Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups

• The text of the Creation vs. evolution debate page was cut from the Creationism page on October 29, 2004 to reduce the size of the Creationism page to reasonable limits.

• For full discussions prior to October 29, 2004, see Talk:Creationism and archives.

/Selected discussions prior to October 29,2004

Gallup survey

I have removed the mention of the Gallup survey claiming only 55% support evolution.

Particularly with regard to the following from elsewhere in the same article

Evolutionary theory is, without question, the dominant point of view among the scientific community. In 1987, Newsweek reported: “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 ascribed to Biblically literal creationism.

The insertion of the Gallup survey is clearly POV (and extremely POV) as it doesn't tally with the significantly different statistic shown elsewhere in the article, with a much more explicit wider sample base and reference. CheeseDreams 22:14, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• As to advancing my pov, i PUT the above quote in there -- which is accurate, and clearly states that evolutionISM is the dominant viewpoint among the scientific community. further, the 55% figure does not apply to evolution -- but ATHEISTIC evolution -- two separate issues, as the text clearly indicated. Ungtss 22:33, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The text is in a position and phrasing which reads in a manner implying that Creationism is actually rather a widely held view amongst scientists, percentage wise. Wheras the Newsweek report shows that it is somewhere nearer 1%. Maybe you would like to remove the Gallup survey toward the Newsweek poll, and qualify the sample group (i.e. specify how wide a survey it was, and where, geographically, it covered) CheeseDreams 23:05, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

the gallup poll is in the section on ABIOGENESIS, not the section on evolution. the two are entirely separate issues, as clearly indicated by the article. while the vast majority of scientists are evolutionISTS, the opinion on naturalistic ABIOGENESIS is 55/45. you have clearly misstated the passage. it is not opinion. it is FACT, and was used in the creationism page to quite a different effect (in an effort to show that creationism is associated with stupidity). in the second edit, i qualified the geographic area. if you'd like to question the study itself, then we can eliminate it from the creationism page, too. does anyone else have an opinion here so we don't keep wasting each other's time here? Ungtss 23:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

in my defense, you are the first person to complain about my pov for any extended period. the vast majority of my changes have been accepted -- even applauded. my changes on THIS page have been applauded by an atheist and an evolutionist, who clearly does not share my POV. Ungtss 23:23, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why are you highlighting ISTS? Are you trying to express a POV? The term evolutionists simply means advocates of evolution. The phrase "the vast majority of scientists are evolution" could hardly be considered to be sensible.

i am referencing your stated interest in eliminating the "evolutionism" page.

Evolutionism is not the same as evolutionist.

The opinion on naturalistic abiogenesis is NOT 55/45, you cannot count those who abstained/declined-to-comment/hold-a-neutral-view/dont-care/havent-decided as being on the opposing side. The whole point about these people is that they can equally be counted on the supporting side. For example, if the number of these people was 20% then there would be 55% pro evolution, 20% uncounted in some sense, 25% evolution. This could be 45% verses 55% but it could equally be 75% verses 25% which is really quite a significant different.

that was the reason the text was originally worded so as to say that opinion was MIXED. that a slight majority believed in atheistic abiogenesis. the remainder either don't believe it, or state no opinion. you erased any reference to the idea that opinion was mixed, which is all that stat conveys, and all it is intended to convey. if you want to reword so that the stat does not mislead, REWORD so the stat does not mislead. but the stat itself is accurate, and portays the facts -- that opinion is mixed.

I erased the poll completely, it has no place in the albiogenesis article if it is to remain NPOV. An opinion poll on validity of views seeks to give the weight of backing of numbers. This article is mean't to be unbiased in such a manner.

In addition your phrasing should not combine the non-pro-evolution people together into the figure 45%. Most people reading the article will scan the text, and consider the 45% to be the size of opposition to pro-evolution, which is not the case. You should use the actual percentage of pro-creation people, or the actual percentage of people not expressing a view countable as either pro-divinity or pro-god, if you wish to obtain NPOV. CheeseDreams 01:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The way you phrased the article suggests that a whole 45% believe in a divinity supported theory in some way, wheras infact this 45% includes votes not countable for either side, and the pro divinity figure could be as low as 1% or less!. This is why the gallup poll should not be used in the manner in which you use it, because suggesting that the whole 45% are pro divinity is extremely POV.

That is not how it was used. it was used to express the NPOV fact that opinion is MIXED. shall we change it to express that more effectively?

That would be achievable either simply by replacing the gallup poll with the phrase "opinion is mixed", or simply deleting the gallup poll alltogether, which is what I have already done (multiple times). CheeseDreams 01:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you look at the editors of this page, you will see that most of them are Creationists. The reason for this is because of the page's history as having been part of a page on Creationism. Creationists have a vested interest in that page and would wish to represent themselves accurately, more so than pro-evolution people would wish to attack them by editing.

whatever. the page was pov, and is now less so. i have no vested interest in creationism. contrary to your accusations, i am not a creationist. i am agnostic on the question, but have a great deal of familiarity with the arguments on both sides. so there's no need to "watch me," except insofar as i commit error. creationism was completely unrepresented on the page. now it is represented.

Again, you are jumping to conclusions about my opinions. I have never stated that you are a creationist. CheeseDreams 01:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am watching you because you have been disregarding wikipedia policy by wholesale creation of rival articles, and creating pages that are pure quotes. Please note, this is what I stated when I stated I was watching you.CheeseDreams 01:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The reason I have picked up on your changes are twofold. Firstly, I am one of the few people editing this series of pages who is not a creationist. Secondly, I am one of the few people online and checking this page at the same time as you are.

you are one of TWO people up right now who is not a creationist. and i am the other one.

