Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive 4

Section regarding Ungtss

 * Ungtss reverted 4 times in a row on the intro of this article. Bensaccount 22:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Ungtss admitted to trolling during this discussion.Bensaccount 22:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Ungtss admitted to being biased towards creationism. (Note that he was not sarcastic in any way when he stated "Since i'm biased, i've just fleshed out my side. would somebody be willing to add to the evolution side?". He had just created a new discussion section proposing falsifiable evidence be stated for evolution and creation and was genuinely attempting to gather data from the other side. Bensaccount 23:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

a couple more reminders:
 * Bensaccount introduced himself to ungtss by calling ungtss a moron three times.

He is a moron (4). Just look at the following point. He is suggesting that this article has reached a consensus and should no longer be edited. Bensaccount 20:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Bensaccount made four edits to a section reached by consensus and unsupported by anyone but himself.
 * Ungtss has a bad habit of using subtle sarcasm when exasperated. Ungtss 23:02, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And he is very easily exasperated to boot, so it is nearly impossible to tell when he is telling the truth or not.Bensaccount 20:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * ungtss knows he is biased, and that's why he invites people who disagree with him to help develop a fair article based on information which they are better equipped to present fairly and accurately. Ungtss 01:26, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But only when they agree with him. Bensaccount 20:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In summary:
 * Ungtss is a bastard. Ungtss 21:31, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think he may be sarcastic now (who can really tell), but I would summarize this section as: Ungtss is not a good candidate for writing NPOV on this page. Bensaccount 21:34, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Let me say it this way. I don't trust either of you to write NPOV on this page without my help. 8))  I don't know enough myself to write NPOV on this page.  So I suggest all of us quote and paraphrase published scholars and polls.  In my opinion, quoting and paraphrasing published scholars and polls is the only way for any of us to write NPOV on this page.  ---Rednblu | Talk 22:09, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * agreed:). ungtss the moron does not trust himself either, and greatly appreciates the willingness of so many intelligent people to keep us "crazy creationists" on our toes:).  Ungtss 22:18, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Ungtss has stated that NPOV is a quality attributed only to the winner of a revert war. Bensaccount 21:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An actual poll. What is the debate?
CREATIONISM

How set are your opinions on the issue of teaching either creationism or evolution in public schools? Is your mind completely made up, or is it possible you might change your mind at some point in the future?

People for the American Way

Mar, 2000

mind     mind       not is      can      sure made   change up     should teach evolution only       59%       37%        4% teach evolution and creationism       46        53         2 should teach creationism only       75        24         1

Based on Americans who believe public schools should: teach evolution only = 20%; teach evolution and creationism = 63%; teach creationism only = 16%.

2000

Universe: United States

From: People for the American Way Action Fund Research and Forecast, Inc.           301 East 57 Street New York, NY 10022 (212) 593-6424

Method: telephone

Sample size: 1500

What is the debate? It seems to me the debate is about whether or not evolution or creation is the best explanation for how people got here. And, in America of all places, 63% of the voters think that creation and evolution are 50 - 50. So, in my opinion, evolution is losing the debate. 8(( ---Rednblu | Talk 23:04, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No if that were the case then the article would be renamed "popular opinion on the Creation vs. evolution debate". Bensaccount 23:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Part of your mistaken personal research here is assuming that the debate is not in the public. However, if you consult the meaning of the English word debate, you will find that the debate is in the public.  This is not merely "popular opinion" as you mistakenly assume.  For the debate goes much further than "popular opinion," such as "paper or plastic."  These people are voting ignoramuses into office merely because they take the right side in the debate which is public. ---Rednblu | Talk 00:52, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't it matter what's correct as well as what's believed to be correct?

Genealogy
<<''Contemporary creationists believe that these geneologies are a selective report of the geneology leading from Adam to Abraham, the father of Israel. They believe this because the account of Cain's murder of Abel, Cain's banishment, and the subsequent birth of Seth is followed immediately by a geneology reporting only Seth as the son of Adam, and no account is given of any women in the geneology, or of the origin of Cain's wife.''>>

There are some creationists that believe that there are, or at least could be, gaps in the genealogies. Is this what the paragraph is about? Is so, this is not because of the reason given, but because of Caanan being omitted from Genesis, but included in Luke, and because of other genealogies in the Bible that skip generations. Philip J. Rayment 13:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * the only reason i put that there was to explain why there's only a straight line of people named with no brothers or sisters ... and why people "lived 130 years and then had a child" -- because it wasn't necessarily their first child. just indicating that the list was trimmed for relevence.  any way to make that point clearer?  Ungtss 15:28, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding reverting of third paragraph
The page read: "Some mainstream scientists believe that the fossil record shows ample evidence for gradualistic evolutionary change. Others, such as Stephen J. Gould, believe that transitional forms are sparse in the fossil record, and explain it by means of non-darwinian theories of evolution."

This is misleading. This text does not point out that the only point under consideration here is the fossils. Gradualistic evolutionary change is not the same as gradual genetic change. Also the usage of "some" and "others" replacing "main stream" and "many" is wrong because these descriptions were correct. Darwinian theories of evolution refer to the mechanism of change of the genetic material. Stephen J. Gould does not believe in gradual morphological change. This does not make him non-darwinian. Barnaby dawson 18:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * i can see that there's some disagreement on that subject, so i think you're probably right. however, this article (in the section, "The Punctualist Response") shows that at least some evolutionists consider PE to be non-darwinian -- but you're right -- it's probably a misleading characterization.  all i wanted was reference to some scientists, like gould + eldridge, who think that the fossil record is "discontinuous."  I'll try again:).  Ungtss 18:27, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Poor Gould. Doomed to be forever misrepresented by creationists. The fossil record's perceived patchiness is nothing to do with PE but to do with how often lifeforms are preserved. It takes particular circumstances for preservation, which can be missing in some periods of time and present in others. Rather Gould suggested that the reason that points of speciation are not as apparent in the fossil record as one might expect was because the fossil record cannot capture the relatively rapid speciation events. Do you see the difference? IOW, if speciation happens over a hundred thousand years (relatively rapidly), but the fossil record preserves specimens every hundred and fifty thousand, the speciation cannot be captured as an event. I simplify but that's the gist of it. Nowhere -- absolutely nowhere -- does Gould suggest he is not Darwinian. Quite the opposite. Here he strongly refutes the "urban legend" that he does not believe in gradualism. He specifically attacks the notion that he proposed that evolution proceeds by "saltation". Read our article on punctuated equilibrium, which discusses some of the misconceptions.Dr Zen 04:13, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

great stuff!
Main stream geologists would point out that if there had been a worldwide flood we would have expected very small populations of various species to have seeded current populations and this would be evident in their genetic variability (this is not the case).
 * can we flesh that out a bit?
 * The problem I have with this page is that there is simply too much evidence to put into it. I think maybe we should create some pages to house evidence for common "facts" that we wish to put on this or other similar pages.
 * 1) doesn't evolution (especially punc eq) predict that small populations seeded ALL new species?
 * Not populations of less than 10. Punc eq would predict new species to be formed from small initial groups occasionally but not most or all of the time. Barnaby dawson 19:05, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * what i mean is that evolution believes that life in all its present diversity came from one single cell. where did THAT diversity come from?  Ungtss 19:11, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Time. Diversity increases potentially expontentially with time; 4 billion years is very different from 5000 years when you're looking at a number slightly greater than one to the number of generations, as is the case here.
 * 2) how does this objection work within the creationist genetic model -- that the animals that came off the ark had a MORE diverse genome than current species, and that they INBRED to differentiate?
 * If a population starts off with 2 animals how would their genome be more diverse? You could only ever have 4 alleles for a given gene and that would be unlikely. The variation in V genes in the immune system would be very low making the species prone to disease and so probably dying out very quickly.  The idea that several related species bred with each other to increase variation is interesting but it would imply that their genes would show completely different phylogenetic trees which they don't.  It would also increase dramatically the number of animals required on the ark.  Barnaby dawson 19:05, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * What i meant is that if you take a "mongrel" -- the dog that remains after all the present breeds of dog have been left to interbreed for a while -- that dog has a more "diverse" genome than the breeds it came from -- and that mongrel's descendents can then be bred back OUT into a number of breeds. am i right?  Ungtss 19:11, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Not really. As pointed out by Barnaby dawson, the determiner of diversity is the number of alleles. A given small number of mongrels are no more diverse than a few different purebreds, etc.


 * 3) can we get any cites on this? Ungtss 19:12, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Here's a web page with the ice core records we have for CO2 and temperature levels (determined by deterium and Oxygen 18 levels) in the last 420,000 years. Barnaby dawson 19:05, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * okay ... i'll cite that -- but it's gonna come with reference to the assumption of uniformitarianism -- we're basing those "years" on the assumption that ice has been accumulating steadily ... when creationism explicitly claims that it didn't.

Also main stream geologists contend that we would expect very high rates of decomposition when the flood receded which would be evident in various climatic information we have for the last 10,000 years (this not being the case).
 * can we flesh out exactly what that climactic information is and what the methodology was? Ungtss 19:12, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * One piece of climatic information is found here. This is the same website as I gave above.  It might be interesting to see if there are seasonal variations in the ice core CO2 levels as this would be evidence that photosythetic life has been around for 420,000 years.  Barnaby dawson 19:05, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * hmmm you might not expect seasonal variations now I come to think of it. It depends on the speed with which air mixes globally (I haven't checked out whether you do get it yet).  But anyway I found this piece of information showing how the time period in which the snow fell is calibrated.  It also gives a test for carbon 14 dating (The temperature dependent and the carbon 14 dating should coincide).  Interestingly this info seems to be part of a discussion forum of some kind.  Barnaby dawson 19:21, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---


 * << 1) doesn't evolution (especially punc eq) predict that small populations seeded ALL new species?>>

Never. :)) Please cite to the article. :)) Let's stop this personal research. :)) Punctuated equilibrium grew from live observation of existing speciation events, such as in insects, parasites, and fishes. All observed speciation events have consisted of at least a gene pool of several hundred individuals. For example, a daughter species of coral-dwelling goby fishes has been observed in a patch of rare A. caroliniana coral on the ocean floor just outside Bootless Bay Papua New Guinea. The daughter species speciated from the parent species about 300,000 years ago as measured by DNA comparison of daughter species with parent species. Currently, the daughter species is reproductively isolated from the parent species, though the daughter species is surrounded by the parent species and hence is not geographically isolated. The daughter species mutated to take advantage of the unique biochemistry of the A. caroliniana coral which the parent species shuns and cannot reproduce well when force to live in it. The patch of A. caroliniana off Bootless Bay is only several hundred square kilometers. There are other patches of A. caroliniana in the world but the daughter species has not found a way to get to any of them and so is limited to Bootless Bay. The daughter species consists of only several hundred individuals. Goby fishes occasionally migrate to a coral patch different from their birth. The authors hypothesize that there was a punctuated equilibrium event in the parent species over several hundred years in which a few individuals of the parent species were forced because of lack of good coral space to take up a severe life on the hostile A. caroliniana coral. At first there was a gene pool of the whole parent species. And then after a few mutations, the emerging daughter species found the A. caroliniana coral more hospitable than the coral patches of the parent species. At all times there was a gene pool of several hundred individuals, though generally goby fishes live and die in the coral patch of their birth. (Munday, Philip L., Lynne van Herwerden, and Christine L. Dudgeon. 2004.  "Evidence for sympatric speciation by host shift in the sea." Current Biology 14 (16), pp. 1498-1504.) ---Rednblu | Talk 21:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * thanks for the research -- the above wasn't personal research on my part -- this was in response to some edits barnaby made to the flood geology section -- "mainstream responses to flood geology" -- i was trying to flesh out those arguments against the creationist model with some cites:). Ungtss 21:45, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * We are getting there. It is all adaptive work; we are evolving "gills" in the process. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 21:52, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

lol no you aren't. Bensaccount 23:23, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No progress is being made
The article doesn't even say who is debating. How can you discuss a debate without noting who is on each side of the debate? Bensaccount 23:22, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * the debate is between creationists and evolutionists -- it's in the title. there are creationists (like me) who don't think the bible is inerrant and don't go to church.  there are theistic evolutionists who think the bible is inerrant, that God made life through evolution, and that Genesis is a poem and a local flood.  you're trying to promote your pov that the debate is bible vs. science.  that pov is wrong.  Ungtss 23:29, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying. Do you or do you not think that the theory of evolution conflicts with the bible (creation)? Because if not... Bensaccount 23:40, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * look. not all creationists are religious zealots, and not all religious zealots are creationists.  it's not "Bible versus science."  Muslims are creationist too, and they don't use the bible -- in fact some of them have been known to kill people for bringing it into the country.  it's not as simple as you're trying to make it.  Ungtss 23:50, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are varying degrees of creationists, but the ones who think that it conflicts with evolution all are taking their religious text literally. Bensaccount 00:11, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * not even that is true, really. genesis talks repeatedly about God "walking around the Garden," "looking for Adam."  When you read it literally, Genesis describes God as a tangible being.  Most Christians don't believe that God is actually like that -- they think he's a spirit or something.  Only the Mormons really think God has a body.  you're oversimplifying the issue by making it "biblically literal" versus "science."  it's much more complicated than that.  Ungtss 00:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No it isn't. People who think that creation conflicts with evolution all are taking their religious text literally.Bensaccount 00:18, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * alright. i'm finished talking with you.  Ungtss 00:23, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So you agree then? Bensaccount 00:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * ben, listen. you're wrong.  you keep saying it over and over without justifying it, but you're wrong.  if you could provide me with ONE SINGLE CITATION saying what you're saying, maybe we'd get somewhere.  but you ignore my every point.  i've told you in a dozen ways why you're wrong, ben.  it is NOT a debate between literalists and scientists.  there are people who take the bible literally a DOZEN ways, and THEY debate EACH OTHER over their SCIENCE.  there are also debates between theistic evolutionists and naturalistic evolutionists about whether GOD exists.  it's not as simple as you keep trying to make it.  please stop.  Ungtss 00:56, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I hate to cite the obvious, but you refuse to admit it until it is rubbed in your face so here is a reference that shows that creationist who debate evolution insist that they have discovered the true meaning of their holy text - that they know with certainty exactly how it is meant to be read and interpreted - and that anyone who disagrees with them about this interpretation is either sadly deceived or not really a member of their religion at all. .Bensaccount 17:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * and here are a group of atheists starting a "new religion" based on the doctrines of naturalism, atheism, and evolution. Ungtss 18:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So we agree that people who debate that creation conflicts with evolution all insist that they know with certainty exactly how their holy text is meant to be read and interpreted? Bensaccount 18:33, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * no. i don't claim to "know with certainty exactly how the bible is to be read and interpretted."  i don't have a friggin clue.  but i'm still debating ... and sadly i'm usually debating with everybody:(.  Ungtss 18:38, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When are you going to answer my question: Do you or do you not think that the theory of evolution conflicts with the bible (creation)? Bensaccount 18:40, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * what i'm telling you is that i DON'T KNOW, but i'm TRYING to FIGURE IT OUT! there are people with all SORTS of beliefs on the subject ... it is NOT as simple as you keep trying to make it.  Ungtss 18:54, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You dont know if the theory of evolution conflicts with creation, yet you have created an article about that very conflict. Irony? Bensaccount 18:58, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * ben! listen!  there is a DEBATE between people who interpret the bible DIFFERENTLY.  some people think genesis means young earth creation.  other people think genesis leaves room for evolution.  other people think the bible is hooey.  there's a DEBATE as to whether the BIBLE FITS WITH EVOLUTION OR NOT, AND whether the bible is any GOOD or not.  it's NOT just a two-sided debate.  Ungtss 19:01, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This debate is not about whether there is a conflict between creation and evolution. The title of this debate assumes that there is a conflict. This debate has two sides and they are clear. On one side there are the people that insist they know with certainty exactly how their holy text is meant to be read and interpreted. On the other side are the supporters of the theory of evolution whos opinion on the holy text has no relevence to their argument and therefore varies widely. Bensaccount 19:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * young earth creationists believe the bible says the world was created 6,000 years ago.
 * mormons believe all that, and believe God actually walked around as a physical being just like us in the garden.
 * gap creationists believe the bible says the world was created billions of years ago, destroyed, and rebuilt;
 * intelligent design creationists believe that the bible is not literally true, but that God created life some other other way.
 * there are NOT two sides to this debate, Ben. Ungtss 19:25, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All of the above insist they know with certainty exactly how their holy text is meant to be read and interpreted. Bensaccount 19:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * what holy text are intelligent design creationists using, ben? Ungtss 19:31, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whichever religion they belong to. Bensaccount 19:36, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposal
Lets start from scratch, salvaging bits and pieces.

Lets have
 * Players in the debate
 * (various discussion of who it is on each side of the debate)


 * Methodology in the debate
 * (the arguments over therof)
 * Ockham's razor
 * Endless requests for ever more specific evidence (i.e. nitpicking)
 * Falsifiability


 * Arguments in the debate
 * Variation of the speed of light and its effect on carbon dating
 * Irreducable complexity (or lack therof)
 * Life from non-life (e.g. Miller-Urey experiment, synthetic Polio virus)
 * Macroevolution is seperate to microevolution (or not)
 * Humans and dinosaurs co-existing
 * The Flood as an explanation for fossils
 * General relativity and its effect on the age of the earth


 * External Links

CheeseDreams 14:37, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Your proposal seems reasonable, the article certainly needs some reorganization, though your recent &ldquo;EDITORIAL NOTE&rdquo; about 100% pro-creationist links seems somewhat less reasonable. Due to the character of this article, most of the relevant links will be either 100% pro or 100% against, so maybe a better idea would be to split both the References and the External links sections into subsections corresponding to the sides of the debate. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 16:18, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * i'd be up for reorganizing, but not starting from scratch. there's a lot of good npov stuff in there, IMO -- reorganize and reword, but don't scrap.  Ungtss 16:25, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is no NPOV in this article, unless it snuck in by accident when Ungtss wasn't watching. Bensaccount 17:37, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There should be a section for similar historical debates between science and religious zealots. (and maybe the ones that arent historical ). Bensaccount 19:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The list of arguments is a small in porportion to the many tat are out there. I will try to fill in some sides of the evolutionist's argument in articles present as i know it; however, because what i feel is NPOV may not actually be NPOV, but i will try to fill in some arguments best i can. Fledgeling 19:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When to provide references

 * I would appreciate it if each of us begin each of our edits after looking at an actual published scholarly article or poll. I suggest that each sentence in the Creation vs. evolution debate page should be testable by going to a published scholarly article or poll to verify that what is in that sentence some specific scholar or poll actually said.  Far too much of the current page is original research  :)) in my opinion.  ---Rednblu | Talk 20:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thats absurd. There is no need to cite the obvious, and unnecessary use of statistics is called spin. Bensaccount 22:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * the alternative is known as "personal research." Ungtss 22:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If something is disputed, it should be referenced if placed in the article. If it is obvious and agreed upon by everyone, it is silly to reference it. Bensaccount 22:18, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * has ANYTHING you have proposed ever gone undisputed? Ungtss 22:37, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No (at least not by you). So I havent posted anything have I? Whereas you on the other hand...Bensaccount 00:37, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * i know ... i know ... i'm a moron. Ungtss 00:50, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whereas you on the other hand...have posted a whole lot of content that is disputed, and refuse to remove it. Keep making a victim of yourself, at least when you admit you are a moron, people will not let you spread your bias. Bensaccount 17:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * name what's disputed and we'll talk about it, ben. that's what this forum is for.  Ungtss 18:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Clarification
I think the article is a muddled and definitely needs revising. Evolution is a theory generally accepted by the vast majority of scientific opinion. It is concerned with the history of life on the planet but, in itself, can give no clue as to how or why life originated. At the present time, there are a number of competing theories, none of which have - or perhaps ever will have - sufficient scientific evidence to sway scientific opinion one way or the other. The majority of scientists freely admit that the origin of life is a mystery. This is not to say that they deny that a divine hand was involved - they just dont know. There are no absolute truths in science. What the theory of evolution does tell us, and we can be almost certain of this, is that life was not created exactly as we see it now and placed own this planet 4500 years ago. Science has no quarrel with those who believe that life was created by god; this is where science lets philosophy and theology take over. The scientist has a problem with those whose faith precludes them from considering other theories regarding the world around them other than their own. Essentially, creationist vs evolutionist = closed mind vs open mind.


 * that is certainly one point of view. however, it is not the only one.  almost 50% of the US population believes that a biblically literal creation is supported the evidence, and that the scientific community is close-mindedly ignoring the evidence due to its naturalistic philosophical assumptions (and questionable methodologies such as uniformitarianism).  I for one am not convinced there is ANY substantive evidence for the theory of evolution as it is currently understood.  The goal of this article is to find a "middle ground" through those two ways of thinking, reflecting each fairly.  were the article to take your point of view as Truth ... i do not think it would fairly represent the issue, any more than if it took mine as Truth.  Ungtss 21:27, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of biologists do not agree that biblically literal creation is supported by the evidence. Most usages of uniformitarianism can be seen as usages of ockham's razor.  To reject ockham's razor is to reject modern day science.  I disagree with Batholith below as I think it is very important to have this page in order that people can make their own minds up with the necessary facts and figures at their fingertips.  Btw could you refrain from capatilising key words in your text as it is rather off putting.  Barnaby dawson 23:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * we all know what the majority of biologists think -- some of us just think occam's razor is slicing a bit too close these days:). Sometimes you gotta acknowledge things you can't see to explain the things you can (Relativity).  Ungtss 02:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I think this article should be deleted all together. The rest of the civilised world accepted the theory of evolution 100 years ago and moved on to more challenging biological issues, discovering DNA and mapping the human genome, for example. Both would have been impossible without knowledge of the process of Evolution. Modern Biology and medicine is based almost entirely on this concept. The debate centres around groups of isolated fundamentalists - especially, but not exclusively American - arguing with science. Science has done more to advance human civilisation than any other concept. Is there a page on Wikipedia detailing the debate between those who believed the Earth was flat and those who thought it was round? I think not. Science already covers the middle ground.--Batholith 23:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Now. Now. :( Join the modern world.  Not everyone agrees with you.  You want to become President?  Well, let's see--President of the United States of America for example?  You will never win the election for even street sweeper in the Holy United States with an attitude like yours--even if you are right.  8)) By the way, right this very moment, you can vote to have this page deleted, if you really feel strongly about it. But on the other hand, I doubt that your vote would count, since you don't have many edits on your record. 8(((  ---Rednblu | Talk 23:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * To be honest, if GWB can become President then there's hope for even me. I think it's frankly dangerous to even mention evolution in the same breath as creationism. The world has moved on, its just a shame that the religious right in America hasnt. Is there anyone contributing to this article who has any scientific background at all? --Batholith 23:43, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You do. :)) What do you have in mind? ---Rednblu | Talk 23:45, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes I have a good working knowledge of biology and physics and a degree in mathematics. I'm not a creationist though. Barnaby dawson 23:53, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * None of us are creationists. We are encyclopaedists.  :)) We are writing the Creation vs. evolution debate page by finding scholarly journal articles on the debate and paraphrasing them, quoting them, and citing them on the Creation vs. evolution debate page.  Does that sound like fun?  ---Rednblu | Talk 23:58, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * However, I will admit--just among us foxes here in the henhouse--some of us have been doing forbidden "personal research" on the Creation vs. evolution debate page by just writing on that page "what seemeth right to be said" instead of paraphrasing, quoting, and citing actual scholarly publications. :)) Several people have caught me at some statements that "seemed right to me" but that were not what the cited scholar said. *(( ---Rednblu | Talk 00:13, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Rewrite the whole thing to a paragraph at most. Stick it in as a footnote to Evolution (and creationism) entitled "evolution vs creation" making it clear that evolution theory has clearly superceded creationism is the eyes of the scientific community. All relevant evidence of evolution can be listed on the "evolution" page and the same for creationism. I dont think this is the right place for acres of statistics or opinion polls because a) you cannot really apply either of these tools in theology or philosophy and b) this sort of information is difficult to digest outside of an academic context.--Batholith 00:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well yes. But that would not explain what the debate is, would it?  The trouble is:  Creationism does not seem to be theology, philosophy, or science.  It seems to be politics, opinion polls, and statistics on how many people think they can get to heaven.  :)) More later.  I have a bunch of phone calls.  ---Rednblu | Talk 00:13, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * perhaps it's a little bit of all of the above -- but one thing it's not is dead:). we're still here, we're still not buying evolution, and we're not going anywhere anytime soon:).  Ungtss 00:20, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * However, it would explain that these are conflicting theories and by reading both articles you would have all the information you would need to form a balanced opinion on the subject. Providing they are both NPOV.--Batholith 00:24, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * okay, let me line up your proposals. you propose we should:
 * Rewrite the whole thing to a paragraph at most
 * my question: where, then, would we identify the issues in dispute between the two sides? would the creationism article be full of evolution rebuttals, or would the evolution article be full of creationist rebuttals?  don't you think it's most efficient to have all the issues of the debate in one place?
 * making it clear that evolution theory has clearly superceded creationism is the eyes of the scientific community
 * my question: doesn't the current article make that clear in the very first paragraph?
 * I dont think this is the right place for acres of statistics or opinion polls because
 * a) you cannot really apply either of these tools in theology or philosophy and
 * my question: why must things be applicable to theology or philosophy to be relevent? what percentage of wikipedia articles would you say are directly related to theology or philosophy?
 * b) this sort of information is difficult to digest outside of an academic context
 * my question: why must things be easily digested to be relevent? aren't many other articles, such as Path integral formulation difficult to digest? Ungtss 01:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article needs to stay if for no other reason that to fight the attempts at censorship by the disciples of evolution. The depths that some of them plunge to in an attempt to stifle the debate never ceases to amaze me. It is one of the most hotly-disputed topics around, yet they claim that there is no debate. Caught out on this, they resort to claiming that it is not a debate among the scientific community. But this is refuted by things like the Scientific American article on creationism, the NCSE and Project Steve, etc. They also continually misrepresent reality by referring to "the scientific community" and the like as though opinion is unanimous, by caricaturing the debate as science vs. religion, and I could to on and on. The contradict their own beliefs by claiming that science is about evidence, but then use majority opinion in support of evolution. What they tend to do least of is actually address the claims put forward by creationary scientists. Instead, they do all they can to avoid the subject, sideline or ridicule its adherents, insult their intelligence, and try to suppress its claims. Their tactics run the gamut of logical fallacies, from straw man arguments to argument by authority to guilt by association. I refuse to lie down and roll over. Philip J. Rayment 13:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The three links you give do not support the statement that there is a debate within the scientific community they mearly show evidence that the scientific community disagrees with creationism. I would observe that creationists also use the "tactics" you deride to a much greater extent imho that main stream scientists.  I deplore such tactics also.  Barnaby dawson 18:31, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just split this
I think that, first, this page is necessary because if it doesn't exist, creationists will try to deface the evolution pages with their nonsense and keep the real science out of the creationism pages. Both are unacceptable to scientists, and keeping silent is unacceptable to creationists.

Second, the main problem is that the two parties are working at the same sentences and the POVs are too different even in the most basic assumptions.

How about this format:

What is the age of the earth?
{| cellspacing=3 cellpadding=3 width=100%
 * - valign="top"
 * style="border: solid 1px #aaaaaa;" width=50% valign="top"|

Creation

 * Young Earth Creationism says: 6,000 years
 * Old Earth Creationism says: 5,000,000,000 years
 * style="border: solid 1px #aaaaaa;" width=50% valign="top"|

Evolution
Standard geology says: 5,000,000,000 years Standard astronomy says: 5,000,000,000 years Standard biology says: 5,000,000,000 years Radioactive dating, inferred from nuclear physicists' measurements, says: 5,000,000,000 years
 * }

Is creationism science?
{| cellspacing=3 cellpadding=3 width=100%
 * - valign="top"
 * style="border: solid 1px #aaaaaa;" width=50% valign="top"|

Creation
Creationists say: yes, creationists do have degrees in science, see link ...
 * style="border: solid 1px #aaaaaa;" width=50% valign="top"|

Evolution
Standard science says: no, it's pseudoscience.
 * This can be easily found out by comparing creationist misrepresentations of scientists' quotes with the actual quotes, see link ...
 * Creationists' science degrees are normally either from creationist degree mills or in an irrelevant field, see link ...
 * }

Is evolution controversial?
{| cellspacing=3 cellpadding=3 width=100%
 * - valign="top"
 * style="border: solid 1px #aaaaaa;" width=50% valign="top"|

Creation
Creationists say: yes, many scientists find mistakes in the theory, and evolution will collapse soon.
 * style="border: solid 1px #aaaaaa;" width=50% valign="top"|

Evolution
Standard science says: no, serious scientists agree it is rock-solid. It's challenged by some religious fundamentalists and other pseudoscientists only.
 * }

Of course, the content should be a bit longer. This way, there is a clear border, and everybody knows that the statements on the other side of the border can be arbitrarily false - just write a correction on the other side.

