Talk:Evolution/evolutionreligiondraft

Interestingly, many religions and religious organizations have appropriated the word "science" to use in their titles. For example, organizations such as Christian Science, various creation science groups, Scientology, Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, Church of Divine Science and the Church of Religious Science have very little to do with science, but include the word "science" in their names. Their use of the word "science" has more to do with the perceived trustworthiness and reliability of science, than their actual use of the scientific method in any way.

In addition, one of the most frequent complaints about the Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang Theory or other ideas that offend one religious viewpoint or other is to brand scientific support for these theories as "religion". This is probably at least partly motivated by an effort to present evolution as a religion to put it on an equal legal footing with creationism, after the 1968 US Supreme Court decision in Epperson v. Arkansas. The US Supreme Court ruled that Arkansas's law prohibiting the teaching of evolution was in violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the Establishment Clause prohibits the state from advancing any religion, and determined that the Arkansas law which allowed the teaching of creation while disallowing the teaching of evolution advanced a religion, and was therefore in violation of the 1st amendment Establishment clause.

There is considerable confusion created in the minds of the public in some societies about what is science and what is religion, based on these efforts.

Predictions of evolution
A real science should make testable predictions. Evolution does and the predictions match the data:
 * applications of evolution in medicine at NIH
 * I think what you're remembering is when I stated that Darwin predicted that no organism would ever be found that creates anything for the exclusive benefit of another organism. So far this has remained true (Darwin even claimed that it could falsify evolution). In other words: trees make nectar, which other organisms eat--but they don't make nectar -just- so that it can be consumed. They gain benefits from it (attracting pollenators)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * gives applications of evolution
 * the creeping antibiotic resistance of many bacteria
 * dangers of not taking antibiotics properly to breed new deadlier strains
 * emergence of new viruses
 * prediction of various transitional forms which were later found in the fossil record
 * overuse of triclosan and other antibiotics creating resistant strains of bacteria
 * prevalence of antibiotic resistant bacterial strains in hospitals
 * predictions pre-Mendel of many features of inheritance and genetics
 * prediction that no species would be found with features that were independent of those in other species (not sure I got that one correct; copying from tarinth).
 * prediction of human ancestry in africa
 * several more technical predictions at
 * ability of chimps to engage in sign language and even typing on computers to communicate indicate that they are not so far removed from humans
 * new research results indicating dogs have hundreds of unique vocalizations that can be communicated to dogs they have never met and communicate information, indicating dogs are not so far removed from humans
 * stratigraphic record shows a progression of species as predicted (no precambrian fuzzy bunnies)
 * DNA similarity corresponds to phylogenic similarity
 * Darwin predicted that no organism would ever be found that creates anything for the exclusive benefit of another organism. So far this prediction has remained true

Why not let the supernatural into science?
It might be asked, why is there such resistance by scientists to include the supernatural in science? After all, as put by Stephen Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, "Science should be open to whatever cause ... can best explain the data". This might sound eminently reasonable and fair at first glance. However, as pointed out by the National Center for Science Education's Eugenie Scott, opening science to supernatural causes like a god would be a "science stopper." Scott explains, "Once you allow yourself to say God did it, you stop looking for naturalistic explanations. If you stop looking, you won't find them," The result is likely to be a step backwards into ignorance.

Quotes
"I'd let them teach creationism in the schools if they let us teach evolution in the churches," Isaac Asimov

Intelligent design is a supernatural theory, not science

 * 

Intelligent Design Mathematics
Evolution = atheism Evolution= religion ID=science Creationism=science evolution=Big Bang+cosmochemistry+Hertzsprung-Russell Stellar theory+abiogenesis+biological evolution+speciation scientists=atheists ID>creationism Christians=biblical literalists Catholics != Christians scientists!= Christians Religion=Christianity Religious Creation accounts=Genesis

Discussion points
Wow. This truly summarizes the thinking on this issue. I think it qualifies as NPOV, but I'm not sure. I need to read it again, after I've had a glass of champagne. As you can tell, this not being any type of holiday for me, I'm sitting around doing work and having fun on Wikipedia.OrangeMarlin 23:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is my problem. I want to figure out how to call things so they are sort of parallel. I have process of evolution, theory of evolution on one side. On the other side I have creation, genesis, creation science, creationism and intelligent design. So I want to somehow cover it all, but make the wording parallel.--Filll 23:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I made some changes to clarify the language, and also to reduce the argumentative nature of the list. OrangeMarlin 23:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

A couple of comments - a generally good and balanced article in general, though. Ordered by row number.
 * 1. I think something like "the diversity of life" or at least "different species" rather than just "species". As it stands, it invites the "species are merely conventional" argument.
 * 2. I'm not sure about "Mechanism". I'd just put "The theory of evolution is described in...", "Creation Science is described in...".  Of course, Creation Science as such only goes back to George McCready Price - if that's likely to be an issue, how about "The basic principles of {x} are described in..."?
 * 4. We could usefully put in the Gish quote from the Creation Science article here.
 * 6. I would strongly advise against the term "evolution science". As far as I know, the term is only used by creationists - indeed, I've not encountered it outside the Ellwanger act that was thrown out in McLean v. Arkansas. The study of evolution is called "evolutionary biology", I believe.
 * 7. I think, rather than just "the data", something like "scientific data" or "natural evidence".

