Talk:Objections to evolution/Archive 4

the poll of scientists believing in god controlled evolution is unconvincing – please cite source.
The nearest poll I have seen is the Edward Larson of the University of Georgia's study in 1997 (this followed up on the Leuba study of 1916). Larson's found only 7% of scientists had any belief in a personal god whereas 72.2% expressed “personal disbelief”. Thus to say some 40% of scientists believe god is associated with evolution is extremely unlikely.

fordwales  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fordwales (talk • contribs) 21:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe you missed it. The polls are cited in the article. --Filll (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is cited to Public beliefs about evolution and creation (currently citation number 121), which in turn cites Gallup as the source of their data. HrafnTalkStalk 11:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

many thanks Hrafn but I do not see how the citations offer any support for the arguement used
Many thanks Hrafn but as I have pointed out earlier this citation leads to a religion biased website where the gallop poll has been misconstrued, the details of which I have put in my post below.

Here are the actual results of the Larson and Witham study just to put an end to any future manipulation.

The results were as follows (figures in %): from a survey of scientists BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD         1914   1933    1998

Personal belief                27.7    15       7.0 Personal disbelief             52.7    68      72.2 Doubt or agnosticism           20.9    17      20.8

BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY          1914    1933    1998

Personal belief                35.2    18       7.9 Personal disbelief             25.4    53      76.7 Doubt or agnosticism           43.7    29      23.3

Here is the result of the gallop poll cited by the religious website which has been used to support the unsupportable:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21811/American-Beliefs-Evolution-vs-Bibles-Explanation-Human-Origins.aspx

as you can see the 38% (is this the 40% figure used?) is a reference to college graduates – who of course may not be scientists, (they could include graduates in religious studies!).

Thanks again for your help Hrafn but the entire final section including the 'poll' needs to be rigorously reviewed or preferably deleted.

fordwales —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.24.247 (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * fordwales: unless and until you make a coherent case for your claims, you are unlikely to win much support. So please stop unnecessarily creating sections (which only serves to confuse matters further), stop throwing around wild accusations, and start looking at things, and explaining them, more carefully. Do you have explicit evidence that the Nov-1997 Gallup poll came up with different percentages for scientists than the religioustolerance.org page claims? If not, then we should accept them until either (1) we are given reason to doubt them or (2) religioustolerance.org is proven to be a unreliable source. Assuming for the moment that they are the genuine Gallup figures, is it possible that Gallup and Larson & Witham are using different sampling methods, different definitions of 'scientist', etc? Additionally, could you please cite a source (URL, article, book, etc) for the L&W figures you cite above. HrafnTalkStalk 14:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

the polls cited do not appear to support the poll published
Many thanks but I tried those citations. One refers to the Larson and Witham of 1997 study whose results are  inverse to the claim of the  poll used on Wikipedia. The study is so well known and its findings so well distributed we can check the survey in many places:

Here are Larson and Withams results from their 1997 study which was geared to 'greater scientists' as can be found at http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html:

You can check the results for yourselves but scientists who have a personal DISBELIEF in god were 72.2% of the study As can be seen the chances of 40% of scientists believing that 'God guided evolution' is nigh on impossible if 72% do not believe in God in the first place.

I have tried hard to find the gallup poll referred to in the second citation but that has alluded me. I wonder if the person who posted the wikipedia poll confused it with the following one from March 2006: http://www.gallup.com/poll/21811/American-Beliefs-Evolution-vs-Bibles-Explanation-Human-Origins.aspx

If you check this you can see the 38% of college graduates who believe God crated man in his own image as oppossed to accepting evolution is not narrowed down to scientists. They could be graduates from religious centres or students who have studied any conceivable subject in any field.

Please help me find the source of the claim.

fordwales  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fordwales (talk •   —Preceding comment was added at 20:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

the last section, (In addition, a wide range of religions have reconciled a belief in a supernatural being with evolution), must be deleted.
the final section should now be deleted. The citations indicate the figures are inverse to the truth for the reasons I have listed before. This is wishful thinking with figures creamed from a religionist website that appears to have wilfully manipulated a gallup poll's findings. I have listed my own references in my earlier posts (cf below).

fordwales    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fordwales (talk • contribs) 11:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You have not made your case. The study you cited was from a tiny sample of "greater" scientists. This phenomenon is well known and well studied and has been for decades. The most illustrious scientists are more likely to be atheists. This says nothing about scientists as a whole. And you are making a mess of the talk page as Hrafn said. Sorry your arguments are not very compelling.--Filll (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * fordwales seems to have evaporated -- no edits in the six days since his last comment here. HrafnTalkStalk 18:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?
It seems to me that this entire article is devoted to refuting the arguements that opponents of evolution postulate to defend their point of view. (i.e. evolution is not true) I do not know how to correctly approach this, but I do not think that this article displays a NPOV. J.delanoy (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhh ... let me get this straight. The Darwin-bashers come up with lists of criticisms and "refutations" of Darwinism, their argument being almost entirely negative; but having done that, it is then biased to criticise the criticisms despite the fact that they are often full of holes and in some cases blatantly illogical. OK, did I get that right? MrG 4.225.213.150 (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have heard somewhere that evolution's mechanisms would be almost impossible to rectify with the second law of thermodynamics, and I have never seen anyone come up with a good solution to this problem. Should I try to find a citation and something about this? J.delanoy (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The only citations you'll find will be the standard malinformed anti-evolution sources. There's no thermodynamic problems w/ the ToE. &mdash; Scientizzle 00:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition, this section already exists. GSlicer (t • c) 00:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The "solution to the problem" of the statement "evolution's mechanisms would be almost impossible to rectify with the second law of thermodynamics" is that anybody who says this is ignorant of the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics, basically, states that the entropy, defined as the heat transfer divided by the temperature, must increase-- in other words, thermal energy flows from hot to cold.  Evolution acts on living things, which ultimately are solar-powered, and reject waste heat into the universe-- they most certainly do obey the second law of thermodynamics, just like ice crystals, thunderstorms, and wildfires.  The second law of thermodynamics is not a mystic principle subject to "interpretation"-- it is a mathematical formula, which can be exactly calculated.  Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are interested in which this standard creationist complaint is pure horse pucky, I can give you another 20 references. But it should be enough to realize that one of the main people to clear up this confusion, Prigogine, got the Nobel Prize for his work. So...--Filll (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To 4.225.*, would you be interested in WP:JOINing the project? There are a few good reasons to sign up, but for a start you'll be able to contribute to this article, as well as help revert any vandalism or bad faith edits you see, whenever it's semi-protected. Cheers, Ben (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC).

Two versions of the Evolution Cannot Create Information argument
There are two different versions of this argument. One claims there are nop known processes that can increase the amount of data in a chromosome, that the number of nucleotides in DNA should have remained stable since the origins of life. Responses to this arguments include chromosome duplication errors (such as in Down syndrome), viral transfers, etc. The other version claims that the amount of INFORMATION (not data) in the chromosomes cannot increase by evolution. Arguments against this include those listed in the article, such as the effect of random mutations being filtered by the environment. I think the article should mention both. Herbys (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Find a significant source (ICR/AiG/etc) for the former claim (per WP:V) and we'll include it. HrafnTalkStalk 04:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Good stuff. Find some references, both creationist and anticreationist if possible, and we will run with it.--Filll (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