We know who is on which side, and while everybody is allowed to edit both halves, if there is a controversy, the creationists have suzerainty about the left half, the others about the right half. --Hob 15:41, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * sounds like a rock-solid idea to me. Ungtss 16:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Mr. Gadling, you are brilliant! Both sides have to paraphrase, quote, and cite published scholars, though.  Fair enough?  ---Rednblu | Talk 19:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This seems like a good suggestion and the published scholars restriction will make it difficult but it is imho necessary in this case. We still need an introduction and we may find we need subpages where the response to a point has great depth. Barnaby dawson 20:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually how about having a separate subarticle using this column idea to present the views in context. It would be called Creation vs. evolution debate/Comparison of views.  We should recognise that there is a difference between describing the arguments of a debate and describing the debate.  Then the main article could deal with statistics, groups on either side, the history of the debate etc.  I shall probably start work on this subpage.  Do join in.  Barnaby dawson 21:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think heading the column on the left "evolution" is misleading. The three questions posed cannot be answered by evolution theory in isolation. For example, the theory of Evolution in itself does not postulate any age for the Earth. The theory of Evolution in itself does not discount the possibility of life being created by divine means. Maybe there is room for Crationism in Science. The theory of evolution remains just that. A theory. No theory is sacrosanct in science - even Newton was superceded in the last century. Maybe the page should be renamed: Creationism vs Science. What does everyone else think? --Batholith 00:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The subpage addresses your concerns: Creation vs. evolution debate/Comparison of views Ungtss 00:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Read Subpages, and stop this mess. Bensaccount 18:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I also removed the links to other pages (creation and evolution) at the top, since people can easily find these on their own. Also moved education debate to a subsection, which is consistent with wikipedia format. Got rid of link to subpage, see above. Bensaccount 18:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've moved the subpage to Views of Creationists and main stream scientists compared. Long name I know. I do think this page is necessary although I see the point about subpages. Barnaby dawson 19:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Uuuh, ok, Christian Creationists: 6000 years  "Christian" Creationists: 5 bill, also it is a well known fact that time is distorted very easily, so astronomy is a inacurate way of measuring time though for some reason gets the exact same result as the others? interesting. Radioactive dating, heh, any type of dating can be off by alot, simply because the radio active substances could easily be removed by water washing out some of the isotope, leaving you with less substance, more half-lifes passed and a large an inaccurate age. Geologic dating? I can't comment on this one because I dont know anything about it. Also, its so obvious that is bias, like I mean


 * "Creationists say: yes, many scientists find mistakes in the theory, and evolution will collapse soon."


 * and then


 * "Standard science says: no, serious scientists agree it is rock-solid. It's challenged by some religious fundamentalists and other pseudoscientists only."


 * Like come on, seriously.
 * Also.


 * "Standard science says: no, it's pseudoscience.


 * This can be easily found out by comparing creationist misrepresentations of scientists' quotes with the actual quotes, see link ...


 * Creationists' science degrees are normally either from creationist degree mills or in an irrelevant field, see link ..."


 * Links to evolution sites? You can't put evolution sites, those things can only be proved if creationists admit it themselfs. Even though it says "evolutionists say" and "creationists say" its obvious hes supplied one side with evidence and the other with just meaningless drivel to make evolution look better without seeming bias, even though that is obvious. Gelsamel P.S. Yes I know that this is just an example for a format for arguing but even so, its fairly misleading.

Misleading statistics
In places such as the United States, opinions are widely mixed. According to a 1997 Newsweek poll, among the general population, 44% believed in biblical creation, 39% believed in theistic evolution, and 10% believed in purely naturalistic evolution. Among American scientists, 5% believed in biblically literal creationism, 40% believed in theistic evolution, and 55% believed in naturalistic evolution. [1] (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm) Less than 1% of earth and life scientists in the United States believe in biblically literal creationism.

If anyone can summarize in one sentance exactly what this poll proves about the debate, please do so, because to me, it doesn't seem to have any relevance to the debate at all. It does however lead to the following misconceptions: The list goes on. This is an obvious attempt to mislead the reader.Bensaccount 19:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That scientists do not matter in the debate because they don't represent the general population.
 * That theistic and naturalistic evolution are different flavours of evolution.
 * That there is some evolution-related debate between theistic and naturalistic evolution (there is not).
 * That the 44% of people who believe in biblical creation all dispute evolution.
 * That the people surveyed all chose one of the 3 options. This would require that the numbers add up to 100%, which they almost do, but not quite. I doubt that the poll actually required people to choose just one of the three options, it seems more likely that the poll asked each question separately and then the results are displayed as if the people who didn't believe in biblical creation did believe in evolution. I would like the details on this. If the poll did require the person to choose one of three, it is inherantly biased since these options arent mutually exclusive.
 * That the 56% who said that they didn't believe in biblical creation don't exist.
 * What is biblical creation, is it related to biblically literal creation?


 * That scientists do not matter in the debate because they don't represent the general population.
 * how do the statistics show that? Ungtss 19:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * By showing statistics of scientists that differ from the general population.
 * couldn't that also be interpretted as "scientists believe in evolution because they know what they're talking about, but ignorant people still believe in creation?" Ungtss 20:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * That theistic and naturalistic evolution are different flavours of evolution.
 * how do the statistics show that? Ungtss 19:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * By listing them in different categories rather than just listing one category for evolution.
 * and wouldn't the people that said they believed those things also think they were different? Ungtss 20:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * That there is some evolution-related debate between theistic and naturalistic evolution (there is not).
 * how do the statistics show that? Ungtss 19:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Again, why are these groups separated. The belief in god doesnt effect evolution.
 * yes it does. theistic evolution says that it happened because GOD guided the process ... and wouldn't or couldn't have happened otherwise.  they ARE different.  Ungtss 20:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * That the 44% of people who believe in biblical creation all dispute evolution.
 * how do the statistics show that? Ungtss 19:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * By making it look like the survey was mutually exclusive.
 * so what other categories of people are there? Ungtss 20:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * That the people surveyed all chose one of the 3 options. This would require that the numbers add up to 100%, which they almost do, but not quite. I doubt that the poll actually required people to choose just one of the three options, it seems more likely that the poll asked each question separately and then the results are displayed as if the people who didn't believe in biblical creation did believe in evolution. I would like the details on this. If the poll did require the person to choose one of three, it is inherantly biased since these options arent mutually exclusive.
 * how do you know any of that? Ungtss 19:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I told you I dont, and asked for the details that were omitted to skew the results.
 * i'm asking how you know they were skewed? Ungtss 20:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * That the 56% who said that they didn't believe in biblical creation don't exist.
 * how do the statistics show that? Ungtss 19:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * By listing the 44 percent but not the 56 percent.
 * then why don't you add the 56%?


 * What is biblical creation, is it related to biblically literal creation?
 * that's addressed later in the articl. Ungtss 19:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well it is very relevant to the survey.
 * the SURVEY is relevent to the ARTICLE, and not vice versa?


 * The list goes on...Bensaccount 19:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

here's my one sentence, ben: the statistics are accurate, reflect the proportional views on the topic worldwide, and are therefore relevent to the debate.

now why don't you explain how you got all those ideas out of a set of numbers? Ungtss

How about the fact that the scientists were only surveyed about biblically literal creationism while the general population was surveyed about biblical creationism. Why don't you go cite a source that says that this is directly related to the creation vs evolution debate. Bensaccount 19:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * those two are the same thing -- it's just wording.


 * Ben, has it occured to you that the fact that you lost the revert war and the votes for deletion might mean your edits are more pov than the article itself? Ungtss 20:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I will remember that statement. Ungtss: NPOV is a quality attributed only to the winner of a revert war. Bensaccount 20:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * perhaps that would be worth remembering if it were what i said. i didn't say that.  i said you might want to reconsider your view of npov in light of the fact that nobody agrees with your edits ... whether creationist or evolutionist.  Ungtss 21:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And the difference in wording proves the poll is misleading. Bensaccount 20:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * i will fix the difference in wording and put the stats back in. Ungtss 21:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And wheres the source that says that this is directly related to the creation vs evolution debate? Bensaccount 20:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * that source is common sense, ben. in a public debate over an issue, you take a poll to see how people view the two sides of the discussion.


 * are we done with this yet? Ungtss 21:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are seriously going to change the wording? It seems to me that manipulating wording that describes data in a poll after the poll has already been taken is spinning the data. But fine, you go ahead and make those numbers represent whatever the hell you want them to represent. Its not like the rest of the article isn't equally biased. Ok you seem to be fed up so we are done for today. Tomorrow I will point out another bias and you will refuse to provide references again. Bensaccount 21:30, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * why don't we instead get over this stupid ego battle we've got going and try and improve the article? Ungtss 23:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bensaccount is right on one thing. These statistics are misleading. We should try to find some which are less misleading. Could you (Bensaccount) please explain why you keep removing the link to Views of Creationists and main stream scientists compared. Barnaby dawson 23:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * how are they misleading? what do they imply falsely?  Ungtss 00:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * They don't tell us anything about what people think are reasonable beliefs just about what they actually believe. They imply that 44% + 39% do not think the naturalistic evolution is a viable explanation.  But without further information we don't know if that is the case.  We could fix this by looking up the methodology.  Barnaby dawson 17:13, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Above I listed seven ways the poll misleads the reader. I neglected to mention the following. There are essentially two groups or as you say "views on the topic" that are listed in the poll: Biblically literal creation and evolution (theistic evolution, and naturalistic evolution are both evolution). However, no one who believes in evolution necessarily disagrees with biblical creation and not all biblically literal creationists disagree with evolution. However, the fact that this poll is presented at the beginning of a page on a debate obviously implies that there is a debate between these groups of people. This is a false implication; the groups surveyed do not represent the sides of the debate. Bensaccount 17:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not that it matters to you, the poll on this page has likely been changed so much from the original newsweek poll that any actual correspondence between the two is purely fictional, so you may as well just say the numbers represent whatever you want. As for the link to Views of of Creationists and main stream scientists compared, I put this in a subsection. It is not Wikipedia format to have italicized links to page subsections at the top of the page, no matter how important the subsection is to the reader. Bensaccount 17:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Uuuh "44% believed in biblical creation, 39% believed in theistic evolution, and 10% believed in purely naturalistic evolution" 44%+39%+10%=93% obviously 7% are agnostic or abstained, isn't that obvious? Also Biblical Literal Creation obviously means that if you belive that you belive that when it says a "day" it literally means a day,(this is hard to word without stuffing myself up so i have to point out the obvious) whereas Biblical NON-LITERAL (where as Bilical creation doesn't specify either) belives that the creation is real (obviously)while the bible is detailed on such events as the creation the details should not be taken literally, ie. many phrases/words have metaphorical meanings ie. days being an unspecified amount of time. I think i still might have stuffed it as this can be taken wrongly but you get the gist of if, maybe somone can help me make this better lol Gelsamel

No that isn't obvious. It is a false assumption that the statistics have mislead you to believe. The categories aren't mutually exclusive so there is no reason why they should add up to 100%. Bensaccount 18:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Without checking back to look at the original statistics, your suggestion is invalid if they were all options to be selected on the one survey. Sure, some categories may be overlapping, but if each of the respondents had to choose the one that best fitted their beliefs, then the results do not overlap, and can be added up as Gelsamel suggests.  Philip J. Rayment 14:54, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If they had to choose one of three then the poll is inherently biased. I already went over both options above. Are you reading before you respond? Bensaccount 18:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not rereading everything, but regardless, I was responding to the specific point that you were disputing with Gelsamel. As for your other point, that the poll is inherently biased, it is not biased as long as one understands that the answers give the most appropriate category rather than an exact description of beliefs. Philip J. Rayment 01:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Disinformative first sentence
The creation vs. evolution debate is a debate between people holding a number of different scientific and religious viewpoints regarding the origin and development of life on Earth.

This is POV for the following reasons: Find a reference that says this or delete it.Bensaccount 17:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * There aren't "a number of different scientific" viewpoints. There is only one scientific viewpoint being debated (evolution).
 * There aren't "a number of different religious viewpoints" there is only one religious viewpoint being debated (creation).
 * The intro fails to mention that this debate has two sides and they are clear. On one side there are the people that insist they know with certainty exactly how their holy text is meant to be read and interpreted. On the other side are the supporters of the theory of evolution whos viewpoint on the holy text has no relevence to their argument and therefore varies widely.
 * Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life on earth.

This page should be retitled to be "Creation vs. mainstream science" because this is what it is. There are at least two different religous viewpoints: Young earth creationists and Old earth creationists. They are not the same. Barnaby dawson 17:34, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They are both creationists, so they are the same. If the debate were between creation and mainstream science maybe it would matter when creation occured, but its not its between creationists and the theory of evolution. The debate has no relevance to when creation occured because it revolves entirely around disproving evolution. Bensaccount 17:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * can you two hear yourselves? so obsessed with cutting the other side out of the debate that you refuse to acknowledge any scientific validity to their claims, and wish to retitle the page accordingly?  how can you look at yourselves in the mirror, knowing you've become just as closed-minded as the dogmatic religious people?  there ARE a number of scientific and religious viewpoints -- there are THEORIES for why both happened, and evidence THAT each happened.  the page SHOWS that.  creationism was the dominant SCIENTIFIC opinion for almost TWO THOUSAND YEARS.  why don't you stop obsessing over this bs and provide some facts to support your view?  Ungtss 19:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you should be the one to provide some fact for a change, posting whatever you want and backing it up by saying that 'any thing different is bullshit' doesn't provide a very strong argument. Bensaccount 19:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * look right below this text, my fine, intelligent friend. Ungtss 19:49, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

piece by piece
This is POV for the following reasons:
 * There aren't "a number of different scientific" viewpoints. There is only one scientific viewpoint being debated (evolution).
 * that is factually incorrect. flood geology argues for a global flood on a scientific basis.  right or wrong is another issue ... but it is scientific.
 * This isn't creation vs. flood geology, its creation vs. evolution.
 * flood geology explains the fossil record, ben. it says that the fossils you're seeing were not laid down over millenia, but were laid down in a year.  that's a creationist argument.  Ungtss 19:54, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Creationists arguing agaist geologists is a different debate.Bensaccount 20:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * no, ben, it's the same one. the fossils used to support evolution are explained by flood geology.  if there was a global flood 4000 years ago, then evolution doesn't have a leg to stand on.  it also goes directly to the historicity of genesis.  it is CENTRAL to the same debate.  Ungtss 23:00, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * There aren't "a number of different religious viewpoints" there is only one religious viewpoint being debated (creation).
 * this is factually incorrect. young earth creationists believe that God created us as we are.  theistic evolutionists believe that God created us through a process.  naturalistic evolutionists believe there is no god at all.  those are fundamentally different religious viewpoints. Ungtss 19:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * There is no debate between the theistic evolutionists and the naturalistic evolutionists about evolution. Stop citing the fact that the supporters of the theory of evolution have widely varying viewpoints on the holy text. This has no relevence to their argument.
 * there IS a debate between theistic evolutionists and naturalistic evolutionists. i've heard them.  i've been in them.  the argument is over whether evolution can occur without God's guidance.  See Orthogenesis.
 * Whether evolution can occur without God's guidance is an entirely different debate. Bensaccount 20:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * i see you like to define the debate to suit your ends. however, you're dead wrong.  i've been in the debates.  they're the same.  some people think evolution works be itself.  some people think it doesn't, but needs God.  some people don't think it works at all, but creation is the truth.  there are three sides to the debate, if not more.  Ungtss 23:00, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The intro fails to mention that this debate has two sides and they are clear. On one side there are the people that insist they know with certainty exactly how their holy text is meant to be read and interpreted. On the other side are the supporters of the theory of evolution whos viewpoint on the holy text has no relevence to their argument and therefore varies widely.
 * there are NOT just two sides, ben. get over it.  Ungtss 19:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Very well proven Ungtss. Nice to see you aren't just saying "NO" repeatedly.
 * well when facts don't work i don't know what else to do with you. Ungtss 23:00, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life on earth.
 * are you serious? Ungtss 19:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Of course im serious.
 * have you even looked at the abiogenesis page? they are trying to prove the origin of life through the random arrangement of self-replicating compounds which evolved into cells through random variation and selection.  that IS evolution, ben.  Ungtss 19:54, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * No evolution refers to the processes that have transformed life. You are using the laymans version of evolution. How can you be writing on this page if you don't even know what evolution is. Bensaccount 20:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * then tell me, what is evolution in ben's world? Ungtss 23:00, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * This page should be retitled to be "Creation vs. mainstream science" because this is what it is.
 * that is your pov. there are others.  the current title is the most npov possible.  Ungtss 19:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So in summary, the first sentence does not provide any useful information, but does provide several incorrect statements which obfuscate the debate preventing the reader from obtaining any of the unifying characteristics of either side of the debate. Bensaccount 20:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * so in summary, the first sentence clearly and concisely describes the geographic and demographic divisions of opinion regarding the debate in a fair, unbiased, and factually accurate way, and ben just doesn't like it because it shows that a whole lot of people disagree with him. Ungtss 23:00, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I thought we agreed that the disputed parts would be removed or a reference source would be cited for them. I guess that only goes for me, and you are exempt from this rule. Oh well, you can include this disinformative first sentance because it backs up your POV. Tomorrow I will list the next bias you have introduced to this article and you will once again refuse to cite a reference or remove the POV. Bensaccount 02:48, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

<> By and large, I support what Ungtss is saying on this. The bit that Bensaccount wrote under Disinformative first sentence is itself extremely POV. The bit I have quoted above (from subsequent discussion) is just one example of this POV. The flood geology debate is a debate between creationary geologists and uniformitarian geologists, not between "creationists" and "geologists". That is nothing more than a misrepresentation of reality, by implying that creationists and geologists are two mutually-exclusive groups. They are not. I have observed here and elsewhere that a large part of the evolutionary tactic to discredit creation is to claim that it is not scientific, even though it is argued by scientists in peer-reviewed scientific journals (mainly creationary ones as most others won't allow it) and it was the ruling paradigm in science prior to the advent of uniformitarianism and Darwinian evolution. Philip J. Rayment 04:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You make no sense rayment. Sure there may be "creationary geologists" as you say. There may be creationary blacksmiths and creationary elephant trainers for all the difference it makes. When you are defining a debate, you need to find unifying characteristics for each side. Other characteristics tell you nothing about the debate, since humans are infinitely variable from one to the next. Bensaccount 16:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Huh? That makes no sense.  If there are creationary geologists, then it is inappropriate (at the very least) to talk about creationists and geologists as though they are two mutually-exclusive groups.  What on earth do creationary elephant trainers et. al. have to do with it? Philip J. Rayment 14:44, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * tell me, ben: are there any evolutionist flood geologists? Ungtss 17:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know, why do you ask?Bensaccount 17:27, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * because there aren't any, and here's the reason: to be a flood geologist is to be a biblical creationist. the two are inseparable.  Ungtss 17:29, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So you found some minority scientists who are also creationists. Whats your point? I honestly have no clue where you are going with this. Please fill me in. Bensaccount 17:43, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * you started this thread off saying "There aren't "a number of different scientific" viewpoints. There is only one scientific viewpoint being debated (evolution)." i just showed you that there are "minority scientists" who believe there is a scientific basis for creationism in the form of flood geology.  that means there is another "scientific viewpoint," meaning there are "a number of scientific viewpoints."  there are also disagreements between evolutionists -- some believe in darwinian gradualism -- others in an epigenetic macromutation model.  there are a number of scientific viewpoints, ben.  that's what started this and that's what i just showed you.  please, ben, i don't have a problem with you.  i'm tired of this.  let's be constructive.  Ungtss 17:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My point stands. Sure there may be "creationary geologists". There may be creationary blacksmiths and creationary elephant trainers for all the difference it makes. When you are defining a debate, you need to find unifying characteristics for each side. The opinion of the creationary elephant trainers do not represent either side of the debate. Bensaccount 17:53, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * these are not "creationary elephant trainers" -- these are CREATION SCIENTISTS. that means they have a SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF THE EARTH!  BEN!  CUMMON!  take the horse-blinders off, man!  Ungtss 18:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Calm down. If you want to say that purely scientific views should be more well represented in the argument even though they dont represent the general population debating I am fine with this, although this changes everything. That means, in case you are a little slow, that you can no longer say that pure science doesn't represent the evolution side of the debate. Bensaccount 18:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * where have i said that "pure science doesn't represent the evolution side of the debate, ben?" the issue here is, "is it nonsense to have a sentence that says, 'there are a number of scientific and religious views regarding the origin of the earth.'"  that statement is all i'm talking about, ben.  you've been trying to say this is debate is simply science versus religioun for like a week now ... and trying to force that pov onto the page.  you're entitled to that pov, but you're not entitled to have that pov represented as truth on the page, because there ARE a number of religious and scientific views regarding the origin of life on the planet.  it is NOT just science versus religion.  Ungtss 19:13, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Did I just imagine you saying this? Was it not a couple sections ago?


 * Science has no quarrel with those who believe that life was created by god; this is where science lets philosophy and theology take over. The scientist has a problem with those whose faith precludes them from considering other theories regarding the world around them other than their own. Essentially, creationist vs evolutionist = closed mind vs open mind. -
 * that is certainly one point of view. however, it is not the only one. almost 50% of the US population believes that a biblically literal creation is supported the evidence, and that the scientific community is close-mindedly ignoring the evidence due to its naturalistic philosophical assumptions (and questionable methodologies such as uniformitarianism).

As for me, I never said the debate is science vs religion I said this debate has two sides and they are clear. On one side there are the people that insist they know with certainty exactly how their holy text is meant to be read and interpreted. On the other side are the supporters of the theory of evolution whos viewpoint on the holy text has no relevence to their argument and therefore varies widely. Bensaccount 19:45, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * a beginning to the sides to the debate:
 * young earth creationists (interpret bible one way)
 * old earth creationists (interpret bible another way)
 * gap creationists (interpret bible another way)
 * intelligent design creationists (don't use the bible -- just believe in an "unknown creator"
 * orthogenetis (believe evolution is the fulfillment of creation in god's preordained plan
 * gradualistic evolution -- evolution by bits and pieces
 * punctuated equilibrium -- evolution in huge jumps.
 * two sides, ben? Ungtss 04:11, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You forgot to mention the start trek fan creationists and the star wars fan creationists. There is debate between them too. Its not about creation vs evolution, but hey, that doesn't seem to matter so long as you can categorize creationists in a list right? Bensaccount 18:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * And for the second time, I ask what that has to do with the creation/evolution debate. It is creationary scientists and evolutionary scientists that matter here, not creationary elephant trainer or creationary Star Wars fans.  Philip J. Rayment 14:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Exactly, so although they do debate, its not about creation vs. evolution so it doesn't matter. Just like young earth creationists vs old earth creationists. Bensaccount 18:22, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. Creationary scientists (but not creationary elephant trainers, unless they are also creationary scientists) and evolutionary scientists do debate creation and evolution.  Philip J. Rayment 01:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV and idiotic second and third sentences
''In some areas, such as Europe, acceptance of evolution has achieved near-universality, among religious believers and atheists alike. In other areas, such as the Middle East, creationism is nearly universal.''

Look at these vague, idiotic sentences:
 * "In some areas such as Europe"? What is that supposed to mean? Various small continents? Australia?
 * In some areas, such as the Middle East? Im assuming this implies southern USA, right?
 * .
 * The fact that it exemplifies one place where evolution is highly accepted and one place where creationism is highly believed leads to the assumption, once again, that these are mutually exclusive. Must every sentence in this article support this incorrect POV? Bensaccount 17:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * listen. if you think they're idiotic, find BETTER, more ACCURATE statistics.  don't delete these and leave us with no idea who believes what ... find BETTER ones.  Ungtss 17:27, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Another great Ungtss assertion: 'We should keep the POV statistics because being POV beats not providing statistics'. Bensaccount 17:45, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * that's not what i said. i said, "if you want something better, find something better, but don't erase the best thing we've got because you think it's not good enough."  common sense, ben.  Ungtss 17:48, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They aren't only idiotic (although that alone warrants deletion). They are also POV. See above. Bensaccount 17:55, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * fine, i'll bite.


 * "In some areas such as Europe"? What is that supposed to mean? Various small continents? Australia?
 * no, ben. it's supposed to mean, "some places, for example, europe."
 * "In some areas, such as the Middle East? Im assuming this implies southern USA, right?"
 * no, ben, Middle East refers to saudi arabia, iraq, iran, dubai, bahrain, yemen, egypt, among other countries. other predominantly creationist countries include morocco, algeria, libya, pakistan, uzbekistan ... Ungtss 19:19, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The fact that it exemplifies one place where evolution is highly accepted and one place where creationism is highly believed leads to the assumption, once again, that these are mutually exclusive. Must every sentence in this article support this incorrect POV?
 * how does it say that, ben? evolution is almost universal in europe.  creation is almost universal in the middle east.  who said they were mutually exclusive?  there are theistic evolutionists both places, but the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY are one or the other.  that's statistically accurate.  Ungtss 19:19, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sure you can say what your interpretations are ie. by some areas such as the Middle East you meant Morocco, but that doesn't change the vagueness of the statement. Its not a question of accuracy its a question of misleading the reader. You can keep your idiotic second and third sentences if you need them to back up your POV. Tomorrow I will list the next POV and you will no doubt once again refuse to remove it or produce references.Bensaccount 19:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * there is nothing vague about Middle East, ben, and it has nothing to do with my pov. follow the link and you'll figure out where it is.  i don't want to keep playing these silly games with you.  you started off calling me a moron and telling me "relationship" and "similarity" were synonyms.  now you're telling me the middle east is somewhere in the southern US.  and somehow, this page is all just a big conspiracy to support my bias.  please, ben, just stop.  read some articles, and come up with something valuable to contribute.  that's what wikipedia is for.  Ungtss 19:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Relationship and similarity are synonyms, moron. Bensaccount 20:07, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * is this FUN for you, ben? have you LOOKED them up in the dictionary recently?  Ungtss 20:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Go to [thesaurus.com] and look up relationship and similarity. Bensaccount 20:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * a thesaurus doesn't give you true synonyms, ben, it gives you "similar words" in a much broader sense. a true synonym is a word that means exactly the same as another.
 * from dictionary.com:
 * Relationship:
 * The condition or fact of being related; connection or association.
 * Connection by blood or marriage; kinship.
 * A particular type of connection existing between people related to or having dealings with ::each other: has a close relationship with his siblings.
 * A romantic or sexual involvement.


 * similarity:
 * The quality or condition of being similar; resemblance. See Synonyms at likeness.
 * A corresponding aspect or feature; equivalence: a similarity of writing styles.


 * things can be related but not similar (for instance, two cousins, one tall and female, the other short and male) and things can be similar but not related (two identical volvo 240ses). they're not synonyms.  please, ben, let's move beyond this.  Ungtss 21:01, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vagueness does not equal idiotic. I don't have a POV problem with the sentences, and I don't think that they are unneccesarily vague. But I wouldn't object if somebody came up with better wording without making it too wordy. Philip J. Rayment 14:49, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You don't think they are unneccesarily vague? Are you saying that it is necessary for these sentences to be vague for some reason. Should I assume you are just sputtering whatever comes to mind to back up your commander, regardless of if it makes sense? Oh and tell your chief that a thesaurus does in fact give synonyms, and if he didn't want to discuss it he shouldn't have brought it up. Bensaccount 17:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think that they are unneccessarily vague. Who is my commander that you refer to?  Not Ungtss; he and I disagree on what we believe (even if we are closer than either is to you).  A thesaurus does give synonyms, but not equivalent meanings.  A synonym is a word with the same or similar meanings.  So I guess that relationship and similarity are synonyms because their meanings are similar, even though their meanings are not the same.  Philip J. Rayment 15:13, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok maybe Untss isn't your commander. Its more of a villain-henchman relationship. Anyways, you still think there is some necessity for vagueness? Bensaccount 18:26, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * dude. commander?  villain?  henchman?  shall i add those to the groundless ad hominem list?  mr. rayment and i disagree on a NUMBER of things (the definition of synonym, for example:).  beyond that, he's an evangelical, and i don't go to church ... and i'm sure many of my theological views border on heresy.  just 'cause we all disagree with you doesn't mean we agree with each other:).  and however you choose to define "synonym," you can't use "relationship" and "similarity" interchangeably.  Ungtss 23:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sure add them whereever you want. Bensaccount 00:08, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The only "necessity" for vagueness is if that assists clarity. (I don't think that it would help clarity to list every country in europe and where it stands, for instance.) But if it hinders clarity (because it is too much of a generalisation, or whatever), then it would be better to be less vague. Philip J. Rayment 01:08, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fourth sentence biased towards creationist POV
''The debate covers a number of areas, including geology, biology, and astronomy. This article will focus on differences between evolutionists and creationists on the origin and development of life on Earth.''