There are more than 2 non-creationists involved in this series of pages.CheeseDreams 01:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In addition, I don't really see where people are supporting your changes. Further, if you wish to have an argument with me about picking up on your changes, please do so on my talk page, not here, as it is rather irrelevant to discussions about a text about Creation vs EvolutionCheeseDreams 23:55, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

i don't have a problem with you, or your picking up my changes. i have a problem with you proposing pages for quick deletion when that act is not appropriate according to policy (because it was not sheer nonsense, and redirected to a more npov title, as you agreed -- why are we fighting over the title of the article when it says account(s) in the PAGE!?!?) i have a problem with you returning the accounts page to its previous status -- which presents one POV, and then states "creationists try to reconcile." the page is EXCRUCIATINGLY pov at the moment, and my only goal is npov.

A page entirely filled with a chapter from the bible is not an encyclopedia article. Neither is it acceptable to Wikipedia to create rival articles. I am not fighting with you about the title of the article, I am "fighting" with you about the manner in which you are trying to make the change. I have not changed the Creation accounts in Genesis page.CheeseDreams 01:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the chapter was created in error ... there's no link to it on the page that i'm aware of, and it's not on my watchlist, so i don't even know HOW to delete it. i apologize for that, and appreciate your aid in getting rid of it. i created no "rival article." because i didn't know how to MOVE articles, i made a new one with an npov name, copied the text over there, edited it, and made the OLD name a redirect. same result. now i've undone it, in accord with your request, and will wait for approval to change the name, in accord with your request. whatever. any other procedures of consummate importance at the moment? Ungtss 01:18, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mendel as creationist

i think it's very important to have that in there. evolution v creation is not science v. ignorance, and mendel is proof of that. Ungtss 22:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

two points (a) I thought it was in there. (b) mendel lived at the same time as darwin, and died at a similar time. He may not have discovered Darwin's work, as he was a monk living outside of society, and he may have changed his opinions later in his life if he had. However point b is irrelevant. Because 1 person who was clever thought creation was the right thing doesnt make the whole of the idea of creation as a non-ignorant thing. Newton was clever but he still believed in Alchemy to the extent of locking himself in his room for 5 years so he could experiment to find the Philosopher's stone.CheeseDreams 23:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Just because Mendel was right about somethings does not mean he was right about everything -- this is illogical. Do you think everyone who believes in evolution should therefore become a Christian monk? Slrubenstein

a) it was in there ... but it was removed and i put it back ... and am just hoping it stays back, with a little kindness:).

b) here's what it boils down to for me, and i'd appreciate your insight in finding a mutually agreeable solution. i think it's pov to say that "science believes one thing" and "religion believes another." i think it's npov (and accurate) to note that some scientists are atheist (darwin ... for a while at least ... hawking, gould)and some scientists are theist (einstein, mendel, gallileo) ... i think it would be most npov to represent both sides ... and i think that one quick way to do it is to show that mendel ... the FATHER of modern genetics ... spent his life in a monastary, praying and studying peas. that's all. not saying that all scientists have to be monks. just saying some monks are scientists. fair:)? is there some way i could qualify it to make everybody happy? Ungtss 02:58, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Im not sure what relevance it has whether scientists believe in god or not. This isnt the God vs. science debate. Also, it is simply representing fact that the vast majority of scientists support Evolution, this is simply true, and therefore ought to be included in the article. It is also true that Creationism is predominantly a point of view supported by religious groups, this also is fact and ought to be included in the article. There is no statement "Its only the religious nutcases that ignore science and support Creationism rather than Evolution", which would be POV. CheeseDreams 08:48, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i agree with you ... all those facts are true. evolution is dominant among the scientists, and most creationists are dogmatic and scientifically ignorant. it's also true that mendel, an intelligent and cutting-edge scientist at the same time as darwin ... the father of modern genetics ... who discovered the mechanism of microevolution that darwin didn't even KNOW of when he wrote his book ... was a monk and a creationist. is it okay to make sure the article contains all three pieces of information? Ungtss 12:56, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

<<just saying some monks are scientists.>>

Suppose I am a high school student looking into the "creation vs. evolution debate"; suppose I am really intrigued by the problem of figuring out whence we all came. What NPOV insight on "whence we all came" could I get from knowing about Mendel's faith? Could the NPOV point be that there is nothing about believing in creation that would hinder exploring how to use evolution. Witness all of the scientists with faith who contributed to the basic research leading to better understandings of evolution. Witness Mendel, his faith, and his contributions to understanding evolution. I bet you could find a biographer of Mendel who made some point like that and you could then quote that biographer in clarifying the relationship of creation to evolution. ;) ---Rednblu | Talk 13:15, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

excellent point ... and good idea about providing concrete research:). i guess what i'm going after is two insights from mendel's faith:

1) the issue of MICROevolution should be stripped from the debate, since nobody is disputing it -- in fact, a creationist DISCOVERED its laws. 2) the scientific method in its purest form is free from value judgments, and is simply composing hypotheses and experiments, testing your experiments, and writing tentative conclusions which are sure to be modified with further research ... and that the high school student should feel free to apply the method to ANY theory of origins that they think might be possible, and follow the evidence wherever it leads ... that science DEPENDS on rebels for its greatest insights ... that NO new idea is accepted right of the bat so it'll take some fighting to win over the world ... that credible scientists have come from both creationistic and naturalistic POVs ... and that people should think and act freely, in line with their honestly held personal beliefs.

