Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups

For a November 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Creation vs. evolution debate

The misleading poll on which the introduction is now based

I think we left off on this topic with the accusation that "your idea of using "exactly the wording Gallup actually used" is merely original research." I think the complete idiocy of this remark speaks for itself. Bensaccount 04:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I took it the guy was just trolling me. Dr Zen 07:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well since the poll's proponents (Ungtss, Rednblu, Rayment) have decided to completely ignore this and instead to generate a new heap of disinformation (see below), the misleading poll is finally going to be deleted. Bensaccount 17:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ben, dr. zen reworded to page to fit the wording of the poll! the problem is solved in everybody's mind but yours, and you STILL can't articulate what you think is wrong with it, beyond, "it's misleading," which means nothing to anybody but you. you've lost this battle by consensus like 20 times now. give it up, man. Ungtss 18:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you finally allowed the original wording to be used. The next step is to remove the poll or explain why it is misleading (conflation of science and religion). Bensaccount 18:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ben, it's been like that for several days ... well before you deleted it. most of dr. zen's edits have actually made some sense. why don't you ask him what he thinks of your "conflations?" Ungtss 18:57, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What do you think of them Untss? Since you have not expressed an opinion yet I will remove the poll until you do. Bensaccount 19:02, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1) don't remove polls for my sake. i am perfectly capable of expressing my own opinion

2) i just expressed my opinion in my last comment. his edits made sense.

3) i think dr. zen did a fine job, and that's why i didn't contest his edit.

Conclusion: now put the poll back in and quit wasting everyone's time. Ungtss 19:21, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The fact remains that the poll and the paragraph based on it only allow evolution when it is conflated with religion. This is biased and I will continue to remove it until you prove otherwise. Bensaccount 19:26, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i can't deal with this anymore. the whole DEBATE is a "conflation" of theories of origins and religion. i've been going around in meaningless circles with you for two months now. would somebody help end this? Ungtss 19:32, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would also accept a clear explanation that the poll only allows for the conflation of evolution and religion. Bensaccount 19:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

labels

heya rednblue -- appreciate the excellent research you've added to the page ... but it seems we now have two types of information on the debate -- the issues of the debate itself (which, tho to many scientists it appears ridiculous, are in fact that material of an ongoing debate) ... and academic opinions on the debate itself, reflecting the pov that creationists are just vestiges of ignorance and geocentrism (ignoring, for a moment i suppose, that geocentrism was a greek scientific theory which the church adopted along with aristotle and the rest, and in NO WAY an explicitly christian idea, while the history of genesis is rather explicitly christian because it claims to be historical). to creationists, this pov is just a means of lumping creationists in with morons, because (to creationists) CREATIONISM is the most scientific, and evolution comes up well short.

my concern is that we've got a lot of diverse types of data on this page now. how shall we arrange the page now ... should we move the issues of the debate entirely over to the "viewpoints compared" page and just leave info on the debate itself here ... or move the info on the debate itself to the end so that we can describe the issues themselves before going into great detail about how creationists are unscientific ... how do you suggest we proceed? Ungtss 02:14, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I am thinking. I thought it would be easier to lay out the sections and then think about how to reorganize it. We also have a law review article or two that talk about the underlying conflicting values in the debate--on all sides. So you think the two types of information are 1) issues and 2) academic opinions? By "issues" do you mean questions like whether or not the randomness in retrotransposons, the haploid/diploid cycle iteration, and mistakes 8)) are sufficient to generate new "kinds"? ---Rednblu | Talk 03:23, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the stuff from Eugenie Scott because it's very POV (on Scott's part, not Rednblu's) and downright vilification, if not actually malicious, particularly the way she includes flat-earthers in the list. Philip J. Rayment 16:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I spent some time thinking this through for myself. :) I questioned whether Scott was being quite fair; in particular the International Flat Earth Society is so small. And because Scott already in the article had noted that most Americans had conceded the "well-accepted scientific theories (heliocentrism, cell theory, atomic theory, plate tectonics)" but rejected only "evolution." But when I check my own personal experience with Flat earthers and Geocentrists, I find that the Flat earthers and Geocentrists are no more plain stupid than are the idealistic communists; they are committed to a truth against all evidence, with the Flat earthers more committed to that truth--namely "theological conservatism" as against an "acceptance of modern science"--than are the Geocentrists or the Day-age theorists. I think if I were writing the (Scott 1997) article, I would have left out the Flat earthers and Geocentrists from the "continuum"--for political reasons of not wanting to lose an important part of my audience. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 20:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How are these "issues" in a "debate" between "creation" and "evolution"? "Evolutionists" do not believe there is any such thing as a kind, so what does or does not create one is not an issue for them. It's an issue in creation "science" but that is a whole different thing. Dr Zen 03:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