 * The debate doesn't cover geology biology and astronomy. You are speaking of creationists vs. science. I think there is a page for that now.
 * Creationists argue with geology because it conflicts with their notion of the great flood. Evolution has nothing to do with this debate. This is only between creationists and geologists (or creationist-geologists and geologists).
 * Again, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. The writer is using the layman's version of evolution. Bensaccount 18:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Of course the fourth sentence is biased towards the creationist POV. 8)) The whole Creation vs. evolution debate is biased toward the creationist POV--because the debate is only one-sided--as long as the proponents of evolution think they have the dominant political power. If the proponents of evolution lose one big court case that requires teaching creationism in public school biology classes then you will see the proponents of evolution come out swinging in the debate. And of course the debate has nothing to do with geology, biology, astronomy--or evolution. The debate has only to do with "Creation vs. evolution" which is a creationist campaign--so of course it has nothing to do with "evolution." The "creation vs. evolution debate" is like the "Impeach Bush" campaign--which has nothing to do with Bush but only to do with the anti-Bush factions. Does Bush ever debate the "Impeach Bush" campaign? Not on your life--not until he thinks the enemy is winning in the debate. :)) And you are wrong to say that the argument is "creationism vs. science." Nope. The battle is "creation vs. evolution"--and the skirmishes spread into any science that supports evolution. The creationists heartily accept that part of science that agrees with creationism, n'est-ce pas? :)) Accordingly, the only part of science that creationists battle in the debate is any part of science that supports the enemy--which is evolution. So far you have merely enumerated the accuracy of the Creation vs. evolution debate page. Hence, you must be a great fan of this page! :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 14:13, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where do you stand Rednblu. You obviously disagree with creationism and don't seem to believe in God. You also seem to support evolution. Gather your thoughts together. Bensaccount 19:48, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * <>
 * indeed it is so:). however, we do have scientific theories of our own ... we've just been chronically bad at systematizing or communicating them ... which might have something to do with the fact that we don't have the RESOURCES available to the "mainstream scientific community:)."  Yet, that is:).  Ungtss 23:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Defining evolution
<> So? This is a general-purpose encyclopedia, not a science text book. In any case, evolutionist Kerkut defined evolution as "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form." That sounds to me like it includes abiogenesis. Philip J. Rayment 15:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do some reasearch. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Misquoting some unknown dead scientist does not provide the correct definition of evolution. Evolution was first theorized by Darwin who refered to it as 'descent with modification', and it was the theory that explained how the earliest life was transformed to the diversity that characterizes it today. Later on (1940s) the work of Mendel was integrated to this and the accepted theory of evolution was the modern synthesis. Since then this theory, which can now predict much more than just the origin of the species, has been defined in terms of the agents responsible for evolution; the theory of evolution is the theory that a change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next can explain nearly countless phenomena. Bensaccount 20:27, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Clearly, the English word "evolution" at least since 1677 has been used as a label for a whole range of theories of how people could come to be on planet earth without divine intervention. And, even in scientific circles until 1872, "evolution" included abiogenesis.  You continue to ignore reality.  Evolution was not first theorized by Darwin.  Darwin's First Edition of Origin of Species did not even contain the English word evolution.  I suggest you need to do some research and face reality here.  Your on-going and continued recital of pseudoscience and superstition helps no one's cause--except for maybe the cause of the creationists who can laugh at Bensaccount !ÔÔ! for the typical evolutionist deceptive mischaracterization of facts and history.  ---Rednblu | Talk 21:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good, I don't intend to support any one cause; I aim for truth and clarity. What about you? What are you trying to say? Are you disagreeing with Darwin? Are you disagreeing with the modern synthesis? Do you disagree with the most specific genetic definition of evolution? Perhaps you think you know better and would like to provide your own definition? And while your at it, please, provide an example of when I used pseudoscience or superstition. I am curious. Bensaccount 21:42, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Evolution was not first theorized by Darwin. Would you agree?  ---Rednblu | Talk 23:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree, the current theory of evolution was first formulated by Darwin. Now will you answer some of my questions? Bensaccount 23:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Was NOT first theorized by Darwin. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 23:54, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to Lamarck? That theory may have also been called evolution but it is not the current meaning of the theory of evolution. That was a different theory. Stop asking me these silly loaded question. Even if you could make me look like a fool, where would that get you? Bensaccount 00:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They have the right to make up any definition of evolution they want and dispute it. Just so long as it gets duely noted that they are not disputing the current scientific theory of evolution. Bensaccount 00:19, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Mr. Rayment and anyone else should have the right to use the English word "evolution" in the way that it has been used continuously since at least 1677 to include abiogenesis. ---Rednblu | Talk 00:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The "creation vs. evolution debate" has been waged with the words "creation" and "evolution" since at least 1677. Since at least 1677, the word "evolution" has meant abiogenesis as a means of suppressing the belief in God.  ---Rednblu | Talk 00:26, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Things have changed since 1677. It would be very misleading to use the 1677 definition of evolution without warning the reader than this arbitrary, unscientific definition is being used. Bensaccount 00:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You are kidding! :)) Many things have not changed since 1677. For example, if I wrote here a random paragraph of 1677 AEnglish, do you think you could read it and understand it?  :)) The reality is that there has been a continuous understanding since at least 1677 among creationists that the English word "evolution" includes abiogenesis as a means of suppressing the belief in God.  Excuse me, sir, but I would suggest that it is very misleading for you and other evolutionists to not recognize that the very technical definition for "evolution" you wish everybody to use did not appear until around 1872.  Furthermore, that very technical definition of "evolution" has never been used by the majority of English speakers throughout the world.  That very technical definition of "evolution" has been used mainly by scientists. :)) In my opinion, it is thus very misleading and at least misinformed :)) for you to write, "Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis."  ---Rednblu | Talk 07:23, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

<> Philip J. Rayment 00:58, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to "provide the correct definition". I was pointing out that the word (like most words) can be used in more than one way, and that one way that evolutionists use the word is to include abiogenesis.  I recognise that it is also used to refer only to biological evolution, i.e. once life has started, but that does not preclude it being use in other, possibly broader, ways.
 * How was I misquoting him?
 * How is he being unknown to you, relevant?


 * Okay, "evolution is a change in the frequency of an allele within a gene pool" (Dobzhansky, 1937). The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that explains how these changes (that have been observed and that can be inferred from other evidence) occurred.  Now, abiogenesis is important in the history of life, although it isn't evolution per se, it is part of the theory of evolution.  The problem is numpties get somewhat confused, and we need to be unambiguous.  Going back to history isn't worth it here, they had lots of silly ideas like spontaneous generation back in 16whatever.  The other problem is that creationists will often in the course of their rhetoric, lump all types of science that contradicts their preconceptions, including geology, astronomy etc into "evilution".  Dunc|&#9786; 10:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * By quoting Dobzhansky, all you have done is confirmed that "evolution" can be used in a different way to the one I was talking about, thereby confirming that it can be used in more than one way.
 * Whether or not "evolution is a scientific theory" is one of the points of dispute.
 * Yes, spontaneous generation was a silly idea. And it still is, even when presented in the form of abiogenesis.
 * Creationists will lump various things into the term, in line with the way that the word is sometimes used (and I've seen it used quite often by non-creationists with reference to stars, etc.). And evolutionists will lump variation within the gene pool in with the spontaneous generation of new genetic information and deny that there is a difference!
 * Philip J. Rayment 01:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, :(( Mr. Rayment and the creationists have history and reason on their side on this point. And unfortunately, the anti-creationists are wrong and unreasonable to insist that the technical 1872 definition of "evolution" displaced the most-used definition--because it did not.  That very limited technical definition of "evolution" did not displace the most-used definition that has continuously been used outside the life-sciences since before 1677.  Thus, what you say is essentially accurate technically--but only with respect to the very limited life-science meaning of "evolution."  Historically, there was a similar split between 1) technical definition and 2) most-used definition with respect to the English word work.  One important part of untangling the thermodynamics of how to construct very efficient steam engines derived from defining work as $$\int\mathbf{F}\cdot d\mathbf{s}$$.  But the most-used definition of the English word work has continued to be "effort expended" at least since 1677--which is entirely different from the very limited technical definition.  Would you agree?  :)  ---Rednblu | Talk 18:51, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I resent being called an anti-creationist. Bensaccount 18:58, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 8)). Yes.  I apologize.  English can be very harsh--just in describing the reality of what is. :((  But is it not true that you are anti (the idea that creationism should be taught in public school biology classes)?  ---Rednblu | Talk 19:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't care about school. Bensaccount 19:23, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You don't care if creation is taught in public school biology classes? Philip J. Rayment 01:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't. Do you care? Bensaccount 16:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I for one care very much. I would hate to see any form of creationism taught in public school biology classes.  So I am definitely an anti-creationist.  Nevertheless, I would like to see an accurate description of the Creation vs. evolution debate available to any public school student anywhere.  And in my opinion, it is deceptive, misleading, and inaccurate to contend that "evolution does NOT include abiogenesis"--because any high school student can read the writings of Sir Matthew Hale, Erasmus Darwin, Pierre Gassendi, Edgar Allen Poe, Lucretius, Herbert Spencer, Sir John W. Dawson, William Jennings Bryan, and Henry Morris to see that scientists and non-scientists alike since before 1677 have continuously used the concept and word "evolution" to include an atheistic theory of abiogenesis.  I will admit also that there has been a concerted effort among life-scientists since 1872 to re-define what the English word "evolution" is.  So I would prefer that the Wikepedia article on the Creation vs. evolution debate tell the truth.  In my opinion, the worst moral transgression in that debate is the dissembling and half-truths of the anti-creationists.  ---Rednblu | Talk 19:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That would make you an anti-creation-in-school-ist. And stop with the ancient history. The theory of evolution wasnt even around in the 1600s. And since I answered your question, here is one for you. What does the word 'gay' mean? Bensaccount 19:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You are partly right. :) The "theory of evolution" that does not include abiogenesis did not begin until sometime around 1872.  But theorizing on what atomic mechanisms could draw human forms from animal forms has been around since before the 1600s.  The theorizing was so disturbing to the judge Sir Matthew Hale that he wrote a whole book in the 1600s attacking the theory of evolution of humans from animals and animals from lower animals and lower animals from just the "fortuitous coalition of senseless and dead Atoms."  ---Rednblu | Talk 20:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Indeed, rednblu, you are very knowledgeable about the history of this sort of thing. What matters most however is not what evolution was way back; the modern theory is very different.  Like I was trying to say, abiogenesis is part of the theory of evolution but it is not evolution in its strictest sense.  And yes, abiogensis is important, but modern theories on that have only really been around tsince the 1950s.  Can we agree on that? Dunc|&#9786; 23:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure, Dunc, I agree with everything you said--if only you and I were writing our best ideas for us to read--because you and I personally follow the definition of "evolution" that started around 1872. :) The complication is the following. :( This is Wikipedia, and there are creationists here who follow in the tradition of Sir Matthew Hale and his teachers who saw "evolution" merely as a complicated means of denying divine intervention. My personal interest is to find a NPOV approach for the Creation vs. evolution debate page that represents fairly what that debate is.  :)  And I think that is your interest in this page as well.  In the process, the history becomes important because the creationists and non-life-scientists generally are caught in a gigantic hysteresis lag of what "evolution" was in the 1600s.  That is, English speakers outside the life-sciences generally have not yet adopted what you called the "strictest sense" of the 1872 meaning of "evolution." ---Rednblu | Talk 06:49, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't the wise thing to do be to identify that creationists mean one thing by "evolution", and the scientific community means another, and then point out what the two meanings are, and why both can, potentially be right in their claims about their form of evolution?

Summary of bias in the introduction

 * The creation vs. evolution debate is a debate between people holding a number of different scientific and religious viewpoints regarding the origin and development of life on Earth. In some areas, such as Europe, acceptance of evolution has achieved near-universality, among religious believers and atheists alike. In other areas, such as the Middle East, creationism is nearly universal.


 * However, in places such as the United States, opinions are widely mixed. According to a 1997 Newsweek poll, among the general population, 44% believed in biblically literal creation, 39% believed in theistic evolution, and 10% believed in purely naturalistic evolution. Among American scientists, 5% believed in biblically literal creation, 40% believed in theistic evolution, and 55% believed in naturalistic evolution. Less than 1% of earth and life scientists in the United States believe in biblically literal creationism.


 * The debate covers a number of areas, including geology, biology, and astronomy. This article will focus on differences between evolutionists and creationists on the origin and development of life on Earth.

The first sentence of this article is biased. It says there are more than two sides to the debate. This is in reference to such categories as young earth creationists, old earth creationists, gradualistic evolution, and punctuated equilibrium. However, the debate between young earth creationists and old earth creationists is about the date of creation and does not conflict with evolution. Similarly, the debate between gradualistic evolution and punctuated equilibrium is certainly not about creation vs. evolution.

When defining a debate it is necessary to find the unifying characteristics for each side. In this debate, the obvious unifying characteristic for the creation side is that the people on this side all insist they know with certainty exactly how their holy text is meant to be read and interpreted. The other side is unified only by their support for the theory of evolution, as their viewpoint on the holy text has no relevence to their argument and therefore varies widely.

The statistics in the introduction to this article are misleading. One who believes in 'naturalistic evolution' or 'theistic evolution' does not necessarily disagree with creation. However, the fact that this poll is presented at the beginning of a page on a debate obviously implies that there is a debate between these groups of people. This is a false implication; the groups surveyed do not represent the sides of the debate. The poll is misleading is various other ways, and has been changed from the original source.

The second and third sentences of this article exemplify one place where evolution is highly accepted and one place where creationism is highly believed leading to the biblically-literal creationist point of view that that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive. Vague language is used to assist the clarity of this bias.

The fourth sentence is biased towards the creationist point of view. It misrepresents geology as evolution to make it seem like the conflict between creationist-geologists and regular geologists over the great flood is part of this debate. Similar misrepresentations are made with the other sciences. Bensaccount 18:03, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

<>
 * that is factually incorrect. when there are different models of creation and different models of evolution, they debate each other in different ways.  for instance, an old earth creationist and an evolutionist will not debate over the age of the earth, while a young-earth creationist and an evolutionist WILL debate over the age of the earth.  the recognition and identification of those sides is absolutely essential to realizing how complex the debate is.  your attempt to remove factual information adds nothing while only pushing your simplistic pov, and two obviously non-creationist administrators found your proposed intro to be extremely pov as a result.  Ungtss 23:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

<>


 * that is utter nonsense. the unifying characteristics are identified in the title: "Creationists" believe the world was created.  "Evolutionists" believe world evolved.  theistic evolutionists believe that their holy book and evolution are consistent.  ID people like Behe don't even USE a holy book in their form of creationism.  your attempt to frame this in terms of "holy book versus scientific method" distorts the issues and adds nothing.  Ungtss 23:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The second and third sentences of this article exemplify one place where evolution is highly accepted and one place where creationism is highly believed leading to the biblically-literal creationist point of view that that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive.


 * it does no such thing. the fact that most new yorkers are liberal and most montanans are conservative does not mean there is no such thing as a moderate.  you still haven't given any explanation for why it leads to that conclusion.  it is simply a FACT that nearly all muslims believe in biblically literal creationism, while nearly all europeans believe in evolution.  you're seeing bias where there is none.  Ungtss 23:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It misrepresents geology as evolution to make it seem like the conflict between creationist-geologists and regular geologists over the great flood is part of this debate.


 * flood geology IS part of the debate, as it is INDISPENSIBLE to both biblically-literal creationism and evolution. evolution is grounded on the fossil record for a historical account of evolution, and creation depends on flood geology to give a different explanation for the fossils that is consistent with creation.  Ungtss 23:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * dude. ben.  why don't you go find some relevent facts and add them to the page instead of finding bias where there is none?  Ungtss 23:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your arguments are getting thin Ungtss. There are only so many times you can use the argument "that is factually incorrect" or "that is utter nonsense" while providing some weak and unlikely example of when it may not be true. Furthermore, what motive would I have to "find bias where there is none"? I am not in favour of either side of this debate. You, on the other hand, are biased and have said so. Bensaccount 01:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

stats
i returned the stats to the top of the page for the following reasons: 1) they are factually accurate and cited ... one of the few things on the page that actually is. 2) they speak for themselves, rather than being subject to our editorial comments. 3) they capture the positions and their relative popularity in a clear and concise way. 4) they don't belong in the "and the scientific community section" because half of them are about the general population. Ungtss 22:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You mean you returned them because you refuse to remove your bias from the page. Bensaccount 01:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The paragraph is inappropriate at the top - it is too much detail for the summary. There is also the problem that it says "in places such as the United States"; I am not aware of any other countries where there is a serious public debate, hence the sentence I had put in the intro. Similarly, the US is the only country (AFAIK) where there is any meaningful disagreement among scientists. Having the general population statistics in that section is useful as context, but could go elsewhere - but not at the top. The page is overloaded enough as it is, let's at least keep the intro short and punchy. BTW, is the Flood stuff really appropriate here? I see it as a side issue to the main debate about evolution. I would put it on its own page and summarise. (However, I'd be open to keeping it because it's so wonderfully pathetic that it shows up the rest of the creationist arguments.) Rd232 10:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I left the stats as they're subject to debate; but "between people holding a number of different scientific and religious viewpoints regarding" from the first sentence is irredeemably superfluous. It's vague and pointless; if there weren't different viewpoints, there wouldn't be a debate. Rd232 10:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * <>
 * How does one measure or compare "serious" in "serious public debate"? Australia is the home of Answers In Genesis, one of the largest creationist organisations.  And in my opinion (and I'm an Australian), Australia has been influenced more for creation per head of population, or at least the church population, than the U.S.A. (but, not being in the U.S.A. I might underestimate the situation there).  Having said that, however, the church population in Australia is much less (per capita) than in the U.S.  In summary, it's really hard to know objectively how Australia compares to America with regard to "serious public debate", but it could well be true that Australia is a "place such as the United States".  Philip J. Rayment 13:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"In places such as the United states" is a weasel term. Bensaccount 19:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced. Weasel terms seem to me to be ones where an attempt at NPOV has been made by attributing a POV claim to some vague group.  That is not what is being done here.  A Weasel word is "a word intended to soften the force of a statement and/or make an assertion as though one is just conveying some other's opinion."  The sentence in dispute is not intended to do either of these.  It is actually intended to expand the range being considered.  It is roughly equivalent to saying "In the United States and some other countries".  That still has some vagueness about it (what other countries?), but would it be more acceptable?  To put it another way, assume for the moment that the statement is true regarding the United States, Australia, and, say, twelve other countries.  What would be the best way of putting it?  I personally don't think that it is appropriate to list every one of those 14 countries, and therefore mentioning the U.S. plus the fact that there are other places seems appropriate. Philip J. Rayment 03:10, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. We would not want to say "In the United States and similar unenlightened places . . . ." 8(( And we would not want to say "In the United States and similar enlightened places . . . ." 8((  We would want to imply that there is an unknown causative similarity, so we say "In places such as the United States . . . ."  Is there a better way to say it?  ---Rednblu | Talk 06:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Creationism is particularly prevalant in the US because of its religious history. Europe is more secular.  There is less of a controversy elsewhere, because the controversy arises primarily where the religious deny science or worse present pseudoscientific alternatives. Dunc|&#9786; 11:49, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"In places such as the United States opinions are widely mixed" is a vague weasel statement. If it must be included, I suggest adding the following statement directly after it to at least be honest and not let the reader jump to any false conclusions: This could be referring to any place on the face of the Earth, and this could be refering to any opinion on any subject.Bensaccount 16:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Taking Dunc's cue, how about the following? In places such as the United States where there is considerable religious opposition to naturalistic approaches to science, opinions are widely mixed. ---Rednblu | Talk 20:05, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * close ... i don't think we're quite there yet ... because there is considerable religious opposition to naturalism in south america, africa, the middle east, and south asia ... but there's no debate, because everybody is creationist. in my opinion, there's a debate in america because both science and religion are vibrant there -- religion is largely dead in europe, and science is badly lagging in africa.  in both of those places, one side has a monopoly, so there is no argument.  but i think it's misleading to imply that the DEBATE is caused by religion in the US ... on the contrary ... it's the COEXISTENCE of RELIGION and SCIENCE that causes the debate.  in the US, both creationists and naturalists are making their arguments in terms of science.  whatcha think?  Ungtss 20:43, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Biased as usual, Ungtss. Coexistence does not cause the debate. People who insist they know how their holy text must be interpreted cause the debate. Religion is not dead in Europe, only your interpretation of it. Bensaccount 20:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * have you ever been to saudi arabia? i lived there for 3 years, and Ivory Coast in West Africa for 3 years.  there is absolutely no creation/evolution debate debate in either of those places, period.  the bible is taken as secular history.  bedhouin tribes roaming the desert track their ancestry all the way back to Shem the son of Noah on geneology tablets they keep.  the yoruba of nigeria do the same ... but they track their ancestry through Ham, the son of Noah.  they look at our "evolution theory" as just another ridiculous, sick, and twisted idea to come out of the west, right up there with the crusades, papal infallibility, and colonialism (i.e. the "white man's burden").  if "people who insist they know how their holy text must be interpretted cause the debate," how come there is no debate in a place where so many people insist on how their text should be interpretted?  how come everybody is convinced of creation?  as to religion not being largely dead in Europe, have you ever BEEN to europe?  Ungtss 21:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We obviously disagree here and are not getting anywhere.

A possible solution?
It seems we have here:
 * Anti-creation, pro-evolution
 * Pro-creation, pro-evolution
 * Pro-creation, anti-evolution
 * Anti-creation, anti-evolution (no one here)
 * Add yourself to the list?

These are not necessarily sides of the debate, but they are evidently different points of view. The best way to get this article NPOV imhop is to have everyones view represented fairly for each section. Shall we try this? Bensaccount 21:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Nope. In my opinion, that would be personal research.  I suggest we should be quoting, paraphrasing, and citing to published scholarly opinion.  If you can find a published scholar's opinion that you think should be added, then you should bring it forward. Which published scholarly opinion do you think is not represented already?  ---Rednblu | Talk 04:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * thereyago:). modifying the list:


 * Evolution without creation
 * Creation through evolution
 * Intelligent design (creation in unknown way by unknown creator at unknown time)
 * Old Earth Creation without evolution
 * Young Earth Creation without evolution Ungtss 21:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No not a good modification, Ungtss. Lets try it again with names.
 * Anti-creation, pro-evolution (Rednblu)
 * Pro-creation, pro-evolution (Bensaccount)
 * Pro-creation, anti-evolution (Ungtss)
 * Anti-creation, anti-evolution (No one here)


 * i am not "pro-creation, anti-evolution!" if you want my opinion, it's old-earth, special creation, MICROEVOLUTION."  from what i gather, mr rayment's opinion is young earth, special creation, microevolution.  charle's darwin's opinion was old-earth, special creation, MACROEVOLUTION.  as i understand it, mr. rednblue believes in an old-earth, no special creation, macroevolution.  your oversimplification does not WORK, ben -- you keep repeating it, but it MISREPRESENTS the POSITIONS.  the debate is MORE COMPLEX than the little "religious text versus science" mold you keep trying to force it into.  Ungtss 01:07, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

These arent sides of the debate, and the date of creation no relevance to creation vs evolution. Define "scholarly opinion" rednblue, and tell me how it differs from a "non-scholarly opinion. Bensaccount 16:35, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * what do you mean those aren't sides of the debate? the issue is: "how did the world and life come to be?"  every different opinion is a side of a debate.  and a scholarly opinion is written by someone with an advanced degree in the subject in the form of a study or a published article ... rather than the opinions of a bunch of shmo's like us:).  Ungtss 20:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---


 * What Mr. Ungtss says makes sense to me. I would add an example for those of us who are a little slow and did not pay attention in Biology class.  An example of "scholarly opinion" would be any opinion expressed in any article indexed on the National Center for Biotechnology Information Search Engine.  In my experience, "scholarly opinion" indexed on the NCBI site provides a paraphrase, quote, survey, and citation to the origin of the opinion. :)) An example of "non-scholarly" opinion would be any opinion of Wikipedia editors that is not a paraphrase, quote, poll, and citation to "scholarly opinion."  And since some of us here have an agenda quite different from writing a good Creation vs. evolution debate page, I am quite sure someone will find both of those examples dissatisfying and hence debatable.  8))  ---Rednblu | Talk 21:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I guess this wasn't a possible solution after all. I don't think credentials make an opinion any less biased, but maybe thats just me. Anyways, the above are not sides of the debate. If you are pro-creation and pro-evolution, you think there is no conflict and that there shouldn't be a debate at all, so being placed on a 'side of it' is absurd and offensive. Bensaccount 18:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Astronomy?
The introduction says the debate covers astronomy. I assume that this supports some creationist bias, since Untss refuses to remove it, but I am curious as to HOW DOES THIS DEBATE RELATE TO ASTRONOMY? Bensaccount 17:26, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * dude -- chill. quit friggin' attacking me and get to the facts.  the creation or evolution of celestial bodies is also an issue in the debate.  could stars have come about naturally, or did a Creator have to make them?  could the planets have come into orbit naturally, or did a Creator have to place them in orbit?  could the universe itself, with all its laws of physics and atoms have come into place without a creator ... or are they somehow self-existent ... or was it all Created?  how did the moon come to orbit the earth?  if the universe is expanding, was there a big bang, or is the red-shift due to gravity, or something else?  where did comets come from, and if they're really old ... how come they still have ice?  on and on.  those are some of the creation vs. evolution astronomy questions. Ungtss 20:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Surely it relates to astronomy because astronomy gives us evidence for an old earth. Some creationists put forward theories involving time warping to explain a universe which appears way older than they think the earth is.  I think that we should emphasise just how much of science is questioned by young earth creationists (it's not just evolution by any means).  Maybe this page should be renamed Creation vs. mainstream science.  Barnaby dawson 21:54, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the page is named appropriately--for the empirical evidence indicates that the creationists are using the 1600s definition of "evolution" which includes explanations for the origin of stars, worlds, life, astronomy, astrology, and species diversity. :))  I can provide you with a continuous list of citations to the creationist and non-life-science use of this 1600s definition of "evolution" if you are unaware of the phenomenon. 8((  The NON-astronomy definition of "evolution" that you and I use was not invented until around 1872.  And that NON-astronomy definition has not caught on among the non-life-scientists who speak and write English.  ---Rednblu | Talk 22:23, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, young Earth creationists get into their usual nonsense trying to explain where the light from stars that we can see that is several million years old came from, hence astronomy. It isn't really a problem for old earth creationists, though it could be. Theories of Big Bang etc that provide scientific theories of origins of the Universe of close off some of the gaps that some people fit God into too.  See Answers in Genesis Dunc|&#9786; 22:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * No I still think it should be renamed as the creationist understanding of the word evolution is not how the word is understood in general. We should add a note in the introduction to point out how many creationists use the word.  Barnaby dawson 09:40, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

definitions
ben, if you're upset about the broader definition of evolution and want to clarify it ... put that farther down in the article (i think you'll find the distinction there in the two sections ... abiogenesis and species differentiation). that doesn't belong in the intro. you're also defeating yourself by arguing that "there are only two sides of the debate" but also that "the two sides are not mutually exclusive." if the two sides are not mutually exclusive, then there are more than two sides. and i think you'll note that further down (something along the lines of "Creation and Evolution are not mutually exclusive") -- that side that believes in both is CALLED theistic evolution, and is REPRESENTED in the stats at the top which you keep deleting. Ungtss 00:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are only two sides, but they are not the supporters of evolution and the supporters of creation since as you say there are 'theistic evolutionists' who dont think there is a debate at all. The two sides can be found by looking at the characteristics that unify them. In this debate, the obvious unifying characteristic for the creation side is that the people on this side all insist they know with certainty exactly how their holy text is meant to be read and interpreted. The other side is unified only by their support for the theory of evolution, as their viewpoint on the holy text has no relevence to their argument and therefore varies widely.Bensaccount 17:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * <>
 * I am a creationist, and i do not claim to know with exact certainty how Genesis is meant to be read and interpretted. personally, i prefer to develop my opinions on things after absorbing a broad spectrum of ideas and synthesizing them into an integrated whole.  i don't fit your "unifying characteristic," so i suggest looking for another one.
 * <>
 * if theistic evolutionists are not a third side in the debate, then why do you, the only theistic evolutionist in this bunch, find yourself arguing with BOTH creationists AND naturalistic evolutionists? Ungtss 21:16, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Because the article is terrible. Bensaccount 17:52, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * it would seem that all the other "sides" think your edits make things worse. Ungtss 20:37, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * When are you going to answer my question Untss, do you or do you not think that the theory of evolution conflicts with the bible (creation)? Bensaccount 17:50, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * it depends how you read the bible. if you read the bible literally (young earth / old earth creationism), there's a huge conflict.  if you read the bible as an allegory intended to express meaning but not historical fact, there's no conflict (theistic evolution).  Ungtss 20:37, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * When are you going to answer my question Untss, do you or do you not think that the theory of evolution conflicts with the bible (creation)? Bensaccount 17:50, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * i don't know:). i don't claim to know exactly how the bible is to be interpretted.  that's what i keep trying to tell you.  you keep telling me i'm a creationist because i think i know exactly how the bible is to be interpretted, and i keep telling you, i DON'T KNOW, and i intend to spend my life figuring it out, through all avenues available.  Ungtss 21:49, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let me save you some time and effort. There is no conflict. There can not be a conflict because evolution is a scientific theory; a framework for understanding. Even if creation was also a scientific theory, theories do not conflict, they merely provide different frameworks for understanding. I know you are lying though. You aren't undecided. You think they conflict. Admit it. You think that you know exactly how the bible should be read, and you think that evolution conflicts with this and therefore must be wrong. Bensaccount 22:45, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * i'm glad you're around to keep me straight. otherwise i might actually believe what i think i believe!  Ungtss 23:59, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You can't be part of a debate if you dont think there is a conflict. Bensaccount 01:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * then why are you debating me, if you don't think there's a conflict? Ungtss 02:13, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because the page is terrible. Bensaccount 02:37, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposal to remove {cleanup}
The template should be removed from the article for the following reasons:


 * The article is pretty well cleaned up.
 * The article is receiving plenty of attention, and will probably continue to do so even in the absence of the template.
 * The {cleanup} template is generally useless and should never be used.

