evolution is blamed for all of the ills for society.--Filll 15:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC) I imagine the Archbishop of Canterbury would qualify as one of those experts. With all the confusion being created, it is all the more important to get this article focused on the specific conflicts, rather than get bogged in the mud-slinging.

I notice that there are two large boxes about creationism are really prominent. Isn't this a bit unbalanced?Trishm 03:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Fear not: I and my collaborators are working on our own suite of articles and we will have our own big box. Although I do admit that two boxes for creationism and none for evolution or the evolution side of the argument is a bit much (the evolution box is really about the science, not this controversy nonsense).--Filll 16:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Section on Common venues for debate

In the hopes of avoiding a 3RR revert war between me and User:ScienceApologist on what appears to be a very minor point regarding a POV issue. Since we are both on the same side of the whole controversy, I think we need to come to some consensus, so we can get rid of the small POV tag, which upsets the balance of the universe, or at least this section of the article. As part of the "'venues'" for this debate, I contend that we should include that the creationists claim 9 articles that they consider peer-reviewed [[2]]. I had added this part to the section, just to be balanced. In reality these 9 articles don't support their cause very much--most of them do not mention design or creation, several of the authors support a natural law to evolution, and all of them discuss minor adjustments to the evolutionary process rather than explicitly mentioning or supporting a Creation myth. I could add that, "the entire history of purported creation supporting peer-reviewed articles would be overwhelmed by the number of peer-reviewed articles supporting evolution published in one week." [[3]] I think it would be an appropriate level of NPOV to show that part of the battle was fought in the realm of real science, and the creation mythmakers were soundly defeated to the point where they gave up. Orangemarlin 16:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that the creationists in question are the DI claiming that peer reviewed articles support ID: where dates are obvious, they predate the Kitzmiller trial where the defense team were unable to provide any such properly peer reviewed articles – in other words the DI claims proved false. Of course they've not given up: as the New Scientist article showed, they have a secret research program that may find some amazing proof. God willing. .. dave souza, talk 23:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit unsure about the external links section

For example, why is criticisms of christianity there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filll (talk • contribs) 05:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Who knows? Deleting it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Series on ???

Part of the Biology series on

Evolution

Research and history

Evidence History Modern synthesis Social effect / Controversy

Biology Portal ·

As far as I know, for a page to have the series template it should be included in the list of links on the template itself. The "intelligent design" series was removed because of this reason and evolution also fails to be included in the series of links. I believe this is fairly related and might be included in the "Research and history" section below or along side "Social effect". An example of the change is on the right. Can we have some consensus on this? Pbarnes 18:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm you giving me an idea, which perhaps is what you are up to already. So is the goal to have one general template as your example at right shows, and then when you click on that appropriate category, you are sent to the main article in that category, which its own template covering the category, plus of course the general template for the entire field. So for example, I could click on contoversy and be sent to the controversy page which would have its own template covering the controversy. Then as I drilled down, I could focus on the ID part of the controversy, which has its own template. I could focus on the creationism or creation science parts of the controversy, which might share a template or have their own. I could head off to the Islamic creationism controversy, which might eventually be big enough to have its own template. Even the Hindu creationism controversy might eventually be big enough to have its own template. So I guess I am asking, are you envisioning having a multiple layered set of templates, and on each page with a template, they would have a general one, and a more specific one for neighboring articles? --Filll 18:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really, but if you want to work on that go ahead. In the mean time, I'm going to add the controversy link to the evolution series template. If someone objects please comment here. Pbarnes 07:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Evolution established theory?

Evolution is a theory with an overwhelming preponderence of evidence supporting it. It has long ago passed from the realm of hypothesis to theory, to established theory.

I took this qoute from this discussion, and I have to ask why it is an established theory when it is not supported by other more solid laws. For example, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. These laws have never been observed to be broken in the natural world, and yet the Theory that is Evolution(molecules from a primordial soup developing into man and all other life after vast amounts of time) depends on the contravening of these observed and accepted laws. So I ask, why is the Theory of Evolution so widely accepted when it breaks such basic laws of biology? The "overwhelming preponderance of evidence" you speak of is entirely dependant on who is doing the interpretation of the evidence. In light of the contravening of laws required for Evolution to occur, evolutionary theory should honestly require some supernatural explanation, because that's what supernatural means:not within the laws of nature. Now, when you refer to evolution, what exactly do you mean when you say it has been unequivocally observed? I remember a failed rags to rats experiment. And then there's that one about the proteins being produced in like conditions. The second is more supportive of creationism/intelligent design though, because the guy had to tweak the experiment to make it produce anything. And it still produced more destructive elements than creative ones, so that the actual proteins would have been destroyed if left in the resultant environment. So, by observable evolution, what exactly do you mean? To which examples of more genetic information being added to an organism in the natural world do you refer? I know of none, but my knowledge is admittedly lacking. Still, I would've thought the evolutionistic scientific community would've made big headlines if they had actually seen something of the kind. But, if you're refering to things like the changes in moths to suit their environment, that's merely adaptation often mistakenly refered to as evolution. This is a common problem in this debate. In most cases, the changes we observe are actually a result of lost genetic information, and this is in keeping with the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Please be define your terms before you use them in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.126.178.85 (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Sorry to inform you, but almost everything you put in the above post is incorrect. Try to get your information from something besides a creationist website, a creationist tract, or the lecturing of some ignorant preacher. If you knew a little science, you would not bother with such tripe. Thank you for your kind attention.--Filll 06:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You can start your education with the Evolution page itself, and it's many daughter pages. On the evolution talk page you will find a guide to archived discussions on all the matters you have referred to - unfortunately you are far from original. If you do happen upon something new, please feel free to come back to discuss it. --Michael Johnson 06:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of any factual inaccuracies, note to the anon that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We are not here to debate the validity of a concept, idea, or theory, but merely to present the information that has been written about them by reliable sources. While I second calls that the anon should brush up on his or her understanding of evolution, the most important action he or she should take in this context is to become familiarized with the policies of Wikipedia.UberCryxic 23:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"Theory of evolution"

I changed a sentence in the article that called evolution a "theory." Unfortunately, this is a poorly understood point that has been unnecessarily inflamed by the wider political context. Evolution is not a theory; it is a natural process, like erosion. The sentence stated that Darwin had "introduced" the "theory" of evolution through natural selection, but Darwin did no such thing. Evolution had been proposed as early as the 18th century. What Darwin did is give it a powerful mechanism through which we could understand it (natural selection). Natural selection is the scientific theory, and can also be thought of as a natural process, not evolution. I have changed that sentence accordingly.UberCryxic 23:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite correct. In my next version of the Theory vs. Fact section and article, I will make that far more clear, hopefully.--Filll 00:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, noobie here, but how can you say that evolution is a natural process when you can't even observe it (even partially) in your own lifetime? Timlee90 06:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Evolution has been observed to occur quite extensively with various species, even macroevolution, to a certain extent. That's definitive evidence in its own right, but all it requires to show the truth of evolution is the ridiculously thorough fossil record.UberCryxic 06:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, as I'm browsing through the article, I'm noticing other silly mistakes like this. Gravity is, unfortunately, being called a "fact" by people who have little idea of what the term means. Gravitation is the fact. Gravity is the attractive force in Newtonian mechanics, but it is not useful in General Relativity, which by the way is the name of Einstein's theory, not "The Theory of Gravity" (excuse my language, but who the hell decided to call it that?) Gravity was an imagined force to make certain mechanical problems work out and "unify" the Universe, something for which many people cast numerous animadversions on Newton, but in our current conception, the effects of gravitation, understood as the curvature of spacetime via the stress-energy tensor, are what keep us on Earth, not "gravity." I'll try to make some changes along these lines.UberCryxic 00:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I might buy that, but I might not. Certainly in common usage by people in GR, they use them interchangably. However, that might be incorrect, if one checks the dictionary of course. And I have done a lot of work in differential geometry etc and I have never heard that distinction. --Filll 00:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you don't buy it now, I can prove that there is a distinction in the context of the article. One of the sentences in the Theory vs. Fact section said this: "Aristotle, Galileo, and Newton created explanations of the "fact" of gravity. These are now obsolete explanations." The reason why Newton's explanation is now obsolete is because it treated gravity as an attractive force, whereas Einstein was able to provide a more empirically compatible theory by treating gravitation as merely the curvature of spacetime by the stress-energy tensor. There are not forces in Einstein's theory, but fields, and you probably know this given your background. There is a difference there, and many physicists note it.UberCryxic 00:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To explain the difference for others who might not know what I'm talking about: imagine you're looking at the green on a golf course from straight up in the air. The golfer hits the ball and you, all the way up in the air looking down, see the ball curve to the right slightly. With obvious oversimplifications, Newton would say a force caused the ball to go to the right, but Einstein would say that the ball merely followed the geography of the terrain. Einstein's explanation is obviously correct. Newton's explanation, synonymous with gravity, is not. That's why we need to draw the distinction.UberCryxic 00:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I know. And I know the title of MTW's tome is "Gravitation". And here is a news article from physorg.com (admittedly not the best source): [4]. So physicists might be sloppy sometimes. We sure were and still are. Actually Einstein's would say the ball followed a geodesic path in curved space-time. And what would you call quantum gravity? And other more exotic theories? Theories of gravity or theories of gravitation?--Filll 00:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto on the sloppiness part. Physicists have been sloppy on this, but more importantly, they've been human, and most humans are not diehard linguists, so their mistake can be forgiven. I guess it doesn't really matter, but for the sake of encyclopedic precision, I really think we should draw this distinction. To your last question: theory of gravitation. Again, to me the term "gravity" only has meaning in the context of Newtonian mechanics. After 1915, I'll sleep on it.UberCryxic 00:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I am going to dig a bit deeper into dictionaries etc if need be, but we need parallel wording for this to work. If I cannot use gravity, I will use something else, like caloric theory, phlogisten theory, kinetic theory etc. Unfortunately that is less well known to the general public.--Filll 00:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The easiest thing to do, if you don't want to use gravitation, is just to find another natural process. Like....refraction is a fact. Mention how optics explains it, and so on.UberCryxic 00:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I am weaker on the history of optics than I should be. But yes something like that. But I have to investigate your claims about gravity/gravitation before I throw in the towel on it.--Filll 01:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well all-right, but this isn't a big deal, and I apologize if I made it out to seem that way. You can change it back "gravity" if you want; I'm not going to revert or anything.UberCryxic 02:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me research the issue carefully. I will get back to you with what I find.--Filll 02:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Design/Creationism in the UK