one of the issues, dr. zen, is whether or not there is such a thing as a "kind."

That's not what Rednblu said. He asked some questions about what things might generate new "kinds". These are not "issues" in the "creation vs evolution" "debate", because "evolutionists" do not as it happens debate what does or doesn't generate new kinds.Dr Zen 06:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let's not quibble needlessly over whether it is called family or "kind." If you must, 8)) please translate mentally "kind" to "family" so that "cat kind" translates to Felidae, if you please. As you must know by now, the "creation vs. evolution debate" is not among evolutionary biologists. :) As far as I can tell, the evolutionary biologists get involved in the "creation vs. evolution debate" only when they try to keep creationism out of science classrooms. Other than that political tussle over the science classrooms, the evolutionary biologists are absent from the "debate." The Creation vs. evolution debate page already makes this clear several different ways, does it not? ---Rednblu | Talk 07:11, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- We are not "quibbling needlessly". There may be discussion over what role retrotransposons have in evolution, but that does not play any part in the "debate" between creationists and scientists. Of course, "evolutionary" biologists do get involved in disputes with creationists (as [www.pandasthumb.org] attests -- there is another noticeboard where many of the same guys slug it out with ID enthusiasts but I don't recall its name; and I believe most of the talkorigins faq pages were written by biologists). Certainly, plenty have had things to say about Behe's "work". But the "debate" is not properly characterised as among scientists nor should we suggest that it is within biology, because it is not. Furthermore, we should not permit characterisations of eminent scientists in the appropriate fields as "not Darwinian" (we can certainly quote some whackjob or other claiming that they are, so long as we quote the guys in question saying they are not) and any presentation of creationist "evidence" must be rigidly balanced with refutations. I don't have the least problem with presentation of creationist views, of course, and I certainly haven't discouraged Ungtsss from presenting them. Nor do I endorse the poisonous section labels. The creationists' views should be presented fairly. If we have quibbles with the validity of polls, we must find someone who shares them and quote them quibbling.Dr Zen 07:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you acknowledge that biologists do debate the issue, but claim that there is no debate within biology, then you are defining the people that they debate with (the creationists) as being outside of biology. But some creationists are biologists, so this is clearly wrong. In other words, you claim that there is no debate within biology depends on the POV that creationism is outside of biology. Philip J. Rayment 16:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

to mr. rednblue: yeah -- those are some of the issues, among others -- abiogenesis, adaptive complexity, diversity, radiometric dating, phylogenetic trees, exons, introns, the whole deal -- basically everything we had before. seems to me most of it might go quite nicely on the "views compared" section. might solve some perceived pov problems and allow for expansion too. i've recently been trying to rearrange the facts compared section to be "fact-viewpoint-viewpoint" to aim in pov balancing -- what do you think? do you think we could transfer a lot of the old stuff there and leave this page with the high-quality academic opinions you've been adding, among others? Ungtss 04:05, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

LOL! It's not the facts that are the problem but their absence! Dr Zen 06:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

We have enough material on the page now so that we can begin to sort out what should be on this page. What are the four big points that should be made on the Creation vs. evolution debate page in your opinion? ---Rednblu | Talk 07:11, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1/ The "debate" is mostly done outside science. Where it involves scientists, those in the appropriate fields are overwhelmingly on one side of the debate, and those who are on the other tend to be from other fields that do not depend on the notion of evolution. Debate is the wrong word, in any case, because it is not a discussion with give and take, which debate implies, but a dispute between two absolutely irreconcilable viewpoints.