--Yath 07:31, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * motion seconded. the effort spent tagging articles would be better spent actually cleaning the article up.  Ungtss 07:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Cleanup tag should be removed. The person who put the Cleanup tag on this page does not understand either the purpose or procedures for the Cleanup tag--because that person did not engage all the other system flags that need to be engaged to make the Cleanup tag work.  :)) Hence, the tag is nonfunctional.  However, all of us here are very tolerant of intolerant people. :)  So we leave the Cleanup tag on this page as a generous gesture to the kind of senseless but benign vandalism that goes on here. 8))  I would not even waste my time removing it.  :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 09:07, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the article is still in major need of clean up (I have been here since the tag was appropriately placed, and since then the article hasnt changed a single section, although more of the same nonsense was added). The tag should definately not be removed. Bensaccount 17:16, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Remove clean up? We can't even remove the obviously biased poll from the introduction.
For example of how little has changed, look at the misleading poll in the introduction. One who believes in 'naturalistic evolution' or 'theistic evolution' does not necessarily disagree with creation. However, the fact that this poll is still presented at the beginning of a page on the debate obviously implies that there is a debate between these groups of people. This is a false implication; the groups surveyed do not represent the sides of the debate. The poll is also misleading is various other ways, and has been changed from the original source. Bensaccount 17:23, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---


 * Current sentence: <>

How about the following paraphrase of the poll results? A 1997 Newsweek poll revealed the following: 44% said that God created man without evolution, 39% said that God intervened at crucial stages in evolution, and 3) 10% said that man evolved by naturalistic processes in which God had no part. ---Rednblu | Talk 18:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Changing the wording that describes the data gathered by a poll (again) is not a good idea. Furthermore, you are warping the definitions of these items. Bensaccount 18:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Heres a progress chart for the current poll from what it was when I first saw it on this page:
 * 1) According to a 1997 Newsweek poll, among the general population, 44% believed in biblical creation, 39% believed in theistic evolution, and 10% believed in purely naturalistic evolution.
 * 2) According to a 1997 Newsweek poll, among the general population, 44% believed in biblically literal creation, 39% believed in theistic evolution, and 10% believed in purely naturalistic evolution.
 * 3) 1997 Newsweek poll revealed the following: 44% said that God created man without evolution, 39% said that God intervened at crucial stages in evolution, and 3) 10% said that man evolved by naturalistic processes in which God had no part.

The changes are slight and just involve subtle wording, but you can see the progress proceeds in an obvious direction. I don't know what the source said, but from what I see here, the poll is following the laymans version of evolution (gradual change). Bensaccount 18:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

I beg your pardon. :) You are not making sense.  Let's try the following approach.  If you can state what point of view you think is missing from this page, I will spend a few minutes finding some scholar who has stated your point of view.  Once we have a clear statement of what you want said, we would have a better idea of how to get it said.  :)  What is it you want to say? ---Rednblu | Talk 18:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I want to say: "The poll is misleading". But if you are willing to do some research, see if you can dig up the original source and exactly what it said in full.Bensaccount 18:52, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

I look at this like saying: Where is the "original source and exactly what it said in full" for F=ma? The "original sources" are all around us aren't they? How about the following poll?

CREATIONISM

Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the origin and development of man: 1) God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. 2) Man has developed over millions of years from less-advanced forms of life, and God had no part in this process. 3) Man has developed over millions of years from less-advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.?

Gallup Poll

Nov 27, 1991

1991     1982 1)        God created       47%       44% 2)  millions of years         9         9 3)       help of God        40        38      other/don't know         4         9

1991

Universe: United States

From: The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research P.O. Box 440 Storrs, CT 06268-0440 (203) 486-4440

Method: telephone

Sample size: 1005

Reproduced with permission © 1991, Los Angeles Times Syndicate.

Is this poll any more useful? Philip J. Rayment 15:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've had another read of Bensaccounts' complaints about the poll information, and can't agree with him. According to this site, the respondents were asked "Which of the ... statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings". This site also gives the "no opinion" figure, and also the results for five different polls from 1982 to 2001. The three categories are, by the way they are worded, mutually exclusive, in my opinion. They represent what people believe, which is the point of including the statistic; to show that belief in the U.S. is divided. The only hesitation I have about including the statistics is whether it is appropriate to devote that much of the article's introduction to the U.S. poll results, but it is appropriate to discussing the variety of views. Also, if the article's summary of the positions appear to anyody to be misleading, could they spell out exactly how they mislead, please? Philip J. Rayment 15:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would like to go back to what I think is the real problem. Isn't there some point-of-view that you think should be stated about the "Creation vs. evolution debate"? Isn't there some point-of-view that the current page does not state or underplays--in your opinion? ---Rednblu | Talk 23:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated interpretation inserted

 * <>

The above paragraph inserted into the leading section may make sense to somebody. But it does not make sense to me. I suggest that you find some scholar who gave that interpretation to the data so that we can examine the issue. As it is now that paragraph is only unsupported speculation and personal research--in my opinion. ---Rednblu | Talk 23:55, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * it was put in by barnaby ... as best i can understand it, it's intended to argue that the polls are misleading because most people who believe in creation do so not because of evidence, but because they've been brainwashed by their churches ... and in fact believe in creation on a purely religious basis, even though they "know" the evidence disproves it. Ungtss 00:42, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence for this interesting belief about polls--or is it the result of brainwashing? :))  As far as I know, that series of polls is fairly stable, going back to the classic 1916 polls by James H. Leuba published in his The Belief in God and Immortality: A Psychological, Anthropological, and Statistical Study (Boston: Sherman, French). Leuba was truthful enough with his polls  in 1916 that he really upset William Jennings Bryan.  8((  I suggest we curtail all of this personal research. :) Speculations about why the polls turned out the way they have for the last hundred years should go into a section of the main body of the article, in my opinion.  Many scholars have already explored those questions in detail--and they all disagree with the paragraph above, as far as I know.  ---Rednblu | Talk 01:38, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why can't anyone produce the exact source with the original wording and background info for this poll? Bensaccount 17:15, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * dude. follow the link and you'll see everything we've got.  Ungtss 20:37, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thats not the original source. Bensaccount 21:39, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * dude. the current stats are cited.  if you want some that are BETTER cited and described, go GET them.  you can't just say, "these aren't up to my standards" and delete them.  that's the same attitude that drove you to VfD the whole page.  and the response there is the same as the one here -- don't delete it -- improve it!  FIND BETTER STATS OR QUIT WHINING.  Ungtss 21:41, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Its not enough to cite a poll, it needs to be worded in the exact same way as when it was asked. If you change the wording it is no longer statistics, it is spin and lies. Bensaccount 21:51, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * how can you change the wording to spin the results? biblically literal, evolution with god, evolution without god.  the definitions are clear.  you're on there(theistic evolution), and happen to have a whole lot of people who agree with you, and a whole lot of people who disagree with you (biblically literal creationism and naturalistic evolution).  if you want something better, go find it!  Ungtss 21:56, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Biblically literal creation does not rule out evolution. There can be people who think God literally created the world a couple years ago but also think that evolution is a very useful scientific theory and can explain a lot of things. Believe me, using different wording can spin the results a great deal. Bensaccount 22:59, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Biblical creation does conflict with goo-to-you evolution. Apart from people who believe two contradictory things, there cannot be people that think God created the universe, Earth, the sun, moon, and stars, and life, including human life, in six days and also accept goo-to-you evolution over millions of years.  Of course there are also the compromisers who believe that God used evolution, but they have to ignore most of Genesis 1 and a few other passages in order to believe that.  Philip J. Rayment 15:30, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * have you read the article, ben? the sides agree on microevolution, but disagree on macroevolution.  microevolution is your "empirical theory" that can be observed today -- and nobody's arguing about it -- everybody agrees it can explain a lot of things.  macroevolution is the point of dispute.  that's the issue of whether all life evolved from a single cell (as evolutionists claim) or whether life was created in discrete forms and adapted to its environment through variation and natural selection (as creationists claim).  the article addresses this point head-on, ben.  but that doesn't change the fact that there IS a conflict over whether MACROevolution occurs.  Ungtss 23:59, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article doesn't even address whether the debate is over the scientific or the laymans version of evolution. Bensaccount 01:01, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * it addresses abiogenesis, and it addresses microevolution and macroevolution. what else do you want?  there's no such thing as a "layman's definition" of evolution.  the term is used in both ways by scientists and laymen alike, and has for hundreds of years.  Ungtss 02:13, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Scientific evolution is not defined as gradual change. Bensaccount 02:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * i never said it was. Ungtss 05:07, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, maybe not in those words, but you did. Bensaccount 05:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * no, i never did. i said evolution was variation and natural selection.  there are three models for that: gradualism (small changes over long periods), punctuated equilibrium (a rapid sequence of small changes in a small population), and macromutation (1-time huge mutations starting new taxa).  all of those models are variation and natural selection.  that's no layman's definition.  that's THE definition.  Ungtss 10:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is a layman's definition. It says evolution is gradual change. Bensaccount 17:34, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * well your layman's definition is not used anywhere on the page and i've never heard of it, so don't worry about it. Ungtss 21:33, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

At least you finally admit there are different definitions of evolution. The next step is to get you to admit it on the page. Bensaccount 23:35, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * i haven't admitted that there is more than one real definition for evolution. i've only realized that you've invented a new definition for evolution, just as you did for "similarity" and "relationship."  the next step is for you to quit obsessing over your new and imaginary definition, since it is not used on the page and is therefore irrelevent, and come up with something productive to add to this page.  Ungtss 01:22, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Admit it []. Also relationship and similarity are synonyms, didn't you look them up in the thesaurus yet? Bensaccount 02:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * that second definition doesn't have anything to do with biology, dude. the first definition is the only biological one, and it's the only one used on the page.  and relationship and similarity are NOT true synonyms, because they are NOT interchangeable.  a thesaurus does NOT give true synonyms -- it only gives similar words! Ungtss 14:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So you finally admit there are two definitions of evolution and one is a scientific one? Bensaccount 16:30, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * jeez, dude. there is only one definition of biological evolution.  it is the one used on the page.  it is, "variation and natural selection," which is the definition you originally called the "layman's definition" and told me i wasn't permitted to use, before you changed your position to avoid admitting that you were making no sense.  "evolution" can be used in other contexts to mean only gradual change, but it is NOT used that way on the page, EVER, and the different models of evolution are EXPLICITLY contemplated.  there is no REASON to define it in the header, except in your effort to hide the facts and confuse the issues.  Ungtss 22:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So you finally admit there are two definitions of evolution and one is biological? Bensaccount 16:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposal for a revised introduction.
How about the following introduction to replace the current introduction? Philip J. Rayment 16:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Remove the poll, it has been changed from its source and it's biased. Bensaccount 16:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * How has it been changed from its source, and how is it biased? As I said above, I have reread your comments and I don't agree with them.  Gallup is a reputable polling firm, so a charge of bias really needs to be substantiated.  Philip J. Rayment 16:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Show me the newsweek source and you will see how it has been changed. Its biased because it doesn't represent the sides of the debate. Bensaccount 16:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) My beliefs are irrelevant. The poll's questions must represent the sides of the debate. Bensaccount 18:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) No, for example, people may think God created man in his present form within the last 10,000 years but still have no objection to evolution. Bensaccount 18:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That poll has been repeated many times--something like the demonstration that F=ma. How about we just cite to the source that Mr. Ben believes in?  8))  I liked the link that Mr. Rayment provided.  Does Mr. Ben believe in Gallup?   ---Rednblu | Talk 17:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that this site represented the sides of the debate as of March 2001? ---Rednblu | Talk 18:25, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Okay. I admit that you may be right! :))  But unfortunately I find no established scholar or poll that supports your idea that people may think God created man in his present form within the last 10,000 years but still have no objection to evolution.  Hence in my opinion, it would be personal research to remove the Gallup survey because of that objection.  Do you think Wikipedia is a place to do personal research into the flaws of the Gallup polling process?  The Gallup analysts and published scholars state that in the 2001 poll, over 93% of the sample surveyed said expressly that their views disagreed with your idea and matched more closely one of the three other statements: 1) millions of years with God's guidance, 2) millions of years with no divine intervention, or 3) done by God in the last 10,000 years.  ---Rednblu | Talk 18:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Almost any scientist will say there is no conflict (see scientific theory). Religion also ([]). Bensaccount 19:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * i'm aware of no-one on this page who thinks there is no conflict but you. that includes Duncharris (with a biology degree, who thinks there is a conflict) and barnaby (another biologist who thinks there's a conflict), as well as every other evolutionary biologist i have ever heard of or met.  they think that creation is fundamentally wrong and even stupid, and they miss no opportunity to tell us so.  Ungtss 22:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---


 * I cannot speak for anyone else. :) But I would agree that "there is no conflict between creationism and evolution." In my universe, science covers one universe.  And religion covers a completely orthogonal universe with zero intersection.  How could there be conflict?  However, there is reality.  And most United States voters are of the opinion that there is a conflict.  For example, the United States Supreme Court will not allow public school teachers to teach creationism in evolution classes, so there must be some kind of conflict--at least in someone's perception, is there not?  And the purpose of the Creation vs. evolution debate page is to describe what scholars and polls have said about the debate, would you agree?  ---Rednblu | Talk 23:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * i suppose the real conflict is whether there are two universes or just one. young earth creationists won't have them separated -- because when you have a separate universe of religion that exists only in our heads and has no connection with the hard facts of the physical universe, it falls to occam's razor.  God is only relevent if he DOES stuff, y'know?  the real conflict is ... what (if anything) does He DO?  and more importantly, did he do what the bible SAID he did?  Ungtss 00:36, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If that poll is to be so prominant we also have to better outline that the article will be Americocentric, and why. The proposed introduction already goes most of the way there, but could do with some tweaking. Joe D (t) 01:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My point is that people may think God created man in his present form within the last 10,000 years but still have no objection to evolution. Therefore the poll is misleading. Bensaccount 03:07, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * New knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. The Bible speaks of the origin of the universe NOT to provide a scientific treatise but to state the correct relationships of humanity with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture simply declares that the world was created by God, and it expresses this truth in terms of the science in use at the time of the writer. - Pope John Paul II
 * I don’t think theres any conflict between science today and the scriptures. The Bible is NOT a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process, and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. Whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God. - Billy Graham
 * []
 * those quotes show two people who think that whether or not evolution occured is irrelevent to the spiritual message of Christianity. neither of them state an absolute opinion as to whether or not evolution is true -- they merely state that the message of christianity is still relevent, whether God created life exactly as described in genesis, or by evolution.  they are saying, "you can be a Christian whether you're a creationist or a theistic evolutionist."  so how does that make the statistics misleading?  Ungtss 05:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---


 * I'm sure we all have personal ideas about how the poll should be done. But all those personal ideas are just personal research.  Do we know of any published scholar who has criticized those long-standing poll results?  ---Rednblu | Talk 05:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Drat! Now that Bensaccount has given a better explanation of his issues with the poll, he does have a point (although I still disagree with a lot of what he said about it). I think that there are some people that are prepared to accept evolution generally, but are not prepared to accept that humans evolved from apes, instead preferring to believe that God separately created humans. And the point is that the poll is specifically about "the origin and development of human beings" (emphasis added). To be accurate, we need to mention that, even if (as I believe), the same question about life in general would give pretty similar results.

As nobody has commented on my proposed revised introduction, other than discussing the poll, I will replace the existing first and third paragraphs with the proposed first one, and do something about clarifying the poll.

Philip J. Rayment 15:46, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Uncited, undocumented, and unclear paragraph
''Care must be taken when interpreting the above statistics because the poll did not ask people whether they believed the evidence supported their position. This leaves open the possibility that many people may believe in something they think cannot be justified by the evidence.''
 * I cut the above paragraph here for discussion because it is unclear, undocumented, and uncited. The Lead section should be a summary of the points to be discussed in the article.  The Lead section is 1) not a place for personal research, 2) not a place for undocumented opinion, and 3) not a place for obscure and unclear arguments.  The above paragraph fails all three criteria for a paragraph in the Lead section.  Perhaps the paragraph could go in a later section with some citation to a published scholar.  As it is now, the point of the paragraph is unclear and does not make sense.  ---Rednblu | Talk 19:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * i agree. i think the paragraph is a pov attempt to explain away the results as "a lot of people who believe in creation believe it even though they know the evidence proves otherwise," which is not in accord with my experience, and is not cited, and is therefore pov personal research.  Ungtss 22:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * What is not in your personal experience is not necessarily POV. Barnaby dawson 19:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * it is if it isn't cited to a source. when things are stated as facts, there must be consensus as to whether or not they are facts -- there's no consensus here.  if you can find a scholar who SAID what you're saying, then we can report that in an npov style:). Ungtss 23:48, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * So is Mr. Barnaby's thesis that "a lot of people who believe in creation believe it even though they know the evidence proves otherwise"? No wonder I can find no scholar who agrees!  :)) That would be a very difficult thesis to prove--or even state clearly.  It must one of those non-falsifiable assertions, so should not be in the article anyway.  ---Rednblu | Talk 00:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The poll is read by many as meaning that many people believe that "the evidence points towards theistic evolution". The poll actually shows that "many people believe in theistic evolution". These are not the same (despite the similar wordings) indeed amongst my contemporaries many believe the former statement but strongly disagree with the latter. Hence this poll is misleading. With hindsight I agree the qualifier I added was a little too strong. However we do need to be mindfull that statistics like this very often mislead. Barnaby dawson 19:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * How is the poll "read by many as meaning that many people believe that 'the evidence points towards theistic evolution' "? You appear to be reading something into it that it doesn't say, then criticising it for that.  Philip J. Rayment 14:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This poll misleads in many ways. Bensaccount 06:27, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * then find a better one. Ungtss 10:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It is better to not lead, than to mislead. Bensaccount 18:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This ("This poll misleads in many ways") is what I really love (not!). A vague statement without substance.  If you think it misleads, tell us specifically how.  The problem with the poll referring to the origin of humans rather than life went un-noticed for so long because you failed to be specific about the problem.  Philip J. Rayment 14:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was agreeing that people who believe in theistic evolution may vote for naturallistic evolution to keep their beliefs separate from science.Bensaccount 18:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * ben, this isn't gonna fly. your pov is not the only one.  it is one among many.  ALL will be represented on this page.  the tone of your first edit set the stage, and nothing has changed.  this is not a "debate between the ignorant."  this is a debate between educated and ignorant people on all sides.  the only ignorant one is the one who thinks his is the only side that exists.  Ungtss 02:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That doesn't explain your revert. Bensaccount 02:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * my reasons are these:
 * 1) the stats are factually accurate and cited
 * 2) you haven't explained why the stats are misleading in any coherent way
 * 3) you haven't provided better stats
 * 4) you are continually trying to force this page into your pov (that there is no debate except between a religious text read literally and an irrefutable scientific theory). that is one pov in MANY.  if you want to ADD that to the page, do so.  but do NOT remove other povs.  Ungtss 02:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Two lines above this is another of the many reasons that have been discussed about why the poll is misleading. Bensaccount 02:36, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * as was the refutation. if you have a problem with the stats, find better ones.  if there are no better ones, start your own poll.  do not remove cited mainstream published poll data because you don't like them.  Ungtss 02:42, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * i'm not gonna revert war with this guy anymore. help would be appreciated in pushing mr. bensaccount well beyond his 3-revert limit (although he has already passed that by at least 9 or 10 reverts over the last several weeks).  i'm not gonna let him "tell on me" for stopping his nonsense again.  Ungtss 02:42, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not leading is better than misleading. We are now both at 3 reverts, my version stands and you reverted first. Bensaccount 02:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * misleading is in the eye of the beholder. and this is well beyond the 3rd revert ... your last edit before your latest splurge of censorship was identical to this one, making your edits to this page a continuous stream of reverts of the same text for the past 2-3 weeks.  but whatever.  i'm not gonna let you tell on me to mommy again ... i only hope somebody else will again end this nonsense.  Ungtss 02:50, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So you agree that not leading is better than misleading? Bensaccount 02:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * ben, i think the stats are accurate, and that the only thing that is misleading is your persistent attempts to mischaracterize the debate according to your own pov. i haven't learned my lesson any more than you have (when your last attempt to get me blocked failed, because the admins recognized your edits as the pov nonsense they are, as was your attempt at votes for deletion for the entire page based on your assertion that "there is no debate!").  the history will show that you are on revert 12 on this point, just taking brief breaks in an effort not to get caught.  i know you're doing this again hoping to get me in trouble again, i'm tired of dealing with it (i thought we left this stuff back on the playground), and i'm hoping someone else will revert your vandalism so i don't have to deal with the politics.  Ungtss 03:06, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The poll is misleading because it does not represent the sides of the debate. Several examples of this have been given and agreed upon. Bensaccount 03:14, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * not a single example of another viewpoint has been given. you yourself continually say that there are only two sides of the debate -- scientists, and those who take the bible literally.  the polls represent another side of the debate -- theistic evolutionists, who believe both.  those are the major sides.  everyone here is included.  you're ignoring reality.  Ungtss 03:51, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One example was that people who believe in biblically literal creation may also believe in theistic evolution. Bensaccount 03:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That's a contradiction. And your answer to Ungtss' following question is not an answer at all.  Philip J. Rayment 14:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * do you know a single person who believes that? how can you take the words, "on the 4th day, God created .... and evening and morning, the 4th day" to mean theistic evolution?  Ungtss 07:40, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ask Pope John Paul II or Billy Graham or the scientists at National Geographic (see above). Bensaccount 20:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * And how many of those take it literally? That the world was created in six days?  None!  Philip J. Rayment 14:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I made some new changes to the introduction. I think this is more NPOV. Bensaccount 21:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
I tried to make the whole thing more NPOV; I deleted the Newsweek poll in the introductary section as it seems to make that section far too long. In addition, it looks like it had been throughly savaged by someone who saw the pool of as poor (which I would agree to; does the average American actually KNOW what those terms mean?), and someone else (or perhaps the same person) who seemed to be actively trying to say the poll was contrary to the truth. It might also be noted it was unique to the United States and thus not of universal value; who is to say the United States is the most important population in this debate, or the most balanced one? This is an international project, after all. Having a rebuttal paragraph in the introduction seems rather messy and better confined to the article itself. The poll might bear moving to a different section of the document, though I didn't think of it at the time. It seems to have a curious slant at various points within it, with both pro-evolution and pro-creationist slanting occuring within it. I hope I didn't step on too many toes with the edit, which is a fairly large one, and which retrospectively probably should have been split up into several smaller edits. In any event, I still don't see it as being very good, and I'm not sure if I really helped the NPOVness in certain areas of the document, though I think I made at least some progress. I cannot say I am the most neutral person for editing this document, as I have strong feelings about the subject matter and much of the article grates against me, but I'd like to think I have the ability to be at least somewhat subjective. Titanium Dragon 12:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I suggest we revert to this version and discuss the issues one at a time here on the TalkPage. What do you say?  ---Rednblu | Talk 13:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Philip J. Rayment 14:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree. --JPotter 19:36, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * How about having the statistics given in a section about the debate in the USA. It might even be worth having an article for this topic given the prominence of the debate there (and the length of this page).  There are problems with the statistics given even if Bensaccount hasn't managed to eloquently express them.  imho this would prohibit us from placing the stats in the introduction but later on should be fine as the few objections to the poll can be aired without compromising on style.  Barnaby dawson 14:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't see that there are problems with the statistics, but I might concede that they are best not in the introduction. Philip J. Rayment 14:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that the statistics do not belong in the introduction. Moreover, that poll is flawed, as has been pointed out. Perhaps a different poll, with better options, should be used? There ARE other polls available. The reason it doesn't belong in the introduction is fourfold:
 * First, the poll is flawed.
 * Second, it only represents the United States. This is an international article, and creationism, though largely confined to the US and the Middle East, should NOT overrepresent a country like the United States. Why not use China or France or Australia?
 * Third, it requires a rebuttal because of the presentation of the poll, which makes the article look far less NPOV and makes the introduction too long.
 * Fourth, it makes more sense in a section on where each viewpont is prevalent.
 * Titanium Dragon 02:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * <>
 * Could you point us to some?
 * <>
 * How? Bensaccount's claims on this don't stand up.  What's your reason(s)?
 * <>
 * True, but nobody has done world-wide polling. Before Bensaccount deleted the context, the context was that most places are pretty much either for or against evolution, and it is mainly the U.S. that is more evenly split.  In that context, a U.S. poll is appropriate.  (And I say this as a parochial Aussie.)
 * <>
 * Why does it required a rebuttal? It's not a viewpoint, it's a factual reporting of a poll.
 * <>
 * Which is where it was before Bensaccount removed that section (although that section was part of the introduction).
 * Philip J. Rayment 02:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You could look at these polls, by Gallup. Of course, then you have to look at the actual polls. You could also look here, which is a later poll about teaching evolution and creationism in school. It might be noted how similar the percentage of people who wish to replace evolution with creationism in school is to the percentage of people who believe that people were created in the last 10,000 years by God.
 * Now that you mention that support for it was removed, it makes a lot more sense. Without that context that poll is totally out of place. I still think it most likely doesn't belong in the intro, but whatever, at least it makes some sense. Titanium Dragon 08:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * <<You could look at...>>
 * Actually, that site is the source of the quoted poll. There is only the one general poll on that page (the others are too limited, in my opinion).
 * <<You could also look here, which is a later poll about teaching evolution and creationism in school>>
 * But again, it is a poll about a narrower question.
 * Philip J. Rayment 14:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Problems with the recent changes
Bensaccount's "warning" is merely his inaccurate view on the Gallup Poll. It is not true to say that "scientific evolution" (a disputed term in any case) was not an option. It was, but it was split between theistic and atheistic versions. He has also not substantiated his claims that it was presented out of context (how?) and changed (how?), although, typical of Wikipedia articles, it was paraphrased rather than quoted verbatim. He is also incorrect in claiming that the three options are not mutually exclusive as "theistic evolution is a type of creationism", as "theistic evolution" and "Biblically literal creationism"&mdash;the wordings in the article&mdash;are mutually exclusive.

Bensaccount removed a "completely irrelevant statement". But the introduction points out that the debate is not just about the development of life, but includes the age of the universe and the earth, so it is pertinent to mention that not all creationists are Young Earth Creationists. That is the purpose of the supposedly "irrelevant" statement.

Bensaccount removed "speculation", but I don't agree that it was speculation, and it is useful information.

Bensaccount inserted "The creation vs. evolution debate creates a false dicotomy, and typically uses arbitrary definitions of major concepts.", with no explanation of what this means or justification for it. The only "false dichotomy" that I am aware of has already been explained in the introduction.

Bensaccount changed "General theory of evolution" to "evolution". I will partly concede this one, even though I put the original wording. "GTE" doesn't seem to be in widespread use amongst evolutionists (although it has been used by them), so perhaps it's not the best term to use without explanation, but its use was certainly not "arbitrary". However, "evolution" is also not an adequate term, as the word has a number of meanings in different contexts, and something more specific is needed in the sentence.

Titanium Dragon said that he attempted NPOV, but whilst some of his changes superficially at least appeared good, and I believe that they were made in good faith, they actually introduced POV and inaccuracies in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. Some examples follow.

Titanium Dragon wrote that "The debate ... is not an object of debate among the scientific community..." which is wrong at the very least because it ignores that creationary scientists are part of the scientific community.


 * Would you say that the world being round is still controversial, given that some people do in fact hold and advocate that position among the world's population? There's a certain point at which it is no longer controversial, and I would posit that 0.14% (the proportion of earth and life scientists who are creationists) is no longer a significant enough number to say it is controveresial. Also, I point to the evidence that no creationist article has been published in a mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journal in ages. That would seem to point to it no longer being controversial among the scientific community. Maybe we should add "mainstream" or "vast majority of" before "scientific community", but it isn't really an invalid point. Titanium Dragon 01:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You are equivocating here. On the one hand you are saying that the world being round is controversial among the world's population, and on the other hand you are saying that evolution is not controversial among earth and life scientists!  The proportion of the general population that reject evolution is much higher than the proportion that reject a round Earth, and the proportion of earth and life scientists that reject evolution, even if only 0.14%, is much higher than the proportion of them that reject a round earth.
 * Creationists have repeatedly claimed&mdash;and provided evidence that&mdash;mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals simply will not accept creationist papers. If that is true, it invalidates this as evidence of non-controversy.  And I note that you used the term "mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals".  Presumably because "mainstream" equals "evolutionary" and there are non-mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals that do publish creationary papers.
 * Philip J. Rayment 02:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You're making a rather dangerous assumption; that a lesser proportion of the populace of the world believes the world is flat than the proportion of earth and life scientists who are creationists. I would not be suprised if it were the reverse; remote groups in South America and Africa might well believe the world to be flat, as might some people in the Middle East. There are of course some Americans as well, and likely Europeans and Oceanics and Asians. 0.14% of the world's population of approximately six billion people is a mere 8.4 million people, which is to say, not many. Titanium Dragon 07:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't making that assumption, because I wasn't making that comparison. Philip J. Rayment 14:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, I misread what you said. Sorry. Titanium Dragon 10:00, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon wrote "...six thousand or ten thousand years, depending on the reading. It doesn't "depend on the reading", and it was more a case of up to ten thousand years, and that view is fairly rare these days way.


