Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive 22

A concerned reader
I find the first sentence HIGHLY biased, as any "evidence" evolutionists claim to have can easily be interpreted either way. It is very simmilar to the half-full/half-empty argument and highly offensive to those with non-evolutionary beliefs. Please consider changing it to a more neutral tone, as it would be fairer and less agressive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.2.252 (talk • contribs)
 * Not that it really needs a response, but I think you should read Denialism. — raeky  t  07:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Or the myth of Procrustes, who (if not for the misfortune of being from the wrong mythos) would have made a really great Patron Saint of Creationist Research Methods. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We find here a standard case of the "everything's unfair" complaint of bias, that circumvents citing something in particular that is wrong with an article and just asserts its wrongness. We'd love to discuss improvements to resolving bias in any specific cases you'd like to point out.  The problem is those individual points tend to be very well supported already in contentious articles like this one.  Those points are always worth a discussion, but this mindless "I think creationists might be right, therefor the article is biased" type of thing doesn't help improve the articles.  Since you're new, I reccomend taking a look at the reliable sources requirement Wikipedia has.  It's how we establish facts for this article, not the opinions of the editors.  Thanks i kan reed (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the Evidence is pretty clear cut. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that I find the article biased based on my belief. What I am saying is that it is an encyclopeadia's job to produce NEUTRAL facts. That is, mostly using facts that both sides of the argument agree to and stating an even number of arguments from both sides without pushing either side as right.
 * If you look at Creationist websites, such as Answers in Genisis, you would find a large collection of arguments supporting Creationism. This article, to me, does not seem to produce enough of that evidence.
 * Also, creationists would argue a common DESIGN, not DECENT. Creationism has as much right to be heard as any other form of science, because it IS a science. It integrates "religious" beliefes as much as ANY science does (even evolution, which starts on the "religious" belief that there is no God) and produces its own evidence based on a different interpretation of the data. How is that so different to Evolution that it can't be called and treated as a separate science? (John)
 * We do not give equal weight to scientific proven fact and unverifiable beliefs. Instead we give due weight to the evidence in reliable secondary sources. There is no evidence for creationism. None.--Charles (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but I do not agree to your claim. However, if you are seeing it from a point of public acceptance, then I would agree that, to some extent, evidence of creation is not accepted as being true in your particular circle as evolution is. However, in many other circles, such as the Pentacostal circle, it is widely accepted as true. So, how is saying there is no evidence for something, when there is a ligitimate sized group that says there is, not biased. Creationism does not ever say there is no evidence for evolution. Rather, it teaches that the evidence can be seen in another angle. Science should be the study of knowledge from all angles, not just one that the majority of people accept. THAT is being biased.
 * Or was it right for the scientists of old to keep us from believing the earth was round? If they had had their way, I don't think you would be allowed to send your rockets into outer space. They would be too afraid you might produce evidence that they couldn't rebut. (John)
 * Science is not a "belief system," it's just a method to discover things about the universe we live in. What we've discovered so far leads us to the conclusion that life on earth shares a common ancestor and that species are selected by a natural process.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and like any encyclopedia, it represents a consortium of knowledge.  Just like we present the Atomic Theory of matter as fact because it is the scientific consensus of our understanding of matter, we present theory of evolution as fact because it is the scientific consensus of our understanding of biology.  There is no debate here and creationism is not a competing "theory," it's just a religious explanation for natural phenomenon, and on wikipedia mythology is not presented as a realistic representation of the universe.   N o f o rmation  Talk  10:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So basically, Wikipeadia has lied or mislead when it talks about neutral ground. For whilst that information may be considered neutral in your circle, many other circles would consider it not neutral. It is my oppinion that the evidence you have given me proves you to be highly biased, just as the scientists of old. Might I encourage you to do a bit of study OUTSIDE of your own circle? You may find yourself to be all the better for it.
 * God bless.(John) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.24.85 (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand the concept of neutrality. Neutrality does not mean that all views are represented as fact or even as equally valid, it simply means that we report what reliable sources have to say.  In regards to scientific articles, this means that we present the scientific consensus and we base said consensus on sources such as peer reviewed scientific journals and the like.  But yes, you are correct that WP is not neutral in the sense that it's not biased, WP is in fact biased towards reliable sources. Just as we don't present raelianism as a valid, factual idea, we give no more or less credence to Christianity, Islam, ID, creationism, etc when it comes to describing reality. See WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE for mopre information.   N o f o rmation  Talk  10:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a very funny meaning you have for neutrality and what is credible. I hope you will one day be enlightened to the truth that Creationism and the word of God present.
 * May His peace go with you. (John) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.24.85 (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Peace, man. Regarding meaning, you don't seem to have noticed that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. And especially not The Truth. WP also has a specific meaning for neutrality, which you really should study if you want to make contributions here. . . dave souza, talk 14:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Evolution, being science, doesn't have ANYTHING to say about god, and certainly doesn't require (or even assume) that one does or doesn't exist. Every pro-creationism argument at AIG has been debunked or disproven (except for 'god exists'). THAT'S what you want us to present, alongside actual science that stands up to scrutiny? Your claim that your complaint isn't firmly rooted in your own bias is laughable. And I think we could all do without the passive-aggressive "I'll pray for you". -- King Öomie 17:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

US focus
The article seems a little odd to me in its present state because it is so overwhelmingly focused on the US, whereas WP is supposed to be global. I understand that creationism is especially prevalent here in the US, but even so, it seems extremely skewed. It's very awkward that there is so much overly detailed discussion of US law, culture, and politics near the beginning, with the corresponding non-USian discussion tacked on at the end.--75.83.69.196 (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Outside of the US and a few Muslim countries, there is no controversy. Evolution is accepted as a fact in advanced countries as in Europe, the UK, Japan, Australia, Canada...etc. etc.  That's why there's a focus on the US.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 05:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Orangemarlin here. The controversy is pretty much confined to the US, and even when creation is found in other countries like Australia, the UK, etc., it remains a distinctly American phenomenon, rather than a home-grown movement. If you are dissatisfied with the level of coverage other countries get, by all means feel free to expand those sections. However, if your goal is to "de-Americanize" this article, it would be as pointless as de-Americanizing the article on Abraham Lincoln. The religious environment in the US is unique, and Creationism is one of its most unique features. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree that this is a valid point. Without saying in the article text that this is a largely US phenomenon, it implies it is a universal (global) phenomenon instead. I'd suggest updating the opening of the whole article (maybe "...largely in the U.S." appended to the first sentence, or adding a "Global vs. National Controversy" section, or something in between. But on this sort of article, I am not touching the actual article with a ten foot pole.168.244.20.54 (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the article. From the second paragraph of the lead section: "Though also present in Europe and elsewhere, and often portrayed as part of the culture wars, this debate is most prevalent in the United States." That wording was present on 6 July, when this section was opened. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

AAAS
Could somebody tell me where this source discusses creationism "during the 19th century and up until the mid-20th century", because I cannot find it -- let alone the claim that "Creationism and evolution were not seen as mutually exclusive" during that period. Further, the meaning of "creationism" becomes more than a little muddled before Harold W. Clark coined the term in 1929. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Which AAAS source/citation are you looking for? Jesanj (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The one cited: http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/images_Doser/Publications/evol_dialogue_study_guide.pdf HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. Yeah if it is not in there then the "not in citation given" tag is good. I guess you looked already at the main article and the see also article for the section for a source? Jesanj (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that the claim is an anachronism, I already view it as dubious -- so no, I haven't made a search for other sources that might support it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Non neutral point of view.
In the second sentence, the article states: "The [creation-evolution] dispute is between those who support a creationist view based upon their religious beliefs, versus those who accept evolution, as supported by scientific consensus." My concern is with the alleged basing for their views—the sentence implies that creationism is merely supported by religion as in blind faith, while evolution is supported by the objective absolute truth of scientific consensus. Do we have to even state their reasons in this sentence? Perhaps in a different article or a different section? Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, since that's why there's a controversy, I'm not sure there's a way to present it otherwise. And I think you should review WP:NPOV, because it says neutral but not giving undue weight to a fringe point of view.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There is nothing "alleged" about it -- the respective bases of these views are well-established, and highly relevant. This is not two groups that drew their sides out of a hat -- it is a (very vocal) subset of religion versus (the vast majority of) the scientific community. It is clearly relevant per WP:LEDE which requires us to "define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a cancer researcher who would like to suggest that both parties discussing this (earlier threads especially) are not being as objective, kind, or respectful as I would hope. It would be interesting to have a page setup where each side of this debate gave their case with evidence on each of the subtopics in the debate, where creationist didn't modify the opposing view's arguments, and vice-versa. It would be nice to have a simple comparison of the different takes on each aspect, perhaps in a two column fashion. This could circumvent the debate between the editors, because it would not degrade into debates about the validity of sources, etc. Citing creation sources seems expected and reasonable, since this page is devoted to illustrating the debate. Let the creationists put up their arguments; let the evolutionists put up theirs, and stop vetting what the other party says, since it moves the debate topics from the wikipage to the discussion forum, where it doesn't belong anyway. Also, as a side note, many scientists and professors I know and work with (at a top ten university) tell me they are creationists because of their study of science only, with no regard or reference to the Bible at all (although they don't talk about it because they don't want to get ostracized).Gryderart (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. That is one of the problems with such subjects. It is almost impossible for matters such as this to be 'discussed' civilly. Those who believe in evolution think creatonist are stupid bible thumping bastards who have no use for reason. And creationist tend to believe that the other party are heathens. But your model sounds awesome! Mmallico (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence for creationism and WP doesn't publish arguments as if they are evidence. Creationism is religion pseudoscience, pure and simple; this is what the reliable sources say so this is what we publish. N o f o rmation  Talk  01:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This isn't a forum. It is the discussion page of an encyclopedia article, a place to discuss improvements to the article. The article's job is to describe notable, verifiable, reliably sourced facets of the creation-evolution controversy, giving due weight to each view. Vetting sources and debating their validity is exactly what we are chartered to do here. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok Bill, that sounds reasonable. I just wish that since it is called a "controversy" page, that it would be written in such a way that you couldn't tell which side of the controversy the writers/editors were (ie. written with objectivity). That's all. (Gryderart (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC))


 * As Bill pointed out, this is an encyclopedia, which publishes only the views presented in reliable sources (in proportion to their weight). The article doesn't present the position of our editors. What you're seeing is agreement within the sources, which in this case amounts to unanimous scientific support of evolution. To present that is appropriate for an encyclopedia, because it reflects the state of our current thought on the issue.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Gyderart....sorry, your opinions and "anecdotes" have the value of....oh wait for it...NOTHING. If you're at a top 10 bible university, sure I believe you. But the facts, not random statements, show that over 99% of real scientists reject creationism completely.  There just isn't one single tiny bit of evidence for creationism, so no real scientist would buy into it.  I certainly hope that someone throws you out of the cancer research before you start claiming that homeopathy cures cancer.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there is creation evidence/data, or evolution evidence/data, but that there is only facts/data. This isn't a page about data/facts (since then there wouldn't be a debate, i.e. one guy saying the sky is red and one saying the sky is purple). This is about logic/arguments/interpretations of the data/evidence. This shouldn't be about comparing evidence for one against evidence for the other, but rather about comparing the way evolutionist reason and piece together a coherent system based on evidence, and the way creationist reason and piece together a coherent system based on evidence. That doesn't mean that the creationist have correct reasoning at all, but for the purpose of elucidating the controversy, it seems this is the approach to take when building this wikipage. For example- evidence: "Light is billions of light-years away", evolutionists and some creationists interpret: "universe is billions of years old", some creationists interpret: "the universe is young, but God made the light in-transit". Maybe this could be done in a table format for some basic facts, and then each different school of thought (in the spectrum from naturalist to theistic evo to old earth/young earth creanists, etc.). We already have something of that nature but in paragraph form. Thoughts? (Gryderart (talk) 06:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC))