the first one is the npov one ... the second one is my religion:). shall we stick with the first one:)? Ungtss 16:10, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, Thomas Huxley made quotes very much like your second point--and he was the gentleman who invented the term agnostic. Within the Creation vs. evolution debate page you surely should be able to quote any statement by Thomas Huxley that you might find, for example, at this link.  ;)) ---Rednblu | Talk 20:44, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

gorgeous:). i guess there are two types of agnostics: those that don't know and don't care, and those that know they don't know, but will die trying:). Ungtss 21:41, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mendel

Did Mendel identify himself as a creationist? Did any of his contemporaries? This seems anachronistic. Slrubenstein

that's an excellent question ... i'll research that forya to get a quote or whatever. he definitely believed that God created the universe and life, however. by the definition at the top of the page, therefore, that makes him a creationist. as to being anachronistic ... he may not have CALLED himself a creationist ... but he was one for all intents and purposes. Ungtss 02:58, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

evolutionism as pov

Heya CheeseDreams ... i just wanna thank you for the great collaborative effort today. could you please articulate your concerns about "evolutionism" and how it's different than "creationism" so we can work together toward a mutually agreeable solution? Ungtss 03:03, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Evolutionism is a POV term used by Creationists to describe a percieved philosophy held by "believers in evolution" and is not a term used by non-creationists (except by cultural anthropologists but that story's far too complicated to go into here). Joe D (t) 03:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing for the term "Creation" to be used rather than "Creationism", the only issue with this is that Creation has a less specific meaning, and could refer, for example, to the creation of a cake. Contrastingly Evolution has a specific meaning, and although it can refer to lesser evolution (e.g. of a black moth from a mixture of colours), this is still the same sort of thing, wheras creation of cakes is not in any way really considerable as being related to Creationism. This is why the term "Creationism" rather than "Creation" is used. CheeseDreams 08:44, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

gotcha ... that's the problem i ran into when i was trying to change creationism into "those that ascribe to creation" -- it just got real awkward. i would appreciate it tho if you could explain exactly why evolution"ism" is pov ... ism just seems like a convenient way to describe belief in evolution ... but it's okay. it's a minor point to me anyway -- just semantics -- we can get rid of evolutionism if everyone else concurs:) Ungtss.

Because predominant usage of "evolutionism" is amongst Creationists. The predominant implication they mean by it is that it is a belief and not a theory which holds water scientifically. Almost NO supporter of evolution uses the term "evolutionism" to describe their position. Therefore the term is POV. CheeseDreams 21:58, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

gotcha ... and that makes a lot of sense. it carries a lot of baggage that's not fair. at the same time, it would be nice to have "parallel terms" -- do you have any suggestions for an npov one-word description of "belief in the theory of evolution" that could stand parallel to an NPOV equivalent for "creationism?" Ungtss 22:00, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, sorry, if I had thought of a 1-word NPOV replacement for "belief in the theory of evolution", I would already have used it. If I think of one, I will let you know here. CheeseDreams 22:33, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Section structure

I was hoping to break creation theory down by topic, with more than one subsection for the flood -- i.e. flood containing flood and myth, flood and geology, flood and lifespan ... then have other BIG sections ... like earth age, etc ... just don't have the other stuff yet. but for now, i'll group age of the earth together so it makes a little more sense. Ungtss 22:28, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Have you seen this link (probably not), at the base of the page. Apparantly, Ecclesiastes (Chapter 3) supports evolution. CheeseDreams 23:06, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

very interesting theory -- never saw it that way before:). when i read it in the context of the theme of the chapter and book, i read him saying, "life is pointless -- it's all in vain -- we're all animals, and we die like animals, so WTF." would you like to put an npov discussion of interpretations of this passage up somewhere? Ungtss 23:21, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I might, I will have to consider how to do it somewhere. I hadn't seen it before either. CheeseDreams 00:06, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

With the structure, I was thinking maybe it ought to be

ARGUMENTS

• albiogenesis
• flood

EVIDENCE

• fossils (in this section mention arguments about what fossils mean, and how they are explained etc.)

or something like that? CheeseDreams 00:06, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Totally Disputed

I have added a dispute header as Fleacircus is removing large chunks of text that he sees as caricatures.

Fleacircus, this article discusses the debate between evolution and creation, it does not discuss evolution and creation where they do not debate. The section you deleted was a discussion of those evolution supporters and those creation supporters who engage in the debate, not of them generally. CheeseDreams 11:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Even if they're not only about "evolutionists" (wasn't it decided that that term is POV?) and creationists, they're still usupported, overly general, and most importantly not really "perspectives" since they just rehash the two sides' opinions. Why do you think they belong there? -Fleacircus 22:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Evolution-ism is POV.

People in this article who are described as supporting evolution are people who support belief in evolution against creationists. By this they can justifiably be considered Evolution-ists, in the same way that supporters of George bush against John kerry can be considered Bush-ists. CheeseDreams 23:15, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, but that doesn't address my comments. It wouldn't be true that all Bush supporters against Kerry thought that Kerry behaved dishonorably after Vietnam, nor would it really be useful to state this as a "perspective" on the 2004 election. -Fleacircus 23:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

you make a good point ... do you have any suggestions on how to capture the message without painting with such broad (and probably unfair) strokes? maybe instead of saying "evolutionists think this way" and "creationists think this way" we could just say, "some think this way, some think that?" i definitely appreciate your perspective here ... i just wanna find a way to keep the message out there in a way that would be mutually agreeable? Ungtss 23:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Even if it's rephrased for nuance, it's not a perspective; it's a rehashing. -Fleacircus 00:12, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

