Talk:Creationism/Archive 14

POV problems in 'Miscellaneous critique of creationism' section

I think the whole section headed 'Miscellaneous critique of creationism' is problematic from a POV standpoint. It reads to me like an extended diatribe against creationism from someone engaged in advocacy, rather than the presentation of a neutral account of a controversy. Specifically, I see problems with the following:

It should also be noted that throughout human history there have been huge numbers of origin myths that attempt to explain the origins of humanity and of life in general.

Why mention explicitly that it should also be noted? We're noting it by including the passage; telling the reader explicitly that he should be noting it is an attempt to strengthen the argument beyond what the argument itself would achieve on its own. Similarly, the phrase "throughout human history", the "huge" numbers of origin methods, and the characterization of them all as "attempting" to explain our origins, all seem like advocacy, not meaningful content. I think I'd be happier with a sentence more like this:

Historically, there are many different creation myths that have provided explanations of the origins of humanity and of life in general.

I'll be more happy with

Historically, there are many different creation myths that attempt to explain the the origins of humanity and of life in general. No myth is reality, so, it can't explain anything. Project2501a 11:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Returning to the section as it reads currently:

The form of creationism advocated by young earth creationists is simply a literal interpretation of one religion's beliefs of creation, as described in Genesis, which in itself is just one of a large number of origin myths which pre-date modern science. (emphasis added)

"Simply" and "just" are operating as classic weasel words here. The assertion being made is that young earth creationists are just wrong in their beliefs, because those beliefs are not, as they contend, an accurate version of our origins, but are, in fact, nothing more than myth, as the scientific version of our origins contends. That's POV. It happens to be POV I mostly agree with, personally, but it's POV nevertheless, and the article would be stronger without it.

For these reasons, and simply because of the overwhelming evidence for evolution, creationism is not respected as a serious theory explaining the origins of life.

"Simply" and "overwhelming": more loaded language. The passage states that creationism "is not respected," but fails to say by whom it is not respected. The implication that it is not respected by all right-thinking people. That's advocacy.

I could go on, but I don't think there's really any point. The whole section reads like this. For what it's worth, my own take is that the whole section should just be removed. We already have the (much better, from a NPOV standpoint) section on the 'Scientific critique of creationism'. The 'Miscellaneous critique' seems to merely restate the scientific critique in less-neutral language.

I'm not going to delete the whole section myself; I don't want to add fuel to the fire of those currently engaging in rev/counter-rev with respect to isolated passages within it. But I'd be very curious if those who believe this section belongs in the article could articulate some of their reasons for thinking so. Thanks. John Callender 00:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I also think that adding words as the ones you mention loads the text up emotionally, without adding more content, which in turn gives ammo to the fanboys ^_^ I'll do something about this section this weekend. Project2501a 11:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Miscellaneous critique of creationism

I tried to replace the POV disagreement over the section with the following.

"The motivation behind animated attacks of the Young Earth creationist movement towards evolution stems from their belief that the first eleven chapters of Genesis should be understood as a literal description of the origin of the universe and everything it contains."

But I'm not sure my rewording is any better than the previous. I prefer animated over aggresive but I don't like the attack insertion. The entire sentence should probably be redone completely in order to get a more precise and short sentene. Falphin 17:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I had a go and came up with variants on "Because Young Earth creationists believe in the literal truth of the description in Genesis of divine creation of every "kind" of plant and creature during a week about 6,000 years ago, they dispute evolution which describes species developing without a need for divine intervention over a much longer time, and take particular issue with the implication of common descent that humans are descended from "lesser creatures". " but decided that this whole section describes creationism rather than the critique of creationism, and is largely redundant, so added by sentence to the young earth creationists section. I propose deletion of the Miscellaneous critique of creationism section. =dave souza 11:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Debate within scientific circles

Rossnixon changed this passage:

"Because of this and other evidence, there is no 'debate' within scientific circles as to whether evolution is a fact or not. It is only in the public sphere"

to

"Because of this and other evidence, there is little 'debate' within scientific circles as to whether evolution is a fact or not. It is mainly in the public sphere".

Can you give an example of such a debate within scientific circles about whether evolution is a fact or not? Or is this just a hidden POV - a claim that creationism is science? --Hob Gadling 16:12, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Their are a couple thousand scientists that doubt the validity of evolution which is probably no more than 5%(maybe less) of total scientists so technically there is some debate. So I could see the wording either way. Falphin 18:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A couple thousand? Are these scientists biologists? And are they religious? Could you please cite a reference?

Many are religious and others not. I was mostly refering to the OEC, Yec, and ID movements. I can't find my reference so I looked up some o these, while they don't give a couple thousand they do give enough proof that their are scientists with valid degrees in your area you mentioned. Also, I imagine their are easily 50,000 scientists total in the United STates, probably a lot more, making the creationist number very small compared to the total in the world. .

[1]

[2][3],

[4] Falphin 18:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this seems to hardly prove or even suggest that there are thousands of creation scientists. The first biochemist on the list, the first who isn't in the employ of ICR, got a B.S. in Biology from Liberty University, a Christian correspondance school known as, or suspected of being, a diploma mill.

The Discovery Institute was able to list 40 Texas scientists to sign this statement:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Heck, I'm not just skeptical of random mutation, I understand the Theory of Evolution enough to know that it isn't based on randomness, as such. And careful examination is always a good idea.

The list posted by AiG seems genuine enough, though the introductory text is incredibly biased. Still, I see no evidence for the idea of thousands of scientists believing in CS. -- Ec5618 02:35, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Even if the evidence suggested there were thousands of scientists who happened to believe in some form of creationism, this is not evidence of "debate in scientific circles" on the matter. What I personally would have to see to accept that there is scientific debate is an article in a generally respected, peer-reviewed journal asserting that there is evidence to support a creationist account and (what is a logically independant matter, though creationists often confuse the two) reject evolutionary theory for related reasons. I am confident that no such article will be unearthed any time soon - in fact, even if I dropped everything after the bold "and", I doubt such an article could be found. Accordingly, I will momentarily be changing it to a much stronger wording. (Anonymous)

I'm not sure that this latest language from the introduction is as neutral as it could be. Yes, that's how science, good science, at least, should be practiced. But I could see someone from the creationist side arguing that:

• creationism is also based on evidence (admittedly, different kinds of evidence compared to what science looks at, and a narrowly constrained set of it relative to what science looks at, too, but ev[idence nevertheless).

• some of what even mainstrain scientists would accept as "science," broadly speaking, doesn't seem to involve a very direct connection to the scientific method. That is, in the actual practice of science by human beings, there are frequent cases of pettiness, professional jealousy, ideological resistance to new ideas, and so on. While not religious doctrines per se, these examples of "bad" science are an undeniable part of science as it actually is practiced.

• I could also see a creationist arguing that he or she arrived at a creationist view through the scientific method: examining the world, constructing multiple working hypotheses to account for its features, eliminating untenable hypotheses through a process of experimentation and deduction... Yes, a true scientists could make valid arguments against that characterization, but that doesn't mean a creationist would be convinced by those arguments.

