Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive 19

No mention of drug resistance?
Didn't seen any mention of drug resistance which is another argument for evolution. See for example the article on antibiotic resistance. The diagram in the article shows a: "Schematic representation of how antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection. The top section represents a population of bacteria before exposure to an antibiotic. The middle section shows the population directly after exposure, the phase in which selection took place. The last section shows the distribution of resistance in a new generation of bacteria. The legend indicates the resistance levels of individuals." Pgr94 15:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is meant to be an overview of the "creation-evolution controversy", not a detailed listing of every "argument for evolution". The closest article to the latter topic is evidence of common descent. HrafnTalkStalk 16:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Slightly more clarification, this is a page about primarily the political dispute, since there is no real scientific dispute. The page should not attempt to 'prove' evolution.  WLU 16:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Pgr94, you correct that antibiotic resistance is another argument for evolution. In fact, it is "slam-dunk" evidence for evolution by natural selection. However, the effect of this evidence specifically on the creation-evolution political controversy has been limited, because creationists tend to see this only as evidence of what they call "microevolution", which they don't generally deny due to the overwhelming evidence in support of it. It might be worth including drug resistance as an example in another evolution-related article, if it is not already mentioned (just remember not to use the Wikipedia article as a source). —  DIEGO talk 16:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem we have here is that there is not enough room in the articles of some of these topics for all the material that people want to insert in them. In areas like evolution and creationism, there are literally hundreds of linked articles that should be read to get a broad overview of the science and the politics. No single article can address it all, and a single article that did try to do this would be so large and unweildy that no one could edit it or write it or read it.--Filll 17:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole world is evidence of evolution. The article could probably read: "For more evidence of evolution, see Special:Random" User:Krator (t c) 17:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Correction: the entirety of life on Earth is evidence of Intelligent Design. Z1perlster (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that the article is about the main classes of opinion, not the detailed arguments. Scientifically, antiobiotic resistance is pretty much "slam-dunk" as DIEGO  puts it. As I wasn't aware that creationists make a distinction between micro- and macro- evolution, I thought it might be worth mentioning. Cheers. Pgr94 17:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The distinction is largely whether the changes we see are sufficient enough to explain molecules-to-men theories, and there is some technical discussion about information theory as well. The debate is about history rather than science from what I can tell. CobraA1 (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am a creationist, and I don't think drug-resistance is false. Animals can mutate. RJRocket53 (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Creation-evolution controversy article paints a distorted picture of the debate
Unsubstantiated WP:SOAP userfied to User talk:Jhampson4 HrafnTalkStalk 09:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The debate influencing society
The debate has brought about 2 interesting side results

A board game (http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=536&Category_Code=) and a MMORPG (http://crevoscope.com), and I am sure some other such things. A mention of them should exist in the article, at least in passing... PS I am new here, so I apologize if I made some kind of error of etiquette... 20:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Yaroslav
 * Influences on society: making a lot of people angry by threatening to make many more ignorant. User:Krator (t c) 20:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think those are important enough to merit mention yet per WP:WEIGHT. But Krator, let's please try to maintain a civil discussion. ~ S0CO ( talk 20:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That was my point too, yes :) User:Krator (t c) 20:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Living Waters is part of Ray Comfort & Kirk Cameron's rather lightweight ministry, which tends to employ silly gimmicks (of which this boardgame is one). Unless substantive comment on this particular gimmick can be found in WP:RSs, I see no reason to mention it in the article. HrafnTalkStalk 02:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