Might it be possible to mention that creation science relies on an appeal to authority (the Bible), rather than being based on observation? I'm also not sure that it's strictly accurate to say "Creation science was previously known as creationism". Perhaps "Creation Science and Intelligent Design are varieties of creationism. Judge Jones noted in his decision..." Tevildo 00:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I want to make this shorter if possible and make the language simpler. I also have some more points that I am going to try to put in there.--Filll 04:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine how this could possibly comport with NPOV in its current state (caveat: UNLESS the goal is to summarize the evolutionist critique of creationism--in which case it does it quite nicely aside from the fact that other religions recognize creation. It's not just in Genesis.  Sorry if I'm unclear of the purpose of this--I linked over from the evolution talk page). Reasons are as follows:
 * (1) For the most part, the evolution side is fairly NPOV. However, I don't know if I would say it categorically "fits the scientific data" because isn't that part of what the debate is about in the first place?
 * (2) On the same token, it would likewise be wrong to categorically say creationism doesn't fit the scientific data--that's what the debate (at leas purports) to be about in the first place.
 * (3) Also, it can't possibly be NPOV to say that "finding a problem with the explanation is blasphemy" or that "all discrepancies are ignored."

Like I said, I'm unclear what the purpose of this table is. If it's to present the evolutionist position an otherwise NPOV article and is labeled as such, it's very close to spot-on. But if it's an attempt to calcify some sort of objective "truth" (or at least as close to truth as we can get in wikipedia) I have weighed it in the balance and found it lacking.--Velvet elvis81 01:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * With this issue, there's always a problem with NPOV, as our side regards any compromise with the creationist position as admitting demonstrable untruths into Wikipedia, which is meant to be a repository of accurate information. However, I'd still like to answer your points.  On (1) and (2), the critical word is "scientific".  Without wanting to re-ignite the debate over what constitutes a "scientific fact", the data that's recognized as valid by scientists (scientific data) is consistent with the theory of evolution, and is not consistent with creationism.  Creationists may - and, indeed, do - admit data that isn't recognized as valid by scientists, but that's not scientific data.  On (3), I agree that "blasphemy" is a very strong word, but what alternatives are there?  "Heterodoxy" is probably too technical and too mild.  How about "Finding a problem with the explanation is regarded as being counter to established doctrine (or even "Revealed Truth"), and therefore to be supressed"?  Or is that too long?
 * The main point of this table is to establish that creationism is unscientific; that "scientific creationism" is an oxymoron. People may, and do, choose to reject science for religious faith, but we need to make it clear that in choosing to accept creationism they're rejecting science. Tevildo 02:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Remember that Undue weight means we do not have to buy into what creationist claims about what they're doing if they're well-debunked elsewhere. Adam Cuerden talk 02:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, there really isn't a debate. Evolution is science.  Creationism is a myth.  This table establishes this point clearly.  If someone chooses to believe that the planet and all of its animals were placed here by some supernatural being, then that's faith, and we shouldn't argue faith, even if it is abhorrent to someone like me.  If someone believes that little aliens from Andromeda came here and created this world, once again I don't care.  But absent scientific proof, then those belief sets are a matter of unscientific faith in a supernatural being or little green men.  Evolution, the age of the earth, and all other aspects of the natural history of our world are subject to rigorous scientific analysis, and they have been accepted by nearly every single scientist in the world.  The only debates that continue are what has happened in that context, and that debate happens between well trained and studied scientists.  That is a debate I am unable to engage in, because those people are way smarter than me.OrangeMarlin 08:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You say: "'The main point of this table is to establish that creationism is unscientific; that 'scientific creationism' is an oxymoron."

