Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive 11

Religioustolerance.org

This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you still banned from changing BCE/CE to BC/AD? Aragorn2 11:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Not Enough Time

I think one of the allegations about evolution that creationists make is that given what we know about how evolution would work, if it were an accurate theory, there wasn't enough time for humans to evolve. Unless I'm misremembering, this is worth including, along with the scientific refutation

Not really, if we started including every tired creationist argument, this page would be ridiculously long. There is however an attempt by Mark Issak to list all the common creationist claims, which can be found here: [1]. JoshuaZ 04:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Image problems

Several images overlap with text and need to be reformatted properly.--ragesoss 05:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Which in particular? It may have something to do with the way the software talks to your browser. I'm not seeing any problems on the page. --ScienceApologist 06:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi folks, I added the piece at the end on Jimmy Carter's recent press release (). As the most trusted American I can think of, I predict that President Carter's short, articulate statement will become a most influential document in this debate. (DMC Feb 2 2006); OK then, my mistake as pointed out in the history page, Pres. Carter's release was from 2004, thanks FM for catching that (DMC Feb 5 2006); not seen much recent coverage of this statment, perhaps my prediction of influence has proven unjustified:).

List of religions and stances on evolution/creation

Bearing in mind that some religions/denominations accept evolution as viable but others don't... what do others think about adding a section/chart to this article that lists the stance different religions or denominations take on evolution? This seems like a good, relevant venue for such information, which is hard to find elsewhere.

--Careax 17:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That will be difficult since in many religions there are disagreements with the religions and denominations. For example, orthdox jews run the gamut from YEC all the way to theistic evolution. Thats probably the most extreme example, but even among southern baptists there is a lot of variation. For christian denominations which generally have clear cut doctrines(even if the individuals in the denom don't follow all of them) might be easier though. JoshuaZ 18:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheap tuxedo

According to www.washingtonpost.com,

Paleontologist Leonard Krishtalka called intelligent design "nothing more than creationism in a cheap tuxedo."

I suggest the article be modified to make it clear that design itself (not motivations) was being so characterised.Eiler7 14:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Check out Neo-creationism. I think that's what you are interested in. --ScienceApologist 22:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about that. I am suggesting a change to this article to improve accuracy. How about the following? If there are no objections, I may make this change in a few days.

any 'direct' appeal to religion, although Leonard Krishtalka, an opponent of the movement, called intelligent design "nothing more than creationism in a cheap tuxedo". Eiler7 16:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

When pressed

Why the "when pressed" caveats in the first section? It looks a bit strange to the casual reader - like the subjects haven't bothered to think about the issue. CuteWombat 19:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The intention of that prose was to invoke exactly that impression. --ScienceApologist 15:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

And in the first paragraph, "a dispute betweenreligion and science.... these two theories do not contradict each other" - what two theories? Science is an accumulation of theories, religin is a faith but surely not a theory? Please clarify. ...dave souza, talk 00:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've reworded the first paragraph as it appeared to be misusing the term theories. Jefffire 13:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"when pressed" does not look very encyclopedic. There are no references to back up this point so should it be reworded? CuteWombat 23:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Offer a suggestion. The wording was arrived at nearly a year ago when the article was going through heavy rewrites. I'm not fond of that set of prose, but the sense of the information is important to convey. --ScienceApologist 14:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

How about just take it out - the sentences will run much better without the caveats. I can probably find a reference to back up the fact that most of the scientific community back evolution hence the lack of debate. Not sure where to get a reference for the pro creation lobby however. CuteWombat 22:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It's the proving the negative problem; it's very difficult to find cites to what people don't do or say. Take it out and see if it sticks. --ScienceApologist 19:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be possible to find a quote to say repeated attempts have had to be made to get certain leading scientists in the field to comment on this issue - if such quotes exist. I'll remove the "when pressed" and see what happens. CuteWombat 17:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Other theories and beliefs

The False dichotomy section says "This automatically precludes discussions of origin beliefs other than creationism and of scientific theories other than the current understanding of the theory of evolution." So, what are these other theories and beliefs? Surely some of them are notable enough to be listed elsewhere, and wouldn't it make sense to link to that list here? 16:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

They are listed at origin beliefs. --ScienceApologist 19:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Barely any theories are there. I was also thinking of things like Macroevolution and Irreducible complexity - maybe they aren't widely accepted and don't attempt to explain the origins of life on their own, but they are relevant at least as counter-theories. (And perhaps there are some other slightly-more-mainstream theories that aren't as accepted as evolution?) 07:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Macroevolution and Irreducible complexity aren't theories in the scientific sense: at best they're hypotheses trying to support faith positions. There are plenty of competing faiths, and indeed the Creation science lot do not agree or get on with the IDers. Judge Jones is clear about the false dichotomy Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 4: whether ID is science#Page 71 of 139 "ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. (5:41 (Pennock)). This argument is not brought to this Court anew, and in fact, the same argument, termed “contrived dualism” in McLean, was employed by creationists in the 1980's to support “creation science.” The court in McLean noted the “fallacious pedagogy of the two model approach” and that “[i]n efforts to establish ‘evidence’ in support of creation science, the defendants relied upon the same false premise as the two model approach . . . all evidence which criticized evolutionary theory was proof in support of creation science.”". ...dave souza, talk 10:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

POV Second Paragraph

The second paragraph of this article Creation-Evolution Controversy states the following:

"The main opposing sides are those who espouse religious origin beliefs (such as Creationists) and those who support naturalistic or scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology."

This paragraph implies that Creationists or IDers have no scientific evidence to support their claims, only religious, but that Evolutionists rely on "naturalistic or scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology."

Wikipedia has a NPOV policy, and that paragraph clearly violates the policy by inferring/implying that Evolutionists are scientific, but IDers are non-scientific. Along with that, Wikipedia has a Verifiability policy, and that paragraph isn't verifiable. It isn't true that Creationists/IDers rely only on or espouse "religious origin beliefs" instead of "scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology." The evidence of science is the same for both sides of this debate - what differs is only how each side interprets the evidence.

I plan to change the paragraph soon so it will be NPOV. If you have any concerns about me doing so, please add to this discussion. EChronicle 01:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph is actually worded very carefully to conform to NPOV. Notice it doesn't mention anything about "evidence" but only talks about support of accounts or beliefs. This is intentional. Science is more than simply a collection of observations and evidence. It is also the formation of scientific theories which conform to those observations. As such, the scientific community promotes a narrative with respect to the subjects it investigates that can and does come into conflict with specific religious narratives which are claimed (mostly by the religious supporters) to be investigating the same phenomena. That explanation is not only verifiable, it is perfectly NPOV. What is not NPOV to claim that both creationism and science rely on the same evidence as you are planning to do. They do not. They rely on fundamentally different conceits and dismiss evidence according to criteria that are fundamentally different. --ScienceApologist 12:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

True, the paragraph doesn't mention the word "evidence", but saying that Creationists/IDers "espouse religious origin beliefs" and that Evolutionists "support naturalistic or scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology" automatically infers/implies what I said above, that "Creationists or IDers have no scientific evidence to support their claims, only religious, but that Evolutionists rely on "naturalistic or scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology." That is definitely a POV statement.

Along with that, you stated "Science is more than simply a collection of observations and evidence." I agree that it is much more than "a collection of observations and evidence." Evolution, however, isn't even that! It's not observable (neither is ID), and there is no evidence to support evolution either.