 * Gryderart: this article is a chronological and topical overview of the controversy. As such, it does not (or should not) get overly bogged down on the details of any specific area of dispute -- we have a myriad of more detailed articles for that. In doing so, it gives WP:DUE weight to the majority scientific viewpoint, and does not give equal validity to viewpoints lacking scientific credibility. Taking your specific example, the YEC attempts to explain away the evidence for "Light is billions of light-years away" typically fail to either explain the full set of data, are internally inconsistent, or fail to cohere with other well-established scientific explanations -- as such they are not regarded as credible by the scientific community, and are therefore not articulated (except to disparage them) in reliable sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hrafn, you say WP "does not give equal validity to viewpoints lacking scientific credibility". This implies that WP isn't neutral to different points of view but gives scientific POVs more credibility. Isn't the point Gryderart is trying to make that in an article about a controversy between different POVs then each side should be simply stated? Clearly the "experts" are heavily on one side, but it is precisely because a large percentage of the American population is sceptical of these people that POVs still exist which fly in the face of all the evidence. Chris55 (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct, Wikipedia is not neutral to all points of view. NPOV means that the opinion of the editor is not interjected into the article and that we only report what reliable sources say.  In no way does NPOV mean that we treat all views as equal/valid or give WP:UNDUE weight to all views.  N o f o rmation  Talk  10:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And the reliance on WP:RS in judging WP:DUE more-or-less-entails that Wikipedia accept expert opinion over argumentum ad populum. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Another way of looking at the issue is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge (what is known from evidence), and is not based on popular opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this article about the political/cultural/philosophical controversy? It's not about whether Evolution is a proven fact and that creationism is a pseudoscience and just totally unsupported by science? Creationism has its own article where it explains how silly it is. And since evolution is supported by several mountains worth of real evidence, mentioning it here seems very neutral. This discussion seems to be very odd, and pursued by one person who has no clue what constitutes real science and the difference between anecdote and peer reviewed data. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 17:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * well actually Orangemarlin, this is also about a religious controversy. The only people who are really concerned about creationism are religious people. It's perhaps revealing that the section marked "theological arguments" is empty. It suggests to me that Wikipedia is actually failing in presenting both sides of a controversy in a neutral way. You and I may not be deeply concerned about that side of the issue but it certainly has something to do with the fact that millions of otherwise adjusted people can believe something that we consider fairy tales. Chris55 (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The main point is one side would like religion taught in science classes as science. That is covered. Do you have suggestions on how that could be expressed better in the article? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is not a forum for crackpots to express their views. Evolution is well established fact and will not be "argued" against here, that's not what this article is about, however there is a creationist wiki that doesn't have any standards for evidence and I'm sure all that good stuff is covered there. N o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  22:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Defending a religionist point of view in school is certainly where the controversy interacts with common life (given the traditional separation in the US). But a sizeable proportion of the American (and increasingly other nations) public have a religious view which doesn't allow them the normal compromises with common sense that most religious believers make. To characterise all of these as "crackpots" doesn't help. For most, "ignorant" would be a better, if not neutral, description. But clearly the belligerent approach shown, for instance, by Dawkins, has confirmed many in their resistance and may not be the best or most helpful approach. Chris55 (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, Chris . Please refrain from using insulting terms such as 'crackpot' to describe an editor. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 08:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Before you accuse people, please read the content carefully. Chris did no such thing.  Teapot  george <sup style="color:blue;">Talk  09:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Very sorry, I meant Noformation. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 10:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Guys, please see WP:NOTFORUM. This page isn't intended to discuss the article subject. If you have sources and specific suggestions for the article, please list them. Otherwise, we can close this out. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Bullshit Wekn. Noformation did not call any particular editor a crackpot.  However, this discussion page is not a place for crackpot editors to blather on about their evolution denialism.  The article is very good.  There is an anti-science, evolution denialist group, and it is in the article.  They have done a whole bunch of stuff (in the US) to try to deny evolution.  It's in the article.  That they are completely and utterly wrong, they have no evidence supporting them, and that there are no reliable sources that support the evolution deniers, it is in the article.  Case closed.  This place is not a forum for those evolution deniers to try to get the article to say "but wait, there's a whole bunch of evidence that evolution is wrong."  There isn't.  None.  Not one valid paper out there disputes evolution.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to Chris55's valid points. First, I'd like to see any evidence that other countries are as totally fucked up about science as the US. Germans seem to believe in alternative medicine, so they follow pseudoscience, but amusingly, they are not creation supporters. Nevertheless, I don't think that religion is growing in any country (even the US), and the evolution denialist viewpoint is tiny in most countries, other than the US and fundamentalist Muslim countries. Ironic that. As for the empty section (I'll trust you, because I don't want to switch back to the article), but there are other articles that do a very good job with different theological points of view on creationism and intelligent design. Perhaps, you could add a few key points from those articles here (an easy writing job). Since i have no interest in religion, other than wishing it would disappear, I certainly won't write it. But you seem to have some knowledge and interest, and I would suggest that you have a valid point and the ability, so go for it. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 16:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Sorry everyone. @Orangemarlin: Do I detect a stereotype (per 'Germans')? I have a few German friends who are Creationists and I don't know any who believe in alternative medicine. If he wants to give Creationism validity, he should try A Storehouse of Knowledge or the Creation Wiki. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 16:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I also support Noformation's view: "Wikipedia is not neutral to all points of view. NPOV means that the opinion of the editor is not interjected into the article and that we only report what reliable sources say. In no way does NPOV mean that we treat all views as equal/valid or give WP:UNDUE weight to all views." Although I don't believe giving weight to Creationism is undue, I'll follow whatever rules WP sets. A Wiki that wasn't written from a particular POV would sound more like "Oprahpedia". Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 16:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Religious people" aren't the only ones who reject evolution. Take Michael Behe, for instance. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 17:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Behe is a Roman Catholic...and this page is NOT a forum but a page for suggesting improvements to the article  Teapot  george <sup style="color:blue;">Talk  17:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @Wekn. I don't give a shit about Germans one way or another, other than the fact that I'm missing vast swaths of my family tree because of them.  But that's neither here nor there.  I don't care about your German friends, not because I don't like them, I just don't give a shit as I mentioned above.  Moreover, your original research/anecdote/unscientific polling has the relevance of...well, my opinion of Germans.  There are polls about country beliefs in alternative medicine, and Germany was ahead of even the dumb old USA on this point.  But back on topic.  Since creationism is not scientific, is unsupported by science, has not one single real peer reviewed article supporting it, giving any weight to it in a comparison between real science and evolution denialism would be undue.  NPOV also means we show all the evidence that a fringe theory is fringe.  It's not here to say "here's evolution and here's creationism, go figure it out."  THAT would be Oprahpedia.  No, we say, and I'm paraphrasing here, "creationism is a fringe theory that's full of shit.  Evolution is real science that is a fact.  If you want to be a denialist, be our guest, lots of people are."  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant by Oprahpeida. As for the rest, I'm well aware this is not a forum. Silence is the best answer to everything else. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 09:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I an observation regarding reliability of sources (based on earlier comments). For the sake of illustration, if you are putting together a wikipedia article on the reasoning and beliefs of socialism compared to capitalism, you would labor to illustrate each school of thought by quoting leading writers and leaders in each, by tracing their roots and influences, etc. The sources would be considered credible only if they accurately portray the viewpoint of each, totally regardless of whether that author is considered 'correct'. Therefore, a 'source' is valid on this page if it reflects accurately the beliefs of each. Since creationist are not usually allowed to publish in academic peer reviewed journals when analyzing macro-evolution for instance, you couldn't get many highly respected, secular sources to illustrate their point of view, but that is okay because that isn't required if your goal is to illustrate their claims. Credible sources do exist for creationism/intelligent design, since their work is published and readily available at my local Barnes and Nobel. No one building this page is supposed to care whether they are right or wrong when editing this thing anyway; the point of this page, I assume, is to show what each side says, right? Just a thought. (AlwaysQuestioning (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC))


 * Not exactly. The point of this page is to show what reliable SECONDARY sources have to say about the topic. Primary sources can be used for some purposes, but with caution and with proper attribution and context. NPOV doesn't mean that creationists are allowed to "present their case", their opponents are allowed to respond, and the reader is left to "sort it out" for themselves. That's what the books you see at B&N are for. And Conservapedia and a half-dozen odd sites like it. Wikipedia has guidelines how to present topics of a psudoscientific nature. The viewpoint WP is written from is the mainstream view of experts in the field in question, in this case, biology. See WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE.


 * Also, creationists are perfectly able in every way to publish in peer-reviewed journals, and many of them do, Mike Behe and Maciej Giertych, for example. Of course, it is not surprising that, if they submit work that does not qualify as science, their work will be rejected for publication. This has nothing to do with "discrimination" against Creationists per se. Just discrimination against bad science or non-science.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * When creationists demonstrably misrepresent the facts -- the current state of relevant scientific research, quote mining prominent scientists, etc -- they render themselves unreliable sources -- i.e. they lose all "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". As they do this fairly ubiquitously, creationist works that would be a reliable source are a rarity. Add to that the fact that their popularity is generally inversely proportional to their accuracy (the few creationist sources that accurately represent the true scientific status of evolution, e.g. what I've seen of Kurt Wise's writings on the subject, would make fairly depressing reading to most creationists) -- prominent, reliable creationist sources is likely to be complete oxymoron. 05:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For Behe, I was being sarcastic. The thing is very few Creationists aren't religious. All clear? Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 11:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Another thing (a little late): the moment something is a point of view, it is no longer neutral. Although neutrality does exist, a neutral POV does not. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 15:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Human Evolution
The words were in the source. Dan Watts (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they weren't. And like I said, they didn't mean anything in biology. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Goodman compared published sequences of 97 genes on six species, including humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and Old World monkeys. He looked only at what he considered the most functional DNA, bases which cannot be changed without a consequent change in the amino acid coded for by the gene." Yes, they were. Dan Watts (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Get your biology book out again. What you added was completely different. And completely nonsensical. The statement is fine as it is. No need to qualify it from a biological point of view. The material you quoted above is superfluous detail. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, I thought the wording that was removed was poorly worded. I thought it written to mean the coding regions of enzymes that biosynthesize amino acids. I take it that that was not the intended meaning. Jesanj (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, the reference appears to state exactly that (if that is nonsense, blame the reference). "... a consequent change in the amino acid coded for by the gene." Dan Watts (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference says no such thing. You are misinterpreting the quote. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please enlighten me on what the words quoted above are saying in reference to amino acids. Dan Watts (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Coding regions, or genes. Those areas of the DNA that code for proteins. Proteins are strings of amino acids. Changing the DNA sequence may alter the sequence of amino acids in a protein, but not necessarily. There is no mention in the article of any proteins involved in amino acid biosynthesis. You misread or misunderstood the article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How does "may alter the sequence of amino acids in a protein, but not necessarily" compare with "bases which cannot be changed without a consequent change in the amino acid coded for by the gene"? Dan Watts (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Two different things. The first is my explanation to you of basic protein synthesis, the second is a quote from the article pertaining to certain types of DNA base substitutions. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I misread your edit in the first place Looking over it again, I think I see what you were trying to say.  However, I don't understand the need for the edit, it's seems very specific without conferring much importance.  Am I missing something?  N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  21:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The removed words elucidated (to me) what criterion was chosen for the calculation of similarity. Dan Watts (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I made this edit that I think will make all happy. Jesanj (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  21:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it. Thanks, Jesanj. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Points of Agreement
I think it would be helpful to add a section to this page detailing agreements between evolutionist and creationist. Importantly, they all agree on the reality of Adaptation through Natural Selection. They also agree about the vast majority, if not all, of operational science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gryderart (talk • contribs) 16:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * (i) The correct term is "scientist" not "evolutionist". (ii) Creationists only accept a specially-neutered version of natural selection -- one that can produce miraculous radiation within kinds from a tiny initial population within only a few thousand years, but equally miraculously always stops short at the magic kind boundary. This view of evolution is viewed by the scientific community as laughable WP:Complete bollocks. (iii) Creationists disagree with Geology, Cosmology, Biogeography, Population Genetics, Nuclear Physics, and a host of other fields. Scientific fields are heavily intermeshed, so it is generally hard to deny one area without finding yourself in a denial of a whole heap of others. Science and creationism might agree that the sky is blue -- unless of course somebody finds a Biblical interpretation that they think requires that it be red. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, they don't believe in natural selection, not universally. Creationists run the gamut from "I believe in evolution, but god did it too" to "god made exactly everything exactly as it is now and there's no evidence at all otherwise".  Just about any form of creationism short of deism is incompatible with modern science.  Luckily, no one demands that you believe science; it just exists.  It doesn't need to be noted in the article because 1. It's not true.  2.  It's relevance needs to be established in reliable sources.  3.  Related information in established in section 2.6.  i kan reed (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ostendit scientiam vestram, probat propositum meum. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 14:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Evolution denial
I was looking for evolution denial and was brought here. A quaint article on Creat. vs. Evol. is appropriate, but shouldn't give an idea that there is actually a real controversy.

Evolution denial needs treatment because it is this very denial of human nature that is causing crises in everything from economics to the environment. This basic denial of reality is central to the fate of humanity. If anyone can give some resources that discuss this aspect, as well as possible solutions to what really amounts to a nihilistic denial of human nature, please do.

There should be an article on it. It could include reasons people deny evolution and their motives (egoism, religious identity formation, political propaganda) and how an appropriate acceptance of the realities of biology can lead to policies that relieve much of the human suffering we see on the planet. --DanielCD (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The tricky part is finding some suitable sources. The Denialism article is relevant, and Category:Denialism. Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't Evolution denialism be best off in either the Creationism or Creation-Evolution Controversy article? Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 15:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Who awaits "Nature, red in tooth and claw" as the basis for relief of human suffering? Dan Watts (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Daniel: To quote Hrafn, I would suggest that creationists and supporters of science are disputing, debating and contending with one another on this issue. Does anybody suggest the contrary? If not, then we have a "controversy". So there is a controversy. It may not seem like a reasonable one, but it exists. Thank you. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 14:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Stating there is a controversy when clearly there is none among the relevant parties does not alter the fact |there is no controversy!---  Nomen Nescio  Gnothi seauton  contributions  14:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Saying there is no controversy is ridiculous when there are over 175 sources on this page. There is a controversy, particularly in the United States where more people associate with creationism and theistic evolution than pure, atheistic evolution. There is controversy, and turning a pretty neutral article into a POV-pushing machine is never the right solution.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  14:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the link I provided to better understand why faking a controversy is not equal to a controversy.---  Nomen Nescio  Gnothi seauton  contributions  14:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The article states:

1. A manufactured controversy that is motivated by profit or extreme ideology to intentionally create public confusion about an issue that is  not in dispute . 2. Effort is often accompanied by imagined conspiracy theory and major marketing dollars involving fraud, deception and polemic rhetoric.