I get a sense from the sentence quoted above that it is being spoken by someone who is steeped in the view that scientific explanations are inherently superior to religious ones. As a result, I think NPOV's call for "Fairness and sympathetic tone" in depicting the other side's views isn't being lived up to very well.

A recent version of this sentence read:

This interpretation is rejected by mainstream scientists, who say that it is incompatible with evidence from many scientific disciplines.

For myself, I think that version does a better job of avoiding actually arguing the issue in the article, but simply stating what the criticism is, and who it is who's making it. And at least for me, the evidentiary criticism of creationism in this older version is stronger than the methodological criticism of the current version, especially given my doubts about the ability of science as it's actually practiced to always live up to the idealized characterization given in the current version. John Callender 08:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Evolution is a fact, as defined in scientific circles. It is simply a change in the frequency of alleles (however you spell that) in a population. This happens every time an organism dies or is born. Natural selection, or the modern synthesis, is a theory attempting to explain how evolution results in the current biological diversity and complexity. Therefore it is erroneous to even suggest that evolution is not considered a fact in scientific circles. People keep using evolution as shorthand for a specific theory, but it just ain't right. Evidence that a theory does not cover all observations does not disprove a theory either - in order to disprove a theory you have to replace it with a better one. (For an example of this, quantum mechanics and general relativaty are not fully compatible. Clearly, something is wrong in one of these theories. However, we still use them.) As creationism is not disprovable, it can never replace the modern synthesis. --Ignignot 13:54, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Deleted the "misc critique" section

Per the discussion we've been having, and in the absence of anyone having offerred a reason for keeping it, I went ahead and deleted the "Misc. critique" section just now. I'm pasting it below, in case anyone wants to salvage something from it. -- John Callender 09:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Miscellaneous critique of creationism

It should also be noted that throughout human history there have been huge numbers of origin myths that attempt to explain the origins of humanity and of life in general. The form of creationism advocated by young earth creationists is simply a literal interpretation of one religion's beliefs of creation, as described in Genesis, which in itself is just one of a large number of origin myths which pre-date modern science. For these reasons, and simply because of the overwhelming evidence for evolution, creationism is not respected as a serious theory explaining the origins of life. Creationist responses to the success and prevalence of evolution range from belief in a world-wide atheistic conspriracy that has managed to successfully hoodwink almost everyone in the scientific community (including the vast number of scientists who identify themselves as being Christian), to the acceptance of some or even most of the relevant facts (regarding the age of the earth and theories of common descent, for instance).

The motivation behind animated attacks of the Young Earth creationist movement towards evolution stems from their belief that the first eleven chapters of Genesis should be understood as a literal description of the origin of the universe and everything it contains. These creationists believe that to deny the validity of a literal reading of Genesis is to deny the validity of the entire (Christian) Bible, and therefore to deny the validity of Christianity itself. Because the theory of evolution is incompatible with a literal reading of the Biblical creation story, many Young Earth Creationists insist that evolution is an intrinsically atheistic theory. Moreover, they assert that evolution and Evolutionism are one and the same thing, and that therefore the theory of evolution (via Evolutionism) excuses and even promotes atheism and immorality. Although this view is most prevalent, and most explicitly promoted, in the more extreme varieties of Creationism (Young-Earth Creationism in particular), it is the driving force behind all anti-evolution movements that define themselves as Christian in origin, which includes many, but not all, members of the Intelligent Design movement. Evolutionary Creationists, in common with other Creationists, oppose Evolutionism, sometimes known as materialistic evolution or atheistic evolution, which supposedly makes an ideology out of the scientific theory of evolution.

Introduction

What data is available to support the statement that a few creationists are flat-earthers? Or is this just an ad-hominem attack, and therefore needs no connection to reality?

To Ec's revert: 1) I never said that it was common 2) L.Orgel "The Origin of Life on the Earth", Scientific American, October 1994, J. Rebek Jr. "Synthetic Self-Replicating Molecules", Scientific American, July 1994, C. DeDuve "Blueprint for a Cell", Neil Patterson Publishers, Burlington NC, 1990, S. Weinberg "Life in the Universe", Scientific American, October 1994, and C. Folsom, "Life: Origin and Evolution" Scientific American Special Publication 1979 all speak of the incredible difficulty of abiogenesis.

Dan Watts 7 July 2005 16:26 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks seem to be a normality on wikipedia, especially during the C/E debates therein. Such attacks are blatant attempts for disparaging any challenges to arguments against, for example - abiogenesis. Salva 16:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe the statement on flat-earters can be an ad hominem attack. Indeed, I find it hard to believe that there are any flat-earthers who are not creationists. I find Salva's comment, suggesting that his opponents regularly resort to this type of attack, a little hypocritical.

Secondly, I reverted because there is no 'standard' account of the origin of life. If anything, the scientific account with which they find fault, is scientific. And yes, you did suggest it was common, Dan Watts, by using the word standard to refer to it. -- Ec5618 18:14, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

The evidence backs your interpretation. I was also at fault in not reading the statement in the origin of life article: 'There is no truly "standard" model'. Mea culpa. Dan Watts 03:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Looking at this link [5], (the only active site that I have found) it appears to be a spoof site. Is there any active Flat Earth group? Dan Watts 18:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The last president of the real society died a few years back and there isn't a clear successor. However, that doesn't mean that the group is done and they have historically been a backwater oddity of creationism. See Flat Earth society Joshuaschroeder 22:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

It surely doesn't mean that the group is thriving either, and that what had been a theory with a recognized group of proponents still exists. Dan Watts 01:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

If you think the article as it now stands indicates that there is a thriving group, I think no one would object to you indicating that this is probably not the case. Joshuaschroeder 11:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Where is the solid evidence that the Miller-Urey experiment is even possibly a representational simplification of what may have happened viz the origin-of-life? Ec5618 states that Science works by formulating theories based on solid evidence. Even supporters of that experiment agree that "the ... composition of the prebiotic atmosphere of earth is ... controversial" and that "Other less reducing gases produce a lower yield and variety". Brooks, J. and Shaw, G., 1973. (Origins and Development of Living Systems. Academic Press, London and New York, p. 359.) state concerning the Miller-Urey experiment: "If there ever was a primitive soup, then we [should] find ... either massive sediments ... of the various nitrogenous organic compounds ... or ... vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes. In fact [none] have been found ...." Yet, this is given as a scientific account of the origin of life. This seems inconsistent with Ec's position on the workings of science. Is Ec wrong? Does science "work" in a less foundationally-stable environment than is admitted on some issues? Dan Watts 15:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I have never stated that the abiogenic origins of life are scientific fact. And I never stated that the hypotheses by which scientists are trying to explain the (abiogenic) origins of life are complete. However, at one point, scientists didn't know that organic molecules could be generated by manipulating inorganic molecules. That was the value of the Miller-Urey experiment. It showed to scientists, and the public at large, that something they had never though possible, was in fact possible.