'such as the evolution of nylon-eating bacteria, which developed new enzymes to efficiently...' are we sure this is new information? There are studies (can't recall any specific ones at the moment) that have studied frozen microbes which have resistance to antibiotics which had not been developed by the time that they were frozen. Also are there any naturally occuring compound similar enough to nylon that the same enzymes, or slightly different enzymes could act upon them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.91.230 (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As the nylon-eating bacteria article says "Further study revealed that the three enzymes the bacteria were using to digest the byproducts were significantly different from any other enzymes produced by other Flavobacterium strains (or any other bacteria for that matter), and not effective on any material other than the manmade nylon byproducts". That conclusion comes from a peer reviewed paper published in 1981 and none of the dozens of papers published about these bacteria or these enzymes since then has disputed it. Now of courese it is still possible that the Japanese scientests who published that paper missed something, but the point is that people have deliberately looked (both for similar enzymes produced by other bacteria and for naturally occuring substances that the enzymes might be effective on) and not found any.Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bias
I am not trying to push anything but Wikipedia is not intended to be bias, this page is written in the voice that anti-evolutionary is a rare, radical and completely ludicrous cult. It is not, aproxximately half of the world believes that creationism is the origin of life and we do not have the write to feed theories as fact in a non-bias encyclopedia. I know this is one of the most offensive subjects known and its hard to write about without expressing opinion. For Wikipedia. Derek Yoda&#39;s friend (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Derek Yoda&#39;s friend. If you have a problem with a particular piece of the article, then feel free to bring it up - sources will be necessary to backup any suggestions or views contrary to what is already written. Until then, we can't really do much with "this article is biased, please fix it". You might also find the Evolution as theory and fact article helpful. Ben (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Derek Yoda&#39;s friend: this article is written giving WP:DUE weight to the expert opinion of the scientific consensus, which is that creationism lacks any scientific merit (e.g. see List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design‎, which offers a list of scientific organisation rejecting Intelligent design, the most currently-fashionable form of creationism). HrafnTalkStalk 09:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Find me sources. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I 100% agree with comment above that this article is completely biased for Evolution. If you want to leave the content the way it is then the title of the article MUST be changed to reflect the content, specifically, "Countering Objections to Evolution". Objections to Evolution should be strictly objections from those who object to the theory and not evolutionists themselves who want to give their own spin on each objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.242.177 (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What? This article isn't, as you suggest, a simple list of objections to evolution. The article is about objections to evolution. As an article, it should list, discuss and offer facts and expert views, to name a few things, regarding objections to evolution. If you're going to waste precious time making a comment on this page, the least you could do is make it useful. How about the next time you hit that edit button, you make a case for your accusation of bias? If you're only here to whine, then your time is better spent elsewhere. Ben (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to go far to see the bias: "Many of the arguments against evolution have become widespread, including objections to evolution's evidence, methodology, plausibility, morality, and scientific acceptance. However, these arguments are not accepted by the scientific community." How can you generalize the scientific community when just from the compiled lists I've seen, hundreds of scientists have one form of objection or another to evolution--even evolutionists themselves that have a problem reconciling the evidence. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/ http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.203.181 (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "hundreds of scientists" out of the hundreds of thousands of scientists is so small a fraction as to be virtually none at all. In any case, many on the lists you cited aren't even scientists at all (but are rather engineers, mathematicians, educationalists, etc), let alone are scientists in fields that give them any understanding of evolution. These are religious organisations, with religious statements of belief, so it is hardly a stretch to conclude that their signatories disbelieve evolution for religious reasons -- especially as most of them don't know a damn thing about evolutionary biology. HrafnTalkStalk 13:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Virtually none at all? You obviously cannot make that statement as it is clearly not true. I don't care if it's a figure of speech. Their beliefs and facts mean something, and you are basically saying what they think does not matter just because they are the minority. Minority does not mean they are automatically wrong. Secondly, since most believe that if you subscribe to ID/creationism, it must be religious. Well, they can't help if that belief has religious implications. It still doesn't make it any less valid for that reason alone. Petrafan007 (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "'hundreds of scientists' out of the hundreds of thousands of scientists" = approximately 0.1% = "virtually none at all" proportionally. So yes, I can say that. The facts do not support their beliefs, so "their beliefs and facts mean" that their beliefs are simply religiously-motivated (ID, & creationism more generally, are religious beliefs -- per a mountain of academic evidence, and court verdicts) wishful thinking. Approximately 0.1% is a "tiny minority" per WP:DUE, and can be ignored per that policy. ID, & creationism more generally, have been found to have zero validity, so can hardly be "less valid". HrafnTalkStalk 16:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia works according to WP:NPOV. That means, both sides are presented. Now you can reject one side or the other or both if you like. But both sides are in the article. Whether you find the arguments of either side compelling is up to the reader.--Filll (talk) 06:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Presenting both sides is fine. But it would be disengenuous to deny that the way these sides are presented sides with evolutionary theory. The mere format/order of the article is proof of this. Nearly every section starts out with something like "creationists believe..." and then ends with something like "but these claims have been largely rejected by the scientific community which asserts that.....". A HUGE portion of the world doubts the validity of evolution. If anyone from the millions on the doubting side wrote the article, it would be turned exactly on its head and the format/order referred to above would be summarily reversed. And again, the unprofessional statement above about how certain anti-evolutionists "don't know a damn thing about evolutionary biology" totally betrays the writer's emotional attachment to evolutionary theory. This statement proves the existance of bias in the very statement that's being made in an attempt to disprove it.


 * Read WP:UNDUE. Nearly everything that creationists believe is directly contradicted by the scientific consensus, based upon an enormous volume of evidence. "A HUGE portion" of the world is quite often wrong on the most basic facts, which is why argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. "Anyone from the millions on the doubting side" who "wrote the article" would lack WP:RS for their viewpoint & it would be deleted, per wikipedia policy. And why is it "unprofessional" to suggest that the majority of a list containing very few biologists (and many who aren't scientists at all) don't know anything about evolutionary biology? The only "bias" this suggests is a bias against fallacious appeals to false authority. HrafnTalkStalk 09:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a brief comment that most people who believe in a divine Creation do not reject evolution or other science, but instead reject the assumptions of the conflict thesis. The most common example of this position is theistic evolution. Most mainline churches, along with the the Catholic and Orthodox churches, (which together form the vast majority of Christians) fall into this category of "creationist". Vassyana (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is caiming for this poster http://imgs.xkcd.com/store/imgs/science_square_0.png193.145.150.39 (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OP, I would particularly love to see sources for the "approximately half of the world believes that creationism is the origin of life" claim. Now, my personal observations are obviously OR, but as far as I can tell, here in Europe creationists are viewed as complete wackos who have lost all touch with reality. Or to quote: Europeans in general think creationists are "a rare, radical and completely ludicrous cult". And that view is shared by atheists, agnostics and religious people alike. Half of the US population, maybe. Half of the world? Wishful, wishful thinking. TomorrowTime (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * After reading this article the one thing that stands out more than anything is its bias and POV. After every objection to evolution is defined the writer goes on to rebut the statement and provide wording that allows the theory of evolution to 'trump' the objection. Surely the article should just be a list of objections and their reasoning - as a reader all I want to know is, as the title says, "Objects to Evolution". I don't need someone to try and shows me the supposed fallacies of each argument - that's my prerogative.
 * I think if this isn't addressed a POV warning will be added. Jamie (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * After reading the Creation-Evolution Controversy I am wondering why this article exists? Most if not all points are covered in the Controversy article. Also the way in which the controversy article addresses the points is a far better way that this article, in fact this article seems somewhat amateurish in comparison. I am starting to wonder whether this article should be nominated for deletion or at least merge the few points that aren't covered into the Controversy article. Jamie (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a few comments.
 * I don't need someone to try and shows me the supposed fallacies of each argument - that's my prerogative.
 * This article is about objections to evolution, and part of the 'about' is verifiable definitions, discussions of validity, responses to them, etc. Wikipedia's inclusion policies do not depend on your needs.
 * I think if this isn't addressed a POV warning will be added.
 * Please read WP:NPOV.
 * After reading the Creation-Evolution Controversy I am wondering why this article exists?
 * The creation-evolution controversy article and this one intersect, but they do not overlap. The creation-evolution controversy is political in nature, often involving issues far outside the realm of evolution, and objections to evolution do not need to be motivated by political gain. Ben (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NPOV - Read it, my point still stands.
 * This article is about objections to evolution, and part of the 'about' is verifiable definitions, discussions of validity, responses to them, etc. Wikipedia's inclusion policies do not depend on your needs. - The article is more than that. The entire tone of the article is written from a pro-evolution stand point. It feels like your reading someones opinions on the matter as opposed to a statement. Responses to arguements are fine if balanced, the article has far too much bias to refuting anti-evolutionary claims than is necessary. This is why I mentioned the Creation-Evolution Controversy article - this article covers almost all of the same points but in a far less biased and much more concise manner.