If that is the case, I can't imagine what this table has to do with Wikipedia AT ALL. That is a purpose clearly violative of a number of Wikipedia official policies--most clearly WP:NOT, but also WP:NPOV and perhaps WP:OR (not in the sense that you're the first to ever make this argument, but in the sense you take several propositions, cite them, and then come to a conclusion based on those propositions). It cannot have any place in Wikipedia aside from on a personal talk page or, as mentioned before, a neutral telling of the general evolutionist critique of creationism.--Velvet elvis81 03:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt whether this discussion is likely to be productive, but I have to correct a misapprehension. We're not saying that creationism is "false" or "wrong" or "untrue" (although it would be disingenuous of me to claim that we're not thinking it - however, this is where NPOV comes in).  We're saying that it's unscientific. Now, equating the two isn't confined to one side of the debate; many of my atheist friends are quite happy to go from "God is an unscientific concept" to "God does not exist", a deduction I don't regard as valid.  We all, I hope, accept your right to believe whatever you like, and make whatever claims you like based on those beliefs.  However, we don't accept your right to claim that your beliefs are scientific, unless you can demonstrate that they satisfy the requirements of science.  The table is designed to demonstrate that creationist beliefs, no matter how sincerely held, don't satisfy these requirements, and evolutionary beliefs do. Tevildo 04:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would agree with Tevildo. Just because evolution does not agree with a literal reading of the Koran or Genesis or the religious texts of Hinduism or any other faith, does not mean that God does not exist. Because this is undeniably true. And many religious people who do not take these religious texts literally have no problem in supporting evolution. Only those fundamentalist extremists who insist on the literal truth of these religious texts (according to one interpretation or another of the text) find evolution threatening. And why do they find it threatening? Because it does not agree with what they believe is the literal meaning of one particular text or another which they take to be the literal truth. This table so far does not have other text around it and other references. It does not prove or attempt to prove that God or gods of some particular faith do not exist. It does not disprove religious beliefs. All it does is summarize the arguments that literal interpretation of these religious texts are not scientific, and do not agree with the current dominant scientific theory, or employ scientific reasoning. Which is not surprising, since these religious texts are not meant to be science books. There might be ways using other parts of science to "prove" the existence of God, but using the diversity of life forms on the earth and their adaptations to their environment is probably not good evidence for God, frankly. A waste of time for all concerned.--Filll 05:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect if it were up to "velvet elvis": This kind of reasoning would turn Wikipedia into a worthless piece of crap, IMHO.--Filll 05:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * there would be no article on evolution at all since it is NPOV
 * there would be no article on the big bang at all since it is NPOV
 * there would be no article describing the earth as roughly spherical since it is NPOV
 * there would be no article on the age of the earth or radioactive dating techniques since these are NPOV
 * there would be no article on chemistry without a huge long section on alchemy
 * articles on astronomy would include huge long sections on signs of the zodiac and prediting the future using astrology
 * articles on medicine would need to have huge sections on witch doctor's procedures for the same ailments, or osteopathic methods, or homeopathic methods, or faith healing, or psychic surgery, or all kinds of quackery and nonsense.

Filll, your arguments are ridiculous and unproductive. An article "about" evolution, big bang, spherical earth, etc. would not be automatically NPOV. You're being childish--because I disagree with you, you attribute a whole range of nutty views to me that I never claimed to have. Please go back and read the very first point under the official wikipedia policy WP:NOT. My argument is with your purpose as admitted by you. Wikipedia is not for advocacy. This table would be advocacy if used in the way you want it to be. Your comments on here make it clear that you feel you have to remedy the fact that most Americans choose to believe in some form of creationism, and that's fine. But if that is your goal, start a blog. Don't use Wikipedia as a soapbox. As I mentioned before, this table would fit nicely in an article on the evolution/creationism debate as an encapsulation of the evolutionist critique, but it is ridiculously inappropriate as a standalone item that declares creationism is not science. As I mentioned above, there is currently a wide-ranging debate in society (a debate you acknowledge by the very fact that you feel a need to affect it) on this very point. Regardless of the merits of each side, if a public debate exists over a point on which reasonable minds may disagree, it is not the place of Wikipedia to intervene in that debate.

By way of example: Objective evidence is clear that free trade is an overall "good" for the world and increases global wealth. Economists are nearly-unified in support of free trade and have presented mountains of evidence to back up their positions. However, it would still be wrong for Wikipedia to have an article that declares "Free Trade Is Good" because there is an open, current debate and reasonable minds still clearly disagree on that point. Wikipedia COULD have an article concerning the debate itself of a "controversy" section in the Free Trade article, or deal with it 100 other ways. But merely making a declaration constitutes advocacy and advocacy is verboten.

Understand that my position here has nothing to do with my personal beliefs on the subject. It has to do with maintaining the purpose of Wikipedia. I would have the exact same arguments if some creationist presented a table that declared evolutionism is faith and not science.--Velvet elvis81 16:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * One last comment. You're being childish--because I disagree with you, you attribute a whole range of nutty views to me that I never claimed to have. I'm glad that you regard the views that Filll mentions as "nutty".  However, if you reject evolution based on the Bible, you're being intellectually dishonest with yourself by not supporting geocentrism and a flat Earth.  The Bible quite clearly says that the Earth is flat, fixed, that the sun goes round it, and that the sky is solid and held up with pillars.  It's inconsistent to reject evolution on Biblical grounds and accept heliocentrism; either the Bible gives us "The Truth", in which case the Earth is flat, and that's the end of the argument, or we can use our God-given reason to find out how the world actually does work - which includes evolution.  On the other hand, if you reject evolution for reasons other than the Bible, you've been misled by creationist lies (and I use the word deliberately), and you should educate yourself as to the true nature and results of science; reading and understanding this table would be a good start, as (we hope) it'll be for anyone else in that position. Tevildo 18:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and to answer Tevildo, I think the suggestion "Finding a problem with the explanation is regarded as being counter to Revealed Truth" is more neutral what what we have currently. Not perfect, but a definite improvement.--Velvet elvis81 16:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to our velvet friend (probably a sock puppet)
Filll, your arguments are ridiculous and unproductive.

How so? Prove it.