aren't conclusions intended to rehash? Ungtss 00:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If it's a "conclusion" section, what's the Huxley quote doing there? -Fleacircus 00:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

um ... i thought it summed things up quite nicely. does it not? Ungtss 00:32, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's not a "summary" section. Where is the "evolutionist" excess that is supposed to resonate with Huxley's 1885 quote? Equivalence is a creationist POV. -Fleacircus 01:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the "evolutionist" excess lies in claiming to know things for certain when they don't ... and treading on the ground of the hebrew prophets ... claiming that science proves that there is no God. Ungtss 03:52, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yet neither of those alleged excesses is necessary to take the evolutionist side in this debate, while to be a creationist against evolution demands that you disagree with the vast majority of scientists about what is good science and what is not, based pretty much on your faith. Creationism must be anti-science, while science can be just pro-science. That's why there isn't equivalence, and why "both sides are equally biased" is a creationist POV in this debate. -Fleacircus 18:53, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

COUGH

Would both of you immediately read Wikipedia:NPOV.

And note this is not a forum for personal research. This is not an article about Fleacircus vs. Ungtss on the subject of Evolution or Creation.

CheeseDreams 19:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams: I know Wiki is not a discussion forum. Here's something from the Wiki policy on POV:

"Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties"

I don't think Wikipedia needs treat the probity of the scientific community as POV just because creationsits do. I think my perception of the POV is valid and my removal of it is in line with wiki guidelines on neutrality. If Ungsst wants to add a bit about the excesses of some evolutionists who used evolution to claim there is no God or whatever (are there any quotes of this?), then maybe we could do that. Maybe there should be a section or link that explains to what extent evolution is accepted by scientists or what it means to be a "theory and a fact" and how evolution is sort of an "operative" theory that has withstood a lot of research. The article certainly shouldn't present all aspects of evolution as perfectly absolutely true beyond all doubt, and I don't think it does.

However it's highly POV to paint all evolutionists as guilty of those excesses and hint that automatically impugns the scientific validity of evolution, making evolution on par with creationism as a matter of faith and shakey science. That's part of why I removed the characterizations. And while it's possibly POV to suggest that evolution is beyond the limits of science, if that were Huxley's perspective I would have left the quote alone. Once I read the linked article, though, I saw that it was a misrepresentation. -Fleacircus 20:53, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aldus

P.s. Dear Ungtss, and Rednblu, would you please stop trying to put essays by one writer into articles. Splitting it up with preceding paragraphs hardly disguises the fact. Only one or two sentances should be quoted. Use SOMEONE ELSE as the quotation for further parts if necessary. Better still, distil what they wrote and don't even quote it. This isn't Wikiquote or Wikisource. CheeseDreams 19:11, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cheesedreams, if you will check the history, you will discover that mr fleacircus has overhauled the section and put in another part of the quote to support his pov, and misrepresents huxley's points. i have attempted to even it out, but i would PREFER that we reverted to the original crop of the quote, which captured his message clearly and concisely. Ungtss 19:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fleacircus, science is not "whatever the majority believes." science is "what the evidence can reasonably support," and can support MULTIPLE tentative conclusions. dogmatism, on the other hand, asserts that things that are not "subject entirely to intellectually comprehension" are absolutely proven. without abiogenesis, missing links, or macroevolution, naturalistic evolution is TENTATIVE, not proven -- that was huxley's warning to the scientists. don't get too big for your britches: creationism may be wrong, but naturalistic evolution could be wrong too. the fact that some evolutionists cannot admit the OBVIOUS ambiguity and doubt in their theories is evidence to me that evolution has become a religion, and i find dogmatic evolutionism to be just as pathological is dogmatic creationism. Ungtss 19:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Do you think the current summary accurately captures Huxley's remarks? It might be a good idea if we could think of a less "agnostic" :) writer to present a "Perspective on the debate" as well. What do you think? Unfortunately, it takes almost a screen of writing to summarize Huxley's delicate point clearly without tilting it one way or the other. :( ---Rednblu | Talk 20:22, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i agree ... maybe quotes by Sagan and some creationist to capture the povs that were there before, without the broad strokes i used before? Ungtss 20:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good work, fellas:). i like it:). Ungtss 20:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

WHAT ABOUT QUOTES FROM GLADSTONE? You can't have a huge section on Huxley which starts "Huxley and Gladstone debated" without presenting Gladstone's POV as well. To just let Huxley's side be expressed is EXTREMELY POV. I may decide to tag the Huxley section out until the Gladstone side is presented with equal weighting. CheeseDreams 20:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Anyway, from the article itself, it wasn't Huxley who was debating with Gladstone, but he did step into it. -Fleacircus 20:54, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I prefer not to lie. CheeseDreams 21:13, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dear reader, Im growing curious as to why no-one has bothered checking who Mr Smith actually is. CheeseDreams 21:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

very funny, sir:). i wish there were such a man ... because he articulates the truth quite clearly:). Ungtss 21:42, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Did you get the subtler point about adding that text? That although I wrote the quotes myself from my mind, they are not both my opinion. Likewise it is also possible for this to be true of Huxley. Although he articulates one thing, it is not necessarily his actual POV. CheeseDreams 22:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was about to ask if someone had a description or anything for him. -Fleacircus 22:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You should have clicked the link at his name. It would have taken you to a (now no longer existing) page stating that I made him up. CheeseDreams 22:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The link was red so I didn't bother. Did it go here? -Fleacircus 22:37, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