Not in dispute by whom? Wekn  reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 14:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Slightly lower than the definition you will find this: "when significant disagreement doesn’t exist  inside the scientific community , but is successfully invented for a public audience to achieve specific political ends."---  Nomen Nescio  Gnothi seauton  contributions  15:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course there's a controversy. It's just not a scientific controversy as the current crop of YEC-proponents like to suggest. It's a societal one which has arisen as a result of developments in scientific understanding, which is slightly different. Or, as this article excellently points out in the opening paragraph: a "cultural, political, and theological dispute" (not a scientific dispute). I've always liked this article and dip into it now and again. PS The second paragraph seems to have been mauled a bit since the last time I was here... GDallimore (Talk) 15:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * @Nomen Nescio: Nice clarification. Thank you. However, Daniel CD stated that the article "shouldn't give an idea that there is actually a real controversy." He didn't state it wasn't specifically a scientific controversy. That was his mistake. Like GDallimore said (not that I agree with him), "It's just not a scientific controversy..."
 * @GDallimore: Second paragraph of what? Sorry, I'm a little lost. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 15:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Now if by real, Daniel had meant scientific... Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 15:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion sounds similar to the previous discussion: I think the title of this article is misleading, because as we all know, beyond reasonable doubt evolution is greatly superior to creationism and of course, factual. The scientific community is who we rely on, and there is no controversy with them. The title should be changed to something such as "supposed controversy" or "attempted controversy" or "religious controversy", because there is nothing scientifically controversial about evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.200.11 (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)             Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 16:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In which Hrafn again states: *There is no scientific controversy -- but there is clearly a social and political one (hence "a recurring cultural, political, and theological dispute" in the lead). "Debate" gives the impression that the dispute is more narrowly defined than it is. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 16:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Another relative thing. Evolution denial is a broader range that includes Creationism (at least in the sense that most Creationists deny macroevolution); please don't comment on my use of the word macroevolution, that could potentially start an off-topic discussion that is not helpful to this section. There are other forms of "Evolution denial". Wekn  reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 16:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To get anywhere, I believe that firstly an agreement on the definition of "scientific community" must be reached. According to Wikipedia, The scientific community consists of the total body of scientists, its relationships and interactions. It is normally divided into "sub-communities" each working on a particular field within science. Objectivity is expected to be achieved by the scientific method. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 16:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Now what would be really interesting is creation denialsim. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 10:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, had some great weather so was forced to go out and produce some vitamin D. Anyway, the entire point is the difference between scientific community and laymen. The fact we allow non-experts to have an opinion, i.e. they disagree therefore there is a controversy, is what I am objecting to.

Example: bankers object to CABG in case of coronary artery disease. Is there a controversy surrounding the treatment or do we ignore whatever bankers have to say when discussing medicine? My view is that the vox populi should not be suggested as a serious partner in any scientific debate. Only somebody with adequate credentials can participate and since they do not disagree there is no controversy.

In short, by acknowledging the opinion of every Tom, Dick and Harry we are creating the appearance of a controversy: hence manufactroversy.---  Nomen Nescio  Gnothi seauton  contributions  14:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @Nescio: there are scientists out there with adequate credentials who are certainly more than Tom, Dick, Harry, or even Dr. Nescio or Wekn reven. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 14:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, discussions about adequate credentials involves first defining what adequate credentials are. I suggest including something about their higher education level, field, and publication of research results in peer-reviewed scientific journals (which often leads to a heated debate over which journals count). Have a good time absorbing Vit. D! Weather here hasn't been so great lately. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 14:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree with you that in scientific discussions, the "voice of the people" shouldn't be suggested as a serious partner in most debates, which usually includes this one. However, if someone has significant practical experience in the area (i.e. English professors know a lot about the language, but we speak it), their voice is not to be treated as a cry in the wind. Unfortunately, there are only a few people in the origins debate who have enough experience with the subject to be included in this category and only a few categories that can be experienced. An example: who do you think would be a better authority on the Neanderthal's fire-lighting techniques, Storm or Erik Trinkaus?  Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 15:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

In-universe sourcing
Hi,

I would like opinions from the regulars on this page about a debate going on at Talk:Astrology. People are arguing that we can't mention responses in astrological journals to an article published in Nature, because the astrological "peer-reviewed" journals are not RS. Some are also arguing that in-universe astrological sources cannot be used at all in the article. I notice that many in-universe sources like this are used here, so I'm hoping for an opinion on this issue. No one is suggesting that in-universe sources be used to refute mainstream sources, just that they be included as attributed material or attributed responses, in the same way they're used in this article.

Posted at Talk:Intelligent design and Talk:Creation Science Talk:Creation–evolution controversy Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  19:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just one question-does astrology claim to be science? Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 16:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's hard to answer a question like that because who represents astrology? There have certainly been people who attempted to experiment on astrology, either to prove it or disprove it, but since it's not really a body of knowledge it's hard to find any statement that can be attributed to astrology in general.  N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  19:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then does anyone in the field of astrology claim to be a scientist? Note: this question is a question I'm just asking because I don't know the answer to, and would like to know. Thank you. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 15:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the page for discussing improvements to the Creation evolution controversy. There are other more suitable places to ask questions.Theroadislong (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The key reason why I ask this question is because of the relationships between Creationism and pseudoscience and Astrology and pseudoscience being drastically different. Both are placed in the same category in both this article, the Creationism article, and the astrology article. All clear? Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 15:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The astrology article says "Astrology has no basis in modern science because it makes little attempt to develop solutions to its problems, shows no concern for the evaluation of competing theories, and is selective in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations" much like creationism.Theroadislong (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How is it much like creationism? Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 17:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it has no basis in science?Theroadislong (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How? (sorry if it's a tough question) Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 17:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum it's an article talk page.Theroadislong (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Right you are. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 11:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if there should be a distinction in the wording of this article of what type of pseudoscience Creationism is. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 11:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. What "type" of pseudoscience are you proposing that creationism is?Theroadislong (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That definition will be very useful for the Astrology article. Do you have a source that we can use for it?Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is from the Pseudoscience wikipedia article which is referenced to...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#cite_note-definition-0
 * Duh! Stupid me. Stupido, stupido, penitentiagite! Thanks a lot for your help! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggested fix of a disputed sentence
I just noticed that a sentence is being reverted repeatedly by some IPs who don't follow the instructions contained within the sentence! A rather stupid situation, but I may have a solution. I don't know if there has been any controversy and discussion over this, so just let me know if there has been.

Here's the current version:


 * "The dispute is between those who, despite contrary evidence, support a creationist view based upon their religious beliefs, versus those who accept evolution, as supported by scientific evidence."

Here's my suggested revision that may be more acceptable to all:


 * "The dispute is between those who support a creationist view based upon religious beliefs, versus those who accept the scientific evidence for evolution."

I have left out the "despite contrary evidence" part, since there are not two opposing pieces of evidence. It's a matter of belief vs. evidence. Is that any better? -- Brangifer (talk) 07:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That depends on what is allowed to be entered as evidence. (Measurable viscosity of granite at room temperature and pressure, measurable 14C in underground oil/coal, etc.) Dan Watts (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * How about "The dispute is between those who support a creationist view based upon religious beliefs, versus those who accept the scientific theory of evolution?"  Toa   Nidhiki  05  19:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with "support" for creationism, you don't support something without evidence you have faith. "The word "believe" is better. "Those that believe creationism" and "those that accept evolution" are the correct terms. But I do disagree with removing "despite contrary evidence" because for creationism there is VAST contrary evidence to disprove it. It's like "still believing in a flat earth, despite contrary evidence" —  raeky  t  13:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Essentially agree with Raeky, though "believe in" would be better. Also object to removing "despite contrary evidence", and Raeky's flat Earth analogy is right on target. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically, Reaky, there is no such thing as 'disprove' in the world of science. Evidence, no matter how strong, can never provide us with an absolute conclusion (either true or false). What it can do is point us in the direction of what is most ≠reasonable/practical≠ to believe. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 14:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

How do I make sense?
I'm confused about this subject and want to know how I get on the rational vote on this matter; There is no controversy between Evolution and Creation. Evolution is a factual matter of science; creationism is religious belief that attempts to mask itself as science, because, for whatever reason, it finds evolution theory threatening. This is science; opinion does not matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.29.2 (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To quote (mostly in-context) another Wikipedian (Hrafn), "I would suggest that creationists and supporters of science are disputing, debating and contending with one another on this issue. Does anybody suggest the contrary? If not, then we have a "controversy"." Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 18:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There was somewhere on this talk page (now in the archives) a discussion about it being a "manufactroversy". Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 18:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, creationism has meant various things at various times, and in some ways modern anti-evolution creationism is a spin-off from the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy. It still involves disputes between various sects, as well as disputes with mainstream religion. So it's a multifaceted "controversy". . .18:55, 8 December 2011‎ – oops, forgot to sign, dave souza, talk 19:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Dave is spot on. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 19:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

ID = Creationism?
Under Intelligent Design, the article states that, "Its goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, policy makers, educators, and the scientific community..." A rather inaccurate portrayal. Source 48 states otherwise. Wekn  reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 16:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The Wedge document begs to differ. The Discovery Institute should not be considered a reliable source, except as a source for "The Discovery Institute says..."  In addition, Source 48 says nothing about the "goal" of Intelligent Design.  Mildly MadTC 17:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In addition, see Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, where the court found that:
 * "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."
 * "the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom"
 * "any allegedly secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID Policy are equally insincere"
 * "The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." Mildly MadTC 18:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 15:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a soft spot for the following succinct, albeit slightly non-encyclopedic, phrasing: "Intelligent Design is lipstick on the pig of Creationism." --Dan Neil, In God and Darwin we Trust, Los Angeles Times, November 27 2005 - Soulkeeper (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder how many people consider this. Or this. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 09:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And then suff like this? Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 10:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The DI has a very long and thoroughly proven track record of deliberately and blatantly misrepresenting themselves and its mission. In fact, before all else, the principals of the DI are unscrupulous professional liars, and anything they produce is to be treated as a deliberate lie unless proven otherwise. The utility of their publications as sources here on WP is also greatly limited by the fact that these publications are essentially self-serving. The WP policy of assuming good faith in no way extends to them. In fact, we have no option but to assume bad faith, and presume that any publication originating from the ID and its supporters is "guilty until proven innocent" before allowing it to be used as a source on WP, and even then, with a high degree of caution. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, thank you. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 11:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Two words: cdesign proponentsists. :) - Soulkeeper (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Soulkeeper. That link was a little more helpful. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 16:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

References section
Is there any reason why we're starting to group references into New, Journals, Web, Books?
 * Grouping of reference by source type

If you're going to play around with the references section, could people please check that the references they are manipulating are in fact cited in the article. This article has, and has had for as long as I've been editing it, a bad problem of accumulating large numbers of no-longer-used (and I wouldn't be surprised if some never-used) references in this section.
 * Unused references
 * On closer examination, I see that the problem came from rolling a mislabelled 'Further reading' section in with the actual references. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I would further point out that I personally find hanging indents very ugly, especially when combined with narrow column-widths. Is there any reason we abandoned the original, more elegant & more space-efficient bullet-pointed list?
 * Formatting

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have just begun a project to convert the current mish-mash of reference calls to appropriate cite template calls that I expect will take many weeks to months. I expect to sort out unused references over time.  The sorting to Books, Journals, Web and News is for ease of reading because each cite template is different from the others.  The hanging indent is commonly used by journals and books and is also used elsewhere on WP.  It makes finding the name of the authors easy to do.  SmittysmithIII (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * And did it ever occur to that, before you made major structural changes to an article it appears you have never edited before, it might be appropriate to seek a consensus on talk first? It is a well-documented fact that hard-copy readability frequently differs from screen readability -- so attempting to ape formatting "commonly used by journals and books" does not make a lot of sense. And it is hardly so pervasively used on Wikipedia that you should expect to be able to make the change without discussion. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Scratch that. I was going to improve this article, but its not worth the headache to deal with Hrafn.  SmittysmithIII (talk) 08:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hrafn, I'm sure there is a way to work this out together w/out you two blowing each other up! The article does need some link cleanup, and if he's willing to do it,

you don't have to point out he's never edited it yet -- just communicate with him nicely about the discussion that must be initiated. You could have handled this better. Oh well, there's always a second chance. Smitty, you don't have to walk away just yet. Hrafn can be a very pleasant editor after getting through one or two "headaches". Wekn  reven Confer 17:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits
i believe this article is wrong in a few ways mainly where it says that evolution is a fact when evolution is not a fact because it has never been proven to be true and there is no evidence to back it up there have never been any transitional forms found theyve found complex fossils in lower layers of their "geologic column" proving that all animals existed and did not "evolve". many of the things in this article i find very ooffensive because its definitely written or edited by evolutionists and doesnt share many facts just opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.192.253 (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read Evolution as fact and theory. Also see WP:V, which says that we need sources to include content. Do you have any reliable sources which support your changes? Thanks!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You need reliable sources that are verifiable before changes can be added. I also recommend becoming a bit familiar with the science. Read:
 * Transitional fossil
 * Introduction to evolution
 * Before continuing make sure that you are fully aware of WP's relevant policies on this:
 * WP:NOR - No original research
 * WP:FRINGE - Fringe theories
 * WP:RELIABLE - Reliable sources
 * --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This quote is very short and to the point: "Your opinion, and mine, are unimportant. What is important is sourcing. —User:Dbrodbeck (talk) Source: Talk:AIDS denialism, 12:44, 31 October 2011"--Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong! What is important is sourcing according to the majority point of view as held by the editors. <i style="text-shadow:lime 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"> Wekn  </i><i style="text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"> reven </i> 15:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No it's not, and this isn't the place to discuss biases in wikipedia, Wekn. Let's keep this on topic, please. I asked for the OP to provide sources. Until he does, there's really no more to discuss.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was informing him of the kind of reliable sources he needed to provide. And some would argue there is a difference between bias and POV. On WP, "Neutral POV" passes, but it is easier to detect the irony of a "neutral bias". By the way, I'm assuming by "OP", you meant "IP", so I corrected the typo in your comment. I was not talking about bias (sensu WP). <i style="text-shadow:lime 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"> Wekn  </i><i style="text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"> reven </i> 16:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "OP" means "original poster", the person who started the thread, whether IP or named. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you! <i style="text-shadow:lime 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"> Wekn  </i><i style="text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"> reven </i> 09:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Capitalizing
Evolution should be capitalized142.22.115.58 (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No. It's not a proper noun. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

