Talk:Creationism/Archive 13

Constructive criticism

Preceding this discussion was a lengthy brawl which has since been archived.

That is about ENOUGH How do I am I supposed to know that you are an adult? Because you believe in evolution? That's pretty silly. Grow up, man. I'd like to make several changes to this article:

1. First off, I think the cartoon is uneccessary at this point. I'm going to remove that - and as for the highly militant attack on Creationism as a scientific theory, I will worry about that later.
2. I'm proposing that we go into detail about causality being a factor in explaining the theory that there is a beginning to the universe. Subsequently, this will lead into the argument that the universe shows evidence for design instead of randomness. For example: When I go to work every day, I don't have to worry about a horse appearing in my lab out of nothing for no reason.
3. You militant evolutionists need to slow down and think for a second or two. Is it appropriate to label Creationism a myth when there is scientific evidence that shows the possibility of His existence? If that's what you want, then going into more detail about the science of design is propositional.
4. Should we discuss more about the differences/similarities between Intelligent Design theory and Creationism theory?

Also - why should Wikipedia be an information database that is dominated by evolutionary doctrine? Would it be reasonable to both intelligence and science to present all sides of different scientific arguments? This article is not a place to refute or bombard Creationism with maniacal ravings that are crossing the NPOV threshold.

Any advice on any of these items would be appreciated. Regards, Salva 17:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

1. The cartoon is staying where it is. It's relevant, and damnit, it's funny.
2. Wikipedia is not the place to argue the objective validity of subjective belief systems. You can state that such and such a thing is symptomatic of a certain kind of belief or whatever, but you cannot use this place to distort reality for your own agenda. It simply is not the case that "...the universe shows evidence for design...", and I won't let you state it in the article.
3. Creationism is a myth and there is no evidence for it. No amount of screaming on your part will change any of that. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the same old arguments or cry about a 'heathen atheist close minded brown shirted Nazi conspiracy against God', you will not suceed in using this place as a platform to put forward your vile filth. I will not let you.
4. Because evolutionary doctrine is backed up by cold hard evidence. Overwhelming levels of it. It would indeed be reasonable to both intelligence and science to present all sides of different scientific arguments. This is why it is important to maintain the critical nature of this article, and to prevent attacks on real science by bible thumpers such as yourself.

I do not have a problem in the article stating what creationists believe, as that is obviously relevant to the article itself. What I do have a problem with is people like you who want to turn this article into a creationist apologetic. I won't stand by and let you get away with bringing down the reputation of wikipedia with your anti-intellectual attacks on reality. Talk about what creationists believe as much as you want, but the second you start attacking science and the truth, I'll be stepping in to stop you. Aaarrrggh 17:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous.

1. The cartoon may be a bit near the line, and would perhaps better be moved to the article on the 'creation-evolution controversy'. Still, don't remove it unilaterally.
2. Feel free to refer to the cosmological argument article. Oh, the horse-thing: I wouldn't expect such a horse to appear in a universe ruled by physics either.
3. Going into more detail about the science of design is definately a good idea. I would really love to see a section on the science of creationism.
4. And going more deeply into the differences/similarities between Intelligent Design and Creationism would also be a good idea. Please, someone, add such a section aswell. Just don't refer to them as theories, or make it abundantly clear they are not scientific theories.
5. "maniacal ravings"? In the article? Where? When? -- Ec5618 18:21, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

1. "Science of creationism" is an oxymoron. The two are disjoint in that creationism isn't considered to have scientific basis. That's why creation science is considered an oxymoron.
2. Intelligent Design is already described (correctly) on the page to be a type of creationism. For more information on this, one can be referred directly to the ID article. -- Joshuaschroeder 22:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I personally would agree with you, creationism is not science. But that is quite irrelevant. Many creationists claim, on many occasions, that there is science to back up creationism. I would like to see a section on such science for that reason. -- Ec5618 22:24, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I think what you are interested in is the article Creation science. Joshuaschroeder 06:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Should we seek consensus before editing?