No-one is arguing that life was started in that exact way. But it showed us that organic molecules could form in a lifeless world. For the first time, life didn't require a supernatural origin. -- Ec5618 16:36, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

So, do you agree that "scientific account" may connotate a more workable hypothesis than is the case for the origins of life? (Didn't Wohler's paper in 1828 on synthesis of urea show something concerning organic molecules?) Dan Watts 17:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. What do you mean by "scientific account"? "..than is the case for the origins of life?" I'm sorry? -- Ec5618 18:34, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I wrote as if you had written the last sentence of the last paragraph of the Introduction section of the article; the one which starts:

"Some creationists may also dispute scientific accounts of the origin of life ...."

I wrote as I did since one of your edit summaries stated "Science works ... by formulating theories ... based on solid evidence" and I did not see such solid evidence in the discussion of the origin of life. I dod not check to see which peerless author had added those words and was juxtaposing your edit summary against what I see as an overzealously worded statement concerning the Miller-Urey experiment. (Wohler's paper on the synthesis of urea appears to preceed the Miller_Urey experiment.) Forgive me for attacking someone with a message which (to me) resonated dissonantly with the article. Dan Watts 01:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I see your point. As you know, there are some disagreements on what science is. According to the article of science:

"There are different theories of what science is.

According to empiricism, scientific theories are objective, empirically testable, and predictive — they predict empirical results that can be checked and possibly contradicted.

In contrast, scientific realism defines science in terms of ontology: science attempts to identify phenomena and entities in the environment, their causal powers, the mechanisms through which they exercise those powers, and the sources of those powers in terms of the thing's structure or internal nature."

However, these definitions would still seem to exclude a number of fields of science, as they are not strictly testable or reproducible. Archeology and all the paleo-ologies come to mind, and perhaps the social and behavioural sciences as well. These fields are still based on science, though, and are still considered scientific for some reason.

The only reason I can imagine for that, is that all these fields still try to explain the evidence they find through natural means. Creation science/creationism posits a supernatural explanation and an 'a priori' explanation. That must be the greatest problem people have with creationism.

That having been said, "Some creationists may also dispute scientific accounts.." may not be the right wording. Perhaps we should distinguish between science and scientific. -- Ec5618 10:27, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hi-ho, wikinewbie and nonscientist here, venturing my 0.02. Re. Ec5618's musings directly above (ie. what is or is not "scientific", or "testable"). My understanding is that fields such as archeology are in fact "testable", at least indirectly, in that they generate hypotheses susceptible to falsification, or contradiction, or the parsimonious rigours of Occam's Razor (itself inherently untestable). For instance, if my hypothesis is that stone tool manufacture preceded bronze, and then I find the gilded remains of chain-armoured australopithicenes, I must modify or discard my theory. If however my hypothesis is immune from criticism on the basis of observation, testing and falsifiability, then it is not a "scientific" theory (ie. God did it, and whatever "evidence" appears to contradict this fact is itself the unknowable work of said inscrutable God). I understand this to be a broadly accepted convention, and not a partisan POV, but again I am not myself a scientist.

As for the speculation as to "scientific" relating only to "natural" explanations, this seems to me to be a tautology. By this I mean to say that "natural" is implicitly contrasted to "supernatural". Natural explanations assume predictable behaviours which are reproducible and can be expressed as logical rules. Supernatural explanations are the opposite, invoking the unknowable will of a sentient creator/ intervenor (ie. God). In my opinion, a theory of God which described a deity acting predictably in accord with comprehensible "rules" (and where no simpler explanation would equally suffice) would in fact be a scientific theory. I may however be in error. ::Snickersnee 02:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Generally limited

I assume that it's been discussed before, but where? Where does the introduction come from?

While the belief may be interpreted "literally" (i.e. in physical terms), religious discussion is generally limited to a spiritual meaning.

By whom is it limited, and why do their views merit the virtual honorific of "generally"? Why does an approach that essentially evades the controversy subsequently described end up in the introduction? Please pardon my lack of familiarity with the process by which the page came to its present state. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Please comment. I want to remove the second half of the introductory paragraph, but cannot find where it came from. As far back as May, the introduction read

Creationism or creation theology may refer to all or to a particular cultural origin belief; typically stressing the importance and holiness of a spiritual explanation over a strictly empirical one.

Where does this idea come from, that creation is regarded as somehow limited to "spiritual meaning"? What does the word "strictly" mean here, as in "strictly empirical"? To whom does this language make sense? May I have an explanation of what it means? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I support an edit of the introduction which does stand now as very confusing and not exactly descriptive of creationism in general. What should be in the introduction is a definition of creationism, a disambig between creation theology and creation science (this page is about the former), and a discussion of criticisms against it. Neutral, straightforward, adn to the point. Edit away. Joshuaschroeder 12:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Geocentrism

.To be fair some evolutionist have held to same geocentrism and flat earth idea and some of each group have contended that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax.

Now this is interesting. Which evolutionists have held to geocentrism? -- Temtem 00:19, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I too wish to know about these people as it has a direct effect on modern geocentrism. Joshuaschroeder 05:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course SOME scientists hold geocentrism. I'm sure some scientist out there have visions of pink unicorns. Within any community of a certain size there is bound to be SOME people who does and believes the weirdest things. What does that prove? That pink unicorn theory has some validity? Unless it is a substantial part of the scientific community it is not worth mentioning. Should we point out in Catholicism that quite a few priests are pedophiles "just to be fair" when describing religious beliefs?

Fact v. Theory of evolution

This is mainly intended for user Joshuaschroeder to respond to, but if anyone else can shed some light, much appreciated. A little background on me, first...this was my first major edit to the wikipedia, so I'm looking for help to figure out why my edit was completely removed.

So: why was my edit completely removed? It seems the reason provided in the edit comment is "fact v. theory distinction meaningless in terms of science". I don't understand this...theories and facts are distinct from each other in science and scientific discourse. In short, a fact is an observable event, a theory is a prediction model built on such observable events. Far from meaningless, this is a distinction that is fundamental in science.

Where did I go wrong in my edit? sever

Hi. I edited your addition before it was completely removed, and I too was surprised by the revert. It's true, your addition contained several flaws, which I tried to set straight, but the edit was not without merit.

The difference between fact and theory does exist in science. Gravity is an observable fact, but no complete Theory of Gravity exists to explain where the attraction between objects comes from. Similarly, evolution is an observable fact, but the Theory of Evolution, which tries to fully describe the mechanism of genetic change still eludes us.

You must realise of course that this article is quite controversial somehow. -- Ec5618 23:41, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose in retrospect perhaps a newbie such as myself should not have thrown in to a fairly controversial topic. On the other hand, I thought I had something real to contribute and the instructions said "be bold". So the real question is, where to go from here? I really need Joshuaschroeder to weigh in on this directly so I can find out what his issue is (I don't want my first contribution to result in an edit war). If it's a content issue, perhaps I can address it. If it didn't follow some rule like NPOV I'll honestly need that pointed out to me. But at this point the only thing that makes sense to me is to put it back, which will of course simply result in another reversion. sever

If you are interested in talking about "Fact vs. Theory", you should go over to Creation-evolution controversy where it is discussed in appropriate context. Here it is simply confusing. All we are describing here is the philosophy of creationism, not the whimsical musings of certain participants in the Great Debate. Joshuaschroeder 03:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

As a somewhat disinterested outsider, I'll throw in my two cents: You run the risk of descending into the sticky goo of semantic, rather than important, distinctions. Put another way, words are slippery, and trying to pin them down with mathematical precision can let the argument run away from enhancement of understanding and communicating knowledge.