O.K.142.22.115.58 (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Labeling
The following boldfaced should be cut out. "The dispute is between those who, despite contrary evidence, argue for the biblical account of creation as a scientific theory, and those who defend the conclusions of modern evolutionary biology, geology, cosmology, and other related fields." These may be true, but they are not needed in this article. This article is about the debate, not who is right. For that, see .Computerchippo (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Those bold words are quite important. see the above discussion Abhishikt (talk)  21:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How? Also, that conversation was very confusing and looked like it went nowhere, and I had read it before I wrote.Computerchippo (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Since creationism is a WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE it is guided by our WP:FRINGE policy. Abhishikt (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with creation or evolution (Besides the page title). This is about what needs to be in this article and which should be in Evolution as fact and theory or Evidence of common descent.Computerchippo (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As per WP:FRINGE, we should clearly state that the creationism is not supported by evidence. I don't want to repeat what has been discussed here and many times in past (see the archieve for past discussions). Abhishikt (talk)  22:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Perfectly acceptable per WP:NPOV. We can't insinuate that creationism has evidentiary support nor that evolution lacks it, and by failing to mention that there is contrary evidence we would be de facto insinuating some kind of equality.  S Æ don <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  22:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW the earlier discussion about "despite contrary evidence" didn't go nowhere: the sentence at issue is improved as a result. Also, since no one has commented just now about the importance of the word "modern" before evolutionary theory.... There have been many types of evolutionary theory; the adjective "modern" is used to refer to evolutionary theory that more or less follows the line of Darwin etc. (i.e., evolution driven by random genetic mutation and natural selection). Quite clearly then the dispute is between creationism and modern evolutionary theory.Mfhiller (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
 * I am not saying that those are against WP rules, or that they are not true! They just do not belong in this article. I now see that "Modern" is necessary.Computerchippo (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Study: The Problem Of Evolution in America
"Abstract: American resistance to accepting evolution is uniquely high among First World countries. This is due largely to the extreme religiosity of the U.S., which is much higher than that of comparably advanced nations, and to the resistance of many religious people to the facts and implications of evolution. The prevalence of religious belief in the U.S. suggests that outreach by scientists alone will not have a huge effect in increasing the acceptance of evolution, nor will the strategy of trying to convince the faithful that evolution is compatible with their religion. Since creationism is a symptom of religion, another strategy to promote evolution involves loosening the grip of faith on America. This is easier said than done, for recent sociological surveys show that religion is highly correlated with the dysfunctionality of a society, and various measures of societal health show that the U.S. is one of the most socially dysfunctional First World countries. Widespread acceptance of evolution in America, then, may have to await profound social change." Jerry A. Coyne, Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, Chicago Illinois 60637
 * SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND SOCIETY: THE PROBLEM OF EVOLUTION IN AMERICA.84.152.54.5 (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * .84.152.54.5 (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Piped links should not surprise
This part of the lead had a confusing piped link:

The dispute is between those who, despite contrary evidence, argue for the biblical account of creation as a scientific theory, and those who defend the conclusions of modern evolutionary biology, geology, cosmology, and other related fields.

Creationism is not the same as "biblical account", and putting it in a piped link breaks the principle of least surprise. I've therefore left the wording the same, but piped the link to Genesis creation narrative and have linked the first appearance of the term creationism. If we want the link to creationism to appear earlier, rephrasing would be appropriate. . . dave souza, talk 11:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On review, evidence for evolution|evidence was an WP:EASTEREGG, and on changing that I found it was a redirect to Evidence of common descent, so have tweaked that accordingly. dave souza, talk 11:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Creation Ministries International
I have reverted this edit because it includes an external link embedded in the article (if a link is necessary, it should be in a reference—that's a minor issue which can be sorted out later), but mainly because the text is not encyclopedic: it is essentially a promotional blurb that would be expected on an organization's website, and has no reliable sources. Much of the wording could be cleaned up (if sourced), but text like "Their supporting scientists take this delicate issue of creation vs. evolution and dive in with all the evidence they need to hold their case against any argument." is not acceptable at Wikipedia: "supporting scientists" requires a very reliable source (WP:REDFLAG), and the text is just opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the author removed the edits before my undo worked (must have happened close to the same time). Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"creation as a scientific theory"
Anybody who really believes that creationists don't believe this need to read (i) Creation science & (ii) Numbers' book The Creationists. Intelligent design also provides more recent information of this belief. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you think of a better place to put this statement than the middle of a talk page? <i style="text-shadow:lime 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"> Wekn  </i><i style="text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"> reven </i>

"Abrahamic account" vs. "biblical account"?
An editor changed the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede to read "argue for the Abrahamic account", rather than "argue for the biblical account". I think the change, while technically correct, is less effective as worded and wanted to toss it out for discussion here. Anyone have any thoughts? Thanks! &mdash; <b style="color:black">Uncl</b><b style="color:darkred">eBubba</b> ( T @ C ) 11:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure 'biblical account' is correct in this case. 'Abrahamic' does not convey the same meaning concerning origins. <i style="text-shadow:lime 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"> Wekn  </i>TAKN 12:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But isn't 'Abrahamic' covers broader scope than 'biblical'? -Abhishikt (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Abrahamic -- in the broad sense -- covers Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Here, only the former two have the same account, the Torah, whereas Muslims use the Qur'an. Another meaning of 'Abrahamic' would refer to the specific sections of Genesis, on Abraham, covering toledoths six through eight. Thus, 'Abrahamic account of creation' can mean anything the Qur'an and the Torah share in common, or nothing, since the account of Abraham does not cover Creation, and Abraham himself does not appear to have written an account. And so, the former meaning -- the unison of the two accounts -- would be its proper meaning in this context. Since Muslims are not, for the most part (with the notable exception of Harun Yahya), involved in the controversy, I see no reason why 'Biblical account', referring to Genesis one and two, should be used, as that is the apex of the controversy. Thank you for your suggestion. <i style="text-shadow:lime 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"> Wekn  </i>TAKN 12:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

WEIGHT in relation to Technical Journal
RS/N noted a large problem with suspected copyright violation links to Technical Journal articles not hosted on the owner of Technical Journal's website (mostly resolved by replacing copyvio links with citations). Incidentally to this, it was observed that Technical Journal represents a limited opinion within the YEC community, and does not peer review. As a result of this I've tagged the claim sourced against Technical Journal that makes a universal claim as concerning in relation to weight. Could editors more experienced with the literature in this field please determine if Technical Journal bears sufficient weight within the limited community of YEC groups to make the statement attributed to it. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Who says TJ represents a limited opinion? What is your source for that?  In the creationary field all of the publications are accepted pretty much as equal (i.e. Origins, CRSQ, Tech. Journal, Answers Research Journal.)  And they all have review by creationary scientists and scholars.  Many creationary scholars have published in each of the journals.  None of the journals represent what ALL creationists believe.  They exist for creationary scholars and scientists to publish their research and ideas.  Mthoodhood (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See the article scientist if in doubt of the word's meaning. - Soulkeeper (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that Technical Journal became Journal of Creation, apparently without improving reliability. Binksternet (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Mthoodhood a sockpuppet
See Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

An error of bias at the outset of this article
The first sentence of the second paragraph of this article is poorly written and reveals an unfortunate bias that must contaminate the succeeding discussion. The writer states that the debate is between those who "despite contrary evidence" base their arguments on "religious beliefs." This statement, "despite contrary evidence" is incredibly demeaning and betrays a typical, condescending bias.

That sentence frames the whole debate that assigns creationists to the category of the unscientific, while evolutionists must be those whose arguments are all scientifically reliable. To suppose that creationistic, highly scientifically-trained Christian creationists argue creationism in spite of scientific evidence while evolutionists argue their case from solid science is naive at best. It is this sort of debate framing that causes creationists, biblical and scientific, to shake their heads at the weakness of the evolutionary polemic.

The writer seems to think that the concept of "evolution" monolithic, lumping together micro and marco evolution with one all-encompassing concept. Creationist scientists clearly accept one as proven by scientific method and hold the other to be suspect through the evidence of the same methodology.

This article is conveys a simplistic, loosely-argued approach that does not seem worthy of the seriousness and complexity of the nature of this study and debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.164.168 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"despite contrary evidence" is condescending, but your "monolithic" accusations are unfounded142.22.115.61 (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

fixed142.22.115.61 (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Reverted! The topic is discussed many times before. Pls go through the archive. Abhishikt (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

O.K.142.22.115.58 (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

can you show me where?142.22.115.58 (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The links to the talk page archive are at the top of this page. You'll see:
 * "Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22"
 * 1 is the oldest, and 22 is the most recent. The Index should help you find what your're looking for. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The statement "despite contrary evidence" needs to be removed. There isn't much point in discussing this any further as it introduces a logical fallacy into the sentence (i.e., begging the question). I'll explain this if I need to but I'm pretty sure there is a page about begging the question already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfhiller (talk • contribs) 04:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no logical fallacy here, as the statement is Not an assertion, it is a FACT, well supported by loads of evidence. Abhishikt (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And also importantly: supported by loads of sources throughout the article (as well as many other articles on evolution). Don't confuse neutrality with a lack of bias, they are not the same thing.  To quote arbcom "Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work."  We do not treat religion as though it is on par with actual science, if we did WP would be a joke like Creation Wiki.  S Æ don <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  04:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You are actually quite confused about the fallacy involved. Although I agree with the broad scientific community that creationism is pseudo-scientific rubbish, I need to defend this position and cannot begin, as the article does, by assuming to be true what is in fact at issue. The statement that creationists hold views contrary to scientific evidence may be true but one cannot introduce the so-called controversy by assuming this. The statement "creationists hold views contrary to scientific evidence" requires argument. Do you understand the fallacy yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfhiller (talk • contribs) 05:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The only thing that WP requires is sourcing - not argumentation - and this article is well sourced. Since the WP:LEDE represents a summary of the body, I suggest you go over the relevant data.  Nonetheless, this has been discussed on this page time and time again and is unlikely to change soon.  I have explained on my talk page how WP policy applies to this instance and although you don't have to agree with me, you do have to build consensus for your proposed edit, which at this point you have failed to do.  You are currently at 3RR, and if you revert again I will have no choice but you report your WP:EDITWARING.   S Æ don <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  05:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll just have to give up then. However, quite clearly not only do you not understand the fallacy of begging the question but you do not understand the very nature of logical fallacies. A fallacy is a formal violation and therefore cannot be defended by appealing to facts as you are doing. Indeed you are committing another logical fallacy here by mistaking the nature of the type of thing you are discussing. Gilbert Ryle called it a category mistake. Good luck on your philosophy exams! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfhiller (talk • contribs) 06:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm admittedly only educated in formal logic to the 3000 level but I'm pretty sure that's enough to understand begging the question. That evolution is a fact is not a controversial premise (so long as you're educated in biology) and it is not being used as a premise to support a circular conclusion.  The debate is between those who accept that evolution is a fact based on evidence and those who want the universe to fit into their bible box - this is an accurate framing of the debate and is not fallacious.  Imagine this were the flat earth page: "the dispute is between those who, despite contrary evidence for an oblate spheroid, believe the earth to be flat, and those who accept the modern conclusions of geology."  If you think that is a problematic statement then we're definitely having a communication breakdown.  S Æ don <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  06:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I admire your persistence. You are correct that the statement that evolution is a fact is in itself an uncontroversial premise. However, in the context of the particular sentence at issue it is controversial by the very use of the word "dispute": one is required so to speak to argue that a dispute exists and therefore cannot assume the correctness of one side or another because the fact that a dispute exists has not yet been established. My complaint about begging the question stems from the peculiar nature of the sentence though I admit it might seem rather obscure. A more straight forward objection is simply to state that a contradiction is involved by using the word "dispute" in a sentence that already assumes that there is in fact no dispute. Mfhiller (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

Moved from my talk page
Although not a formal logical fallacy, begging the question is a logical fallacy. As in: "The debate is between those who, despite contrary evidence... etc." I didn't think it was necessary to consult with others to determine that begging the question should be avoided on Wikipedia. Have it your way if you like. Completely annoying though to find someone deliberately making an article worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfhiller (talk • contribs) 04:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But you deleted that and the warning before it that specifically said not to change it without discussion. Anyway, I'm familiar with the fallacy but I'm not seeing it here so perhaps you can explain it on the article talk page and if it's truly fallacious it can be removed, but from what I'm seeing it's a perfectly legitimate statement.  You have two groups of people involved in the debate: one group who is in denial for, mostly, religious reasons, and a group who isn't.  What hidden controversial premise are you seeing?  S Æ don <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  04:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me be clear: creationism is scientifically unsupported rubbish. I am not here in any sense to defend creationism. However, the (correct) view that evolutionary theory is the best explanation we have of the origin of life is, in the controversy, one side and cannot be assumed to be true at the outset, as in the statement "The debate is between those who, despite contrary evidence...." How can you not see the fallacy? One might just as well say "The debate is between those who are wrong and...." Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfhiller (talk • contribs) 04:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But there is no real debate, at least not scientifically, The controversy is political in nature.  Should an article on holocaust denial not state for a fact that the holocaust happened and that those who deny it are wrong?  S Æ don <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  04:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually creationists think there is a debate. The very fact that there is something that can be described as a controversy at all indicates as much, whether it is scientific, political, or something else. Thus in so far as there are people who disagree with you and I about evolution we cannot "describe" the disagreement in terms that assume one side is correct. Your question regarding an article about holocaust denial is useful here. To answer simply: no an article about holocaust denial should not prima facie state for a fact that the holocaust happened etc. An article about holocaust denial should accurately describe holocaust denial and include arguments against it. Indeed there was a well-publicised debate on exactly this issue in which the late Christopher Hitchens defended David Irving's (a notorious ugly anti-semitic holocaust denier) right to freedom of speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfhiller (talk • contribs) 05:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's just not how our policies and guidelines are setup here. Since creationism is a WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE it is guided by our WP:FRINGE policy.  Now whether creationists think that there is a debate means nothing on WP, no more or less than so those who think the earth is flat or that we live in a geocentric universe.  When it comes to science we represent mainstream scientific thought, give credence to alternative theories when they are in line with scientific method and published by reliable sources, and we treat pseudoscience as pseudoscience.  Our article on the holocaust is unambiguous as to whether it happened, our article on the earth unambiguously states that it is an oblate spheroid and our biology articles unambiguously state that evolution is a factual occurrence.  We even have an article called evolution as theory and fact.  By the way and just fyi, I didn't assume that you were a creationist, especially since you referred to a formal logical fallacy, which is something usually alien to the believers.  Also, do you need me to leave you talkback notices or do you have my talk page watch listed?  S Æ don <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  05:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe then I'll just complain that the sentence is incoherent, which it is: "The dispute is between those who, despite contrary evidence, explain the evidence within creationism based upon their religious beliefs, versus those who accept modern evolutionary biology, geology and cosmology, as supported by naturalism." I'd be embarrassed to write like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfhiller (talk • contribs) 06:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it could be phrased better and as long as it doesn't give WP:UNDUE weight to creationism and makes the same point regarding evolution a change could be good. Any ideas?  Off the top of my head I could see it being rephrased as "The dispute is between those who, despite contrary evidence, support a number of scientifically unsubstantiated beliefs rooted in religion,  versus those who accept the evidence based conclusion of modern evolutionary biology, geology, cosmology and other related fields."  Thoughts? Also, can you please start signing your posts by typing four tildes like so: ~ ?  Also, please follow indentation norms by using colons to create a structured conversation.  I used one to reply to you, so you should use two to reply to me, and so on. Thanks.  S Æ don <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  06:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually instead of "religion" it should probably read something like "rooted in some certain sects of fundamentalist Christianity" since is generally an American fundie phenomenon.  S Æ don <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  07:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the editing advice. I can't help with the sentence much given my already strongly stated opinions but if you like (cringe): "The dispute is between those who despite contrary evidence argue for the biblical account of creation as a scientific theory, and those who defend the conclusions of modern evolutionary biology, geology, cosmology, and other related fields." Mfhiller (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
 * Much more succinct and concise than mine, I like it and I'm sorry you don't like it more.  S Æ don <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  07:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What is not to like about it? Wikipedia cannot present both sides of this question as if they might have equal merit, to be decided by logical debate. Our business is to report what reliable secondary sources have said. Where the overwhelming preponderance of evidence supports one view over the other, standard writing practice suggests that needs to be made clear at the outset. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