I think it would be a good idea for all major edits to this page to be posted here first. And then viewed and voted on here. This should help prevent edit wars and I believe would make the article better. Perhaps I'm a bit naive but I think this article could become a featured article with a little work and consensus. Falphin 22:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Featured. I like the idea. -- Ec5618 22:24, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I like that idea too. -- The Consigliere 01:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I would love for this article to become featured. However, Wikipedia should be a place where bold editors can make changes as they see fit to the article without first presenting to a peanut gallery for an unspecified length of time. It is always a good idea to explain your edits on the talkpage, but it is a bad idea to declare that we should only make edits after discussing on the talkpage. This would be the equivalent of having creationism permenately protected. Joshuaschroeder 02:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

(Dis)Proving creationism

From time to time, this page is visited by fervent creationists and non-creationists who both complain that this article shows clear POV. As a result, we are often left with longwinded discussions, often between two people with opposing viewpoints (with other editors mostly keeping a wise distance). To prevent this talk page from cluttering up, and to prevent edit wars, please note: We have all heard these arguments before:

• Creation is true, it says so in the bible. Irrelevant. Belief in something does not prove its existence.
• Natural formation of life has been disproven by science. Which is not true, nor is it relevant on this page.
• Creation is the only logical theory. This has been put forth by many people, in many ways. It is often followed directly by many scientists are starting to feel so too. As an analogy, a person from last century might have been incredulous had someone told him/her that beams of light and mirrors could be used to create holograms. Nowadays, few people actually understand how holograms work, but few people refuse to believe in them.
• Denying creation is POV. Its not. Different viewpoints are shown.
• Denying creation is hating God. Its not. In fact, in most of the world, Christians have long ago accepted that creation according to Genesis might have been a parable, a tale to show 'God's greatness'. The battle is not between creationists and atheists (especially since many "evolutionists" believe in God, and many are devout Christians). It is a battle between a very narrow religious doctrine, not shared by all religious people, and science.
• Evidence supporting creation exists. Often, creationists will claim that the evidence is out there, you just have to 'do your research'. Open minded people and critical thinkers will accept creation. And they're right, many webpages purport to have such evidence, and they provide it in clear English. Please remember that in the same way, many websites have proven that the [Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations#Issues of photographs|moon landing could not have occured].

To anyone that feels that there is proof of creation, and by extension, of a god or gods, please refer to the page on creation science, and provide said proof. Please do not come to this page proclaiming that such evidence exists. Statements such as "For example, it is the “scientific approach” that has already demonstrated that Life (as we know it) could never have started itself. This is because it is far too complicated and ordered." have no place on this page, for the simple reason that it is not true.

Meanwhile, lets try to stick to the NPOV that creationism is believed only by Christians. -- Ec5618 20:11, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

that's not npov. it's not even true. the story of the 6 day creation, adam, eve, enoch, and noah is held by millions of muslims and jews, worldwide. Ungtss 21:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Quite true. I had started that sentence and had not properly checked it when I clicked 'save page'. My apologies. -- Ec5618 23:14, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

no worries:). good edits on the criticism section, btw:). Ungtss 00:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The Scientific Position