 * E.g. Plenty of reference to "creationists" and there stance followed by the writer providing a retort written in the first person. The tone of the article make it very clear the writer is a evolutionist. Jamie (talk) 09:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The key policy here is WP:UNDUE. It requires articles to not treat positions that are held by a distinct minority of experts in a field as being of equal weight with the opinions held by a majority of such experts. For scientific topics the state of expert opinion is determined by publications in peer reviewed scientific journlals. That prohibts treating the scientific claims of creationists as having equal weight as the responses made to them, since those responses reflect the vast majority of scientific opinion. Now it is required that minority views be summerized correctly and fairly, and if there are language issues that can be addressed, but the basic structure of the article, which shows creationist claims being refuted by arguments upholding the reality of biological evolution is appropriate because it reflects the current scientific consensus. That consensus comes from peer reviewed scientific jounals, not talk page discussions. Rusty Cashman (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A huge number of people believe in creationism, but that does not mean that this article is biased. There is no doubt about evolution within the scientific community. It would be biased to present two views as equal when one view is based on scientific evidence, and the other is based only on belief. Millions of children believe in Santa Claus, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should present Santas existence as equally plausible. Millions of people believe the myth that the Great Wall of China can be seen from outer space. It clearly can't, but just because some ignorant people think it can be seen is no reason to say that Wikipedia is being biased to ignore their view when their view is unfounded. It doesn't matter how many of the general public believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastjame (talk • contribs) 21:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Main mechanism by/in the 30s
The relative contributions of various evolutionary mechanisms has been a controversial subject since the publication of Darwin's work. Darwin mentioned natural selection, but also from his writings it was clear he believed there were other mechanisms. This mechanism fell out of favor by 1900 or so, but then by the time of the modern synthesis, it was the consensus that it was the main mechanism. Since then, more mechanisms and controversy has erupted about the relative contributions of various mechanisms under a variety of circumstances. So unless and until we get an expert here to be a bit more careful, I would rather keep this vague.--Filll (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My point was about grammar. We need a comma or rephrasing so that the sentence is talking about 'evolution' itself, not 'evolution in the 1930s'. There were no special evolutionary changes happening in the 1930s, were there? rossnixon 06:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok I see what you mean. It could be interpreted another way. And yours could almost as well. If the sentence was reordered that would fix it. Is this necessary? I am not convinced.--Filll (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

POV
"Purge any POVish tone, whether pro- or anti-evolution" is on the to-do list, yet Wikipedia clearly takes the 'point of view' that evolution is an accurate description of how life originated and changed. How can we not take the this position, without contradicting ourselves, science and basic reasoning? Richard001 (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am tempted to comment that Wikipedia also takes the point of view that gravity makes objects fall to the ground, and that the earth is roughly spherical. Let's review all articles touching on those subjects as well, to ensure that alternative views are taken into account... Surely, in fact, the answer lies simply in WP:DUE. Snalwibma (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

One can PROVE imperically that objects fall to the ground. For you go equate the factual undeniability of this with evolution belies your emotional attachment to evolution and should diqualify you from contributing to what should be a OBJECTIVE article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.228.43 (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And one can prove empirically that natural selection and macroevolution, in the form of speciation, occur. That evolution happens is a fact, the Theory of Evolution is science's best explanation of how it happens. Now please take your WP:SOAPBOX outside. HrafnTalkStalk 08:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither of you are qualified to make any statements regarding the facts or theories of evolution. Hrafn, your defiance towards WP:OR is quite evident in many of your posts. Petrafan007 (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am qualified to simply report what the scientific consensus states -- that speciation and natural selection are scientifically observable facts. This is not WP:OR, as is established by the citations underlying those two articles. HrafnTalkStalk 16:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Just remember, there is a fine line between evolution and natural selection. Evolution needs natural selection, but natural selection doesn't rely on evolution. Many Christian scientists believe natural selection is true and can lead to speciation. They don't believe, however, that you can gain new genetic information via mutations. I don't think it's been proven either, and I'm very sure it hasn't. If it has, let me know.66.74.230.117 (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That you ask this question demonstrates that you have no clear understanding of what "new genetic information" (or information generally) means -- as it is trivially obvious that mutations create it. Any altered copy of previous information is new information (whether said new information is useful is another matter -- that's where natural selection comes in). HrafnTalkStalk 14:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. But when your genetic information mutates, there is only change and loss of information. The information is only considered new because it has been changed. Get it? 66.74.230.117 (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Information is only "lost" in the sense that, when you replace a sentence in a paper with a differently-worded version, the original is "lost", for better or worse. If there happens to be a period in the new version, you now have TWO sentences. Mutations have extended and shortened (even duplicated) entire chromosomes before- and not always with fatal result. This argument is an extension of the "violates the second law etc etc" argument, and is invalid in its own, special way.--King ♣  Talk   15:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And in evolution, you must gain brand new genetic information in order to be evolved from protozoa (or what ever it is, I've heard many different versions)66.74.230.117 (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * All changes are an increase to genetic diversity. There is no "loss of information" -- as the original still exists elsewhere in the gene pool. In any case, this is off-topic to the point of article talkpages -- discussing improvements to the article, not the underlying topic. HrafnTalkStalk 15:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Entropy Additions
I have tried in the past to add the information below to the Entropy section. For some reason, it's almost immediately deleted. If someone can help me with what needs to be revised and/or explain why my additions are removed, I would appreciate it. Thanks.

However, critics of the scientific establishment counter that it does not matter if earth is in an open or closed system; all systems lose heat and decrease in order. It does not matter how much earth gets hit by ultra-violet rays; evolution must (through chance, mutations, and time) produce a biological mechanism by which to convert raw energy (sun) into usable, working energy, such as the process of photosynthesis in plants.

Additionally, Dr. Henry Morris, scientist for the Institute of Creation Research and former evolutionist, states that “the entropy principle applies at least as much to open systems as to closed systems. In an isolated real system, shut off from external energy, the entropy (or disorganization) will always increase. In an open system (such as the earth receiving an influx of heat energy from the sun), the entropy always tends to increase, and, as a matter of fact, will usually increase more rapidly than if the system remained closed!” --Batman144 (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are several difficulties. The main one is that this article is only a summary article and does not have room for what you want to put in it. The main article is Entropy and life of course and if anyplace, it would be most suitable there. However, having glanced at the Morris article, it is not particularly credible or much of a reliable source without a lot of explanatory material.

For example, Morris claims " evolution is supposed to be a universal law of increasing complexity". This is blatantly false, and we see it is part of a strawman argument. Next the article is full of quote mines so very little that is in it is reliable, all being misquotes of one type or another. It is a completely unbalanced description, since it does not include the position of mainstream science, representing over 99% of the scientists in the relevant fields. Morris' article, to be included, should be balanced for NPOV with several solid articles from the mainstream so it can be put into context. The original articles he has quote mined from should be tracked down so we can see what they really say, instead of what Morris claims they say. It would take weeks of solid effort to incorporate the Morris article in in a reasonable NPOV fashion. The Morris article is not a WP:RS for more than the position of Morris on entropy, and maybe a few related creationists.

While not a completely silly idea, I personally have many other projects going on right now and am not ready to drop them and start on this one. What I suggest you do is add this material to the talk page of the Entropy and life article, and see if anyone wants to work with you there to help you incorporate the material in suitable form into the Entropy and life article. --Filll (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that: I do not see any necessity to include fallacious arguments from an absurdly unreliable source, except to the extent that they are sufficiently notable that they (and their debunking in a reliable source) should be documented. HrafnTalkStalk 04:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Henry M. Morris is a Hydraulic engineer, not a scientist, let alone an expert on Thermodynamics. His claims are also prima facie fallacious, as the newly-placed contents of a refrigerator easily demonstrate as a counter-example (an 'open system', they clearly undergo a reduction in entropy on being cooled). In the case of the Earth, it is continually losing energy to the Universe in the form of infra-red radiation.
 * The Institute for Creation Research is a young Earth creationist apologetics organisation, not a legitimate scientific institution.

--First, thanks to you both for your time and comments. I'm relatively new to this process so any help you have to offer is appreciated. My response would be as follows: I understand your misgivings regarding Dr. Morris, however, this article's primary objective (at least judging by its title) is to present concepts and arguments contrary to evolution. Should that not be the article's focus? For example, I would not look up an article explaining evolution theory and expect it to focus on debunking material. Certainly, any disclaimers such as "Dr. Morris' views are not given credence by the scientific mainstream" would be appropriate, but, nonetheless, the bulk of the article (I would think) should be arguments against evolution, not material antithetical to the title.

I would suggest either allowing in-depth information that is both pro and con as part of this article, or split the two sides into their own articles: this article presenting anti-evolution information, and the other article answering the statements made in this article.

Thanks again for your time. --Batman144 (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In your edits (of three months ago, so it's hardly surprising that they're not exactly fresh in our minds), you presented Dembski & Morris as reliable sources on science and presented their (frequently patently fallacious) claims as factual, and without any scientific rebuttal. It is therefore unsurprising that your edits were reverted. Also specified complexity bears no direct relationship to thermodynamics. HrafnTalkStalk 02:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

--"you presented Dembski & Morris as reliable sources on science and presented their ...claims as factual" No, I presented their own arguments in their own words; I made no comment whatsoever on their veracity. Nonetheless, you seem to disallow even that -- which is particularly odd given this article's subject. That being the case, why not just delete the article altogether?