An article "about" evolution, big bang, spherical earth, etc. would not be automatically NPOV.

This has been charged repeatedly by people with exactly your viewpoint. In fact, in the Dover trial, intelligent design supporters were forced under oath to admit their changes they were trying so desperately to force on the public would have forced astronomy in the science classroom. You dispute that?

You're being childish

Oh yes? prove it.

--because I disagree with you, you attribute a whole range of nutty views to me that I never claimed to have.

Prove that you do not have those views. Everything I have seen so far is enough to make me want to puke. It might be best for you to move to Iran. See what a theocracy is like.

Please go back and read the very first point under the official wikipedia policy WP:NOT.

When I am describing a view that is supported by literally hundreds of thousands of publications and 99.9% of all professional biologists, I am not standing on a soap box to beat on a drum. I am summarizing the result of dozens of court battles that creationists have lost, the opinions of many judges on these cases, and the views of the vast majority of the science community. And you want to claim I am a nut on a soap box? Prove it.

My argument is with your purpose as admitted by you.

It is to summarize the results that are published in the world and accepted by the vast majority of the experts. If you think it is not true, you prove it.

Wikipedia is not for advocacy.

Which is why you and your extremist views have no place here.

This table would be advocacy if used in the way you want it to be.

It would be to summarize the results from other places with references. What is wrong with that?

Your comments on here make it clear that you feel you have to remedy the fact that most Americans choose to believe in some form of creationism, and that's fine.

I cannot do it of course, but I can present the information in an accessible way.

But if that is your goal, start a blog.

What is wrong with presenting the facts of reality? That creationism is an extremist viewpoint and it is not science, as affirmed over and over and over by courts and almost all scientists. So what is wrong with that?

Don't use Wikipedia as a soapbox.

Look in a mirror.

As I mentioned before, this table would fit nicely in an article on the evolution/creationism debate as an encapsulation of the evolutionist critique, but it is ridiculously inappropriate as a standalone item that declares creationism is not science.

It is not even part of Wikipedia yet so do not get your panties in a bunch. In fact, the indications are that it upsets you. So I think that is even better. If this article gives you a fit or makes creationists have tantrums, I say it is a well written article.

You claim creationism is science? Prove it. Otherwise, you have nothing of value to say.

As I mentioned above, there is currently a wide-ranging debate in society (a debate you acknowledge by the very fact that you feel a need to affect it) on this very point.

Science is not done by popular vote. So this is irrelevant. There is no debate in science. And evolution is science. I do not tell divinity school experts what religion is. And they have no rights to tell me what science is. Render unto caesar that which is caesar's...or did you forget that?

Regardless of the merits of each side, if a public debate exists over a point on which reasonable minds may disagree, it is not the place of Wikipedia to intervene in that debate.

Bull****. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for religious nuts. And established science is a perfect part of an encyclopedia.

''By way of example: Objective evidence is clear that free trade is an overall "good" for the world and increases global wealth. Economists are nearly-unified in support of free trade and have presented mountains of evidence to back up their positions. However, it would still be wrong for Wikipedia to have an article that declares "Free Trade Is Good" because there is an open, current debate and reasonable minds still clearly disagree on that point. Wikipedia COULD have an article concerning the debate itself of a "controversy" section in the Free Trade article, or deal with it 100 other ways. But merely making a declaration constitutes advocacy and advocacy is verboten. Understand that my position here has nothing to do with my personal beliefs on the subject. It has to do with maintaining the purpose of Wikipedia. I would have the exact same arguments if some creationist presented a table that declared evolutionism is faith and not science.--Velvet elvis81 16:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)''

Who cares about free trade? We are talking about science. Period.

''Oh, and to answer Tevildo, I think the suggestion "Finding a problem with the explanation is regarded as being counter to Revealed Truth" is more neutral what what we have currently. Not perfect, but a definite improvement.--Velvet elvis81 16:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)''


 * Velvet, er Vacuous Puppet, I'm adding you to the sockpuppet complaint. Your method of typing in bold and word order is EXACTLY like your alter ego, Vacuous.  You're not a very good sockpuppet, but there are higher authorities herein that will deal with you!OrangeMarlin 18:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand by the word blasphemy. If you think it is not blasphemy, prove it.--Filll 17:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

1. I have neither stated that creationism is science nor that I believe in creationism. Thus, I have no need to "prove it." I have merely given suggestions and objections in an attempt to get your chart to conform to Wikipedia guidelines. Have you even read any of my previous comments?

2. You ask me to prove that I don't have views that I never expressed and that have nothing to do with this page. I decline the invitation.

3. I think accusing a person of being a sock puppet of a user he's never even heard of just because he doesn't agree with you is a textbook case of being childish. I stand by my assessment.

4. The free trade part was given, as noted, "By way of example"--to show another situation where Wikipedia should not intervene and then reason by analogy. Reasoning by analogy is an elementary form of logic.

5. Blasphemy might be technically correct (I reserve judgment on this point), but is a loaded word, which is why I objected initially.