You also said that "What is not NPOV [is] to claim that both creationism and science rely on the same evidence as you are planning to do. They do not." That's an intersting statement, in that it is untrue, and unverifiable. Creationists and evolutionists all have the same evidence—the same facts. We all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same. As I said above, "what differs is only how each side interprets the evidence." EChronicle 22:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

EChronicle, I suggest you carefully read Kitzmiller v. Dover. whether ID is Science: the points that "(1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." apply equally to creationism. ...dave souza, talk 02:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Dave Souza, Michael Behe put it well: "He [Judge Jones] talks about the ground rules of science. What has a judge to do with the ground rules of science? I think he just chose sides and echoed the arguments and just made assertions about our arguments." (New York Times) EChronicle 16:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

but saying that Creationists/IDers "espouse religious origin beliefs" and that Evolutionists "support naturalistic or scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology" automatically infers/implies what I said above.... That is definitely a POV statement. --> This does not automatically imply what you were stating above. There are those that would come to that conclusion (like yourself) but there are others (like myself) who read it to mean that the fundamental conflict arises from support of different narratives. Since creationists also criticize the evolutionists narrative (vis-a-vis Naturalism (philosophy)) this statement isn't only NPOV, it doesn't even make an evaluation of perspective! --ScienceApologist 14:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This article (Creation-Evolution Controversy) should not be a debate between religion and science since many Evolutionists are religious and believe in the supernatural (PBS). Taking the position of ID does not make one religious. ID implies a designer - but the name given to the designer is not relevant to this discussion. -- EChronicle 17:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The identity of the Intelligent designer is not a subject on this page as it is part of a different, lower-level dispute regarding Intelligent design and is therefore only incidentally related to this article's contents. --ScienceApologist 18:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Through all this discussion, we are missing the main point: that the word religion should not be in the second paragraph of this article because this article should not be and is not a debate between religion and science, as I have shown through PBS. I will post my proposal soon.--EChronicle 18:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is much more than "a collection of observations and evidence." Evolution, however, isn't even that! It's not observable (neither is ID), and there is no evidence to support evolution either. --> Total bias at this point: not even worthy of discussion. Since the vast majority of biological scientists disagree with your no evidence claims and IDists also disagree with your no evidence claim, to include such a perspective in the article will require you to cite it. --ScienceApologist 14:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If evolution is true we should find innumerable fossilized ancestors and connecting forms. If evolution is true there should have been uncounted billions of transitional forms documenting the intermediate stages between some invertebrate and fishes. There are none. These facts are incompatible with evolution. On the other hand, these facts are precisely what creationists predict. The remainder of the fossil record reveals that each basic type of plant and animal appears fully formed in the fossil record.

Charles Darwin said that "Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." (In his book, "My Life and Letters") He also said that "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

Dr. Soren Lovtrup, a Swedish Evolutionist, declared that "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science." --EChronicle 22:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages are not places for debate. Neither are they a place for you to engage in grandstanding or quote mining. If you want to get educated, try searching the internet for chatrooms and messageboards devoted to debate. The fact of evolution is not up for discussion and is actually irrelevant to this page except to say that we refer to the pages about the fact of evolution. --ScienceApologist 22:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I apologize for my "no evidence for evolution" statement above. What is reasonable, though, as a standard of proof (for either Evolution or ID), is inferrence to the best explantation. Inferrence to the best explanation is what we use in life all the time. It says if we want to explain a phenomenon or event, we compare a whole range of hypotheses and infer to the one which would provide the best explanation. (That also answers Davril2020's comment at the bottom)

Second of all, you accused me above of "total bias" (when I made the statement that there's no evidence for evolution, which I already apologized for). Then why do you keep referring to the "fact of evolution"? That's "total bias".

Thirdly, you say that "Talk pages are not places for debate." The article that you referred to (not) does not make that statement. It clearly states that "Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter in an intelligent manner, and engage in polite discussion."

As far as accusing me of "quote mining" - I understand your dislike of my second quote. What about the first (and maybe even the third) quote? --EChronicle 01:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Response in turn: 1) There is no issue of "proof" here. You'll see it mentioned nowhere on the page. There is no "proof" in science, unlike mathematics or logic; 2) Evolution is a fact, but that it is a fact has no bearing on this article; 3) Talk pages are designed for discussing changes to the article. If you want to make a change, let us know, otherwise this discussion is not what the talkpage is for. 4) Quotemining has nothing to do with whether I "like" a quote or not, it is simply a tactic used by creationists and you are fitting the bill rather nicely. --ScienceApologist 18:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"Total Bias at this point: not even worthy of discussion." Look at your statement (2)... Note that I am "discussing changes to the article", as I proposed in my first post. My proposal on changing paragraph two of the article is at the end of this discussion. --EChronicle 01:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Creationists and evolutionists all have the same evidence—the same facts. We all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same. As I said above, "what differs is only how each side interprets the evidence." --> You are confusing phenomenonological evidence with summary evidence. Creationists can and do criticize certain observations made by mainstream scientists, but that's hardly the point. What they tend to criticize more is the summary evidence provided by the mainstream (in for example Evidence for evolution) and they asbolutely reject said evidence. Thus, they really do not have the same body of evidence. What you are doing is a classic creationist "plowing of the playing field". The idea is that creationists see that they cannot fight the scientific mainstream on the mainstream's terms, so they plow the playing field to make it level with their own ideas in order to prevent that from occurring. Then they declare that their new definition of "science" is the only "true" definition of "science" while comfortably rejecting the parts of science with which they disagree. Such grandstanding has no place in a Wikipedia article. --ScienceApologist 14:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

To chip in on the last point, science derives evidence and facts from falsifiable hypotheses. Many creationists (such as Kent Hovind) argue that something is only factual if it has been "proven" which is impossible. By misusing the concept of proof, creationists then argue that since evolution has not been proven (by their standards) it is a "matter of faith". Then they ask for equal time. However, the first step (i.e. proof) is misreported, so the remaining argument is also flawed. --Davril2020 15:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I propose to change paragraph two of the article as follows: "The main opposing sides are those who acknowledge an Intelligent Designer responsible for the universe's origin (such as Creationists) and those who support naturalistic or scientific accounts of the universe's origin. (such as Evolutionists)" The way it was written before was loaded for Evolution and against Creation. This is much more NPOV. --EChronicle 01:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, evolutionists is no good as a neologism. You can read about that in the article itself. Acknowledgement of an "Intelligent Designer" is a loaded statement. You can read about that at Intelligent designer. The way it was written before does conform to NPOV as has been demonstrated above. Therefore, I see no rationale for making the change you outline. --ScienceApologist 02:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching this quietly, but I'm getting bored. It's pretty clear that EChronicle is engaged in POV-pushing and has no legitimate basis for that POV tag. ScienceApologist has been very patience, but this has gone on too long already. I've reverted the tag. Alienus 04:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The (POV) tag simply states that: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see discussion on the talk page." That is true, and therefore I have placed the tag on the article again.

"It's pretty clear that EChronicle is engaged in POV-pushing and has no legitimate basis for that POV tag." The second paragraph of the article is loaded for Evolution, and therefore I proposed that it be changed to: "The main opposing sides are those who acknowledge an Intelligent Designer responsible for the universe's origin (such as Creationists) and those who support naturalistic or scientific accounts of the universe's origin. (such as Evolutionists)" The proposed paragraph is perfectly NPOV and it clearly states what the two opposing sides are. (Even more clearly than how the paragraph is phrased now.) I am not engaged in "POV-pushing", and on the one case where I have made an unverifiable statement I took it back and also acknowledged that I may have engaged in "quote-mining" in my second (and possibly third) quote. On the contrary, ScienceApologist repeatedly states that "Evolution is a fact"... That is "POV-Pushing". Evolution is not a fact, and when using "inference to the best explanation" as the standard of choosing Evolution or ID, the evidence clearly points to ID. --EChronicle 17:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The evidence points directly away from ID at the moment and the scientific consensus is that ID is religious pseudoscience without any firm evidence. I've read the article over and it gives a fair report of ID and a fair report on the evidence or lack thereof. If you have a problem with the scientific consensus then you must go and change that, but wikipedia is here to report that consensus and not to change it. Jefffire 17:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a NPOV and Verifiability policy. My proposal on how to change paragraph two of this article is NPOV, and states the "main opposing sides" clearer than the current paragraph states them. If you do not have any solid reasons as to why I shouldn't change the second paragraph of the article to be how I have proposed, then I will change it as such.

"The evidence points directly away from ID at the moment..." That's untrue and unverifiable. If you want to debate the little evidence for evolution, feel free to do so (where I've already started another discussion) on the page Evidence of Evolution. I can and will discuss the evidence (or lack of evidence) for evolution if necessary. If you would please give a response to my proposal for changing paragraph two of this article, I would appreciate that very much.