gallup poll
i've reverted the recent revert. the numbers given are nowhere in that video, which incidentally i watched before you reverted, as my original intention was to find the correct link and rewrite the sentence to include the sample population.--Mongreilf (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Creation & Evolution similarities
Creation and Evolution have similar traits.Evolutionists believe that the universe came from a cosmic egg which exploded in the big bang.Creationists believe God formed life.Both beliefs have something that has been there before Time began.God or a cosmic egg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesus Is risen (talk • contribs) 01:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Stunning. Baegis (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Loopy. Hint. There is no "before time began.". Think about it. 203.161.85.233 (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The differences are bigger than the similarities. One depends on data and other evidence. The other depends on the ranting and raving of assorted self-appointed religious experts and flakes who demand that everyone else accept their own personal interpretation of one version of thousands of contradictory error-ridden versions of a self-contradictory ancient text literally, in spite of disagreeing with the product of thousands of years of analysis by the greatest religious scholars that ever lived (such as St. Augustine, Maimonides and a who's who of the gifted and renowned minds who have devoted their entire lives to studying the scriptures). Feel free to believe whatever you personally want to. However, when you want to impose fruitcake ideas on everyone else by force, then there is a problem. Ok?--Filll (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's refrain from inflammatory speech. In regard to the similarities between the origins of the universe in the two opposing views, the primodial egg presumes matter preceded God while the reverse is true in Scripture. BryanSWiley (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I stand by what I said. Render under caesar what is caesar's and unto god what is god's, right? And also, according to the Koran, there is no compunction in religion. And you are a bit confused about the two views but that is fine. Try to learn a bit more before you engage in rants here. We are here to write an encyclopedia. What are you here for?-Filll (talk) 05:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Fill, please keep the inflamatory statements on a low. We understand what you think about creationism and those who believe it, and they think the same things about you. It's useless to just get into a war of words, that really come to nothing. There will always be the disagreements, and this is not the place to argue about them. ---G.T.N. (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting how you are the king of inflammatory pointless statements, isn't it?--Filll (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Evolution Biased
[ WP:SOAPbox-rant userfied to User talk:The Other Side of the Argument ] HrafnTalkStalk 12:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Why was the entire section removed? I thought a valid discussion was going on. The Other Side of the Argument (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because your claim that we should present the scientific merits of ID is itself without merit, as ID has no scientific merit. Raul654 (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, no inflamatory comments about ID's validity. An ID supporter would say evolution has no scientific merit, and so this type of thing is perfectly useless. Keep to article writing, blog elsewhere.---G.T.N. (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but one of them would be Just Plain Wrong. Do you see the difference? Daecon (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Enough GTN. Enough.--Filll (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It was not a "valid discussion" per WP:TALK. You were attempting to debate the validity of ID, not the contents of the article. You were also citing a patently absurd source: some random apologetics blogger's made-up "trillions of trillions of trillions" number. HrafnTalkStalk 03:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not attempting to debate the merits of ID. I was trying to point out that the arguments of only one side is presented in the article. What evidence is there that the source of my evidence is bad. It seems the only ones trying to debate are the ones saying ID has no merits. The Other Side of the Argument (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This page is for discussing changes to the article. If you have specific proposals for changes to the article, feel free to share them. The rest of it really isn't relevant here. Guettarda (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We get a lot of trolls and sockpuppets here, read through the archive and see if you're offering anything new. Otherwise, we've seen it before, read WP:V and WP:RS for why random blogs aren't sources.  WLU (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Rfc: What is the NPOV for an article on a socio-political controversy involving school boards, religions, and science
This article reads like a posting at the Panda's Thumb blog, and many of the main contributors seem to think that the NPOV for this article is the scientific POV. However, the controversy has been covered by historians (e.g., Numbers and Larson), and it has been suggested that a socio-political POV is the NPOV (for this article). Comments? 04:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing like a nice full stocking for Christmas.--Filll (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is broad to the point of being useless. Do you have specific suggestions, or just insults? Guettarda (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggestion One: Decide what is the NPOV for this article, section by section if necessary.  I argue that it is the socio-political POV, and not the scientific POV, except in sections dealing specifically with scientific claims (or supposed refutations of said claims).  