User talk:SparrowsWing/Creation-Evolution Controversy

Proposed Section


Much of the creation-evolution controversy is not about literal debate of evolution vs creation but rather debate between various forms of evolutionary theory. The primary differences between the various theories (besides the number of people who accept them) are the age of the earth and universal common descent vs the orchard theory and intelligent design. Very few people believe in fixity of the species, which is evolutions true opponent.

Debated Theories: - This is an attempt at clearly defining what the debate topics are truly about. All so often the title "evolution vs creation" and "God vs science" are given dispite them not being the topic of the debates. Above is a section that lists the various theories which are currently in the evolution-creation controversy and a simple definition of the theories are included. I would like to add it, but it appears many people enjoy reverting articles so it is here for now. Pbarnes 23:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Darwinian Evolution - A belief that the earth is old and universal common descent is responsible for specie diversity (includes theistic evolution). The majority of biologist accept this theory.
 * Progressive Creationism / Gap Theory - A belief that the earth is old and the orchard theory along with intelligent design is responsible for specie diversity.
 * Young Earth Creationism - A belief that the earth is young (6,000 years) and the orchard theory along with intelligent design is responsible for specie diversity.
 * There is no debate. Rather, the scientific theory that life evolved by common decent by way of natural selection is being attacked by theologians who support the religious hypothisis that life was placed on earth largely in the forms we see today, by whatever variation of this hypothisis their particular sect supports. Your passage is quite misleading in that it implies that your three "theories" are somehow equivelent. --Michael Johnson 23:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's problems with it, though: First off, the term Darwinian evolution doesn't exist, and that's not a very good definition of evolution anyway: Universal Common Descent was not a necessary prerequisite of evolution: It is simply something that so far seems to be true. While it's true it appears all currently-studied species come from universakl descent, due to conserved proteins, a conserved genetic code and such, having more than one descent is not impossible in an evolutionary theory - Lamarck came up with one where worm-like animals were from a seperate line of descent from others. I think the worms were supposed to have created corals, starfish, that sort of thing - it all makes sense if you think about it - pity it's not true. It's quite possible a very strange lifeform could be discovered that would show a second line of descent even now, though it would be very ofdd if it resembled any known organism too closely.

It also ignores key splits: Saying that Young-earth creationism is a descendant of evolution is bizarre. Young Earth Creationism is a descendant of the Bible. Old Earth Creationism... is also, really. At the least, you'd need more things feeding into the theories on the right.

It doesn't seem to illustrate the differences well, and seems rather obfuscating. Adam Cuerden talk 23:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Adam and Michael. Misleading and unclear. Unnecessary addition. --Davril2020 23:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts):Let me point out that none of the 3 theories listed are actually accepted theories in a scientific sense; even Darwin's original work has been so extensivley refined that the original (cited here) is no longer considered a valid working model. The latter two are not theories in any sense, they are religous beliefs. Furthermoer, use of the term "Gap Theory" is extremely misleading: the proper term is Gap Creationism. It is simply not acceptable to misrepresent "beliefs" as "theories"; there is already too much confusion regarding proper terminologies and this simply perpetuates misunderstandings. Doc  Tropics  23:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Fill free to edit the section, I hear you opinions and agree with many of them but I'm not sure how to fix them. For instance, what would you call the belief I have listed as "Darwinian evolution". Pbarnes 23:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't edit your comments after others have responded. It can lead to confusion later. You don't seem to be getting the point. Evolution is not a belief. It is a scientific theory (and I suggest you read the link), that is an explanation of observed facts. Beliefs, such ss creationism, do not require facts to support them, they just require faith. The controversity is caused by some (even most in some parts of the world) religious believers, who find their belief in conflict with the scientific theory of evolution, and who then rather than modify their beliefs, seek to discredit the science. --Michael Johnson 23:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, don't edit the comments of others. I put "(multiple edit conflicts)" in front of my post to indicate that I had tried to add it more than once. This is common etiquette, while tampering with other's comments violates policy. Doc  Tropics  23:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought it was put in by a bot or something.Pbarnes 23:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't edit my comments all I edited was the section in question to make it more fitting for the addition. And it doesn't matter if evolution is scientific theory because this article is about the many beliefs and confusion it is caused. We aren't discussing under evolution, this is evolution-creation controversy might I remind you and these "beliefs" are what all the commotion is about. In the case I