Though this is a just a small issue of language, I still think that it is important that I point out that I feel that the beginning of this article is misleading with respect to the scale of the creation-evolution controversy in the UK. The claim that the dispute is present in the UK to a lesser extent than it is in the US implies that the scale of the dispute in these countries is at least remotely comparable. To my knowledge there has been only one incident in the UK that can qualify as a creation/ID - evolution dispute, as reported by the bbc here and here. With the exception of this incident and a few lone voices in the jewish and muslim communities, evolution by natural selection is effectivly undisputed and is uncontroversial in the UK; it is even officially accepted by the church. While personally I don't think that the UK's minimal participation in the controversy is sufficient to merit a mention on wikipedia, I would find "and to a significantly lesser extent in the UK" to be a more acceptable and a more accurate restatement. Heihachi 04:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is misleading and have removed the phrase from the intro. The UK example mentioned in the article itself needs more citation, but that's another debate. If anyone wants to restore what I cut, please provide a good source. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 04:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I do not have solid data yet, my impression is that there are far many more creationists in Australia than in the UK. And in nonChristian countries, there are varieties of creationism that might not be strictly analagous, but have many of the same features.--Filll 13:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Speculation and anecdotal evidence are fine, but they can be quite misleading. This article may be interesting on the issue of Australia. If you can find a credible source for any information, that's what we need. Xiner (talk, email) 14:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Creationism is not the issue in Australia that it is in the USA. One reason is that the education system is very different. State schools are very centralised, giving little opportunity to local communities to influence them, while the State also supports private schools, allowing Christian fundalmentalists and Islamists to start their own schools where their POV can be reflected. Australia is also not a very religious country. A politition who proclaimed their religion in the way that is done in the US would be regarded as absurb. Only about 7% of the population are church goers, and a recent (very popular) Prime Minister was an athiest. And the body politic is quite secular. For instance measures banning both an abortion pill and stem cell research were recently overturned in Federal parliament, despite the opposition of both the Health minister and the Prime Minister. Creationism is seen as a religious belief rather than a contender for scientific respectability. The only thing is that there has been a growth in fundalmentalist churches in recent years, and they have become more visible. --Michael Johnson 00:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The US has always been sympthetic to religious kooks. It was originally settled by people thrown out of Europe for being so obnoxious about their religions that no one else could tolerate them. And it has generated a wide variety of its own religious nuts. So this is just par for the course.--Filll 00:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey hey hey, us "religious kooks" have to stick together, how do you think we even organize all these boycotts and protests and things? It's not exactly a spur of the moment sort of deal, this stuff takes planning and communication. Homestarmy 00:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes look at my favorites at the moment: [5] It takes a lot of coordination for them to get together to dishonor fallen soldiers, and to mock the victims of 9/11 and to make a spectacle out of mining disasters and funeral services and the Holocaust etc. Good upstanding Christians. --Filll 01:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Pfft, that's not planning, that's just driving somewhere and waving some signs and being as obnoxious and anti-Christian as you possibly can while still barely pretending to be Christian. Discovery Institutes don't build themselves you know, and evangelists don't travel to africa by just clicking their red heeled shoes together. Homestarmy 01:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You do realize, when we read this stuff, it's scary to us. They are more noisy and obnoxious than you are, but we don't hear the rational discussions of people like you. I don't agree with what you say, but at least I don't think I need to lock my door, buy a shotgun, and worry that these nuts will burn me at the stake. I just thought Christianity had something to do with love. Orangemarlin 15:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if you looked into WBC you would see there is a lot more to it than just driving places to wave signs around. But I will grant you that all those activities take a lot of effort and planning.--Filll 01:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, guys, you're going off-topic here. You don't want me to wave the Delete wand again, do you? Xiner (talk, email) 01:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. We need to bolster the foreign creationism sections substantially, I would suggest.--Filll 01:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Cut section

Does this section actually have anything in it worth keeping? It all seems to be covered in "Accusations of bias", in a more NPOV way. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Religion as science

Most creationists involved in the controversy posit that they have alternatives to mainstream science in the form of creation science or intelligent design. They argue that science needs a paradigm shift and that a scientific revolution needs to occur in order to remove what they perceive as anti-religious bias from science. This conflation of religious and scientific ideas has come to define the controversy separately from either theological or scientific discourse.

This by itself is not particularly useful, in my opinion. It is more like the introductory paragraph of a longer article. Silence is working on a rough draft of what might turn into Objections to evolution that includes a longer section on this at User:Silence/Evolution. Orangemarlin and I are also working on a rough draft that might turn into an article like Obections to evolution or be merged with Silence's effort, and the writing Orangemarlin and I have on the subject is also much longer. In both the Orangemarlin-fill draft and the Silence draft, this section is longer with more details, references, cites, sources, etc. Also another draft that might turn into an Evolution as religion article (or something similar) is at Talk:Evolution/evolutionreligiondraft. Orangemarlin and I again have mainly worked on this, but with community input. So it is not that there are not people interested in fleshing this argument out considerably. At least I, Silence and Orangemarlin are. So we have some options:

• add a reference or two to this situation and wait until a longer subarticle or two on this subject is available to link to
• remove this section until an Objections to evolution article exists with a subsection on this area, and a link to a longer article on the topic
• leave the subsection as it is, knowing it is not incorrect, just uncited and not fleshed out, but that this area will be fleshed out eventually.
• maybe another option.

Comments?--Filll 14:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's covering almost the same material as the "Accusations of bias" section elsewhere in the article - even links to it. How about a merge of what little new material is in it into that, where it'd be balanced? Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Harvard Referencing

I've made a start at converting some of the citations to harvard style referencing. In one case, I added a sentence after quickly reading the article. I hope it is justified, but if not, please undo the sentence. However, please keep the harvard style referencing. And please feel free to convert any citations to the harvard format. Please see Wikipedia:Harvard_referencing and Template:Harvard citation and Wikipedia:Harvard citation template examples. StudyAndBeWise 06:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Widely quoted Newsweek article

While updating the citations and references, I came accross this:

'As reported in Newsweek magazine, 29 June 1987, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."'

This is widely quoted, but as far as I can tell, only in the context of evolution/creationism tensions. Worse, nobody that I can find has a good reference (e.g., article title, author, etc.) Could somebody please verify that this is the correct Newsweek issue, and provide details necessary for a proper citation (e.g., author, article title, issue, volume, etc.) Without this, we have no way of knowing if this was a letter to an editor, or something Newsweek will stand behind. Considering the high tensions in this subject, we don't even know if the quote was there. Providing other information usually associated with a quotation from a weekly news magazine will make the quote more believable. As it is now, it could just be an original mis-characterization of the article widely repeated.

So if you have access to a large library that has this stuff archived somehow, could you please provide details. (Or maybe you even have the issue in question). You can either update the reference, or provide the information here, and I will do it for you. Thanks StudyAndBeWise 17:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this fully. I as well have felt very uneasy with this quote. I might ask around and I suggest others do the same as well. Thanks.--Filll 19:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks filll. I just removed the citation because it is unnecessary. There are five other references combined in one citation to justify the sentence. Meanwhile, the point made in the citation might be useful in other places in the article, especially if we can get more detail for a harvard reference. [6]

StudyAndBeWise 04:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have now gone to a library and looked at the physical copy of the article from 1987. Here is what it says:

As reported in Newsweek magazine, 29 June 1987, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'." (Keeping God out of the Classroom, Larry Martz with Ann McDaniel, in Washington and bureau reports, Volume CIX, No. 26, June 29, 1987, ISSN 0028-9604 Newsweek Inc., NY, NY,p. 23-24).

It does not mention the source of the data, the 700 or 480,000. However, I believe that McDaniel and Martz still work for Newsweek and we could contact them. Comments?--Filll 01:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Great job. Newsweek is a reliable source, and providing the citation is sufficient. Leave it to something other than wikipedia to show that the data is not correct, as that would be original research. Contacting authors to verify their data in the absense of other articles disputing the data is not necessary in my opinion. I'll go create a harvard reference with what you provided. StudyAndBeWise 03:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: Not only did I get the authors and title and volume and so on, but the actual quote itself is wrong. So you should correct it. I do not know how to do it I am afraid.--Filll 05:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, sorry, I missed that. Thanks for proofreading. I'll go fix it. StudyAndBeWise 07:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

When I looked at the original source (which has spread to hundreds or thousands of places on the internet) at religioustolerance.org [7] I see that they not only had an incomplete reference, but they misquoted the reference as well. And everyone and his brother picked it up and repeated it, including Wikipedia (probably in several articles).--Filll 07:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed citation to National Association of Biology Teachers Statement on Teaching Evolution

I removed the following reference because it is not available. I assume this is termporary so I am noting it in the discussion. http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp

Here is the diff in case anybody finds the position statement and wants to add it back: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation-evolution_controversy&diff=100783589&oldid=100782893

National Association of Biology Teachers Statement on Teaching Evolution

StudyAndBeWise 02:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Rough draft of article on creationist organization

Please look at it and give me your comments: User talk:Filll/AllAboutGod--Filll 02:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Creationists, Creationism, Scientists, Sciencism, Darwinists, Darwinism, Evolutionists, Evolutionism

I've been reading this article a lot while fixing references. While reading it, I noticed that Darwinism is considered a pejorative term (or it is claimed in the article that this is the intention.) This is probably true depending on who is using the term and why.

Anyway, it strikes me that the term creationists sometimes sounds as though it is meant as a pejorative term as well.

I think the term is probably correct, but its the context that matters. I will probably be thinking of ways to address this without simply replacing every instance of "creationists" with "those who believe in Biblical creation," which, aside from being verbose, excludes other possible creationists who do not garner their views from the Bible (e.g., other religions).

StudyAndBeWise 06:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, I am finding a lot of uses of the terms evolutionism, Darwinism, Darwinists, etc., in non-creationist (or at least closet-creationist) literature. For example, Ruse:1999 uses the term evolutionism in his chapter on Charles Darwin. I don't think these terms should be removed or edited unless they prejudice, unless of course the logical fallacy/ad hominem is the subject. Likewise, the over-use of creationist and creationism should be carefully watched (and I think I am also guilty of over-using these terms) so as to not make the article appear to be taking sides--the article is about the controversy, (largely philosophical even if it is portrayed as science v. science or religion v. science as it suits the participants), and not an opportunity to show which side is right, correct? That is not to say that wins or looses in the battle are not fair game (e.g., Supreme Court decisions that creationist movements to teach the controversy in public schools are thinly veiled attempts at teaching Religion in the science class are in fact very pertinent to the article).

This is difficult, because the terms suffixed with -isms and -ists carry connotations, and even when they are not used pejoritively, they might appear to some to retain denigrating connotations, especially, for example, to a biologist who reads the term "Darwinism", or to a scientist who happens to be religious but objects to the term "creationist" simply because he or she doubts some aspect of evolutionary science.

StudyAndBeWise 17:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the terms were common in the Victorian period: Evolutionist, Darwinism, etc. So a historian writing about that period might well use those terms. It's not appropriate when talking about modern scientists, though. However, creationist and creationism are generally used by supporters and detractors alike, and, as such, is perfectly fine. The main book that started the modern movement off was Morris' "Scientific Creationism", after all.

In short: avoid terms only used by the other side, but this doesn't apply to the self-selected terms "Creationist" and "Creationism". Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The term "creationist" first came into vogue after Harold W. Clark's book Back to Creationism in 1929. They choose the name for themselves, and continue to use it. Darwinist and Darwinism and scientism are either archaic words, or are used by creationists to refer to evolutionary biologists and other supporters of evolutionary theory. However, they make me cringe when I read them a bit, since scientists do not use them to refer to themselves, or at least they do not any longer. I have also seen some moves to push the words "Christianists" in analogy with "Islamists" and to reclaim the word "Christian. We will see if it catches on.--Filll 21:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye regarding the point that the terms may only being appropriate while discussing victorian era Darwinists. As an interesting aside, I have heard American Muslims (African American) use the term European in an obviously perjoritive manner, almost mis-pronouncing it Euro-peon, placing the emphasis on yúr-ə-pē-'än instead of the more common yúr-ə-'pē-ən. But we still use the term Europeon, as this pejorative usage is largely in speech only, and in certain contexts, in my experience. I did just check and found a reference to Darwinist education in modern times. I agree that scientists may not be using such terms anymore, but others are, and not all of the others are creationists with an axe to grind. Also, I just checked my Merriam-websters 11th Collegiate dictionary, and neither Darwinist, Darwinism, evolutionism, or evolutionist are listed as archaic, or even "usually offensive" as other offensive terms are, e.g., certain racial terms. At most, I think you can say that in some contexts most scientist find the terms offensive, but in other contexts, the terms continue to be used. I'll take a look at the OED soemtimes, I guess. A reputable reference on the matter would warrant inclusion in the article.

StudyAndBeWise 23:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Pharyngula (blog) by PZ Meyers work?

Using the word "Darwinist" puts you in the creationist camp and demonstrates that you haven't been paying attention to what the scientists actually say.

Adam Cuerden talk 00:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not yet determined if Darwinism or evolutionism is only used in the context of the Victorian era, though it does sound plausible. A blog by a person involved in the controversy complaining about a term is not that convincing. A reference from a linguist would be better. Meanwhile, I think if the Victorian era observation is correct, it should be mentioned in the article.

Thanks for the refrence. It doesn't sound correct, though. For example, some conservatives have used the term liberal to connote "something or somebody who is bad", but that does not remove the legitimacy of using the term liberal to describe a liberal. Context is key.