Perhaps it is well to remember that all of us are in search of the truth as best as we can understand it. Creation theory rests on an axiom and scientific theories rest on axioms. Scientific theories rest on axioms that are either evident in nature, or logically necessary, occasionally "guesses" partially supported by either two. Creation theories rest upon the axiom that a creator exists. Science provides detailed explanations for its axioms, explanations that depend upon logic, and further, points out axioms that currently lack proof. It is constantly struggling with itself concerning all these axioms. Indeed, the most celebrated scientists are those who have done the most to supplant long established theories from Copernicus to Newton and Einstein. In this science can be shown to be self critical, demanding intellectual honesty and humility to such an extent that scientists are willing to accept the possibility that creation theories may indeed be correct despite all their efforts. It is in challenging longstanding axioms that we as humans show our quality, our doubt in all things, which reveals our nature, and to do so we are only being honest. The scientific community does not so much take issue with creation theories as it does with it's methods, it's willingness to accept some scientific evidence but not other, obviously based upon the need for a predetermined result, a logically untenable position. Creation theories are dogmatic regarding it's axioms, condemning as sin any doubt. It is as this point that creation theories break down in terms of integrity, logic and eventually believability. Science in general has much to say about its own limitation, particularly since the paper on the Gödel's Incompletenes Theorem [[1]]Stephen Hawking's paper on the Big Bang Theory[[2]]where theory breqks down "inside" singularities, (though they are neccessary for the theory) both of which draw clear limits on how far our understanding may reasonably go at this point in time. Therefore, there is room for a creator in scientific theories, it is not atheistic but agnostic, a "psychologically honest" pursuit where we all together wrestle with our doubt.

Personal commentary

I'm on Holıday ın Turkey as I type thıs, but couldn't help myself from checkıng wıkıpedıa whıle I was checkıng my emaıls. I just wanted to say I'm lıkıng the evolutıon (see what I did there?) of thıs artıcle at the moment. The idea of splitting the criticism section up into relevant segments seems good to me. I shall contribute more to the article when İ come back from holiday, but for now İ just wanted to say well done, and İ'm sure you will be hearing from me soon ;) Aaarrrggh 12:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Elementary, my dear Wikipedians! This article has evolved (through the intervention of intelligence and not randomness) to become a splendid document. I will continue to contribute what I can. Also, when are we planning to merge this article with Abrahamic Creationism? Salva 17:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Do not misunderstand me Salva. I was not necessarily saying I am happy with the criticism section as yet, merely that I was happy with the idea of splitting it up into relevant sections. The criticism section still needs work, and I will be chopping and changing it again soon. Aaarrrggh 23:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The Soul

This section was removed as it is completely irrelevent to the article as it was written. This isn't a repository for Christian/monotheistic theorizing about spiritual matters -- it is an article about creationism. Joshuaschroeder 09:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Finally, this section has been in the article since it was moved, basically, from a Christian encyclopaedia. Maybe we should put a short note on Talk:Soul. They might want it/get a kick out of it. -- Ec5618 09:53, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Scientifically accepted definition of theory

In the aritcle there is a paragraph that needs to be changed [inside a longer section that will then need to be completely revised].

Creationists sometimes minimize the explanatory power and validity of evolution theory by criticizing it as being "just a theory" implying that the word "theory" is synonymous with "conjecture" or "speculation", instead of the technical, scientifically accepted use of the word "theory" to mean a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and be verified through empirical observation. In this sense, evolution is a very powerful theory.

The first problem with this is that Creationists tend to attack "macroevolution." What 'falsifiable hypotheses' are proposed that can be tested against empirical observation for macroevolution. Conflating macroevolution and microevolution in an article on creationism is inappropriate since scientists defending creationism typically attack one and not the other.

The second problem is that this paragraph does not mention the rather important point that the best theories are predictive for which controls and variables can be used to test in experiments (rather than simply theories that can explain field data after the fact). Since this paragraph discusses Creationists viewpoint of evolution as a scientific theory, that needs to be addressed. A famous quote by Niels Bohr [I think that is the right attribution] is "A first rate theory predicts, a second rate theory forbids, a third rate theory explains after the fact."

Thirdly, the claim that creationism is not a theory allowing for falsifiable hypotheses to be tested against empirical observation is simply false. Just as evolution suggests daughter theories regarding the age of the earth and other theories, creationsim [in particular the creationism discussed in this artiel] is linked to other theories which falsifiable hypotheses can be drawn.

Here is an example of such a falsifiable hypothesis:

Creationsim calls for a young earth, and therefore predicts that crystalline lattices found in primordial rock will show evidence of youth. One could draw a falsifiable hypothesis based on the C_14 content of such diamonds [for example]. There are many others.

