Talk:Evolution and creationism

For a January 2004 deletion debate over this page see Votes for deletion/Evolution and creationism

Establishing a basic framework for this page
Okay, I've laid out the basic framework for the "debate". It's a bit too strong on the creationist side, merely because I know more about creationism. I look forward to seeing a lot more filled in about evolutionism. My guess is that the article will stabilize when it's about 25% about creationism and 75% about evolutionism. --Uncle Ed 14:07, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Evolution is not an "ism". -- Miguel
 * Miguel is quite correct. The mistake is very instructive, however, of the character of religionist thinking! The reason the 'debate' is all on the creationist side, is that there is no serious debate from the scientific POV. Wetman 23:44, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Anglo-American component of creationism
Thanks for adding the following, although it raises as many questions as it answers:


 * For some reason, creationism seems to be an exclusively Anglo- American phenomenon. Also, many non-christian religions either have no stated conflicts with evolution, or have made explicit statements that it does not present a problem.

Could you elaborate a bit on the predominance of creationism as an Anglo-American phenomenon?


 * You yourself wrote,
 * In England and America, most adherents of creationism are Christian and regard the Bible as a revelation from God which should not be questioned.
 * Can you explain why you singled out Angloamericans? I would rephrase as
 * most adherents of creationism are Christians from England and the United States who regard the Bible as a revelation from God which should not be questioned.
 * -- Miguel

Also, we need several examples of religions which have made explicit statements that evolution does not present a problem. In particular, I'd like to see some clarification on the Roman Catholic Church's position.

The Catholic Church's view on reconciling Creation with Evolution
Evolutionists frequently say that Catholicism officially "accepts evolution", a claim I find hard to reconcile with my (scanty) knowledge of Catholic theology. Perhaps it depends on the definition of the term evolution:


 * 1) gradual emergence of new forms of life throughout the billions of years the earth has existed
 * 2) morphing of one species into another, i.e., "speciation"
 * 3) the contention that new forms of life came into being without God's intervention but purely by the operation of natural forces

I would guess that a religion could concede #1 without taking a position on #2 - and that a lot of religions could accept #1 while denying #3. --Uncle Ed 14:40, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

AFAIK, the pope made some sort of declaration on it. would be worth chasing that one up -- seems it's the protestant branch of Christianity that has a thing about creationism -- Tarquin 14:42, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Creationism has its roots in biblical literalism, which is not part of Armenian, Coptic, Catholic or Orthodox Christianism, and is not fundamental to, or even present in, a large number of protestant denominations. Biblical literism is largely confined to the US, and has some penetration in Britain.

Sociologically, opposition to Evolution experienced a resurgence in the US during WWI, because it was perceived that social darwinism was the cause of the war. Biblical literalism provided a refutation of darwin, nad hence of social darwinism.

Here is a reference:
 * James B. Miller (Ed.): An Evolving Dialogue: Theological and Scientific Perspectives on Evolution, ISBN: 1563383497

Hinduism stresses the continuity of all life and its cosmology contains periods of the orders of billions of years. It would therefore be consistent with 1 and 2. Buddhist cosmology is a descendant of Hindu cosmology and, moreover, Buddhism is a non-theistic religion so 3) is obviously true in Buddhism. Similar remarks apply to Shinto.

The importance of cultural bias or lack thereof is stressed (in relation to Shintoism) in
 * Frans de Waal, The Ape and the Sushi Master: Reflections by a PrimatologistISBN: 0641512163

Arguing whether animist religions are compatible with evolution or not is probably pointless, because the incompatibility is a culturally motivated problem arising only in "the West".

-- Miguel


 * "Creationism has its roots in biblical literalism" -- that's a good sentence to put in the article -- Tarquin 15:04, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Are all creationists anti-evolutionists?
It looks to me like this is heading in the same direction as the Creationism article, still shifting definitions as suits the purpose. If the definition in creationism is followed, anyone who believes in a designer is a creationist. But, if you follow the definition in this article, all creationists are anti-evolutionists. Now all creationists are protestants, and literalists, and not mere believers in a creator. Is that going to be true now for the creationism article, too? Mkmcconn 15:08, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * the problem that "design" hits the buffers of the problem of free will. The catholic church said something along that lines of "god set the big bang in motion" -- but even if you say from that point it's all down to random forces, you could still say god knew what those random forces would produce. i really hope this doesn't turn into another tarpit -- Tarquin 15:14, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Indeed. God is the force that set the big bang into motion. Whether or not there is any such thing as &quot;randomness&quot; is an interesting question, but moot if God knew from the moment of creation the future path of every pachinko ball that would ever fall. Even if God didn't &quot;know&quot; at the beginning, he certainly knows at the end, and since God is timeless, what he knows at the end he knows at the beginning.