This article already goes into great detail answering arguments against evolution, yet, ironically, the objections themselves are given cursory treatment. At the very least, this article should be renamed "Rebutting Objections to Evolution" --Batman144 (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You are confused. We list the objections, but for NPOV, we have to present the other side. To some people, the rebuttal will be most convincing. To others, the objection will be most convincing. And that is how it goes.--Filll (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Calling Morris a "scientist" is most certainly presenting him as a reliable source. Presenting their fallacious objections without scientific rebuttal also gives a false impression of their reliability. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 02:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

--Filll, thank you for your attention to this. My point is that there already is more detail and space given to the other side than there is to the topic itself. Doesn’t that in itself work against NPOV? --Batman144 (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the opposite is true. Following WP:DUE we must give due weight to the mainstream scientific conclusion, which is that evolution is the best explanation we have for the data. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 23:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

--Hello, Sheffield. It's good to see another party join the discussion. How is NPOV preserved when 1/3 of the article is devoted to the topic at hand while 2/3 is given for rebuttal? --Batman144 (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * According to NPOV, the views are to be represented "in proportion to their prominence". Since we are talking about science, the scientific consensus of way more than 99% of the relevant scientists accepts evolution, including the role of entropy etc. So according to NPOV, maybe 99 per cent or more could be rebuttal. But we are more fair than that.--Filll (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no problem, in an article about 'objections to evolution', giving WP:DUE weight to the majority scientific viewpoint that these objections have no scientific basis. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 02:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * BAtman144: The simple fact of the matter is that there aren't any valid objections to evolution. Opponents of evolution haven't found anything that actually stands up.  But if we don't supply details of the problems that have been identified with the previous attempts to rebut evolution, then we'd be suppressing information.  And, inevitably, explaining the problems with the previous attempts often involves going into greater detail (and requiring more space) than presenting the attempts themselves. --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

--First, allow me to thank all involved for their time and patience.

I guess my concern with the current modus operandi is as follows: I’m willing to bet most readers researching arguments against evolution and who choose your pages will probably not expect Wikipedia to offer only brief, cursory information on the topic chased by in-depth rebuttals. Were I to research the topic, I certainly would not find enough information here. More importantly, I may not realize the information is only cursory.

Additionally, there are still issues with the article as-is. The current verbiage of the section’s second paragraph leaves the impression that evolution critics are unaware of or have no response to the isolated system issue. This is incorrect. (Ironically, that information was in the material I tried to post.)

Ultimately, I wish Wikipedia permitted a freer flow of information. I believe there are much preferable ways of making clear that a particular view is in the minority without prohibiting an in-depth exposition of any given point of view. Nonetheless, thank you again for everyone’s effort and attention. --Batman144 (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is of course an encyclopedia article, so it will not be in depth; no encyclopedia article is. In addition, this article clearly lists many different objections. So it is even less in depth. It provides links in many cases to more complete articles. However, it does provide links to many other articles in books where a reader can start to research the objections in detail. And that is true of all encyclopediae.


 * Of course if a person is truely interested in this question, one would have the objection, then the answer to the objection, then the counterobjection to the answer, then the rebuttal to the counterobjection, then the rejoinder to the rebuttal, and so on, maybe for dozens if not hundreds of steps. We cannot cover all that on Wikipedia. We provide links to help the reader get started; that is all. We also provide the first couple of steps in the process, in the rough proportion to their prominence and the rough proportion to the consensus of the scientific community. Because frankly, no one serious in the scientific community takes this objection seriously. Nobody. This is a nonsense objection. Just look into it a bit deeper if you do not agree. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Batman144: I object to your characterisation. That these 'objections' are completely and utterly without scientific basis is crucial information on them. Additionally, it generally takes longer to explain why an argument is fallacious than to pluck the argument itself out of thin air. This asymmetry is the basis for the notorious creationist tactic known as the Gish gallop. This is acceptable under WP:DUE, so your repeated complaints about relative weight is without basis in policy. Therefore I would suggest that further discussion serves no purpose under WP:TALK. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 04:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"...so your repeated complaints about relative weight is without basis in policy" Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was in fact critiquing the policy.

"Therefore I would suggest that further discussion serves no purpose under WP:TALK." On that, we agree. I think we have all pretty much said all there is to say. With that, I bid you adieu... --Batman144 (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Proving the Objections false
Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but... Should the article "Objections to evolution" be devoted to proving these objections wrong? As someone reading this who doesn't give a damn either way, it seems to be about making creationists look like idiots. Perhaps it would be best to explain the objections, and merely link to articles which tackle those objections, since there's plenty of that content available in other articles. Just a thought. 125.188.156.90 (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, they are false. If we don't say so, we'd be suppressing relevant information.  And if we said so only in a series of spin-off articles, we'd be creating a misleading impression in this article.  But this article does indeed contain numerous "further information" links to more detailed articles on each topic. --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

From NPOV, this is how the article has to be written. Also, those who believe that evolution is flawed will ignore the "proofs" of falsity probably. And those who believe evolution is not false will ignore the objections, probably. So each faction will take from this article what they want. However, it is valuable for each side to know what the arguments of the other side are. And that is what this article is for.--Filll (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to note that there is no hard policy dictating that we must prove false all objections to evolution. However, if this encyclopaedia is going to present science-based arguments against evolution, it would give our readers a misleading impression if it did not put those into context - the context of the widely-held scientific consensus. Objections which are not and do not claim to be scientific need not (and arugably should not) be "proven false" in this article. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 13:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Imagine we wrote an "objections to the laws of physics" article. Any objection to physics on a scientific basis would necessarily have to be explained to be wrong because the laws of physics are true.  And, in fairness, "evolution means humans are animals" is not really refuted precisely because it is true.--Loodog (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A late reaction here, but that's not exactly true. 'Evolution means Humans are Animals' is an invalid objection to The Theory of Evolution, not because it's an emotive and unscientific objection based on religious anthropocentrism (though it is). It's actually an invalid objection to the Theory of Evolution because it's plain wrong. The ToE does NOT actually claim that humans are animals any more than it claims that Orchids are plants. The ToE doesn't make such judgements. (Instead, Humans are, in all scientific areas of Biology, defined as animals because there is no cellular difference between humans and other animals. According to the Theory of Evolution, Humans COULD be something other than animals, despite having evolved from animals for the same reason plants are different from Bacteria, despite having evolved from cynobacteria, provided that humans evolved to be different from Animals on a cellular level. Since we didn't, however, Biology classifies humans as Animals. Robrecht (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting idea, but evolution dictates that we share common descent with all primates, with only miniscule differences in our genetic makeup. It'd be pretty hard to make a case, IMO, that at some particular point in the transition from homo heidelbergensis to homo sapien, we ceased being animals...--Loodog (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hitler belived in Evolution
This sentence "Historical analyses demonstrate that the origins of the Holocaust are more likely to be found in Christianity than in evolution." Is completely insane. Atheists seem to love gleefully pointing out things like the crusades at any Christian that preaches love, but the fact is that many of the crusaders didn't even know how to read the Bible, and didn't know what Christianity was really about. The crusades were just a political endeavor cleverly disguised as Christian to get more followers. And about the Holocaust, Hitler belived that humans were descended from an Atlantian race, and that blue eyed and blond haired people were part of an Arian race, the next step in evolution. To bring along the Arain race Hitler began to anhiilate the Jews, whom he believed were lower in evolution. Hitler learned this from occult groups such as the Theosophists and the Thule Society. He truly was an occultist, and only claimed to be a Christian to win the support of his nation. Jesus says in Matthew 5: 44 "Love your enemies, do good to those who curse you" There's no violent crusade/holocaust message in the Christianity that Jesus preached. Can we reach the consensus that the false message: "Historical analyses demonstrate that the origins of the Holocaust are more likely to be found in Christianity than in evolution." be removed from the end of the "Evolution leads to Immorality and Social Ills" section. Fusionbomb (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Dubious
The cited article says that many people think that "humans are the ultimate product, even goal, of evolution". That is clearly a misconception, we are not the "crown of evolution", etc., but is it really wrong to say that we are more advanced than monkeys, or even more evolved? If we have evolved from monkeys, then surely we are precisely that, "more highly evolved"?? --Merzul (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, since humans and chimpanzees diverged from their common ancestor, they have undergone essentially identical numbers of evolutionary changes. We aren't "more highly" evolved than a chimp, just differently evolved.Kww (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see the point, but any sensitive reader would object to the phrasing that we can't say a given species is more "advanced" than another. We can clearly compare cognitive capacities between species, and it is not a misconception to call one species more advanced. I now do realize that the point is that we are precisely as evolved as modern monkeys. (You would perhaps allow me to say that we are more evolved than homo erectus, because here I could say that we are something like 2 million years more evolved.) Does it make sense what I'm saying? --Merzul (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe my problem is that "advanced" can mean having advanced to higher levels, i.e, being more evolved, but it can also simply mean to be more sophisticated (and here I'm imposing an anthropocentric standard, which is precisely what the misconception is all about.) I'm not sure. I'll leave this at your discretion. You are justified in putting back "advanced", or you could just keep "more evolved", which I think is less confusing. --Merzul (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that "any sensitive reader" would object is precisely why it's important to make this clear. It is meaningless to talk about more or less advanced in terms of biology. In other contexts, we can say that humans are more advanced than other animals, but here that would be false. I hope I'm getting this across well; it can be difficult to explain the "scientific" meaning of words versus the colloquial meaning. It may be possible to say "more evolved" if we're discussing the number of genetic changes over time, which can vary between species. Right now there's a great deal of buzz surrounding a New Scientist article claiming that chimps are "more evolved" than humans for precisely that reason. That's why I think saying advanced is better. Does this make sense? --Gimme danger (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it makes perfect sense. I'm not sure how to make it any more clear in the article, but at least I've learned something interesting and I do understand it now. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't say we are 'more evolved' or 'more advanced'. You can if you only look at specific cognitive abilities, but that would be very narrow minded. That is the same as saying that cheetahs are more highly evolved because the are the fastest land animal on earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastjame (talk • contribs) 21:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