believe YOU miss the point.Pbarnes 23:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with your proposal is that it implies that the controversity is between three equal theories, which is not the case. It is the result of an attack by religion on science. --Michael Johnson 00:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think Michael is correct to describe this as an attack by religion on science (or at least, that's POV enough that it shouldn't dictate what is in the article) but I do agree that to describe all of these notions on equal footing is not NPOV. JoshuaZ 00:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, well I agree, but I was trying to make a point...! --Michael Johnson 00:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would agree, to state that creationism is on an equal footing with evolution would be the very definition of undue weight. Creationism is a non-scientific, minority view. Evolution is the heavily prevailing scientific view-and has a footing in science equivalent to the theory of gravity or the assertion that the earth is round. The few flat-earthers out there might get an article, but it should be made clear that it's a small minority considered by mainstream science to be ridiculous. Seraphimblade 00:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would hardly agree with both of the above comments - equating creationism to flat-earth theory is ridiculuous. It can also hardly be considered a minority considering +/- 55% of the USA supports creationism, and at least 2 billion people (if you count Christians + Muslims only) follow religions that teach man was created in some way and did not evolve. SparrowsWing 00:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sparrows to be blunt, it isn't helpful for you to comment on issues that you clearly don't know much about. Many if not most Christians have no problems with evolution. For example, the Episcopalian and Roman Catholic churches are both fine with evolution as are many other Christian denominations. Many Muslims also accept evolution. While I agree that comparing it to flat-earthism is a bit extreme, the basic point stands. To pretend that these are ideas with any significant fraction of the scientific community behind them is inaccurate at best. JoshuaZ 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well JoshuaZ there really isn't any reason to be rude. On the contrary I do know quite a bit about the issues concerned. You are a) trying to regale creationism to the level of flat earth theory and b) trying to make out that I am causing a conflict that I am not. I have no problem with evolution but this is not the place to discuss that. I just disagree that man evolved from some amoeba (sp) as I think would most people who follow one of the major world religions. The point I am trying to make above is that creationism is by no means a minority view and to portray it is such is doing disservice to many people.SparrowsWing 00:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sparrows, it is a bit odd to accuse me of "trying to regale creationism to the level of flat earth theory" when I explicitly said in the comment that you were replying to that I disagreed with that comparison. Nor did I accuse you of "causing a conflict." I also don't know why you are bringing up your personal views which are completely irrelevant (and in any event I don't understand what you mean by saying that you "have no problem with evolution" and "disagree that man evolved from some amoeba" (and btw, no one thinks humans evolved from anything like that. The modern amoeba is almost certainly very different from the last common ancestor of humans and amoebas))(and as long as we're invoking our own religius beliefs for rhetorical gain, I'm religious (by many defintions) and accept evolution. You really need to read the article on theistic evolution). Simply put creationism is a minority view if one isn't looking simply inside the US (in Europe the fraction of poeple who are creationists in many countries is around 10% or less) and none of this is that relevant. What matters is that among the experts in the area the people the fraction of those who are creationists is tiny. To act like therefore these are on equal footing in some way is ridiculous and POV. JoshuaZ 00:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * JoshuaZ I'm afraid I have to apologise here - I incorrectly attributed the 'flat earth' comment to you when it was the previous poster (Seraphimblade) who brought it up - I misread that and I apologise. WRT my personal views I did say above "but this is not the place to discuss that". The amoeba comment was purely an exaggeration for emphasis of my point. The point I am trying to make is that creationism is by no means a minority view, any more than Wicca/Christianity/Islam etc. can be considered a minority view. That is why articles like this exist. Creationism, however, is not a minority view and to place it in the category of minority view is a disservice. SparrowsWing 01:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Creationism is a huge scientific minority and that's what counts in this discussion. What the general public thinks is irreverent when talking about the validity of evolution, just as it is irrelevant that 99.99999999% of people believe that time is constant for everybody when considering the validity of the Theory of Relativity.