 * Is this article supposed to be about the debate, or to contain a debate? I am willing to dig up analyses of the debate (mostly sociological and historical), but following the advice of Stephen Jay Gould, I am not going to engage into a debate of the relative merits of the two positions. -- Miguel


 * if it's to be about the debate, then it will be about at least two perspectives on the debate. Atheism views the debate as a contest against supernaturalism of any kind whatever, to be resolved strictly by what science can determine.  But Christianity is not natural science, nor is it a nature religion.  Creation is not first of all an explanation of nature, but an explanation of God.   And, where does that leave creationism?   Mkmcconn \


 * So, which debate? Mkmcconn 15:43, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

''Uncle Ed wrote
 * 1) gradual emergence of new forms of life throughout the billions of years the earth has existed
 * 2) morphing of one species into another, i.e., "speciation"
 * 3) the contention that new forms of life came into being without God's intervention but purely by the operation of natural forces''

Ed, to some ways of thinking, your third point is completely incomprehensible. If all natural forces are considered to ba a manifestation of God's will, then it is impossible to talk about some sort of abstract "pure" natural force sans divine will.

It is unfortunate that the Vatican doesn't have .pdf files we can download which state their "official" views of evolution, but in a nutshell it goes something like this:


 * 1) The body of man may (or may not) have evolved from previous life forms.
 * 2) The soul of man was directly created by God.
 * 3) At some point, either through biological or divine means, there was a first man (Adam). All living humans are descended from Adam, although whether this descent is corporal or spiritual is vague.

I do not understand why we need a page on this. Isn't this already covered in, in detail, in our articles on creationism, and related topics? If it is not covered in enough detail, I suppose we can summarize the debate here. RK 16:04, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

To RK - reg. the warning to sysops- Do you mean me- I hope not:-)I wrote on Hindu mythology, to remove the Eurocentric bias. I don't even believe in God:-)Sorry, I didn't know there was a page on creationism. But anyway I think what I wrote should come in this page.KRS 16:08, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No, he means Rednblue. His user page is interesting, he claims o believe in evolution, but that evolution has not been proved to be a fact. -- Miguel


 * In my opinion, it's not really covered anywhere, with clarity. It's a work in progress.  But, I don't think that the solution to that is to create another article that is framed in the same terms as the Creationism article, as a debate between creationists (anti-evolutionists of every kind), and evolutionists (some of whom turn out to be creationists, after all!).  Mkmcconn 16:26, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Let us proceed by defining our terms
Well, gosh, this is all rather confusing. Perhaps we need to back up and define some terms. What exactly IS creationism? Does "evolution" have one, commonly accepted meaning, or does it depend on context? Is there only one "theory of evolution" or what? Is there a shorter or better way to say "person who espouses a non-supernatural theory of the origin of the various species of life", besides evolutionist? (Is "evolutionist" a slur like "cultist"?)

None of the above questions are meant to express a position on the issues. I'm just hoping we can settle on some unambiguous and inoffensive terms with which to discuss the issues. --Uncle Ed 13:37, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, many Wikipedians feel that the most important part of creationism today is the confrontation that creationists have made against evolution. I would suggest that this head to head confrontation should go on this Creationism and evolutionism page.  As Elo has pointed out to us below, much of the head to head confrontation between creationism and evolutionism is already sketched on the current Creationism page.


 * So, I would suggest that this Creationism and evolutionism page should pull over the head to head confrontation elements of the current Creationism page--with footnotes to scholarly sources. As the assembly of this page proceeds, there may be some temporary duplication between this Creationism and evolutionism page and the Creationism page, but in the process, the POVs that do not have a footnote to a scholarly source will be cut to this Talk:Creationism and evolutionism page for storage until such time as someone finds a scholarly source expressing that opinion.


 * After a fair amount of time spent on the creationism page I agree with you on this. -- Miguel 23:12 Nov 17 2003 (UTC)


 * However, much of creationism has nothing to do with the head to head confrontation between creationism and evolutionism. That creationist content unrelated to the head to head confrontation between creationism and evolutionism should either remain on the Creationism page or be moved to the Creationism (theology) page.  If that NON-confrontational content of creationism is moved to the Creationism (theology) page, then that would leave the Creationism page as a disambiguation page that includes links to Creationism and evolutionism and Creationism (theology).