yes, cheese, i can definitely see your point. i thought it was good as it was, but apparently it put a bee in people's bonnets. is it possible that this whole section is just more trouble than it's worth, and should be cut out entirely? it doesn't really add any information, after all ... people will come to their own conclusion, regardless. whatcha think? Ungtss 22:06, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think as it stands now its fine, but the section should be called "Views of the debate from outside it" or something. CheeseDreams 22:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

aside

As an aside, I wonder whether either of you have considered the idea of religion as a virus (particularly Evangelical forms)? CheeseDreams 19:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

some consider religion to be the virus. others consider secularism to be the virus. others (like me) consider both to be viruses insofar as they deliberately choose dogma over a humble quest for the Truth. consider a study of history by arnold toynbee, the longest written work in western history, arguing the third pov. personally, i don't care. i think science makes religion BIGGER, not smaller, because every answer we find opens up a dozen more questions. Ungtss 20:19, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Urm, no, thats a disease, not a virus. The point is (see Meme) that Evangelical Christianity's prime purpose, activities, and beliefs, are to spread itself to someone else. This is the definition of a virus. Student Christian groups such as OICCU, CICCU, LICCU, DICCU (these are real names - respectively Oxford, Cambridge, London, and Durham inter-collegiate "christian" unions) can be considered the most virulent form, as they generally exist in such a way that they perform absolutely no other function than self-replication. CheeseDreams 20:46, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

yes, i agree with you. many organized religions have deteriorated into viruses whose only purpose is self-replication. that's why i can't go to church without getting physically ill. i think a religion is completely dead as soon as the CRITERIA FOR SALVATION is that you believe what they say and go to their church (as most evangelical churches do now). At that point, it has absolutely nothing to offer. Jesus agreed with you too, by the way, as he spat on the pharisees and was ultimately killed by them.

That's a POV. It requires

• Jesus was real
• He actually said that which the gospels claim he did
• The pharisees in the gospels actually were pharisees (which by the description of some of the occurances is really rather implausible).

CheeseDreams 21:10, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

everything is a pov, my friend:) -- you asked for mine and you got it. i don't live in a world of proof. i live in a world of reasonable belief. if you think it's more reasonable to believe scripture's a fabrication, go ahead -- no skin off my neck:). i'll stick with my pov and i'll meet you at the end:). Ungtss 21:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No. I do not think you shall. CheeseDreams 22:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, i hope i will:). Ungtss 02:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here -- organized religion and True Religion are two entirely separate entities. True religion is living justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God. that has nothing to do with organized religion -- it has everything to do with the proper functioning of our souls. with LIFE. with JOY. with FREEDOM. True Religion is, i believe, what makes us Fully Human. That's what Huxley was after. Ungtss 21:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, True Religion is whatever the religion is that is actually True, i.e. correct. Just religion is religion which is fair. Nice religion is that which makes you feel warm inside. They are not, and never have been, the same.CheeseDreams 21:13, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

you missed it, my friend:). i think True Religion is Just, Merciful, and Humbly walking with God -- which leaves me in the company of Moses, Micah, Jesus, Muhammed, Huxley, and Gandhi - none of whom believed things in order to feel "Warm" inside. If they're all fools, then i'm content to be a fool too:). Ungtss 21:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Their religion was nice, not Just. Gandi's actions were not necessarily Just. Neither were they True. Likewise, Jesus, Muhammed, and Gandhi can't all be correct about the nature of existance and god can they? so not all (if any) of them can be True. They are only nice, and even then, only to some. CheeseDreams 22:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

you're confusing True Religion with theology and metaphysics. theology concerns itself with the nature of God; metaphysics with the nature of existence. Both are abstractions, and superfluous under huxley's analysis. True Religion concerns itself only with justice, mercy, and humble faith -- no matter what your "theology" is. And if you think Gandhi was unjust ... well ... you go right ahead and think that:). Ungtss 02:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

True religion is about what is the truth. Just religion is concerned with justice, mercy, and humility. They are not the same.

P.s. Read about what Gandhi also did. History isn't always as obvious as the superficial reading. CheeseDreams 21:06, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe that justice, mercy, and humility of True. and don't confuse religion with perfection. all people, religious and non-religious, sin from time to time. gandhi messed up, david messed up, adam messed up, and i messed up. the religious man picks himself up after his sin, pulls himself together, and walks on. Ungtss 22:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Evangelism does seem viral. The question is, does it benefit the host? -Fleacircus 21:15, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NO, the question is, does it care if it doesn't? CheeseDreams 21:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

sadly ... in most cases ... the answer to both is "No." Ungtss 21:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A vaccine doesn't care either. -Fleacircus 21:29, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

a vaccine is just an impotent form of the virus it seeks to counteract. useful for fighting viral infection, but no substitute for the Bread of Life. Ungtss 02:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Try soya bread. CheeseDreams 21:02, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whatever works for you:). Ungtss 22:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

paraphrasing huxley

why are you afraid of what he said, fleacircus? do you find yourself wishing he said something else? Ungtss 02:42, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ungsst, your quote does not reflect the point of Huxley's article. When I originally put in another quote from the conlusion of the article to show what Huxley was saying, you (and somehwat RedNBlue) kept adding things until the whole thing got too bloated. Do you find yourself wishing Huxley only said what you like? Read Huxley's article and tell me if my summary of it is wrong; I included lots of quoted words of his and even your favorite "short sighted scientific people" comment. The point of Huxley's article is not that both sides are equally to blame.