AFAIK, a "fact" in science, or in law or politics even, is not the exact same as an "absolute truth." In other words, facts come with qualifications, context, limitations. "The chemical composition of salt is NACL (a molecule made of one atom of soldium and one of chlorine)" is a fact. You can use this fact to develop chemical processes; it works for scientific purposes. But you can also argue its facuality by going beyond the context -- chemistry and biology -- in which it is important. There are other things called "salt" that are not NACL. So "salt" is not only NACL one may argue. Or, "How do we know that there is not more to salt than NACL, which we just haven't seen or discovered yet?" There are always ways to dispute facts because we have to express them with language, we have to agree on terms, and we know the transitive nature of knowledge and understanding. You can always dispute even simple facts by showing there is a more nuanced way of describing the actuality that the factual statement. "Proving" that salt is NACL, and that this is a fact, is not trivial either; it requires acceptance of scientific methods, of chemical analysis, and would likely involve sophisticated technology which a skeptic (or non-technical person) may distrust.

It's a long-winded way of saying, try not to focus on attacking the "fact" by supposing that any "but..." statement you can attach to it reduces it to something less than facthood. Facts are, in a way, shortcuts or components of broader truths. They have practical purposes. Without full context, acceptance of assumptions, and agreement on their utility, they can be disputed. It makes them no less factual in the sphere in which they are used as facts.

So, fact vs. theory in science. Scientists may, in fact, accept and use a theory as a fact. Could the factuality not change? Are there not nuances to the factualness? Yes, yes. Still, a statment like "there is no difference in this case between fact and theory" is logical, and truthful in its application. There is no fundamental disconnect or illogic of the "theory of evolution" being accepted as a "scientific fact," and little point in attacking that statement based on the meaning of theory, fact, science, knowledge, and so on.

BTW, welcome and good luck with your experiences here! DavidH 21:27, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hm. Down the rabbit hole we go, eh? :-)

I'm not trying to stir up a pot of trouble, so I'm keeping it confined to the talk page. But here's the thing--the philosophy of science on which the scientific method depends, from which it was derived, even--recognizes the distinction a model and an empirically observable event. Semantics be damned, my point doesn't change if I dispense with the words "fact" and "theory" altogether. There is a great divide between models used to predict and empirical observations of events that predict nothing in and of themselves--all of science depends on this distinction. To hand wave around this and simply say, "Well, words are squishy things, this is a semantic debate," misses my point entirely.

Understanding the difference between fact and theory is central to being scientifically literate. Knowing which is which is fundamental to executing the scientific method. Theories can generate hypotheses and allow us to draw conclusions, but they have no place whatsoever in the observations section of an experimental write-up. There is no such thing as a theory that is directly observable, reproducible, and repeatable...theories are only testable. Scientific facts are observations of empirical evidence which are reproducible and repeatable, the purpose of which is to encapsulate the context in which the facts were observed. Only with a specific procedure that reliably reproduces and repeats an observation of empirical evidence can a thing be labelled a "scientific fact"--I think this addresses your concern about context.

Your analogy about salt misses the point, I feel, because that actually is a purely semantic example. It's easy to see this if we consider two people that disagree about what to call NaI. One might say, "This is salt, and I'm going to prove it by putting it under a microscope and doing a chemical analysis, etc, and if I find that it is NaI then I'm right and it's salt." But the other could disagree that NaI ought to be called salt, so proving that the substance is NaI does nothing to convince person 2 that it is salt. So the argument between these two is not about the nature of the thing itself, about how NaI behaves differently from NaCl or has different properties--that NaI and NaCl are different compounds and have different properties is already understood by both parties. They are merely arguing over whether to call it "salt".

I, on the other hand, am arguing about the nature of the thing itself--I'm arguing that whatever you care to label "repeatably and reproducibly observable event," it is fundamentally different and contributes to the process of doing science in a completely different way than a "model that generates predictions".

To say the distiction between these two things is meaningless says to me that they are interchangeable, which implies a scientific fact and a scientific theory are somehow similar. Far from being similar, fact and theory are in direct opposition! This is obvious when one considers the purpose of performing experiments: experiments are not done in order to collect facts that accord with a theory, though this is often what happens; experiments are attempts to refute a theory by trying to collect facts that show the flaws inherent in the theory. No good scientist designs experiments aimed at supporting a theory; every worthwhile experiment aims to undermine and disprove the hypothesis generated or informed by a theory under test.

A theory can never be elevated to the level of fact in terms of certainty. There are several dramatic examples in the history of science where a small set of facts upset a well-"known" and well-established theory, accepted for hundreds of years. The two slit experiment resulted in facts that conflicted with Newton's theories of physics, and science dictated that these relatively few facts would trump the hundreds of years of research that supported Newton's models.

So you can see why I'm boggled by the statement that "fact vs. theory is not relevant to science". One could make a strong case that the difference between fact and theory is the foundation of science. I feel I must point out that, if I am to accept Joshuaschroeder's statement at face value, then the science entry needs a serious rewrite. It spends a great deal of time discussing the difference between fact and theory.

I'm starting to sense a reversion is in order...if I don't hear from someone on this discussion page that disagrees in the next few days... sever 08:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

You make good points, I did use semantic examples, maybe followed the White Rabbit too far. I guess it boils down to, can we make an assertion that, in this case, scientists accept the theory as fact. They no longer are testing to prove or disprove it; they use it in their "equations" as a factual construct, they are convinced it is a theory that has been proven to describe (f)actuality. Yes, of course there is a big distinction between theory and fact in science, but does that mean the processes described in a particular theory can't become accepted as, essentially, a fact -- a usable truth?

Because so much of the arguments with natural selection-evolution are along the (simplistically semantic) lines of "but it's just a 'theory'," there needs to be some indication that scientists in the relevant fields have stopped theorizing about it and moved on to taking it as fact. Hope I put that in a positive way for this discussion, and thanks for your work on this. (BTW, I do work as a field botanist, am not at all expert on evolutionary biology, it would be great to hear from some on how far off track I may be on this, and what the language used sounds like to them.) DavidH 19:16, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

It seems our discussion has become moot--Dpr has stepped in and submitted a far superior rewrite to my own that expresses the sentiment closely enough for me. Even so, I feel like I'd be leaving you hanging if I didn't respond. :-)

"...can we make an assertion that, in this case, scientists accept the theory as fact[?]"

Absolutely not. Science never accepts theory as fact. A theory is simply a made-up model--a very useful made-up model that allows for all kinds of useful predictions--but it's a model that, at best, approximates reality. To assert that a theory is a fact is to say that it no longer approximates reality, but has become reality. This cannot be true unless the theory itself is somehow empirically proven (I'm sure there must be an example of this happening at some point in history).