6. I don't have to "prove it" (as I've been implored many times) with regards to the content of this chart. The burden of proof is on the proponent.

7. My "panties" are not in a "bunch." On the contrary, I have been quite civil. I'm not sure where you're getting this.

My objections remain the same: If used for the purpose you claim it is to be used for (and I quote: "The main point of this table is to establish that creationism is unscientific; that 'scientific creationism' is an oxymoron.") your proposal has no place in wikipedia. WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR all support me on this.--Velvet elvis81 03:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the nice attempt at Wikilawyering. But I think I will rely instead on someone who actually does not have an axe to grind, thanks. But in my biased, ignorant, stupid, childish opinion:
 * The judicial establishment has repeatedly agreed with the principles and information that I am summarizing in the chart in many many lawsuits
 * Every single nobel prize winner agrees with the principles and information that I am summarizing in the chart
 * 99.9% of professional biologists agree with the principles and information that I am summarizing in the chart (we have the reference)
 * 99.84% of the 480,000 surveyed phd earth scientists and biologists agreed with the principles and information htat I am summarizing in the chart. (again we have the reference)
 * Now given that, I think that I am presenting very mainstream unbiased vanilla information that is obviously not at all controversial. It is supported by millions of scientists and millions of peer-reviewed publications. I think that anyone who disputes this is seriously deluded. But what can you say about someone from a group where screaming and shrieking and cursing while rolling around on the floor having a fit is viewed as being full of the spirit of God? There is some controversy with creationist extremists and unscientific cretins who insist on biblical inerrancy about the origin of the species. Of course these same nitwits neglect to have a reasonable explanation for the TWO creation accounts in Genesis which disagree with each other, but lets forget that inanity and stupidity for the moment. I am supposed to cater to them? I think not. I have no interest in kissing the butts of some backwards uneducated troglodytic luddites and nincompoops. I think the onus is on anyone who wants to claim that somehow I am not presenting the mainstream dominant viewpoint; they should be required to demonstrate how the material in this chart is somehow biased or inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Produce a reliable source to back up what you are claiming. In fact, produce a few. And they cannot be creationist websites written by some drooling toothless homophobic bible thumper who is some sort of backwoods inbred buffoon who barely made it past the third grade. It might be a moot point if you get banned anyway, however. We will just have to see. But summarizing the current best information that is available about science in this area and the opinions of the highly trained experts in biology, the result of over a century of study and millions of publications and the analysis of mountains of data is exactly what should be in an encyclopedia. And your denial of this makes me think negative things about you. To put it in the nicest possible way. --Filll 03:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, what on earth in the table do you disagree with? Since you claim not to be a creationist or a supporter of theirs. Name something that you disagree with. Stop your vague threats and bluster. Because it is pure nonsense and puffery frankly.--Filll 04:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against summarizing information, but this is done quite well in the Evolution article. Once more, because you apparently missed it the first five+ times: I have not attempted to and have no intention to argue the science of evolution. I have merely mentioned, time and time again, that this table violates wikipedia policies because it takes a stand on an issue that is being widely debated (that issue being whether "creation science" is or is not science). I do not dispute that one side has a good deal of support for it in comparison to the other side. But it is not for Wikipedia to decide that dispute. I don't know how much clearer I can be. I'm unsure what vague threats and bluster you're referring to. As far as what I disagree with--see the first two posts I put on here yesterday.--Velvet elvis81 04:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is more directed to the casual reader of this page than to Velvet elvis, who has demonstrated that he's not prepared to listen to us evil atheistic minions of Satan (or should that be satan? It's always amusing to see the fundies' spellcheckers throw in the occasional "Satanic" with a capital S, but I digress).  Velvet's point is entirely wrong.  The debate isn't as he characterizes it.  Everybody, on both sides, from Hovind to Behe, from Miller to Dawkins, agrees that creationism isn't science as "science" is currently understood.  What the creationists want to do is redefine science so that it can include the supernatural, which is a necessary (in the philosophical sense, pace Filll) part of creationism.  This is what we're opposed to.  We may disapprove of people who reject science, but it's their right.  However, we feel that we should take active steps against people who want to destroy science to further their own religious agendas. Tevildo 04:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that velvet elvis is revealing his or her inability to reason. I am not digging through the detritus to find his or her other "points", whatever they might or might not be. But science does not include the supernatural. Period. You are allowed to consult chicken entrails if you like or rant and rave and pray to the rain god. You can stare at the curve of your own bowel movements in the bowl if you like to predict the future. You can do whatever you darn well please (as long as you dont shove it in other people's faces of course; I dont want to smell it), but it is not science. Even the great Dr. Duane Gish, a prominent creation science and creationism proponent, stated very clearly that "We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator." So once you have included the supernatural in your explanations of phenomena, it is not longer science. It is magic, it is myth, it is mysticism, it is religion, it is horse****, it is superstition. But it is not science. By about another 10 or 20 criteria, including falsifiability, "creation science" is not science either. But just including the supernatural is enough to end their pretensions to be science. They just shoved the word "science" into the phrase describing their sad discipline to try to borrow some sort of authority for this pitiful nonsense, like "christian science" or "scientology". It is all the same principle. So if there is such a big controversy, why have the pitiful "creation scientists" lost out in court at trying to be declared to be "science" over and over and over and over after spending millions upon millions of dollars? In front of right wing Republican Judges even? Are these Republican Right wing judges part of some vast Left Wing conspiracy? Give me a break. Just answer that. I am sure you won't. Because you can't. Like all creationist blow hards, you conveniently ignore embarassing questions.--Filll 05:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