Pernicious Swarm (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think a lot of Creationists got computers for their pagan holiday of Winter's Solstice. :)  Guettarda, don't take that as an insult, I'm just cranky about what's going on around here :)   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 05:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * NPOV is NPOV. It isn't something we "decide" for articles by a vote.  Guettarda (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you all IM'ing each other? Pernicious Swarm (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, do you have a point, or are you just relying on insults? Ever heard of Special:Watchlist?  This an 6821 other pages are on mine.  Guettarda (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jingle bell jingle bell jingle bell sock! Some great hits being repeated here tonight!--Filll (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So this article is on the RFChist list ? Is that like the RFCreationist list?Filll (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a socio-political-historical controversy that just happens to involve scientists among others. Historians are better equipped.  But I see somebody has IM'd the guardian admins, which will probably stifle and slant the conversation.  Pernicious Swarm (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Some observations Respectfully Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The alleged controversy is about evolution vs creationism. This is a scientific subject and among the scientific community there is no debate and therefore we have no controversy.
 * 2) Those insisting there is a controversy are either a fringe group of scientists or religious-political individuals.
 * 3) Nowhere do we allow the opinion of politicians-religious groups to dictate the scientific debate, i.e. I have yet to see anybody claiming that since some lone wolf argues that condoms do not prevent STD's (HIV) the medical community rolls over to accept there now is a controversy on the efficacy of the use of condoms.
 * 4) NPOV dictates that we present the facts that among scientists there is no controversy and only people with political-religious interests try to convince the world that scientists are still debating this.
 * Comment Nice comment, Nescio. But, " alleged controversy " is a different article.  Pulizer prize winning Larson disagrees with your misapplied conclusion that this is a scientific dispute.  And scientists are not historians and they are not political scientists and they are not sociologists and they are not journalists.  Too, Barbara Bradley Hagerty disagrees with you.  See this NPOV piece for example.  (Journalists know a little more about objectivity than Panda's Thumb members moonlighting as wikipedians, who, for some reason, believe that a science blog is more reliable on socio-political aspects of a dispute than NPR).
 * The NPR article is a piece of shoddy journalism, failing to call Sternberg on his multiple associations with creationism & ID, failing to get the opinion of anybody on the science side except for Eugenie Scott, whose NCSE was only very peripherally involved, failing to notice that the OSC 'report' had no legal standing, and that the OSC under the current administration has a long track record for partisanship & malpractice. It is not a NPOV article, it is a whitewash. HrafnTalkStalk 13:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What is and what is not NPOV can be guided by consensus, Guettarda.
 * Filll, you really should concentrate on the message. You hear the words to the song but it's like they're in a different language.  Pernicious Swarm (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no scientific controversy, but there are a bunch of religious nutters trying to create one so they can cram a 6000 year Earth, or God playing pool with genes to produce humans to worship him (go Behe, keep publishing the same thing! If you say it enough times, maybe people will start taking you seriously!) down the throats of every schoolchild in the US.  It is an artificial controversy; evolution won, God lost, scientists are working out the specifics.  Creationists pick up on the disagreements over the specifics wherever they can find or misquote them, and reload with context-free bullets.  That's about it.  Any book that refutes the Creationist or Intelligent Design movements, and there are many, will repeat the same message.  I've stopped reading them, because I noticed Futuyama had refuted the same arguments that Miller did, but 20 years earlier.  In some cases, 100 years earlier.  WLU (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What is and what is not NPOV can be guided by consensus - community consensus, yes. Local consensus, no. If you have specific suggestions, make them. Otherwise this RFC should be closed, as it's pointless. Guettarda (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what issues or questions editors are being asked to comment on in the RFC. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Are we done here? All I see is personal attacks from Pernicious Swarm.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 01:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that I've had to defend (in Talk:Young Earth creationism) Ronald Numbers' description of George McCready Price as an "armchair scientist", I find this whole RfC to be ridiculous. Numbers has never flinched from documenting the overbearing religious motives and the frequent scientific illiteracy, scientific incompetence, and harsh and fratricidal dogmatism of the creationists he writes about. HrafnTalkStalk 01:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that the user who proposed this RfC has retired, and nobody else can see any point to it, I declare it closed. HrafnTalkStalk 11:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought he made a good point. Sorry I missed the discussion.  Gnixon (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, why was this closed so soon? T ableM anners U·T·C 06:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As you would see if you'd read the comments & my reasons for closing: It was an RfC on an apparently vague and spurious topic, initiated by an editor who retired immediately after initiating it. HrafnTalkStalk 03:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * it was "broad to the point of being useless"
 * "Nowhere do we allow the opinion of politicians-religious groups to dictate the scientific debate"
 * "the user who proposed this RfC has retired"