But of course words change meanings, and the liberals of yesterday might be the conservatives of tomorrow. I'll keep looking. A mainstream dictionary that lables any of these terms as "usually offensive" or "sometimes offensive" would be authoritative. For reference, I will provide the full usage of some words from my dictionary (The only "usually offensive" and "sometimes offensive" terms I have found are racial, so maybe this criteria is not valid.):

Main Entry:Darwinism Function:noun Date:1864

1 : a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors — compare EVOLUTION 4, NEO-DARWINISM 2 : a theory that inherent dynamic forces allow only the fittest persons or organizations to prosper in a competitive environment or situation *economic Darwinism* — compare SOCIAL DARWINISM

 –Dar£win£ist \-w*-nist\  noun or adjective  

Main Entry:evolution Etymology:Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere Date:1622

1 : one of a set of prescribed movements 2 a : a process of change in a certain direction  : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off  : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state  : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved 3 : the process of working out or developing 4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species)  : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also  : the process described by this theory 5 : the extraction of a mathematical root 6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

 –evo£lu£tion£ari£ly \-sh*-*ner-*-l*\  adverb  
 –evo£lu£tion£ary \-sh*-*ner-*\  adjective  
 –evo£lu£tion£ism \-sh*-*ni-z*m\  noun  
 –evo£lu£tion£ist \-sh(*-)nist\  noun or adjective  

Main Entry:colored Function:adjective Date:14th century

1 : having color 2 a : COLORFUL b : marked by exaggeration or bias 3 a sometimes offensive  : of a race other than the white; especially  : BLACK 2b b sometimes offensive  : of mixed race 4 sometimes offensive  : of or relating to persons of races other than the white or of mixed race

Main Entry:hebe Function:noun Usage:often capitalized Etymology:short for Hebrew Date:1926

usually offensive   : JEW

StudyAndBeWise 06:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Since it has an accepted usage when referring to the Victorian time period, dictionaries aren't going to mention it as offensive. However, you're missing the key distinction: Liberals refer to themselves as liberal. Creationists refer to themselves as creationists. Believers in evolution do *not* refer to themselves as Darwinists, do not refer to evolutionism or Darwinism, nor do they normally call themselves evolutionists. I don't even think "Sciencism" is in the dictionary. Seriously, you're setting the bar ridiculously high - asking a *linguist* to have commented on the issue? Even if they did, what's the chance that we'd find it? Do a search for "Darwinist", "Evolutionism" and such on Google. Note the viewpoints of the sites you come up with. See also I always know I'm dealing with a creationist when he refers to "Darwinism" when expressing "skepticism" about evolution. (It's as if the scientific discoveries of the last 140 years supporting the theory of evolution never happened; here's a hint, dude: It ain't 1859 anymore.) And, indeed I am. Note that ScienceBlogs has been accepted by Wikipedia for use as evidence. (c.f. Talk:Jonathan Sarfati). Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll keep an eye out for a commentary or study by a disinterested person or persons. I think it might be easier than it would first appear, since the use of language in controversial debates or for propaganda purposes is a subject of interest to linguists, philosophers, and other disinterested parties.

Meanwhile, don't assume that I am disagreeing with you, I am just trying to reason it out in my own head, and also taking the comments of interested parties (PZ Meyers) with a grain of salt.

The contention that these terms are offensive or otherwise invalid in modern contexts is not without merit. But see my comments below on disinterested parties.

To a fault, perhaps, I would be more convinced in the argument if it wasn't being made by an active participant (PZ Meyers and other interested parties), but rather a disinterested party.

And to a fault, perhaps, I am leery of letting active participants in the controversy such as PZ Myers decide what language is illegitimate, especially since Darwinism is used, I believe, by the scientific community, at least in terms of Neo-Darwinism.

In other words, it is not the specific word that is the problem, but the context and intended connotation. I do not advocate parroting a creationist connotation of religion by using the term Darwinism, with an intentional or unintentional result that the Creationist definition of Darwinism as a religion is slipped in.

But if the context, e.g., a summary of a dis-interested party’s account of the controversy, is correct, I am not as reluctant to use the disinterested party’s own terms, at least in the context that the disinterested party used the term.

I think there is a danger in this article, ostensibly to objectively describe the controversy, in letting an interested camp in the controversy prescribe the language that may be used, unless their arguments have been "validated" by disinterested parties.

As a hypothetical example, using the term "colored" in most contexts to describe African Americans would be poor form in a wikipedia article on race relations, but using the term African Americans would not--even if some outspoken leaders in the Nation of Islam object to this term.

The point that no or very few scientists use these terms to describe themselves is interesting, but if disinterested parties are using such terms to distinguish and differentiate, and to the extent that these terms are useful for that purpose, and to the extent that the use of these terms is not intended to bias, I still have reservations about banning the use of such terms on wikipedia.

When the pope speaks about Biblical doctrine, I think he has credibility in his capacity as head of the Catholic church. But when the priest speaks to secular accounts of :Catholic church history, and bemoans terms used in such descriptions, I take it with a grain of salt. Likewise, when a pro-lifer speaks to the religious basis of his or her belief, I think it has credibility. But when a pro-lifer objects to the mainstream press' use of the term "pro-choice" as a euphemism that that takes sides in the debate, I take it with a grain of salt. Or when a pro-choicer attempts to describe the religious basis of a pro-lifers’ believe beliefs, it is likewise suspect.

For now, let's call a truce. Debating the issue is not going to bring us to a conclusion at this point. I will do some research over the coming weeks to see if and when such terms are inappropriate, and I am mildly optimistic that I might find something written by a disinterested party, since the PZ Meyers et al raise rationale points. I do not think my questions or logic should be the final authority, and if I find a reference that goes against using such terms in modern contexts, you can be assured that I will post it here for you to use. Meanwhile, the conversation is slowing down other progress on the article, progress that does not depend on the answer to this thread.

StudyAndBeWise 17:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me just check if i'm understanding the point first:

As I understand it, this is a debate about what terms to use to describe the groups in the article. There seems to be little problem with Creationist and creationism, so I see no reason not to use those freely. However, some of the other terms listed are largely found only on one side, and, in my opinion, all, except "scientist" and Darwinism/ist in the constructs "Social Darwinism/ist" and "Neo-Darwinism" should be avoided, except in cases such as direct quotes, and historical sections, as discussed above. There may be a few reasonable exceptions. (For instance, though I don't think we should include Julian Huxley (Undue Weight to a very minority view), I believe he used "sciencism" or something like it to describe a religion he proposed based on science.)

However, it's also possible you're discussing this in relation to whether we should include a mention the terms are "offensive" or "misleading" in the article. In which case I have no objection to leaving it out unless we have strong evidence.

P.S. See Evolutionism, but take that with a HUGE grain o' salt, as it looks to be in the Wikipedia deadlands. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Key Contention of Creationists

I think this needs to have a citation: "The key contention of creationists is that evolution is not sufficient to account for origins..."

In my reading, it seems that the key contention differs based on the creationist. For example, Hodge's key contention was that Darwinism was atheism. Modern day creationists may, it seems, if I understand their point, think that the key contention is that Darwinism is a religion, or that Evolution is used or abused in the Public schools to persuade students that there is no God.

Many problems exist with using the word "The key contention." Creationism is not a religion, as the article points out--it is a belief, largely a religious based belief. Many Christians don't believe in the Biblical creation account, for example. As such, I don't know if there is a special organization of creationists, who put out policy statements authoritatively speaking for all creationists.

In any event, the problem could be remedied simply by providing a reference to an analysis of creationism, and their key points. It would of course be best if this was done independently, e.g., not by a creationist, and not by a biologist. A social or political scientist cite would be most convincing, I think.

Or, if there is a single group that is most vocal, if they have a policy statement identify their key problem with evolution, that would probably suffice, assuming a cite from a social or political scientist is unavailable.

I'll keep my eyes open. Meanwhile, I am going to add a to the statement.

StudyAndBeWise 06:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Pending a citation, I just changed it from "The key contention" to "A key contention". StudyAndBeWise 05:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The reference that somebody provided, [8], is an example of a probable creationist (I did not investigate the reference author's background, but guess that he is a creationist) that is making the argument that evolutionists believe evolution explains the origin of common parents on Earth.

But I don't see how the citation justifies the statement: “The key contention of creationists is that evolution is not sufficient to account for origins….”

In fact, evolution explains the observed differences in life forms, not the source of life forums on Earth. That some, many, or most biological scientists have theories regarding primordial soup is irrelevant to the creation/evolution controversy, in the same way that some, many, or most creationists believe in rapture theory, or some, many, or most biologists believe alcohol is the result of a biological process (fermentation).

I understand that, per the reference provided, that at least one creationist (and probably more) argue that evolutionists believe that life sprang from non-life on Earth, and that the creationists equate this theory to evolution itself. But this is problematic on a few points.

First, I doubt relevant scientists equate the origins of the common parents with evolution. That is to say, observed evidence of evolution or the theories derived there from do not depend on the origins of the common antecessors. For example, if it was somehow determined by relevant scientists that life on Earth actually started when a comet brought biological life forms to Earth, it would not fundamentally change evolutionary observations or scientific theories about it, if it would change them at all. Evolution is orthogonal to the origin of the common ancestors. Please correct me if I am wrong in my understanding of evolution.

Consequently, if this is the key contention of evolutionists, they are easily dismissed with the response: Evolution does not explain the origin of the common parents, only the diversity of life forms. (Again, correct me if evolution attempts to explain more than the diversity of life forms.)

Meanwhile, I am going to re-read the citation provided, and see how, if, and/or where it should be included in the article. I am also going to try to reword (again) the statement to be consistent with the real evolution/creation debate, to focus it on the actual controversy. It seems reasonable that this is a contention of some creationists, but not “the key contention”.

StudyAndBeWise 04:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I reworked the paragraph in question to read:

"The key contention of creationists is that evolution is not sufficient to account for diversity of life. This view is overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community and academia, <rref>Myers 2006; NSTA 2003; IAP 2006; AAAS 2006; Pinholster 2006</rref> and how, as in the title of a famous essay by Theodosius Dobzhansky, Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.

Which I think is accurate, and fits nicely in the article. It does however shift the "key" creationist contention from evolution not being able to explain the origins of life (which, I think, it is not claimed to explain) to evolution not being able to explain the diversity of life (which is what evolution explains, at least as I understand it.) E.g., see my observation above regarding a comet bringing life to Earth. If this observation were ever established in mainstream science, it would not affect evolution, except, perhaps, raising the possibility that life may have had more than one origin (comet impact).

I fully admit that I could be wrong in this summary, and would appreciate correction.

StudyAndBeWise 04:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ernst Heinrich Haeckel (1834-1919): uncompromising evolutionist philosopher

Just want to provide context of the reference. Somebody asked for a reference to some material I gathered. It turns out to be on the same page as the previous sentence's reference. I did not originally duplicate the reference because it seemed to be too much, but I will duplicate it now in the article since a request for a reference was made.

The most uncompromising of the evolutionist philosophers was Ernst Heinrich Haeckel (1834-1919). Originally a physician, later a professor of biology, Haeckel was the first outstanding scientist on the Continent to subscribe wholeheartedly to Darwinism. At the age of sixty-five he summarized his conclusions in a book entitled The Riddle of the Universe. The philosophy of Haeckel comprised three main doctrines: atheism, materialism, and mechanism. He would have nothing to do with Huxley's agnosticism; on the contrary, he dogmatically affirmed that nothing spiritual exists. --- Burns, Ralph, Lerner, & Standish 1982, p. 965, Huxley 1902 [9]

In my summary, I softened with the words "Perhaps the most uncompromising" instead of Burns et al "The most uncompromising..."

I hope this helps clear things up.

StudyAndBeWise 04:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Edward J. Larson's Evolution

Edward J. Larson's book Evolution has an interesting account of the modern culture wars regarding Evolution in chapter 11. I am adding content based on his account, which seems to be perfect in that he does not seem to be either a creationist or an interested relevant scientist. He also seems fair in characterizing both sides of the debate, probably because he is a disinterested party. I will continue to add content, and urge others to read this Pulitzer prize winning author to help out...especially in summarizing without plagiarizing this account during this period.

StudyAndBeWise 06:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead, paragraph 2

I've cut this as it's wandered far from balance and coherence:

Creationists argue that both evolution and creation are beliefs that attempt to answer the philisophical question, "Where do we come from?" Biblical creationists and theistic evolutionists both find themselves making a case for Intelligent Design, their explanation of the source and workings of the complex world around them. Leaders of many mainline-denomination churches and the scientific community maintain that creationism is not science, and therefore has no place in a science class. The Archbishop of Canterbury, for instance, stated that public schools should not be teaching creationism in the science class.