More Bias
I agree that this article lacks neutrality. When I open an article entitled "Objections to Evolution", I expect it primarily to rehearse the objections. That is the simplest unbiased version of this article. You don't need to provide balancing information if you are describing a list of "objections to evolution". You just need the list. If you want to add balancing comments, then they should be in the form, "Evolutionary theory responds to this by pointing out that..." or "Evolutionary scientists answer this objection by saying that...". Most of the "balancing" information in this article has the feel of, "Objectors are wrong because...". Either the article should be rewritten to the NPOV standard, or the title should be changed to, "Evolutionist Responses to Objections to Evolution" (in which case other edits will also be necessary). Any takers? BigFatLiberal (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well we cannot just give the objections because of the WP:NPOV policy. And this article is not a list. If you want a list, go to a creationist website. And you do not understand NPOV I am afraid. You might be happier at Conservapedia perhaps.--Filll (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Moved comment. All objections have been recognized and rebutted in reliable sources.  We are discussing the objections to evolution, and all the ways that they fail.  NPOV means we treat if fairly, not that we give ridiculous, unfounded objections an unvarnished, uncritical free pass.  WLU (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear such an unbiased response. "Ridiculous, unfounded".  Reeks of neutrality.  All you arre doing here is flaunting your biases.


 * If I were looking at a page entitled "Objections to the Theory of Relativity", I would expect to see a list of those objections, period. If some sense of balance was necessary, I would expect cites of supporters of the theory couched as "Relativity supporters respond to this by..."


 * It is clear that one of us does not understand NPOV. And one of us is heavy-handed and tendentious.


 * Obviously the fox is in charge of the chicken house. We clearly need a higher level of moderation here.  BigFatLiberal (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Before this degenerates into a slanging match... The trouble with letting the "objections" stand alone, unrefuted, is that they are in fact all refuted by good straightforward science. To leave them simply stated and not countered would not be unbiased, it would be dishonest, leaving the reader with the impression that there are valid objections, when there simply aren't. Also, it strikes me that the people who argue in favour of leaving arguments unchallenged on a page like this are the very same people who insist that (e.g.) the article about Richard Dawkins must include a "criticism" section because the counter-arguments to what he says are not given enough prominence. In fact, it is appropriate for both articles to deal even-handedly with points and counter-points, from the standpoint of accepted scientific facts. In my judgment, both these articles are now correctly balanced. If you think differently, I suggest writing a draft of an alternative version and asking for opinions on it. Snalwibma (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If there is a comparable list of bogus objections to relativity, I would expect that list to contain explanations of why they are bogus. This is an encyclopaedia.  Our purpose is to educate the reader.  We don't just host pointless lists.  Furthermore, the suggested alternative wording contains claims that "evolutionary theory responds to this..." (theories don't respond: relativity theory doesn't respond either) and daft made-up phrases such as "evolutionary scientists" (anyone know any relativitary scientists?) --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV does not state that we never mention anything critical about a topic, but that we give WP:DUE weight to the balance of opinions published in reliable sources. If the overwhelming majority of these reliable sources characterise these arguments are baseless twaddle, then this is what the article will reflect. If you want it to say otherwise, you must first find a substantial body of reliable sources offering a different characterisation. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 14:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with much that has been said here. As I said at the beginning, I feel that adding balancing responses to the objections is reasonable if it is deemed necessary.  My contention is that the "balancing" responses in this article are not at all neutral in tone.  They come across more as "This is, of course, bogus baseless twaddle", with a sense of deus vox to them.  An example of what I would like to see is:


 * "Objections are made that evolution is unobservable in nature. But evolutionary biology provides genetic studies which indicate that..." followed perhaps by cites from a specific evolutionary biologist.  A counterexample would be, "Objections are made that evolution is unobservable in nature.  However, this is unscientific, bogus, baseless twaddle, and all scientists agree with this."  I realize that I am exaggerating here, but some of the writing in this article certainly comes across this way.


 * By the way, on what necessity were my comments moved to the end of the discussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigFatLiberal (talk • contribs) 15:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:FRINGE absolves us as editors from being unduly kind to unscientific, bogus, baseless twaddle. It would be, in fact, irresponsible to not call demonstrable unscientific, bogus, baseless twaddle what it is. (Now, this doesn't necessitate beating a point to death or overly confrontational language, so you you've any specific examples that could benefit from wordsmithing, you're welcome to bring them up.)
 * BTW, Your comment was moved because it's standard procedure that new topics start at the bottom of the page. &mdash; Scientizzle 16:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the standards info. I will adhere to that in the future.
 * It's great to know that, when Darwinism/neo-Darwinism is no longer en vogue, Wiki articles will treat it like unscientific, bogus, baseless twaddle. I'm looking forward to seeing that.
 * Also, on thinking about it, this article is probably more useful as it is. The patent disregard for skepticism toward evolution is very helpful to those who are endeavoring to illustrate the essentially political nature of this debate.  I guess I don't have any complaints.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigFatLiberal (talk • contribs) 17:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly, if the scientific consensus ever rejects evolutionary theory, it will be Wikipedia's place the topic in proper perspective, as we do currently to nonscience, pseudoscience, and outdated ideas. But, please, don't use the word "Darwinism"--it's a lame attempt at a pejorative that only creationists use. "Modern evolutionary synthesis" is most accurate, but "evolution by natural selection" or just "evolution" will do nicely.
 * Since you've no further complaints, I will shortly archive this discussion. &mdash; Scientizzle 17:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Problems
Comparing this article to past versions, I notice some improvements, but also some new (and old) weaknesses.