 * Given the narrow scope of the current page on Creationism (theology) it seems to me that there can be more in creationism than just a disambiguation page. Can you expand on what you call the "non-confrontational content of creationism" on the creationism page? -- Miguel 23:41 Nov 17 2003 (UTC)


 * Just ideas. What do you think? Rednblu 16:12, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Suggestions for a first sentence
In attempting various first sentences for the Creationism and evolutionism page, I have the following recommendations:

1. The name of the page should be Creationism versus evolutionism. The non-confrontational elements of creationism should be moved to the Creationism (theology) page where the theological concepts can be explained without interference from scientific rebuttal.

2. Accordingly, the first sentences of the Creationism versus evolutionism page should be something like the following.

Creationism versus evolutionism is a long-standing debate between the following two groups:
 * creationists who disbelieve evolution but who believe that some divine force created the universe and people
 * evolutionists who disbelieve creation but who believe that natural forces created the universe and people without the intervention of gods or any other divine force.

Some creationists accept evolution as a part of the creation of a divine force; their points-of-view are described on the Creationism (theology) page rather than on this page because they do not hold beliefs that contradict evolution. Similarly, some evolutionists believe that some divine force has intervened to create the universe as it is; their points-of-view are described on the Evolution page because they do not hold beliefs that contradict creation. Rednblu 16:51, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Let us proceed by defining terms? are you a analytic philosopher by any chance?

This article is unnecessary
What's the point of this article? The debate is already discussed in creationism, where it belongs.&mdash;Eloquence 13:38, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

"Evolutionism"
Do anybody except creationists use this term? Populus 16:30, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I think not. And despite my personal belief in God and His role in designing and creating (1) the physical universe, (2) everything in it and (3) all forms of life, especially human beings -- despite this fervently-held POV, I would like to see all articles on "creationism" and "evolution" be written neutrally. The arguments for or against divine creation should simply stand (or fall) on their own merits without using tactics such as name-calling or the old "shifting ground" technique, the "strawman" technique, or any other shenanigans. C'mon, we religious people should show a more principled example!

Oh, and by the way, evolutionists espouse various theories of evolution - while creationists tout creationism. --Uncle Ed 22:03, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hindu perspective
From article:

, and why many non-christian religions either have no stated conflicts with evolution, or have made explicit statements that it does not present a problem.

Hinduism doesn't see a conflict between creation and evolution. In Hinduism, the triumvirate [Gods] Brahma- Vishnu- Shiva are considered respectively Creator- Protector- Destroyer.The various Avatars of Vishnu the Dasavathara [Dasa=10, Avatar= incarnation]are generally accepted as showing a remarkable and very close co-relation with Darwinian evolution.

The Avatars are as follows 1.Matsya- fish 2.Koorma- turtle 3.Varaha- single horned pig 4.Narasimha -half lion half man 5.Vamana- dwarf 6.Parasurama- a grest sage 7.Rama - a great and righteous king 8.Balarama- brother of Krishna 9.Krishna- a God [cowherd] 10. Kalki- God on a horse.

[There are also other versions of the Dasavatar, one of which incorporates the Buddha]

According to popular belief, the first nine avatars are already completed, the tenth avatar is yet to come and would coincide with Pralaya when the world would end in water- to rise yet again. This is supposedly in the near future in the Kali-Yuga, yuga being a unit of time.

The concept of cyclic time is central to Hinduism [unlike the concept of linear time in many other religions]. In fact, time is represented as a wheel- 'Kaala Chakra- Wheel of Time'.Probably this could be one of the reasons why there is no conflict between religion and science in Hinduism. Another interesting point is that though Brahma is considered the Creator, unlike Vishnu and Shiva,there is no temple of worship for him reasons for which are given in myths.

Probably any debate on creationism Vs evolutionism would have to necessarily include and accommodate the concept and theories of time.

The above section, cut from the article, seems on the face of it to contradict the claim that "most religions" other than Christianity have no "stated conflicts" or "problem" with evolution.


 * Here are some features of Hindu cosmology which are consistent with modern scientific theories in ways that christian cosmology is not:


 * 1) Hindu mythology contains periods of billions of years, as opposed to thousands of years in the case of the bible
 * 2) Hinduism stresses the unity of all life while christian cosmology is based on a hyerarchy of being with man at the top, as ruler of creation and created by God in His image.
 * Regarding your quote below on Brahma creating the world, Hindu creationism is probably closer to Christian theistic evolutionism, where God's role is limited to creating a universe where the right conditions for the emergence of life prevail.
 * Here I am using the terminology of the wikipedia article Creationism. -- Miguel
 * Christian cosmology has had an important impact on the development of science. In the case of the interpretation of Darwinian evolution, even by scientists, this influence can be seen in the way that evolution is sometimes portrayed as progress towards human beings. This idea of biological evolution as "progress" is now widely rejected by evolutionary biology. -- Miguel

Perhaps we ought to find some published author who makes that claim, and attribute that POV to him rather than stating as a fact. --Uncle Ed 22:16, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Because I think it's just the opposite, as this easily found quote shows:


 * Brahma is the Creator and source of all creation. ...