--Roland Deschain 00:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sparrows, you appear to have a misconception as to what 'minority view' means. Minority/majority views aren't established on the basis of the population at large, but on the basis of experts on the subjects. Hence on the subject of evolution, since the vast majority of scientists agree with the modern form of evolution, creationism is substantially in the minority. Viewpoints of the general public are inappropriate here for reasons that are probably self-evident (if you don't agree or understand we can divert this discussion to your talk page if you like). --Davril2020 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Davril2020 - from Wikipedia on NPOV: All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source. I would definitely say that creationism represents a significant view. SparrowsWing 01:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The additions are misleading and the diagram isn't an accurate representation of the relationship between these ideas. To begin with, there's no such thing as "orchard theory" and it isn't the only alternative to universal common descent, and the progressive creationist idea of multiple creation events is quite distinct from the baraminological idea of separate creation followed by post-Deluge evolution. Other alternatives to common descent include some of the "alien astronaut" ideas. In addition, the diagram seems to suggest that the only meaningful distinction is between old earth and young earth evolutionary ideas. Apart from conflating a number of very distinct ideas, it also gives undue weight to "young earth" (which is a minority among creationist ideas). Guettarda 00:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The orchard theory is the best term for the belief (which is still being discussed...don't jump to conclusions). It IS the only exception to universal common descent while still maintaining the belief in evolution. The orchard theory is not a term specific to creationism or the belief in God but simple refers to the belief that evolution happens but there are multiple original common ancestors. The diagram accurately lists how the various ideas are linked to one another. Also, please tell me how defining terms in a centralized location is giving undue? Pbarnes 01:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * At present it appears very likely that the orchard theory page will be deleted. --Davril2020 01:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Taking the general population into account when dealing with scientific theories
I've broken this off from the section above so it's easier to read. The section we're really dealing with here is WP:NPOV. Now if I understand your argument correctly you believe that creationist viewpoints are notable because they are held by a majority of the population. However, when dealing with scientific theories and opposition to scientific theories, only the views of published scientists are realistically taken into account. So there is no peer reviewed literature on creationism and a comparatively small body of work on creationism in the popular press (compared to science writing, for instance). Hence by this criteria, scientists beliving in creation are drastically in the minority. Try to bear in mind also that creationism, while relatively popular in the USA, is substantially less popular elsewhere (if you wish I can provide you references). Given the drastic concern over Americocentrism on wikipedia it would be wrong to give prominence to the views of the USA. Orthodox Catholicism, as well as mainstream Protestant churches (e.g. the Anglican church) as well as mainstream Jewish faiths and moderate Muslims (not to mention nominally atheist governments like that of China) do not endorse creationism. Additionally, the validity of evolution must be decided on the basis of evidence. That isn't to say creationism is invalid. It is to say that only the viewpoints of those who have studied the issue are going to be notable. An expert can believe in creationism or evolution, or some combination thereof, and should in theory have reached that on the basis of evidence. There is no way of telling how deeply held the opinions of the general public are. How many books has the person read? How many lectures or courses have they gone to? How many journals have they browsed? This isn't to say that one needs these things to have an educated position, but without that information there is no way of telling. It's comparatively easy to judge that Behe or Dawkins have some expertise in the field. As a last point I'd recommend being cautious about polls on the subject. The figures vary widely depending on the wording of the question, and there are systematic trends based on age, education, and race that make the use of such statistics quite unreliable. Additionally, bear in mind that even crank issues often score above 20% on polls (two recent examples that were around the 40% mark include believing Muslims should be branded with symbols indicating their religion, and that the USA was responsible in some way for flying the planes into the twin towers). Relying on poll data is extremely dubious at best without substantial additional information. The only real way around it is to identify leading proponents of a movement and compare the frequency of publications in scientific journals on the subject. --Davril2020 03:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Davril2020 thank you for taking the time to expand on this. My aim here is to give a more balanced weighting to a system that many people do believe in. I understand your concerns about limited 'scientific' material on the subject of creationism and an inability to tie many creationist 'theories' back to verifiable sources. There is obviously a lot of emotional baggage (which isn't the word I am looking for but will have to do until I can remember it!) around creationism and evolution - so I do think an expansion on the differing views on the Controversy page would be helpful. Just as a basis, Young Earth creationists would vehemently oppose the idea that evolution is valid today, yet those who don't support the Young Earth theory have no problem with concurring with certain elements of evolution - the only point of contention between them and evolutionists being the point of creation of the 'first' human being. If a person is a Christian, they would probably tend towards the latter example mentioned above.