User:SmittysmithIII reverted the change with the summary "the source -- Isaak -- does not say anything about creationists presenting the Bible account as a scientific theory, but rather that "Science must be interpreted in light of scripture." http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH100_1.html)." My contention is that per WP:LEDE the lede is an overview of the article and need not be directly sourced, and the new wording is consistent with the article.  Also, the old wording, as pointed out by User:Mfhiller is really bad.  "explain scientific evidence within creationism based upon their religious beliefs" is poorly worded.  I also removed use of the source that was there previous as it is no longer being used to directly support a lede statement.  I'm open to other phrasing if other editors think this phrasing is problematic, but I don't think it's a sourcing issue.   S Æ don <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  21:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this has already been dealt with but I'll disagree with the above revisionist definition of creationism. Creationism insofar as as it can be discussed at all in relation to modern evolutionary theory needs to define itself as a scientific theory. The phrase "science must be interpreted in light of scripture" is either a contradiction in terms or it means exactly what the article says, namely, exactly what creationists believe, that the biblical account of creation is scientific. Creationism is often soft-peddled ("No, really, we don't mean that at all, we mean blah, blah, blah.") Reminds me of the way in which revisionists deal with the holocaust, global warming, etc.. (No, it would be really silly to deny the holocaust or global warming, etc. but we'll persist still in denying the holocaust, global warming etc. because we have new arguments rephrasing the debate blah, blah, blah).Mfhiller (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
 * So just not to be mistaken, I agree with Saedon. Mfhiller (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

I would have to agree (although you can say I have bias, since I support the creation side), I thought this page would be dedicated directly to the controversy. It shouldn't be difficult to weigh in with the two sides, and the relative levels of support etc, but I think it's beyond the scope of a wiki article to answer the question in itself. It's not precisely neutral reporting. It's analogous to saying: 'Should you believe in the bible? ... No you shouldn't.' In an indirect fashion. If people just wanted to learn the orthodox view about evolution they'd go to the evolution page. If creation, then the creation page. But this page should be an impartial observation of the two sides, without rendering independent judgment which I believe is a violation of wiki rules isn't it? Also to clarify, the bible account is a matter of controversial history. Creationism, so far as I understand the term, is the science investigating, explaining and validating the history. I think there's a similar premise behind 'experimental history' such as trying to reduplicate ancient stone spears, or samurai swords with that double-fold technique or whatever, in order to either understand the past, or validate historical accuracy. One final objection. This part here: "Evolution is not disputed within the scientific community and academia, where the level of support for evolution is essentially universal,[12][13][14][15][16][17] while support for Abrahamic accounts or other creationary alternatives is very low among scientists, and virtually nonexistent among scientists in the relevant fields.[18]" Doesn't seem to make any sense at all. If there are scientists, especially scientists in the 'appropriate fields' that support creation, then doesn't that mean they dispute evolution? Isn't that why this article exists at all? Or are we talking about the lack of an official forum for creation/evolution discussions as serious science vs science? If so, that's probably true, but it's part of the creationist complaint, so it's a pretty douchey comment. It makes it sound as if creationists just ignore evolution and go about their day, having no scientific rationale to justify their position. It would be nice if this was fixed too, please. SuperMudz (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

the Earth/ Earth
So let's all agree that "Earth" is a proper name when it refers to the planet Earth and therefore should be capitalised. Let's also agree then that "Earth" should not be preceded by the definite article "the." It is not customary to do this with any proper names except in some cases where the name is plural (e.g., the United States of America). We certainly do not say "the Mars" or "the Susan." We do say "the moon" and "the sun" but that is because "moon" and "sun" are not proper names - and they are not capitalised unless used as the first word of a sentence. Mfhiller (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
 * There seems to be some differing styles on how it is used. Capitalization supports "the Earth" as the correct way to address the planet, while the Associated Press's MoS and other websites (that cite sources) seem to suggest otherwise, that it is "Earth" only when comparing it with other celestial bodies i.e. Mars.  However, there isn't a universal standard, it seems to vary depending on who you ask so I would suggest following Wikipedia's guidelines. - SudoGhost 07:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia guidelines support capitalising "Earth" when it refers to the planet; however, can you explain how this addresses the issue of the definite article? Mfhiller (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
 * The example given in the "Celestial bodies" section of Capitalization is "The Moon orbits the Earth." - SudoGhost 07:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I know what it says... but the sentence relates to the question of capitalisation and only implies use of "the Earth" without stipulating that one ought to say "the Earth" rather than "Earth". I have seen now that there has been considerable discussion of this issue already in relation to the article about Earth; there has also been discussion in relation to the Wikipedia style guide. People are somewhat divided. It would seem that in fact it is acceptable to capitalise "moon" and "sun" when they refer to Earth's moon and sun. Should we then not use the definite article in such instances - but that would be weird, as in "Earth is closer to Moon than Sun." The article on Earth uses both "Earth" and "the Earth"... but not without disagreement about which is correct. Mfhiller (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
 * Sorry, but "the age of the Earth" is far, far more common in English than "the age of Earth". A simple Google search is eough to confirm that. Your argument about proper nouns will also not be found in any grammar book. That rule simply does not exist. Your conception of proper nouns and common nouns is way off base. We rountinely use "the" before proper nouns, like the Netherlands, the Hague, the Sudan, and the Earth, and almost always with names of rivers. As far as the English language is concerned, the Earth is usually not considered a planet like Mars or Saturn, but a major celestial body like the Moon or the Sun, which are indeed proper nouns when they refer to our moon and sun. Usage was established before people realized that the Earth was a planet. Don't get fooled by capitalization: it's inconsistent when applied to the Earth, the Moon or the Sun. Sorry, but "age of Earth" is clearly a minority usage, and sounds a little odd, even though, as you said, it is consistent with the usage for the other planets. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI The Chicago Manual of Style, which is as well respected as any source, states: "The names 'earth', 'sun', and 'moon', are often lowercased, but when used as the names of specific bodies in the solar system they are properly capitalised, as are the names 'Mercury', 'Venus', 'Mars', and the rest. When 'Earth' is used in this way, it is not preceded by an article. 'Sun' and 'Moon', however, even when capitalised, are preceded by the definite article" (Astronomical Terms, 7.115, 14th ed.). The CMS is on its 16th edition by now - has the above changed? Also, the CMS emphasises that there are many "styles" and consistency is therefore to be considered primary. Even if you disagree with the CMS about "Earth" you could at least agree that Wikipedia has not adopted a consistent usage regarding "Earth" vs. "the Earth." As evidence please see the article on Earth. Mfhiller (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Mfhiller
 * Whoa! I just noticed that you pulled this stunt twice before, and were reverted by two other editors. Your behavior is disruptive, and your "justification" for doing so is ludicrous. Furthermore, your knowledge of English grammar is woefully deficient, as basically everything you've said is pure B.S. If you continue your disruptive editing, rest assured that you will wind up at ANI, and will probably be blocked. Thanks for wasting my time! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Whoa!" to you too. I have recognised already both that the issue of "Earth" vs. "the Earth" is contentious and that I was wrong earlier in insisting that "sun" and "moon" should never be capitalised. However, the comment above is just about the most irrational commentary on The Chicago Manual of Style that I have ever witnessed; indeed it is simply the fascist form of an ad hominem argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfhiller (talk • contribs) 19:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's too bad that language is getting heated here. I can agree to stay civil a lot more easily than I can agree that "the age of Earth" sounds like something most native English speakers would actually say. The Earth, as a planet, holds a privileged place in our experience; no human has yet walked the planet Mars. Linguistically, it should be unsurprising that we often make exceptions in the ways we mention our home world.

The Earth article uses "the Earth" abundantly. May I suggest that this discussion be put on hold until the watchers of Earth can be persuaded to proscribe use of "the Earth" throughout that article? My own sense is that a global replacement of "the Earth" by "Earth" on that page leads to some stilted language. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed Mfhiller (talk) 06:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
 * Mfhiller, Do we find another “Earth” out there? No? Then Earth is a proper noun, and should be capitalized. There are moons and suns, but not earths.
 * As to “the”, I find that using the phrase “the Earth” comes much easier than simply “Earth”. Personal preferences? LimpSpider (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is what it is
This article is poorly written and presented. It is repetitive and poorly organised and needs a complete re-write. Centrainly far below wikipedia standards. John D. Croft (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This article identifies its self early on as being about a debate between "people who believe something in spite of something" and the "people who believe the thing that the other people believe in spite of"

There is no problem with this.

On a personal note, I imagine that the people who stand on either side of the fence are either worried that: a)The inference of ignorance in the opening statement might be inadvertently applied to them (if they happen to believe that someone had a hand in designing stuff before it all got here),

or:

b) believe that the inference of said ignorance applies to a wider group of people than those actually involved in the counter-scientific side of the debate.

Irrespective of these issues; if the article is about people who don't believe in 'any' form of evolution despite evidence to the contrary, vs. people who do, then the opening description of the article is perfectly valid. It seems biased, only because of the assumption among creationists that atheists believe all of them to be literal interpreters of the Genesis account, which many are not. Many creationists are worried that they will get lumped in with a truckload of holy-rollers, when they are in truth merely agnostics, with a gentle leaning toward some kind of spiritual belief.

Were the article about an argument between people who believe that the universe and its contents appeared entirely by fluke and those who do not, then the opening description would require changing, but it is not and so it doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.80.242.178 (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead adds new elements
An article lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, and should not need large numbers of citations. Instead, I find a string of 19 citations, not one of which is repeated in the body of the article. There are also statements like "the level of support for evolution is essentially universal" that I cannot find in the body. This kind of problem tends to occur in articles where there is a lot of edit warring (see WP:OVERCITE). However, it would be better if the more controversial statements were developed properly in the body. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Some fixing is definitely needed. Right now there are some ridiculous, nonsensical run-on sentences in the lead. AntidoteWasHad (talk) 04:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I have attempted to split the long "ridiculous, nonsensical run-on sentences" into two sentences.  Hope this works John D. Croft (talk) 05:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Confused lead
I have gotten another impression of the Creation–evolution controversy, than what the lead tell us. So called evolutionists uphold the established scientific methodologies of geology, biology and add some game-theory reasoning and biochemistry about genetics. Creationists on the other hand, follow the pseudoscientific pattern of grasping a so called "theory", using all facts that can support it, and dismissing all contradicting facts by a vast number of counterexplanations. The logic of their thought systems use to evoke a "sense of whackity" among well balanced reviewers, since it doesn't feel consistent, nor consequent.