As clear as I can possibly make it: I AM NOT ARGUING THAT CREATION IS SCIENCE. I am merely noting that there is an extensive debate. I will even agree that "science," properly defined, probably cannot include the supernatural, just as you say (I can't say for sure, I'm not a scientist, I've never studied it, and don't really care one way or the other). Does that satisfy you? Will you now actually address what I'm talking about? That there is a significant debate; that it would not be the topic of newspaper articles, court cases, your outrage at creationists, etc. if such debate did not exist; and because the debate exists and is very widespread Wikipedia should not take a stand on that debate. I'm sorry that you're unable to understand exactly what I'm saying. Perhaps it would help to direct the debate to these points if I ask questions. Right now we are completely talking past each other.

1. Regardless of how you believe or whether the evidence supports one side or the other, would you agree that there is currently a public debate as to whether creationism is "science"?

2. Do you believe Wikipedia should take stands on issues on which there is public disagreement?

3. If the answer to #2 is yes, how do you reconcile this with Wikipedia policies?

If you'll answer these three questions, I think we can focus more on the issue at hand and less on the type of lengthy invective that's being presented here now.--Velvet elvis81 05:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. Science is never decided by votes by the public. That is ludicrous. Science is decided by scientists. And we know what the scientists say in this instance. There is no debate among the people that are experts in this.
 * 2. The only reason there are court cases is that the creationists have been given huge chunks of money by wealthy donors, and have fleeced poor saps that were suckered into giving them their money. And the creationists wasted it all. The wording of the judges has been incredibly harsh because they wanted to send a very strong message to the creationists: what they are claiming is a joke, completely laughable. Lets take a direct quote from the MSNBC article:
 * Jones decried the “breathtaking inanity” of the Dover policy and accused several board members of lying to conceal their true motive, which he said was to promote religion.
 * A six-week trial over the issue yielded “overwhelming evidence” establishing that intelligent design “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago.
 * 3. The "controversy" does not exist in science. The hubub is just because the creationists have spent their way into causing confusion. But no real confusion exists. No real controvery exists. And I have plenty of references for that believe me. Like quotes from Nobel Prize winners. Who do you have? Joe the butcher who dropped out in grade 7?
 * 4. If no articles were allowed about things that there were disagreements about someplace on planet earth, probably 25 percent of the articles on Wikipedia would have to be removed.
 * If you want to get an outside panel to look at the evidence, then I guess we better get this information together. Because if what you are claiming is true, we should pull just about all science off Wikipedia since it might offend some poor creationist someplace. All the stuff about the earth being round and moving in an orbit as well. All gone.--Filll 06:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, does Velvet not sound exactly like that sockpuppeter VacuousPoet. Vacuous Elvis, probably.  At any rate, just because you claim that you're not a Creationist does not mean you actually are not.  Everything you say and quote are nothing more than repeating Creationist commentary that has been discredited.  There really isn't a debate.  There are Creationists whose whole idea set is based on faith.  You can't debate faith.   You either have it or not, but faith is not science.   I do not know how my computer shows this Wikipedia thing, but I don't think it's magic, myth or a supernatural being.  But if you believe that there are little fairies in your computer delivering the content of Wikipedia, then that's fine with me.  But it's not verifiable (though if you show me little fairies, I'd contend Microsoft cloned them).  The same for the Biblical account for creation.  It is not verifiable by any scientific means.  It is not falsifiable.  And, frankly, little of it actually happened.  But whatever.  You believe in it, but it is a "belief" set, not fact.  If you want to preach Creationism, go to Wiki Creationism.  They probably need you there.  But Wikipedia is based on a NPOV which, as its primary foundation, is that everything written is not based upon belief, it is based upon facts.  The facts support Evolution and do not support Noah's Ark.  One's fact, one's a myth.  Every article should have it's facts, and myths should be indicated as such.  OrangeMarlin 19:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This will be my last word on the subject because clearly we are at cross-purposes. I do see your point finally and it is this (correct me if I'm wrong): A scientific fact is not reasonably disputed if the disagreement with it stems from ignorance or religious objection. I recognized this point in a court case I read recently: Stewart v. Stewart, 521 N.E.2d 956 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988). There was widespread public belief that science did not fully know the answer to exactly how the AIDS virus was spread, but scientists themselves were reasonably certain they did know the answer--the court held that public beliefs did not create reasonable dispute so long as scientists were mostly united.