 * I'm sorry for my mistake; I wasn't aware that it had been changed among the creationist community and have still been seeing both dates on websites and hearing them from people. Titanium Dragon 01:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't wish to be harsh, but that is one of the problems with most anti-creationists; they simply don't know enough about the idea that they are rejecting. I'm sure that there are many lay creationists that still think of creation as being up to 10,000 years ago, just as there are many lay evolutionists that still hold out-dated ideas, but the leading creationary scientists mostly these days argue for 6,000 years. Philip J. Rayment 02:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * From an evolutionist's standpoint, the difference between 6,000 years and 10,000 years means that they can bring in dozens more arguments against the creationists, while still keeping all the old ones. And who is a "leading creationary scientist"? Titanium Dragon 07:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I would define "leading creationary scientists" roughly as any that are associated with the main creationary organisations (ICR, CRS, AiG). Philip J. Rayment 14:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon wrote that "They also point out that Young World creationists must ignore all evidence of geology...". No, they claim that, and the usual term in Young Earth Creationist.


 * Sorry, that is biased, and I apologize for my error. However, it still is a valid point made by many people that to posit that the Earth is six (or ten) thousand years old is to reject all of modern geology (at least, that accepted by the scientific community), including radioactive dating. It should be made more NPOV, but it is certainly pointed out by those who reject creationism. Titanium Dragon 01:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a valid point at all. Creationists only reject interpretations about the past, not "all of modern geology" (and again, you are referring to "the scientific community" as though creationists are not part of that). Philip J. Rayment 02:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am, because the scientific community has certain standards which are often rejected by creationists to make some of their arguments. A good example is gradualism. Another good example is naturalism. Another good example is the scientific method. Some creationists hold to these methods, but many do not. The cornerstone of science is the scientific method, and frankly to advocate that the earth is 6,000 years old requires many hypotheses rejected and contradicted by modern science, and some not so modern science - the antiquity of the Earth was more or less shown in the 19th century, though the actual age was narrowed down considerably in the 20th century, as was the age of the universe as a whole. Basically, they hold to "testing the (insert holy book here)", and use it as evidence, even to the exclusion of actual experimentation.
 * Gradualism is a "standard"? I thought that it was a theory?  What leading creationary scientists don't hold to the scientific method?  What ones exclude actual experimentation?  And creationists say that the antiquity of the earth was not shown, but assumed, by adopting the assumption of uniformitarianism.  Philip J. Rayment 14:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between a fact and a theory? Between a law and a theory? What is the law of gravity? What is a theory of gravity? Gradualism is the cornerstone of evolution, geology, and dozens of other fields of "historical science". The wikipedia definition is incorrect, as in fact gradualism did not actually begin with the field of biology (with evolution) but rather in the field of geology to explain how various features have come to be. A good example is the Cascade mountains; they are the way they are due to the North American plate running over the Pacific plate. Another example is the Grand Canyon, worn down over millions of years. Creationists, for obvious reasons, reject gradualism, despite the minor issue that not only is it extremely reasonable but is the best explaination for how the world came to be. A more basic form of it is one of the laws of thermodynamics, which essentially states that you cannot end up with more matter-energy than you started out with in a closed system. You can't get something from nothing. Uniformitarianism wasn't created out of thin air; not only does it make sense, but it is observable, in the form of the Hawaiian islands, the Cascade Mountains, and dozens of other geological features, both on the Earth and in various other bodies in the solar system (for example, the Moon and Mercury). Additionally, uniformitism, if it was wrong on the scale claimed by young earth creationists, requires radioactive isotopes in the Earth to decay at such a high rate that Adam and Eve would have died of radiation sickness.
 * <<Gradualism is the cornerstone of evolution, geology, and dozens of other fields of "historical science".>>
 * It is the cornerstone of evolution and of the reigning paradigm in various other fields of historical science, but of course the study of gravity is not a historical science. But just because it is the reigning paradigm does not make other views non-science.  But you are half right, actually, because science in some respects has been redefined to exclude creation from consideration, even if it's true.
 * <<Creationists, for obvious reasons, reject gradualism, despite the minor issue that not only is it extremely reasonable but is the best explaination for how the world came to be.>>
 * That is a POV; Creationists disagree that it is extremely reasonable and the best explanation.
 * I don't see the connection with the laws of thermodynamics.
 * <<Uniformitarianism ... is observable''>>
 * Not so. Uniformitarianism is the principle that the processes that we observe today are the processes that have always occurred.  We can't see those past processes today; we can only see today's processes.
 * <<Additionally, uniformitism, if it was wrong on the scale claimed by young earth creationists, requires radioactive isotopes in the Earth to decay at such a high rate that Adam and Eve would have died of radiation sickness.>>
 * Which is really saying that uniformitarianism doesn't work in the creationary scenario. I think I knew that!
 * Philip J. Rayment 15:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It might also be noted that craters show the antiquity of Earth; between the lakes made by craters in Canada, the rather large crater near the Yucatan penninsula (100+ miles accross), the crater in Arizona, and various other meteorite impact craters which can be found over the entire surface of the planet, we would have had so much dust and junk in the atmosphere that it would be immediately noticeable. The K/T boundry - the boundry between the Cretaceous and the Palaeogene (yeah, counterintiutive, but they redid the post-dinosaur period's names and the designation C was already taken by the Carboniferous period) is found above many sedimentary layers which would have had to have been put down during the "great flood" of the Bible, and after many others. Given that the flood lasted fourty days and nights, this is impossible, as the layer is not only found worldwide at the same age but it is estimated it would have taken a few years to settle out. The oceans would have probably made this deposition period longer, as the granules would be moved around by the massive receding flood currents. There is also the minor issue that sedimentary rock takes quite some time to form.
 * Most of that is simply relating the uniformitarian model; it is not evidence against the crationary model. And the flood actually lasted just over a year, by the way.  Again, an anti-creationist simply doesn't have a clue about the idea he is arguing against.  Sedimentary layers have been observed to form quickly.  Philip J. Rayment 15:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * As for examples of creationist scientists who reject the scientific method:
 * This is a good example. His (or her, though I'm presuming John to be a he for the point of this discussion) "proof" of creation is naive and childlike. Moreover, it is dead wrong; look at smooth rocks. They can be made by humans through sanding and buffing, or made by rivers by river water washing over them for a long period of time. Sometimes you can find rocks that look almost as though there were faces in them. The Grand Canyon, which is often ascribed by creationists to be created by the Great Flood, is another good example. Natural arches of rock are another good example. The Face on Mars is ANOTHER good example, and a rather large one to boot. Things like the canals of Mars are a good example of observing something, believing it to be made by sentient beings, but on closer inspection for them not only not to appear to be made by sentient beings but to not exist at all.
 * <<This is a good example. His (or her, though I'm presuming John to be a he for the point of this discussion) "proof" of creation is naive and childlike.>>
 * John is a bloke; I met him once. No wonder the example is "childlike"; he did it for his child!
 * He is not wrong. The fact that humans can use intelligence to make something look "natural" does not deny that there is a difference between the intelligence required for non-randomness, and randomness from nature.  And the fact that some things can have a superficial appearance of requiring intelligence doesn't invalidate the argument either.
 * Philip J. Rayment 15:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This is another good example (from the same person) of not applying the scientific method. "Fossils: The fossils at every level are extremely complex, but the ones in the bottom layers, such as the trilobites, are even more complex than the ones nearer the top, such as corals. No evolutionary sequence here!" Perhaps he should have thought a bit more about his example; it might be noted that in the present day Colorado is in the middle of the North American continent. Coral takes a great deal of time to build up to a great degree; the Great Barrier Reef of Australia is a good example of an ancient coral reef. It is many thousands of years old. For coral to form while the sea is sitting over it, depositing sediment at the speeds claimed, is not credible. There is also the minor problem of how humans GOT to North America without the landbridge, unless Noah landed there, in which case one might wonder how they got to Eurasia.
 * Dr. Morris is arguing the relative complexity of the fossils, and you refute the relative complexity by talking about how long they allegedly took to form! That says nothing about his complexity argument!  Coral has been observed forming quickly (although there may be other explanations for this case).  I don't see how humans getting to North America is a problem.  Even apart from the possibility of a landbridge (which is not inconsistent with a flood model), if Noah built a boat, why couldn't his descendants?  Philip J. Rayment 15:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The following quote shows a great deal of ignorance. "Step back and take a look at the big picture. Evolution, as a concept of everything, is worse than non-science, it is nonsense. The highly complex information laden DNA code cannot yet even be read by today's genomists. How could it have written itself by chance mutation or genetic recombination. Surely some things simply cannot be." I could read that information in high school; someone obviously failed biology, and it wasn't me. I could write a computer program which could read that information. An instance of ignoring experimental evidence entirely - we figured out how to read DNA through experimentation, and it is easy to see from the way it is read how a single mutation can have large effects on the final product.
 * By "read", I assume he means "understand". Assuming that you do not understand, say, Japanese, could you "read" a Japanese book?  Sure, you could look at the letters and copy them and tell others what they look like, but can you read the book?  Similarly, we cannot yet "read" the DNA, at least as a whole, although we are beginning to understand parts of it.  His comment that "surely some things simply cannot be" obviously applies to the DNA being written by mutation, etc., not to scientists reading the DNA; that will happen one day.  No, he is not ignorant.  Philip J. Rayment 15:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * "http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-190b.htm Creationists have come to call this post-Flood period one of “residual catastrophism” which would have continued through the time of the Tower of Babel and into Abraham’s day. Today we live in a relatively stable world, but still a world reeling from the effects of the great Flood. Thankfully one day there will be a new heaven and a new earth where catastrophes will not even be remembered." One problem; assuming 30 year generations (which is probably erring on the side of long) and 42 generations between Abraham and Jesus (as given in Matthew), you're looking at the days of Abraham being in 1260 BCE. The Pyramids were built more than a millenium before that, and Egypt, China, Mesopotamia, and several other regions show constant habitation dating back before that. Writing was invented more than 5000 years ago, but none has been found talking about the ice ages, the constant massive volcanism, or the various other things necessary to explain the modern world. Stable civilization wouldn't be able to exist in a world like that - at least, not well. Instead we see many great and powerful ancient civilizations flourishing throughout Eurasia. You would have to posit generations of about 70 years to get before those civilizations existed.
 * Abraham can be dated more accurately than average generations, and Archbishop Ussher calculated him to be around 1900 BC (and that would be about right). But your argument is invalid because again, it is using uniformitarian dating methods to argue against creation, so is really saying "your theory doesn't work under my theory so your theory is wrong".  The question is whether the creation model is consistent with itself and with the evidence.  By the way, the book of Job does mention the "great storehouses of ice", which has been taken to be a reference to the ice age. Philip J. Rayment 15:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that the above was taken from ICR, one of your "leading" creationist groups.
 * Titanium Dragon 10:00, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, and they stood up to scrutiny. Philip J. Rayment 15:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * And yes, they do reject modern geology and modern physics to make their claims. Radioactive isotopes have been shown to decay at certain rates. These isotopic ratios are often used to date things due to their reliability. Geology shows how various structures were formed over extremely long periods of time, and explains how land was raised. They must also reject archeology which shows humans as coming to the Americas over 10,000 years ago, long before a creationist posits the creation of humans. They must also reject molecular biology, which can demostrate rates of mutation and use comparisons to time branching. They have to tune such clocks, of course, which can be difficult, but it can be done by using known dates of departure. Ect.
 * No creationary scientist disputes that radioactive isotopes decay at certain rates. But they do dispute that those rates must have always remained constant in the past, that it is always possible to determine starting amounts and addition or removal of material, and they have demonstrated that the methods are not all that reliable.
 * The fact that (uniformitarian) geology can explain something is not proof that that explanation is correct. Creationary/flood/catastrophic geology can also explain how those things can form quickly, including how land was raised.  Rejection of a particular theory is not a rejection of science or the scientific method, nor of geology as a whole nor of physics.
 * As mentioned, they dispute the reliability of the dating methods, so therefore dispute that humans have been in America for 10,000 years.
 * They do not dispute molecular biology, but do dispute some of the conclusions that evolutionary biologists draw. By the way, how are the "known dates of departure" known?
 * Philip J. Rayment 14:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * To advocate a young earth hypothesis and not reject it for its basic premise (6000 years of history) having a dozen or more fields of research and thousands (if not millions) of pieces of evidence pointing against it. This extremely powerful argument of course does not apply against ALL creationists, merely the "Young Earth" ones. To say that someone who does not reject a hypothesis on the basis of available evidence which strongly justifies its rejection is a scientist makes no real sense.
 * Young-earth creationary scientists reject that the evidence really does show that, so you are really saying "your theory doesn't agree with my theory, so your theory is wrong". Philip J. Rayment 14:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the Young Earth creationists who claim evidence for the Earth being 6,000 years old. It involves the Bible. They have their hypothesis (that the Bible states that the Earth is X years old), and from this they draw their conclusion and reject all evidence to the contrary. Islamic Creationists most likely do the same, though I cannot say I have heard much from them - most likely due to their relative poverty and lack of access to the internet and the American school system.
 * Young Earth creationists do get the date from the Bible. That much is true. But they reject the uniformitarian interpretations of the evidence, not the evidence itself.  Can you quote a bit of evidence (as distinct from an interpretation or conclusion) that they reject?  Philip J. Rayment 14:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * To be a Young Earth Creationist is to reject the scientific method. Therefore, anyone who is a Young Earth Creationist is not a member of the scientific community and is not a scientist. Someone who is an Old Earth Creationist does not have to reject all of modern geology, physics, ect. to propose their theory.
 * Young earth creationists made up most of the early scientists, yet they didn't reject the scientific method, and today's creationary scientists don't either, and you have failed to demonstrate that. Therefore the rest of your argument fails.  Philip J. Rayment 14:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Now, who is to say who is a member of the scientific community? Well, the preexisting scientific community most likely is THE scientific community. The creationists are not the mainstream scientific community; universities and cutting-edge science is not based on their claims. Titanium Dragon 07:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The "preexisting scientific community"? So around 1800, when most of them were young-earth creationists, any uniformitarians and evolutionists that came along were by definition not members of the scientific community?  Your argument amounts to saying that if they aren't in the majority, they aren't scientists. Philip J. Rayment 14:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon wrote "...which provide very strong support both the ancient age of fossils and the progession of forms through time.", but this is POV.


 * Not true; they DO provide very strong support for these claims and are in fact the basis of them. There is a reason both are used to date fossils. Titanium Dragon 01:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Is true! It is an opinion that they provide strong support.  Creationists have a different opinion.  Philip J. Rayment 02:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Creationists claim to interpret them differently (or claim they are fakes), this is true. However, let us look at this hypothesis: That man evolved from apes, and is most closely related to the chimpanzee. Now, look at the fossil record of hominids. The further back you go, the smaller they get, the smaller their brains get, the more their skulls change, ect. There is a point at which fossils (around six million years ago, by radioactive dating and geologic dating by strata) are no longer clearly hominid or chimpanzee. This evidence is in support of the hypothesis that man and chimpanzee are related and descended most recently from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee.
 * What leading creationists claim they are fakes? Your example of the ape to human transition is based on radioactive dating methods (disputed) and the dating of the geologic column (disputed).  Brain sizes do not form a neat progression (Neanderthal was larger than ours, for example).  Fossils that are not clearly human or chimpanzee could be from a now-extinct creature.  But evolutionary dates for modern man actually predate many of modern man's ancestors!  The neat progression you paint is actually not very neat at all.  Philip J. Rayment 14:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The same piece of evidence can support more than one hypothesis. For instance, the feeling of being stationary on the Earth's surface was once used to support the idea that the Earth is stationary. It is now used as evidence of relativity. Note that it is the same piece of evidence in both cases, but the two hypotheses are very different indeed. Titanium Dragon 07:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Correct, and this is the point! The same evidence can support more than on hypothesis.  So why are those that support a creationary hypothesis labeled as non-scientists?  Philip J. Rayment 14:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon wrote "Many evolutionists note that theories of evolution are based on on processes whose causes and effects are both observable and measurable, and which support and explain evolution.", but this is again POV.


 * First off, this is from a section of the document which is expressing the evolutionist POV. Pretty much the whole article is about two conflicting POVs, and presenting them from an NPOV. Secondly, this is absolutely true - natural selection has been observed, as has sexual selection, and their effects on populations have been measured. An example of this is changing beak sizes among finches after years of drought and after years of plenty, and there has been a great deal of research done looking at these birds which showcases the theory of evolution. Perhaps "note" should be "state" or "claim", but the point is not only made by evolutionists but has dozens of papers written about them. Titanium Dragon 01:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Creationist agree with natural selection and sexual selection and their effects on populations. But there is also the matter of new genetic information being supplied by mutations which has not been observed, and also the last phrase, which states matter-of-factly that the observed processes support evolution.  Again, that is an opinion that creationists disagree with.  Philip J. Rayment
 * There is in fact evidence of new genetic information being supplied by mutations, and I have seen the experiment done before through the irradiation of fruit flies. You can do it too if you have the patience, the method of irradiation, and the pure-breeding fruit flies - none of which are particularly difficult to obtain at low cost. And the last phase, too, as been shown by experimentation - it is quite possible to isolate two populations and later mix them back up and have them not interbreed in the lab, and this has been done. This shows speciation. Many creationists are not aware of this. Titanium Dragon 07:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, you are ignorant of the creation model, as creation actually predicts rapid speciation, and creationists are most certainly aware that it happens. However, there is no conclusive (or even convincing) evidence of brand new genetic information from mutations.  Irradiation of fruit flies destroys information, or changes it in a neutral way, or duplicates existing information.  It has never been shown to produce brand new information, and to do so would go against information theory anyway.  Philip J. Rayment 14:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Many of Titanium Dragon's changes could be made NPOV and salvaged, but for the moment I think it is better to revert as Rednblu has suggested. Philip J. Rayment 15:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have discussed them in talk first. Titanium Dragon 01:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * No, that probably wasn't necessary. I would not have reverted just for your changes.  I reverted because of Bensaccount's changes, and may have kept most of yours (I did keep some) if they didn't have these POV problems.  Philip J. Rayment 02:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No reverting is only an option when vandalism occurs. Bensaccount 18:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * No, reverting can be used whenever changes need to be undone, as opposed to modified. Philip J. Rayment 02:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"it ignores that creationary scientists are part of the scientific community."

Debatable. Certainly, many fail to follow parts of the scientific method. --84.64.24.227 19:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Not debatable. This is nothing more than unsubstantiated anti-creationist rhetoric.  To the extent that it may be true, I'm sure that just as many examples could be given of evolutionists who ":fail to follow parts of the scientific method".Philip J. Rayment 02:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course, some people from every group fail to follow the scientific method properly. However, Young Earth Creationists have a particularly bad reputation for it, and with good reason - their idea of the ancientness of the Earth is based off of the Bible (or another holy book, if there are Young World Islamic Creationists or creationists of other religions) and they are often seen as rejecting evidence which does not support it out of hand. One example was a creationist who claimed, based on people's past estimations of the speed of light, that ALL of these (often ancient) calculations were correct, and that the speed of light followed some sort of bizzare exponential curve, with c = infinity at the start of time. The problem was, of course, that not only were the more ancient measurements taken by highly inaccurate methods, but the issue that the change would be very noticeable.
 * <<Earth Creationists have a particularly bad reputation for it, and with good reason..>>
 * Yes, they have the reputation, but because of anti-creationist rhetoric, not for good reasons.
 * As for the c-decay theory, you have misrepresented it.
 * The theory used all the available scientific measurements (not "estimations").
 * Sure, some of these were done by methods that were inaccurate by today's standards, but the error margins were known and taken into account.
 * There is nothing "bizarre" about an exponential curve.
 * From memory, it didn't start at infinity.
 * The change was noticable, if you are referring to the measurements. Back in the 1930s(?), secular journals were discussing this change in c; it wasn't originally a creationist idea.  It's just that a creationist revived the idea with further research, and, following the normal practice of science, it was published and subjected to scrutiny by others, to the point that these days very few creationary scientists accept it.  Just like many ideas in science that get proposed and subsequently get rejected.  Some of the criticisms of it from anti-creationists demonstrated an attitude of opposing it because it supported a young earth:
 * As mentioned, it was being discussed in secular journals earlier in the century. Apperently it was okay then, because it didn't have young-universe implications.
 * The whole idea that c could change at all was ridiculed, yet since then some secular scientists have proposed a past change in c! (Albeit of a different order of magnitude, and of course without the young-universe implication.)
 * It was ridiculed on the basis that it was unreasonable to extrapolate 400 years' of measurements back 6000 years, yet uniformitarians routinely extrapolate 100? years of radioactive decay measurements back billions of years!
 * Philip J. Rayment 14:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It would of course be fallicy to use this person as indicative of ALL creationists, but there are many more individuals who have done similar things, and "Young Earth" creationists are particularly guilty of this crime in the eyes of many. I think I more or less gave the body of the argument above. Titanium Dragon 07:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I could quote evolutionists that are guilty of worse (such as Piltdown man, Haeckel's forged embryo drawings, etc.) But would that be fair? Philip J. Rayment 14:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

It seems to me that there are two competing versions of the lead section. Could someone compile the best editions of these two versions and put them here on this page so that we could 1) compare them, 2) discuss them, and then 3) vote on them? What do you think? ---Rednblu | Talk 21:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that that's necessary, and there are arguably three competing versions. There was the one before Bensaccount made his changes (or the updated version of that after I reverted ), then the one that resulted from Bensaccount's changes (his almost-latest version), then Titanium Dragon changed it again .  Bensaccount is trying to impose his own views of how it should be written despite failing to convince others that they have merit, and prefers deleting to modifying (e.g. removing link to Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared "because it is not Wiki format".  If it's just a format problem, why not change it to comply with the correct format instead of deleting it?). How about you jump in and make some changes or at least express a preference on the different versions? Philip J. Rayment 02:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The other side section
Added a section that has information on items where creationists and evolutionist disagree on the definitions of each other's theory. --JPotter 20:08, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

VfD for the Evolution and creationism page?
I am getting ready to nominate the Evolution and creationism page for deletion. Does anyone see any reason to keep the Evolution and creationism page?--since the Creation vs. evolution debate page and associated pages already cover the territory, do they not? ---Rednblu | Talk 06:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to keep it, though it does seem to actually lack many of the NPOV problems this article has, most likely because this one is far longer and recieves more attention. Titanium Dragon 08:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is the same false dichotomy. Let one of them become a redirect, preferably this one. Bensaccount 16:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * like ben, i support a redirect -- didn't know that other page was out there. contrary to our colleagues, however, i think the other page is more pov than this one ... particularly in its assertion that "creationism is based on biblical literalism" ... when in fact creationism is far, far older than the bible (and actually, there are more islamic creationists in the world today than christian creationists ... and the islamic ones haven't even READ the bible) ... so i think the other page should link to this one:).  Ungtss 18:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

At least it doesnt go on for 10 pages with completely irrelevant creationist pseudoscience. Bensaccount 22:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * it's called "creation vs. evolution debate," ben. this is where we talk about the ideas in the debate.  if you'd like to start another page called, "Why mainstream scientists think creationists are stupid," go right ahead.  i'm sure you'll find lots of willing contributors.  and you'll probably find another page cropping up titled something like, "why creationists think mainstream scientists are stupid."  Ungtss 22:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The key word there was irrelevant. Everything you say is irrelevant to the debate. Bensaccount 23:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * creationist views are not irrelevent to the debate. they are half of the debate.  there can be no debate without them.  Ungtss 23:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Don't generalize creationists Untss. Only certain creationists take part in this debate. Bensaccount 01:49, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The misleading statistics and their misleading supporters
Why do Untss, Rednblu and Rayment refuse the removal of these obviously misleading statistics or any kind of explanation of why they are included or what they mean? Bensaccount 16:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * they're not misleading, they're cited, they show the proportional strength of the sides of the debate both within the public and the scientific community (including the VERY germaine fact that the debate is primarily among the general public, while the scientific community has reached near-consensus). in order to argue that they're misleading, you've been forced to invent new and fictional sides to the debate (my favorite being those who take genesis literally but still accept evolution).  those fictional sides are not included in the stats, because they do not exist.  the stats are good, accurate, and cited.  Ungtss 18:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Because they are not "obviously misleading", and the reason they are included and what they mean is self-evident, and your "explanations" are really attempts to dismiss them. Philip J. Rayment 15:28, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---


 * We should keep in mind that there are vast and silent coalitions behind the varied opinions of those statistics as we can see at this link. In my opinion, whether Mr. Ben, Mr. Ungtss, Mr. Monk, Mr. Dawson, Mr. Blu, or Mr. Rayment, none of us should let those various vast and silent coalitions sway our judgment.  But we should keep them in mind. :))  Why don't we open a section in the Creation vs. evolution debate page where we quote, paraphrase, and cite the various scholars who have analyzed those statistics?  I have found several good articles myself, but I have not had the time to summarize them for the page.  I must say that all the articles by published scholars I have seen support Mr. Ungtss's view rather than Mr. Ben's view.  When I get around to summarizing available articles I will open that section.  But I am afraid those articles will not satisfy Mr. Ben very much. 8((  So I suggest that Mr. Ben should find a published scholar who expresses his view of those statistics.  Would that not be better than repeatedly inserting unsupported and undocumented personal research? :) ---Rednblu | Talk 21:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok so you wont remove the poll from the intro. Will you at least let the reader know what the three options mean? Bensaccount 22:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

What on earth do you mean? :) Over a thousand people were asked the following question:


 * Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the origin and development of man: 1) God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. 2) Man has developed over millions of years from less-advanced forms of life, and God had no part in this process. 3) Man has developed over millions of years from less-advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.?

And the people could answer 1, 2, 3, or other. Why aren't the three options self-explanatory? ---Rednblu | Talk 00:23, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Because most people aren't fluent in conflation. Bensaccount 01:44, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * small wonder, if fluency requires the use of words like, "bannoron." Ungtss 05:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How can I argue with you if you use made up terms like "naturallistic evolution". Bensaccount 14:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

--- I added this paragraph after the poll:

Of course the truth or otherwise of a world view is not correlated in any way with the number of people accepting it, so the general population statistics can't be a clue to anything. For that purpose, he only half-useful number is the percentage among scientists in the relevant fields, but if you really want to decide this question for yourself in a reliable way, there is no way around looking at the evidence itself, though that is a lot of work. You will have to look at what both sides say and compare the arguments. If you take your information from a one-sided choice of sources, you will likely end up with their opinion, which is not necessarily similar to the truth in any way.

Grutter deleted it, saying: "del new para from intro - the stats show that opinions are mixed -nothing more, nothing less".