Let me give an example: gravity. Newton's law of gravity is part of Newton's gravitational theory, and it describes how objects behave with respect to gravity very well. It allows us to predict that, if I drop a ball close to the Earth's surface, absent wind resistance the ball will fall at a particular constant rate of acceleration. We are speaking about the model that allows us to make such predictions when we talk about Newton's Theory of Gravity. To talk about the fact of gravity, we must only speak about observations of repeatable, reproducible, empirical evidence. Empirical means that it must be derived from experience; so, that means it must have already happened. Since it defies logic to speak about a prediction as something that has already come to pass, a theory and a fact must never be confused if the integrity of science is to be preserved. Predictions are general statements about what might happen; facts are specific statements about what did happen. Never the twain shall meet.

An important interaction of fact and theory occurs when an non-falsifying experiment is conducted. The theory allows a hypothesis to be crafted that makes a prediction. The experiment is performed and the results observed. The conclusions drawn from the experiment state whether the theory was shown to be false or not by the results and/or observations. (Note that a result that does not disprove the theory neither proves it--it could simply be that the theory has not been disproven yet). If the theory allowed for a successful prediction, then we can say that, in the same or similar circumstances, predictions by that theory in the same domain of problems will also probably be correct. No matter how many experiments confirm a the predictions of a theory, though, science never allows us to say that the theory has been proven, or that we know for certain that the result will always be the that predicted by the theory.

This is precisely why, after observing for hundreds of years that Newton's theory of gravitation worked, all it took was a single observation that didn't agree with that theory to cause us to look for something better. According to Newton, gravity does not affect the path of light--which it does. According to Newton, Mercury ought to rotate about its axis and revolve about the sun in a particular way--which it does not. Had we ever accepted Newton's theory of gravitation as fact, we would have facts in conflict when these newer facts were discovered, and how does one choose which to believe between two true facts?

Many with whom I've discussed this find it a counter-intuitive way of looking at scientific theory. But if you take the whole view of my statements, it will make a lot more sense. For instance, one might develop a theory that undetectable elves are responsible for the mutually attractive behavior of objects: they simply move objects around in such a way from another undetectable dimension such that it appears to us there's this thing called gravity. You might say, "I don't see the difference between a ridiculous 'theory' like this and Newton's theory of gravitation if what you are saying is true--we are never to take the model as if it could actually be reality, so as long as the model explains the behavior, it doesn't matter how far-fetched it is."

You might be surprised by my response: Yes, exactly! Provided the undetectable elves theory meets all of the other criteria of a theory, the fact that it does not provide for a believable reality is not troubling at all to me or to science, because science places no such requirement on theories that they ought to strive for facthood. Again, it's the opposite; science specifically forbids theories from ever attaining facthood, unless and until they are somehow able to meet all of the requirements of facthood quite independent of ever having been a theory.

Are undetectable elves any more unbelievable than the idea of an electron which can exist in two discontiguous spaces simultaneously? No, maybe not, but science does not consider undetectable elves a good theory for another reason entirely: the undetectable elves theory does not provide any ability whatsoever to predict. It ascribes the behavior of objects to complex beings that we cannot observe, and therefore not only know nothing about, but beings that are fundamentally unknowable. And now we come full circle to the point I was trying to make in the article with my addition. Even those who believe Creationism is a scientific theory concede that such a theory is based on the actions of a fundamentally unknowable being. It is for this reason that science rejects Creationism as a theory to be taught alongside evolution theory in science classes. Teaching Creationism in science classes makes as much sense as teaching evolution theory in religion classes, or teaching the undetectable elves theory in either.

"...but does that mean the processes described in a particular theory can't become accepted as, essentially, a fact -- a usable truth?"

I'm not sure what you mean by "the processes described in a particular theory". If you're talking about specific processes that can be observed directly and meet the requirements for facthood, then they stand as facts independent of whatever theory that happens to use them. Even if no theories existed at all that thing would be a fact. If you're talking about those parts of the theoretical model that do not meet the requirements of facthood, then that does mean they can not become accepted as scientific fact. They must not ever become accepted as fact unless they indepedently meet the requirements of facthood somehow.

A theory is essentially an analogy. I might say, "People are like bananas, in that both have a skin on the outside." Clearly, if we stay in the proper domain of application, this analogy allows us to create knowledge from one area we already know about (bananas) to another which we don't (people). So based on this analogy, you might ask yourself, "Well, do people have skin? If I'm to believe this analogy, then yes, since a banana does. Is a person's skin on the outside? Yes, since a banana's is." If you start applying the analogy to questions outside its (admittedly limited) domain, you'll be off in the weeds: "Is a person's skin bright yellow? It must be, since a banana's is." A theory is no different--it is at its core a complicated kind of analogy. But would it ever make sense to state that an analogy is a fact? It's instructive to consider what this would mean, were we to do this, in the case of the silly analogy: we would accept the "fact" that "people are like bananas". It's also instructive to deconstruct this silly analogy down to the fact level...as it turns out, this analogy expresses no facts at all. A fact would be something like, "Bob is a person and has skin on the outside," or "This banana I'm holding has a skin on the outside." It would be erroneous to say that either of the following statements are facts, though: "All people have skin on the outside," and, "Bananas have skin on the outside." These cannot be facts unless every single person and every banana has been observed to have skin on the outside, and each new person and banana brought into the world are observed as well. This is why it is very unusual to see scientific research claim as fact any kind of generalization; it is not at all unusual to see scientific research state specific, observed events or occurrences as fact. So we need not accept a theory as a "usable truth" for it to be useful--it's simply enough to accept it as a "usable theory". :-)

This is the big misunderstanding of creationists that attack evolution as being "just a theory". If they're talking about the facts of evolution--specific occurrences of it that have been observed (again, I refer to the repeatable, reproducible experiment that anyone can run...equipment required: Petri dish, bacterial culture, few drops of the right toxin)--then they're wrong in the sense that they are not talking about something that's "just a theory" at all. They're talking about a fact, not a theory, and therefore it doesn't even make sense to dismiss it as "just a theory".

If they're talking about the theory of evolution, often called Darwinism, then they are perfectly correct. It is indeed "just a theory". The mistake in this case is not in calling a theory a theory, for that's exactly what it is. The mistake is in the "just" part of that "just a theory" statement. That is, placing a negative value judgment on it because it is a theory. The argument against this is certainly not to argue that we change the way we do science by elevating a theory to fact; it is instead to point out that everything in science that claims the ability to predict is "just a theory".

They might as well argue against the fact of evolution by denouncing it "just a fact". sever 08:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Not 3RR

What appears to be my breaking of the 3RR is just the result of Wikipedia screwing up. It took forever to revert once, and kept giving me errors. It appears the same was happening for the anon. -- BRIAN0918  17:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Augustine and YEC

There is a serious error on the creationism page.

I am referring to this section on the creationism page

"Plea to reject nonsense

In his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim), Saint Augustine (354-430), embarrassed by Christians who would not accept this implication of the Doctrine of Creation, wrote against them. This translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, [..] and this knowledge he holds as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?" [1 Timothy 1.7]"

The problem with using Augustine to reject young earth creationism is that Augustine was a young earth creationist.