I have no idea what "Biblical creationists and theistic evolutionists both find themselves making a case for Intelligent Design, their explanation of the source and workings of the complex world around them." is supposed to mean, but it's almost assuredly inappropriate without a really, really good cite, that can't vbe counteracted by several others. The first sentence is Kent Hovind's view, I believe, and needs a balancing refutation from the scientist side. "Leaders of many mainline-denomination churches and the scientific community maintain that creationism is not science, and therefore has no place in a science class. The Archbishop of Canterbury, for instance, stated that public schools should not be teaching creationism in the science class" Is just stating opinions, without any evidence or reasoning behind them, whereas every creationist claim is being given the full logical chains, except where a particularly bold claim is given with no evidence whatsoever. We can't do that. And it doesn't help this paragraph is incoherent. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The "argument from design" approach is used by some creationists, and not by others. It is more prominent in some creationist rants and less in others. I think they all probabl subscribe to it on some level, but how firmly they stress it is different. Intelligent design from the Discovery Institute is really a separate movement and there are some tensions between the ID/DI group and the regular creationists schools. I can imagine why, since the ID/DI group is far more sophisticated, and has real degrees and credentials instead of degrees from diploma mills. Also, a lot of the traditional "prayer meeting" arguments of creationists that have been in vogue for about 100 years or so are roundly rejected as nonsense by the ID/DI crowd, so I am sure that causes some hard feelings. I would be loathe to use the words intelligent design here since that has taken on a special meaning since the efforts of the DI. I would use something like teleological argument or something that is similar, without using intelligent design in this paragraph.--Filll 15:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

..Okay, I'm afraid I don't understand the explanation very well, either. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok let me try it again. I agree with you that the sentences you present are unclear. I also agree that the use of the phrase "intelligent design" in that paragraph is not the best, and possibly inaccurate or misleading or both.--Filll 21:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Have a bit o' flu which isn't helping =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Somebody please check citation

The article says: "Creationists tend to respond at length to such criticisms, sometimes to the point of responding line-by-line to anti-creationist articles, though it is disputed whether these succeed in addressing the issues." with a reference of <rref>Gura 2002, p. 177</rref> [10]

I quickly read this citation, but I did not see how it is a reference to the sentence. I very quickly read it. Would somebody please verify that this citation is appropriate for this sentence.

StudyAndBeWise 01:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see how the citation/reference relate to the article. Consequently, I removed it. I am putting notice here in case somebody wants to add it back, and/or explain how the citation justifies the sentence. Alternatively, a different reference may be found. Meanwhile, below is the reference for the citation, said citation not supporting the sentence. StudyAndBeWise 03:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Gura, Trisha (2002-09), "The Evolutionary War" (PDF), HHMI Bulletin, Howard Hughes Medical Institute: 24–27 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) Retrieved on 2007-01-20

"Kinds" and "baramin" are terms invented by creationists and derived from the book of Genesis

I have read the origin of species, and Darwin used the word Kinds many times in it. E.g.,

• The lake-inhabitants of Switzerland cultivated several kinds of wheat and barley, the pea, the poppy for oil and flax;
• I have discussed the probable origin of domestic pigeons at some, yet quite insufficient, length; because when I first kept pigeons and watched the several kinds, well knowing how truly they breed, I felt fully as much difficulty in believing that since they had been domesticated they had all proceeded from a common parent, as any naturalist could in coming to a similar conclusion in regard to the many species of finches, or other groups of birds, in nature. One circumstance has struck me much; namely, that nearly all the breeders of the various domestic animals and the cultivators of plants, with whom I have conversed, or whose treatises I have read, are firmly convinced that the several breeds to which each has attended, are descended from so many aboriginally distinct species.
• how much the fruit of the different kinds of gooseberries differ in size, colour, shape, and hairiness, and yet the flowers present very slight differences.

In any event, the article states:

"Kinds" and "baramin" are terms invented by creationists and derived from the book of Genesis.

In any event, the sentence needs clarification, in my opinion, because it does not at first blush seem true. (Of course, when Darwin used the words kinds, as in the above quotes, the word may have had a different meaning then when Creationists use it). Appreciate comments.

StudyAndBeWise 07:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Kinds is being used by Darwin as a synonym for "varieties" - the standard definition of the term, as found in dictionaries. Creationists are using it in quite a different way, to represent supposed original created species, which cannot ever transition into anything else dissimilar. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand. But the article claims that creationists invented these terms. Minor point, but I am striving for accuracy. Is this too pedantic? StudyAndBeWise 03:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I always thought that the Creationists have used "kinds" as a canard to obfuscate some of the verbiage in the Genesis Myth. When I read "kind" of plant or "kind" of animal, it's almost at the species level. I think that our friend Richard Dawkins agrees (I can't remember which book, but it could be Panda's Thumb) that humans can identify organisms at the species level and the writers of Genesis knew this. But the Creationists, to simplify items like the myth of Noah's Ark, have attempted to convince everyone that kinds really equals genus, so there are fewer organisms on the planet. Let's not go there would be my opinion. Orangemarlin 04:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. "Kind" as Darwin used it is standard vocabulary. "Kind" as used by these creationists is jargon, not standard vocabulary. When a computer repair technician speaks of "heads" and "platters", he is not attempting to calculate how much to cook for a dinner party; he is referring to internal parts of a hard drive. Cheers, Kasreyn 22:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, I think the full term, often shortened, is created kind

As that says, it comes from Genesis 1:12-24: "the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind..." erc. which, as Moore says, developed after the Reformation into a belief that every species had been directly created, and so to elaborate efforts in the early nineteenth century to explain both the number and distribution of different species – hence Charles Lyell's concept of "centres of creation". So creationists introduced a more pedantic or literal reading of the terms in the bible rather than inventing them. As Adam says, Darwin used kinds (and races) to denote varieties. .. dave souza, talk 09:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's remove Published books and other resources

The section is overkill. There are already numerous good references with citations in the article. If the books in the section "Published books and other resources" did not make it into the references, or were not specifically cited, why do we need it? It just adds length, and if it is not specifically cited, I say we kill the sub-section. Any other thoughts? I'll leave it in for now, but believe that if it was not specifically cited, it should go.

StudyAndBeWise 07:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think the article could use more disinterested accounts of the controversy, and less original research. Many of the citations are "see for example" which would be fine if we also had a citation to a disinterested reference making the same observation. By dis-interested, I mean historian, contemporary historian, social scientist, etc. Blogs or articles by creationists or scientists about what the other camp thinks are interesting, but should be taken with a grain of salt, and only used as an example in conjuction with a disinterested source as a reference. Is this niave? Seems that my this idea will lead to a more objective description of the controversy, though.

StudyAndBeWise 07:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that disinterested is what we want in an issue where alll the facts are in one camp. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I am certainly not averse to considering your proposal to shorten the links and books section at the end, I am not sure if we should just chop it. Maybe a reformatting. I personally have used this section a lot. If this page is to be a valuable resource about the controversy, it should include a reasonable sampling of the different views. And I agree with Adam; if we have a neutral discussion, to be honest, creationism will be buried since there are no facts on their side, just an ancient text that people claim is true by definition, by declaration, by fiat, by fatwah. So on one side you have people with a few clues and scientific observations, experimental results etc from 10 or 20 different fields. On the other side, you have a group fanatically dedicated to believe their personal version of what is written in some ancient holy texts. And who claim their translation of their subcollection of the holy texts is the right one, and all others are trash. The outside objective view will be very one-sided, I am afraid.--Filll 15:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

By disinterested, I mean relying on references written by people not in one camp or the other. I don't mean presenting the controversy in a way that makes one side look like it has more legitimacy than the other, especially if the disinterested parties are not coming to that conclusion.

While the apparent legitimacy of one camp over the other is important in this article, the article should, in my opinion, focus on describing the controversy, and not resolving it.

Besides, describing the controversy is achievable. Resolving it, I am confident, is impossible.

But again, if disinterested parties can be found, for example, to comment "Dr." Kent Hovind's infamous $250,000 offer for empirical scientific proof for evolution, for example, and this disinterested commentary comes to what I believe is a reasonable conclusion, namely, that the challenge is designed such that not only is it impossible to meet, but that its intent of the challenge is propaganda value after mis-representing the challenge--that does deserve mention in the article. However, the same exact conclusion reached by an interested party does not, in my opinion, carry as much weight, since, by assumption of the article, this is a controversial debate. Now, if no disinterested commentary can be found, but two or several commentaries can be found by interested parties on both sides of the debate coming to this conclusion, this is acceptable, but less preferable than disinterested parties. (E.g., a well-known creationist publicly cringing at the $250,000 challenge as counter productive, and a well-known evolutionist also pointing out the problems with the challenge.)

As another controversial example, I think an account of the pro-choice/pro-life debates written by somebody who is not an activist, or at list an interest participant in the debate, on either side, and written by somebody whose reputation as a disinterested party is more important to that person than either of the two positions, will likely produce a more objective description of the controversy, even if both sides of the debate disagree with parts of the presentation. (E.g., pro-lifers objecting to the disinterested party's use of the term pro-choice instead of pro-abortion, and pro-choicers objecting to the disinterested party's use of the term unborn child.)

A disinterested party will not, I am confident, be able to come to conclusions that both sides agree with, but for people wanting to learn more about the controversy, an account that relies heavily on disinterested parties will, I think, be more informative, appear more objective, and better meet the goals of wikipedia. E.g., if one were to compile 24 creationist articles, each one of which demonstrates to a reasonable person that the creationists goals are the promotion of religion and not the advancment of science, this borders original research. Yet, if you were able to find only one or two disinterested parties who have reached this conclusion, and perhaps a few cited examples, this is preferred by wikipedia standards--if I understand wikipedia.

I am not saying that we have to scrap specific examples by interested parties. Rather, I am saying that the article would be improved if it cited the conclusions of disinterested parties. (And, I think it does this too already.) But to the extent that this reliance on disinterested parties can be increased, I think it is a good goal. And I do not think it will result in undue weight. Plenty of disinterested parties reach similar conclusions as interested scientists. And, again, this is an article about the controversy, not an article to resolve the controversy. I assume disinterested readers will come to the right conclusion, and that interested readers have already come to their conclusions, right or wrong.

StudyAndBeWise 17:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

We can find quotes from creationists that do not like the 250,000 dollar challenge. But they are not disinterested. We can find quotes from evolution supporters that do not like the 250,000 dollar challenge. But they are not disinterested. I believe that there are legal authorities that do not like the 250,000 dollar challenge. But they are not disinterested. We can find religious authorities that do not like the 250,000 dollar challenge. But they are not disinterested. You will never find anyone that is disinterested. Nevertheless, it might be worthwhile in compiling a sampling of people that disagree with it.--Filll 17:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You will never find disinterested parties: The courts, the government, politicians, law enforcement, scientists, historians, religious groups, the public, parents, schools, other religions, atheists. Nobody. Name someone who is disinterested and neutral.--Filll 17:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have a point that there is no way to tell, short of being able to read a person's mind. If you can find quotes from parties on both sides of the controversy who agree that the $250,000 challange is invalid, this is good, as I have said. Especially if such tactics are widespread. I think it should go in the article. I also said (or meant) that having citations to both sides of the controversy is good, but not as good as disinterested parites reaching that conclusion. Just a precendence of believability or worthyness on my part.

1. Disinterested party or parties say X about controversy.
2. Many interested parties on both sides agree to a minority view X
3. Some interested parties on both sides agree to X
4. Interested party on one side says X about the other party.

And the presentation of these various options requires adaptation to maintain a neutral NPOV. I think you agree with me filll, don't you? This isn't about whether or not X is true. If X is important to the article, the existence of support and the type of support for X contrains constrains the way X is presented in the artcle? At the extreme, if X is true, but nobody knows it, X can't even be included in the article, even if you can logically show in the article that X is true, as this would fall under original research. If I am incorrect in my thinking, let me know. I was busy reading the Dr. Cook blog which ultimately sounded like a partisan debate without much value for the article, unless Dr. Cook or Orac are more famous than I know. I think such numourous such debates exist all over the internet, on this and many other controversial topics. I am trying to avoid them as I am trying to focus on describing the controversy and not deciding it.