I have placed the POV template on the main article page, and it states that "The Neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page." It is 100% true that the neutrality of this article is disputed, so please do not continue to remove the POV tag. --EChronicle 21:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

""The evidence points directly away from ID at the moment..." That's untrue and unverifiable."

No it is very true and very verifiable. Every supposed 'irriducable complex' biological structure has been shown to be reducable complex, the fossil record is awash with transitional forms, geology, cosmology, chemistry, physics and biology all point of an Earth at least six billion years old, molecular studies show a clear correlation between species including the presence of degenerate centromeres and telomeres in human chromosone two and virtually every competant scientist agrees with me.

Just because your faith is incompatable with the evidence doesn't invalidate it. Jefffire 23:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

EChronicle and Jeff, this is not the place for debating evolution v. creationism. This for dealing with the article. If there is any need to debate take it to talk.origins. JoshuaZ 00:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"No it is very true and very verifiable." Completely biased. Note also your unverifiable and untrue statements to back up your conclusion:

1. "Every supposed 'irreducable [irreducibly] complex' biological structure has been shown to be reducable complex [reducible]." Making that statement includes Behe's famous Mousetrap example. It has not been shown irreducible, and I will be starting a discussion on that soon at the appropriate page. Even if you had the components themselves, they wouldn't have the ability to bring themselves into position, and you'd be far from a functioning mousetrap. Nobody ever addresses this problem in the evolutionary literature.

2. "the fossil record is awash with transitional forms" The Wikipedia article Evidence of Evolution doesn't even agree with that audacious claim: "The fossil record is an important source for scientists when tracing the evolutionary history of organisms. However, because of limitations inherent in the record (see below), there are not fine-scales of intermediate forms between related groups of species. This lack of continuous fossils in the record is a major limitation in tracing the descent of biological groups. Furthermore, there are also much larger gaps between major evolutionary lineages. These gaps are often referred to as "missing links"." No "competent scientist" would agree with such a statement so any discussion beyond this point is meaningless.

3. "geology, cosmology, chemistry, physics and biology all point of an Earth at least six billion years old" The following facts point to a young earth: Galaxies wind themselves up too fast, Comets disintegrate too quickly, Not enough mud on the sea floor, Not enough sodium in the sea, The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast, Many strata are too tightly bent, Injected sandstone shortens geologic ‘ages’, Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic ‘ages’ to a few years, Helium in the wrong places, Not enough stone age skeletons, Agriculture is too recent, and History is too short. I will not go into detail about each fact unless necessary.

4. "molecular studies show a clear correlation between species including the presence of degenerate centromeres and telomeres in human chromosone" Of course "molecular studies show a clear correlation between species..."! That could very well mean that the designer used the same materials in much of what has been created. What you said definitely does not prove your conclusion.

5. "Just because your faith is incompatable with the evidence doesn't invalidate it." Precisely. Evolution (beleiving that complex life formed by natural selection by random mutation) obviously takes much more faith than beleiving that we came about as a result of a designer.

Just because your faith is incompatable with the evidence doesn't invalidate it! --EChronicle 01:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

EChronicle, the talk pages are not for debating the merits of different views. If you want to do that, go to a forum where that is appropriate like talk origins which can be found here: [2]. I will note in passing that most of your points above are old, highly discredited creationist arguments. Since this forum is not the place to discuss this, I will only mention one: designers do not make constructs in a tree like fashion, which is one of the reasons that point 4 fails. Point 4 also fails because there is no reason to include the telomere remains in the chromosomes. A designer would just snip them out. JoshuaZ 01:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, I'd thank you kindly if you'd stop trying to say what a designer would and wouldn't do. Your arguments are old, highly discredited evolutionist arguments. As you are not the designer, you can't say what the designer would or would not do. I have brought up a proposal. What opinion have you given on my proposal at all? Instead you keep arguing with complete bias, and you just use sweeping over-generalizations that are wrong and/or misleading. --EChronicle 17:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly why ID isn't science. It is unfalsifiable. Any evidence brought up is simply passed off as the way God did it for reasons unknown.Jefffire 18:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Echronicle. The second paragraph is POV.

The main opposing sides are those who espouse religious origin beliefs (such as Creationists) and those who support naturalistic or scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology.

This is implying that the party opposing Creationists use Science, unlike to Creationists. It probably was not written to mean that, but says that none the less. I would change it, but I cannot think right now of a way to word it so that it does not imply this. I will change it later, if no one has any objections. I doubt they will. Also, I wish the debate had not taken this creationist-evolutionist turn :(. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 01:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Surely that implication is factualy accurate. Creationists don't publish in peer review, old discredited arguements are used and supernatural causes are invoked. By the very definition of science, creationism isn't science but religion.Jefffire 11:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must dissagree with you. I know many creationists who use science to support some of their claims. I know see how this talk page got into this argument; in order to prove whether the article is POV or isn't, you have to prove whether it's a fact or not.

Oh, and EChronicle, please don't copy and paste your information without citing a source. (You said that nearly word for word up top.) GofG _|^|_| Contribs 12:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

To use science you need to publish in peer review journals and analyse evidence impartially. Creationist do not do this, so they cannot claim to be using science. Invoking the supernatural is also not science. Jefffire 12:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that's true. I'm out. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 15:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeffire, you said that to use science you need to [#1] publish in peer review journals and [#2] analyse evidence impartially. Creationists do not do this, so they cannot claim to be using science.

To deal with #1, Creationists have extreme difficulty getting their articles published in peer-review journals because once it is known that they are creationists, their articles are usually rejected (no matter how neutral the content). But, since this is not always the case, there are peer-reviewed books and articles by Creationists.

You stated in #2 that [you need to] analyse evidence impartially. I agree with you - and Evolutionists certainly don't analyze evidence impartially!

You also said that Invoking the supernatural is also not science. Says who?!!! Evolutionists start with the presupposition that there's "no God" and then work their way from there. That's not science! You have to leave open all the possiblities, no matter where the evidence takes you!

If you want to continue to debate Evolution vs. Creation/ID, we're going to do it on the right page. For now, deal with my proposition for changing POV paragraph two of the article. Thanks, --EChronicle 18:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Without wanting to continue the present course of that discussion I'd just like to point out that methodological naturalism is one of the ceneral tenants of science.Jefffire 15:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm giving all of you 24 hours to make a solid argument against my proposed change to paragraph two of the article. So if you have any reasonable objections to my proposal, please say what they are. If not, I'm changing paragraph two of the article to read as follows:

The main opposing sides are those who acknowledge an Intelligent Designer responsible for the universe's origin (such as Creationists) and those who support naturalistic or scientific accounts of the universe's origin. (such as Evolutionists)

Thanks, --EChronicle 18:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Edits are determined by consensus, not what one editor thinks is correct. The talk pages are for discussion about the articles, not for debate and not for people to give confrontational dealines. Again, if you want to debate this topic, go to an appropriate forum. JoshuaZ 19:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with the revision, EChronicle. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 01:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I object to the change, especially the term 'evolutionist'. I do not 'believe' in evolution, I am simply a competant scientist who analyses the evidence imparially and without biblical preconceptions. Jefffire 09:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The term 'evolutionist' is completely unacceptable, and conflating creating ID with Creationism is POV (one I generally agree with but still POV). The current version is also more accurate. JoshuaZ 14:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The words 'acknowledge an Intelligent Designer' imply that there is an intelligent designer. This entire proposed change is one of the most POV I have ever seen outside of overt vandalism. I advice most strongly against it. Jefffire 16:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for not responding sooner, but I didn't have access to a computer for the last couple days. First of all, the POV tag is going to have to stay on the main page, since the article's neutrality is debated. Removing it while this discussion is going on is vandalism and will be dealt with as such. Number two, I agree that edits are determined by concensus, but I gave a 24 hour notice because this discussion was going nowhere. The term 'evolutionist' is true and is exactly what many scientists are. (Also, those who repeatedly say that evolution is a fact are Evolutionists)

The words 'acknowledge an Intelligent Designer' does not imply that there is an intelligent designer. All it says is that some acknowledge an Intelligent Designer responsible for the universe's origin, which is true and verifiable. This is not a POV paragraph. Also note that your statement about you being a competent scientist... etc has no place here on Wikipedia. You do not have the right to deem yourself competent (thus implying that Creationists are not competent). --EChronicle 17:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If you believe that it is NPOV to describe scientists as "evolutionists" when they say that "evolution is a fact", you'll have to provide a reference for your claim. The incompetence of creationists is well-documented in the article, but even so Jeffire's opinion of himself are on the talkpage and not subject to article rules. If I want to call myself the Lord Jesus Christ on the talkpage, I'm free to, though it may be of little utility. --ScienceApologist 18:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If I said that Creation was a fact, I'd be a Creationist. If you or anyone says that Evolution is a fact, then you're an Evolutionist. That's quite simple. The incompetence of creationists is not well-documented in the article (Why does the article make you think that?).