Court cases in the creation-evolution controversy
I have eliminated the 'seealso' to this article, and turned this article into a redirect back to the 'History' section here, as: A category for these cases might be worth while, but I see no point in the needless duplication that this intermediate article would entail. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 04:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) it is only an incomplete duplicate of information already here (incomplete in that it only contained the court-cases from the Creation Science era), so added no new information; and
 * 2) I can see no reason for an extra level of partial summarisation between this article and the articles on the individual court cases.
 * This page is 100 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Article size. The court cases seem like a good place to start. They all turn out the same.  <font style="background-color:#121298; color:white;">T able<font style="background-color:#121298; color:white;">M anners U·T·C 05:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

<font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 05:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) This automated note states "may be" not "is".
 * 2) The court cases, if you had bothered to look carefully, are split over multiple time period subsections in the history section. They are therefore hardly "a good place to start".
 * 3) If your rationale was "to split this article into smaller, more specific articles", then it is a major change that should have been discussed here first.
 * Which policy states that major changes must be discussed first? <font style="background-color:#121298; color:white;">T able<font style="background-color:#121298; color:white;">M anners U·T·C 06:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say "must", I said "should", for the following reasons: <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 07:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) failure to do so significantly raises the probability that your changes will be reverted;
 * 2) it would have allowed other editors to understand what you're attempting to do (which was very unclear from your original actions);
 * 3) as this article is only the 749th 871st longest in wikipedia (the longest, Line of succession to the British Throne is 322,756 bytes), there is no urgency;
 * 4) it would allow other editors to point out the flaws in your proposal, like:
 * 5) that the proposed new article only covered a subset of the relevant cases;
 * 6) that a daughter article, History of the creation-evolution controversy, already exists that covers this entire area, and more;
 * 7) that this is a summary article:
 * 8) so of necessity will tend to contain a large number of short sections (ideally each containing links to articles with more thorough treatments);
 * 9) this should not create readability issues, as long as a clear hierarchy of topics is maintained; and
 * 10) breaking up this summary would tend to be counter-productive, as it would make navigation to the detailed articles more difficult.

Uncited 'Citations'
The 'Citations' section is growing overly large, with a large number that aren't actually cited in the 'References' section. I'm moving the uncited ones here.
 * Retrieved on 2007-04-29


 * Retrieved on 2007-01-22


 * Retrieved on 2007-01-14






 * Retrieved on 2007-04-28


 * facsimile retrieved on 2007-04-29


 * Retrieved on 2007-04-27


 * Reproduced here, retrieved on 2007-04-27


 * Retrieved on 2007-04-27


 * Retrieved on 2007-04-27


 * Retrieved on 2007-04-27


 * Retrieved on 2007-01-14

<font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 03:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What controversy?
Since the basic truth - that the vast majority of Americans do not believe in evolutionism (as proved repeatedly by public opinion polls) - does not appear, this article completely avoids its own alleged subject, and just rehashes pro-evolutionism propaganda. 68.183.129.37 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have anything constructive to add about the article in question or would you just like to pretend that this subject isn't notable enough for encyclopedic treatment? &mdash; Scientizzle 22:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the truth, that the vast majority of the world does not believe in creationism (as proven repeatedly by opinion polls) - does not appear, this article completely avoids its own alleged subject, and just rehashes pro-creationism propaganda. User:Krator (t :c) 22:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually explaining the controversy by detailing the relative sizes of the groups that hold differing views is essential for this article to be neutral. That's all, folks.


 * Actually, the vast majority of the world holds to a religion, almost one hundred percent of which believe the earth was created. So creationism, not evolution, is the majority view of the world. Of course, the wealthier, more educated, western world might reverse that. ---G.T.N. (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No preaching and incoherent nonsense GTN. Most of the world does not subscribe to your form of creationism. Even most of the adherants of the Abrahamic faiths do not. Even most of Christianity does not. Even half of the US fundamentalist crowd in anonymous surveys reject biblical literalism. So please take your rants and fantasies somewhere else.--Filll (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You are confused about NPOV. That is not NPOV. Nevertheless we do have an article on this topic, as the article level of support for evolution is linked from this article. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What part of "discussion" do you fail to understand? I guaranteee, "discussion" does not mean that only one side gets to decide what is explored or debated.  Especially in this case, the discussion should be wide-open, because it is about a controversy.  "Discussion" does not mean "delete anything from another point of view".