Getting back to the Published books and other resources section, if you helped write the article, and used some or all of the references listed in this section, I'd appreciate it if you or others went back and tried to figure out which parts of the article depended on which references, and made citations explicit. Because such citatiosn citations will make the article better. I have not deleted the section, and really don't plan to in the next few days or even week. I just had a thought that it was unnecessary, and thought I would bring it up to see what others thought, especially since at least some of the references in this section were likely used for the article. (Others I am less confident in). StudyAndBeWise 18:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I propose that it would be interesting to compile information about these cash prizes. I am not sure how much should go in this article however. This is something that goes back at least 80 years and has been the subject of court battles etc.--Filll 18:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote?

I proceeded to demonstrate that creationism had a blatantly religious foundation by displaying excerpts from the CSAO's own Fall 1990 Newsletter, in which an editorial stated that a central tenet of CSAO was "To glorify God as he has revealed himself ... to obey him and enjoy him now and forever. Certainly this is central to CSAO ... Creation evangelism is indeed a major unique thrust of CSAO." I emphasized that, if groups wished to gather together and publish for the purposes of evangelism, I had no objection. However, it was deception for the CSAO, and consequently Ian Taylor, to indulge in evangelism in their newsletter, then to state at their presentations that creation science has nothing to do with religion. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

From "Defining evolution"

This approach to redefining the aspects of evolution has been criticized in other ways as well. For example, in the context of evolutionary biology, "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are distinguished only by the total amount of evolutionary change and the number of generations that had passed between ancestors and descendants. Evolutionary changes are often so gradual that biologists can disagree over exactly when speciation occurs. A few scientists have attempted to posit different mechanisms for macroevolution (see saltation), but none has been generally accepted. Creationists, however, generally accept microevolution while rejecting macroevolution. An example of this is the creationist endeavor baraminology which purports to study the biology of various "kinds". "Kinds" and "baramin" are terms invented by creationists and derived from the book of Genesis. They are not used in mainstream biological research, and those who debate creationists claim that they are a patchwork-fix meant to allow creationists to accept short-term manifestations of evolution (such as the development of new dog breeds or antibiotic-resistant bacteria) as change within a "kind", while arbitrarily rejecting speciation, the appearance of entirely new species that generally takes much more time.

This is a long, babbling paragraph that fails to say much of anything, while giving a huge amount of Undue Weight to the incrediably marginal "baraminology", which I believe has about 4 people working on it in the entire world. Can we just cut them? Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is nice to have a link to baraminology, but this entire paragraph could be 1/4 the length and much clearer, in my opinion. I also want to see a link or two and some discussion of how the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is a big part of the creationist arguments, and how that it is basically a nonsense objection. --Filll 19:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Care to handle rewriting it? I'm busy with that Gene flow section. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

While it is being rewritten, I have removed the following "references" since they are no longer cited in the article. I harvardized the references, but now that they are not cited in the article, I have moved them to this discussion, since this is where they were used. Please add them back if your rewrite relies on them.diff

• Spetner, Lee (2006-03-09), A Scientific Critique of Evolution, TrueOrigin Archive {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)Retrieved on 2007-01-20

• Anderson, Kevin L. (September/October 2001), "To Be or not to Be a Rose by any Other Name" (PDF), Creation Matters: 1–3 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)Retrieved on 2007-01-20

• Bergman, Jerry (June 2004), "The Unbridgeable Chasm Between Microevolution and Macroevolution", Creation Research Society Quarterly: 60–68{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

• Long, Josef T. (2004), "Micro vs. Macro Evolution Objections Against Creation", TrueAuthority.com For True Science, Deatherage Health Products Retrieved on 2007-01-14

StudyAndBeWise 20:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Need a section on key or most vocal participants in controversy

My opinion is that a section specifically dedicated to enumerating the key or most vocal participants in the controversy should be created. I know this is difficult, but maybe somebody else knows more than me. There should be two sub-sections, one for the creationist camp, and one for the evolution/mainstream science camp. This section and sub-sections would be highly valuable in this article, in my opinion. In any event, if you think this would be a bad idea, let me know before I spend too much time starting these sections. (I don't plan to insert anything for one or two weeks, at the rate I am moving.) StudyAndBeWise 04:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that there is an article List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy provided in the See Also section after I moved it. This article may be distilled for a sub-section, or otherwise referenced earlier in the present article to meet, at least partially, my request. Anyway, I think an article on the controversy should enumerate specifically key participants. StudyAndBeWise 04:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I spun off the that section completely for one simple reason: The article was too long and the list doesn't compress to any extent. Can't we just make an infobox for at the bottom of the page and the other two or so spinoff articles linking them clearly? Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Are the findings of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District a neutral source?

It seems it ought to be, at least in theory: Judge Jones has no reason to choose one side over the other, and was set the task of dispassionately analysing both sides. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Especially a Republican appointed judge, who presumably had the support of Rick Santorum to receive the appointment. Orangemarlin 23:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Before the ruling, with what I read, the DI and other creationist were braying about how this one was in the bag. Now they feel like he betrayed them. But before, they were positive it was a slam dunk.--Filll 23:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Right. Let's cite from it freely, then. They'll probably howl about it a bit, but it's certainly a neutral view of the evidence. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be forgotten that it includes extensive citations of both sides speaking under oath, which makes it uncommonly valid. The selection and analysis was based on the prosecution case, developed and endorsed by Jones as his findings. The trial documents as a whole are also useful as a source of evidence under oath. .. dave souza, talk 09:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

science as religion - delete?

The only part of this section that is on point is the first sentence. After that, it seems to be an off-topic rehash or restatement of things already discussed.

Is there anything there worth keeping?Trishm 07:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

let me look. We might steal it for our new article.--Filll 23:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok I removed it. I hope no one objects. I would favor maybe replacing it later with something better sourced, shorter and more tightly argued. If you look at the new article Objections to evolution, Silence, Orangemarlin and I are proposing removing some of these discussions from this article, or making them much shorter, and moving that material to Objections to evolution. When I rework it, some of it can go there, and some maybe back here. Comments?--Filll 00:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

differing religious positions - undue weight

The list of creationist churches taking up half the section is violating NPOV due to undue weight. The creationist view is not held by half of the world's Christians, or half of the worlds churches. Any suggestions on how to resolve this? Trishm 07:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, which section is this? Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Section 3.Trishm 10:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, although half of the world's churches may not explicitly acknowladge Creationism over evolution, that doesn't indicate that the members of those churches aren't creationists, or that the churches aren't really creationist as a whole. It could mean they simply take it as a given that if you're a Christian you'd of course think God created the universe in Creationist terms, or that they don't exist in an area where Evolution is taught much, such as certain parts of Africa. However, since this is the article on the controversy, and the churches listed are, I presume, explicitly taking a side in the controversy, and they are all notable churches with very wide membership, (Especially in America, which the article focuses on mainly) i'd say its not very undue weight at all. Homestarmy 23:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I disagree with Homestarmy, I would be loathe to remove creationist links, for the simple fact that I want to know what these extremists are thinking and up to. I do disagree that "most Christians" in the US hold this position at all, however. But, even if they are only 5% of the US (which I think is not quite true; they are bigger than that for sure), I would prefer to see their links in full glory. We can add more to the evolution side to balance it out; lets not cut the creationist links and references.--Filll 00:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think it is important. I tried to mitigate the footprint by turning the list into a table. But even if this is large, I think the Missouri Synod and Bapists, at least according to Larson|2004|p=251, are significant. I also think it would be important to list scientists who also participate in the controversy, especially the most influential scientists. This article is about the controversy, and not deciding the controversy (or so I thought and expressed, with requests for correction, but without any.) In any event, other smaller churches might not be so important, especially if they are not active participants in the controversy. I would agree that this list does not belong in the evolution article, but I do think that at least part of this list does belong in this article on the controversy. StudyAndBeWise 03:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My concern was with due weight, not removing links. The implication of the creation-evolution argument seems to be that accepting evolution is non-Christian. I would like to make sure that it is clear that this is not a mainstream view.

As far as I can make out, of the slightly more than 2.1 billion Christians, about one quarter of those would be Protestant, and three quarters are Catholic, Orthodox or Anglican. I am not sure of the percentages of Creationists among these, as poll questions tend to be a little misleading. Believing the Bible is the word of God is not the same as believing that evolution can't be true. Trishm 03:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The links are creationist links in that they are linking to official statements on the subject (creationism v. evolution). The point that many or most Christians may not actually subscribe to these official belief statements is fair. It can be balanced with a reference to a poll, I suppose. And the sentence does need clarity (e.g., A list of denominations whose leadership and/or government officialy advocate creationism.) StudyAndBeWise 05:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking at the SBC sites, and they are very explicitly on the fence. For example, they were asked to testify at the Scopes trial, for both sides, and refused to testify at all. [[11]] My personal experience is that they would prefer to read the bible literally, but don't want to fly in the face of science either.Trishm 12:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

How about moving it over to "List of participants in the Creation-evolution controversy, while making it very cleaar that most churches are relatively neutral in the debate? Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC) I've been

Perhaps a bit off topic, but when looking for church statements about ID it seems that in several cases the leadership or majority position rejects ID, but in the US it has a degree of support in the ranks. For example the kirk (USA) has an official position on evolution [12] put in place by a 353 - 150 majority vote [13] and not necessarily representing the opinion of a significant minority.[14] I'm also reading through an article criticising ID on theological grounds [15] from a Methodist viewpoint, when it seems Methodists are often part of the creationist / ID camp. .. dave souza, talk 13:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be joking ...

This (?!) is the so-called Argument against Evolution?

====Arguments against evolution====

Creationists are best known for their claims that evolutionary theory is incorrect. These claims are not taken seriously by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, where the evidence of evolution is considered to be overwhelming in quality and amount, without a single contradiction. Richard Dawkins, a prominent biologist and professor at Oxford University, explains that evolution "is a theory of gradual, incremental change over millions of years, which starts with something very simple and works up along slow, gradual gradients to greater complexity. ... If there were a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found." Similarly, the evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane when asked what hypothetical evidence would disprove evolution in exchange for a creationist concept replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era", a period more than 540 million years ago, a time when life on Earth consisted largely of bacteria, algae, and plankton.

You're kidding right? I mean, I'm not challenging any of the alleged facts in this paragraph. I'm not smart enough to challenge these facts. But I know enough to know that this is NOT an "Argument against evolution". This is a once sentence strawman followed by a evangelical dismantling of that theory by a high-priest of the church of evolution. Are there no conservative leaning editors, or is this typical Wikipedia POV? 70.108.89.17 02:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls

Please do not feed the trolls User:Filll 02:48, 23 January 2007, not added by me but I fully agree with the point made. .. dave souza, talk 09:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Will do, won't feed them. StudyAndBeWise 03:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Science as religion section

Filll removed the science as religion section. I added it back, but removed uncited sentences, and also removed the images. The argument is made, and I think quite commonly, by the creationist camp. Per my comments above, I think this description is accurate, based on my understanding of some creationist's claims. While I am not going to insist that it stay, (I think the section could use re-writing and better references, e.g., from linguists), I think it should stay pending further research. If you disagree, please explain so here after you revert my edits, and I will accelerate my research, and/or participate in a discussion. Thanks. StudyAndBeWise 03:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs a better version. No problem with having a "placeholder" version until then of course. I am not sure how we will eventually coordinate between this article and Objections to evolution.--Filll 03:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the second paragraph to the "false dichotomy" section.Trishm 04:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with filll's implication, or at least what I understand to be his implication, that we can't address every creationist claim. To that end, a reference that identifies the key players in the controversy, and their main arguments, would be very useful in helping us stick to the major points, instead of paying too much attention to what might be marginal views in the controversy. This is complicated, of course, in that the most vocal participants in the controversy may not necessarily reflect the majority view of creationists or scientists. This is why a disinterested reference, if available, would be useful. StudyAndBeWise 04:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

StudyAndBeWise is correct. We cannot address all creationist objections. There are literally thousands. WP as a whole can pick a few objections, and address them in depth. We can also list the main participants. We can provide links to other sites both creationist and "anti-creationist" that list objections and answers to objections and responses to the answers to the objections, and counter responses to the responses to the answers to the objections etc. We can document that this dialogue is going on, in debates and in the media, in magazines and newspapers and books and on the radio and television and on the internet. We are slowly moving to a richer exploration of this issue on Wikipedia. At the moment we have the related articles:

• Misunderstandings about evolution
• Creation-evolution controversy
• Objections to evolution
• Evolution as theory and fact
• Level of support for evolution
• Entropy and life
• Social effect of evolutionary theory

and probably a few others. Also in various sandbox forms that I know of are articles on

• evolution and falsifiability
• Evolution as a religion

(titles subject to change). What we need to do is to think rationally about how to explore these objections. Some articles will be narrow and deep in some issue. Some articles will be broad, with just summary paragraphs or sentences and links to the other articles, including the narrow deep articles.--Filll 15:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Esoteric Boeing 747 refeerence

I have read this a few times in the article, and I think it requires too much explaination to make a reader able to understand the point. I'll look for a better example, but meanwhile, I wanted to know if anybody else could make this section easier to understand without having to explain esoteric references to Boeing 747s. StudyAndBeWise 05:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the point could be made more simply and clearly by leaving out all Boeing references. On a minor point, from memory (probably from reading TalkOrigins Archive) Hoyle referred to a 707. A rather dated analogy. .. dave souza, talk 09:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Southern Baptists

I actually support its removal because when I looked at their website for their official position, they said they currently have no official position about evolution and creationism.--Filll 20:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was leaning that way, (that is why I put the citation needed flag), because I did not find anything. Now it is complicated because as you probably already figured out, JoshuaZ found a 1982 reference that is still available on their website. Unfortunately, it is not signed, and may not be current. I am beginning to suspect that they are backing down quitly. I think we should keep looking to find out something more recent either confirming or denying this. The way it is now, we have an unsigned statement purporting to be a resolution on a website. I would love to see something better. I think we should keep disucssing it and researching.