 * A. Lead section
 * 1) Awkward wordings. Additions like "A variety of objections..." would help smoothness a lot.
 * 2) The historical description is probably too detailed. Compare with the earlier version, which was much more clear and concise, and was more explicit about scientific v. religious criticism without getting bogged down in misleading details like "Young Earth Creationists" (who do not constitute the sole, or even the most prominent, critics of evolution in modern society).
 * 3) "around the start of the nineteenth century." - Aside from the fact that it should be "19th century", this bit doesn't seem to make sense in the context of the rest of the paragraph. Does it mean to say "20th century"? Or is it referring to evolutionary ideas earlier than Darwin's?
 * 4) "The ideas gained vast popular audiences," - Before or after they gained scientific acceptance? And what's the relationship with Darwin here? Should it be "Charles Darwin's book The Origin of Species brought these ideas vast popular audiences,", or is it talking about something else?
 * 5) "he gradually convinced most of the scientific community that evolution was a valid hypothesis" - "Most of the scientific community"? Why the qualifier? And why did it take him so long to prove that his proposal was "a valid hypothesis"&mdash;wouldn't that normally be a given? The real question would be whether it's a valid, or (more to the point) evidentially verified, theory. And it is this that he "gradually convinced" most of the scientific community of&mdash;though we may be over-emphasizing its gradualness here considering that we already note that it took until the 1930s for the modern synthesis to be created.
 * 6) "The existence of evolutionary processes, and the ideas of the modern evolutionary synthesis that explain them" - Evolutionary processes don't exist, they occur. And this is, as with much of the rest of the first paragraph, confusing and awkward wording: are we saying that biologists accept the existence of modern evolutionary synthesis as an idea, or that they accept the content of the ideas themselves? Again, compare with the clarity (albeit, unfortunately, generality) of earlier versions: "The observation, or fact, of evolutionary processes occurring, as well as the current theory explaining that fact, have been uncontroversial among biologists for nearly a century."
 * 7) "However, most Christians believe in God as Creator, while also accepting scientific evolution as a natural process." - Polemic wording. The implication is that the author is one such Christian, surely an impression we don't wish to give. Also, claims like these definitely need citation: how many Christians really do accept "scientific evolution"? Is it insignificant that this global majority is, within the United States, apparently a minority? Also, why strange wordings like "believe in God as Creator" as opposed to simply (and more academically/encyclopedically) "believe in a creator deity"?
 * 8) "A minority of Christians rejected evolution from its outset as "heresy", but most attempted to reconcile scientific evolution with Biblical accounts of creation." - This is very confusing sequencing, because it hops back and forth between the present and the past arbitrarily.
 * 9) "Islam accepts the natural evolution of plants and animals, but the origin of man is contested and no consensus has emerged." - No consensus among whom? Among Muslims? Among scientists who happen to be Muslim? Among Islam-specialized scholars? Among religious authorities on the Qur'an? And why does this paragraph act as though such a "consensus" has developed in Christianity (by emphasizing a "majority" of Christians versus a "minority"), when it so clearly has not? Also, why is Islam discussed in the lead, but nowhere else in the article?
 * 10) "The resultant creation-evolution controversy" - Again, sequencing makes this awkward and confusing. The implication is that the entire creation-evolution controversy is a result of the lack of consensus in Islam.
 * 11) "most prevalent in certain, generally more conservative, regions of the United States" - More awkwardness, more uncited claims, more generalizations with no specific details elaborated on in the article body.
 * 12) "Creation Science and Intelligent Design" - Why are these capitalized?
 * 13) "by God or an intelligent being" - God isn't an intelligent being? Ouch.
 * 14) "scientific acceptance. However, these arguments are not accepted by the scientific community." - OK, I don't have a big problem with this wording, though I do find it very funny that the scientific community doesn't accept its supposed unacceptance. Whee.
 * B. Defining evolution
 * 1) Can we move this Icythys image anywhere else? It really isn't relevant to the "definitions" section. I preferred having the Wiktionary link here for convenience, and the fish (or some other image) at the top&mdash;I realize why we have the evobox there, but I find it very concerning for us to have a Biology box at the top of a sociological, and explicitly non-biological, article. A creationism or ID linkbox would be more relevant, and much less misleading. Perhaps we could find some compromise, like using a horizontal evobox at the bottom of the article?
 * 2) "We are led to believe otherwise by our tendency to evaluate nonhuman organisms according to our own, anthropocentric standards." - Who is "we"? Avoid self-references.
 * C. History of objections
 * 1) "This, however, is a 'straw man' argument: evolution does not postulate half an eye, but an eye that is half as efficient. The incremental improvement refers to an organ's ability, rather than its structure." - How is this relevant to the "history of objections"? This section of the article is about the historical origins of modern objections, not about the scientific or logical validity of those objections. This rebuttal belongs exclusively in Evolution; provide an intralink to that section if you feel impatient to educate readers on this matter. Moreover, the response is misleading and malformed: evolution does indeed postulate "half an eye," just not "half" in the left/right sense; rather, "half" in the sense of overall complexity and development. "Half as efficient" is not a good way to put this, because efficiency is relative and situation-dependent, and evolution does not move towards greater efficiency in a linear manner: modern-day eyes that are half efficient as ours nonetheless share a common ancestor with ours. Evolution is not about "incremental improvement," it's about incremental change that happens to be environmentally filtered. Evolution is about structure at least as much as it is about function: glasses are very relevant to function, if not to structure, yet do not constitute evolution.
 * 2) Why was the Darwin's Black Box image removed? Isn't it relevant?
 * More to come. -Silence (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

<font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 17:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A1: I don't see that adding "various" adds any information or flow to the opening sentence.
 * A2: The historic paragraph frames what "objections" the article is principally discussing -- namely modern creationist objections, rather than historic scientific ones.
 * A3: Evolutionary ideas (e.g. Lamarckism) predate Darwin -- his were merely the ideas that won scientific acceptance.
 * A4: This appears to be somewhat hyperbolic, but Lamarckism is described as "enormously popular during the early 19th century". In a historical context, "evolutionary ideas" and "Darwinian evolution" are not synonymous.
 * A5: Because there were a few notable holdouts: e.g. Louis Agassiz.
 * A6: They both exist and occur. In this context, it is their existence that we are interested in.
 * A7: No, it is not "polemic" it is factual and cited. If you wish to dispute this, then either (1) demonstrate that the cited source didn't say this or (2) provide WP:RS evidence that the cited source is wrong. "Is it insignificant that this global majority is, within the United States, apparently a minority?" Unless American exceptionalism has become official wikipedia policy without me knowing it then, no. It has no more global weight than regional beliefs in penis theft.
 * A8: No, it is written ubiquitously in the past tense.
 * A9: If you want more details, then you should read the cited source and find out -- that's what they're there for.
 * A10: Only if you're looking for ambiguity. It, like the opening sentence, is clearly referring to the "religious, rather than scientific, sources" -- Islamic and Christian, that are discussed in the paragraph. I see no way to make this any clearer without unnecessary clumsiness.
 * A11: From the Butler Act through to the Academic Freedom bills, anti-evolution sympathies have been predominately in conservative US states.
 * A12: Probably because they are named creationist movements. This may or may not be MOS, but is not worthy of a lengthy talkpage discussion regardless.
 * A13: Fixed.
 * A14: Science doesn't accept that it hasn't accepted evolution -- and it should know.
 * B1: It goes as well there as anywhere else and is relevant to the article generally, so may as well go in the first section that doesn't otherwise have an illustration.
 * B2: Unless you're expecting this article to be read by any non-humans, the first person plural is appropriate for discussing humans generally. I've offered a slight clarification to indicate this.
 * C1: The eye is one of the oldest objections to unguided evolution, dating back to John Ray in the 17th century. It thus clearly has a place in a history section.
 * C2: Most probably for non-free-image/fair-use considerations. Take it up with the image police.


 * Regarding the lead, it could doubtless be improved by rephrasing. As time permits. Also, it covers a point that the History section needs to show, that ideas of evolution and objections to those ideas go way back, particularly to the start of the 19th century and Lamarck's more scientific development from earlier concepts. The ideas were favoured by Radicals, then gained "shocked and converted vast popular audiences" [but didn't get scientific acceptance] from 1844 following the fierce controversy over Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. See the cited sources. Similarly, we should mention the slow acceptance of natural selection and the early 20th century prominence of Mendelian evolution opposed to "Darwinism" or "neo-Darwinism", since that's the source of many misunderstandings. . . dave souza, talk 19:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that  it could use some improvement. My main issue with it would be an overly simplistic and possibly misleading discussion of falsification, as Silence probably knows, having helped me with my draft on falsification and evolution.--Filll (talk | <font color="Green"> wpc ) 20:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Dlbruce0107 (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC):

I noticed in the intro that Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation is supposedly anonymous but this is not the case. While it was published anonymously, the author, Robert Chambers, was eventually acknowledged. An important book on the publication and sensation generated by Chambers' book is Victorian Sensation:The Extraordinary Publication, Reception, and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation by James A. Secord published in 2001 by University of Chicago Press. This book details how Chambers' book became a public sensation and widely read throughout the UK. In fact, I think it is likely that Darwin read this book and I would not be surprised if some of his thoughts on evolution did not originate with the Vestiges book.