...but even so Jeffire's opinion of himself are on the talkpage and not subject to article rules. Clearly false. Notice that when you add on to the discussions on this talk page, it says right below the text box that Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable... What he said about himself is not verifiable. --EChronicle 21:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If I said that Creation was a fact, I'd be a Creationist. --> no, you'd be someone who declared that creation was a fact. Creationists are defined on this page. Simply stating "Creation is a fact" does not make one a creationist. There are definitely people who are not creationists who believe that "Creation" is a "fact". Find a citation that shows otherwise and we'll deal.

Talkpages are not considered "content". --ScienceApologist 22:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If talk pages aren't content, then why does it give that message on the talk page above the "Save Page" button? --EChronicle 19:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

no, you'd be someone who declared that creation was a fact --> You know exactly what I mean. I'm talking about the creation of life. If I acknowledge that life was created, what am I other than a Creationist? --EChronicle 20:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're just going to have to take my word that I'm a 'competant scientist' ;). Talk pages aren't considered content in the way that an article is as they won't usualy be read by the casual user. This rant that I should provide citations for being a 'competant scientist' is frankly bizare, especialy considering how it is of next to no relevance to the arcticle. Jefffire 20:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Also please note that creationist have no objection to that term. In contrast, "evolutionist" is used generally by creationists and as the wikipedia article on it observes the word is generally avoided by scientists and they prefer not to use it. It is therefore highly misleading, if not offensive, to use the word in this article. JoshuaZ 22:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If those who espouse "design" origin beliefs let themselves be called creationists, then why can't those who think that we evolved be called evolutionists? You're making a big fuss over nothing. If you or anyone believes that we evolved from monkeys, etc, then your an evolutionist. That's quite clear. It is therefore highly misleading, if not offensive, to use the word in this article. --> Says who? --EChronicle 20:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Me for one, and many of the other editors. It implies that evolution is a matter of faith rather than reason when this is not the case, whilst the opposite is true of creationism. This is made adundantly clear at the talk.origins archive. Jefffire 20:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Evolutionist" is unacceptable in this context because it is used by creationists to characterise those who they claim espouse a religious belief in evolution. Apart from being false, it's a codeword meant to discredit your opponents. As such, it violates the hell out of NPOV. Beyond that, the factual basis for evolution is out there, is observable and is supported by experimental evidence. Creation is impossible to verify and unsupported by any experimental evidence. It doesn't mean it's false, but it's a position that can only be held on faith. Guettarda 22:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"Evolutionist" is unacceptable in this context because it is used by creationists to characterise those who they claim espouse a religious belief in evolution. --> What are you talking about, "espouse a religious belief in evolution? When the word evolutionist is used in the article, it refers to those who think/believe/etc we evolved. When the word creationist is used in the article, it refers to those who think/believe/etc that we were designed/created. Creation is impossible to verify and unsupported by any experimental evidence. --> So is evolution! How do you verify evolution? You can't verify it either and it's not supported by experimental evidence. Since when can you only hold the "creation" position by faith? The majority of scientific evidence supports ID. But, we can discuss that on a different page... The term "evolutionist" is just as acceptable and NPOV as the term "creationist". --EChronicle 20:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

No, evolution is well supported by observational and experimental evidence. "How do you verify evolution?" What kind of a question is that? Through experiments, through observations of it happening... what kind of a question is that? Thousands of papers have been published on evolution. It's been verified over and over. You can't be serious, can you? Guettarda 20:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

1. 1, what observational evidence of evolution is there? #2, maybe we're not talking about the same type of evolution? I'm referring to the most commonly held macro-evolution. #3, I'd like to have a look at some of those thousands of papers- the ones that tell about observing evolution and experiments that have verified evolution. Maybe you could point me to a couple of them? I'm quite serious. Also, why can't we deal with just my proposal for now? --EChronicle 20:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It is covered in great depth in the talk.origins archive. I strongly suggest reading it in it's entirity before you edit this page again. We have discussed your proposal and the consensus is that it's a terrible idea. Jefffire 20:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Evolution is evolution. There is no difference except on of degree. The same processes that power "microevolution" are capable of producing the larger "macroevolutionary" changes. As for references - here's a good starting point [3] Guettarda 15:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm out of here

I am withdrawing from editing this article. For one thing, the article needs more NPOV work than I could possibly do even if there were no other editors to discuss things with. More importantly, the appearance would be too strong that I am arguing the case (or pushing the POV) of creationists (which I am not) instead of the case of Wikipedia NPOV policy (which I am). Please note that my personal beliefs have little to do with the "creationists" described here - I would typecast them as liars and swindlers.

Please deal fairly with the problems I have mentioned. Editors should be interested in building an encyclopedia, not in re-enacting in Wikipedia a battle being fought outside of it. It would be good to see the many infractions of WP:NPOV and its corollaries addressed. Perhaps I'll be back to see if I can help reach a consensus regarding the points I've already raised. AvB ÷ talk 18:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that you really don't have any good points to work from. In particular you want to dispute the claim that the vast majority of scientists aren't creationists. This is sort of a no-brainer and we have references to prove it (including a number of polls). I can't decide whether your contributions are part of your own bias with regards to the subject or if they are due to a genuine ignorance about the subject, but the article is a far cry from being unverified, unreferenced, or POV. --ScienceApologist 18:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not revert the citation needed tags. These citations are needed regardless of whether or not I'm editing here. If it is easy to provide them, you should provide them. "No-brainer" is an opinion. The fact that you think you can remove the tags makes it look like you do not have the evidence. And your conclusion about no good points is just that - your conclusion. You do not know me, you do not address any of the points I've raised, you just jump in with assertions. That was uncalled for. In the edit summary of your rv you wrote I had opted out (of the article). That is not entirely true. I wrote: Perhaps I'll be back to see if I can help reach a consensus regarding the points I've already raised - well, I'm back to do just that. That's what challenges do to some people, you know. You'd better start (re)reading the policies and guidelines I quoted. AvB ÷ talk 19:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

While AvB is being extreme, it might not be a bad thing to reference such polls and similar issues. JoshuaZ 19:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not against adding references, but I do oppose all this extremeness. Alienus 19:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Extremeness? Three tags requiring citations that are, indeed, required? Also, please remember to approach other editors with kindness. AvB ÷ talk 19:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, Alienus, perhaps my questions were not clear - at any rate they have not been answered. What exactly was so extreme? Was it perhaps the idea also expressed by ScienceApologist and JoshuaZ that I was requiring sources stating that most scientists oppose creationism? If you would care to look at what I wrote right at the start of the section where I described the two required citations, you will see that I had written something very different. AvB ÷ talk 05:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I considered the placement of the POv-warning sticker to be extreme given that the only substantial issue was citations. JoshuaZ 05:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