For these three reasons, this section needs to be revamped.

Kent Hovind; Bringing down specific people

It does seem that Kent Hovind's doctorate is worthless (he got it in a correspondence course from Patriot University). It got me thinking though; it seems that many vocal creationists have stated their reasons for advocating creation. Many of these reasons have been subsequently shot down by science. Many specific creationists have also been discredited in scientific circles.

Would it be a good idea to try to give a little background about specific creationists? To discredit specific creationists in the critisism section? To add a section on famous or vocal creationists? -- Ec5618 13:38, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the basic form of Creationism(a god or gods creating the universe or making it start) is a popular belief around the world that many variations have developed and getting a leader from each group and then discrediting each one will take a lot of research and time. If we do add this, Kent Hovind wouldn't be a good choice however because many groups like Aig reject his beliefs. It might be better to use Phillip E. Johnson or someone like that from the Yec group. Oec would be Hugh Ross and for ID Michael Behe, creationists that believe in a guided evolution process I don't know. But if we do that would be a start. We would also need a Jewish, and Muslim figure as well. Falphin 21:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

As this article deals with creationism in christian, jewish and islamic faiths, I don't see your first point to be much of a problem.

And you have no problem with the basic concept of describing the people behind creationism?

Please note, I'm only asking for opinions, not suggesting anything at this point. -- Ec5618 23:21, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

The point I was making is that you need to take a leader from every group. Which would take time but if you want to do it thats fine. And that Kent Hovind shouldn't be the example. As long as the article doesn't attack the person but instead discredits his theories/beliefs, I'm fine with it. Falphin 19:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

multiple reverts on the "no conflict" passage

Instead of going back and forth, can we discuss in a little more detail what the views are pro/con on the passage? Seems like it would be more straightforward than these multiple reverts.

Here's the latest version of the passage:

Others try to reconcile faith and science in various ways. Some see no conflict with science and consider evolution to simply be a tool that the Creator used.

Aaarrrgh, can you give a little more explanation on why you view it as misleading and poorly worded, and why it doesn't belong in the introduction? I personally have little patience for creationists, especially when they try to influence pubic school curricula in ways that I believe are inappropriate, but I thought this passage was a pretty good way to represent the views of a sizable chunk of people who care about this issue, while preserving neutrality. But I'm pretty new to wikipedia, and may be missing a larger issue. -- John Callender 08:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, I made my latest edit just before noticing this newly added section to the talk page. I have changed it to this:

"Not all creationists believe themselves to be in conflict with science, evolutionary creationists see evolution as a tool, used in creation. While this position allows an element of reconciliation between science and faith for believers, it should be noted that it is not a scientific position within itself, and is not a position taken by most scientists."