Again, the idea of a "controversy" article with only one point of view is self-contradictory. The fact is that those who keep deleting information don't remove anything supporting the view that is held by the smallest group of Americans. However, that does not mean that those holding opposing views should shut this minority view out. [ http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm Multiple public opinion polls] show how the American public is divided on this issue. Thus, the controversy. This truth belongs in the article, and I'm putting it there once again. Z1perlster (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It may astonish you to learn that there are parts of the world outside the US, and that the topic is amply covered in the article on level of support for evolution. Opinion polls are a snapshot of opinion, and hardly the focus of this article. An anon with a rather similar IP number to the initiator of this thread reverted, and I've removed the superfluous detail again. ... dave souza, talk 18:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

z1perlster, engaging in intemperate language and confused reasoning is not really helping your case. You want to put that survey in the article. We have told you several times why we will not. You have no consensus. Thanks however.--Filll (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me - this is not a comedy page. The only intemperate language on this page is directed at opponents of evolutionism.


 * Read what previously happened in this discussion. Another user has been personally attacked repeatedly in this discussion, yet no one has come to his/her defense before.  Could it be because that user does not hold the minority view?


 * Read the rules - minority views are not to be given the same prominence as majority views. The evolutionist view is held by a tiny majority, yet this article and others give it preeminence over all others.


 * One also can't help noticing that the bullying always comes from one side of the debate. OK, so you're frustrated. After controlling public education and the mass media for decades, you have not convinced more than 13% of Americans of the validity of your secular pseudo-science.  You're sure not going to gain any more converts with these tactics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z1perlster (talk • contribs)


 * WP:WEIGHT does not imply that the point of view held by the general public must be given greater weight than experts in the field. Even if it did, the study that you are so insistent on pushing here and elsewhere is only one among many, and if "spun" correctly could even be read as saying that a majority in the US (a tiny majority, but a majority) believe in evolution or theistic evolution.  But, as others have told you here and elsewhere, there are other places in the world besides the US.  In nearly all of them (except Turkey), evolution has much broader support.  Would it surprise you to learn, for instance, that support for evolution among the general public is close to 90% in some European countries?  I think the only issue that needs to be addressed is why you are so keen on cherry-picking data which advance your own particular POV.  Cheers, Silly rabbit (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

z1perlster the opinions of the public are irrelevant in this matter, but are mentioned anyway as a way to gauge sentiment; nothing more. They have nothing to do with the relative weight of material in WP according to WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. What you are promoting is a teeny tiny infinitesimally small fringe view in the scientific community, which is what evolution is; a part of science. So I am afraid your rants have no place here. If you continue, I will start userfying them for you. They have no bearing or relevance for this page.--Filll (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Doodz and Doodettes -- I am an evolutionist and an anti-creationist, but as far as I can see from the apparent stated purpose of this article, there's no warrant at all to confine views only to those of scientists, and including views of other segments of the population, or the general population, would be entirely appropriate as long as they're properly sourced and cited. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The C-E controversy is not a controversy resolved through public opinion polls. Ergo, said information is irrelevant to, and not required on, this page.  As above, I suggest looking to level of support for evolution, where opinion polls are discussed.  WLU (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The intro of this article reads "The creation-evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) is a recurring political dispute about the origins of the Earth, humanity, life, and the universe,[1] between those who espouse the validity and superiority of a particular religiously-based origin belief (i.e., creationism), and the scientific consensus, particularly in the field of evolutionary biology, but also in the fields of geology, palaeontology, thermodynamics, nuclear physics and cosmology.[2]"
 * That says "is a recurring political dispute". We might wish that it were otherwise, but political disputes are resolved through reference to the opinions of the public, among other mechanisms.
 * If we do not wish to include such information in this article, then IMHO we should redefine what the article purports to be talking about. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, the issue of "Level of support for evolution" is broad enough to have its own article. If there is consensus to merge that article here, along with all of the (much more detailed) polling information, then so be it.  But this article should not be in the business of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular agenda: please see all of the polls at the other article.  Other statistices, for instance the percentage who believe that evolution should be taught in the science classroom, are arguably of greater importance for the public policy dimension of the debate.  Of course, this will still not present a worldview on the subject. Silly rabbit (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