In the Vedas, one of the accounts says that the creator built the universe with timber, as a carpenter builds a house. In the Rig Veda it says that the universe was created out of the parts of the body of a single cosmic man, Purusa, when his body was sacrificed.

answers to spefic objections to intelligent design
1- It is an excusively christian enterprise.
 * reply: some agnostics are involved in the movement, as are several jews and muslims.

2- no evolutionary biologist thinks it has any merit.
 * reply: 1 of the editors of the washington biological survey ( the journal in which the infamous myer articile was published) is a double ph.d one of them being in evolutionary biology. he has indicated on his site that he feels the movement has merit.

3- the myer articile was published without the proper controls.
 * reply: the same evolutionary biologist mentioned above checked the myer articile, and he is the only person on the journals editing staff who normally checks articiles on evolutionary biology, hence all proper methods were used. however due to the controversial nature of the articile he had 4 other evolutionary biologists check it over and disscus with him whether or not to publish the articile. the articile sat on his desk for months, he said, giving lie to the claim that it was rushed into publication. Panda's thumb seems just as wont to play with the facts as they claim their opponets are.

4- the intelligent design movement produce's none, or virtually no, scholarly articiles.
 * reply: have a look at iscid ( international society for complexity intelligence and design ) it produces a tri yearly scholary journal.

5- virtually all ID proponets are young earth creationists in disguise.
 * reply: this is one of the odder claims I have heard, all intelligent design proponets I have met believe that the earth is apporximately 4.5-5.5 billon years old, the standard date geology puts it at.

6- the arugement from the cambrian explosion is a young earth creationist arugement in disguise.
 * reply: now this is bizzare, since young earth creationists do not believe in the cambrian explosion.

7- the intelligent design movement willfully uses whatever fallacious, ad homenien or well posioning arugements they think will help them win.
 * reply: Prehaps some intelligent design advocates get a bit... polemical at times but they nowhere near match the excess of their opponets, who accuse them of either being insane, stupid, ignorant or wicked ( dawkins ) who spend entire pages making fun of the fact that in addtion to having a bachelor of statstics a masters in philosophy a masters in mathematics a masters in theology and a ph.d's in mathematics and philosophy, all baylor and other similarly respectable universties demsbki also happens to be the silent partner in a bbq ( panda's thumb). who always write the words intelligent design in speech marks ( imagine if IDS'ts decided to write the words "evolutionary biology" in speech marks all the time) who stoop to attacking analogies ( ken miller on the mousetrap). who continually try to prove that we are in fact southern state creationists who just want to get inside your childs classroom so we can save him from hell, who indicate that we do in fact want to destroy science ( and use the fallacious slippery slope arugement that if we get our way we will) who compare what we are doing to doubting the existence of atoms or general and special releatvity. well you get my point, they make us look like kindergarten teachers.

8- intelligent design is creationsism
 * considering that one or two intelligent design proponets are non religous, considering that many of us believe in evolution, isn't this streching the meaning of the word creationism somewhat, the raeleians support us and they could hardly be called creatinists!

9- intelligent design will bring in a new dark age
 * I haven't actually heard that said quite that virulently yet, but that is the basic drift of some of the stuff I have heard. Could the above arugement be the ultimiate form of slippery slope arugemtent? newton, hooke and bolye all believed in intelligent design, that should answer the charge suffeciently!

and evolutionists think we play with the facts?

Sorry
I am the author of the above post, I wrote it late at night and did not understand the wikipedia paragraphing system, nor by that stage of the night the english spelling system, hence it is a little faulty as far as spelling and grammar go.
 * You can go back and edit it! (Oh, what the heck; I've done it for you!) Also, if you put four tildes (i.e. ~ ) at the end of your posts to the talk pages, it will include you user name and time. Which raises another point&mdash;it would be good if you get yourself a username (or log on if you already have one). Philip J. Rayment 13:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All substantive points moved to the Creation vs. evolution debate page
After extended discussion at Votes_for_deletion/Evolution_and_creationism. ---Rednblu | Talk 09:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)