You're quoting Huxley selectively to demonstrate your POV. Stop reverting to your unacceptable version unless you can demonstrate that accurately it reflects Huxley's actual perspective as shown in that article. -Fleacircus 18:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

sir, you're misparaphrasing him:). he said that scientists were to blame insofar as they made claims beyond their "clear intellectual comprehension" -- implying that some were doing so. he never EVER said he believed naturalistic evolution to be undisputable fact, as your "paraphrase" implies. he merely said he thought evolutionism is more reasonable than young earth creationism, based on his knowledge and analysis of the evidence. Ungtss 18:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Except Huxley also says "The antagonism of science is not to religion, but to the heathen survivals and the bad philosophy under which religion herself is often well-nigh crushed...". Science is antagonistic against something. The reasoning that lets Huxley say "not to religion" is by his definition of "true religion" as the quote from Micah. The rest of stuff that Huxley believes is mistakenly called "religion", we should be glad to see the back of, and not think of it as science being against religion per se. Using the first quote without acknowledging that Huxley has a specific definition of "religion" in mind is misrepresentation. At least as I read it. -Fleacircus 19:02, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. shall we add a second sentence that hits both points then? something like, "True religion, according to Huxley, is embodied by justice, mercy, and a humble walk with God, and benefits from the propensity of True Science to strip it of false philosophy? At the same time, science is limited to the realm of that which is clearly understood by the intellect, and cannot make claims beyond that realm?" Ungtss 19:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hull & Butler

Er, they both look pretty Con to me. Which one is supposed to be "pro evolution"? -Fleacircus 18:34, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

hull was pro evolution -- "who can believe in God in the face of the evidence for darwinism?" Ungtss

that leaves evolution one ahead, for your pleasure:). Ungtss 18:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Using a quote from a pro-evolution guy that says "evolution disproves God" isn't really a pro-evolution quote, and in fact serves your creationist POV. If I found a quote from some creationist guy that said "facts be damned, faith is the answer!" that wouldn't be a "pro creationist" quote. -Fleacircus 18:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

shall we find a quote from a creationist to show that creationism proves God exists? How about Saint Paul in romans? the FACT is that many evolutionists believe evolution disproves God, and many creationists believe creation proves God; if you remove those POVs from the list, you have promoted your own pov, that evolution is purely scientific and has no implication for religion -- which is -- according to mr hull anyway, poppycock. Ungtss 18:47, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Evolution is scientific. Heliocentrism was a scientific idea that had religious implications at the time, and it might even be the case that some advocates of it liked the angle that it went against the church, and maybe they made claims that it proved God wasn't real and felt it resonated with their atheism or whatever. None of this is really the fault of heliocentrism or heliocentrists. Saying "heliocentrism is religion because some heliocentrists are atheists and that's a FACT!" is just a silly ad hominem attack.

It's not so much that I object to the quotes, Ungsst, except that your descriptions of them as "pro and con" makes me doubt your honesty when they both are clearly "pro"-Ungsst-POV. -Fleacircus 19:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I love that bwap-on-the-head quote! :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 19:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• i didn't say evolution was a religion. i believe it IS scientific. i said evolutionism has BECOME a religion for certain individuals who hold to it with dogmatic ferver, and refuse to let any doubt their thought process, for fear that naturalism might come under fire. further, analogies to old scientific errors are faulty. just because one theory that challenged orthodoxy is true does not mean that the next theory to challenge orthodoxy is true -- each theory stands on its own merits, and the discussion here in on the merits of evolution. Ungtss 22:24, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Boy would it be nice to stick to the merits of evolution itself instead of the merits of evolutionists, wouldn't it? -Fleacircus 23:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd love that. then, as soon as evolutionists stop calling creaionists "those unscientific, superstitious, religious kooks," we might be able to get somewhere:). Ungtss 23:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Have you seen any such accusations being put into the article that justifies this campaign you're waging to defame evolutionists? -Fleacircus 23:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The NAS quote pretty much sums it up:). Ungtss 23:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why'd you add it then? -Fleacircus 23:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because this is a section on "perspectives on the debate," and that is the stated perspective of the NAS:). Ungtss 00:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You have been working to defame evolutionists because you think that evolutionists defame creationists. When I ask you to produce an example of this in the article, you point to something you inserted yourself after you'd already begun attacking evolutionists. Somehow this doesn't seem to jibe with your statment that you're really after the Truth and wish we could just discuss the merits of evolution. -Fleacircus 00:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1) i have worked to defame no one. i wrote a brief and summary of the summary of the points of view which you summarily deleted without discussion or compromise. i subsequently quoted a number of individuals from a number of points of view regarding their views on the creation/evolution contraversy. any "campaign" your perceive is just the unpleasant Truth sinking in: evolutionists are just as human as creationists. Ungtss 00:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When you make a claim to know capital-T truth, you realize what you sound like, right?

I deleted both characterizations because they were ridiculous. You say you'd love to discuss only the merits of evolution but you've done your best to try to make the "perspectives" section the "evolutionists are bad" section. I don't think you're really helping the article, Ungsst. -Fleacircus 00:36, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Using a capital T puts me somewhere between Sagan and Morris, i would think:). you are the only one who thought they were ridiculous. Cheesedreams put them back, and he's certainly not on my "side," generally:). They were concise, sympathetic, and fair. the current section quotes moronic creationists like morris along with genius evolutionists like huxley, plus gould, the pope, and darwin ... and all the rest of them. pro-evolution even outnumbers pro-creation by one, for your pleasure. It's fair and accurate. get over it. Ungtss 00:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please, the characterizations that were there were like comic book descriptions of both sides. The section is more interesting now, at least; although I would rather see the quotes be a bit shorter. Now it has nuance, chronology, and actual quotes! I was hoping that they would be more like detached perspectives on the debate instead of actual elements in the debate, but oh well. It sounds like you're done spinning the section, Ungsst, is that right? I don't think there need to be any more quotes. -Fleacircus 01:37, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