We have a situation. On the one hand, Avb has added spurious templates and won't stick around to discuss them. On the other, he's started an edit war to keep those templates in. This is vandalism. Alienus 19:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't started an edit war. I left the reversions of my edit to discussion and only added the required tags. Immediately reverting without discussion or acceptable edit summary is not good. And trying to cast me as a vandal sort of means you haven't read my edit history very well. AvB ÷ talk 19:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Thanks to your participation on Abortion, I know exactly what you are. Regardless, you can either let the tags get removed or stick around and offer a reasonable explanation for why you inserted them and what it would take to get you to agree to their removal. You already chose to leave, so the tags go with you. Alienus 19:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm back and the tags will return unless citations are provided. Please clarify your reference to the Abortion article. AvB ÷ talk 19:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Adding tags to an article and then declaring your intention to leave is poor form. I think some of your tags are unwarranted and others can be addressed, but you need to take a good dose of good faith with respect to other editors who have been working on this page for a lot longer than you have. --ScienceApologist 19:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing tags without addressing the reason why they have been placed is not allowed. Wikipedia policies do not require editors to stick around. in this case they require editors to provide sources. If they don't, the edits are fair game and may be deleted by anyone passing by. Editors who have been working longer on a page than I have are supposed to be able to quote their sources much easier than I ever could. Why spend so much time being decidedly unkind to me where all you have to do is provide two simple references? AvB ÷ talk 19:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AvB, most people interpret "I'm out of here" to mean that one is leaving for an indefinte, generally long, if not permanent duration. JoshuaZ 19:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't opt out with respect to the points already raised. Like I said, perhaps I'll be back. Well, I'm back sooner than you thought. AvB ÷ talk 19:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

{{unreferenced|date=August 2006}} and POV tags

My previous edit concerned the first paragraph that had some real problems. I'm now reading the rest of the article for the first time. The few additional paragraphs I've read so far are in themselves sufficient reason for me to add the {{unreferenced|date=August 2006}} tag. Secondly, I haven't checked why another user keeps adding the POV tag but if it hadn't been there, I would have added it myself. Please leave it in place. AvB ÷ talk 18:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

{{Contradict}} tag

The introduction states The controversy is not occurring within the scientific community or academia, whose members overwhelmingly tend to oppose creationism. This seems contradicted by the Common venues for debate section which states that Conflict occurs mostly in the public arena, as creationists have been unwilling or unable to publish their ideas through academic channels or in scientific journals. Both statements pretend to explain why the controversy is not discussed in academia but in the public arena. Is only one of them true? Are both true? Are both untrue? Is one of them intended as an explanation and the other as a qualification of scientists and indirectly of creationists? Does this article deserve the {{Contradict}} tag? AvB ÷ talk 18:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. Both points are correct and do not contradict each other. In fact, creationists are known to whine and moan about both phenomena simultaneously. --ScienceApologist 18:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see a contradiction, please explain. Mikker ^... 13:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Creationists, scientists, and good vs evil

• I've removed whose members overwhelmingly tend to oppose creationism since it lacks proper citations and seems rather unconvincing to me. My explanation would be that scientists tend to focus on their own fields of expertise.
• Added theologists since most of them also tend to focus on their own field of expertise.
• The truth/falsehood battle was linked with anti-creationists where it applies to both sides.
• Added good/evil in view of the evident moral aspect this takes on for many.

AvB ÷ talk 11:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with your changes -

1. I don't see how "overwhelmingly oppose creationism" and "tend to focus on their own field" to be mutually exclusive; it might need a citation, but it isn't something I see any reason to doubt;
2. Theologist? Not a usage with which I am familiar;
3. While this isn't entirely your doing "Both sides view the controversy as an important moral battle between truth and falsehood" seems inaccurate to me; many prominent creationists use cherry-picked out-of-context quotes and sometimes complete fabrications. If you see something as a battle between truth and falsehood, then you can't use lies to win the battle.
4. " Many creationists also see it as part of a general battle between good (God) and evil (the Devil)." - again, as above, this isn't a logically sound assertion. While some people seem to see it as ok to lie to non-believers, the leadership of creationist movements regularly lie to their supporters. I don't see how you can break God's commandments and claim that you are fighting for God. Guettarda 14:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to explain.

1. Occurrence of the controversy in academia means e.g. that papers are being published that argue both sides of the controversy (hence the word "discussed" which you replaced with "occurring"). If a nuclear physicist opposes creationism, s/he is not likely to submit a journal paper or otherwise engage in a scientific discussion in his or her own field. The same applies to a nuclear physicist who is also a creationist. The fact that the controversy is not acted out in the scientific arena does not mean only very few scientists do not oppose creationism. It does not mean very few scientists are creationists. It does not mean it is widely believed that the overwhelming majority of scientists are not creationists. What exactly it does mean can only be gleaned from reliable sources, such as the results of a poll published by a reputable source. However, regardless of whether or not I have now convinced you, your disagreement is not a good ground for reinsertion. Please revert back. Per WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CITE, the statement whose members overwhelmingly tend to oppose creationism needs to be referenced (in the context of being overwhelmingly larger than the number of people opposing creationism in the general population) before it can be included in the article.
2. I have no probem with this being removed; it can be sourced but it is not important enough to spend much time on (your time or mine)
3. Regardless of the truth or verifiability of what you are saying here, this does not change the view of both parties that they are the fighting the good fight while the others are not. You have reinstated language that poses as truth the opinion that ONLY those opposing creationism are doing so in a battle of truth against falsehood. Please provide citations from reputable sources to underpin this per WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CITE. Please revert back until sources are provided. Certain so-called creationists can and do tell lies; this does not mean that creationism consists (or is widely believed to consist) of lies. On a side note, your remark "while this isn't entirely your doing" seems to miss the fact that I edited this paragraph as a whole and, doing so, took responsibility for the entire paragraph as it was after my edit.
4. Again, this is not about your assessment or following of my logic but about what is happening in the world out there - things we at Wikipedia are expected to report on. The issue is whether or not most creationists believe (or say they believe, or are said to believe) they are fighting the good fight. Regardless of the filth some of them seem comfortable with spreading. Anyway, this time it's my call to underpin something I say by providing citations from reputable sources. I'll reinsert when I do (may take a week or so - or, who knows, maybe I won't find any). AvB ÷ talk 17:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I see I have some support regarding the required citations from JoshuaZ. That makes two editors (not that this is a matter of votes, this is a matter of policy). AvB ÷ talk 19:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I agree that this article needs more citations. I generally disagree with your other changes (Guys I've tracked down one citation, a little group effort might be nice here). JoshuaZ 01:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not claim or hint that you agreed with any of my changes. In fact I clearly stated I do not need support since this is about disputed, unsourced statements. What you are saying, by the way, means that you do agree with the {{unreferenced|date=August 2006}} tag that was removed. You might consider putting it back up. The only use of that tag is to invite others who feel so inclined to do the job and hunt down sources. It's pretty telling when editors so vehemently remove tags put up in order to help them source the article. Or when anti-creationist editors remove something I wrote that made the creationists look worse: their conviction that God is on their side and that "evolutionists" are doing the work of the Devil. Now there's something you can say about creationists that is evidenced everywhere including the article itself. Editors assume too often that other editors are POV-pushers. AvB ÷ talk 03:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

(moved here from I'm out of here section):

As for citations for the vast majority of scientists accepting evolution, these seem like good places to start. It took about 30 seconds on google to find them:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/733_ohio_scientists39_intellige_10_15_2002.asp - ohio scientists. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm Gallup polls Presumably it would be good to chase down the 1987 Newsweek and the actual Gallup polls cited in the previous link. JoshuaZ 19:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

How does this address the point I raised?

The statement needs references supporting it in the context in which it is used here. References also need to be notable. I do not contend that scientists overwhelmingly oppose creationism. My point is whether they do so to a larger degree than the population in general. Your first reference is unusable. your second reference fully addresses that point. Do you want to add it to the article yourself? (Everyone else, please note that it is not the duty of the challenging editor to search for sources. It is the duty of the one reverting. Joshua is now doing someone else's work.) AvB ÷ talk 19:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Status quo regarding my Creationists, scientists, and good vs evil edit:

1. Revert accepted by me after JoshuaZ had provided a citation that fully supported the disputed claim.
2. Revert accepted straight away because I did not want editors to spend too much time on something I do not consider very important.
3. I am waiting for citations supporting the disputed text. The citation needed tag still needs to be returned. I'm not inserting it myself in view of its editwar potential. Instead, I have referred the editors in question to the relevant policies. I note that editors seem to be having difficulty providing the required source(s).
4. Still pending until I can provide a reference.

The net result so far is a slight improvement of the article in that one assertion is now sourced.