Therefore it is not a scientific debate, or anything near it – it is a specific brand of bitter pseudoscientific society attacking a scientific society that do very little efforts of defence (unless information is counted), while the attacks from the pseudoscientific society attracts the attention from annoyed judicial instances. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 20:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * But the lead does not say it is a scientific debate and in fact quite strongly implies that creationism is a pseudo-science. Mfhiller (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
 * That is because creationism IS a pseudo-science. 98.212.138.21 (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And your point is what exactly? Mfhiller (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
 * I would have to agree with Hiller in that the lede 'quite strongly implies that creationism is a pseudo-science.' It is mentioned by name 4 times in the article anyway, and the rest of the article reeks of pseudoscience. <i style="text-shadow:lime 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"> Wekn  </i><i style="text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"> reven </i>
 * But lest I be confused for someone defending creationism... anyone who cares to check my history on this page can see that I take the scientific position of modern evolutionary biology. I just don't like pseudo-scientific language like, for example, the claim that "creationism IS a pseudo-science." Emphasising a word, my dear unkown user, does not change the logical sense of a statement. Mfhiller (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
 * Wait. Does the statement "creationism IS a pseudo-science" truly belong in the category of pseudoscience? Does it even purport to be a "scientific statement"? <i style="text-shadow:lime 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"> Wekn  </i><i style="text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"> reven </i> 13:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was using the phrase loosely to object to someone's emphasising the word "is" as though the emphasis itself makes the statement more true. I don't wish to get into an argument here about what constitutes a scientific statement as I am sure we'll all disagree. Mfhiller (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
 * You're probably right. <i style="text-shadow:lime 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"> Wekn  </i><i style="text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"> reven </i>
 * I have something to ask. Pseudoscience is “a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific”. (Definitions may vary in wording)
 * The Scientific method is Observation --> Question --> Hypothesis --> Prediction --> testing --> Knowledge.
 * What a hypothesis hinges on is the validation of predictions. Although even then it may be a false hypothesis, or a partial explanation.
 * I don’t know if creationism makes any predictions. Can a list of creationist predictions and the accompanying falsifying data be made? Sincerely LimpSpider (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to provide some insight: Eighty years ago, both Creation and Evolution would have been considered theories. Essentially, a slew of well-fitting hypotheses clumped together. Regardless of wether or not they have been well-supported by evidence. The media (which includes textbooks, newspapers, internet, television, and even your high school Biology teacher), that ever-present interpreter of "scientific complexity" for the public, has changed their definitions. Now, a vast majority of the public sincerely believes a theory can become a law! Now how about that last little step in the above representation? Knowledge? We're exiting the realm of science and entering philosophy, here. A kind which does not even belong to the philosophy of science, but rather, ontology and epistemology. Thank you. I will be leaving Wikipedia forever, now, precisely because of a recent encounter with knowledge. Which seems to lie chiefly outside the realm of the empirical. <i style="text-shadow:lime 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"> Wekn  </i>TAKN 16:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Creation museum
An IP editor added Creation museum to See also and Raeky removed it as being "Maybe not the most relevant". That surprises me. What is the Creation Museum about, if not the controversy? RockMagnetist (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's nothing about the controversy, it's about sole promotion of creationist ideas, and nothing about the other side of the debate, ergo not the most relevant topic for this article. There's metric tons of material out there and groups and places that promote just creationism, it's not all relevant here. At least that's my opinion, and it was removed per WP:BRD... — raeky  t  15:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * True, the museum just promotes creationism, but with the intent of undermining evolution; also, the article is all about the controversy. It would be quite appropriate to discuss the museum in this article - under Forums, perhaps. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. — raeky  t  20:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Become a fact?
A recent IP edit focussed my attention on the phrase "Evolution has become an undisputable fact within the scientific community and in academia ..." Can something become a fact? How about "The scientific community and in academia has come to recognize that Evolution is an undisputable fact ..."? RockMagnetist (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Something can become a fact in the scientific community if tons of undeniable evidence has accumulated for it. As another example, black holes were once thought unlikely to exist even though they were theoretically predicted, but tons of observational evidence has made its existence an accepted fact among astronomers. Anyway, all it takes is to simply change "has become" to "is" in a minor edit. Cadiomals (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That still makes it sound like it's only a fact in some circles, namely the scientific community and academia. The essential property of a fact is that it's true whether anyone believes in it or not. That goes for black holes or evolution. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. It has always been a fact from long before humanity existed. I support RockMagnetist's version.--Charles (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I changed "has become" to "is" after all. That should be enough. Cadiomals (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that "Evolution is an undisputable fact within the scientific community and in academia" still makes it sound relative. Another possibility is "Evolution is a fact, undisputed within the scientific community and in academia." However, my reading of the article on Evolution as fact and theory is that the consensus is not that simple. That is one reason why I said in an earlier section that a few statements like this one should be developed properly in the body of the article. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, congratulations everyone on making evolution a fact on Wikipedia. Long ago there were certain articles being defended heavily by a pro-evolution faction, and others that were just as fiercely defended by the religious faction. It was always entertaining to watch the tide wash in and out -- an innocent bystander could never get a word in edgewise on these articles because of the hordes of first responders waiting in the wings to put things right.
 * After an absence of some years, I return to see that the strident believers in evolution outnumber the wrong-headed religious skeptics and the latter have been roundly shouted down pretty much everywhere. So all the articles related to evolution state both the facts and the fashionable conjecture with firm certainty, and put any whiff of creationism in proper context with quotes: the wackos say "this" and they say "that", but they're clearly wackos and the scientists have all the true facts.
 * You should all be proud of yourselves. It took some time and effort, but it was apparently a job worth doing. Now all the schoolkids looking to Wikipedia as their first and only source will have only one pure, unadulterated viewpoint, and the facts won't have to stand on their own any more. 50.125.103.252 (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the heads up. I assume that you don't have a problem with the article, but perhaps with the common definitions of "fact". Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Science
Intelligent design, a major component of creation, disputes the inner workings of evolution. How is it not a scientific debate? It's not like I'm outright advocating the creationist side. 76.247.154.214 (talk) 05:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * To say this is a scientific debate implies that there is a debate in science. There is no debate in science, so we need to be careful not to imply there is. This is a debate between science and non-science. I think the article properly frames that now. Is there an area you think could use improvement in specifying that domain? Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Intelligent design. Also, many supporters of the theory of evolution frequently disagree over the aspects of it. 76.247.154.214 (talk) 05:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * ID isn't science either. Please read that article carefully. There is some debate over very specific mechanisms of evolution (such as the part that horizontal gene transfer plays), but there is no debate in science whatsoever that evolution happens, and the theory of evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. In other words, there is no debate in science over whether evolution is "real". See Level of support for evolution.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm studying mechanical engineering, and have taken college level physics and chemistry courses, so I have more experience than your rather demeaning tone implies. You can't simply disqualify something as science because the line is quite blurry, for lack of the better word; ID works to discredit the components of the theory of evolution as well. Indeed, one side may be correct, but there still lies a debate that must be addressed. For example, simply shutting out Republicans from national debate because they're believed to wrong doesn't cut it. A balanced debate is the key to truth. 76.247.154.214 (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This isn't a forum. On wikipedia, we go by reliable sources exclusively, and all the reliable sources we have indicate that evolution is well supported and universally accepted within the scientific community. If you have other sources to present, please list them and we can discuss their inclusion here. We cannot imply there is debate in the scientific community about evolution when our sources say there is not.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There are multitudes of sources detailing creation scientists holding debates, interviews with evolutionists, among other things. I shouldn't have to listen to them as you should be aware of them anywho. Let me reiterate that I'm not outright advocating creationism over evolution. 76.247.154.214 (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Creation science" is not science, by any stretch of he immagination. Nor is "Intelligent design". There is no significant debate within the scientific community as to whether evolution happens, and no significant support for "creation science" and "intelligent design". Please read the reliable sources given in the article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Beyond the scope of things that are "not science" like creation science, when people who do not follow the theory of evolution criticize aspects of it, that does not qualify as scientific debate? How does one draw the line? 76.247.154.214 (talk) 06:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said, we need a reliable source indicating that there is a debate within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution before we can imply in our article that there is such a debate. Yes, you would have to list them for us to discuss them. A list of moderated debates between "creation scientists" and scientists will not be helpful. We need quality sources discussing this issue specifically to counteract the ones we use in the article already. They would need to be pretty damning to provide enough weight to meet WP:FRINGE and other content policies. I would suggest reading through this article, and the others I've linked, before searching.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, read our key policies before you do so that you know what kind of sources are acceptable here on WP and don't waste your time. The main policies you should be familiar with are WP:V, WP:IRS, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In all fairness, most of the sources calling it a purely cultural debate advocate for the theory. I should not have to cite a quote that much of the world believes there are scientific reasons to oppose evolution.
 * I'm going to reiterate that intelligent design has not been proven. All I'm doing is establishing the middle ground and establishing the balance that an encyclopedia should have.
 * Furthermore, I don't appreciate mockingly putting creation science in quotations. I'm trying to stay polite, on the other hand.76.247.154.214 (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Man Jess [below] is right, this fails WP:TALK and should be archived unless sourced suggestions for article improvement are shown. However, there's no middle ground between science and pseudoscience, the issue is that intelligent design can not be disproved by empirical science, supernatural magic is always an explanation for anything and for that very reason it can't be tested by the scientific method and so is not science. . . dave souza, talk 20:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, this isn't a forum. If you can't provide sources, then we can't discuss them. Please provide specific suggestions for improving the article, backed up by reliable sources, or the discussion can't really continue.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no controversy
What seems to have been forgotten on both sides is that Evolution does not concern itself with how something came into being but how it evolved once it existed. Therefore, you can't have a controversy between the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.171.117 (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There is, in fact, a controversy. The "Creation" side refers to the side supporting the creation theory, and the "Evolution" side referes to the side supporting the big bang theory and the evolution theory. (The creation theory is in direct conflict with the big bang theory, but omits the need for a theory opposed to evolution.) Also, the creation side is further split into Young Earth Creationism—taking the Bible literally—and Old Earth Creationism—adapting the Bible to fit nonbiblical findings. Old Earth Creationism has several theories to account for their adaption, but it is unnecessary to get into all of those.


 * Now, the debate gets a bit complicated with the definition of evolution. One definition is the mutation and natural selection within a species, genus, family, what have you. This most creationist sources have no problem with, and fully endorse. Another definition, however, is the change via the first definition into a new type of living being. This is what the debate is about. Essentially, the evolution side believes that an explosion created all matter, which formed on its own into life, and the creation side believes that God created all matter and formed life from nothingness.72.74.136.49 (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

FAQ
Perhaps a FAQ for this talk page would reduce the number of forums. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The FAQ for Intelligent design is well written and appropriate for this page too. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

A custom header like Talk:Intelligent design/Notes (or a more streamlined version) could also replace the generic talk page header. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I have created a draft for the header here. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

"fact" is still an issue.
Yes, I saw the previous discussion. I fully accept that evolution is essentially, universally accepted in academia and the scientific community. That's not my issue (and that is much of what I read above). My issue with "fact" has to do with "fact" potentially meaning proven to the extent that there is no need for further change and development. This plays into the silly creationist ploy that evolutionary thought is constantly changing because the "theory" (theory in the sense of a guess) is wrong; that's why there are subtle changes in the "how of evolution" as time progresses. In actual reality, the theory (theory in the sense of the definition used by the US national academy of sciences) of evolution is constantly being tweaked and improved upon as we would expect to happen through scientific research. More discoveries lead to greater understanding.

Because "fact" could be interpreted to mean proven to the point of needing no further changes or adjustments, I would suggest the following substitution that avoids this issue and that lame ploy. Substitute, "The concept that life on Earth evolved from one species to another over time is undisputed within the scientific community and in academia, where the level of support for evolution is essentially universal" for the current "Evolution is an undisputed fact within the scientific community and in academia, where the level of support for evolution is essentially universal." Yes, I know it is a little longer, but better longer and clear than opening the way for the silly.

Don't know if I will ever come back, but that is my one issue with the article. Rather good article, IMHO, despite this issue. 149.164.23.66 (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I understand your concern, I think that you need to read Q3 of Talk:Evolution/FAQ. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I read Q3 of the FAQ, but it doesn't really address my point so perhaps I wasn't clear enough. My issue is all about semantics, context, and storytelling as opposed to a disagreement over facts.  For example, if someone said "Evolution is an undisputed fact" in a presentation at a scientific conference, I would have absolutely no objection.  However, the context of the intended audience really matters and good storytelling accounts for this.


