User talk:Doc Tropics/Evo talk/Archive 01

'''The following comments and discussions have been archived. Please do not restore or repost archived material.''' --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Extracted from FAQ section

 * If you look at the Religion articles, you will see that that is more or less done, however much I don't like it. I believe that there is a way to modify the article so that it will be acceptable to everybody. The way the article currently stands, it intends to provoke outrage. In any case, in a fair debate that goes through the issues, both sides get to voice their opinions and see what the results are. You are basically arguing about the sanctity of science. You are taking it as a given and not open to debate. That is the exact criticism scientists have against religion. Besides, once you see the arguments presented from both sides without any unnecessary flaming, you might modify your position. --Ezra Wax 05:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to point out something that I noticed while searching for sources. There is some disagreement between Gould and creationists about whether the evolution of man is a fact. Gould considers the evidence for evolution so strong that it has the same status as any other fact. However, creationists don't consider the evidence strong at all, and therefore don't consider it anything more than a theory.--Ezra Wax 05:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that there has to be evidence published in a scientific journal that supports the claims of creationists is a straw man argument. Creationists claim that any journal that publishes anything that can lend support to the creationist argument is immediately condemned and any scientist who authors such an article is blacklisted. That has to be addressed.--Ezra Wax 05:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a scientist, I have never heard of such a thing. There are of course nonsense journals that creationists have created for their own purposes. But when more than 99 % of all scientists support evolution and every major scientific society supports evolution, it should be no surprise that every major scientific journal supports evolution as well. If a creationist article met the scientific standards, I think there is no question that it would be published. But what I have seen out of creationists is so far from science as to be worthless. To start with, supernatural claims immediately relegate the material outside the realm of science for example. And how are the scientists blacklisted? Who is blacklisted? Gish might be viewed a bit strangely, because he has long since abandoned scientific principles and reasoning. I do not think he is blacklisted. He just no longer does science.--Filll 05:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would also note that I do not know who you are looking at to see that there is any dispute about the evolution of man in evolution circles. It is as well established as the evolution of any other species, as near as I can tell, but I would defer to the evolutionary biologists again. And again, as I have told you already over and over: The evolution of man or any other species is a theory when it happened a long time ago. It is an inference based on the data that we have ("facts" or evidence or observations if you prefer). Evolution of fruitflies or bacteria or amoebae or something else that breeds quickly is a fact because we can see it and know it happened. The data of evolution are "facts". The theory of evolution is just that; a theory, or an explanation constructed to fit the facts. It just happens to be the overwhelmingly accepted theory in science. And there is zero doubt about that. Just like the theory that the earth is billions of years old. There is a huge amount of data that supports that, but you might have some other theory that throws out all that data. But the scientificially dominant theory is that the earth is billions of years old. To say otherwise would mean having to explain tree ring data and ice core data and magnetic stripe data and benthic sediment data and radioactive decay data and on and on and on. Huge volumes of evidence would have to be explained away to accept something else. And your statement about how creationists dont consider it strong at all, and just consider it a theory, demonstrates to me that after I have explained it to you over and over and over and it is on the FAQ which you read and on your homepage, you still have no idea what a theory is. Please try to educate yourself a bit or you will end up talking around and around in circles and annoying everyone.--05:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)