This is not true. The local creationists' resistance shows that they think the poll supports their case. That is, they want to use it as a Bandwagon Fallacy. Of course they will deny this, but are they willing to add a paragraph like the one above, saying that such polls don't support any view? After all, simple people could fall into the trap set by the creationists and believe that creationism has merit because a poll said that the majority believes in something that is somehow related with it. Would you want that? --Hob Gadling 10:49, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've reworded the paragraph in question to make it as clear as I can that the reason it's there is to show that US opinion (especially that of the general public) is mixed. If you're including me in "the local creationists' resistance" then let me state that I think that the only thing it shows is that far too many Americans take Genesis literally (to state my POV). I'm a evolutionary creationist- which means that I'm on the side of the evolutionary scientists in this debate (right up to the part where they start claiming that evolution disproves the existance of God). I genuinely can't see how the stats can be used as a bandwagon - they're in a minority -especially amongst those people who've spent time studying the issues involved. I removed the paragraph as the page is far too long anyway, and I thought (as I indicated in my edit summary) that what you had written was self-evident. Also, why does it need a paragraph? If people are still concerned can't you just add something like: "As with all opinion polls, this merely reflects people's beliefs and does not reveal which opinion is correct."? I still regard this as so self-evident that it doesn't need saying, but if people add a sentence similar to this I won't delete it. --G Rutter 13:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New nonsense
''Broadly speaking, there are three main groups: Naturalistic evolution, that is, the belief that the current structure and diversity of life came into being purely through the naturalistic process of variation and natural selection, without the intervention of any deity; Theistic evolution, that is, the belief that the structure and diversity of life came into being through the process of evolution, but under the guidance of God. Biblically literal creation, that is, the belief that God created the Earth in exactly the way and timeframe described in the biblical book of Genesis. ''

Nice obfuscating, but lets face it, naturallistic evolution is a conflation of evolution and athiesm. Its like making up a term to group bananna and moron. Bannoron. Its nonsense. Bensaccount 03:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * the only nonsense around here is comparing the "conflation" of naturalism and evolution with bannoron. naturalistic evolution is not necessarily atheistic.  it makes no statement regarding the existence or non-existence of God, but only argues that evolution occured by naturalistic means alone.  in fact, naturalistic evolution can be seen as very pantheistic, as it argues that there is a "directing force" among all life and the universe.  cummon.  i'm tired of this crap.  why don't you actually read something and come up with something constructive to contribute to the article?  Ungtss 05:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Though naturalism and atheism are related, in reality all science is based on naturalism; that is, that the world can be explained without the need for supernatural phenomenon. Without naturalism you just say "because God said so". Naturalism seeks non-supernatural explanations for why things are the way they are. Titanium Dragon 07:33, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

If you say naturalistic evolution is a conflation, then you must disagree with W. V. Quine who was of the opinion that any part of reality had a naturalistic explanation. Do you know what I am saying? :) You should publish your disagreement with Quine, and then we could quote you, paraphrase you, and cite you in Wikipedia.  Until then, you have done brilliant original research!  Congratulations!  -Rednblu | Talk 06:53, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

At least I didn't make up terms. Bensaccount 14:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have had enough of this, let someone else argue here. Truth and clarity will just have to remain separate from this article for the time being. Bensaccount 14:38, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you cite me to a published author that provides some "truth and clarity" in your opinion to this subject? It seems to me that "truth and clarity" would always be served by presenting PollOne and its results, its analyses, and its detractors followed by PollTwo and its results, its analyses, and its detractors.  What other ingredient could there possibly be to "truth and clarity"?  I suggest you should provide your AlternativePoll and its results, its analyses, and its detractors.  Could you do that?  ---Rednblu | Talk 17:45, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Statistics can be misleading. Bensaccount 18:20, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Certainly. That is like saying some run of the Cavendish experiment can be misleading. :)  But I know of no scholars who argue that the statistics on the poll in the article are misleading.  Do you?  ---Rednblu | Talk 20:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No its not like that at all. Bensaccount 20:33, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Monstrously POV
On top of any list of this article's POV points (a long, long list) would be that it consistently describes "evolution" as being the "theory" in opposition to "creationism". No scientist or pro-scientist if you like would describe it that way. They'd be careful to describe what creationists oppose as the theory of evolution by natural selection. Evolution itself is a fact, of course, far too easily observed for any but the crankiest to deny. Next would probably be the description of the standpoint of science as "naturalistic evolution". This is what creationists call it! The people who actually hold the view call it the theory of natural selection or as shorthand "evolutionary theory". The distinction between "naturalistic" and "theistic" evolution is POV. From my POV, there are people who accept that life evolves and those who do not. The former group has some who believe a god has something to do with it, but this is largely immaterial compared with the first distinction. Finally, "evolution" has nothing to do with abiogenesis, geology, astrology, necromancy or what have you. Nor does the "evolution" side of the debate actually "debate" the issues listed. Again, from my POV, I accept that the theory of natural selection is essentially correct but I have absolutely no view on how the universe came into being, nor on the beginnings of life, and my views on the age of the universe (very old), how it developed or any other connected issue have nothing to do with "evolution" except for that of stars, which is a different thing.Dr Zen 03:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * <<They'd be careful to describe what creationists oppose as the theory of evolution by natural selection.>>
 * that is factually incorrect. creationists do not dispute evolution by natural selection.  they dispute MACROEVOLUTION, which is a THEORY regarding the origin and development of life, and which is made very clear throughout the article. Ungtss 05:14, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No it isn't. "Macroevolution" is evolution at or above the level of the species. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not speculate on the origin of life. The article makes lots of things "clear" but is almost irreparably POV. Let's fix thatDr Zen 05:26, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * that is what creationists dispute. nobody argues about "variation and natural selection."  that's obvious.  what creationists dispute is whether the higher taxa can be explained by variation and natural selection alone.  Ungtss 05:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know what creationists dispute. What I was taking issue with was your misrepresentation of what "macroevolution" is, which is common among creationists.
 * By the way, it is a theory but please, you're an intelligent man, you say, don't be doing the "it's only a theory" nonsense. It's a theory in the sense that the earth's going round the sun is a theory. It is a framework for explaining observed facts. Creationists dispute the facts and they use scientists' describing the framework as a "theory" to bamboozle laypeople because in the common usage "theory" is used to mean "hypothesis".
 * There is a huge difference, Ungtss, between reporting that creationists take advantage of the difference between the formal and vernacular usages of "theory" and your doing so here.Dr Zen 00:06, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * <<The distinction between "naturalistic" and "theistic" evolution is POV.>>
 * how so? people are given the choice between two descriptions of the origin of life, and people make the choice.  that's not pov.  that's a statistical fact. Ungtss 05:14, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You cannot base the entire article on your reading of a single Gallup poll. The distinction between different types of "evolution" is POV. I don't make such a distinction and I don't think anyone on this side of the debate does. I certainly don't describe my position as believing in "naturalistic evolution". That is something only creationists call it. This is what I mean by POV. If only you call a thing by a certain name, it is not NPOV to use that name! You must use a name both sides agree on.Dr Zen 05:26, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * <<I don't make such a distinction and I don't think anyone on this side of the debate does.>>.
 * thestic evolutionists do and the the poll did, no? Ungtss 05:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * As I said, you cannot base the entire article on one poll. As it happens, it did not, no. Have a look at the questions it actually asked. It didn't use those terms. I don't think "theistic evolutionists" generally describe themselves as such either (mainly because those who accept that evolution by natural selection is essentially correct do not usually describe themselves as "evolutionists" -- that's what creationists call them). Whether you believe God guides evolution or not tends to depend whether you believe as a matter of faith that God takes a personal interest in the workings of the universe. If you do then you necessarily believe he "guides" evolution in some way, even if you're sketchy on the details. In this sense you are a theistic evolutionist, but by the same token you'd be a "theistic gravitationalist", a "theistic sociologist", a "theistic psychologist". The point is, the theism belongs to the person, not so much to the description of the world.Dr Zen 00:06, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * <<Finally, "evolution" has nothing to do with abiogenesis, geology, astrology, necromancy or what have you.>>
 * have you read the article Stellar evolution? and wouldn't you say the fossil record, a facet of geology, significantly impacts theories of biological evolution?  and wouldn't you say that abiogenesis is the process by which chemical compounds came to be self-replicating?  Ungtss 05:14, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Stellar evolution is nothing to do with evolution by natural selection. As it happens, Darwin drew the comparison between both types of evolution. Someone quoted it for you above. The fossil record does not affect "evolution". It affects theories of how evolution has worked. Can you see the difference? As far as geology is concerned, scientists do not debate it with creationists. They state categorically that creationists are wrong if they bother to give them notice. There is no debate because creationists cannot gain access to the means of scientific debate. Abiogenesis is a red herring.
 * that was the point of that sentence. there are many different components of the debate -- the sides argue about astonomy, geology, and abiogenesis.  but this article focuses on the biological component -- biological evolution.  what's pov about that?


 * If the "sides" in the debate discuss lots of things, you may not call the debate "creation vs evolution"! You need to rename it the "science vs creationism" debate or something similar. Creationists attempt to bring down the theory of evolution by natural selection by attacking the lack of explanation for abiogenesis (an argument as old as John Locke, who made it very cogently, although he at least had the decency to base his argument on his version of "common sense" and not entirely spurious pseudoscience). The two are not connected! Regardless how life came to be, it has evolved by natural selection. God may have created a replicator and thrown it into the primal soup and nothing is changed about the theory of natural selection. This is why I say it is a red herring.
 * <<you may not call the debate "creation vs evolution"!>>
 * But that is what the debate is commonly known as. And the article explains that what is commonly known as "creation vs. evolution" is actually more than just creation vs. evolution.  What's wrong with that?  Besides, "science vs creationism" is POV.
 * Philip J. Rayment 15:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * As for geology, evolution has nothing to say about it. Geology has something to say about evolution by natural selection, of course, but not the other way round. So the "debate" in that instance is between the science of geology, which is based on millions of observations, careful analysis and many years of discussion, and creationists who seek to undermine it because if geology is even partway correct, their beliefs have to be wrong.Dr Zen 00:06, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Now, do not revert good-faith efforts to bring balance to this article without reason. I am not removing anything, merely adding balance.Dr Zen 05:26, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * No, you are adding an anti-creationists POV. Philip J. Rayment 15:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The poll
Gallup's own news service explains what the wording was of the poll. Clearly the figures do add up to 100. I don't think it shows that there are loads of "theistic evolutionists". Presumably many Christians believe God "guides" everything. If you asked them "Do you believe that the earth attracts falling objects by gravity under the guidance of God/without God's involvement?", I reckon you'd get the same results.
 * you go ahead and take that poll, and see what happens. i "reckon" the results will be slightly different than you're predicting.  Orthogenesis.  Ungtss 05:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What was notable from the original source, and is not included in our article, is how many of the creationists did not graduate high school.Dr Zen 03:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * take your ad hominem bs and go home. i have a doctorate, and have met more evolutionist dropouts than any other kind.  Ungtss 05:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no ad hominem. I'm reporting the results of the poll, just as you did. Lots of people have doctorates. They get them from all sorts of places. That doesn't change the poll's results.Dr Zen 05:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * the stats didn't draw the figure you're referring to, that i'm aware of. best we've got is, demographically, just slightly over half -- 65% -- of those without high school degrees believed in biblical creation.  the rest of the undereducated either believed in secular evolution, theistic evolution, or didn't have an opinion.  that compares to 49% supporting biblically literal creation in the general population.  i don't find those numbers to be particularly telling ... any more than the statistically significant difference between men and women (15%!).  i'm sorry if i was a bit testy about the ad hominem.  i've just been repeatedly attacked and maligned as "ignorant" and "fundamentalist" so many times it's starting to make my blood boil -- no excuse tho.  my apologies.  Ungtss 09:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The poll doesn't even include the scientific theory of evolution as a possible option. Bensaccount 14:09, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The poll shows that 49% of the general population and 95% of the scientists questioned accepted the scientific theory of evolution. Having decided that they accepted the scientific theory, people then varied over which of two metaphysical interpretations they prefered - either "God guided this process" ("Theistic evolution") or "God had no part in this process" ("Naturalistic evolution"). I really don't understand the problems people have with this poll. --G Rutter 15:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you don't understand because you think the poll has two stages where there was only one. Bensaccount 15:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm fully aware that there was only one stage to the poll, which asked 3 questions. To paraphrase, each person was asked to choose which most closely matched their view - Young Earth Creationism, Evolution with God guiding, or, Evolution without God. So, 2 out of the possible 3 answers include the scientific theory of evolution as a possible option. What's your problem with it? --G Rutter 21:08, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You can't change it. It has already been completed, and it is insidiously misleading. Bensaccount 17:42, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Apparently, you think the poll should have had a different design. What in your opinion should have been the questions asked?  ---Rednblu | Talk 16:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand. You have a particular conception of the questions that should have been asked on that poll.  What questions do you think should have been asked on that poll?  ---Rednblu | Talk 20:19, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are you having trouble reading? I wrote that the poll is over. You can't change a poll after it is over. It is finished and it misleading. Bensaccount 22:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course. But we are trying to understand what your complaint is about the poll.  :)  Since you have definite ideas about what is wrong with that poll, surely you could tell us what kind of poll would not be misleading.  So what kind of poll about the "Creation vs. evolution debate" would not be misleading?  ---Rednblu | Talk 00:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The way it is represented in the article is completely wrong. People did not pick the positions shown. Report the poll, if you must, but report it accurately, with exactly the wording Gallup actually used, and do not draw unwarranted conclusions from it. It was a Gallup poll (they do it every so often with exactly the same questions), btw, which Newsweek reported. You should not link to the POV site you've chosen, which misrepresents the poll by giving headings to the questions, but rather to Gallup itself. This is the press release for the 2001 poll. You'll note that Gallup asked further questions that showed that some "creationists" (that is, people who believe God created everything) believe in evolution too. Of course, we know that. Some of your "theistic evolutionists" would presumably believe that.

BTW, the figure for earth and life scientists was actually 0.14%!Dr Zen 00:41, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I can sympathize with your desire to resolve the "debate" by your own imaginings and convictions. However, your idea of using "exactly the wording Gallup actually used" is merely original research.  If you can cite to your publication of your original research, that would be fine for you to assert that Wikipedia should use "exactly the wording Gallup actually used."  However, at least the Wikipedia page would have to quote, paraphrase, and cite to the published scholars of the Annual Review of Anthropology and the National Center for Science Education who regularly use standard labels such as "theistic evolutionism" and "materialist evolutionism" to refer to the points-of-view from that poll and similar polls. What do you say?  Let's stop the insertions of orignal research such as at this link.  You need to cite to the published scholar who rejects the use of the terms, but you also have to recognize the published writings of many, many scholars who use terms such as "evolutionist," "evolutionism," and "evolution" in characterizing the debate.  Charles Darwin for example called himself and his fellow scientists "evolutionists."  :)) Doesn't Darwin's opinion count here?  ---Rednblu | Talk 18:53, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't have the faintest fucking idea what you are talking about. My idea of using exactly the wording Gallup used is precisely what we are supposed to do here. I changed the text to remove the "interpretation" of Gallup's poll to match what the people who answered actually said. This is not "original research". This is what the poll asked.
 * Keep your rudeness to yourself, man. You want to pump the article full of "imaginings and convictions", go for it. You want to quote this or that journal using the terms you want to frame the dispute in, you quote them doing so. I'll dig up some scholars describing creationists as crackpots and charlatans to match, shall I? The best solution in this kind of article, I'm sure you'll agree, is to stick to the most neutral formulations, and as far as possible to the sides' self-description, so long as that is neutral.Dr Zen 06:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Creationist abiogenesis hypothesis
This is a list of claims without any rebuttal. You'd think scientists just stood openmouthed at the brilliance of these arguments.

For example, "creationists assert that while science has synthesized some organic ingredients of life, the organic components of life are different than life itself, because they are not self-replicating." The reason scientists don't bother with this argument is because it is like saying man could not have evolved from a fish because man is not a fish. Or better, it is like saying houses cannot be made of bricks because bricks are not houses. Brains cannot be composed of cells, because cells cannot think. Dogs don't have furry coats because fur cannot bark.

How about this pearl? "Creationists argue that in the absence of a demonstrable, verifiable mechanism for the origin of life, dogmatic belief in atheistic abiogenesis is just as dependent on assumption as dogmatic belief in creationistic abiogenesis, and is therefore equally "unscientific." Thus they conclude that creationism is an intellectually justifiable position as to the origin of life."

To which the answer is simple. Scientists do not have a "dogmatic belief" in "atheistic" abiogenesis. This is a disgraceful misrepresentation of what scientists actually do. They suggest mechanisms by which life might have arisen. They discuss whether life has the characteristics you would expect had those mechanisms in fact created it. Okay, God creating life might be one of the possible mechanisms. Now make some predictions contingent on that hypothesis. When you do, your position is "intellectually justifiable" (as far as abiogenesis is concerned but not in any other area, of course). If there were evidence only for that origin, science would (reluctantly, I daresay) accept it.Dr Zen 01:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dr Zen 01:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mendel's views on "macroevolution"
The article says: "In a lecture on March 8, 1865, Mendel noted that his research described the mechanism of microevolution, but gave no grounds for belief in macroevolution, asserting that the tendency was toward stability, rather than toward instability."

Can you give a source so that this can be checked out? This sounds a lot like an interpretation of what Mendel said.

It should be pointed out -- even though it's yawningly obvious -- that Mendel's mechanism alone would "tend towards stability". And it's totally besides the point. The "instability" in evolution is caused by mutation. Creationists would need to deny mutation occurs (a foolish thing to do given that it's observable) for this to be anything like a point in their favour.Dr Zen 01:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the quote on our macroevolution page, it appears Mendel was suggesting there could be no rapid speciation. Well, so what? From first life to man took, what, three billion years. That's not speedily losing all stability. Nor are forms "extremely variable". What is striking is how similar they are.Dr Zen 02:01, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The debate
The "creation-evolution debate" is a POV term. Creationists call it that, not scientists. They don't tend to believe that creationist sniping at science is a "debate".
 * And again, we have an anti-creationist drawing a false comparison betwen "creationist" and "scientist". The group of "scientists" includes some "creationists" (albeit in a relatively small minority).  Besides, as has been pointed out, evolutionary scientists do debate the issue (no, they don't debate whether or not creation is correct, but they do argue that evolution is correct). Philip J. Rayment 15:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Look, we've done this. "Most scientists" is fine. Subjects such as "geology" are not covered by "evolution". You want to write only about "creation vs evolution", remove the stuff about geology. You choose. And if we are discussing "evolution", let's stick to scientists who work in that field. Let's find out how many scientists were surveyed in the poll in question, to arrive at 0.14% of life scientists. Remember, if they polled 700 scientists, that means one was a creationist. We would describe a belief in Jesus as being held by Christians, because it generally is, even if we could find a Christian or two who did not believe in him. "Evolutionary scientists" do not in fact argue that evolution is correct. They all agree that evolution is a fact. They all bar a couple, and those not published in peer-reviewed journals, agree that evolution by natural selection is essentially correct. They differ mostly about whether it is the only mechanism of adaptation, not whether it exists.Dr Zen 06:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that the article should be limited to only "creation vs [biological] evolution". Philip J. Rayment 15:03, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, it's perfectly correct to say that the dispute is between creationists and most scientists. Making out that it is a debate within science is misleading (of course, it's one aim of this article to make that very claim) because all but a few scientists (and those few are not life or earth scientists, and what is more are generally Americans, because as you note European scientists on the whole do not dispute the essential correctness of the theory of natural selection) are not creationists and the one peer-reviewed article in a reputable journal was snuck in by a creationist editor without peer review and the journal disowned the article!Dr Zen 03:30, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * There are life and earth scientists that are creationists, and there are plenty that are not American, even if the majority is in America. And did you just admit that creationists are not allowed to put papers into mainstream peer-reviewed journal?  And how could a "peer-reviewed article" be put in "without peer review"?  By they way, please supply a reference for your claim about that. Philip J. Rayment 15:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Name them. Give names and you can cite them. Creationists are very much allowed to put papers in peer-reviewed journals. They do, but not on "creation science". How could a peer-reviewed article be put in "without peer review"? Like this.


 * Anyone interested in knowing more about the Meyer scandal can google it up by looking for "Meyer Steinberg 'Biological Society of Washington'". Steinberg was forced to resign, I believeDr Zen 06:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * If I have reason to cite them I will name them, but the point of my comment was to dispute your claim that they don't exist.
 * So creationists are allowed to put in peer-reviewed articles as long as they are not on creation science? I know that's not exactly what you said, but it is the equivalent to what you said unless you want to argue that they don't try to put in papers on creation science topics.
 * The linked article simply claimed that the article was not peer-reviewed, whereas you said that it was. Although I note that it was the NCSE commentary that concluded this; the BSW didn't actually say that in the article.  However I did note the BSW's explicit comment that they will not publish articles on the topic of Intelligent Design again.  That sounds to me very much like a ban!
 * The suggesting googling actually turned up very few hits, but one did have a link to further information, which revealed that (a) the article was peer-reviewed and everything was in order, and (b) Steinberg's resignation had been submitted before this controversy arose. So it does seem to be a clear case of creationist articles are not allowed.
 * Philip J. Rayment 15:03, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Naturalistic abiogenesis hypotheses"
It's just sniping to suggest scientific hypotheses aren't "coherent". It's also nonsense. The RNA hypothesis is worked out from A to Z. I'm yet to see any creationist explain how God created life from nothing. I know he moves in mysterious ways. Fair enough. But science tries to lift the veil on mysteries. Dr Zen 03:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You also do not sufficiently distinguish between evidence for the possibility of abiogenesis and evidence for its actually having taken place. The former is strong; the latter is what is lacking, and is likely never to be found. In fact, you stated the case entirely the wrong way round. Experimental evidence is strong for this hypothesis. It's the observation in nature that is lacking, for the obvious reasons.Dr Zen 03:48, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<''Can you give a source so that this can be checked out? This sounds a lot like an interpretation of what Mendel said.''>>
 * Henig, The Monk in the Garden: The Lost and Found Genius of Gregor Mendel, the Father of Genetics, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.


 * pout* I could save a trip to the library if you gave the quote. Anyway, I take it it's substantially what's in the macroevolution article?Dr Zen 04:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * essentially. Ungtss 05:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well then, as I suggested, he is doing no more than arguing against rapid evolution! That makes him a gradualist, no?Dr Zen 06:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * no, it means exactly what it says he means. the tendency in genetics is toward stability, not ever-increasing variety.  that's what all the non-darwinians have been acknowledging and trying to overcome for the past 50 years.  Ungtss 18:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<creationists assert that while science has synthesized some organic ingredients of life, the organic components of life are different than life itself, because they are not self-replicating." ... is like saying man could not have evolved from a fish because man is not a fish.''>>
 * no sir. it's like saying, "lead can't turn itself into gold because lead isn't gold, and all the time in the world can't change that unless there's a really smart alchemist around."  abiogenesis: biological alchemy through the foolproof mechanisms of chance and a lot of time.  Ungtss 03:54, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid not. Lead is not a constituent part of gold, but the organic components of life are constituent parts of it. What you are in fact suggesting is that gold has some sort of "goldness" that makes it gold. It doesn't.Dr Zen 04:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * lead and gold are both composed of the same things: electrons, neutrons, and protons. yet for some reason, they stubbornly refuse to rearrange themselves under natural  circumstances.  same with life.  mostly just carbon and water ... so why can't carbon and water turn into life on their own!?  it's not pseudoscience to say that a theory violates the laws of empirical science.  anybody who said "hydrogen collects in a vaccuum" would be subject to the same objection: "oh yeah?  then prove it."  Ungtss 05:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Now you're getting it. Lead and gold are made of the same thing. An amino acid and DNA are composed of the same thing. Do you see? This entirely spurious argument suggests that there is some magic step between the component amino acids and DNA. What is it?
 * Electrons, protons etc do not "stubbornly refuse to rearrange themselves. They rather obliging rearrange themselves all the time. Thank goodness they do. If they did not, we would not have any chemistry and you and I would not be having this conversation. How does the RNA hypothesis violate the "laws of empirical science"? Would you care to outline below exactly which laws it violates and how? You haven't made a good start because your argument seems to be no stronger than "the various elements cannot combine to make living things", while the evidence from the experiments in question is that they can combine to make the constituent parts. You need something that blocks the combination of amino acids.
 * What is more, life also reconstitutes itself out of raw materials. If it did not, you and I would still be ova; and had we by some miracle become adult specimens despite our cells' inability to make copies of themselves out of raw materials, we would be severely limited by their inability to do so when we needed to regenerate some part of ourselves, a process that continues without cease within our bodies. Dr Zen 06:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Life is more than just chemicals. It is also information.  That's partly how life converts the raw materials into new life--by using mechanisms and information.  And the mechanisms are constructed by life using information.  So you need the mechanisms and information to get life, and you need life to use the information to make the mechanisms.  Philip J. Rayment 16:06, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you? Prove it. It seems to me you are using a mystic notion of "life" and waving it over the discussion. I say that material is synthesised in cells purely mechanically. Information can be purely mechanical too. It doesn't require life to create it. Bring a cite from an information scientist that says it can't. Even Dembski, who is very wrong about information, does not make such a claim. He knows it would be howled out of court.Dr Zen 06:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * that's exactly it. life can rearrange non-life into life ... but non-life can NEVER rearrange itself into life.  Ungtss 18:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Prove it. Dr Zen 06:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * <<How does the RNA hypothesis violate the "laws of empirical science"?>>
 * it violates the laws of empirical science to say something happened when you can't explain how or why it happened, recreate it, or observe it. rna world falls into that category.  if it works ... how come we can't recreate it?  Ungtss 18:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Enjoy this. The mechanism is well understood because it happens today. What is difficult to recreate are the conditions that would be necessary for it to happen in the wild. We know it's rare. If it weren't, there'd be abiogenesis going on left, right and centre. Dr Zen 06:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<''Okay, God creating life might be one of the possible mechanisms. Now make some predictions contingent on that hypothesis.''>>
 * the prediction is right in the paragraph. you will never, ever, EVER find the right conditions for life to arise from non-life by chance and nature alone, without the intervention of an intelligent designer.  nothing more, nothing less.  life can't arise spontaneously.  show it happening, and creationists will have nothing to say about abiogenesis.  Ungtss 03:54, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a negative prediction -- a condition for falsification if you like. Does it make any positive predictions?Dr Zen 04:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * no ... but that's no fewer than the rna world, so we're in good company. Ungtss 05:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You're just being silly, man. The RNA hypothesis makes a very positive prediction and obviously so.Dr Zen 06:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * what prediction is that? Ungtss 18:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Given the right conditions, RNA will form spontaneously from nonliving ingredients and begin to replicate. Dr Zen 06:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<"The scientific position,">> (over and over and over). whether or not the claims of the "mainstream scientific community" are in fact scientific is a subject of pov dispute on this page. the page cannot state as fact that either side is or is not scientific, because that is the very heart of the debate. Ungtss 03:54, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You simply cannot describe mainstream scientists as "evolutionists". This is the same as our changing "creationists" into "religious fundamentalists" or similar. The page can state what is or is not "scientific" because science decides what is or is not scientific! It is perfectly okay to argue that science does not correctly describe the world, but it is not okay to argue that it is not scientific. It gets to decide that. Do you see?Dr Zen 04:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * <<simply cannot describe mainstream scientists as "evolutionists">>
 * Why not, if that's what they are and that is the most appropriate description?
 * <<This is the same as our changing "creationists" into "religious fundamentalists" or similar.>>
 * No, that would be like changing "evolutionists" into "atheistic fundamentalists" or similar.
 * <<The page can state what is or is not "scientific" because science decides what is or is not scientific!>>
 * It sounds very much like you are saying that creation is not scientific because science is defined to be non-creationist!
 * Philip J. Rayment 16:06, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Nope. Science allows the hypothesis that God created the earth, just as it does any other. It proscribes how hypotheses can be formulated and how they can be investigated. That's why "the Bible says so" is not considered to be scientific evidence.
 * The reason you canont describe mainstream scientists as "evolutionists" is because the "debate" involves, as you note, much more than "evolution". Geologists are not "evolutionists" but they too find themselves in a dispute with creationists.Dr Zen 06:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * science is not a person, it is a process. the scientific community is a group of people who are well known for their overconfidence in their theories.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions argues that scientific consensus is based primarily on common ideology, what scientists have been taught, and what they've based their reputations on, and it's only the outsiders who have the guts to actually push the scientific method to new heights.  so just 'cause the scientific community says it's science doesn't mean it's science, any more than Vulcan (planet) was science before Einstein came around.  Ungtss 05:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Science is a process composed of the people who do it. It doesn't matter why the scientific community is structured in one way or another; the point is, what it does is science.Dr Zen 06:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * no sir. "it" does science when it follows the scientific method.  "it" does pseudoscience when it does anything else.  Ungtss 18:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The scientific method is what science says it is! I do enjoy though the notion that pursuing the scientific method is "pseudoscientific" if it's not to your liking. Dr Zen 06:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * i find it amusing how you use "science" and "scientists" interchangeably. as though science could speak, and scientists were infallible.  sounds more like papal infallibility than anything else -- "scripture says this!  the pope has decreed -- now let all recite the Creed!"

<<''Macroevolution is evolution at the level of species and higher orders. Creationists use the term ''>>
 * find out who coined the term, who brought it to the english language, who developed the macromutation and punctuated equilibrium models of evolution (which distinguish macro and micro at a fundamental level) and then tell me again it's a "term creationists use." Ungtss 03:54, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Read it carefully. Macroevolution is nothing more, nothing less than evolution at the level of species and higher. Creationists are the only people who use it to mean what you suggest. Punctuated equilibrium does no such thing. Your doctorate clearly wasn't in biology.Dr Zen 04:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * hey now. PE did do that.  it said that macroevolution and major evolutionary advances occured under special circumstances, while micro occured the rest of the time.  Ungtss 05:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No, it did not. Perhaps you ought to read Gould and Eldredge's work, rather than creationist manglings of it. Gould suggested that macroevolution would not generally occur in the equilibrium periods, yes, but even in the stressed periods, macroevolution is an outcome of microevolution. He specifically denied "saltation", which is what you are suggesting he supported.Dr Zen 06:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * i'm not suggesting he supported that. i'm suggesting that he argued that PE was variation as uncoupled from selection -- a change in the pace of evolution due to a change in the environment and an isolated population.  i'm suggesting that that change in pace -- that "uncoupling from selection" was nondarwinian.  gould's opponents agreed, and that's why it pissed them off so much.  he broke the "code."  Ungtss 18:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * "Variation as uncoupled from selection" doesn't make any sense to me. As Gould himself pointed out, Darwin himself was not an ultra-Darwinian! Gould suggests only that it's madness to believe all changes are solely due to the workings of natural selection because, quite simply, that ignores that natural selection is disrupted by things like asteroid strikes. Dr Zen 06:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"uncoupled from selection." i agree that its madness to think that natural selection can explain it all. i just don't see how the enormous loss of genetic material during an asteroid and subequent inbreeding would ACCELERATE evolulation. Ungtss 08:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) <<Darwin himself did not know the mechanism that caused variation.>>
 * that statement asserts that one has been found. the macromutationists, punctuated equilibrium types, and gradualists are still arguing about that today.  it's not settled, and it's misleading to say that it is.  Ungtss 03:54, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * That's utter bullshit. The mechanism that causes genetic variation is not disputed. The mechanism that causes speciation is -- well, actually, no it isn't. Creationists simply deny there is one.Dr Zen 04:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * creationists have our own mechanism for speciation -- reproductive isolation, inbreeding, and loss of genetic information. Ungtss 05:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * LOL. Sorry, couldn't help it. I was imagining our common ancestor with a chimp. It would have a superface because of all the genetic information it must have and it must have a tail and no tail at the same time -- because in fact that gene has not been "lost" but the tail has, so, erm...Dr Zen 06:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * i don't think we have a common ancestor with the chimp, and you have no evidence for it. i think the ancestors of humans were STRONGER and BETTER than they are now -- as were the ancestors of the chimps -- who were of NO RELATION -- and i believe we're just the inbred, mutated vestiges of that creation.  maybe you lost your tail, but i never had one.  ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny.  Ungtss 18:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * But you have a gene for a tail, Ungtss. It's the same as a chimp's. Why did your Designer design you with a gene for a tail but no tail? Dr Zen 06:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * care to back that conjecture up with some facts? if i have a gene for a tail, how come i have no tail?  Ungtss 08:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gradualism etc
Erm...