How is this article confining itself ot the views of scientists? Did you read anything above? --Filll (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Including views of non-scientists
IMHO the edit by Z1perlster of 1 Feb 2008 (and repeated) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation-evolution_controversy&oldid=188707567 was appropriate and was properly cited, and should be included in the article. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) you have no consensus for this change
 * (2) link to an article dealing with public opinions in far more detail already exists in the article
 * (3) for something having to do with science, the public's opinion is irrelevant, and evolution is science.
 * I could mention several other reasons. But that is enough.--Filll (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) And, you may note, lacking consensus, I have not made this change. I'm posting (properly) on the Talk page to see whether such consensus may develop.
 * (2) So what? We could have too many sources?
 * (3) See my other recent posts. That is IMHO not how this article has been / is defined in the Intro. Global warming is Science. Vaccination is Science. Fluoridation of drinking water is Science. All have been controversial. IMHO, when we do an article called "Controversy about X" or "X controversy", we're talking about the controversy more than the science, and the opinions of scientists on the matter are only one segment of the whole "controversy".
 * Other reasons? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

We already are at 100K which is pretty big. There might eventually be a daughter article on public attitudes around the world on creationism. And that would appropriate for an article on public attitudes around the world. You are free to begin writing such an article in a sandbox if you want. Just shoving some statistics in here willynilly, when we already have an article dealing with this in some detail is not helpful. What you need is context, and comparing the beliefs in creationism around the world including among Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Europeans, Asians, etc.--Filll (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We're supposed to be avoiding bias: Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ. An article called simply Creation-evolution controversy should include views of Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Europeans, Asians, etc. If we want only views of some specific segment then there should be a daughter article Scientists's view on evolution or Views on evolution in France or whatever.
 * IMHO 100k is too big and we should fix this. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to fix the 100K issue, do not propose to introduce more material and start writing yourself. And the views of Muslims, Hindus, Jews and Christians are already in Creationism and daughter articles. The main controversy is in the US, and it is political. We already have an article that includes public views and scientist views, which are of course the most relevant since this is a scientific topic. And there is lots of stuff in the article already about nonscientist input. If you want to clean up the Moslem creationism article it needs work however. Or get to work and write an article about public views around the world.--Filll (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to further simplify our lives here ... Neutral_point_of_view/Examples suggests, "If you're stuck: Go with more detail rather than less. Do not present any viewpoint as "right"." (My bold here.) Not sure whether I agree with this 100% but it's apparently part of the official policy Neutral point of view. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You are free to write articles as I suggested to "go with more detail". Go ahead and put the effort in and do it. You are free to propose a new plan for rewriting this suite of articles. Go ahead and put the effort in and do it. However, this article is already full and as I am sure you can see by looking at it, there are plans to expand many of the sections here already so we do not really have room for minutae or unplanned growth because the article turns into a mess that way. And frankly, the opinions of the US public are semi irrelevant considering that there are about 4 billion adherents of one of the Abrahamic faiths in the world, and the biblical literalist Christians which are the mainstay of the US creationism movement and those covered in the poll you are pushing constitute about 20 million at most of those 4 billion, so small a number that they are a vanishingly small irrelevant fringe element. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been my past experience that when we let anyone who wants to shove stuff into an article, the article is destroyed in fairly short order. So go ahead and spend 40 or 50 hours writing something, why don't you and try to help out here.--Filll (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on reducing size of article

 * Filll points out above that the article is currently about 100K.
 * Article_size says  "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. ... Articles that cover particularly technical subjects should, in general, be shorter than articles on less technical subjects." 
 * I.e., this article is currently on the order of two or three times the recommended length.
 * Filll further points out "there are plans to expand many of the sections here already".
 * Therefore it's probably time for a discussion about splitting the article.
 * IMHO, the logical splits are to split out the court cases and/or to split out "Arguments relating to the definition, limits and philosophy of science" along with "Disputes relating to science". Unfortunately, IMHO the structure of the article is quite nice as it stands and any splits will be somewhat awkward. However, it looks like we need to do something.
 * Your thoughts, please? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thoughts Condense and content fork recent court cases. They always turn out the same (seperation of public schools and religious teachings).    <font style="background-color:#218921; color:blue;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">Table <font style="background-color:#121298; color:white;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">Manners C·U·T 04:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already addressed TableManners's misconceived idea (as well as points generally relating to the advisability of reducing the size of the article) above in . <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 05:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * TableManners' suggestion seems logical to me. Hrafn, I've read and don't see why this wouldn't be a good idea. Can you clarify?  -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above, reasons for rejecting this idea are that: <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) the proposed new article only covered a subset of the relevant cases;
 * 2) a daughter article, History of the creation-evolution controversy, already exists that covers this entire area, and more -- therefore the proposed article would be a duplicative content fork;
 * 3) this is a summary article:
 * 4) so of necessity will tend to contain a large number of short sections (ideally each containing links to articles with more thorough treatments);
 * 5) this should not create readability issues, as long as a clear hierarchy of topics is maintained; and
 * 6) breaking up this summary would tend to be counter-productive, as it would make navigation to the detailed articles more difficult.