to see a creationist spin in that section now, sir, would require paranoia:). Ungtss 02:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah yes, the old "if you disagree with me you're crazy" argument. -Fleacircus 18:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A nice complement to the old "i don't like the facts so you're biased" argument:). Ungtss 19:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I like the facts just fine, I just don't think your "FACT"s are as factual or important as you seem to think. Your claims to know what I think and believe are quite amusing. -Fleacircus 19:42, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

as are yours:). Ungtss 19:47, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• In my opinion, the quotes from Butler and Hull are pretty neutral--not caring which rapacious species, creationist or evolutionist, wins the battle on the Serengeti. But both sound like they are wise enough to keep their hands and feet on this side of the barred windows in the jeep and to keep their elephant guns at the ready.  :))) ---Rednblu | Talk 18:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

lol:). well said, sir:). Ungtss 18:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ungtss, you clearly haven't worked out that Rednblu is a Creationist. He is just a very very clever one, who twists articles by putting in superficially neutral edits, or apparantly pro-evolution edits, but which subtly are one sided. He was pointed out a long time ago by another user, who recognised him from his behaviour on UseNet. Note how keen he is to keep the existence of the article Evolutionism, a term which is only used by Creationists, and is considered by everyone else as extremely derogatory. CheeseDreams 21:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RednBlue has given me absolutely no reason to believe that he is a creationist. he has consistently represented himself as a reasonable and openminded naturalistic atheist, a position with which i respectfully disagree, although i can completely understand and respect his point of view. like me, however, i believe he recognizes that evolutionists are just as apt to become "viral" as the most empty-headed evangelicals. the fact that some people cannot recognize an intellectually honest evolutionist when they see one is more evidence to me that evolutionism has become a religion. Ungtss 22:24, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Completely separate from the derogatory uses of the word, evolutionism is used by secular anthropologists as a term-of-art to classify all the related theories of origins from atoms, void, and natural laws. Here is a quote from the abstract of a sample paper. "Most important, [this paper] shows that his [ Herbert Spencer's ] evolutionism was originally stimulated by his association with the Derby philosophical community, for it was through this group--of which his father, who also appears to have espoused a deistic evolutionary theory, was a member--that he was first exposed to progressive Enlightenment social and educational philosophies and to the evolutionary worldview of Erasmus Darwin, the first president of the Derby Philosophical Society.") (emphasis added) (abstract p. 1) ---Rednblu | Talk 00:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Inconsistency

According to the article, Creationists believe the following two claims:

moths may randomly develop white and black variants

Creationists assert that while research overwhelmingly supports microevolution, there is neither a coherent mechanism nor empirical evidence for macroevolution.

If the moths develop randomly more than one variation, such as antenna on one, not the other (e.g. a manx cat which is naturally tailless), these two claims are completely inconsistent. There is no stage at which sudden change has happened, and yet the groups of moths could go in completely different directions - one ending up with thinner shorter more furry wings, the other with more colourful ones. I.e. one turning into a bee the other into a butterfly.

CheeseDreams 21:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

P.s. There is an intermediate form between humans and amphibians. If you look at ultrasound scan's of foetus' (human and other mammals) you will notice that at early stages they have webbed hands and feet, a genetic defect some are born with. We still have the genes for this stage, its just that we have genes that move us past it as well. CheeseDreams 21:15, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

you have just illustrated your profound misunderstanding of the creationist critique. i see no inconsistency:). Ungtss 22:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ive just thought-"as a single demonstration of life arising from non-life would disprove the hypothesis"-adam from the earth is the counter example. Youll have to abandom the whole theory now. CheeseDreams 01:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

excellent point. i will reword to, "life arising from non-life without the intervention of an intelligent being." Ungtss 01:42, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Macro and microevolution

It is inaccurate to state that creationists "coined" the term macro and microevolution. see this article.

Birch and Ehrlich Quote

Is pretty misrepresentative. First of all, they're sort of saying what Popper said. Second of all, it's taken way out of context. What B&E are talking about is whether to guess first from evolution or to do more studies. [1]. It should be taken in light of this later in the article:

"The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets. In population biology, more work is needed in elucidating the general properties of populations, both those made up of one species of organism, and those made up of two or more species, without reference to dogmas or guesses about how they may have evolved." Birch and Ehrlich then list seven types of studies which should be done, and end with the statement: "Then we can see how the answers fit into the modern synthesis" [of evolutionary theory].

Since this was a POV misquote, it's removed. -Fleacircus 17:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

let's put both of them in there!!! that second quote is great and very fair!!! Ungtss 18:54, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The first quote is misleading; it's a creationist favorite misquote. I'm not going to let it in, sorry. Do you honestly think that Ehrlich and Birch mean what you are trying to get them to say? -Fleacircus 19:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