 * I think we would be doing people a disservice to brush off creationism as 'pure hack', especially in an article dealing with the controversy. If there was a need for the article to be created in the first place, there is obviously a need for dealing with the topic.
 * I hope this gives you a bit of a better idea of where I am coming from? Thanks again for taking the time to take this offline from the main discussion. SparrowsWing 03:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are quite right that the topic needs to be dealt with, and it is. However if you don't use reliable sources (i.e. notable proponents) then you are inevitably going to be using WP:OR. Indeed, you say that about half of the US population opposes evolution. But then what form of creationism do they adopt? YEC? Day-age creationism? Hindu/Christian/Muslim creationism? Anything is possible and we could make reasonable guesses at it, but in the end it would be original research which, for obvious reasons, is fundamentally unacceptable for an encyclopedia. So, we're back at 'undue weight' as represented by frequency of leading proponents in scientific journals. --Davril2020 04:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But I think we can both agree that it is not at the level of 'flat earthism'? I'm about to sign off for the day so I'll get a more complete reply to you tomorrow. SparrowsWing 04:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK - based on your post above - I wouldn't think it would be necessary to break creationist beliefs down to the level mentioned above for the purposes of the controversy article - aside from a very brief mention that the different types do exist and that they would be dealt with in the actual Creationism article. WRT notability, apparently the Discovery institute maintains a list of papers published on Creationism and subject to a peer review so that at least provides a starting point for notability. SparrowsWing 04:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are asking for my personal opinion then I would anticipate flat earthism to be substantially less popular than various other forms of creationism. In fact I'm told that the flat earth society is currently in hibernation, though I can't personally verify that. However in terms of verifiability, I cannot prove it. So, on a science topic, given that they have an equivalent number of peer-reviewed scientific publications dedicated to them, they must be treated equivalently.
 * By the way - the list of 'peer reviewed publications' by the DI is false. Their senior fellow testified under oath that no peer reviewed publication has ever been made on the subject. The list is a mix of non-peer reviewed articles and more shockingly, articles that have nothing to do with intelligent design at all. There is not one single peer-reviewed item on the list. Are you clear on what's meant by peer reviewed in this context, by the way? --Davril2020 04:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I might point out that the Indiana legislature came very close to legislating a simple value of pi . And that there has been plenty of ranting and raving about the biblical value of 3 for pi. I have had many religious people claim that pi used to be 3 and God changed it, or God put that in the bible to test our faith, or that Satan put that in the bible to try to entice people away from faith in God. And on and on and on. The stupidity of the general public on anything slightly technical is breathtaking.--Filll 15:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WRT to the value of pi - here is a complete explanation without resorting to "supernatural change" http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/pi.asp. It all has to do with the measurement of a cubit - roughly equivalent to a man's forearm which, as the article states, does not lend itself easily to measuring fractions (how long is a piece of string?). SparrowsWing 21:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I know all the various explanations that have been put forward for hundreds and hundreds of years for this passage in the bible. I could probably come up with another 100 myself. What I am trying to point out is that the arguments against evolution or the big bang sound pretty much like the arguments trying to explain away this passage in the bible. Instead of choosing the obvious, simplest answer, that the bible is allegorical, or was not meant to be taken literally in all aspects, people stand on their heads and get angrier and angrier at those horrible secularists and scientists who are doing the work of Satan. People will come up with craziest explanations and get angry over just nothing.--Filll 22:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