 * You have to understand that people are going to come into this page with their own ideas as to what is a "fact" and what is "evolution". These are reasonably common words, but each has their own specific meaning in a scientific context.  Neither of these words are defined before that sentence and as a result, people will use whatever definitions they came in with.  I mentioned the problems regarding "fact" in my previous post, but the issue is widened because of common misconceptions regarding "evolution".  Too many people already confound evolution with speciation (certainly it's a related term, but it's not quite the same thing).  There are others who confound evolution with abiogenesis.  And there are even people who confound evolution with the much shortened view that it's the statement that humans and chimps share a distant, common ancestor.  Consider each of these common misconceptions and then call them undisputed facts (as in scientific fact).  You can get away with speciation being an undisputed fact for a limited set of examples, but "abiogenesis" and "sharing a distant ancestor" are certainly not well established, repeatable observations.  I concur with you that in the scientific, academic sense there is nothing wrong with that statement, but that sentence can and will be badly misinterpreted by much of the general public. To me, this is problematic storytelling.  That is my objection to that sentence.149.164.23.66 (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is another wiki article that goes into more depth: Evolution as fact and theory. It's linked both from this article and the FAQ. That does attempt to do the definitions - and there are not a few! Please improve it if you can. But remember that evolution is not about abiogenesis, however much creationists want it to be (unless of course you are using the word in the Spencerian sense). Chris55 (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Neither OR nor SYN
Gaba p has accused me of "WP:OR and WP:SYN, please stop by the talk page to propose and explain your edits before making more of them". That is not true. I have given reference a secondary source that does this synthesis and discusses the other sources in context. This page lists orthodox talk.origins arguments on the controversy. Please allow statements from the published literature on Popper, as well. the talk.origins arguments are misrepresenting Popper's views, because they quote selectively and out of the wider context. --rtc (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Rtc, thanks for stopping by the talk page to discuss your edits. Your edit was quite large so I'll section it in pieces and I'll explain my reasoning for removing each.
 * Notwithstanding the fact that both sides of the creation-evolution controversy have invoked Popper to support their views, he himself has his own view, which is different from asking questions of falsifiability.  This is what I call mostly WP:OR and WP:SYN. You referenced this statement with a mash up of several sources instead of pointing simply to a single WP:RS to support it. If any one of those sources clearly back the statement then use only that one (preferably with a quote), otherwise I'm led to assume that you came to that conclusion after your own original research through the synthetitazion of various sources.
 * About the controversy itself, he wrote that he considered it "a somewhat sensational clash between a brilliant scientific hypothesis concerning the history of the various species of animals and plants on earth, and an older metaphysical theory which, incidentally, happened to be part of an established religious belief". This quote is mentioned in the source you gave but I'm not sure that the source makes it clear that he was talking specifically about this issue. Furthermore the word controversy is not mentioned in that source and it would appear to put both views on the same footing, which is advised against as per WP:GEVAL.
 * with a footnote to the effect that "[he] agree[s] with Professor C.E. Raven when, in his Science, Religion, and the Future, 1943, he calls this conflict 'a storm in a Victorian tea-cup'; though the force of this remark is perhaps a little impaired by the attention he pays to the vapours still emerging from the cup--to the Great Systems of Evolutionist Philosophy, produced by Bergson, Whitehead, Smuts, and others." This bit I removed simply because I felt it was irrelevant and did not add anything of value to the article.
 * As with everything in WP, other editors can of course disagree with me and restore your edit in whole or in part if they so see fit. I hope I've properly addressed your concerns. Cheers. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  14:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As I already said, I clearly wrote in that references what the primary sources are. This is Popper's view, spread over some sources as he developed it, and falsifiability is hardly ever mentioned. My statement is summarizing that simple fact. I also gave one secondary source that does any synthesis that might be in there. WP:GEVAL is about giving due weight to viewpoints, it is not about distorting viewpoints, such as misrepresenting Popper to have claimed that there is such a thing as "science" as a belief that is somehow intrinsically more justified than others, or creationism to be intrinsically less credible than evolution, which he clearly did not. The article section under debate and the sources it uses are suggesting the opposite, and thus misrepresenting Popper. Popper's position is not easy to understand, as he disagrees more or less with all positions that are popular, sometimes in ways that are not quite intuitive. Popper said that modern Darwinism is "the most successful explanation" Popper doesn't agree with those who say that creationism is "not even wrong" (because of being unfalsifiable, or similar arguments). Popper says that creationism is wrong. But he certainly agrees that some of it is true, such as understanding things as a creation and criticizes both sides, science and creationism:
 * The Darwinian revolution is still proceeding. But now we are also in the midst of a counter-revolution, a strong reaction against science and against rationality. I feel that it is necessary to take sides in this issue, if only briefly; and also, in a Darwin lecture, to indicate where Darwin himself stood. My position, very briefly, is this. I am on the side of science and rationality, but I am against those exaggerated claims for science that have sometimes been, rightly, denounced as "scientism". ... Although Darwin destroyed Paley's argument from design ... [he] was most modest and undogmatic in his claims. ...It is important to realize that science does not make assertions about ultimate questions -- about the riddles of existence, or about man's task in this world. This has often been well understood. But some grat scientists, and many lesser ones, have misunderstood the situation. The fact that science cannot make any pronouncement about ethical principles has been misinterpreted as indicating that there are no such principles ... To me it seems that [Paley's and Darwin's problem of creative design] may not be within the reach of science. And yet I do think that science has taught us a lot about the evolving universe that bears in an interesting way on [that problem]. I think that science suggests to us ... a picture of a universe that is inventive or even creative ... I think that scientists, however sceptical, are bound to admit that the universe, or nature, or whatever we may call it, is creative. For it has produced creative men: it has produced Shakespeare and Michelangelo and Mozart, and thus indirectly their works. It has produced Darwin, and so created the theory of natural selection. Natural selection has destroyed the proof for the miraculous specific intervention of the Creator. But it has left us with the marvel of the creativeness of the universe, of life, and of the human mind. Although science has nothing to say about a personal Creator, the fact of the emergence of novelty, and of creativity, can hardly be denied. I think that Darwin himself, who could not "keep out of the question", would have agreed that, though natural selection was an idea which opened up a new world for science, it did not remove, from the picture of the universe that science paints, the marvel of creativity; nor did it remove the marvel of freedom: the freedom to create; and the freedom of choosing our own ends and purposes. To sum up these brief remarks: The counter-revolution against science is intellectually unjustifiable; morally it is indefensible. On the other hand, scientists should resist the temptations of scientism. They should always remember, as I think Darwin always did, that science is tentative and fallible. Science does not solve all the riddles of the universe, nor does it promise ever to solve them. Nevertheless it can sometimes throw some unexpected light even on our deepest and probably insoluble riddles." (from "natural selection and the emergence of mind")
 * It is completely clear that Popper does not reduce things to questions of falsifiability and agrees with none of the two sides. --rtc (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Whoa that's a lot of text O.O. Not trying to be rude here, but take a look at WP:WALLOFTEXT, you'll get far more engagement from other editors if you keep your comments down to a reasonable length. Wikipedia works by relying mainly in secondary sources to reference statements. In your case I can tell that you clearly have a lot of knowledge about Popper, but you can't source a statement to several WP:PRIMARY sources (in this case by Popper himself) because you'll almost certainly end up breaching WP:OR and/or WP:SYN. I'd advise you to try to come up with an alternative proposal of your edit backed as much as possible by that reliable secondary source you mention and if you must include a book by Popper himself, make the statement so clear that no interpretation on your part is required. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  21:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My comment is actually not so long. Most of it is a lengthy quote from Popper to show you his actual views on the controversy, which are not about falsifiability. See, the problem starts with the unsupported claim that Popper "set out the concept of falsifiability as a way to distinguish science and pseudoscience". This unbacked claim sets the framework for what follows, for the discussion of falsifiability: As if it would be able to decide whether evolution is a pseudoscience, and as if that was what Popper had to say about the issue. Nothing could be further from truth. In Popper's works, Popper discusses questions of falsifiability of evolution. But 1) he doesn't do that in any way to ask whether it's pseudoscience. Even where he held evolution not to be falsifiable, he termed it a meaningful metaphysical research programme, not a pseudoscience. That is an important fact completely ignored by that initial statement in that section. 2) Concerning the creation-evolution controversy, falsifiability is a minor point in Popper's work. It's perhaps 5%. The major point, in contrast, are Popper's statements quoted above. Also, Popper has his own views on evolution, his own "spearhead model" and "active darwinism", and his support for Günter Wächtershäuser's theory on abiogenesis. This article clearly gives grossly undue weight to falsifiability while describing Popper's views. --rtc (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand your point Rtc, but you need to present a proposed edit referenced with reliable secondary sources, not just Popper's own work. Also, if you believe the article gives too much weight to Poppers' view, why would you want to add even more? Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  23:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to say that the article gives too much weight to Popper's view. While describing Popper's view, too much weight is given to falsifiability, despite the fact that this is not what Popper is concerned about much. These are issues for those who think the question "What is science?" is meaningful and can help to make a decisive argument in the controversy. However, that view wasn't shared by Popper, and those who invoke him to this effect quote him out of context (as you can see from the passages I quoted above, which discuss the controversy, but clearly do not focus on falsifiability). To my knowledge, there is no secondary source that adequately discusses Popper's views on the creation-evolution controversy. The existing ones focus almost entirely on the question of falsifiability, simply ignoring the rest, the majority of what he wrote. The one I quoted is the exception in that it discusses Popper's evolutionary views, though not in the context of and his views on the creation-evolution controversy. Why, when describing Popper's own view, do we need secondary sources? Secondary sources are biased in what they discuss. WP:BALANCE mentions "drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." The secondary sources that do exist and that are actually used here, however, are not disinterested. They clearly focus on questions of falsifiability to make a point not shared by Popper. Popper is being used, not to say abused, by both sides of the controversy for their own purposes. This is well known. --rtc (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Secondary sources are always needed. WP:PRIMARY clearly states: Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. If you have a reliable secondary source that makes the analysis you are presenting then you use that source. You can't make that analysis by yourself based on Popper's own work (ie: a primary source) because it's a violation of one of the core policies of WP. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  00:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not making an analysis. I am simply referring to popper's own statements, clearly understandable to anyone. There simply is no reliable, disinterested secondary source on Popper's views on the creation-evolution controversy, and the existing section misrepresents his views. I am voting for the section to be deleted, for the lack of useful secondary sources that describe Popper's views, or rewritten to clearly state that it presents Popper as commonly (ab)used by people involved in the creation-evolution controversy, not Popper's actual own views, which I showed you above to be entirely different. It is simply completely wrong to state something along the lines of "Creationists claimed that a key evolutionary concept, that all life on Earth is descended from a single common ancestor, was not mentioned as testable by Popper, and claimed it never would be" without even mentioning that Popper worked with Günter Wächtershäuser on extremely precise theories of how said common ancestor developed, answering this very question down to the molecular level, including testing these hypotheses by performing experiments in laboratories. All that's discussed is nonsense about falsifiability, not mentioning a single word about the scientific and philosophical problems Popper and friends actually solved. --rtc (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok Rtc, then propose for the section to be deleted and wait to see what other editors have to say. I think that my point that you need secondary sources in WP has been made abundantly clear by now so there's little else I can add to this discussion. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  00:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources are important, but to simply state what Popper said, we don't actually need them. If all we have are biased, inaccurate, interested secondary sources with obvious contradictions to primary sources and their own statements (see section below), that's clearly worse than using primary sources. Plus, the section is already use the exact same source I quoted at length above, and one other Popper source. We shouldn't have double standards here. I am not sure the section needs to be deleted in its entirety. I would vote, at least, for the following deletions:


 * Philosopher of science Karl R. Popper set out the concept of falsifiability as a way to distinguish science and pseudoscience:[102] testable theories are scientific, but those that are untestable are not.[103] In Unended Quest, Popper once famously declared " I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme, a possible framework for testable scientific theories," while pointing out it had "scientific character".[104]


 * In what one sociologist derisively called "Popper-chopping",[105] opponents of evolution seized upon Popper's definition statement to claim evolution was not a science, and claimed creationism was an equally valid metaphysical research program.[106] For example, Duane Gish, a leading Creationist proponent, wrote in a letter to Discover magazine (July 1981): "Stephen Jay Gould states that creationists claim creation is a scientific theory. This is a false accusation. Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious)."[107]


 * Popper responded to news that his conclusions were being used by anti-evolutionary forces by affirming that evolutionary theories regarding the origins of life on earth were scientific because "their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."[108] Creationists claimed that a key evolutionary concept, that all life on Earth is descended from a single common ancestor, was not mentioned as testable by Popper, and claimed it never would be.[109]


 * In fact, Popper wrote admiringly of the value of Darwin's theory.[110] O o nly a few years later, Popper wrote, " I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological' ... I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation." His conclusion, later in the article is "The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it ... is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true."[111]


 * Debate among some scientists and philosophers of science on the applicability of falsifiability in science continues.[112] Simple falsifiability tests for common descent have been offered by some scientists: for instance, biologist and prominent critic of creationism Richard Dawkins and J.B.S. Haldane both pointed out that if fossil rabbits were found in the Precambrian era, a time before most similarly complex lifeforms had evolved, "that would completely blow evolution out of the water."[113][114]