Here we have a situation where scientists are mostly united on the fact that creationism cannot possibly be "science" because it requires a supernatural explanation--anathema to the very idea of what science IS (i.e., seeking natural explanations). Okay, so this is a good poin and one I can accept, agree with, etc. You've convinced me. We'd be much better off if you had made this point from the get-go rather than attacking me with ridiculous hyperbole, sock puppet accusations, etc.

However, for me this argument only points up the need for an article on evolution itself (as well as all the ones mentioned before such as round earth, heliocentricity, etc.) and the acceptability of teaching the concept itself as truth. I am still unclear on the need and purpose for the particular table you have proposed here because it's purpose is mere advocacy, soapboxing, etc. It doesn't add anything in particular to an article on evolution or any of its connected articles. It's proper place, and I say it again, would only be in an article discussing the evolution/creationism controversy.--Velvet elvis81 18:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As I have said repeatedly, I do not intend this table to go in the evolution article. More material will be added until this will be an article of its own, as part of a suite of articles. Much as creationism has a suite of articles, the Creation-evolution controversy will also be part of a suite of articles. I would prefer to retain evolution and associated articles for the science, not this silly controversy. The courts have had to rule on what they consider an admissable scientific fact and what they do not. Over many years they have built up pretty formidable sets of rules. So has science, in its consideration of scientific facts. And my interpretation here does not disagree with the courts or the science community as a whole.--Filll 20:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My view
Creationists want to either: or both of which are incorrect and in fact laughable. Unfortunately, creationists have made the situation so unclear that only 12% of the public in the US believes in evolution. I think this is a shameful embarassing situation, and anyone interested in science and reason should do their part to shed light on this horrendous situation. If we do not, medicine will fall, and cosmology, and just about everything else in science eventually. Even heliocentrism or a spherical earth might very well fall, or plate tectonics. It would take very little to push us back into another Dark Age, and creationists are frantic to do it. With themselves in charge of course. Just look at Afghanistan under the Taliban. So if we can organize the information in a digestable form so that users of Wikipedia can access it easily, then we will have done our part. If one looks at creationist topics on Wikipedia, there are litterally dozens of articles. Evolution and science have made a very poor showing so far.--Filll 05:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * smear evolution by somehow proving it is not science, but religion,
 * somehow claim that Genesis is supported by science, or is a scientific description of the history of life on earth

Strategy for table
I tried dividing the rows into severeal groups: Hopefully this is reasonably clear. It needs more references and citations.--Filll 20:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * description of processes of evolution and creationism
 * description of the explanations of the processes
 * description of the testing of the explanations
 * conclusion row at end.

My comments
Fill, this seems reasonable to me. I disagree with you lumping speciation in with Evolution, as I have said, as Evolution within a species has a much solid scientific grounding, in my opinion. In any event, comparing evolution to creationism is not all that interesting to me. Comparing the theory of evolutionary origin of species to the big bang is probably dead on. Even physicists criticize other physicists who work in the field of M-theory, sometimes on the same grounds I criticize the theory of the evolutionary origin of species. But at least M-theory is largely mathematical with regard to its inferences of what happened in the beginning. I have not yet seen the mathematical rigor present in M-theory in the field of evolutionary origin of species. But of course I do not have access to biological journals, either. Likewise, I am not a creationist, and do not speak for them. 65.73.44.65 03:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacous Poet
 * At this point, the table does not have references or text to support many of the statements in the table. It is meant to organize a lot of the points, much as one can find in talkorigins for example, but in hopefully cleaner and more accessible form. M theory may or may not become part of physics. If no supporting evidence emerges, it will eventually find its way to the ash heap of theories whose time has passed. There are many many many theories on this ash heap of failed theories in physics and other fields of science. It has nothing to do with whether it uses equations or not Speaking as a quantitative scientist, I do not care if a theory has equations involved with it. Just the presence of equations does not mean the theory is harder science or more reliable at all. The only thing that matters is the data. Period. And if you think that M theory is mathematically rigorous. you do not know much about the theory, mathematics or physics. Only time will tell if the theory becomes accepted and supported by evidence. I also do not see any comparison here with the big bang, but maybe I am missing something.--Filll 05:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you respond to the troll, especially since he continues to astound me with his lack of knowledge on items such as this. At any rate, I think this is a great table, and hits the points that you intended to address when you started this draft.  I think it is a good fit to the Creation-evolution_controversy with some sort of link from Evolution.  I like what you've done.  OrangeMarlin 08:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. I probably should not respond since this editor seems to adopt a somewhat combative or disruptive position repeatedly. Some disagreement is useful because that spurs us to find better references and clean up our confusing text, or write new articles or parts of articles. There can be little doubt that so far science has done an abysmal job of defending itself against assorted religious fanatics, at least in the US. I know from past experience that when a swarm of creationists hits some poor unsuspecting person with nonsense about falsifiability, fossil gaps, science conspiracy theories, evolution=a religion, creationism=science, claims that scientists are closeminded, claims that scientists are biased, arguments based on 2nd law of thermodynamics and information theory, complaints about the big bang, distinctions between micro and macro evolution, problems with radioactive dating and all sorts of other arguments they have learned from assorted creationist tracts, the average person or even average scientist who has not encountered this before is caught off-guard. If scientists organized themselves better and produced simple accessible responses to the creationists simple-minded complaints, then we would not be in our current mess:
 * every president since Jimmy Carter has had to make some sort of claim to be "born again"
 * fundamentalist preachers claiming to have frequent consultations with the US administration to give them policy advice
 * people in government offices who have made speeches about how great it would be to use nuclear weapons since we are in the end times and it would force Jesus to come back
 * people in government offices who claim that God orders Mankind to despoil and pollute the earth and deplete its resources to force Jesus to return early
 * claims that the separation of church and state should be removed from the constituttion, with high government officials agreeing.
 * claims that the US judiciary should be removed from the bench so "rigt thinking" judges can be installed, with high government officials agreeing.
 * only 12% of the US population believing in evolution but