"A main point of contention has been that gradualism predicts that when one species evolves into another, there need to be intermediate forms morphologically and genetically."

Right so far.

"Creationists assert that these are sparse in the fossil record."

They assert it wrongly though and we should say so. Some taxa are extremely well preserved in the fossil record and "intermediate forms" are easily found.
 * that's your pov. the other one is that 150 hasn't turned up jack.  put your intermediate forms on the page, not your conclusion that you've found them.  Ungtss 04:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not POV at all! It's an observable fact that some taxa are there to be seen and some aren't! It's not just POV but a downright lie to suggest that there are none that are well preserved.Dr Zen 04:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * i guess you misread what i said. i'm talking about the evoluation between and AMONG the higher taxa -- the intermediate forms between higher taxa, not that some are seen and some aren't.  Ungtss 05:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a logical conclusion of "some taxa are extremely well preserved" that one can see the evolution within them! As for evolution "between" them, that can clearly be seen by taking taxon A, taxon B and taxon C and comparing them. Creationists dispute the comparison, which is fair enough, but this is not to say there is nothing to compare, which is what you are in fact saying.Dr Zen 06:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * no sir. i'm saying you don't have any evolution between reptiles and mammals, besides a cynodont inferred from two doglike molars found in arizona.  i'm saying there is no common ancestor between dogs, cats, weasels, and elephants.  i'm saying there is a systematic absence of any common ancestors across higher taxa.  Ungtss 07:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Ungtss - Every hear of dimetrodon? and list of transitional fossils --JPotter 21:48, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * yes. what precise similarities are there between dimetrodon and mammals according to your research, and do the extent of those similarities persuade you that they are related?  Ungtss 23:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can see that you're saying it. It's a crying shame that those ancestors are there to be seen, plain as day, and that the variations among the animals existing today can be counted back to a common ancestor, which, bizarre as it sounds, would look very much like the very fossil that is discovered.Dr Zen 11:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Evolutionists have pointed out the lack of transitional fossils between major groups. Philip J. Rayment 16:29, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Have a very large list of transitional fossils. I know, I know, they only look like they are transitions between different forms. But let's not weary ourselves with that line of argument. You can either argue that there is no such thing as a transitional fossil because there is nothing to transit between or you can argue that a certain fossil is not transitional. Because the second argument assumes the falseness of the first, you cannot have it both ways. Dr Zen 06:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by "there is nothing to transit between". Creationists argue that there are, simply, no indisputable transitional fossils that have been found.  That is, the evidence for transitional fossils (between basic kinds, not between related species) is totally lacking.  The beginnings of a refutation of the talk.origins list is here.


 * <<It's a crying shame>>
 * good. proof by assertion.  now you're learning how to be a good evolutionist:).  Ungtss 18:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Man, it sure beats "how do you know that that tooth is like that tooth?".Dr Zen 06:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Evolutionists since Darwin have pointed out the incompleteness of the fossil record and called for more research"

This implies that the fossil record is "incomplete" in the sense that it is lacking something, when the truth is more that it hasn't all been uncovered (for quite obvious reasons -- there are billions of years of rock and lots of planet that it covers!). That's not to say there aren't gaps, of course, but without looking at every piece of preCambrian rock, we can't know whether there is a gap in the record or a gap in our knowledge of it.
 * no sir. he said very clearly, "one may wonder why there aren't a whole bunch of intermediate forms in the record -- well, we haven't dug enough!"  i had a quote, but somebody said it was pov to actually record darwin's numerous doubts about his own theory.  would you like a quote?  Ungtss 04:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It was my understanding that Darwin had been dead for over a hunded years. Is this not true? Dr Zen 04:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * indeed ... and non-darwinian evolutionists since his time (including gould) have pointed to the incompleteness of the fossil record. Ungtss 05:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Describing Gould as "nonDarwinian" is absolutely laughable. You are taking about a man who named his column from a part of Darwin's work! Gould was a staunch Darwinian, as are all "evolutionists". You are making the mistake common among creationists of assuming that because biology has moved on in the last hundred years, and scientists disagree about some specifics, that the core of Darwin's theory is no longer widely accepted. This is entirely wrong and Gould often said so. Dr Zen 06:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * hmm ... Ungtss 07:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Read Gould himself! Jeez, man, how can you hope to build yourself a case if you quote some guy on a pop website as your source on what Gould believed, when what Gould believed is readily available. Now, do read the Gould review, won't you? Because if you do, you'll see that what Gould is attacking is not Darwin but overenthusiastic interpretations of Darwin's work.


 * Allow me to quote Gould: "Since the ultras are fundamentalists at heart, and since fundamentalists generally try to stigmatize their opponents by depicting them as apostates from the one true way, may I state for the record that I (along with all other Darwinian pluralists) do not deny either the existence and central importance of adaptation, or the production of adaptation by natural selection. Yes, eyes are for seeing and feet are for moving. And, yes again, I know of no scientific mechanism other than natural selection with the proven power to build structures of such eminently workable design." (my emphasis).


 * There you have Gould himself describing himself as a "Darwinian". Do read the whole article. It'll give a much better understanding of what Gould did dispute with other "evolutionists". It boils down largely to "don't forget earthquakes" (or Floods). And "don't forget that many mutations don't do anything", which in later years Gould became more interested in (he became very fond of Kimura's theory).Dr Zen 11:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * a darwinian PLURALIST, man -- because he proposed a NON-DARWINIAN mechanism for evolution to go ALONG with classic darwinism and explain the MAJOR changes that DARWINISM can't explain! it runs through EVERYTHING he wrote, man!  he thought that darwinism was INSUFFICIENT, and he wanted to add to the list of evolutionary mechanisms to explain what DARWINISM couldn't explain.  Ungtss 18:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You have become ridiculous. I give you Gould himself explaining that his proposed mechanisms are Darwinian, and explaining that the ultras have misinterpreted Darwin, and you insist that he was not Darwinian. That's pathetic. It's plain to anyone who reads this exchange that you will not read the Gould article, or if you will, you do not understand the very plain English in which he makes his position clear. Dr Zen 06:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * "his position" is one among many. his detractors, both evolutionists and creationist, believed he was strongly non-darwinian, as did lovtrop.  i just gave you an article (by an evolutionist) DESCRIBING him as non-darwinian.  he can call himself darwinian til he's blue in the face, but it doesn't change the mechanism he proposed.  Ungtss 08:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * His "detractors" did not believe he was "strongly nonDarwinian". They weren't and aren't idiots. They knew what he had written. You gave me an article from a pop fansite. That's like stopping someone in the street. His mechanism is entirely Darwinian. I'm beginning to wonder whether you have any idea what he actually did propose. Do you know? While we're on the subject, do you know what Darwin proposed? Have you read Darwin's work? Or are you working purely from the ICR version of "evolution"?Dr Zen 11:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"though they do not do so because of doubt of the existence of intermediate forms, but for the purpose of clarity."

This is just nonsensical. They do so for the same reason they call for more observation of anything. More evidence is better than less.
 * i didn't right that -- it was an evolutionists -- so do with it as you please:). Ungtss 04:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem with the "evolutionists" is that they are not bold enough in striking out falsehoods and misrepresentations or in adding clarifications, but seek to add bits and pieces that don't really cohere with what's there.Dr Zen 04:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * the problem with the evolutionists is they think they make a lot more sense than they actually do. Ungtss 05:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I doubt you'd find a writer who made more sense than Gould or Dawkins, whether you agree with them or not. And you'd go a long way to find one who made less sense than Dembski or Behe.Dr Zen 06:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * all a matter of opinion. Ungtss 07:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Read the Gould article I cited for you above. Really, the guy was a beautiful writer. You can agree with that even if you don't share his views. Here's Dembski. Behe writes in plainer English but still, the sense is often hard to grasp. Still, I do like that article. I love the mousetrap thing. Sadly, it doesn't fit his own definition of irreducible complexity, and to scientists' utter glee, modern mousetraps have themselves evolved from earlier, less complex traps. You might enjoy this, which shows how a mousetrap could be less complex. Ho hum. The irreducible complexity is rather easily shown to be reducible.Dr Zen 11:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * did you seriously just say that mousetraps have evolved from earlier mousetraps? have you ever seen a mousetrap breed in order to "evolve by variation and natural selection?"  the DESIGNERS of mousetraps have IMPROVED and ALTERED THEIR DESIGN, over TIME, man.  that's what CREATIONISTS think happened.  Ungtss 18:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * sigh Clearly you haven't read Behe either. His claim is that mousetraps cannot be any less complex.
 * that is NOT his claim. he claims that the component parts in the eye design as it STANDS are irreducibly complex -- that is -- none of them can stand on their own in order to evolve a piece at a time.  the argument's not that you can't build a simpler mousetrap.  it's that none of the pieces in THIS mousetrap will work without the others!  Ungtss 08:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * sigh No, you are simply wrong. Read Behe and come back to this. It is, of course, the parts together that are complex. Some of the components of the eye -- most of them in fact -- are not in themselves complex. The argument, BTW, is that you could not have a mousetrap that did not have all the parts a mousetrap has. Not only do you misunderstand and misrepresent scientists such as Gould, you also get your own charlatans wrong. Dr Zen 11:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In the same way he claims an eye cannot be any less complex. That's what irreducible complexity means, of course. He does not argue that God has step by step refined the eye. He denies that a step-by-step refinement is even possible.
 * If you were arguing that God created the universe several billion years ago, had created a replicator and had personally made every change to all lifeforms, so that they appeared to have evolved by natural selection, there would be no debate between science and creationism, because creationism would be purely metaphysical. Science would simply shrug and apply Occam's Razor. Scientists would say it was outside their realm to discuss it and move on.
 * But you, and more importantly Behe and Dembski or such figures as Woodmorappe (sp?), are not arguing that. Dr Zen 06:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * right. believing in theistic evolution is unparsimonious if evolution actually works.  that's why i'm not buying it.  Ungtss 08:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, but bear in mind that Occam's Razor only works for comparing explanations. It doesn't speak to their truth or otherwise, although people make the mistake of thinking that it does. If God did in fact create the world, and does in fact make all changes to all lifeforms, then Occam's Razor does not in fact make him disappear.
 * I feel strongly that it is creationism's desire for its explanation to be on a par with science, to be accepted by science, that is most of the problem, and most of the dispute. The difficulty is, of course, that science considers explanations and creationists consider truths. Transitional fossils just cannot be true for you, so you explain them away. But science is not about explaining away what you don't want to be true. It's about explaining, period. Science prefers "evolutionists'" explanation of fossils partly because it is simpler, not necessarily because it's truer (because "trueness" is not necessarily a part of what science investigates -- how can it? We could all truly be figments of God's imagination that he plays with as he chooses). Your explanation requires nature to have worked differently at diverse times in the past. Well, it may or may not have done but it is most simply explained as not having done. This is why I am not wasting time trying to convince you of the truth of what I say. You are welcome to your truth. I'm satisfied to restrict myself to correcting you when you do not tell the truth about what people said, which is there to be seen.Dr Zen 11:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Mainstream scientists have disagreed over the number of transitional forms in the fossil record."

No, they have not. This is a misstatement. They are entirely in agreement on what's in the fossil record. Where they do dispute what a fossil is, that is, what it represents, this is not disputing how many "transitional forms" there are, except in the very narrow sense that one might not agree that a form is part of a transition from one species to another but belongs elsewhere in the schema.


 * no sir. macromutation and punctuated equilibrium say there aren't enough fossils for gradualism, so we've got to have another mechanism.  i have quotes if you'd like, but i've been told they're pov too.  Ungtss 04:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I gave you a quote elsewhere on this page from Gould specifically denying that he was not a gradualist.


 * there's also a quote of him saying the synthesis is dead. what do you want, man?  Ungtss 05:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I doubt you even know what the "synthesis" is.Dr Zen 06:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * oh that's good:). you sound a lot like bensaccount.  do you two know each other?  Ungtss 07:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. There is a conspiracy to denigrate your creationist views. We're calling it science.Dr Zen 11:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * yeah, you're calling it that. not much scientific about it, tho.  just a lot of insults, proof by assertion and authority, and misrepresentation of the facts.  reminds me of the fundamentalists:).  Ungtss 18:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * This from a guy who doesn't realise that the point of Behe's paper was that mousetraps cannot be less complex and still work! Dr Zen 06:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * why don't you try reading the book again. he never EVER said that.  he said, "none of the pieces in THIS mousetrap can work without the others."  it's easy to kill straw men.  try the real ones on for size.  Ungtss 08:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Above you contradict this by claiming he was talking about the complexity of the components. Try to stick to just the one truth if you can. Dr Zen 11:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * "Macromutation"? Gawd.Dr Zen 04:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * actually, "Gawd" is a creationist argument:). Ungtss 05:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't have an opinion on God, one way or the other.Dr Zen 06:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * well then i guess your response was even less meaningful than i had thought. Ungtss 07:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks like you created some information! Don't tell Dembski.Dr Zen 11:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * you and i can create information. we're intelligent.  Ungtss 18:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * How do you know? I might be a bot created by evolutionists.Dr Zen 06:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * then they would have created the information out of their intelligence. Ungtss 08:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Would they? How could they have guessed what information I would need to create?Dr Zen 11:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Some believe that there are adequate fossils to support gradualism."

This is not what the disagreement actually is. Both Gould's supporters and "gradualists" believe in gradualism! None disputes the basis of evolutionary theory in small changes.


 * not according to gould ... just according to his gradualist revisionists. i have quotes if you'd like.  Ungtss 04:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I've given you Gould himself. Go to the source, innit.Dr Zen 04:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Both sides entirely agree that you cannot see gradualism in action in the fossil record. To be able to, you would need fossils of succeeding generations, and to be able to identify them as such. What you can see, and both sides agree, is point A and point W, with succeeding generations having passed through B, C and so on without being preserved.


 * and it's b,c, and so on that we're telling you don't exist. Ungtss 05:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand your point of view. It's not exactly sophisticated. You insist that there are no B, C, D, E, F, and when we find C or E, you say, ah yes, but there's no B or D or G... that is what Dawkins was talking about. There will never be any way to close the "gaps" because it is a plain fact that the fossil record has not preserved what Darwin indeed hoped it might -- the entire sequence of ancestors.Dr Zen 06:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * that's one way to interpret the evidence. the other way to interpret the evidence is: "they aren't in the fossil record because they never existed."  Ungtss 07:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * If that were so, do you accept that the fossil record would be identically patchy wherever in the world it was found? Yes, okay, there would be different things in different places, but if we found A, F and H in China, and A, D and H in Australia, what then? Are you saying that China had the "kinds" A, F and H, but Australia lacked F and had D?


 * Well, of course you must. But what if site A in Australia has A, D and H, but site B has A, F and H? How can you explain that? Given that you are arguing that the fossil record is complete and that anything missing from it never existed, you are suggesting that a form "F" existed in China and parts of Australia but not other parts of Australia. Why? How did that happen?


 * And do you see how your explanation will become much more difficult when the numbers of forms expand, so that instead of A to Z, we are looking at literally thousands of lifeforms (remember, you also claim they lived at the same time, so they cannot have migrated etc).Dr Zen 11:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * no sir. my explanation is that they were all created -- as many as need be.  do you see how YOUR explanations become more difficult as you have an ever-increasing number of discrete forms of life to try and explain away by chance and survival of the fittest?  Ungtss 18:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * So you have no explanation at all. You just wave your hands and say "God did it that way". That's not exactly scientific. And no, my explanations rely on a large number of discrete forms of life! If there were fewer, and they showed fewer differences, your notion would be much stronger. Indeed, they should show no changes, for your notion to have any credibility at all, and that is precisely what creationists did believe in days of yore. They thought God created the world and everything in it just as it is. Fossils upset that view. Darwin destroyed it.Dr Zen 06:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * let's compare apples and apples -- the creationists of yore with the naturalists of yore -- particularly those who took the Doctrine of humors and Spontaneous generation as scientific. Ungtss 08:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Refer to my discussion above of what science does. Anyway, the creationists of yore were at least consistent. The creationists of today have to chop and change their, erm, theory to match the evidence they feel they cannot deny. Dr Zen 11:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Others believe that the fossil record is discontinuous, but that the discontinuities are due to rapid (on a geological scale) evolution in the model of punctuated equilibria."

Bullshit. The fossil record is "discontinuous" because it does not preserve each and every generation. This is not what Gould's dispute with, say, Dawkins was. They both agree that it has gaps. They disagree about what happened in the gaps!


 * wrongo. the macromutationists say unabashedly that the fossil record's full of way more holes than should be there ... like the cambrian explosion.  i have quotes if you'd like.  Ungtss 04:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * "The macromutationists"? Jeez, man, you're really groping in the dark. Some people believe there is evidence for broader mutations' having become fixed (the reason they are excluded from a gradualist explanation is not that their occurrence is impossible -- studies of Drosophila and other organisms have shown they are not, of course -- but because they would generally be harmful), but they do not believe that all variation is due to macromutation. This is a minor dispute among people with fundamentally the same views.Dr Zen 04:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * not according to the macromutation tomes i've read, including, "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth." those poor souls find themselves caught between a darwinian community that won't admit it's full of shit, and a creationist community that thinks the macromutation model makes even less sense than darwinism.  Ungtss 05:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You clearly didn't read Lovstrup very carefully. He does not deny the "fact of evolution". He accepts common descent (he can hardly not -- he is a practising biologist after all). However, he is a sort of Lamarckian. He claims that speciation is a product of epigenesis. He's not very handy with evidence though. As I say, in any case, he does not actually disagree with the fundamentals, only on the causes of speciation. He is just one more scientist misquoted by creationists, and, you ought to note, none of the speculations in the book in question have been published in a peer-reviewed article.Dr Zen 06:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * i found his extensive critique of darwinism to be extremely enlightening -- particularly his observation that current species are merely the flimsy tips of the branches of natural selection, balanced precariously on the edge of extinction, and that major changes can only be explained by the occasional occurence of 'hopeful monsters' in which the new raw material is refined by natural selection. everything in his book describes the creationist view of evolution, except we believe his elusive "macromutations" came by design.  Ungtss 07:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * That current species are the mere tips of the branches of natural selection is a tenet of the theory of natural selection. We know how rapid extinction can be -- the evidence for it is in the fossil record! Of course, you don't recognise the evidence. There is no "KT interval" for you. As I said, he does not actually provide any evidence for his "hopeful monsters". He couldn't, naturally. None exists as such. Not that it couldn't. Goldschmidt's views are not widely accepted and they are not generally supported by fossils either, but of course, there will always be the paucity of fossils around the Cambrian era for saltationists to cling to.Dr Zen 11:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * not according to loutrop. he found darwinism to be a crock (as i do), because natural selection eliminates variation, REDUCING the ability to adapt to new environments. rather than increasing it.  recognizing that darwinism is a dismal failure, he hypothesized hopeful monsters (just like Vulcan (planet) in an effort to explain what prevailing theories couldn't.  close, but no cigar.  Ungtss 18:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Natural selection does reduce variation. Without mutation, life would be long ago extinct. Luckily, genes mutate! I know, you don't seem to think they do, or at least you don't think they create "information" by doing so (luckily, you cannot show either to be true).Dr Zen 06:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Mutations don't create information. Information can only come from an intelligence.  Mutations, apart from the benign ones, only destroy information.  Philip J. Rayment 16:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Others, including Richard Dawkins also claim that the concept of an intermediate form is misleading pointing out that the more fossils that we find the more gaps there will be between them."

I hope he didn't actually say that, because it doesn't really make sense. Presumably he means that while we have A and W, there is one gap, and when we have F, there are two (the same gap halved, of course).


 * i didn't write that -- it was barnaby dawson -- i agree with you. Ungtss 04:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Creationists assert that while some transitional forms within "kinds" have been discovered (such as the development of the modern horse), there exist no transitional forms between kinds."

Because they deny in the face of all the evidence that transitional forms between "kinds" actually are transitional forms!
 * show me the dog-cats, hairy-lizards, and pig-whales. you've got horses, and you've got cats, but that doesn't mean anything, because the flood explains those too.  Ungtss 04:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Why would I need to show you a "dog-cat"? No one claims there is such a thing. I can show you their common ancestor. Pig-whales? I'll show you Ambulocetus. Enjoy! Dr Zen 04:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * from your miacid page: "Based upon the shape of the teeth and the morphology of the ear region of Tapocyon, this animal appears to be most closely related to later dog-like carnivorans, including true dogs and wolves of the family Canidae." it's a dog, man.  there's no factual link ANYWHERE on that page to any of the other taxa, except that groundless conclusion at the beginning.  what FACTS do they have to back up their claim that it's a common ancestor of "dogs, bears, skunks, mongooses, cats, and hyaenas," given that, according to the article, "the exact relationship of Tapocyon to the living families of carnivores is unclear?"  ambulocetus?  are you quite serious:)?  Ungtss 05:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It's just a web page, man, that I cited you for fun. It's not the end of the story on miacids. Try to find a discussion about the differences between miacids and nimravids (extinct, so sadly their "kind" is, erm, gone). Here's another description of miacids. Now you'll need to explain how these "weasels" became cats. Sorry, forgot, they were dogs. You'll need to explain how come these dogs became cats without changing "kind". Dr Zen 06:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * what are you talking about, dude? there is nothing on that page but baseless conclusions.  i don't think dogs became cats, or that weasels are their common ancestor.  i think they were all created separately.  what evidence do you have that they're related?  Ungtss 07:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Read the page. It'll be a good start for you. You can move on to comparative genomics and molecular biology once you've got some idea of how palaeontology shows their relationship.Dr Zen 11:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * throwing topics of research at me. that's good.  comparative genomics and molecular don't prove common ancestry any more than the fact that computer programmers reuse their subroutines proves they're related.  Ungtss 18:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Programmers reuse code to save time. Did God reuse the vertabrate body plan to save time? Why does God need to save time? I thought he is omnipotent. --JPotter 23:35, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * God didn't need to save time, but there are other reasons to re-use code. Philip J. Rayment 16:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that nothing this side of a time machine and a camcorder could prove common ancestry to your liking. That is because no scientific proof is satisfactory for you. Perhaps a written affidavit from God would suffice, I don't know.Dr Zen 06:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * there's another problem -- no amount of order and beauty in a universe of entropy can convince you that someone created the natural universe. perhaps an affidavit from australopithicus would suffice.  Ungtss 08:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, what part of "entropy" bars order (or beauty)? Why not get your science from scientists and not from the ICR, dude? The law of entropy is a law about energy. It says that energy tends not to concentrate.
 * Just so you're clear: a high-speed, high-energy atom meets another high-speed, high-energy atom. Each contains a great deal of "information" (hello, it's that word again) about how they came to be such atoms. They also have many possible futures (many possible collisions). If they collide and fuse, they will emit energy and the resulting product will a/ have less energy than the two original atoms, having diffused some of their joint energy, b/ contain less of the information they carried and c/ have fewer possible futures.
 * So exactly which version of entropy were you appealing to?Dr Zen 11:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do we have any discussion of how creationists explain away extinct taxa? How about their explanation for taxa's not overlapping (IOW, some going extinct before others appeared -- should be impossible, no?).Dr Zen 04:09, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * the flood explains the extinct taxa. the dinosaurs went extinct because they couldn't make it in the new and harsher world.  the non-overlapping of the taxas are explained by Liquefaction.  experiments have been done to show that liquefaction systematically sorts fossils to the order of the fossil record.  Ungtss 04:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The flood could only explain extinct taxa if none had gone extinct before it happened, and if extinct taxa were only present in exactly those rocks claimed to be laid down in the flood. I'll pretend I didn't see the rest of your paragraph because I could almost swear it claims that "liquefaction" is responsible for the stratification of the Earth's rocks.Dr Zen 04:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * according to flood geology, the fossilized specimins died before the flood. don't ignore the rest.  you read correctly.  Ungtss 05:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Make your mind up. First you say the flood explains the extinct taxa, then you say that no, actually, it explains why the already extinct taxa appear in the order they do. Which is it? Dr Zen 06:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * it's both. the flood wiped the vast majority of them out, leaving them in the fossil record.  the ones taken on the ark died out soon afterward.  it may be wrong, but it's self-consistent.  Ungtss 07:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Go back and read what I originally wrote. The flood could only explain all extinct taxa if none had gone extinct before it happened, and as a consequence, the extinct taxa were only present in exactly the rocks claimed to be laid down by the flood (or, to allow for those that died "soon afterward", in rocks that have been deposited since those claimed to be laid down by the flood). They are not, they did not and it does not. The second and third follow from the first. It's the major stumbling block for "flood geologists". Okay, claim the flood laid down whole series of sedimentary strata. Claim it laid down igneous rock because it set off earthquakes. Claim it metamorphised rock because of its enormous pressure, etc. Claim even, despite the lack of any mechanism at all, that the flood in one fell swoop killed and compressed billions of tiny animals to create oil (let's not even get into coal, hey?) But you still cannot account for all rocks. There are the rocks that preceded the flood. And they're chockers with fossils. There are fossils going back for billions of years. Whoops, sorry. There are fossils going back the whole, what is it, ten thousand years. Dr Zen 11:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Flood geologists believe that all (I think; or at least near-enough to all) fossil-bearing rocks are either flood or post-flood, not pre-flood, almost by definition. On what grounds do you say that pre-flood rocks have fossils?  How did you decide that those rocks were pre-flood?  Philip J. Rayment 16:29, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * "Almost by definition" is very enlightening. Because "flood geologists" define "flood" and "post-flood" rocks as "those containing fossils" and not "those bearing the marks one would expect from a flood event" (the latter being horribly "uniformitarian", of course), and not in the same terms as other geologists, they can gleefully argue at crosspurposes to other geologists and anyone else who insists that there are fossils in older rocks.Dr Zen 06:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The debate (among flood geologists) is over which rocks are from the time of creation, which are flood rocks, and which are post-flood rocks. All three could bear "the marks one would expect from a flood event", so there has to be some other way of distinguishing them, and the presence of fossils is one way of deciding that a rock is not from the time of creation.  How can uniformitarian geologists insist that there are fossils in "older" rocks without invoking dating methods that flood geologists reject?  Philip J. Rayment 16:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<''Do not revert good material just because it doesn't fit your POV. I explain all my changes clearly.''>>
 * so let me get this straight. you can edit on the fly, leaving me a sea of edit comments to wade through and no discussion on the talkpage before you make the change, but my changes, preceded by comments on the talkpage, are unacceptable ... why is this again?  Ungtss 04:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I am explaining all my changes. You are simply reverting. Look, let's try to get something worked out that we are both happy with. Things like describing "the other side" as "evolutionists" are not acceptable, for the reason I gave. We don't call "your side" "fundamentalist charlatans", do we?Dr Zen 04:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * <<You are simply reverting.>>
 * i have explained all my reverts. "scientists" versus "creationists" is equally unacceptable, because it quite directly provides no creationists are scientists.  and although there are not many creation scientists, there are some.  any suggestions on a more pov naming system?  Ungtss 05:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * "most scientists" is perfectly okay. "Nearly all scientists" would be good. "All scientists that have had peer-reviewed articles on biology or geology" would be fine. You choose. But not "evolutionists".Dr Zen 06:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * what about "evolutionary scientists" or "mainstream scientists?" Ungtss 07:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * "Evolutionary scientists" doesn't really make sense. They don't call themselves that! What is wrong with "most scientists"? Even your poll establishes that only one in 20 American scientists is a creationist of any kind; and one in 700 earth and life scientists -- let's face it, they probably surveyed 700 scientists and one said he was a creationist.Dr Zen 11:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * what about mainstream scientists then? Ungtss 18:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you haven't explained what was wrong with "most scientists".Dr Zen 06:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * you said it was up to me. i chose.  if you have a problem with it, tell me what it is.  Ungtss 08:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I gave several alternatives from which to choose. I don't like "mainstream scientists" because the fact of evolution is accepted by nearly all scientists, mainstream or otherwise. In the appropriate spheres, it is accepted by all but a very few (in the poll you cite, 0.14%, which is a rather small number). As it happens, I would have thought that most of the scientists who say they are creationists are probably perfectly mainstream. There is no reason that a creationist computer scientist or mathematician should find eir creationism any problem in eir work.Dr Zen 11:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Add your POV. Don't just scrub out balancing material
Come on, ungtss. I'm willing to discuss this with you. I'm perfectly happy for you to pump the article full of creationist propaganda. But do not just take out balancing views and formulations.