Most Christians
Regarding this edit, the reference provided only shows that a plurality of Americans believe in the Creationist view. It does not group the results by the religion of the respondents. Even assuming we make some favorable assumptions interpreting the data, it still applies only to American Christians. However, in fact, the very source goes on to contradict any attempt to generalize this to all Christians. For instance:

Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon among countries the West. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that:
 * 97% do not believe the world was created in six days.
 * 80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve

-- siℓℓy rabbit (  talk  ) 01:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just remember to keep neutral when writing. 66.74.230.117 (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutrality doesn't mean "Equal voice for all". --<font color="#330033">King ♣ <font color="#ff6600">  Talk   19:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

GA?
This a fine article many man hours have clearly been spent on. Anybody see any reason not to nominate for GA status?--Loodog (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have nominated it. - RoyBoy 21:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I noticed that towards the end of "Evolution is unfalsifiable" Harvard referencing is used, while footnotes are used for the rest of the article. I'm not sure how a GA-reviewer might deal with this, but it is strongly recommended that "a single article should use only one type" of citations. I'd also like to add that I enjoyed the article very much! Lampman (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There are still some areas that could be improved, but I think this article meets the GA criteria. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Title
I am not sure of the title. Can anyone please explain why the title is Objections to evolution, not Objections to the theory of evolution? Thanks.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Because "evolution" is the term most commonly describing the theory. Just like we don't rename "gravity" to "the theory of gravity" or "general relativity" to "the theory of general relativity".


 * Also, in case you're misunderstanding, evolution as a theory and fact. 66.57.44.247 (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's also a shorter title and, as anon points out, including "theory of" is completely redundant. It'd be like moving entropy to the concept of entropy.--Loodog (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The final paragraph in the introduction
"In contrast to earlier objections to evolution that were either strictly scientific or explicitly religious, some recent objections to evolution have blurred this distinction. In particular, American movements such as creation science and intelligent design attack the scientific basis of evolution and argue that there is greater scientific evidence for the design of life by an unspecified intelligent being, or the biblical account of creation. Many of the arguments against evolution have become widespread, including objections to the evidence for evolution, as well as the methodology, plausibility, morality, and scientific acceptance of evolutionary biology. However, these arguments are not accepted by the scientific community."

Argh, can someone please change that? Sounds a bit biased and contradicts the previous paragraph, which clearly states that criticisms of evolution have no real scientific basis. 66.57.44.247 (talk)


 * I will try to add something shortly. - RoyBoy 02:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I appears the last sentence in the intro has already been upgraded to: "The scientific community, however, does not accept such objections as having any validity, citing misunderstandings in the concept of a scientific theory, overwhelming scientific consensus in enduring evidence, evolution's falsifiability, and detractors' misinterpretations of physical laws." - RoyBoy 02:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Definition
"under the scientific definition, evolution is an observable process that occurs whenever a population of organisms genetically changes over time" correct me if i'm wrong but isn't evolution one kind of creature becomming another, not the natural selection/speciation that this sentance describes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.91.230 (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No. The Introduction to evolution and Evolution articles a good read if you like. Cheers, Ben (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Radioisotopes
The section on criticism because of inaccuracy of radioisotope dating makes no mention of the RATE project (a creationist project looking at the reliability of radioisotope dating), or of other studies showing that radioisotope dating can sometimes give wildly inaccurate dates for rocks of known ages (such as Snelling's "Excess Argon: The 'Achilles' Heel' of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon dating of volcanic rocks. available at www.icr.org/article/436). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.91.230 (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a tremendously large number of creationist groups and different movements and projects. Wikipedia cannot cover them all in as much detail as they would like. For example, not all of these are notable, and it is not easy to find proper reliable sources to help the articles on them withstand the inevitable notability challenges. In addition, this article is only a summary of some of the objections of course. The talk origins website has a lot more detail on the RATE project and many others.--Filll (talk | <font color="Green"> wpc ) 14:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we need to go into huge amounts of detail, just that they should be mentioned somewhere because they are quite important objections (as large amounts of the millions/billions years argument is based on radioisotope dating). Even if this is a summary article there should at least be a summary of evidence against the classical radioisotope dating methods —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.91.230 (talk) 09:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well the first thing you should do is write about the RATE project itself in a separate article on Wikipedia. It should be written from the mainstream science point of view, since that is the point of view that Wikipedia aims for. I do not think we have an article on it yet. You will need noncreationist references to show it is notable, such as mainstream peer-reviewed publications and mainstream newspaper articles etc. It will probably be challenged on notability grounds and you will need to defend it; possibly multiple times. Then if you can get such an article in Wikipedia, then we can link to it with a short one sentence summary. By the way, as far as I know, there is no substance whatsoever to the arguments made by the RATE project or their claims and all have been dismissed by mainstream science. I do not think they are taken seriously at all, but I might be mistaken. Good luck.--Filll (talk | <font color="Green"> wpc ) 14:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

One issue that wasn't discussed in this article, human I.Q.
This is not a defense of creationism or intelligent design.

The Theory of Evolution explains the origin of human beings but it fails to explain the origin of human intelligence.

Although some animals demonstrate a high level of intelligence none come close to the level of human intelligence. I.e. even the dumbest caveman was more intelligent than the smartest ape when the caveman started to use fire to cook food and as a weapon. Evolution can't explain how human beings (coming from the same common ancestor as other species) were able to develop multiple languages, multiple religions, multiple economic systems, the concepts of "rights" and "liberties", modern medicine, and modern technology.

It looks almost statistically impossible that out of millions (billions?) of living things on Earth only human beings were able to evolve this way.--Auspx (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Objections to evolution#Evolution does not explain certain human behaviors. Ben (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * However, supporters of evolution contend that no alternative explanation has been able to adequately explain the biological origin of these phenomena either.

Actually this isn't true. The biological origin of human intelligence obviously has a lot to do with the evolution of the human brain. Every biology textbook states this much. Whether this evolution of the human brain was caused by natural selection, or by some random mutation, or by some outside force is what the Theory of Evolution can't explain. Various theories say it was caused by a meat-rich diet or by the size of the human brain in proportion to the rest of the human body, but none of these explanations make much sense.

So the theory of intelligent design can't be dismissed nor is it debunked by the Theory of Evolution.--Auspx (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if one grants your premise that "evolution doesn't explain human intelligence" (and I don't), you have not explained why evolution cannot explain human intelligence. There's a difference. One is incomplete knowledge, the other is a fundamental flaw in the theoretical model. Generally, the rest of the statements in your argument are logically fallacious. Since Ben linked you to the section of this article that does deal directly with your topic, perhaps you have suggestions on improvements to that section, or reliable sources to use? If not, this discussion should be archived as talk pages aren't for debating the merits of a subject, but improving the article. &mdash; Scientizzle 06:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've read a great deal of articles explaining the human encephalization quotient. The most plausible I've seen is that it's an adaptation to group size, since there's a very high correlation between the two.


 * Also, where does this assumption come from that gaps in evidence for evolution are automatically affirmative proof for intelligent design? Why are they not evidence for a flying spaghetti monster?  At any rate, evolution in no way is contradicted by human intelligence any more than the first 10-34 seconds of the universe's existence make us doubt all of physics.--Loodog (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I see that you didn't even come close to addressing my main point. And before calling anyone's statements "logically fallacious" you need to actually look at the section of this article that you claim deals with this topic.

"In addition to complex structures and systems, among the many phenomena that critics variously claim evolution cannot explain are consciousness, free will, instincts, emotions, metamorphosis, photosynthesis, homosexuality, music, language, religion, morality, and altruism (see altruism in animals).[92] Some of these have, in fact, been well-explained by evolution, while others remain largely mysterious, or only have preliminary explanations. However, supporters of evolution contend that no alternative explanation has been able to adequately explain the biological origin of these phenomena either."

So where are these explanations? Not in this article. Simply stating that "no alternative explanation has been able to adequately explain the biological origin of these phenomena" is no rebuttal. The link to evolution is too implausible contains this whopper, The fact that the results are ordered and seem "designed" is no more evidence for a supernatural intelligence than the apparent design of snowflakes is. As if the complexity of the human brain and human intelligence is in any way comparable to the design of a snowflake. Nevermind the fact that snowflakes ≠ internal organs.

So here are a few suggestions to improve this article:

1)It looks almost statistically impossible that out of millions (billions?) of living things on Earth only human beings were able to evolve this way [this level of intelligence].

If there is evidence that this is not statistically impossible then it should be included in the article.

2)If there are credible or even preliminary explanations that "consciousness, free will, instincts, emotions, metamorphosis, photosynthesis, homosexuality, music, language, religion, morality, and altruism" were developed by evolution include them in this article. --Auspx (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, where does this assumption come from that gaps in evidence for evolution are automatically affirmative proof for intelligent design?