The problem I have with it is that to me it makes it sound as if reconciling faith with science presents no real problems and is even a scientifically sound thing to do. The fact is that it does present problems and it is not a legitimate position to take from a scientific perspective. However, it is true that many believers do adopt such a position, so I do not have a problem in making some mention of this; I just think it should be qualified, and that it should be clear that this is just a position taken by believers who are struggling to come to terms with the revelations of science, as opposed to being a perfectly sensible position in pefect harmony with science itself. Aaarrrggh 08:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Au contraire, I think Aaarrrggh is being too fundamentalist. It is perfectly possible to reconcile a scientific attitude to the development of the Universe while still being able to believe that there was a Creator who somehow set up those conditions and initiated the Big Bang. There is no evidence available before the Big Bang. Aaarrrggh may choose to believe that the condition occurred spontaneously, but that is pure faith, a religious view, and not falsifiable and scientific. Dabbler 10:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Nicely said, Dabbler. Evolutionism is obviously a religious faith for a number of our editors, though of course, they would deny this. It's also obvious that some are on a jihad against any form of creationism, which must be stamped out by any possible means. The fervor, the evangelistic zeal, the scorn - identify the religious evolutionists, for which evolution is not just a scientific tool but a deeply held fundamentalistic ideology. Pollinator 12:50, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Before you get too excited Pollinator, I would like to emphasise that I can accept as a proposition that a Creator God was the fundamental initiator of the creation of the Universe in the Big Bang billions of years ago, as there is no evidence to the contrary. I also am one of those who believe that the mechanism of evolution accounts for what we see around us. I can accept that there is a God but not that Genesis is a literal description of how He brought the world into being. Genesis as far as I am concerned is a collection of nomads' folk tales which describe how they perceived their relationship with God but not a complete and scientific history of the world. I am not one of those whose faith in a benevolent supernatural being is so weak that any deviation from the literal truth of Genesis destroys their belief in God. Dabbler 15:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not excited, Dabbler. And you bring a refreshing honesty to the page, unlike some of the rabid religious evolutionists that frequent the page, who exhibit the same rigid and intellectually dishonest traits that they seem to find in creationists. Pollinator 19:45, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Evolution is not a faith position, and I am not even prepared to waste my time arguing this point with religious creationists such as pollinator. I never mentioned anything about spontaneity of any kind. I am merely mentioning that there is no actual scientific reason to invoke a creator to explain away anything. This is merely something religiously minded people do to reconcile their beliefs with actual reality as exposed by honest science. As for your attempts to explain whichever version of that 'god' thingy it is that you believe in Dabbler, these kind of things always amuse me. I love to sit back and watch as a person creates a god before my very eyes. Take a few variables, make way for scientific revelations, and voila! Insta-god. It's like god by numbers. Regardless, the argument I have stated is still valid. Aaarrrggh 17:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I wonder, Aaarrrggh, if you can cite any sources for the "is not a position taken by most scientists" statement in the latest version of the passage. I'm not disputing its accuracy, just wondering if it can be sourced.

I dispute its accuracy. Pollinator 19:45, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I think the article's neutrality is stronger with this latest version of the statement added than without it, though I remain concerned about the slight sense of editorializing I still get from it: the fundamental identification of those holding this view as creationists ("Not all creationists believe..."), and the implicit (albeit mild) denigration I hear coming from "While this position allows an element of reconciliation between science and faith for believers" (emphasis added), and "it should be noted" (why are we emphasizing the "shouldness" of it? if it should be noted, shouldn't we just note it?) And, again, the unsourced assertion that it is not a position taken by "most" scientists. Even if we have an objective poll of scientists on which to base that, I'm not sure it's helpful in the current context. If the number of people who hold the position is only a substantial minority, I'd think the concept still deserves a neutral presentation, not one that editorializes on it even as it's being stated.

I'm intrigued by the idea that on both sides of this issue there are sincere, well-meaning people who believe they see in the other side an insufficient appreciation of the deeper meanings embodied by the world as it is. Richard Dawkins, no friend of creationism, wrote the following in the conclusion to The Ancestor's Tale, which by coincidence I just finished reading last night:

I have not had occasion here to mention my impatience with traditional piety, and my disdain for reverence where the object is anything supernatural. But I make no secret of them. It is not because I wish to limit or circumscribe reverence; not because I want to reduce or downgrade the true reverence with which we are moved to celetrate the universe, once we understand it properly. 'On the contrary' would be an understatement. My objection to supernatural beliefs is precisely that they miserably fail to do justice to the sublime grandeur of the real world. They represent a narrowing-down from reality, an impoverishment of what the real world has to offer.

I think a lot of the heat surrounding this issue would dissipate if the more-zealous in each camp were willing to do more listening to the other side, rather than simply attributing to it an inverted straw-man of their own deeply-held views.

Anyway, I think the following version would make me happier from a neutrality standpoint. What would you think about this, Aaarrrggh?