you are not in charge here, so don't pull power trips. this is a team effort and we will come to consensus on decisions. i am not trying to get them to say anything -- i thank you for adding the context that makes their statement ENTIRELY reasonable and consistent with belief in evolution ... but they said it, it represents a POV that is not otherwise represented by the section, and it belongs there. just like huxley, which you persisted in misrepresenting by cutting out any criticism of scientific methodology. further, the section is TOTALLY incomplete without morris -- he defines a LARGE spectrum of the debate: "Genesis at any cost -- even at the cost of reality." Ungtss 19:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• The Ehrlich and Birch quote seems to me to be fairly made and NPOV. But I don't see that the quote is relevant. The quote seems to be directed to improving the falsifiability of some parts of evolutionary theory. That is, the quote does not seem to be a perspective on the "Creation vs. evolution debate." For example, what does the quote--or the quoted article for that matter--say about creation? All the other quotes, including that Morris gem, say something directly about the "creation vs. evolution debate." ---Rednblu | Talk 20:05, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• the way i read it, E+B addresses the falsifiability of evolution -- and falsifiability is an essential component of any meaningful debate. when evolution is left in the status of being non-falsifiable, it is IMMUNE from debate (just as the evolutionists assert that ID is non-falsifiable, immune from debate, and therefore pseudoscience). the quote recognizes the potential error of allowing evolution to stand in a non-falsifiable, "pseudoscientific" status, where it is "immune from debate," and the authors intelligently and constructively propose several means for bringing evolution back into the realm of the falsifiable and scientific. what do you think? Ungtss 20:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Maybe. But I use "falsifiability" in my own work much like I think Ehrlich and Birch used it in their quote. Improvement to a conventional wisdom comes from stating conventional wisdom in an insightful way that suggests where to falsify the conventional wisdom--that is, find the data that will improve the conventional wisdom. I don't see stating the conventional wisdom of evolutionary theory in a more falsifiable form would make it more vulnerable in the "creation vs. evolution debate." Maybe we could work through what falsifiability would mean for something like F=ma to illustrate the point? ---Rednblu | Talk 20:34, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since B&E suggest some courses of action and lines of research, I don't see how that can jibe with the interpretation that they believe the entire theory of evolution is pseudoscience. They themselves are evolutionists. I think the first part of the quote misrepresents what they actually believe, even if it does express someone (else)'s POV. -Fleacircus 20:37, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i appreciate the substantive dialogue:). as i understand it, falsifiability serves two purposes: it serves to aid improvement, and it serves to aid criticism. that is why falsifiability is important for BOTH sides of the debate. Evolutionists want ID to present itself in falsifiable terms so it can be criticized, and ID people want it presented in falsifiable terms so it can be improved. similarly, evolutionists want evolution framed in falsifiable terms so it can be improved, and creationists want it stated in falsifiable terms so it can be criticized. what makes this quote so immensely valuable is it serves BOTH points of view ... it states a REALLY necessary component of improving dialogue (and hence debate) between creationists and evolutionists. What do you think? Ungtss 20:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I would challenge ID to present itself in 1) falsifiable terms that 2) satisfy Occam's razor to show that it really is trying to improve itself--as any decent theory development should. I would not view a falsifiable form of ID as making itself more vulnerable to criticism. I don't view falsifiability as "throwing out the baby and the bath water."  :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 20:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• i agree with you that ID has failed miserably to make falsifiable claims. but i'd also argue that evolution has failed just as badly. i believe that's why evolutionists and creationists keep banging each other over the head with mallets -- because NEITHER theory can predict anything, so people on BOTH sides cling to the science that supports their bias, with religious ferver. if evolutionists ever want to persuade morris and his ilk, they're gonna need to come up with a theory that makes predictions that come true. If they can't do that, they're pseudoscience. same thing goes for ID. falsifiability is the cure to demogoguery:). Ungtss 21:04, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I don't see falsifiability as really about prediction. In my view, stating a hypothesis in falsifiable form points to where a counter-example to the hypothesis can be found. May I illustrate with F=ma? ---Rednblu | Talk 21:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• please do -- i'm no expert on falsifiability:). Ungtss 21:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

falsifiability

As I see it F=ma means that if you apply a constant force to a mass, you will keep getting the same acceleration. Right? ---Rednblu | Talk 21:35, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

as long as the mass stays constant and it's in a vaccuum without outside forces, yes sir:). Ungtss 21:37, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• So let us think about the various falsifiable forms of F=ma we might make. We might make a falsifiable form like the following. To falsify F=ma, find a situation where the color of the mass determines whether or not F=ma. That would be a falsifiable form of F=ma, would it not?  :)) But I don't think we would have a very useful falsifiable form.  :(( While it is true that the two of us would win a Nobel Prize 8)) if we could find a situation where the color determined whether or not F=ma, we would not even devote a day to looking for such a situation, would we? ---Rednblu | Talk 21:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NO. F=ma means that the difference between the amount of information in the universe, and the amount you can possibly ever get out, is as small as possible. Well actually, the OTHER solution is that it is as big as possible, which is even more profound. But you probably didn't know this. Most people don't realise how deep F=ma is (see if you can work out why - i will give you a clue - Lagrangian). CheeseDreams 21:54, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The "cleanup" tag should be removed

I suggest that the "cleanup" tag is completely nonsense on this page. This page is under active development and hence the "cleanup" tag is nonsense. ---Rednblu | Talk 20:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm okay with it there; a reader should be prepared for messiness. -Fleacircus 20:37, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• But that is not the way that the "cleanup" tag is used in Wikipedia. The "cleanup" tag is used only on pages that are not being edited! Do you have in mind changing what words mean? ---Rednblu | Talk 21:08, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Cleanup means, "somebody get over here and fix this." here we are, trying:). why do we need the tag? Ungtss 21:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Right. :) Here we are. ---Rednblu | Talk 21:15, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You need the tag because you have not wikified the text you have added. For example, links. The structure of the article is a mess, and it is not clear what is going on in each section. CheeseDreams 21:48, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Sure. But that is not what the "cleanup" tag is used for, is it.  :) ---Rednblu | Talk 21:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)