From Farha and Stewart poll in 2006 and Gallup poll in (2001). Percentage of Americans who believe in the following:

Belief in psychic/spiritual healing: 56 (54) Belief in ESP: 28 (50) Haunted houses: 40 (42) Demonic possession: 40 (41) Ghosts/spirits of the dead: 39 (38) Telepathy: 24 (36) Extraterrestrials visited Earth in the past: 17 (33) Clairvoyance and prophecy: 24 (32) Communication with the dead: 16 (28) Astrology: 17 (28) Witches: 26 (26) Reincarnation: 14 (25) Channeling: 10 (15)

Percentage of Americans who marked "not sure" in these categories:

Belief in psychic/spiritual healing: 26 (191) Belief in ESP: 39 (20) Haunted houses: 25 116) Demonic possession: 28 (16) Ghosts/spirits of the dead: 27 (17) Telepathy: 34 (26) Extraterrestrials visited Earth in the past: 34 (27) Clairvoyance and prophecy: 33 (23) Communication with the dead: 29 (26) Astrology: 26 (18) Witches: 19(15) Reincarnation: 28 (20) Channeling: 29 (21)

from Source: Fate Magazine April 2006 Issue pages 52 - 56 Smart People See Ghosts by Brad Steiger

Other polls get similar results. A 1996 Gallup poll reported that 71% of the United States' population believed that the government was covering up information regarding UFOs. A 2002 Roper poll for the Sci Fi channel found similar results, but with more people believing UFOs were extraterrestrial craft. In that latest poll, 56% thought UFOs were real craft and 48% that aliens had visited the Earth.

This does not look very good.--Filll 14:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Here I am this morning, just barely having my first cup of coffee, and I have to read this post. Thanks a lot. Warn me next time!!!!  When I used to practice medicine, you do not know how many patients would tell me "god saved my life."  Uh no.  I saved your life with the help of a bunch of nurses, techs, powerful R&D that has given the medical world devices and medications that control and reverse heart disease, and one of the best teaching/training that was given to everyone to make sure this happened.  I actually believe in absolutely not one of those things listed there.  I believe that I once owned a haunted house because it cost me so much money to repair the plumbing, but that was more of sarcasm.  I wish one of those Left Behind novels would come true, except take away all the creepy Fundies and leave us behind to have a nice beautiful world.  OrangeMarlin 14:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Progress in this Article
I'm noticing that you are revising this article as we engage in discussions (well, ridiculous arguments in some cases) with the fundies. It's clear that the supernatural cause issue is something that has become a bone of contention. I like what you've written about it. Orangemarlin 16:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

My plan is to flesh this article out so it stands on its own. I want references and I want to have more material, not just the table. Then we can have the overall "objections to evolution" article (should I call it "criticisms of evolution"? another name? Not sure) summarize 4 or 5 evolution objection articles (such as this one) and link to them. And then all the articles would be crosslinked to the controversy article, the creationism articles, the creationism in education article and the evolution article. We can also produce our own "big box" like intelligent design has and creationism has to organize all the articles (I think the big box is called a template). We in one fell swoop produce a resource with lots of references, but also summarizes what a person who wants to know what the science side of this story is. After all, the creationists have many articles. There are hardly any on the evolution side. And the ones on the evolution side that exist are pretty pitiful, frankly.--Filll 17:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Remember that articles exist to cover topics, not to cover (or take) "sides". This is not a war between creationism articles and evolution articles; indeed, from an academic standpoint, creationism articles barely have anything to do with evolution articles, as creationism is a religious movement and evolution is a biological process. If not for their social controversies (which is an aspect of their histories, not of their teachings), they would have as much in common as cellular respiration has with the omnipotence paradox. The purpose of making new articles on these creationist claims is to provide our readers with valuable information, not to persuade them to believe what we believe. If the facts are not persuasive enough on their own (which, in this case, they happen to be), then nothing further can be done.
 * Also, feel free to work on incorporating a summary of the above article draft to User:Silence/Evolution, where I'm working on a draft of the overall "Objections" article. (The name works much better than "Criticisms" because many of the objections are objections to, not criticisms of, teaching evolution in public schools.) -Silence 14:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Roots
Lemaitre was belgian priest Darwin was a minister --Filll 13:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)