There is no "debate". This is what creationists call it. Making out otherwise is totally unacceptable. There are all sorts of debates about the issues in question, within and outside science. There is no debate, though, between "evolution" and "creation" about subjects such as geology (rocks did not evolve in a Darwinian sense), abiogenesis (entirely moot), astronomy (stellar "evolution" is something not even a creationist would deny!). There is a dispute between science and creationists on some of these issues; in particular, in geology, where some creationists claim that almost the entire science of geology is wrong.Dr Zen 06:10, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<But do not just take out balancing views and formulations.>>
 * i find my own "propaganda" has been scrubbed out twice, in favor of you sandwiching creationism between an argument and a rebuttal. that's pov.  Ungtss 06:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm simply restoring what you remove. I'm sorry if I've inadvertently removed some of your POV.Dr Zen 07:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<There is no'' "debate". This is what creationists call it. Making out otherwise is totally unacceptable.''>>
 * have you read the talkorigins archive lately? tips for evolutionists on debating creationists.  is that site operated by creationists?  Ungtss 06:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * "Evolutionists" "debate" creationists. No question. If they did not, the traffic on talk.origins would be thin. But there is no broader "debate" in the terms in which you put it.Dr Zen 07:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * right. and the site also refers to major public debates between the two sides, including ones that were very recent.  as to a "broader debate," what are you and i doing right now?  what you're talking about is "no debate within the mainstream scientific community."  and that's true.  but there's also no debate about the existence of God in church, so i don't think that means much.  Ungtss 08:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * "Debates" and "a debate" remain different things. If I have a spat with my wife, that does not mean there is a sex war in Australia. I am not having a debate with you, Ungtss. I am building an encyclopaedia. As far as I'm concerned, I've heard your position before. It's entirely spurious, not based in facts about the world and purely a matter of faith. What you believe in is up to you. Far be it from me to try to convince you otherwise. Take your example of the church and run with it. There is no "debate" between the church and atheists. They disagree, sometimes they state their positions for the benefit of one another and bored onlookers, but they cannot be said to be debating it!Dr Zen 09:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * so let me get this straight. hundreds of thousands of people debating the same issues for close to 200 years on nearly every continent, in schools, churches, homes, legislatures, public forums, and the internet does not a "debate" make?  what does it take to make a debate, man?  Ungtss 17:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * <<geology (rocks did not evolve in a Darwinian sense)>>
 * the debate lies in whether those rock strata were laid down by sedimentation (odd ... considering erosion, not sedimentation, appears to be the rule) or during the flood. if by gradual sedimentation, then YEC doesn't have a leg to stand on, because the earth is clearly older than 6000 years.  if by flood, then evolution doesn't have a leg to stand on, because there IS no "fossil record" -- just a bunch of animals killed during the flood.  geology is the CORE of creationism.  you can't falsify god's creation of the world ... but you can falsify a global flood.  Ungtss 06:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I know what is debated, but this is not a dispute between "evolution" and YEC, but between "geology" and YEC. Erosion and sedimentation happen at the same time, BTW. Your doctorate was clearly not in geology either. Indeed, geology is one of the major disproofs of creationism, but that doesn't mean it is part of a "debate" between "evolution" and anything else. Do you see my point? It is part of the debate between science, as represented by geology, and creationism. Dr Zen 07:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * no sir. the theory of evolution DEPENDS on uniformitarian geology.  if there is no uniformitarian geology, then there IS no fossil record, no "millions of years," no "cambrian explosion."  evolutionists date their fossils by radiometric dating of the rocks they're in.  evolution goes hand in hand with this aspect of geology.  they're inseparable.  Ungtss 08:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * So what? Evolution has no bearing on geology, which was my point. The "theory of evolution" does not in fact depend on geology, uniformitarian or otherwise. We have observed evolution in times short enough for us to observe.
 * not any macroevolution, that i'm aware of. just more micro.  Ungtss 17:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The difficulty with arguing with a uniformitarian position in any science is that there is no evidence that physical processes are not uniform with time. This is why the recent discussion about the speed of light was so important.
 * Neither do creationists present any such evidence. They use "uniformitarian" as a catchword. For them, it simply means "does not believe there was a Flood". To be able to believe in one, of course, you have to not be a "uniformitarian". Because a similar Flood today would have physical consequences that are not apparent in the planet's geology. It must have been a special Flood. An unrepeatable Flood. A flood that left the geology of the earth with the outward appearance of having been created over billions of years, with fossils in series, progressing from one form to another (even though they all drowned at the same time), even depositing layers of coal and oil, creating them in an instant.
 * A flood that left no evidence.
 * and how do YOU think we got fossil fuel deposits, submarine canyon extensions, transported blocks, or the St. Peter sandstone? and have you ever thought about the fact that EVERY FOSSIL was buried rapidly in sediment which hardened quickly, so if the strata are smooth above and below the fossil, that means it was ALL laid down at once?  Ungtss 17:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * So, even if evolution actually did rest on that not being a fabrication, which it does not, we'd feel fairly secure in suggesting that it's sound.
 * What is amusing for the, ahem, "evolutionist" is that creationists can only make their claims about the past because its events are so distant, because its distance has destroyed much of the evidence and because the same processes that work today worked then, muddying the water just enough for them to be able to convince those who already believe in what they believe in (you don't get too many conversions to creationism, hey?). Dr Zen 09:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * what is amusing to, ahem, "fundamentalist religious wackos" is that you seem to think that time and dumb luck can explain everything, against every established law of science, and then attack US for using your vague and pseudoscientific efforts at justification against themselves. Ungtss 17:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * <<abiogenesis (entirely moot)>>
 * how so? if life didn't come about naturally ... then somebody MADE it, no?  Ungtss 06:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * So what? It is entirely moot to evolution by natural selection whether the original lifeform was created by god, arose on a clay, dropped out of space on a comet or appeared as a piece of magic. It is an axiom of the theory that it existed. Look, it's analogous to the Big Bang. It doesn't matter to the theory of the development of the universe whether the Big Bang was caused by a god, was a fluctuation in a vacuum or what have you, or what it was, so long as it was. How the universe develops depends only on what there was, not how it came to be there.Dr Zen 07:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * it might be irrelevent to the "theory of evolution by natural selection," but it is NOT irrelevent to the debate. did God create life or not?  most bio textbooks throw out pseudoscientific conclusions like, "sometime X billion years ago, protocells arose from a primordial ooze."  is that true, or did it drop from space, or did God create it?  big, relevent, scientific/historical/religious questions.  Ungtss 08:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It is entirely irrelevant to "evolution". It is absolutely moot. Did God create life? Even if (when is more likely) we find life spontaneously occurring in the wild, or evidence of it in other places, creationists will claim that that life is not our life. The "debate" will simply shift. And it still won't matter to the theory of evolution by natural selection, which needs only a lifeform, regardless of its provenance. The evidence is that protocells arose from the ooze. Or one did. If your God created it, he most likely did it as a protocell that lived in a chemical soup. Other explanations are of course possible. (If life did drop in from a comet, it must still have arisen somewhere, somehow! And it must have arisen from one source according to the theory of evolution by natural selection, which the evidence overwhelmingly supports -- although, yes, this is not "proof": luckily for you, science is not about proof at all). Again, you depend on the extreme distance of the event to deny it! And these questions may well be relevant to all three of science, history (although, of course, you mean prehistory) and religion, but they are not at all relevant to "evolution", which is mute on the subject.Dr Zen 09:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * you're just defining down the debate to screen out an obvious, gaping hole in naturalism. rna world is by definition the process by which chemical compounds began to self-replicate, vary, and undergo natural selection, which is by definition evolution, same as social evolution.  but whatever.  :).  Ungtss 17:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * <<astronomy (stellar "evolution" is something not even a creationist would deny!)>>
 * i'm right here, denying it. tell me how hydrogen came to violate the laws of gas in a vaccuum long enough to begin fusion, without the intervention of an outside force?  Ungtss 06:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Erm. Perhaps you could run that law by me? I'm not totally familiar with creationist literature, although I've read quite a lot, so I don't know which "law" you are alluding to. If you don't believe in stellar evolution though, that's fine, just don't expect a seat on our starship when we get on it to avoid being burned to a crisp when our sun evolves into something a great deal bigger than it is now, as it will in good time.Dr Zen 07:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * it's not creationist literature. it's the basic gas laws.  gases spread in a vaccuum.  what makes hydrogen gases come CLOSER TOGETHER in a vaccuum ... close enough to begin fusion ... when they spread out EVERYTIME they're put in a vaccuum?  Ungtss 08:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Gravity is not significant in a jar. HTH.Dr Zen 09:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * i think you'll find there's not a single "mainstream" astrophysicist in the world who agrees with you. the tendency of gas to spread in a vaccuum ALWAYS overpowers its gravity, unless there is a "gravity well" to draw the hydrogen in.  look it up.  Ungtss 17:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * <<where some creationists claim that almost the entire science of geology is wrong.>>
 * not the science of geology. just the pseudoscientific inferences of some overly-confident geologists into a past they can't observe, verify, or falsify.  Ungtss 06:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Erm no. All the bits that require deep time, which is entirely fundamental to geology's understanding of what the earth is and what the rocks upon it consist in. Dr Zen 07:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * no sir. you can look at rocks, study rocks, figure out what rocks are made of, and what the earth is made of, all empirically and observably.  THAT is science.  what makes you think you can tell me where rocks came from, 10 billion-some-odd-years ago?  THAT is pseudoscience.  Ungtss 08:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * But rocks cannot be made of what they are made of because there has not been nearly enough time for them to have been made by the processes they were made by. That means they must be made of something else. We'll have to mark most of them down as mysteries impossible to solve then.
 * you are ASSUMING what processes they were made by, and then telling me how long it would take to make them that way. i am proposing an entirely different process that made them ... making your "deep time" irrelevent and unparsimonious.  Ungtss 17:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Right, that's cleared up geology. And I think you've put paid to any foolish pseudoscientific study of stellar evolution by your masterful explanation of why the sun should even as we speak have vanished into the vacuum that surrounds it. What's next?Dr Zen 09:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * the sun stays together because it overcame the gas laws long enough to reach a density sufficient to reach hydrostatic equlibrium in the midst of a fusion reaction. how did it get to that density to begin with?  nobody knows, period.  Ungtss 17:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Balancing this is going to be a LONG job!
"Creationists assert that while research overwhelmingly supports microevolution"

Everyone asserts that. Creationists used to deny everything but eventually they began to feel stupid given the enormous weight of evidence, not least in things that actually evolve under our noses.
 * that's just a qualifier, to narrow the issue of dispute. as to "creationists denying microevolution," microevolution is as old an idea as the breeding of cats in ancient egypt.  obvious as hell.  things vary, and the bad ones are selected out.  what we dispute, and what we've always disputed, is that ALL life can be explained that way.


 * Sorry, lost you. Which bits of life are not prone to selection?Dr Zen 10:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * i didn't say any parts were not prone to selection. i said that the full diversity and complexity of life cannot be explained by variation and natural selection alone.  natural selection can explain why species are adapted to their environment.  but it CANNOT sufficiently explain where those species got the complexity to adapt in the FIRST PLACE.  Ungtss 17:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Eh? I note that you dropped "variation" from your last two sentences. Natural selection does not claim to explain where the "complexity" that it works on comes from.Dr Zen 07:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * right. darwinism leaves the rest to dumb luck.  Ungtss 08:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * If an asteroid struck the earth, throwing up a blanket of dust that excluded sunlight for three months, what would survive? And what would it have to thank for being able to survive?Dr Zen 12:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"there is neither a coherent mechanism nor empirical evidence for macroevolution"

This will need a balancing argument, because of course there are several mechanisms involved in macroevolution and enormous amounts of "empirical" evidence for it.
 * instead of balancing the argument, why don't you explain what, exactly, that mechanism or evidence is, to make the claim look stupid? Ungtss 08:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I told you, it's a big task to collate all the evidence.Dr Zen 09:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * well i suggest a little evidence would be more persuasive than more lame appeals to authority. Ungtss 17:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You have given evidence yourself. The irony is you do not understand it. You gave an example of sympatric speciation -- a very good one too. You gave macromutation as a possible mechanism. Did you allude to allopatric speciation? Would you like an example of how it works or shall we stick to some of the many, many examples of how it has worked? Shall we do finches? Shall we do hawthorn maggots -- yummy!? Shall we do Flores Person? Now there's a beautiful case of allopatric speciation and very personal to us too!Dr Zen 07:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * all of those are speciation, but none of those are macroevolution. you have given me absolutely no reason to believe in macroevolution.  Ungtss 08:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * If you do not know that speciation is macroevolution and that each taxon higher than a species begins as a species, then you do not know the first thing about what you are talking about, because that is, in fact, the first thing to know about it. I'll do you the favour of explaining why.
 * Assume that the theory of natural selection is correct and that allopatric speciation occurs (I presume you do in any case accept the latter, because you gave an example of speciation that is not a million miles removed from it -- I use allopatric speciation because it's an easier illustration).
 * Assume that a population A becomes separated into two groups. The mechanism is not important. You gave one but for my purposes let's say that there is an earthquake that opens a faultline. Population A and its sister population B become separated by the faultline and no longer intermingle.
 * In time both populations evolve. A becomes A1, A2, A3, A4, where each successor includes a mutated gene that is successful and becomes shared. IOW, remember I asked you to assume its truth for the purposes of this exercise, A4 has arisen by natural selection. It is different from A, perhaps by some small degree. Let's say that A had a tail, but A4 has no tail. This will have taken, let's say, a million years.
 * In the meantime, population B has become B1, B2, B3, B4 by the same process. However, while it was B3, say some 750,000 years from the split with A, a population of B3s migrated to a new range and subsequent changes in sea levels isolated it from the other B3s. We can call that population B3a.
 * Let us say that B3 had changed, also by a fairly small degree, from B. Let's say that B3 has fused the toes of its hindlegs, but B (and of course A) had unfused toes. Remember, A and B were the same species. A4 and B3 are not the same species. In the process of evolving, each has seen their genome change, not by much, but by enough that they can no longer interbreed.
 * Another ten million years pass. In this time A4 progresses to A27, but in the form A16, it too split, some migrated and were isolated, so that there was A16 and A16A. So we have A16A11. It's a different species to A27.
 * Meanwhile B4 has progressed to B27. (I'm keeping the numbers low, of course. In 10 million years, we would be up to, what, thousands I suppose -- I don't know the stats.) B4 has split again, so there is B4B6. B3A has progressed to B3A14, but has also split, twice, and there is now B3A9A4 and B3A10A3.
 * A16A11 and B3A9A4 are different species, of course, because they cannot interbreed.
 * Natural selection has provided A27 with sharp teeth. As with sharper teeth survived better than As without them because A is a carnivore. A27 still has the tail.
 * Natural selection has provided B27 with flat, grinding teeth. Because its side of the faultline was not well provided with prey but did have lots of grass, it favoured animals that could better eat grass than rabbits. B27 is a semiherbivore. Of course it does not have a tail.
 * B3A10A3 does have a tail. B3 split before Bs lost their tails. B3 migrated to a more mixed environment than the Bs had evolved in, so B3A10A3 has turned out to have some sharp and some flat teeth. It is an omnivore. However, because the environment it moved to has pronounced seasons, it has evolved to hibernate.
 * A and B were the same species. A3 and B3 were different species. A3 and its successors are carnivores. B3's successors became omnivores. What do we call A3's successors? A family. What do we call B3's successors? A family. Or an order, if you like. I'm not an expert in taxonomy, and I'm not sure where you draw the line.
 * But this should demonstrate to you that the higher taxa are created by speciation because the branch on the bush that is each order or family (or even kingdom, actually) is a species at the branching point.Dr Zen 12:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"because no observed microevolutionary event has ever involved an increase in genetic information"

This will need a discussion of the creationists' misuse of the concept of "information" (particularly egregious in the case of Dembski) and inclusion of the evidence that this is plain wrong, which is readily available.

Check this out. And as the guy says, if none of this counts as "information", whatever you're calling "information" is irrelevant to evolution anyway.

In short, mutations create "noise" in the genome. That noise is "potential" information. You may now argue that the potential for it to be informational is very small. Yes, well done. That's why we say most mutations are neutral. (The harmful ones, you might note, add information, just not nice information.)
 * right. so the only way you've ever seen new information added is in a harmful way.  and from that all life developed.  who do you think you're kidding?  Ungtss 08:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Is that what I said? No. I said information is added by mutations (and by other mechanisms, of course, such as gene duplication). I don't say it is only harmful. Jeez, man, you have my comment in front of you. You'd think you'd try to stick to what I actually did say.Dr Zen 09:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Information duplication is not information creation. And noise is not information, in the sense of information having meaning, which is the type of information required for life.  Philip J. Rayment 16:41, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Well, I don't have the patience to do Information 101, so I'll stick to this. If I have a circle of people and I point at one and shout "Idiot" at him, I have conveyed a piece of information: I think one person is an idiot. If I then point at the guy next to him and shout "Idiot" I duplicate the information and guess what? I create a new piece of information: I think two people of idiots. Of course, most duplications of genes just create more material, but more material means more potential for mutation, more variation, more for natural selection to work on.
 * The important thing to know about information is that it is a measure of "novelty", not of what's already there. Ungtss seeks to redefine it as something fixed but it is in fact a measure of change.Dr Zen 07:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * right on:). my boy seems to think that scrambling a computer program randomly ("noise")and adding viruses (harmful additional information) is increased information likely to improve the machine.  Ungtss 17:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No. I say only that it has the potential to increase information. Usually, a mutation will damage the code (make the program crash, if you like) or make no informational difference (like a typo that does not affect your understanding of a message). But sometimes it will add information. Here's an example. Let's say you and Phillip have two friends: Ran and Ron. Ran has a new job and tells you, so you write to Phillip intending to inform him of that. "Ron has a new job", you write.
 * Not only have you have given Phillip a new piece of information but you have given him a quite different message to the one you intended.
 * Voila. Your code did not become any more complicated and the mistake you made was small, but the information value of the two messages is very different.
 * Compare all the other possible substitutions. There are many, of course. Most make no new meaning. Most are interpretable as having the message you intended. That, dear Ungtss, is precisely how it works.
 * That example is so beautiful, I almost feel like asking you to accept that I know you disagree without foundation and not actually say so.Dr Zen 07:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * i'm glad you think so highly of your example. in it, you've only altered existing information.  the rest of the sentence contains EXACTLY the same info.  and if you INTENDED to say Ran, but typed Ron, then it was a NEGATIVE change -- the one letter change destroyed the validity of the entire sentence.  Ungtss 08:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No, and here's the thing. I'm so glad that you were eager enough to answer, because what if Ron has also got a new job!
 * That was mean of me. I trapped you with a very simple example. Not only does my new message have new information, but quite by chance my new information is also useful.
 * The one-letter change did not destroy the "validity" of anything. It changed the meaning of the sentence, just as a mutation can change the protein a gene codes for, but just as the new sentence can be meaningful, the new protein can too.Dr Zen 12:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As the extended version of this article notes, if you explain away mutations as not adding "information", you simply add to the list of more complex forms that did not require there to be any more "information".

"and no reasonable explanation has been given for such an increase."

It's rather demented to suggest that mutations are not "reasonable". Not only do they exist, and explain the variation in "information" in genomes, but they have been counted and can be predicted!
 * show me the money, man, show me the money. Ungtss 08:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Note this one shows how "information" -- ie, who your daddy is -- is encoded by mutationsYou can even evolve faster mutations! Cool! Counting mutations and drawing inferences from them Interesting. Shows that far from information being lost between then and now, it was increased in various ways -- Enjoy! Science is wonderfully fascinating. You're far better off reading this than ICR propaganda.Dr Zen 10:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * what makes you think i haven't already read that tripe and already disregarded it? all those just talk about mutations and noise.  that's like saying that a television not tuned to any station will provide me a show -- sorry -- if you're getting any picture, it's because it was broadcast and distorted over the airwaves.  if there's no signal to distort, noise is just noise.  Ungtss 17:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * sigh Ran has a new job, you know. Dr Zen 07:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * and how often does the noise in a television broadcast make the picture CLEARER? Ungtss 08:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course the two are not analogous but I am happy to do the analogy for you. Noise in a TV broadcast excites phosphors on your screen just as the signal does.
 * TV pictures are approximations. They are drawn with lines on your screen. So a bit of noise here and there is not a problem. The picture is fairly tolerant. Too much and the picture starts to become incoherent, but in fact that involves quite a few bad points on the screen.
 * But because the picture is an approximation, it is possible for some random points actually to make it easier for you to interpret the picture. Where there is something small on the screen, which is in poor contrast, say (it might be that it was poorly lit by the lighting cameraman), it can be that the noise actually makes it easier to distinguish.
 * Of course, genes are not like TV broadcasts at all in this sense. They are not trying to represent anything. But even so, noise can make parts of what they do more distinct. And where there is distinction (variation), our old friend natural selection can get to work.Dr Zen 12:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course, "reasonable" in this formulation means "believable for dogmatist creationists".
 * right. because you're right and i'm wrong.  that's good.  Ungtss 17:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"They assert that speciation has only been observed by loss or neutral changes in genetic material."

What the hell is a "neutral change"? Speciation does not require "positive" changes! It just requires changes. Most speciation events involve the retention of exactly the same amount of genetic material, of course. How much there is is not the deal. What it consists of is.
 * no. speciation is reproductive isolation, which involves the LOSS of the ability to interbreed.  Ungtss 08:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * But "the ability to interbreed" is not "information". It is "the ability to exchange information". Hello? That's not to say that information is lost, just that it is no longer shared.


 * That's precisely what "evolutionists" say speciation is! You'd better reconsult your IRC materials. You've gone off-message.Dr Zen 09:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * the ability to interbreed provides ACCESS to the information in the other gene pool. donkeys and horses have lost ACCESS to the information in the other's genepools -- they are MORE homozygous than they were before.  Ungtss 17:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * But that doesn't mean there is less information! It only means there are fewer potential recipients of it. This is precisely what speciation is! Dr Zen 07:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * right. so now both species are LESS capable of adapting to environmental change, and balanced precariously on the edge of extinction, should their environment change beyond their new (and smaller) range of variation.  Ungtss 08:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"They extend that principle"

What principle? You didn't actually introduce one. You said creationists assert that speciation has only been observed by blah de blah. That's not a principle.
 * why don't you try actually listening, instead of calling it blah de blah. Ungtss 08:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm listening. What principle did you have in mind?Dr Zen 09:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I note the lack of "principle".Dr Zen 07:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One presumes the principle is "genetic material can never gain information". Absent a clear definition of "information", it's entirely meaningless, let alone a principle.

"to arrive at the conclusion that observable species diversity is the result of the loss of genetic information due to reproductive isolation and inbreeding following the Flood"

How exactly is genetic information lost by inbreeding? Go on, give it a shot. It's science, after all. There must be a mechanism and I daresay you can find it. Dr Zen 08:09, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * very simple. here's an example given me by my good friend rednblue:
 * an article that studied a daughter colony of a few hundred coral-dwelling goby fishes that are surrounded by the parent species. The daughter colony speciated from the parent species around 500,000 years ago--measured by DNA comparisons. The authors noted that the daughter species has become reproductively isolated from the parent species even though there is no geographic isolation. So the speciation was presumably by sympatry with the overlapping range rather than allopatry with the geographic isolation. The authors noted that the daughter species was limited to a several hundred square kilometer area totally within the range of the parent species. Furthermore, the daughter species lived only in one species of coral, A. caroliniana, that also was limited to the same several hundred square kilometer area. Since there was severe competition for coral to live in, the authors hypothesized that a few goby larvae were crowded out of their preferred coral and expanded to live in a non-preferred coral, the A. caroliniana. The parent species have fewer children that have children if they spawn on the A. caroliniana rather than on their home coral. And the daughter species have fewer children that have children if they spawn on the parent species's home coral. So the authors hypothesize that reproductive success would have selected out the individuals that could spawn equally poorly on both corals. And as a result the daughter species has the A. caroliniana niche all to itself. :)) (Munday, Philip L., Lynne van Herwerden, and Christine L. Dudgeon. 2004. "Evidence for sympatric speciation by host shift in the sea." Current Biology 14 (16), pp. 1498-1504.)
 * natural selection stripped out those that were poorly adapted to both parts of the reef, and those poorly adapted to one or the other. then reproductive isolation set in, and both colonies lost the ability to breed with each other, and HENCE the ability to thrive in the other part of the reef.  bam.  speciation.  speciation was due to the LOSS of the ability to interbreed, and the LOSS of the ability to thrive elsewhere.  now apply that same principle to cats.  14 incredibly diverse cats came off that ark ... split up ... inbred ... adapted to their new environment ... and LOST the ability to breed with other colonies.  bam.  speciation as a negative, information-LOSING event.  Ungtss 09:21, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, WTF? An excellent example of how speciation occurs but absolutely no "loss of information" in the genetic material of either species occurred. You've shifted the goalposts. Speciation is nearly always due to the LOSS of the ability to interbreed, this side of bacteria. But the ability to interbreed is not "information" in the genetic material of a species.


 * there are two types of information, dude. there's information capacity (that is ... the ability to hold the info) and information itself.  inbreeding increases homozygosity, which decreases the variation within the genomes of the children, thereby decreasing the amount of "information" held in a genome.  two mulattos can have children of a wide variety of colors, but two blacks can only have black children.  by inbreeding, they have LOST the ability to have white children.  Ungtss 17:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * wide-eyed incredulity Mendel is spinning in his grave. The sound of his whirring is perceptible even above that of Darwin's spinning in his.Dr Zen 07:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * as to "going off message," i'm glad you're willing to repeat what you've been told blindly, staying "on message." personally, i'm willing to think for myself, even if it means going off the message of a group i don't associate myself with.  Ungtss 17:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Try again. It's not good enough to find something, anything, that has been lost. You might just as well claim there was a loss of "information in the genetic material" because we are less hairy than other apes.
 * no. it's a loss of information in the genetic material when you lose the ABILITY to become as hairy as the other apes, through inbreeding.  but it's not a loss if you never had that ability in the FIRST PLACE.  Ungtss 17:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * But I could be as hairy as the other apes. That's the point that you're missing.Dr Zen 07:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * then how come no humans are? Ungtss 08:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Humans are equally hairy as our chimpanzee cousins. We have the same amount of hair covering the same percentage of our surface area. The difference is our hair is lighter and finer. This is not a decrease in information, it is a change in information. --JPotter 23:35, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * You know "how come"! You're just teasing me. Natural selection is how come, dude.Dr Zen 12:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * And remember, your "cats" were "weasels". You have to explain how the "kind" of miacids became cats and weasels (and *whisper* dogs). You also have to explain what on earth happened to sabertooths. They're not cats but their "kind" doesn't seem to be around. Did their "genetic information" all get lost or something?Dr Zen 09:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * dude. i have a feeling you're not listening to a word i'm saying.  i don't have to explain how miacids became cats and weasels -- YOU DO -- because there's no EVIDENCE that they actually DID.  what happened to sabertooths?  a lot of them died during the flood, and after.  how hard is that to explain?  you have to explain how the fossil record systematically shows MORE complex forms than are present today -- how the dinosaurs -- increasibly complex and impressive as they were -- DIED OUT in favor of a bunch of tiny, simple, unimpressive lizards today ... and how mass extinction has been the rule ever since we came to study life.  we've never seen species grow in number faster than they've gone extinct.  what makes you think they ever did?  Ungtss 17:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * LOL! Bigger is not more complex! A whale's blubber is bigger than its brain is, but the blubber can be described much more simply than its brain (that is what "complex" means, not "larger"). Size isn't everything. And how is it, pray, that poky little Ambulocetus died out but those whacking big blue whales, bigger than our dinosaur friends, survive (just) to this day?Dr Zen 12:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * in your model of evolution, the tree is real skinny and small at the bottom, but branches AND gets bigger along the way (increasing both in diversity and complexity). in my model of evolution, the tree is real fat at the bottom, but branches and gets SKINNIER along the way (increasing diversity at the EXPENSE of latent genetic potential).  Ungtss 09:21, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * LOL. Our "tree" (it's a bush, really) gets bushier precisely because what you suggest happens doesn't often happen.
 * You are all at sea here, Ungtss. "Latent genetic potential" doesn't mean anything. Yet again, creationists rely on the distance of the past. They rely on our not being able to retrieve DNA from the, erm, kinds buried by the flood and consequently not being able to show that they did not in fact have superDNA. But in fact we do not need to. There is no evidence that cats evolved from genetically more complex forms; no model for how it could have happened (no wonder -- it would be a formidable task to develop one; you'd have to actually know mathematics and information theory instead of bullshitting about it, as Dembski does, and hoping your audience doesn't call you on it).Dr Zen 09:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * latent genetic potential is heterozygosity. it's basic genetics, dude.  the more diverse the genome, the more capacity for variation.  the more inbred, the more homozygous, the less capacity for variation.  a few random changes come into the picture, but they're almost exclusively neutral or negative.  all the information that counts was already in there to begin with, and is DETERIORATING and DYING OUT.  Ungtss 17:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL. Whirr goes Mendel. Dr Zen 07:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No need to shout, Ungtss, you can keep your irrelevant oversimplification. It is your POV and you are entitled to it. Bensaccount 04:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not even close to true. The "amount of variation" is not the same thing as the "amount of things that vary". The former is encoded in a different amount of information from the latter. Dr Zen 07:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Archiving the Flat earthism and Geocentrism parts of the (Scott 1997) article
Flat earthism is a very conservative form of special creationism, an "extreme Biblical-literalist theology," that maintains that the earth is flat like a disk no matter what the scientific evidence is--because the Bible says that the earth is flat. For example, Charles K. Johnson, until 2001 when he passed away, directed the International Flat Earth Society with 200 members and headquarters in Lancaster, California.

Geocentrism is a more liberal form of special creationism that interprets as a figure of speech the part of the Bible that says that the earth is flat, hence accepts the fact that airplanes travel around a spherical earth, but contends that the earth, not the sun, is the center of the solar system--because that is how the Bible says that God made the solar system.

Young earth creationism is a collection of views including the above conservative views but also including more liberal views that accept the scientific evidence for the roundness of the earth and the sun being at the center of the solar system.

---

The above sections from the (Scott 1997) article are archived here for future reference. ---Rednblu | Talk 08:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)