I'm starting a Wikibreak. I feel a Wikiburnout coming on. I'll be back to check on progress and to answer reasonable messages, if any, regarding item #3 of my original edit. AvB ÷ talk 04:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding your reply to my points 3 and 4, I am having a hard time reconciling your justifications with your assertions. You said "Regardless of the truth or verifiability of what you are saying here, this does not change the view of both parties that they are the fighting the good fight while the others are not". How do you know this? You are arguing that they "view" things in a certain way and they "see it" in a certain way. What do you base this on? There are two contradictory pieces of evidence, what they say and what they do. To assert that one is true and ignore the other is a massive violation of NPOV. Guettarda 05:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for spelling out why you have a hard time reconciling both. This goes directly to the heart of the problem. But it is complicated and I will have to go into considerable more detail than I have already done. There are many aspects to my edit of e.g. #3, although it took me mere seconds to do it. I will try to cut the process down to size for you today or tomorrow. AvB ÷ talk 09:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all you should realize that all I currently want is for item #3 to be sourced. I have not, so far, disputed your removal of my edit. What I did: (1) I asked for citations supporting items #1 and #3 and told you the original text would be deleted without sources. I conceded item #3 (not worth it) and told you I would only put my item #4 back in once I had citations to support them.

I must be mad to give this the full treatment just to give you some insight into my line of reasoning (and of course put in some WP:NOR/WP:CITE evangelism but that will have to wait.)

Reasons to be cheerful - Part One. (Limiting this to my #3 statement)

You ask how I "know" these things. Well, I don't. Like many other edits this started out as assumptions based on personal knowledge and experience (WP:BOLD). I expected to be asked to provide sources, which would not have been difficult. In sourcing the statement, its language would have changed from "it is the view of" to "according to xxx, creationists view" (simple facts I have stated time and again, but failed to include in my edit. Life's funny).

I'll rephrase what you are saying so that you can tell me if I've missed something.

You are questioning the basis of my assertion that creationists believe they are fighting the good fight, with God on their side, and "evolutionists" nothing more than Devil's brood. In order to prove my assertion wrong, you mention two properties of creationists that can be assessed objectively: (1) what they say and (2) what they do. The upshot being that we cannot know what people believe, but we can know that they are lying when their acts belie their words. They are known to massively engage in actions denounced in the very Bible they say they see as inerrant. You cannot reconcile their behavior with their claimed beliefs. Therefore they must be lying. Ergo it is not their view that God is on their side. They cannot possibly believe that they are fighting the good fight etc. It boils down to the conviction that creationists can't be Christians (who, after all, like most religious groups, believe their God is on their side).

Now this is a common viewpoint and I certainly respect it as quite reasonable. I do not doubt that you believe it represents the facts. In fact I view this type of behavior as casting grave doubts on the sincerity of their claims (and this has been my considered opinion in these and similar cases for almost four decades, most recently experienced right here on Wikipedia. This person is on the verge of being booted off WP for a year even as we speak, and quite rightly so).

Having said that, I think your viewpoint is hard to prove and just as hard to disprove. I believe this is oversimplifying reality. reading it has not made me change my view, which is slightly different (and also hard to prove or disprove). Some aspects that play a role here: We cannot prove all creationists lie. We cannot prove that those who do, are lying all of the time. We are only aware of a small part of their lives, missing out on nearly everything they do and say. This falls out of the equation. But less so for me. I have sufficient inside information to know that many of them truly believe they are doing the will of God in their fight against "evolutionism" and other perceived evils. The harder the stance, the bigger the lies, the stronger the mandate they feel they have. I think that it is not only perfectly possible for self-proclaimed creationists to believe God is on their side - it's almost a sine qua non. Without a heavenly blessing they know their actions are deplorable.

I hope you can also respect my view. Even though I am not quite as sure about it as you seem to be about yours. I suggest you and I would do best not to claim absolute truth for our viewpoints - i.e. how you see the claimed faith of these creationists and how I see it.

Now what I'm describing here is original research. Just like the view you have described. If one of them is acceptable in the article, so is the other. And if we include both, of course the evolutionist view described in the article should include what you are saying about the lies and the doubts and your conviction that they do not really believe. Just like the unfriendly things they have to say about the opposition belong in the article. One POV should, however, not declare its beliefs as the standard truth for all humanity and try to use it to keep another party's claim out of the encyclopedia.

If this were the way to go, and if this were still a discussion about the various versions of #3, we would have reached a stalemate now, to be decided by policy and/or reaching a consensus. Ready for yet another episode of struggle for life and survival of the fittest, over time shifting the article from one POV to another and then back again. As it seems to have happened to this article.

ENTER the new and shining interpretation of the old and dusty WP:NPOV according to Saint Jimbo.

We're saved. We do not have to re-enact the battle here at Wikipedia. We only have to report what's out there.

(to be continued... ) AvB ÷ talk 20:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Creationists, scientists, and good vs evil (cont'd)

First a reminder of what this dispute is about: I have required a citation underpinning who (...) dispute creationism as an important battle between truth and falsehood. The citation has not been provided. When I added the {{Fact}} tag, it was removed. This does not change my opinion that this part of the sentence must be removed as original research. The only person who has discussed this specific dispute with me so far is Guettarda. I'm now continuing this discussion.

I've discovered you are an admin so I feel I do not have to explain all aspects of NPOV to you. I'll just touch briefly on the very heart of WP:NPOV, its basis. And we're talking basic NPOV here. The new and shiny interpretation of NPOV happens to be the revival of something very old. Please listen to an explanation from Larry Sanger's 2001 NPOV draft:

Wikipedia is devoting to stating facts and only facts, in this sense. Where we might want to state opinions, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "God exists," which is an opinion, we can say, "Most Americans believe that God exists," which is a fact, or "Thomas Aquinas believed that God exists," which is also a fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing it to someone.

As you can see, Wikipedia articles can state an opinion for a fact by attributing it. (Please also note that, in this context, "believe" has the same meaning as "view".) Whether or not an editor believes what is reported does not make a difference. Sanger's example is a nice one. At the very core of NPOV we find an explanation that tells us we cannot publish our opinion on what people say about themselves. All we have to do is report what they say. Granted, the current WP:NPOV has dropped the "God exists" example, but its replacement is:

"Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results.

What exactly can be verified: That people say they believe something. And still we take their word for it and report it as a fact.

I trust you as an admin will not be arguing that something as fundamental as the core principle of WP:NPOV can be trumped by consensus on an article talk page. Applying this core explanation of WP:NPOV to the disputed sentence:

IF you report from a survey or other source that all people who dispute creationism view this as a battle of truth (people that are speaking the truth) against untruthfulness (creationists who are lying) AND you attribute that as an opinion THEN the statement can be left in place.

As you can see, I am expanding the dispute. Even if the required citation is provided, the disputed text still has to be rephrased, attributing it to those who hold the viewpoint instead of stating for a fact that opponents of creationism speak the truth and that vocal creationists lie. For now, in anticipation of the required citation, I will edit the sentence to read:

Rather, the controversy is promoted by vocal creationists and those who actively dispute creationism, a dispute characterized by the latter as an important battle between truth and falsehood.

I propose we give it another week. Providing a citation should be easy if this characterizes the dispute according to many creationism opponents. I should add that I could not find anything like it when I tried. AvB ÷ talk 18:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

POV Tag on this article

Hey guys...

Whoever keeps removing the POV template from the article page needs to stop doing that. The neutrality of this article is disputed, and the tag says exactly that. Removing the POV tag is vandalism, and will be dealt with as such.

Thanks, EChronicle 21:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This tag was inserted as part of an attempt to justify an unacceptable change to the article. EChronicle's suggestions have been shot down repeatedly, to the point where it's clear that the consensus is against him. Therefore, what possible purpose does the repeated re-insertion of the POV tag serve except to make the article look bad? That was a rhetorical question.