2/ Any distinction between the "sides" must be drawn fairly. In particular, there should not be a tripartite distinction between creationists, "theistic evolutionists" and "naturalistic evolutionists". The debate is between those who believe the Bible is literally true or nearly so, and those who do not. The latter include people who believe God created everything, some of whom think he guides evolution, whatever that means, some of whom think he does not, and some of whom don't really give it that much thought.

3/ If issues such as geology and abiogenesis are included, this article needs to be about "the dispute between creationists vs mainstream science". These subjects may well be tools in the creationists' quest to discredit evolution by natural selection and related theories, but they don't in fact form any part of the theories in question, particularly abiogenesis, which is entirely moot.

4/ This article is presented too much from the creationist POV. IOW, it gives the creationist quibble and then, if it bothers, science's reply. It is rather dishonest about some of the terms of the "debate" from science's side. No article on this debate should, for instance, ignore how unimportant abiogenesis is from science's POV, nor that "our" side does not see it as a reasonable debate in the first place. Many believe -- we could quote Dennett, if you like -- that creationism is a product of ignorance and preys on ignorance, because the weight of evidence for evolution is so overwhelming and compelling -- with the disputes within science over the details, not generally the basics. Most scientists, it should be noted, do not engage in any "debate" on this score, because the "fact of evolution" is as rock-solid as the heliocentric theory of the solar system. When you are reduced to attacking the notion of the continuity of physical laws, you're really groping around, because you have lost sight of the fact that science is about "explaining" the world coherently and creationism is about its idea of the truth, which are different projects altogether.Dr Zen 07:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any problem dealing with your four points. But I would say that the first important part of the structure is to get Mr. Ungtss, Mr. Rayment, and other creationists to express fairly their four priority points. After all this is a page in the "creationism" series, is it not? :)) And then you and I can negotiate our four priority points in response. What do you say? ---Rednblu | Talk 08:28, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

hmm ... four points. how about:

1) The debate revolves around the interpretation of historical evidence, rather than the contemporary observations of empirical science; creationists accept all experimentally repeatable and verifiable science, and only dispute the interpretations given to the fossil record and the radiometric dating of rocks, due to what creationists believe to be fundamentally flawed methodologies. this differentiates creationism fundamentally from flat earth and geocentrism, both of which require the rejection of empirical, repeatable, and experimental observations, and are thus sheer stupidity.

2) the issue of whether one's science informs ones ideology or vice versa is a knife that cuts both ways, and both sides have persistently engaged in a great number of fundamentalist tactics in an effort to defend their own ideology ... often against reason. creationists and evolutionists alike commit this ancient sin of bad religion.

3) the absence of creationists from empirical science is due not to an absence of merit to creationist claims, but to the ideology and paradigm of contemporary scientific culture, which excludes creation science by definition, even when it is significantly more parsimonious and has significantly greater explaining power. this leaves evolutionists with a great deal more scientific, financial and governmental research resources available to pursue and back its theories ... and leaves creation science unable to exhaustively research and develop its arguments, because creationism is, for the most part, a hobby on the part of people who need other jobs to make a living.

4) i'll leave number four for mr. rayment, should he have any suggestions.

i also think it would be INVALUABLE to have a thorough discussion on the "definition of science" -- precisely how both sides define science, why they believe their own side to be scientific, and why they believe they other side to be unscientific. Ungtss 08:49, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ungtss' three points and guess that my suggestion for the fourth point would be that the article needs to cover some history of the debate and description of the manner or form of the debate. Philip J. Rayment 16:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seems that Rednblu, Untss, Rayment have generated a whole new heap of irellevant disinformation. Luckily the article already has so much of it, it will make very little difference. Bensaccount 17:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

In my opinion, everybody should get to name their own four priority points. :)) And I invite Mr. Ben also to consider making a list of the four top priority points for this page.

How about the following approach? just off the top of my head. You could try your own version of this same process. What outline of the article would suit everyone's "four points"?