StudyAndBeWise 03:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Southern Baptist church alone couldn't technically have a position, as the Southern Baptist church isn't much of a denomination in a more formal sense, membership is self-declared and there's no real governing body in a way. Perhaps it meant the Southern Baptist convention, which would have the authority to make such a statement, which would at least represent the views of the current SBC president i'd think and likely most of the churches or something like that? Homestarmy 03:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I might be able to find it again. It was an official statement at the SBC that they had no position. And recent.--Filll 03:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything except the current ref in their resolutions search, you'd think if their going back on their previous resolution they'd file a counter-resolution or something.... Homestarmy 03:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok I gather that the SBC as a whole has no current position, but individual congregations are free to adopt whatever view they want. I believe this is about the SBC:

The Baptist Church has no central authority that decides on matters of religious doctrine, and thus has no official position on Biblical infallibility and evolution. But individual members of the Southern Baptist Church were plaintiffs in the Arkansas case. John Buchanan, a Baptist minister, is the head of People for the American Way, an organization which opposes creationism and other fundamentalist attempts to impose their religious beliefs through the force of law.,[16]

--Filll 03:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Here, for refernce, is the citation in the article, which is not the best, but it is on the SBC website. I will keep thinking and searching. No additional comment for now. StudyAndBeWise 04:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Filll, your link mentions the SBC, but its just a Geocities page and it doesn't reference where exactly its getting that notion about the SBC from, it doesn't look like its a direct quote of some SBC thing or anything. And as I said, the Southern Baptists aren't much of a denomination in a classical sense, without an official governing body that all member churches are obliged to follow, they can't really speak for every single church claiming to be Southern Baptist, and apparently not for John Buchanan either. (Though, "Baptist" isn't necessarily the same as "Southern Baptist") Homestarmy 04:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

talkorigins website, other thoughts, and a modest proposal

I am not arguing that talkorigins are publishing falshoods, but I sure do think it would be better if we could back up each talkorgins references with better references. I am not saying delete them outright, but support them, or use them as support, for other references from reliable sources with little or no discernable interest in the outcome of the controversy.StudyAndBeWise 03:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Usually talk origins has good references with it already, so we just have to include a real reference for each talkorigins reference.--Filll 04:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if they there are a reliable sources for every talkorigins reference, even though much of their stuff seems reliable. They are, after all, an agenda driven website. To that extent, I think anybody who can add a reference for each talkorigins reference, especially from a disinterested party or a mainstream media source, the article would be improved.StudyAndBeWise 03:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur.--Filll 04:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, a recent anonymous discussion-contributor posted a trenchant critique of controversial articles on Wikipedia. While the person was probably just a troll, it does not remove the validity of his observation. Specifically, some of the controversial articles are alternating contradictory statements. His proposed outline may attract partisans to controversial topics who will ruin a more sensible flow, but it would be a nice experiment if we could organize by paragraphs and sentences opposing views.StudyAndBeWise 03:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well as long as it made sense, it would be ok. We do not want big long NPOV sections if we can avoid it.--Filll 04:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, and without regard to possible wikipedia convention, it would be nice to develop a NPOV article on a controversial topic, without having it turn out a schizophrenic stream of incessantly contrasting sentences or phrases. Instead, an article that cites disinterested reliable sources as much as possible, and tactfully points out that other sources are partisans to the controversy, even if what they say in the eyes of the contributor is true. I am not suggesting that we give undue weight to fringe views; rather, I am suggesting that we organize the articles better. In the present case, I think it is easier, since this article is about the controversy, and does not need to decide the controversy (though it doesn't need to hide the fact that most scientists believe, based on scientific findings, that creationism, creation science, etc., is without scientific merit).StudyAndBeWise 03:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How about quotes from Kitzmiller? While it doesn't, of course, cover everything, it can certainly be considered a neutral source, and has heavy documentation back to testimony from the trial. It's a damn good read, t'boot. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Another problem with this article, or so I detect in the eyes of some contributors, is that it is largely US- or Anglo-centric. Personally, I think this is reasonable, since I am a U.S. citizen, and am reading an English article. I am not well traveled, and am not ashamed of being U.S. centric. Even so, I am sensitive to these criticisms, and hope we are adequately addressing the concerns of others.StudyAndBeWise 03:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of the money spent, and most of the sound and fury has been in the US. Muslim creationists in Muslim countries often win with no controversy. We can mention controversies in other places, but by and large they are far smaller than the one in the US, so there is no problem with it being uS centric.--Filll 04:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree the source of the contraversy in "Christian" countries is the US. Here in Australia it is the recent import churches, the Pentacostals and similar, from the US who are pushing creationism. The old, European churches largely accept evolution. --Michael Johnson 04:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In any event, in my research (which is still ongoing) I detect the following important points or patterns:

1. There was a natural tension between some scientific findings (e.g., geological) starting in the early nineteenth century. This was exacerbated with the publishing of the Origin of Species, which was published (apparently) to a public, and not for peer review. As such, it was a book targeting the general educated public, a la A Brief History of Time, and due to the promotion of some of Darwin's friends, the book became the talk of the educated western world, or a large part of it. Hostilities arose almost immediately due in part to reactionary Theologians, and also due in part to Origin promoters such as Huxley et al who had no great love for religion (that is, they also instigated the controversy). This stage is non-political, and purely, it seems to me, a clash of ideas and the consequences (or perceived consequences) of those ideas. That this was a clash of ideas is not to say that the ideas had the same equivalent logical underpinnings. StudyAndBeWise 03:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The peer-reviewed paper was published the year before. Actually, there was huge headway even among theologians by the end of the 1800s, according to Ronald L. Numbers.--Filll 04:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I actually knew that. Too much scotch whisky tonight, I guess. StudyAndBeWise 04:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Another thing to remember that science as we know it did not exist The learned societies were clubs of wealthy, educated Gentlemen who got together to share their observations. Dons at Oxford and Cambridge (I think I'm correct here) had to be, or at least usually were, Church of England clergymen. It was Huxley and others around him who promoted the professional scientist. "Nature" for instance was first published in 1869. --Michael Johnson 04:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

3. The fear on the part of Christians was not unprovoked; that is to say, some of the early promoters of Darwins ideas seemed to take some comfort in making theologians, preachers, and other religious leaders uncomfortable in their beliefs. This is not to say that they did not wholeheartedly support Darwins ideas on their own merit. The controversy was not merely a case of religion trying to poke its nose into the scientific realm; rather, some on both sides of the controversy were itching for a fight, and this fight was fought dirty on both sides (e.g., resorting to ad hominems and other logical fallacies).StudyAndBeWise 03:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Some atheists did rub it in pretty badly I suspect, from what I read.--Filll 04:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What Darwin did to religion was make not believing in God a rational possibility. Prior to Darwin the question any athiest had to face was how do you explain the diversity of life, and of course there was no explanation besides a divine creator. --Michael Johnson 04:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

2. In any event, the debate ultimately became political with regard to teaching evolution in the tax-funded public schools. Eventually, both religious and scientific partisans resorted to public information campaigns, in which they manipulated language (e.g., creation science, Darwinism as a religion or as atheism, scientific fact (as an implicit synonym for truth), etc. StudyAndBeWise 03:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The entire issue came to a head after the First World War. Many blamed WWI on evolution, and so it slowly became illegal to teach it in schools. And it remained this way in almost all US schools until 1958 or so. Then it started getting reintroduced after Sputnik, and then the court battles started up again in the 60s. Especially after the Morris book.--Filll 04:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Certain key figures emerged, and certain key arguments were made.

   A.  Key creationist figures and their arguments. 
   B.  Key evolutionist (for lack of a better term) responses.
   C.  Evolutionist arguments against creation (made in the context of the controversy)
   D.  Creationist responses to these arguments
   E.  Conclusion or summary (but not a decision)StudyAndBeWise 03:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The two most important figures in the US were Price and Morris. A bunch of other figures were of less importance. I am working slowly on rewriting History of creationism. You can see a lot there.--Filll 04:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

4. At some point in the article, if there is space, certain malfeasance or intellectual dishonesty on both sides might be presented. E.g.,

   A.  Impossible $250,000 offer (and other similar offers) for proof of evolution
   B.  Evolutionary hoaxes (especially if those responsible for the hoax were interested or motivated by the controversy).

StudyAndBeWise 03:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually the 250K offer is just one of a long list of other offers. I have a list of about 6 or 7 at this point. Rimmer made a 100 dollar offer. Price made a 1000 dollar offer. A bunch of others.--Filll 04:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a firm believer in the scientific method, but I also understand that there is truth, and human understanding of truth, and that scientific theories and scientific facts are our best approximations for objective truth, and that while the scientific method is, in my opinion, the best way to search for natural truth, sometimes we are fooled. (A friend of mine pointed out, rightly or wrongly, that malaria was once believed to be caused by "bad air." If this is the case, it certainly seems like a good theory, even possibly supported by scientific observations, a theory that worked well, and a theory that was related to the truth as we know it now, since the mosquitoes that spread the parasite that cause malaria are most common near swamps, which don't always smell the best). In any event, and without diminishing the importance of scientific facts, scientific method, or science in general, I understand scientific conclusions for what they are: our best estimate of truth using the best methods devised to find natural truth. StudyAndBeWise 03:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Science actually does not search for truth. It searches for efficient explanations which predict the data. These explanations may or may not have anything to do with the truth, but that is irrelevant as far as science cares. Science only cares about parsimony, and prediction.--Filll 04:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

While such an "admission," if others concur, may be used by some partisans to diminish the importance and value of science, it is not the job of an encyclopedia to prevent at every opportunity the abuse of accurately presented information.StudyAndBeWise 03:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

To that extent, I think we should focus on the mission, describing the controversy accurately and in good prose, with all due weight, but without making the article appear to be making the judgment "you'd have to be an idiot to believe what the creationists believe."StudyAndBeWise 03:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course.--Filll 04:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

StudyAndBeWise 03:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond to more of this in detail later, but a quick note about 4B- you'll have a bit of difficulty there- they don't exist. The only things that are at all close to that are 1) Piltdown man which was made by unknown individuals and was discovered to be a hoax by scientists (who accepted evolution) and 2) Archeoraptor which was made by a farmer and again was discovered by the evolution accepting scientists. JoshuaZ 04:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Err, on Piltdown, the Wiki article seems to think that at first "experts" (whom I presume include evolutionary scientists) believed it to not be a hoax, "The fragments were claimed by experts of the day to be the fossilised remains of a hitherto unknown form of early human.". Homestarmy 04:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

But the point here is that these hoaxes were perpetuated ON scientists rather than by them. --Michael Johnson 04:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. It would be interesting to this article if this hoax were setups by creationists, or to other articles if major theories had their rested on Piltdown (doubtful)StudyAndBeWise 05:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