Unless I see some hint that EChronicle's demands are taken seriously by the consensus, I will remove the POV and will start 3RR procedings if he continued his one-man-against-the-world edit war. Alienus 21:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I too will remove this tag if I notice it. The evidence I see overwhelmingly shows that this article has managed to negotiate a controversial topic with admirable interaction and compromise from editors who fall on both sides of the debate, as well as a few who do not fall on either side or are integrative in their perspective...Kenosis 22:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest letting him keep the tag for a day or two, if he hasn't convinced anyone by then, then take it off. JoshuaZ 22:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC) He is acting this way on other related pages also. My patience has close to worn out. JoshuaZ 22:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

He is acting this way on other related pages also. --> I wasn't aware of that... maybe you could show me where I'm "acting this way"? Thanks, EChronicle 20:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

EChronicle, the {{POV}} tag indicates that one or more editors believe the entire article violates WP:NPOV and that the issue is being discussed on the talk page. Once the dispute has been settled one way or another, the tag has to go. This is the current situation. If you disagree, you can always use the available dispute resolution processes. However, reinserting the {{POV}} tag is not one of those methods. AvB ÷ talk 23:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I too agree the article does not need a POV tag, EChronicle, please demonstrate there is indeed a violation of WP:NPOV before adding the tag. Mikker ^... 13:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a general consensus that this article doesn't need the POV tag. I disagree, but I'm not going to do anything more about the tag for now. But, I do have some consensus that the second paragraph of the article is POV, and would appreciate your comments on my above proposal. Also I'd appreciate if you'd stop bickering over the term "evolutionist". That causes a whole lot of discussion about basically nothing. --EChronicle

Isn't "some consensus" a lot like "a little bit pregnant" or "exact estimate"? I think you mean "a couple of people think...". And since (for purely pragmatic reasons - yes, the world is unfair) the onus is on those seeking a change to demonstrate why it is necessay, rather than on those wanting to keep the status quo, you'll have to present pretty clear evidence that the 2nd para indeed violates NPOV. I'm not convinced from what you've said, nor are many others. You're welcome to try again though :). Mikker ^... 21:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC) (ps. sorry for the complex and multi-clausal sentences... I've been in front of my pc for too long now...)

No Joke

That tag certainly needs to be their. In fact, as of now, I think it's fairly clear that this article has not maintained it's nuetrality. Though the Christian opinions are presented, the manner in which they are is made to seem ignorant and naive in most of the cases. However, most of the intelligent arguments of the Church seem to be entirely excluded. As well, there is included a fair bit of evidence against Creationism, and for Darwinism. Yet there is basically no solid evidence presented for the religious point of view. From my individual studies in theology, archaeology, paleontology, and anthropology, I can easily confirm that the evidence exists, and in large quantities. As well, if it didn't, the controversy wouldn't have lasted over a century. I will attempt to make a contribution to this article, when and if I get the time. In the mean-time, I think it would be beneficial to this article if someone else would take the initiative to contribute to this article's nutarality. (unsigned by 69.158.167.86)

Maybe you could start by presenting some of this evidence here. Alienus 00:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

69.158.167.86, please read our policy on the neutral point of view and then, as Alienus suggests, present evidence here on the talk page for why the article fails to live up to this policy. If you can convince us, we'd be happy to change the article or add a POV template. Mikker ^... 01:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

69.158.167.86 does sound a bit like me, doesn't s/he? But I now agree that slapping on (or supporting) an article NPOV tag would at least require that the editor pinpoint quite a few perceived problems on the talk page. And, as suggested by Mikker ^..., a good understanding of the rules may help. (Re)reading WP:NPOV is the first step. I would also recommend reading an article that showcases what NPOV is all about. To me Abortion debate fills that bill quite nicely; perhaps others have similar suggestions?

User:69.158.167.86, you may want to create an account (or sign in). AvB ÷ talk 11:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's do some cleanup

To All:

This is just a suggestion... The discussion "POV Second Paragraph" has probably gotten to a point where we need to start with a new fresh discussion. Could we move that discussion to the archives and let's give it another go-round, (and not have so much debate as far as evolution vs. creationist/ID)?

Again, it was only a suggestion, and if its not a good idea, it doesn't need to be done.

Thanks, --EChronicle 15:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course we can, but then you'll have to start by presenting a fairly convincing argument for why the paragraph is, in fact, pov. Mikker ^... 20:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph looks very fair to me. It doesn't preclude someone from being a religious scientist as it defines the groups by how they approach the debate. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 11:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course we can, but then you'll have to start by presenting a fairly convincing argument for "why" the paragraph of is, in fact, pov. --> I have no problem with doing that. But do we have to make a new archive to put this discussion in? And if so, how would I do that etc? Thanks --EChronicle 19:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by creating a new archive, but whatever you mean, I think the answer is no (if that makes sense :). Just create a new subsection (with two equal signs i.e. =) below, call it, say, POV, and write away. Mikker ^... 19:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok... I'll start that soon. --EChronicle 20:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

To let you all know, I am IP 69.158.167.86. Well, if you're interested in the evidence, my discussion for it will be in the creationism discussion, as it's a pain to post it more than one place. Thanks. =D --Waenishikusu 21:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the second paragraph is unsatisfactory, but not for the same reason. I'm not bothered about allowing for ID's claims to be scientific, but I am bothered that the paragraph actually sets up the false dichotomy between religion and science which is discussed further down as a feature of the creationist argument. Here's my version of the paragraph (carefully reverted in a matter of seconds by a vigilant overseer):

The main opposing sides are those who have a prior commitment to religious origin beliefs (particularly to a literal reading of the Bible) and judge scientific accounts of the universe from this perspective, and those who have a prior commitment to rational and naturalistic scientific method and either modify or reject religious belief in the light of scientific findings. Within these camps are quite broad spectrums of opinion.

The point is that the debate is not between (a) people who commit to faith and reject science; (b) people who reject faith and commit to science. There are many people, perhaps a majority, who accept both faith and science: those who continue to prioritize faith end up with things like ID theory; those who continue to prioritize science end up with theistic evolution. Ming the Merciless 12:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful about our characterizations. Here's how I would do it: The main opposing sides are those who have a prior commitment to religious origin beliefs (particularly to a plain reading of the Bible) and criticize scientific descriptions of origins from this perspective, and those who have a prior commitment to a naturalistic scientific method who either contextualize or reject religious origin beliefs in the light of scientific findings. --> "plain reading" is better than literal reading as many creationists insist they don't believe in literalism. "Criticize" is more appropriate a descriptor than "judge" because it carries a more negative connotation. "Rational" is a superfluous and argumentative adjective. Assuming that religious opposition to creationism relies on modification of religious belief is actually a creationist/atheist POV. "Contextualize" is more appropriate than "modify". --ScienceApologist 13:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That seems a nicely nuanced wording to me. Ming the Merciless 19:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Creation and evolution as beliefs

The article mentions that Creationists claim evolution is a religion. This depends on your definition of religion. Most people would not define evolution as a religion. Evolution is a belief system though because it starts off with an assumed presupposition as does Creationism. Creationists presuppose that God exists and the Bible is 100% true.(at least all that I've ever met) Evolutionists presuppose that if God exists (a huge if in the Theory of Evolution) he is not the God outlined in the Bible and that evolution happened somehow. Very few people realize they have presuppositions. These presuppositions can rarely be 'proven'. Science can not help because science can not prove anything. Even the Laws of Newton and the Laws of Thermodynamics need just one exception to disprove them. The Theory of Creation and The Theory of Evolution are both belief systems and what your presuppositions are determines what you will believe.

This topic has been discussed in depth in a number of different venues, I recommend the talk.origins archive which has an excellent section on the philosophy involved. Evolution is not a belief system, it is a deduction. Scientists make no presuppositions about god at all, they look at the evidence and produce testable theories which explain them and stand up to vigourus challenges. If creationists find that the results differ from their preconcieved notions of what god is then that is their problem and is irrelevent to science.