I cite the following:

"In his later and greatest work, The City of God, Augustine wrote, "the Scripture . . . has paramount authority . . . to which we yield assent in all matters . . . That God made the world, we can believe from no one more safely than God Himself."3 Regarding the age of the earth, he wrote in The City of God, "Reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have past."4

However, particularly in his earlier commentary, Augustine's interpretation of Scripture was influenced by Greek philosophy and science. Through both Neoplatonist philosophy and the "science" of spontaneous generation, Augustine saw three phases of creation: the "unchangeable forms in the Word of God," "seminal seeds" created in the instant of creation, and a later "springing forth" in the course of time.5 Frederick Copleston in his A History of Philosophy noted that these ideas were doubtless found by Augustine in the philosophy of the Neoplatonist, Plotinus, and could be traced back to Stoicism.6 The later "springing forth," of which Augustine wrote, reflected the common belief in spontaneous generation. According to W. K. C. Guthrie, "St. Augustine's version of [spontaneous generation] was that there were two kinds of seed, one implanted in animals that they might reproduce their own kinds, and the other existing in the elements and becoming active under certain conditions."7

How did these secular beliefs affect Augustine's view of the six creation days? In the words of Louis Berkhof, Augustine "was evidently inclined to think God created all things in a moment of time, and that the thought of days was simply introduced to aid the finite intelligence."8 Looking at Augustine's own words, taken from his Genesis commentary, we read, "In this narrative of creation Holy Scripture has said of the Creator that He completed His works in six days, and elsewhere, without contradicting this, it has been written of the same Creator that He created all things together . . . Why then was there any need for six distinct days to be set forth in the narrative one after the other? The reason is that those who cannot understand the meaning of the text, He created all things together, cannot understand the meaning of the Scripture unless the narrative proceeds slowly step by step . . . For this Scripture text that narrates the works of God according to the days mentioned above, and that Scripture text that says God created all things together, are both true."9

5 Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Ancient Christian Writers 41-42, tr. and annotated by John Hammond Taylor, New York: Newman Press, 1982, 5.12.28. 6 Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy, London: Search, 1950, 2.76. 7 W. K. C. Guthrie, In the Beginning, 41. 8 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977(1938), 127. 9 Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 4.33-34, 52-53.

taken from: http://capo.org/cpc/lavallee.htm

Here is another resource which confirms what I am saying:

The Early Church & the Age of the Earth http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm#

I think the problem here is there are a lot of non-YECs contributors who do not really understand the YEC position and have not studied it sufficiently.

I suggest the Augustine material be added to and it should be stated that Augustine was a young earth creationist.

kdbuffalo 7/22/05

Why not just delete the Augustine material, as it's not really relevant. RossNixon 01:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "who would not accept this implication of the Doctrine of Creation" sounds odd and, depending on what its referring to, may be in error, but I think this quote is useful in the context of a literal vs a figurative Genesis. I've also seen this quote before several times, so I think it may be notable enough to include. Just change the above phrase to something more appropriate, maybe? TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 02:07, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

---

Here is some proposed text for use in a science textbook under "Creationism" or "Intelligent Design". It likely needs simplification for lower-grades, but can serve as a template for the grade-level rewording experts.

Some believe that life was entirely or partially created by an intelligent "designer" rather than through incremental processes of nature, such as Natural Selection. However, direct methods to test this theory have remained elusive. Some have suggested that certain complex, multi-part processes in biochemistry could not have arisen incrementally, as natural selection usually requires, but rather would have to be formed as a full-functioning unit in order to function.

For example, a mouse-trap will not work if any of the components are missing, and thus just takes up space. Natural Selection tends to get rid of unnecessary structures over time because forming and carrying them consume precious energy. Thus, "almost working" structures are unlikely to stay around long.

However, just because no person has yet to think of a possible working incremental combination does not necessarily mean that no possible natural, incrementally-derived combination is possible. Thus, one cannot tell for sure whether the difficult problems can only be accounted for by interference or construction from an intelligent creator, or whether a natural sequence exists, but has yet to be discovered.

Previous combinations considered by some too complex to have incremental solutions have since had plausible incremental solutions put forth. Natural selection has a known pattern of adapting existing complex components for new uses. This "cross borrowing" results in less need to have to form complex structures from scratch. Our ear bones can be traced back to non-hearing-related uses, for example. However, the fossil record may not necessarily record all prior contributor mechanisms to a given mechanism. This can make it difficult to trace the history of complex processes.

Opponents of Intelligent Design often feel that proponents are biased by their religious beliefs and that the unsolved "gaps" are not large or serious enough to make Intelligent Design a serious contender to Natural Selection so far. Proponents of Natural Selection suggest it is unrealistic to expect a complete, detailed history of every known biological process, especially those not preserved well in fossils, such as biochemistry.

another entry

When Creationism is called "pseudoscience" in the article I think this makes Wikipedia look bad. You don't see Britannica and other encyclopedias using this tone which looks unprofessional and immature. I think it should be changed.

7/24/05 kdbuffalo

• See the long discussion on the talk page of Creation science. Britannica is too PC to state facts or post objectionable material. -- BRIAN0918  19:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

TO: Brian

Britannica is neutral. That is the official policy of wikipedia. Creationism should not be an exception.

7/24/05 kdbuffalo

• It's Creation Science that is described as a pseudoscience, and that's a simple fact, the expression of which does not violate Wikipedia policy. jamesgibbon 23:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

evolutionary creationism

Those "Christians" who believe in "evolutionary creationism" are not Christians at all! They're just nimcampoops! If that's not neutral, sorry, but that's my opinion. Scorpionman 02:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Brilliant! -- BRIAN0918  02:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I always cringe when I hear things like this. Some people's definition of Christian seems to be only their own particular beliefs. That is one slippry, arrogant slope that you are on. For example, while I was hanging out with some evangelical baptists so I could understand them, I once heard one of the tolerant ones say, "I think some Catholics are Christians too." --Ignignot 13:54, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I believe the tolerant one may be correct. Dan Watts 13:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Calling creationism "pseudoscience" and atheism

Giant statement moved for readability --ken 22:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I usually don't post anything in this page because it tends to develop into a long debate over points discussed a thousand times before... but this is not only too much, it is also inappropriate. This is a long tirade against atheism that has nothing to do with creationism except through your own subjective rationalization. Why don't you simply create an article about the alleged decline of atheism and paste the above there?

Creationism is a belief, not a science. Creation science is creationist belief that tries to pass as science, but resorts to unscientific methods; that's why it is considered pseudoscience. I'm not a liberal theist so I can't comment much on your hypothesis; I will only say that I too believe that evolutionary theists are mostly deluding themselves, yet it's not PC to say so.

Speaking of atheistic countries, please try to get the real substance, not the stats. In the past, Communist countries suppressed some types of religions, but let others be, and regulated others. Most Chinese people practice religion in a way or another, though not an Abrahamic monotheistic religion, and did so even under Communist rule. In Russia many people practised Orthodox Christianity normally (mainly because the Orthodox compromised with the government). Nowadays Russia and large parts of Asia are in a state of religious flux, full of cults, sects, New Age movements and the like; conservative Christianity is one of many competitors. In Latin America evangelical Christians have made progress by seducing Catholic disillusioned with their church. The thing is therefore much more complicated than mere "explosive growth". And above all, it has absolutely nothing to do with creationism - except by the fact that creationism offers a simple account of the origin of all things ("everything was created - by God - for you"), and is therefore appealing and reassuring for people who live in complex times like today.