One ardent creationist a while back wanted to write an article on hoaxes on both sides. I encouraged him to do so, but he declined, preferring to get involved in fights instead of writing an encyclopedia. But I still think it would be a great idea for an article.--Filll 04:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, this would be work. The person who wrote the Lincoln spoof seems to have disappeared, too, though I think his spoof, however designed to provoke responses, had some merit. Also, somebody above said there are none on the side of evolution, so maybe that is why. I haven't come across any, other than possibly the Scopes trial, which was argueably as much about publicity as it was about keeping religion out of the class, but hardly a hoax. I am most interested in history, especially Victorian history. StudyAndBeWise 04:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Correction on talkorigins.org

I am updating/harvardizing many of these references, and so far, they either don't stand alone, or are accuretly represented. My mistake. StudyAndBeWise 05:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think I am going to disappear for a few days. My wife needs attention, and I have been sucked into wikipedia too much of the time recently. I hope my work on the history section and the harvardizing of refernces was helpful. I tried to be accurate, tried to not plagiarize while capturing key points, and tried to be responseive (e.g., to concerns over words like "conservative".) StudyAndBeWise 05:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Napoleonic wars

“ Discoveries in geology led to various theories of an ancient earth, and particularly in England where stability of both the natural world and the hierarchical social order were thought to be fixed by God's will, early ideas of evolutionism were seen as dangerously subversive during the Napoleonic Wars and their aftermath. Harvnb ”

I am not challenging that the source said or wrote this. Instead, I think most historians (I have been studying 18th and 19th century history lately) would rather be more precise, and place this in the correct, broader context. Specifically, the liberal/conservative conflicts in France were much commented upon in England, (e.g., by conservative Edmund Burke), and I would argue that they were seen "as subversive during the French revolution and its aftermath (the Culte de la Raison, and Napoleonic wars being part of said aftermath).

I think we need to be careful in quoting Moore, in that in some points I think he is not a reliable source. Regarding my contention, if you have access to a library, I recommend the following audio CDs, as an example: EUROPEAN HISTORY AND EUROPEAN LIVES: 1715-1914 by Jonathan Steinberg.

I would rewrite this (without fact-checking other parts of this compound sentence:

“ Discoveries in geology led to various theories of an ancient earth, and particularly in England where stability of both the natural world and the hierarchical social order were thought to be fixed by God's will, early ideas of evolutionism were seen as subversive during the French revolution and its aftermath. ”

The problem is, this is not what the source said (unless a mistake was made in summarizing). So I will not change it, but I will simply let leave this comments and observations for others to consider.

StudyAndBeWise 00:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, please see changes I made, in which I left the context of the Napoleonic wars, but tried to "correct" other points (e.g., literal interpretation of the bible was not new, but the emphasis was). In the interest of full disclosure, I want to point out these possibly controversial changes, and also allow the original contributors the chance to make sure the re-write is consistent with the cited sources (regardless of my concern that Moore is a bit loose in his langauge and framing, I don't think Moore is a completely unreliable source, just not the best). StudyAndBeWise 00:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I also want to comment on shifting the popular controversy to the controversy within the church of england. E.g., quoting moore on this point results in placing undue weight on the Church of England, instead of the much more widely held consensus among historians that the controversy reached a tipping point with Darwin's 1859 publication.

“ It (Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation) remained a best-seller, and paved the way for widespread interest in the theory of natural selection as introduced and published by English naturalist Charles Darwin in his 1859 book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. This was praised by Unitarians and liberal Anglican theologians whose support of higher criticism expressed in Essays and Reviews sparked considerably more controversy in the Church of England than Darwin's publication.[11] ”

With "this" referring either to Darwin's book or Vestigaes of Natural History of Creation. (It is not clear to me).

[to Darwin's book: I'll clarify this point dave souza, talk 09:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)]

Consequently, I am going to work on improving the transition to Darwin's book, since, I think there is an overwealming consensus among historians and scientists that publication and promotion of the Origin of Species is a key factor in understanding the evolution/creation controversy. StudyAndBeWise 01:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, as we discussed earlier in relation to The Origin of Species#Background it's my opinion that earlier controversies need to be shown, though I appreciate your concern about over-emphasising Moore's comments. The attitudes and reactions in the Church of England are of particular importance because that was the context of Darwin's work: although the church authorities were doubtless similarly opposed to anything contravening scripture, evolutionary ideas flourished in academic circles in France and in Scotland to a much greater extent than in England. Agreed that Darwin's book was a tipping point, but van Wyhe comments that "Although Darwin convinced most of the scientific community that descent with modification, or evolution, was true, many rejected natural selection. Darwin was also not the first to propose that life evolves.... We know that a wide popular literature such as George Combe's Constitution of Man (1828) and the anonymous Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (1844) had already shocked and converted vast popular audiences to belief in the power of natural laws to control the development of nature and society. Historians of science now believe that Darwin's effect was, as James Secord put it, a 'palace coup' amongst elite men of science rather than a revolution."[17]

There's still a popular perception, which this article about the controversy previously implied, that nearly everyone believed in creationism till Darwin published the Origin to enormous outrage: there was as much outrage (and considerable acceptance) at Vestiges, and earlier in the century Lamarck's ideas were suppressed much as Tom Paine were, for similar reasons. Darwin was immensely popular, and the mythology comparing him to Copernicus was developed in the late nineteenth century as part of ideas about an inevitable battle between science and religion.

Your work has gone a long way to improving this area of the article, some of the early stuff seems to me to be out of sequence and I'll try to make that clearer. .. dave souza, talk 09:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Creationists by Ronald L. Numbers

I am reading this book, Creationists, and it is interesting, very well written, and has, I think, an NPOV. Here are a few quotes from the introduction that I find interesting:

• Consequently, even relatively informed persons tend to overlook the substantial changes in the creationist thought during the twentieth century.Numbers 1992, p. xiv
• The common assumption is that one creationist is pretty much like another. As we shall see, nothing could be further from the truth. Numbers 1992, p. xiv
• Readers acquainted with such works as Andrew Dickson White's influential History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896) will not be surprised to learn that the history of modern creationism includes some of the fiercest skirmishes in the annals of science and religion.Numbers 1992, p. xiv
• I should also warn readers that my aim is not to expose the defenders of creationism as "pseudoscientists." Although such efforts no doubt have their place--one of my favorite journals is the Skeptical Inquirer--as a historian I am much more interested in how persons and parties used "science" and "pseudoscience" to further their ends than in judging whether they employed these labels appropriately by the standards of the 1990s.Numbers 1992, p. xv (This shows the POV, or NPOV, of the source.)
• Although I no longer believe in creationism of any kind, I am strongly committed to treating its advocates with the same respect I might accord evolutionists...For too long now students of science and religion have tended to grant the former a privileged position, often writing more as partisans than historians and grading religious "beliefs" by how much they encouraged or retarded the growth of scientific "knowledge." Recently, we have heard persuasive calls for a more even-handed treatment. But even academics who would have no trouble empathetically studying fifteenth-century astrology, seventeenth-century alchemy, or nineteenth-century phrenology seem to loose their nerve when they approach twentieth-century creationism and its fundamentalist proponents. The prevailing attitude, colorfully expressed at one professional meeting I attended, is that "we've got to stop the bastards." In other words, although many scholars seem to have no trouble respecting the unconventional beliefs and behaviors of peoples chronologically or geographically removed from us, they substitute condemnation for comprehension when scrutinizing their own neighbors. I think it is profitable to get acquainted with the neighbors, especially so if we find them threatening.Numbers 1992, p. xvi-xvii

The book has a historical POV, but I think in the context of a controversy between religion and science (or religous people and their supporters and scientists and their supporters), this is POV is more neutral than either a scientific, pseudo-scientific, or religious POV.StudyAndBeWise 03:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read a few chapters of that book, and also parts of 4 other papers by Numbers. I will note that although Numbers claims to be even handed, there are a lot of places in his writing where Numbers makes creationists look like completely a-holes. What I find most interesting is that there has been a very hard swing to the more conservative side as time has gone on in Creationism. Also, there have been hellacious fights among creationists over time. Also, the Scopes trial was not the only huge Creationist trial. It is very interesting. I am using that material to augment History of creationism and write associated side articles on creationists like Harry Rimmer.--Filll 03:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL. I think a-holes existed from time to time on all sides:). Now if the portrayal wasn't accurate, that's another story. StudyAndBeWise 05:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

From double and triple checking Number's work against other sources, it sounds to me like he has it nailed down pretty well. He also provides copious references, as I am sure you have noticed.--Filll 05:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Creation/evolution controversy in the age of Darwin

This section states: "In the immediate post-Darwinian era, few scientists or clerics rejected the antiquity of the earth, the progressive nature of the fossil record." But the antiquity of the earth was indeed subject to serious scientific controversy, which was not religiously based. The issue was that Kelvin's calculations on the rate of cooling of the earth showed that it was maybe between 20 and 40 million years old. (Radioactivity, which supplies an internal heat source to the earth, was unknown at the time.) Accordingly, I think this sentence should be expunged or modified.--OinkOink 00:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, so it wasn't in the billions of years under Kelvin's calculation. It was still pretty old. No one disputed that the world was millions of years old. And even Kelvin expressed reservations about his calculation anyways. JoshuaZ 00:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There was lively discussion as one would expect. But after about 20 years, it was pretty much settled in science.--Filll 00:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Longer than that. See Age of the Earth for details. --OinkOink 16:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Scott (2000) is a possible citation: "That the earth is ancient was well-established in science by the mid- 1800´s, and was not considered a radical idea in either the Church of England or the Catholic Church (Eiseley, 1958). From the mid-1700´s on, the theology of Special Creationism has been harmonized with scientific data and theory showing that the earth was ancient." ... dave souza, talk 10:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Reworking opening

I am reworking the second and third paragraph of the article opening to focus on the current primary controversy.

I replaced:

“ The key contention of creationists is that evolution is not sufficient to account for diversity of life. This view is overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community and academia,<rref>Myers 2006; NSTA 2003; IAP 2006; AAAS 2006; Pinholster 2006</rref> who point to the strong correspondence of reality with the theory,<rref>Theobald 2006</rref> and how, as in the title of a famous essay by Theodosius Dobzhansky, Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.<rref>Dobzhansky 1973</rref>

Evolution is sometimes expanded by creationists to include such things as the Big Bang Theory, abiogenesis, and the formation of stars. For example, Kent Hovind defines evolution to include the creation of time, space, matter, the creation of planets and stars from dust, spontaneous generation of life from matter, the creation of reproduction in life forms, and major changes of life forms such as speciation.<rref>Hovind 2006</rref> However, although the word evolution is used as part of several astronomical terms such as stellar evolution, none of these are implied by the term evolution alone.<rref>One such expansion is rebutted here</rref>

A new school of creationism that has become well known as part of the controversy in American schools is the Intelligent Design movement and its associated arguments. Intelligent Design proponents assert that science inappropriately excludes the idea that origins of the biological and physical worlds could derive from an intelligent designer and have advocated a program named Teach the Controversy, while many opponents claim Intelligent Design is simply creationism under a different name.

”

With the current 2nd and third paragraph, because the above quoted text, while interesting, doesn't focus on the topic of the article, and delves too quickly, in my opinion, into minutia. There are also other problems that I can pick apart in detail if anybody disagrees with my current approach. But I will wait until somebody disagrees before going line by line. Suffice it to say, it is not suitable for an article opening, in my opinion. I will try to rework some the details I just cut back into the article as they fit. Please be patient while I do this. Thanks. StudyAndBeWise 06:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The 2nd paragraph was originally a part of the body of the article, then added to the lead and the section in the body was tagged with "Covered just fine in the lead". Now it has been removed from the lead. This is a key aspect to the controversy that has been removed altogether now. JPotter 16:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Where was the information originally? While it was in the lead, I reworked the previous 2nd paragraph, and provided a reference for it. I'll try to work it back in, but if you have a suggestion on where to put it, let me know. Thanks. StudyAndBeWise 03:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I added the 2nd removed paragraph back

However, I am willing to remove it, and the following section I added for balance. I think some of the information is interesting, but think it might be better suited for a different article. Even so, I included it, and also an even more akward section on evolutionary defenders mis-characterizations of evolutionary opponents. However, the second section needs a much better reference, or it doesn't belong here (even though I think it is true in at least internet debates). I am going to look for the template to recommend both sections be reworked or deleted, even though I added them back in. StudyAndBeWise 04:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Peking man

Well, I am done for tonight. The opening may still need work, feel free to jump in. I will be back again trying to clean it up and make it a better intro to the article. In any event, does anybody know what role Pierre Teilhard de Chardin played in the discovery of Peking man besides being in attendance? The question relates to the veracity of one of the references I have selected. Thanks. StudyAndBeWise 07:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I am really impressed with your efforts. You are doing a great job. I am no expert in Peking man or related areas. I have a very restricted expertise, but I think you are to be heartily commended by all for your work.--Filll 20:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you are kind. I appreciate it. And thanks for helping reword some of it, I like your version better.