I'll bite. NPOV is tempered by "undue weight", that is undue weight is not given to minority views. Content must also be verified. Evolution is a science subject, therefore the majority and minority views are those of scientists. There is almost total support for evolution and almost no support for creationism amongst scientists. Therefore creationism is treated as a minority view. Evolutionary theory is also supported by thousands of scientific peer-reviewed papers and articles, which can be and are used to verify the various articles about evolution. OTOH there is no such support for creationism. Hope that helps. --Michael Johnson 03:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Michael - I see you and I must have been editing this page at the same time. Creationism is often touted as a 'minority' view and set up in direct conflict to evolution. As I stated to Davril2020 above, not all branches of creationism would dispute evolution - the only point of contention being the actual creation of the first human being. Creationism, whichever religious system it is based on, by its nature requires a person to take that step of faith at some time to accept that some being outside of our scope of knowledge was involved. If we go on statistics alone, +/-1.3 billion Christians (and by calling themselves Christians they are placing themselves under the mantle of one of the varying branches of creationism) accept that being outside of our scope of knowledge had a hand in creating our universe. That is roughly 1/6th of the planet - definitely not a minority. As I said to Davril2020, thanks for taking the time to take this offline. SparrowsWing 03:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside precise definitions (I think alot of the people you are talking about would be defined as "thiestic evolutionists") what the "majority" of people think doesn't matter when writing an article for Wikipedia. Science is not a popularity poll. Just because the majority of people think one thing doesn't make it so. For instance, most people think that when an apple seperates from it's tree, it falls to the ground. In fact, the theory of gravity tells us the apple and the Earth move towards each other, even if the apple moves much faster. Likewise most people believe time is constant, while the theory of reletivity tells us it isn't so. So what most people think is not important. What is important is what most scientists think, and what we can verify. --Michael Johnson 04:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Michael Johnson. When one talks about creationism being a minority view, or about evolution being the dominant accepted theory, one is not talking about the general public. To be honest, who cares at all what the general public thinks? If we had to rely on majority rule in science and technology, we would still be sitting in caves banging rocks together, believing the earth was flat, dying at the age of 25, and having no idea that intercourse was associated with pregnancy. The average person is as dumb as a stump, frankly, so why should their own prejudices have anything to do with the price of tea in china? The general public knows nothing, and it has no bearing on what is a dominant scientific theory (back in the days when we let public opinions have dominance over science, we ended up arresting Galileo for daring to claim that the earth orbited the sun). Over 99.85% of earth and biological scientsts subscribe to evolution. That is what I would call an overwhelming majority. And lots of the general public, and even the religious general public do not believe in creationism either, particularly in foreign countries:

''Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that'': From --Filll 06:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 97% do not believe the world was created in six days.
 * 80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.


 * Michael Johnson and Filll - I haven't yet had time to review your arguments - I'll try to get to them tomorrow. SparrowsWing 04:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * While you're at it, if you'd like a stunning demonstration of the scientific ignorance of the general population, have a look here. They had a city in California ready to -ban- "dihydrogen monoxide", before letting them in on the little joke. (Personally, I'd have let them go ahead and do it, and then clue them in, but then I'm not always too nice either.) Seraphimblade 14:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I might point out that the Indiana legislature came very close to legislating a simple value of pi . And that there has been plenty of ranting and raving about the biblical value of 3 for pi. I have had many religious people claim that pi used to be 3 and God changed it, or God put that in the bible to test our faith, or that Satan put that in the bible to try to entice people away from faith in God. And on and on and on. The stupidity of the general public on anything slightly technical is breathtaking.--Filll 15:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)