--Pablo D. Flores 14:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

This section seems to attempt to support the "scientific-ness" of creationism on the grounds that a lot of people believe in it, with more claiming such belief all the time. To this, I ask, so what? Many (maybe most) people believe that airplanes fly because of the "wind beneath their wings" - that (poetry aside) the air passing under the wing "pushes" the plane aloft. In fact, it's the airflow over the wing that "sucks" it upward.

There are two key points here. First, the fact that many believe it - and more do each day, simply due to population growth - doesn't make it any more true. Second these people aren't scientists. It's not the general public that decides scientific truth. It's the scientific community. The creationists simply don't have standing to "vote" on the issue. Bring in a real, testable, theory. Show us, with experimental evidence, that creationism is a more useful scientific paradigm than evolution, and then you get space in the science textbooks.

Earlier on the page, someone had some proposed text for a section in a grade-school science textbook that mentioned so called "Intelligent Design". The text began...

Some believe that life was entirely or partially created by an intelligent "designer" rather than through incremental processes of nature, such as Natural Selection. However, direct methods to test this theory have remained elusive. Some have suggested that certain complex, multi-part processes in biochemistry could not have arisen incrementally, as natural selection usually requires, but rather would have to be formed as a full-functioning unit in order to function.

What I'd suggest is the following:

Some believe that life was entirely or partially created by an intelligent "designer", rather than through incremental processes of nature, such as Natural Selection, but these people aren't scientists, and this is a science textbook, so their opinions are completely irrelevant.

Sorry about the rant, but these fools get my goat.

--Anonymous

External links

I reformatted the external links to try to get rid of all the fluff that has accumulated there. Basically, unless a website is the leading proponent of its particular viewpoint, then it should go in the ELs of the subpage on that viewpoint. (Its not as if the web has too few creationist websites!). That way it gets a less cluttered. Now, I've probably missed some blindingly obvious important ones out but hopefully linking to the talk.origins-maintained list of websites, that should cover that. The other type of link are of the reference-style link, such as the Stamford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, and they've gone at the top.

The old mess is archived at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&oldid=19733475 Dunc|☺ 11:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

kdbuffalo statement

WHY SOME PEOPLE ARE SO INSISTENT ON BRANDING CREATIONISM PSEUDOSCIENCE AND CANNOT SHOW ME OTHER ENCYCLOPEDIAS THAT DO

Now I think the reason for this unencyclopedic tone (and so far nobody has shown me a encyclopedia that uses the word pseudoscience in regards to creationism) displayed by some and why some people are so rabid in their denunciations is they are unconfident about the evolutionary position and their atheism.

Sartre, the most famous professed atheist of the 20th century said he often had the thought that he was the result of a Creator. Sartre is reported saying in the February 1984 edition of Harper's magazine:

"As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for wont of being able to think otherwise." (quoted from: http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/apologetics/AP0702W4.htm ).

Francis Crick who is well known for being a advocate of materialism is perhaps another example.

I cite:

"Crick is also a fervent atheistic materialist, who propounds the particle story. In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through." (quoted from:Evolution and the Christian Faith by Phillip Johnson ).

(The citation above is referring to Francis Crick's book "What Mad Pursuit", p. 138 ).

Perhaps these are notable examples because if this is what goes on the most vocal proponents of atheism minds, it certainly raises questions in regards to the category of individuals who are less ardent advocates of atheism.

LIBERAL CHRISTIANITY IS NOT MEETING PEOPLES NEEDS OFTEN

Also, when one reads studies or reads books about liberal/conservative Christianity one quickly becomes aware that liberal churches are losing members and conservative churches are gaining members which will be shown subsequently. Perhaps, some people are upset about this matter and thus want to brand creationism as pseudoscience.

A LOOK AT HOW ATHEISM IS LOSING GROUND ON THE WORLD STAGE

Christianity is growing in former atheistic strongholds like the former Soviet Union and China.

Currently Christianity is growing very quickly in China. According to Christianity Today conservatively there are currently about 70 million Christians in China out of 1.3 billion Chinese (see: http://www.christiantoday.com/news/asip/96.htm ).

According to David Aikman, former Time magazine Beijing Bureau chief, President Jiang Zemen has identified Christianity as the secret of the West’s success, and he wants to bring such success to the Chinese people (see: http://www.christiantoday.com/news/asip/96.htm )

Mr. Aikman predicts as much as a 1/3 of the Chinese will convert to Christianity within the next generation ( http://www.christiantoday.com/news/asip/96.htm See The Future Christianity Growth In China . And course, the transformation of China into being a more Christian country may effect other nations in Asia and thus convert more professed atheist.

The world is obviously a far smaller place now and it seems as if the areas of the world that atheism has its greatest strength are in decline. For example, economics and political commentator Robert J. Samuelson wrote a very compelling article called "The End of Europe" where he argues that European influence in the world will decline (see: The End of Europe by Robert J. Samuelson at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401340.html ). In a increasingly global community of course, this is not good news for European atheism having a greater affect on the rest of the world. In fact, one could argue that this means atheism will have a lesser role to play in the world. In addition, conservative Christianity which is certainly evangelistic and asserting itself in the world public intellectual arena is growing in the USA and in the world especially in the non-West like in Asia and in Africa (For the growth of conservative Christianity in the US see the book "Exodus: Why Americans are Fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative Christianity" by Dave Shiflett). Why is this important in relation to atheism? Generally speaking liberal theologians are more likely to embrace ideas which materialist embrace like macroevolutionary ideas. If Christians become more conservative theologically, this of course means that less Christians are likely to support ideas which materialist embrace in the public square if current trends continue. This could portend atheism having a lesser influence but such things are difficult to predict.

The growth of conservatism in religion perhaps means that atheism will likely have lesser influence in these areas and on the world stage. In fact, Penn State professor Philip Jenkins author of the Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity has pointed out that Christians living in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia are far more conservative theologically than Christians who live in the West so one would expect they would likely be less likely to adopt or embrace ideas that materialist/atheist embrace like macroevolutionary ideas ( see: http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/BibleStudyAndTheology/Perspectives/colson020722.asp ). Of course, in a world community this is important especially since areas like Asia are having more and more influence.

Of course, it is hard to predict how all of the above will play out in regards to atheism on the world stage. However, it would be very difficult to say that atheism of a materialist bent's future looks bright in regards to having a greater influence. In fact, it seems to be on the decline. What will likely replace it in our lifetime time will tell.

CREATIONISM IS GROWING IN THE WORLD

I cite the following from PBS:

c. 1980-1990: Global Spread of Creationism (Evolution Challenged)

Creationism spreads worldwide. A movement born in the U.S. -- and for many years exclusively American -- now has converts around the globe. Australia is a particular stronghold; one of the three largest centers for creation research lies in Queensland. And leaders of the creationist movement claim that five percent of the Australian population now believe that Earth is thousands, rather than billions, of years old. The movement also gains ground in New Zealand, Korea, Russia, and even among Muslims in Turkey and the Middle East.