Let's aim the article for the interested high school student.
First we need to give the reader some sense of the debate, who is involved. We don't have to describe everything. But we want to make it clear. And we want to quote, paraphrase, and cite the proponents directly.
Then we need a clean way to present accurately the way that the creationists tend to attack not just evolutionary biology but also physics, chemistry, and geology. I just read this sentence in the (Scott 1997) article that seemed to me to demonstrate how it is not "creation vs. mainstream science." Scott says it this way. "There is a gap between the acceptance of evolution in the scientific community and its acceptance among the general public. It appears that among well-accepted scientific theories (heliocentrism, cell theory, atomic theory, plate tectonics), evolution alone is rejected by nonscientists. In a poll by the American Museum of Natural History, for example, 78% of adult Americans accepted the theory of continental drift ("continents gradually change their position)(American Museum of Natural History 1994)." That is, the creationist attack on physics, chemistry, and geology is limited to where those sciences support the part of evolution that the creationists reject.
And then we come to the Flat earthism and Geocentrism versions of Special creation. As Dr. Zen says and as the (Scott 1997) article says, there is a continuum in creationist views along the "creation vs. evolution debate." And the variable that defines where the creationist point of view is along the continuum is the percent of the Bible that is held as literally true. That is the Flat earthers hold the Bible to be 100% literally true; the Day-age theorists hold the Bible to be medium literally true; and the Theistic evolution proponents like the Catholic Church hold the Bible to be maybe 2% literally true--literally true only in regard to God creating the soul of humans; and the Materialist evolutionists hold the Bible to be 0% literally true. I don't see the Flat earthers as sheer stupidity. I see it as a kind of severe asceticism. And to be honest, I see the Progressive creationists making a similar kind of asceticism, holding on to a degree of Biblical literalism--not near as much as the Flat earthers--but still holding onto at least the degree of Biblical literalism that the Catholic Church grasps tenaciously. How can we talk about this "continuum" in a fair and neutral way. If (Scott 1997) is not fair and neutral, let's find a scholar who is fair and neutral. :)

Something like that. What four points would everyone have in response to everyone's else four points? 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 18:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

sounds like a great start. although i find scott to be silly, it's definitely a mainstream academic opinion, so it belongs there. i'd like it in the context of another continuum, tho: adherence to the scientific method, historical evidence, and basic reason: creationism first, then evolutionary creationism, then naturalistic evolution, then geocentrism, then flat earth. i'll try to find some scholar who has thought of that -- any ideas, mr. rayment:)? Ungtss 18:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like more of the same. Bensaccount 19:11, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. You don't like (Scott 1997) and the National Center for Science Education? ---Rednblu | Talk 19:57, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

<<i'd like it in the context of another continuum, tho: adherence to the scientific method, historical evidence, and basic reason: creationism first, then evolutionary creationism, then naturalistic evolution, then geocentrism, then flat earth.>>

We could present two continuums--if we can find the scholars who argue them. So by your idea, we would have a progression that went like this?

Creationism
Evolutionary creationism
Naturalistic evolution
Geocentrism
Flat earthism

What is the variable that increases as you go down the list? ---Rednblu | Talk 19:57, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

in my personal opinion, the variable is, "adherence to the scientific method, evidence, and basic reason." (and it decreases as you go down).

i understand the "biblically literalism" continuum -- but i think it misses the point. the bible is only relevent as far as it's TRUE -- certainly any opinion that took every word literally (for example the grand idea of transsubstantiation) or any opinion that rejected it entirely (like those intrepid souls who try to argue that jesus never existed) are concerned more with their opinion of the BIBLE than with TRUTH. you might say they haven't yet escaped the demon religion:).

seems to me the most intellectually rigorous interpretation of the bible would be a mix of literal interpretation, allegorical interpretation, and correction of plain error, based on the preponderance of evidence. that's why i'm a creationist. not because my truth comes from the bible, but because i think the bible best explains many mysterious aspects of Reality. i only wish i could find somebody out there writing this stuff for me to quote:). Ungtss 20:39, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The "scientific method"? Hypotheses that don't make predictions, theories that are extremely selective of the facts and anecdotalism are not elements of the scientific method. What you ignore is that "evidence" can be a lot broader than "what I can observe in a lab". We cannot observe the Big Bang but there is strong evidence for it. (In that case there is a fact that requires explanation. The Big Bang explains the fact very closely. In science, that is evidence. Your simply not understanding that indicates that you do not know what the "scientific method" actually is, or what science actually does.)Dr Zen 01:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So where do we look to find out what "scientific method, evidence, and basic reason" really are? ---Rednblu | Talk 03:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

he's at it again.