Note that the target figure of 50K or so is without footnotes. Many FAs like evolution (118K with footnotes) and intelligent design (165K with footnotes) are larger than this one, and this is a very important lynchpin article in this area (like evolution, intelligent design, and creationism) so it is not surprising if it is a bit large. Nevertheless, I am in favor of farming out material to subsiduary daughter articles if it can be done rationally and we can avoid losing important material from Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Not wrong but misleading
From the article: "Europeans have often regarded the creation-evolution controversy as an American matter.[110] However, in recent years the conflict has become an issue in a variety of countries including Germany, ..." This is indeed true. It has been an issue in Germany. But one should mention that the politician who mentioned creationism should be taught in schools additional to evolution was as heavily slagged off as it should be. I think you could say that "in recent years the conflict has become an issue in a variety of countries including ..." with every country. Maybe at a regular's table or deep within a sect. Understand what I mean? Sure it was an issue in Germany, but it was an issue for a very short time. And if it should ever become an issue on political level again, then I am sure, it will be handled even faster.--teakhoken89.15.87.21 (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A (most probably WP:OR) summary would be to say "In recent years the conflict has become a transitory issue in a number of countries, but has gained little traction" -- the problem being finding citations to substantiate such a statement. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 02:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories
Regarding this change by User:Hrafn, I think both categories should be included. Hrafn stated that " This controversy goes beyond ID to other forms of creationism, it ENCOMPASSES the ID controversies, rather than being ONE of them." But I think Creationism is a form of Intelligent Design, rather than the other way around. ID is the general belief that the universe is so complex that an intelligent being must somehow be behind it. Creationism is the belief that God created the earth. So the article should be included in both the Creationism and the Intelligent design controversies categories. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * JBFrenchhorn: What you "think" is pure WP:OR. That ID is a form of creationism has been well documented by reliable sources (e.g. The Creationists and Creationism's Trojan Horse). The "Creation-evolution controversy" is not an "intelligent design controversy" but rather a far wider controversy that ID itself (let alone its controversies) is a small part. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 09:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hrafn's right. ID is a subset of "creationism", which itself includes in principle the general belief that God created all, but is commonly used to refer only to the belief that a literal reading of parts of Genesis should override scientific findings, while still claiming to be scientific. The only difference in ID is that its proponentsists half pretend that the "designer" might not be God, which they claim gives their argument scientific validity. ... dave souza, talk 07:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

ID does not specify a designer or a method of creation. Creationism specifies a designer (God) and usually specifies a method and time of creation. So ID is a general belief. Creationism is a more specific belief. Therefore, Creationism is a subset of ID. Do you disagree with this? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ID may claim to hold such lofty goals as not specifying a designer but it's leading proponents and organizations continually negate this idea by clearly stating, under oath or otherwise, that the creator is the Christian God. As for creationism being a subset of ID, wow.  Baegis (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ID is merely Creationism re-badged to make it more appealing to the public. Let's not give it some magical super/subset relationship. Tactics are the same, conclusion is the same, tie in with church teachings is the same, supporters are the same. All that's changed is "God" to "A designer". There was also the court case that gives a legal backing to the notion that ID is just creationism renamed. NathanLee (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * More fallacious WP:OR from JBFrenchhorn. The evolution of ID's Neo-creationism from previous forms of Creationism is well documented by expert observers, as well as being alluded to a number of times by the ID movement's founders. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 02:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)