I never claimed that it was affirmative proof. I said "So the theory of intelligent design can't be dismissed nor is it debunked by the Theory of Evolution." Perhaps I should have added "at least when we are talking about the evolution of human beings".--Auspx (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For the curious reader wondering what the evolutionary explanations are on these various topics, there's the ever-useful wikilink. Click on emotion and you'll be brought to a page offering explanations on the development of the limbic system.  Click on photosynthesis and you'll read about the idea that chloroplasts were originally symbiotic bacteria.  Such explanations would be tedious on this page when they can be summarized as human behaviors or other phenomena, each dealt with in its own article.--Loodog (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Auspx, you need some reliable sources to back your claims before any changes can be made to the article. Until then, there is no point in continuing the chatter here since this talk page is not a forum. There are plenty of other places outside of Wikipedia that you can chat about it though. One of the first things you should do at such a place is correct this massive flaw in logic: "It looks almost statistically impossible that out of millions (billions?) of living things on Earth only human beings were able to evolve this way". Cheers, Ben (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Auspx, you're still falling into the argument from personal incredulity trap. Your minor point, that we can and should expand the sourcing within that section, should be strongly considered. However, this discussion hasn't gotten anyone very far. For your benefit, start your investigations here:. I'd suggest downloading the free and very accessible Evolution 101 podcast on iTunes, too.
 * Auspx, if you come up with any content suggestions that make use of reliable sources, please let us know. &mdash; Scientizzle 16:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I just changed the article to include intelligence in the list of phenomena critics claim evolutionary theory does not explain. The article still doesn't "discuss" intelligence, but discussion isn't the purpose of any wikipedia article. Articles may note that discussion exists. Can we close this talk section now please? This is not the place to "discuss" intelligence either. This is only the place to discuss improving the article, which I already did for Auspx, since he was not bold enough. -- Another Stickler (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure if we've got a cite for that example, it doesn't seem to be mentioned by Johnson but seems reasonable. I've piped the link to Hominid intelligence which deals directly with the issue. . dave souza, talk 18:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, that's fine. I was thinking that if there's an objection to evolutionary theory being able to explain human intelligence then there would also be an objection to it explaining ANY intelligence, but I don't mind limiting it to hominids, since I was only editing because Auspx didn't--I don't need to defend the edit on his behalf. I removed the pipe so it doesn't look like it points to one article but pulls up another. Oh wait, I think Hominid is capitalized. Let me go fix that. -- Another Stickler (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's what argument from personal incredulity actually says.

"The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead."

My objection to the theory of human evolution has nothing to do with personal beliefs. Sorry but calling it a "massive flaw in logic" is a cop out. Because given what we know today about life on Earth it IS statistically impossible for a higher intelligence (such as human intelligence) to evolve naturally. Although I don't have the statistic for the exact number of living things on Earth it's in the millions, possibly a billion.

Sorry but when the probability of something is 1 in several million (billion?)... it's not going to happen.

This isn't my "personal belief". This is the cold, hard fact that you learn in Statistics 101. Sure there's a tiny possibility that the evolution of human intelligence was natural. Just like there's always a tiny possibility that despite DNA evidence the suspect is innocent. But this is a massive, massive flaw in the theory of human evolution that is not sufficiently addressed in this article.

I see that in Hominid intelligence it explains human evolution this way.

"There are several reasons to presume that early humans were more heavily affected by pathogens than any other primates (longer life-span, more sedentary, more carnivorous etc.), thus this hypothesis can explain why humans became cleverer while other primates did not. It also explains why humans apparently continue to increase brain size and intelligence even nowadays."

First of all the lifespan of a primate in about 20 years, not too different from the life expectancy of early humans. "More sedentary", not true at all. Early humans were hunting/gathering food every day to survive. That wasn't a sedentary lifestyle at all. "More carnivorous", this may be a valid point. However some other primates are carnivorous too. When 2.5/3 of the explanations are blatantly wrong that's not strong evidence in favor of natural evolution of human intelligence. --Auspx (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry but when the probability of something is 1 in several million (billion?)... it's not going to happen.
 * I don't think calling that a massive flaw in logic is a cop out. In fact, attaching the word logic to that statement, and the implication you derived from it: it IS statistically impossible for a higher intelligence (such as human intelligence) to evolve naturally, is perhaps being too kind. As I said above, if you can find reliable sources that discuss your objection and indicate that the objection is somehow prominent (we can't include every little thing in this one article), then please bring them forward. Until then, your best bet is to head to a forum that discusses this kind of thing. Ben (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering what kind of "reliable sources" you want? I suggest you start with any Statistics textbook or the wikipedia article about Probability. Why nitpick every little thing I said? "When the probability of something is 1 in several million (billion?)... it's not going to happen." Of course I understand that there's a very small chance that it could happen and I already said so. Why keep implying that my "personal beliefs" (which you know nothing about) cause "massive flaws" in my logic? FYI I'm not some kind of Bible-thumping redneck. From the very beginning I said I'm not defending creationism or intelligent design. Simply pointing out the massive logical flaw in the theory of human evolution that wasn't accurately presented in this article.--Auspx (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok fine, I picked up a statistics textbook. Unfortunately, I'm already stumped on a three part exercise on the first page. I think I know the answer to the first part, but the rest is killing me, and since you've already passed statistics 101 maybe you can help me out. The question is: A computer is given a 'virtual ball' with a number on it and instructions on how to label 100 billion more balls, each with a different number. The instructions are influenced by a great many things. Some balls are relabelled or even thrown away during this process. At the end of the labelling process though, all of the remaining balls are placed into a 'virtual bag'. We notice there are 100 million balls left and one of these balls is labelled '1'. What is the probability that the '1' ball is selected from the bag? What is the probability that the '11' ball is in the bag? How are these two questions related? Thanks for your help! Ben (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The example you gave does a great job of proving my point that the natural evolution of a higher intelligence is almost statistically impossible. Thank you. Perhaps I should have been more clear that this wasn't an objection to the evolution of human beings. I assumed that people will understand that "beings" ≠ "intelligence". Or to put it this way. The Theory of Evolution explains where humans came from. It doesn't explain where intelligent humans came from. And "intelligent humans" means the caveman who learned how to use fire as a tool and every human being that followed him.--Auspx (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Almost impossible, no. Evolution can explain it in a general sense, as intelligence is both advantageous and costly. Being relatively safe from predators (geographically isolated), and a good food source is available (fish for humans) then intelligence can develop in any species. If you mean specifically how it happened, well no, as numerous scenarios can lead to the same outcome. But the likely short version is, species got isolated somehow (flood), put pressure on population to exploit the changed environment in novel ways (favoring intelligence), a mutation occurred (or already existed) where the brain was much denser in some individuals. These intelligent individuals excelled in creative problem solving to find food in the changed environment, and dominated the population who could not adapt (as rapidly).


 * The use of fire or any tool is simply a meme. Memes can be learned and mimicked by less intelligent beings, what I believe you are interested in is the capacity to use/create tools in novel ways to problem solve. That capacity would certainly predate use of fire and caveman, and would be preferentially selected when the environment and food sources change rapidly. - RoyBoy 06:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Strengths and weaknesses of evolution
Just to let people know that (1) I'm back (at least for now) & (2) that I've created the (bare bones of) an article on Strengths and weaknesses of evolution, that will be liberally referencing sections of this article as rebuttals of the alleged "weaknesses". <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 10:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need for that article. The weaknesses and rebuttals is a reproduction of what's here.  What exactly is the scope you're aiming for?--Loodog (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Strengths and weaknesses of evolution" is Neo-Creationist code language to smuggle long-refuted Creationist anti-evolution arguments into public school science classes in the United States, promoted mostly by the Discovery Institute & the Creationist majority of the Texas SBOE. It is the latest stage in a long retreat, in face of repeated successful First Amendment challenges, that first tried to teach Intelligent design, then "teach the controversy", then teach "Critical Analysis of Evolution." This latest political activism has received considerable media coverage, and easily passes WP:NOTE as a separate topic. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 17:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just so. If my recollection is correct, "Academic Freedom" was another code term for "creationist lies to students", guess we should add a clarification to that article, perhaps with a link to Strengths and weaknesses of evolution... dave souza, talk 18:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh man, the folks over at Creationwiki and conservapedia are going to love us.--Loodog (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Arguments made against evolution have not been debunked, merely addressed. Debunking would suggests that they have been proven to be erroneous. As there are still missing transitional species, this has not been debunked. As the precambrian explosion has not yet been explained, this has not been debunked. As the steps to form irreducibly complex organs have been hypothesized, but not found, this has not been debunked. Further, it would be impossible to prove that only creationists find difficulties with evolution. It would improve the article if it were modified to address these issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.190.1 (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)