Some people, including some scientists, believe that science and faith can be reconciled by viewing evolution as the means used by the creator to bring about creation. Scientists opposed to this position would point out, however, that this view is not, in and of itself, scientific.

-- John Callender 18:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Yep -- a whole lot less POV than a deletion. Pollinator 19:45, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I admit that the statement 'most scientists...' was perhaps a little lazy on my part. I wasn't totally happy about that when I wrote it, although I'm sure it is actually true regardless. The assertion that this is not, within itself, a scientific position to take I think would perhaps be more appropriate. I will have a little dabble to see if I can create a slightly better wording, while removing the 'most scientists...' element. Aaarrrggh 19:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I have edited this section now, and have made mention of the fact that asserting a creator (from a scientific perspective) unncessarily violates the law of occam's razor. I hope this is better now. Aaarrrggh 19:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

For myself, I still prefer the version I posted above, for the reasons cited there. The current version still seems to me to be going out of its way to assert superiority to those who hold the creation-is-compatible-with-science viewpoint. I'm not saying you don't have a valid argument in saying that. I just think that the article's NPOV would be enhanced by your refraining from making that argument, especially right at the top of the article like that. The article seems stronger to me if it just sticks to a neutral statement of what the parties on each side of the issue say. John Callender 21:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I lost this in an edit conflict but found it again. While I am usually amused by zealots of all sides, I find it distasteful when they choose to be rude with it. While I may have been a slight troll wrt Aaarggh's comments, I would point out that there was a serious intent. His belief system does not allow for any God, even one who lurks in the unexplorable gaps. His religion is to be atheistic and he is as zealous a proponent of that as others are of their theistic explanations. I see both sides. I support science, despite proponents like Aaarrggh, because it has a factual basis. When someone goes beyond the facts to make definitive statements that cannot be proven, they descend into their belief system which I do not choose to accept. Contrary to what Aaarrrggh states, it is perfectly legitimate and in harmony with science to speculate about a God and have ideas about His activities, if any, in the absence of evidence. It just may not be very scientifically productive until you find a hypothesis that can be tested. To dismiss such speculation out of hand is the act of a zealot not a scientist.

I also feel that invoking Occam's razor is the evolutionary equivalent of quoting Genesis to prove something. Its a nice bit of folk lore but not a scientific Law. Dabbler 20:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, first of all, Occam's Razor is not a scientific law. It is a principle that one hopes to be able to adhere to, but it is by no means a requirement. Furthermore, it is subjective because it asks the evaluator to determine which of two things is simpler. For example, it is certainly unclear that abiogenesis is any less complicated than special creation. In fact, from one standpoint, special creation is much less complicated. If you are going to have living beings coming from somewhere does it make more sense to assume a higher intelligence caused it or not?

There are many scientific theories that are certainly hard to swallow, for example the story of how the Earth's atmosphere came to be in its present state is a story of improbably stages appealing to a host of unstable equilibria. Just how complicated does a naturalistic theory have to get before it becomes less easy to believe compared to a paranormal one? Once again, a subjective question.

And the fossil record has forced scientists themselves to find less and less easier to swallow theories due to lack [or scantiness] of transitional forms. We have over a quarter million types of fossils (millions of actual fossils), and still many paleontologists are wondering where all the transitional forms are. This is what gave rise to the hopeful monster theory and punctuated equilibrium theory, but are those particularly simple?

Phantym 21:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Occam's Razor effectively says "do not employ more entities/assumptions than necessary if you can explain the same with less". If you find an assumption is necessary AND no more complex than the alternatives AND it doesn't contradict the rest, then it is valid to incorporate it to a theory. That's how I understand it. However, I Occam's razor is not a scientific law, but a rule of thumb, and I really don't how it belongs there. It'd be better to rephrase... "it is not the position of most scientists, because it introduces a new level of complexity into the theory", or "a supernatural element...", or something like that. --Pablo D. Flores 21:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Probably best to say that it does not fit into the naturalistic framework of modern science. -Phantym 20:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)