TAKEN FROM: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/revolution/1980.html

One can see that creationism is growing in Australia:

More than a quarter of Australians believe the Bible offers a more likely explanation of the origins of life than evolution, an opinion poll says.

More people - 43 per cent compared with 28 per cent - preferred science to religion, another 12 per cent were inclined towards a combination of both, while 17 per cent were undecided whether the earth was made in six days or billions of years.

The poll, by UMR research for Hawker Britton, found that women, older people, Liberal voters and Queenslanders were less inclined to believe in evolution. People from NSW, people living in the inner cities and those earning over $80,000 preferred evolution as an explanation of how we got here …

taken from: http://badanalysis.com/catallaxy/?p=352

IN THE NON-WESTERN WORLD CREATIONISM/EVANGELICISM/FUNDAMENTALISM/THEOLOGICALLY CONSERVATIVE CHURCHES ARE OFTEN EXPLODING

As Penn State professor Philip Jenkins writes in The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity, predictions like Huntington’s betray an ignorance of the explosive growth of Christianity outside of the West.

For instance, in 1900, there were approximately 10 million Christians in Africa. By 2000, there were 360 million. By 2025, conservative estimates see that number rising to 633 million. Those same estimates put the number of Christians in Latin America in 2025 at 640 million and in Asia at 460 million.....

And these changes will be more than demographic. Jenkins points out that who he calls "Southern Christians" -- those living in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia -- are far more conservative, theologically and morally, than their counterparts in the West.

taken from: http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/BibleStudyAndTheology/Perspectives/colson020722.asp

Thus creationism is growing around the world.

EXTERNAL LINKS

Decline of atheism links:

• The Twilight of Atheism, by Alister McGrath, Christianity Today, March 2005
• The rise and fall of atheism by Fred Hutchison
• Twilight of the godless by Alister McGrath
• The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism by Phillip E. Johnson
• The Godlessness that Failed by Michael Novak

FINAL NOTE

Now certainly popularity does not equal truthfulness. But perhaps athiests seeing atheism crumble around the world (and the apparent tenuousness of atheism in some of its adherents) and in the public square makes them want to brand creationism pseudosceince. Also, perhaps some liberal theological types are getting nervous due to their declining memberships and thus want to brand creationism pseudoscience— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian0918 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 4 August 2005‎ (UTC)

Bias Parrots in the writing

A newbie, just poking around, I wandered here and saw the warning of NPOV and so, perused. Right at the fore, we have this:

However the book of Job also has a dialogue between God and Job about the creation, in which God says:

"Where were you when I laid the foundations of the world?" (38:4)

Ironically, because the God of Christianity is omniscient, he should already know the answer to this question. This can be seen as a Biblical contradiction.

We almost swerve into the truth with the word dialogue. God, in response to Job's questioning of how God ran His universe, asks him,

"[Oh, and just w]here were you when I laid the foundations of the world?" (38:4)

I've taken many leaps in my day, but I can't fathom this leap of destroying God's omniscience and thereby the whole veracity of the biblical narative on mere wishful thinking.

The author hasn't even done a pedestrian reading of the text he's quoting; he's mindlessly parroting propaganda from the view with which he's most comfortable. Unseemly for the rigor desired for Wikipedia.

God may or may not exist, and the Bible true or not; this, however, is no proof.

I'm very interested in the Creation/Evolution debate. Stephen J. Gould, recently deceased, a huge anti-creationist icon, wrote about Evolution, a Theory in Trouble, an attempt to get his side to honestly investigate the weaknesses of their postitions. Just because an evolutionist can destroy the argument of a creationist doesn't validate the evolutionist's argument.

Let's keep up with Joe Friday, "Just the fact, mamam."

WikiParsons 13:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Good catch on that one. Don't know who slipped that nonsense in, but it obviously doesn't belong in the article at all. I have rewritten the section to conform to a discussion of creationism -- not a free-for-all over the attributes of the Abrahamic god. Joshuaschroeder 14:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I actually wrote the line "Ironically, because the God of Christianity is omniscient, he should already know the answer to this question. This can be seen as a Biblical contradiction.". I should point out however that I agree that this whole section deserved to be removed. I added this during a period when me and Rossnixon were both editing the article at the same time. He added the Job quote and I added the 'contradiction' line very soon after - probably less than a minute later. It was probably an immature move on my part that was designed more than anything to highlight the absurdity of his own addition, and for that I apologise. Glad to see it got removed anyway. Hope this helps at least clarify this a little bit. Aaarrrggh 12:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Bias

I just discovered this site today. The concept is awsome!! However, I wanted to see how a controversial subject such as evolution was handled considering the no Point of View guideline. I'm very disappointed by what I see. I would strongly suggest these topics be covered by individuals who are open minded to both sides.

Those would have to be people who have no clue. Bad idea. --Hob Gadling 16:53, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the "N" in "NPOV" means "neutral", not "no". NPOV means you have to write about every more or less common position (proponents, arguments, counterarguments, proof or disproof, etc.) while avoiding to endorse any. It's not the solution, but it's probably the least bad choice considering Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. --Pablo D. Flores 18:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed the biased nature of the earth article? It neglects to mention the beliefs contrary to the ones selected, not representing the beliefs of billions of people.

Religious context

Why is this paragraph in the Religous context section?:

"Creation science represents an attempt by creationists to legitimate Christian religious scriptures in scientific terms, by attempting to demonstrate compatiblity between science and their creationist worldview. Creation Science should not be confused as a real science however, as it is fundamentally unscientific from the outset. Real science works by using the scientific method to formulate theories based on solid evidence, whereas creation science begins with the required answer and attempts to interpret all evidence to fit in with this predetermined conclusion. This is fundamentally not scientific, and is why creation science is not regarded as a true science by the scientific community."

Dan Watts 13:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

because the evolutionists are scared. Ungtss 17:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Scared of what? It's not like you have any real arguments. Perhaps you could show me something in the above paragraph that is innacurate? Aaarrrggh 12:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you could show WHY it is in the RELIGOUS CONTEXT section. I am planning to move/remove it otherwise. Awaiting a reply. Dan Watts 13:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Moved to 'political context'. Perhaps not the best place for it, but it definately shouldn't be in the 'religious context' section. And it's not a bad paragraph. CS should be mentioned. -- Ec5618 13:15, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. (Sometimes I believe that reading this is just an excuse to raise my blood pressure.) Dan Watts 13:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I was just about to post here then, but was beaten by Ec & wdanwatts. I wrote the above paragraph, although it was just a re-wording of something that was already there (and that at the time promoted the idea that creation science could actually demonstrate scientific evidence for creationism. Cleary that had to go). The political section may well be a good place for it, although I don't really care all that much to be perfectly honest. The only thing I'm bothered about here is that the information presented is accurate, and that we do not let creationists like Rossnixon get away with spreading utter falsehoods like this. Aaarrrggh 13:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Not 'utter falsehoods'. You have assumed too much! By "show" I meant that they "work to show". I did not mean they have "shown". There must be a better way of wording this. RossNixon 00:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)