 * Falsifiability has caused problems for creationists: in his 1982 decision McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, Judge William R. Overton used falsifiability as one basis for his ruling against the teaching of Creation Science in the public schools, ultimately declaring it "simply not science".[115]
 * --rtc (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the need nor agree with the reasons stated for the removal of that information. Regards. Gaba <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  02:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The information is partly wrong, partly redundant, partly misrepresents Popper. I don't see the need for, nor agree with the existence of that information. The essence of what the section previously stated is still there. Do you have any argument against the removal? Do you disagree with all deletions or just some of them? -rtc (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Popper and falsifiability
Gaba p claims that "the previous statement in place accurately represents the source used". Apart from the fact that the source is not WP:RS, but an unpublished web page of low quality, the statement, contrary to Gaba p's claim, actually does not even accurately represent that web page. The page says: "it spurred the young Karl Popper [note 3] to put forward his own way of telling apart science (of which the exemplar was the new physics) from pseudoscience (of which the exemplars were Marxism and Freudianism). Popper also accepted the legitimacy of metaphysical statements, but denied they were any part of science ... Popper knew that the Falsification Principle could not be falsified" This, in fact, supports my statement that Popper did NOT "set out the concept of falsifiability as a way to distinguish science and pseudoscience", and that not everything that is unfalsifiable is automatically pseudoscience -- Popper would be quite stupid to claim this, as it would mean his own view was pseudoscience. In fact, the statement quite accurately reflects what the view the source calls positivism: "This view affirmed that the only true knowledge was scientific knowledge, and that only positively established proofs were scientific knowledge. This meant the positivists had to be able to distinguish between real science and the pseudosciences of phrenology, spiritualism and the other crank theories". However, Popper's view was opposed to positivism. --rtc (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi again Rtc :) Whether that source is a WP:RS or not is a legitimate concern and I'd advise you to present it over at WP:RSN to get some perspective. In the meantime we use that source since it's the only one we've got. The article states:
 * ..Popper set out the concept of falsifiability as a way to distinguish science and pseudoscience: Testable theories are scientific..
 * while your edit stated:
 * ..Popper set out the concept of falsifiability and wrote that testable theories are scientific..
 * What the source states is:
 * ..Popper (to) put forward his own way of telling apart science from pseudoscience..
 * I believe the first statement (the one currently in place) accurately summarizes this sentence, simply replace way to distinguish for way of telling apart and you have pretty the same meaning. Your statement removes this fact which is why I reverted it. If you have a better source for this that would be great. But unless we find a better source, the one being used should be represented as accurately as possible. Cheers mate. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  14:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Popper was certainly looking for distinguishing science from pseudoscience, this is right. However, he did not set out the concept of falsifiability to do that. And the source does not claim that either. In any way, Popper never said that falsifiability can make that distinction, even if he found falsifiability as the result of such a consideration. I think he states this quite clearly in the foreword to The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge. I am sorry to only be able to quote from the German edition: "mein Abgrenzungskriterium ist oft in phantastischer weise missverstanden worden ... meine Absicht war, alle empirisch-wissenschaftlichen diskutablen Theorien, einschließlich der überholten oder widerlegten, also aller wahren und falschen empirischen Theorien von den pseudo-wissenschaftlichen Theorien abzugrenzen, aber auch von der Logik, der reinen Mathematik, der Metaphysik, der Erkenntnistheorie, und überhaupt der Philosophie" which basically means "My criterion of demarcation has often been misunderstood in a quite phantasmagorial sense ... I intended to demarcate all theories debatable in the empirical sciences, including the obsolete or refuted ones, that is, all true and false empirical theories, from the pseudoscientific theories, but also from logic, pure mathematics, metaphysics, epistemology, and, after all, philosophy. " (underlined by me). It is clear that Popper contradicts the myth that "Popper set out the concept of falsifiability as a way to distinguish science and pseudoscience" --rtc (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Rtc, but that's an interpretation of a primary source and thus WP:OR. The secondary source we have is correctly represented by the statement in place. If you claim that Popper did not do/say what that source says he did/said then you either need another secondary source or a primary source so clear that no interpretation is required to arrive to that conclusion. In the quote you present above I just can't see that. Please note that I have nothing against your edit, only with the sources or lack of them present in it. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  21:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I merely provided you with the primary source to make clear Popper's actual views. There is no interpretation involved. Popper is clear in what he says and by the way WP:OR says that "A primary source may .. be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge" This is what I did: A straightforward statement that falsifiability is meant to distinguish not science from pseudoscience, but from a whole lot of other things as well. A lot of unreliable secondary sources get that one wrong, and it is well known that this is the case. But the point is, the source provided does not back the claim that is made, contrary to what you claim. It is emphatically not represented by the statement in place, which is "Popper set out the concept of falsifiability as a way to distinguish science and pseudoscience". And there cannot be a reliable secondary source about it, because, as I have clearly shown, Popper rejects this claim. Please show a secondary source that attributes such a claim to Popper and that considers the conflicting statement from said primary source. Otherwise this claim has to be deleted, I'm sorry! --rtc (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with you on two things: first I believe the statement in place is in fact an accurate representation of the secondary source used and second I do not believe that the quote by Popper you presented unequivocally represents the statement you put forward, ie that: ..Popper set out the concept of falsifiability and wrote that testable theories are scientific... In any case I don't pretend to hold the ultimate truth in WP so what do you say we do this: reinstate your edit into the article sourced to that quote from Popper and if no other editor has a problem with it then we leave it there, even though I personally might not agree with it. Sounds fair to you? Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  22:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it can be an accurate representation. For all the inaccuracies it contains, the secondary source nowhere makes a connection between pseudoscience and falsifiability. And it would be completely absurd, as I have shown: How could Popper "set out the concept of falsifiability as a way to distinguish science and pseudoscience", yet claim "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme", and even say it has "scientific character"? How can a pseudoscience have scientific character? And: I did not put forward any statement at all! I merely deleted part of what was already there that is not backed by the source. So why do you ask for a source? The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material (not the editor who removes it, WP:V) --rtc (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, the article states: while the source says: I see this as an accurate representation, you obviously disagree. I have proposed that you reinstate your edit sourced to that quote from Popper that you claim makes Popper's views clear (instead of using that secondary source you dislike) and I will not challenge it again unless another editor does so. Is this not acceptable to you? Regards. Gaba <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  23:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ..Popper set out the concept of falsifiability as a way to distinguish science and pseudoscience: Testable theories are scientific..
 * ..Popper (to) put forward his own way of telling apart science from pseudoscience..
 * My edit did not add any material, so I do not understand what purpose a reference should have. I don't think that source should be used in this article, because it doesn't discuss the creation-evolution controversy. Using that source would thus be OR. I just provided the source here on the discussion page as a plausibility argument to give you some background knowledge. I still think that the statetment "Popper (to) put forward his own way of telling apart science from pseudoscience" unambiguously makes no connection to falsifiability; the term is simply missing. In fact, the statement that follows says that "Popper also accepted the legitimacy of metaphysical statements, but denied they were any part of science". This rules out any possibility that Popper suggests anything along the lines of "falsifiability as a way to distinguish science and pseudoscience". If we cannot agree, the old version with the error has to stay in place. --rtc (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've added a secondary source for the statement in discussion. I believe it clearly backs the statement made in the article with a direct connection to falsifiability. What do you think? Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  00:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh. The source you cite is a tertiary source. It does not back the statement either. The statement simply does not correctly reflect Popper's view... The source says: "Popper presented this proposal as a way to draw the line between statements belonging to the empirical sciences and 'all other statements ... – whether they are of a religious or of a metaphysical character, or simply pseudoscientific'" This statement is completely correct. Then, contradicting what it said, the source adds "It was both an alternative to the logical positivists’ verification criteria and a criterion for distinguishing between science and pseudoscience" Clearly it was not, for "all other statements" obviously encompasses much more than merely the pseudoscientific ones. Popper was originally motivated by the question of distinguishing science and pseudoscience. That is the kernel of truth that's in there. But the criterion as actually put forward has long given up that original motivation. If you read The logic of Scientific Discovery, where Popper originally wrote about falsifiability, the term "pseudoscience" actually does not occur even once in the entire book. The book is an antithesis of verificationism and rejects not just this notion, but its entire purpose. It is not an "alternative". --rtc (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Then we've reached the point where all that's left is for you to take the source to WP:RSN because that's two sources now that you reject based on your own interpretation of Popper's work. Cheers. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  00:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I essentially reject your interpretation of these sources, based on what these sources themselves say. And I do know there cannot be a valid source stating what you are looking for, simply because that's not what Popper's work actually says. There is simply no interpretation in the simple fact that "the pseudoscientific theories, but also from logic, pure mathematics, metaphysics, epistemology, and, after all, philosophy" is simply not equal to "the pseudoscientific theories". The tertiary source itself reaffirms this; "all other statements ... – whether they are of a religious or of a metaphysical character, or simply pseudoscientific" is simply not equal to "pseudoscientific statements". It just then makes a statement with which it contradicts itself. The other secondary source also affirms Popper's actual view, while your interpretation is based on reading "falsifiability" where it is not actually written. I don't see how such simple, straightforward facts can demand a lengthy debate. I proposed the deletion of the questionable passages above. There is no need for them. --rtc (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

What the source says: What it is being used to source: I can't make it any more simple than this and again I advise you to raise the issue over at WP:RSN if you feel my representation of the source is either inaccurate or not suitable to source the statement in place. Regards. Gaba <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  02:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * [Popper] proposed as a criterion that the [scientific] theory be falsifiable (...) Popper presented this proposal as a way to draw the line between statements belonging to the empirical sciences and “all other statements – whether they are of a religious or of a metaphysical character, or simply pseudoscientific”. It was (...) a criterion for distinguishing between science and pseudoscience ."
 * Popper set out the concept of falsifiability as a way to distinguish science and pseudoscience
 * The source is self-contradictory. The statement "It was (...) a criterion for distinguishing between science and pseudoscience" contradicts the statement "draw the line between statements belonging to the empirical sciences and 'all other statements – whether they are of a religious or of a metaphysical character, or simply pseudoscientific'" It is a tertiary source, and such sources should generally not be used, because they are the same rank as Wikipedia. They can be useful to evaluate notability or due weight for topics with many secondary sources, but that's it. But the problem is different. You attempt to justify a statement in the article that is simply wrong. No source, be it as "reliable" as it can be, should be used as an excuse for statements that wrong. It is well known that a lot of sources about Popper misrepresent him, because that's exactly what he says in the statement I quoted above: "My criterion of demarcation has often been misunderstood in a quite phantasmagorial sense". We cannot work blindfolded, using secondary sources to back incorrect statements that Popper himself complained about. --rtc (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Addendum: I now checked your source . The issue is as follows: The source says that "he proposed as a criterion that the theory be falsifiable ... It was both an alternative to the logical positivists’ verification criteria and a criterion for distinguishing between science and pseudoscience. Although Popper did not emphasize the distinction, these are of course two different issues (Bartley 1968)". Note: Popper makes a distinction, he just doesn't emphasize it. If you read the Bartley source, you will see that the "falsifiable ... both an alternative..." part of the statement is, however, incorrect. On the one hand, there is the falsifiability criterion: to "draw the line between statements belonging to the empirical sciences and 'all other statements...'", as the tertiary source says. Bartley writes: "Those theoretical statements which are subject to empirical refutation or falsification, by the production of an empirical counter-example, are called scientific" However "Popper's second problem of demarcation is different. Popper also wishes to exclude from science theories (often theories which claim or aspire to scientific status) which have built-in devices for avoiding or deflecting critical arguments -- empirical or otherwise" So Popper clearly does not have one criterion of falsifiability that "was both an alternative" for the one and for the other. He has two demarcation criteria. Falsifiability for the first task, and the notion of "built-in devices for avoiding or deflecting critical arguments" or "stratagems" -- or "unfalsifiable in the second sense", as Bartley calls it -- for the second task. So your source is simply wrong, which is actually quite common for such sources. And the statement for which you use your source is even further from the truth. What Popper is talking about in the remainder of the section is falsifiability, that is, his criterion for the first problem of demarcation. This is not the one that is distinguishing science from pseudoscience. Popper is not discussing whether evolution is a science or a pseudoscience (which would be a question of the second criterion), but whether it is a science or a metaphysical research programme (which is a question of the first criterion)... --rtc (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete the word "psuedoscience" and you could actually cite Popper instead of a later reinterpretation.  I think I'll do it ...

will insert a cite to The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1935; Engl 1959) by Popper URL http://books.google.com/books?id=T76Zd20IYlgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=karl+popper&hl=en&sa=X&ei=C6BAUraFHPfd4AOE1oCYAg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=karl%20popper&f=false on page 18 "Theories then are never empirically verifiable." and "These considerations suggest that not the verifiability but the falsifiability of a system is to e taken as the criterion of demarcation." I have seen metapedia attributing Popper for inventing the epithet 'psuedoscience', as well as 'conspiracy theory' and 'liberal-leftist fake-sciences', but the quote for psuedo science was just a short rail about Jewish teachers teached bolshevic psuedoscience, for example political economy, marxist philosophy -- it was not detailed on characterizing them. Markbassett (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Had to re-enter citation to original Popper book, can imagine someone wanting different words but do not see how citing Popper can be wrong here and there was no Talk note. May have been easier for person to just undo rather than edit text.  Markbassett (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I share rtc's concern that sources are being used that do not mention the creation/evolution controversy. Too much synthesis is underfoot here; it must be cleared away completely. The "Falsifiability" section is turning into an on-wiki essay written by Wikipedians instead of a summary telling the reader what the sources say about creation versus evolution. Binksternet (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I started one edit just putting in the primary source for the section 'Falsifiability' which seemed something you gotta do. It was only when I saw that it was not the source for the description of psuedoscience (his focus was what was science from all else) and that I saw the secondary source of modern usage also does not say "not science" is automatic pseudo (could be poetry or law or religion or anything else) that deleting the word psuedoscience seemed needed.  Markbassett (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not have a problem with quoting Popper per se, but the reliable secondary source we have in place mentions pseudoscience literally. Please take a look at WP:WPNOTRS and WP:PRIMARY: secondary sources are the preferred source to use in WP, not the other way around. Only in certain cases primary sources are acceptable and in this case you are using one to directly contradict what a secondary source states, which is not good. If the issue is the reliability of this secondary source then we can open a ticket over at WP:RSN and see what other editors have to say. Otherwise, the previous wording needs to be restored (the Popper quote can remain though) What do you think? Should we request assistance at WP:RSN? Cheers. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  19:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's another source for Popper, falsifiability and pseudoscience: "To solve the age-old problem of distinguishing science from metaphysics or pseudoscience, Popper invoked the criterion of falsifiability as a substitute for the less rigorous test of verifiability." The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design (page 274). Regards.  Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  00:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

ourside the usa
i have deleted the bit that said this discussion is a debate in the Netherlands. It is not. I am from holland, read a lot of different newspapers, watch a lot of newsmedia on tv, and it's not an issue. Besides, i dont see the Netherlands named in the footnoted sources.

this link is dead btw http://tbo.com/content/2008/feb/16/na-clash-over-creationism-is-evolving-in-europes-s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.210.27.206 (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I did a quick search and found several sources supporting the claim that Creationism is debated in the Netherlands. I have added one. Thanks for pointing out the dead link - I have fixed it. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Why the deletion Apidium 23
Apidium23 deleted the New York times statement that the Discovery Institute claim was signed by few scientists but many evangelists. NYT is a reputable source, why the deletion? Can you explain?John D. Croft (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As best I can tell, Apidium23 did not delete anything, but rather added (or restored) a paragraph. Did the deletion you refer to happen some time ago?  Can you explain what you would like more clearly? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Apidium23 edited a {{cite web format which included a title of that text into a shorter ref format. Though I cannot say why, it does not change the prominent content of the article and anyone clicking through will get to the title anyway.  Markbassett (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Darwin's method of argument
I added the following to the bottom of a paragraph discussing quote mining of Darwin:

Darwin's didactic prose presentation often points out perceived problems with the aspect of the theory under discussion, and then proceeds to rebut those objections; quote mines often quote the objections without the resolutions, leaving the perception that Darwin heavily doubted his own theories. One such typical quote mine reads:

which I then followed with a quote from an existing webpage containing two such quote mines, referencing the site. The edit was deleted because of "not a reliable source". I imagine it is possible to delete my addition because I didn't include a reference which explicitly states the same point I was making about Darwin's writing, but that isn't what the complaint said; it was (I believe) targeted toward the reference which I did include. I could put the change back in with the quote but not the reference, but the quote looses its evidentiary message, as I could have made the quote up myself, making me the quote miner in not providing context. And I presume it's understood that such a quote will not, by definition, be found on any truly reliable source. What is it that I'm required to do here to make the valid point about Darwin's writing? SkoreKeep (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You could use the TalkOrigins Archive, quote 2.6. Note that if you provide the objection, you should also provide the resolution. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

‎