I am wondering if it is fair to state that Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a discoverer of Peking man? Or, was it fair at one time, e.g., when non-europeans were not credited with such discoveries, even though they were in charge of the dig, and now it is no longer considered a fair assessment. In this second case, the source may simply be influenced by old accounts that unfairly credited Europeans. However, if at no time Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was considered to have played a significant role in the discovery of Peking man, this would have consequences hinted at above, namely, a stretching of the truth.

Now I need to go tackle my wife's to-do list. StudyAndBeWise 22:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I found this and this acceptable source crediting TdeC as a discoverer of Peking Man. He was also involved in studying its fossils (see e.g. [18]. AvB ÷ talk 12:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing sub-section Beyond the dichotomy

Beyond the dichotomy

“ Opponents of creationist argumentation claim that there is no way to distinguish between creationism's objection to mainstream science and objections to mainstream science that are derived from groups that are not followers of creationism. The following list gives an idea of the many diverse views on origins beyond the creation-evolution dichotomy:

• With Zen and New Age religions, everything and nothing are all interconnected, inseparable, a made whole. These conceptions deny that the person is the first cause and posit a guiding non-anthropomorphic consciousness that balances the universe and serves as a source for all being.
• Theogony by Hesiod contains a poetic rendering of the Greek myth that the Cosmos was created through sexual intercourse.
• Panspermia is a theory explaining the existence of life on the Earth as a result of seed organisms coming from a non-terrestrial source. How life originated at that source is not part of the theory.

Parodies of creationism include:

• The Flying Spaghetti Monster
• Tim Kreider's Science vs. Norse Mythology

”

Unsourced since December, and unclear prose. Moved to discussion in case somebody wants to rework it back into the article. StudyAndBeWise 00:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Of possible interest to editors of this page:

• Level of support for evolution → Endorsement and rejection of evolution —(Discuss) - According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision), this article has a very poor title. Note that both "level" and "support" are quite ambiguous. Would you know from the current title that this article would be about polls and open letters regarding both the endorsement and rejection of evolution in the context of the creation-evolution controversy? A number of the other editors have proposed equally ambiguous titles, the alternative is the only one that has seemed to have had at least a moderate (if somewhat guarded) support. Another idea floated was Popularity of evolution or Popular support for evolution, but I believe those two titles to be more ambiguous than the proposed one here. Note that there are a lot of ways to write an imprecise title to this article, but precision is absolutely necessary because we need to make sure that people are not misled in, for example, a POV-pushing fashion. For example, the simple title "support for evolution" rightly redirects to evidence for evolution because evolution's support isn't verifiably tied to opinion polls and open letters but rather to the scientific evidence. --ScienceApologist 05:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe we have the makings of a disagreement on this issue.--Filll 05:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, I consider it quite dishonest of you to characterize the level of support for your proposal as "moderate (if somewhat guarded) support"; I am one of the 2 or 3 users you believe give "guarded support" for this title, and I explicitly opposed the title. A better characterization of the reaction to your proposal is mild rejection (as compared with "strong rejection", the case with your past proposals). I also consider it remarkable that you find any ambiguity in the title "Level of support for evolution"; I would not be surprised if the overwhelming majority of users do indeed interpret this title in the way you describe from the start (as being "about polls and open letters regarding both the endorsement and rejection of evolution in the context of the creation-evolution controversy", at least indirectly), and any who don't will immediately have their misconception eliminated when they go to the page itself and read its dab notice and/or any of the article text. Your continued unwillingness to acknowledge that your dissatisfaction with the title is in the minority and to work to improve, rather than merely rename, the article, is both counterproductive and pedantic. If there is an ambiguity in the title, it is so minor as to be irrelevant, and it is not improved upon by any alternative proposed thus far, including "Endorsement and rejection of evolution", which is problematic for a whole host of reasons that "Level of support for evolution" is not, including that rejection is a POVed way of characterizing opposition to a view, that endorsement and rejection are not opposites, and that endorsement is overspecific, and thus misleading, in the context of the article. -Silence 06:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Counting the creationists

I think it is important to give an indication of the number of people involved.

• Assembly of God - 52.5 million.
• Jehovah’s witnesses 6.5 million
• Seventh-day Adventists 14 million
• Lutheran Missouri Synod - 2.5 million.
• SBC 16.3 million
• Presbyterian - 75 million.
• Christian Reformed Church 0.3 million
• Free Methodist Church 0.7 million
• Pentecostal 100 million
• Wisonsin Evangelical 0.4 million

total:~270 million

I have used worldwide figures wherever possible.

Total number of Christians: 2.1 billion.[[19]] Trishm 04:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Do we have US figures? --Filll 04:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Give me a little time, I'll rustle them up.Trishm 05:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to comment on your change to the article [20], the list itself does not purport to be exhausitive. I think it would be better to find a reliable reference to buttress your calculation, e.g., 13% of the world's Christians belong to churches that officially oppose evolution, often supporting Creationism, Creation Science, and/or Intelligent design as an alternative. Otherwise, it is original research, and potentially shaky. I'll wait for others to chime in, unless I find such a reference. As it is now, I am leaning toward the idea that the sentence is original research (no offense, I am also trying to avoid drawing logical conclusions that others have not already made). StudyAndBeWise 05:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It has already been done in the US by National Center for Science Education. Just see level of support for evolution for details.--Filll 05:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the level of support for evolution artilce out. The Project Steve petititon makes them an interested party. Also, the framing of the statement, e.g., 89.6% support evolutionary education, is problematic. It might be possible in the eyes of some churches to support evolutionary education without references to common origins of species and/or descent of man. Statistics and polls commissioned or interpretted by parties to a controversy are highly suspect. Even so, a reference that says "According to the National Center for Science Education, ..." might be better than what we have now. As you know, I try to be careful on how and when to quote interested parties to the controversy, and prefer disinterested parties whenever possible. StudyAndBeWise 06:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand the concerns about original research. All I did was take established figures for the list of denominations that were there, to give a sense of proportion. What I did was less original research than due diligence. The figures are verifiable. If there is a problem with original research, and there might well be, the problem lies with the presence of the list, not the analysis. Trishm 08:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I will leave the reworking of the sentence and citation to Trishm, and will address it later if Trishm doesn't get back to it. StudyAndBeWise 06:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. I've removed the citation for now, because I think we need to consider, and even analyse, this section carefully.Trishm 08:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Because, remember: Molleen Matsumura of the National Center for Science Education found, "of Americans in the twelve largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education." These churches include the United Methodist Church, National Baptist Convention, USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), National Baptist Convention of America, African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, and others.[58]--Filll 05:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. That's partly why I put figures to it - to see if it made sense. It could be that either some of those churches above shouldn't be in the list, it could be that membership is overstated. It could be that the pentecostal movement is bigger on a world scale than imagined. I will check the US situation as it appears from what we have.Trishm 08:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I will use that figure instead of mine, it is much better.Trishm 12:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Assembly of God is counted as Pentecostal, so there is at least a bit of double-counting. Looking at US figures, source: [[21]]

• Assembly of God - 2.5 million.
• Jehovah’s witnesses 1.8 million
• Seventh-day Adventists .7 million
• Lutheran Missouri Synod - 2.5 million.
• SBC 16.3 million (from above, assume all in the US)
• Presbyterian - 5.6 million.
• Christian Reformed Church 0.3 million
• Free Methodist Church 0.7 million
• Pentecostal 4.4 million
• Wisonsin Evangelical 0.4 million

Total of above:~19 million total christian 225 million

Given the figures for the pentecostal churches are a bit mushy, this accords more or less with the figures Fill gave above. I am surprised by how many Pentecostals are outside the US. I am not sure that if the US branch of the church is creationist to the point of being against evolution, that this means that those outside the US have the same view.

By the way, I am not saying that these figures need to be in the article. But I do believe that as editors we need to have a handle on who believes what, and what the relative proportions are. Trishm 12:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. When dealing with this controversy, many of the participants on both sides have a mistaken idea of what the actual dimensions of the sides are. For example, many creationists believe that all Christian churches believe in biblical literalism and in fact their church's interpretation of their version of the bible. Many have only the vaguest notion of different bibles or different interpretations. Many are shocked to find out that other Christian Churches believe differently. It is just pure ignorance. I have read creationist materials that claim that the Shintoists and the Hindus and the Muslims are evil because they are evolutionists. Many that claim the idea of evolution goes back thousands of years and is basically synonymous with Satan. And if they talk to their friends in their community, everyone seems to believe the same as them, so they cannot understand why museums and schoolbooks and the television do not reflect this. It seems like a vast horrible conspiracy. Scientists on the other hand can be stunned to realize the dimensions as well-particularly the number of young earth creationists among engineers or other disciplines (even though it is only about 5 percent, that is still sort of shocking to someone who thinks of scientists as at least moderately rational). What it appears to me from level of support for evolution is that most mainline churches support evolution (the Catholics for example have supported it for almost 100 years), and the overwhelming majority of scientists do as well. The more training in biology that a scientist has, the more likely they are to accept evolution. However, there is a fairly substantial level of support in the US public for creationism, although that support level is fairly soft. So creationists should not take a lot of comfort in the size of their apparent advantages in the public sphere.--Filll 13:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal and rearrangments (possibly controversial)

Removed from article...

“ Creationists are best known for their claims [22] that evolutionary theory is incorrect. These claims are not taken seriously by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, where the evidence of evolution is considered to be overwhelming in quality and amount, without a single contradiction. ”

The citation to a talkorigins website requires, I think, the sentence to be reworked. E.g., "According to talkorigins.com, Creationists are best known for..." I will not be adding this back in without discussion. StudyAndBeWise 05:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved within article, and modified:

“ Richard Dawkins, a prominent biologist and professor at Oxford University, explains that evolution "is a theory of gradual, incremental change over millions of years, which starts with something very simple and works up along slow, gradual gradients to greater complexity. ... If there were a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found."(citations provided in article) ”

I moved this to the falsifiability section, and reworded it because it was pumping up Dawkin's creditentials too much (POV?). The wikilink article to Dawkins should suffice to give his background. I did keep biologist to describe him, however. StudyAndBeWise 05:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed from the article:

“ Similarly, the evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane when asked what hypothetical evidence would disprove evolution in exchange for a creationist concept replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era", a period more than 540 million years ago, a time when life on Earth consisted largely of bacteria, algae, and plankton. ”

I'll add it back in to the falsifiability section, but will keep add a cn tag. StudyAndBeWise 05:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. I added it back to the falsifiability section. I believe this can be cited, and think it should be. Reference appreciated. StudyAndBeWise 05:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the section Arguments against evolution has a few sentences that cite an example, but the sentences draw conclusions based on the ability to provide an example. E.g., "creationists believe X" (cite of an example of a creationist who believes X). Is this good? I think my concern could be addressed by rewriting the sentences, or finding references to a disinterested party who has come to the same conclusion as the contributor. What do you think? StudyAndBeWise 06:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, this is ideal:

“ Creationists believe X. (Citation to a disinterested party that states creationists believe X) For example, Creationist Joe Smith stated, "X because X and so on and so forth" at the 1993 annual Creationist convention in Kenya. (citation to Joe Smith, or an account of Joe Smith saying X) ”

-or-

“ Creationists believe X. (Citations various and multiple creationists platforms) ”

...trying to be funny while making a point... StudyAndBeWise 06:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Potential Haldane citation in Ridley's book Evolution:[23]

--Filll 13:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I am working in South Eastern Railwat at peon without promotion. I want promotion in office have 5 year