would somebody be so kind as to push the source of life and truth past his revert limit again? Ungtss 19:13, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are the only one who has violated the 4 revert rule in the past, Ungtss. Bensaccount 19:14, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

oddly, nobody seems to mind when you revert nonsense four times. maybe if your edits had made any sense, somebody would have cared. Ungtss 19:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My edits balanced your POV. You are lucky nobody cared, but you still broke the rule. Bensaccount 19:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

nobody cared, because your edits worked against npov. everybody agreed, evolutionist and creationist. Ungtss 19:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My edits involved removal of the misleading poll. We have already proved that this improves the NPOV since the wording didn't correspond to the original back then. As for you breaking the rule, I still am hoping some admin will ban you for it. Bensaccount 19:33, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss, Ben, can I just remind both of you that the three-revert rule is an important part of our policy. Please try to discuss your differences without reverting. Try to incorporate each other's ideas. Where they are diametrically opposed, include both. Try to source them. Cite others who hold the views. Leave out interpretation. If we all make that our goal, we can get a satisfactory article out of this.

As for "nobody cared", don't count on it. People might not care about the article but they will care about the 3RR. BTW, if you feel that another editor has broken the 3RR it is acceptable to ask for admin action. They have a noticeboard and it's part of their duties to investigate if they are called on to do so. But can I urge that we try to keep disputes here, between the interested editors, and that each of us tries to discuss their problems with others' edits without reverting, if that is at all possible. Dr Zen 01:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Yet another section on how the poll is misleading

What is the problem with the poll? The poll is neutral data and it should be there. If you have contrary data, then you should quote, paraphrase, and cite to the scholar or poll that gives the contrary data. ---Rednblu | Talk 20:32, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The poll only allows evolution as an option when it is conflated with religion. This is biased. Bensaccount 23:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a scholarly or textbook analysis of how this particular "conflation" biased this poll? I find numerous scholars refering to this poll and polls of similar construction but none of them mention "conflation" problems. Why is that? ---Rednblu | Talk 23:47, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The poll did not use the terms "theistic evolution" and "naturalistic evolution". So where's yours?
I note again that I changed the wording to reflect what the poll actually did say, not what you or anyone else interpreted it as saying.Dr Zen 00:44, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Do you disagree with the terms used to describe the poll currently? ---Rednblu | Talk 00:57, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be missing currently!Dr Zen 01:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Inform the reader that the poll only allows evolution as an option when it is conflated with religion, and the poll will cease to mislead. Bensaccount 01:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not quite with you, Ben. Are we looking at different polls? The one I cited (a more recent version of the one in question) offers the choices of evolution with God's guidance and evolution with God taking no part.Dr Zen 01:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Most scientists will say evolution has nothing to do with religion. The poll conflates a scientific theory with either athiesm or theism. Bensaccount 01:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What!! I suggest you restore the poll so that we can at least be talking about the same thing! ---Rednblu | Talk 02:04, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Both polls conflate science and religion. Tell the reader what the polls are doing or do not include the polls. Bensaccount 02:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You are speaking a foreign language to me here. In my language we don't believe in God. Well, I believe that God like Santa Claus is a man-made imagining and construct. 8)) So there is no conflation in the poll that asks 1) Do you believe that humans descended from the ancestors of the chimpanzees with the crucial help of Santa Claus? or 2) Do you believe that humans descended from the ancestors of the chimpanzees with not even an inkling of help from Santa Claus? Where is the conflation? Even in the commercial myth Santa Claus only brings toys down non-existent chimneys so there is not even atheism! There is not even a trace of conflation! ---Rednblu | Talk 02:44, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Archives

The misleading poll on which the introduction is now based

labels

he's at it again.

Yet another section on how the poll is misleading