To summarise, it is logically invalid to classify evolution as a belief. Jefffire 14:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Even as a creationist, I have to agree.--Waenishikusu 15:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it logically invalid to classify evolution as a belief system? Science is testable and observable. Neither creation nor evolution can be tested or observed. No one was at the beginning of time so we can not know what happened. We can study the evidence today but once again presuppositions will determine how this evidence is interpreted. I don't want to make this really long by giving a long and complicated example of presuppositions affecting science but I can tell you where I receive most of my information from and will leave it up to you to determine whether to visit this website: www.answersingenesis.org. Alisyd 17:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we've all seen AiG before. Its odd that you claim that evolution isn't falsifiable, and yet so many creationists claim they have evidence that disproves it. Many things could falsify evolution (the classic example would be rabbits in the triassic). If we found rabbits in triassic levels and humans did not share retroviral remains with chimps, and humans did not show signs of a fused chromosone, all of these would be strong evidence against evolution. Please keep in mind that scientists in the early 1800s all started out accepting a literal interpretation of the Bible. by 1850 no one did. Why? Not because of issues with presuppositions, but because the evidence was overwhelmingly against it. JoshuaZ 17:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Not because of issues with presuppositions, but because the evidence was overwhelmingly against it. --> Explain that statement, por favor. --EChronicle 19:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do to explain what I meant. Expanded explanation: In 1800 or so, almost all scientists took the majority of the Genesis account(especially age of the earth and the global flood) for granted and attempted to fit geologic evidence into that framework. However, the framework became increasingly untennable as they came to have a better understanding of how long various processes take and what flood deposits look like among other issues. Thus by 1850 (still a decade before Darwin) almost all geologists were in agreement that the earth a) was empirically older than 6000 years and b) that a global flood was highly inconsistent with the earth's geology. JoshuaZ 21:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to the talk.origins archive, where this question and many other fallacies are answered. Rememmber, this is not the place for this debate, which was won over a hundred years ago by evolution. Jefffire 19:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I know this is not the place for this debate... If you could answer my question, that would be helpful. I asked you to clarify your statement. Did you meant that the evidence was overwehelmingly against the whole bible? Since when did evolution win? That is why there is so much debate concerning Evolution v. Creationism. Evolution clearly does not have its facts down... there are big gaps in the fossil record... the mathematical improbability of it happening points away from evolution... and I could name numerous other examples from Biology, BioChemistry, Geology, etc, etc, etc. Evolution clearly hasn't won, and most likely about 20 years from now, people will be amazed that anyone thought macro-evolution actually happened. Again - could you please answer my question - that is, to clarify what you meant by your statement? Were you saying that the evidence was overwhelmingly against the Bible? --EChronicle 21:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Your views on the state of the creation evolution controversy are incorrect. Please read the talk.origins site to prevent repeating such erronious claims The answer to your question is also listed there. Jefffire 21:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, please be civil. Now Jeff is correct in that these issues are discussed very well with at the Archive. I will briefly note that the current controversy is almost unifomily among laymen. Among scientists evolution is very much a settled issue. JoshuaZ 21:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Look - I'm including the following analogy/illustration from Darwin's Black Box p. 192 by M. Behe that shows just how "settled" evolution is among scientists:

Imagine a room in which a body lies crushed, flat as a pancake. A dozen detectives crawl around, examining the floor with magnifying glasses for any clue to the identity of the perpetrator. In the middle of the room, next to the body, stands a large, gray elephant. The detectives carefully avoid bumping nito the pachyderm's legs as they crawl, and never even glance at it. Over time the detectives get frustrated with their lack of progress but resolutely press on, loking even more closely at the flor. You see, textbooks say detectives must "get their man," so they never consider elephants.

There is an elephant in the roomful of scientists who are trying to explain the development of life. The elephant is labeled "intelligent design." to a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed...

--EChronicle 17:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Erm, this analogy breaks down on closer examination. Scientists aren't looking for an "identity", they're looking for a rational explanation. And they're not "frustrated with their lack of progress", they're pretty much in agreement that they've found that rational explanation, and that it fulfils the requirements for a robust scientific theory. Introducing "intelligent causes" is a completely unnecessary multiplication of entities requiring explanation. Hope this helps; I'm reluctant to belabour the point here rather than at talk.origins. FlyingOrca 22:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Creation and Evolution both attempt to explain how we came into existence. Both have certain assumptions that can not be proven. Creation assumes that God created everything. If we are refering to the Biblical creation account, then this is assumed to be true even though there is no proof to back it up. Evolution assumes that either God doesn't exist or if he does he is not the God of the Bible. Evolution doesn't require God or any other supreme being. These are the preset beliefs and people either believe in them or they don't. These assumptions or presuppositions form the basis of these theories. None of them can be proven. Evidence can be made for or against but even then it requires that one trust the evidence and the person reporting the evidence. So then, it all comes down to what do you believe? or to who can argue their position better? I do not know if I am 100% correct on the evolutionary presuppositions but this is what I have come to understand from what I have heard evolutionists say. By the way, the majority opinion is not always right as has been evidenced by the geocentric universe and flat earth. But then again, it depends on what and who you believe. 209.145.244.126 18:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, evolution does not assume anything about the nature or existence of any deity. Nor does it depend on "who you believe" - evolution is based on observations, and the science of evolutionary biology deals with testing hypotheses about these observations. Results are published in peer-reviewed journals, and critiqued by the community at large. These experiments are presented in enough detail to be repeatable. Anyone who doubts the results is free to attempt to reproduce the studies. You don't need to "believe" anyone with regards to evolutionary biology - unless you are afflicted with pathological skepticism, in which case you don't believe anything anyone tells you. Guettarda 19:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In order to hold a logical argument, you must believe that the laws of logic are going to work. Agreed, that they do but it is a presupposition which one must believe before partaking in a logical argument. Alisyd 15:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is still stronger than the 'presuppositions' required for science. You don't even really need 'logic' per se. All you need to believe is that the universe is amenable to systematic study, and at some level, understandable through some abstract models. These models don't have to be based on first-order logic; they may be mere correlations between very abstract entities. Of course, if you don't think this, then there is no point in studying anything about the natural world.

Also, regarding hypothesis testing, there has been a recent fossil find of a Tiktaalik, and it was found in the location and paleontological stratum that it was predicted to be found in. Tez 08:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You still have to believe that the correlations and models will work. Agreed, if you don't think that, there is no point in studying the universe, but you have to believe something and that will determine what you think. As for Tiktaalik, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Coelacanth in that same fossil strata layer? It has been found alive today and is not millions of years extinct. 209.145.244.126 15:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to believe that at all; you test the models and observe their accuracy. That is, essentially, the crux of the scientific method.

You still have to believe that the scientific method will work. Accuracy is also determined by your faith in your instrument's accuracy and your mind's capacity for interpreting that information and the correctness of the model. There are so many variables which one must believe every day. These assumptions or presuppositions make up how you will react to a given situation. I have a presupposition that the Bible is 100% truth. This presupposition determines how I interpret facts about the past (fossil record, origin of life, great flood(if you believe there was one)) and then how my interpretations of facts influence my thinking about what happened in the past. That's how presuppositions work and everyone has them. Alisyd 15:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the scientific method has been proven time and time again. You do not need any faith in your instrument's accuracy, you can just calibrate and test it that way. You can test the validity of your capacity for interpreting the evidence and the correctness of your model through peer discussion and peer review, and of course, through formulating hypotheses based on your model and testing those hypotheses against the evidence available to you. None of this has to be taken on faith, but with enough experience they can be taken as a matter of fact. No assumptions and no presuppositions are needed, except possibly that the laws governing nature and the universe do not change randomly. I don't think religious faith is this verifiable. In contrast, science is not a matter of belief, just a matter of proof. --Ramdrake 16:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

According to Coelacanth, it is in fact an order (and common ancestor) of several species of lungfish, and has been extinct since the late cretaceous. The coelacanth is also mentioned on the Tiktaalik page. Where does it say it is alive today? Tez 11:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right. The coelacanth article does state that examples of this species have been found alive today. My apologies. Tez 11:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Second Paragraph

Well, I'm back.

A number of users have found the second paragraph of the article unsatisfactory for a couple of different reasons. The point of this one discussion (Second Paragraph) is not to discuss Creation vs. Evolution (I am fully willing to do that on the Creationism page, as Waenishikusu said.)

We have three proposals on hand: from Science_Apologist, Ming the Merciless, and me (EChronicle).

Ming the Merciless' proposal was the following: The main opposing sides are those who have a prior commitment to religious origin beliefs (particularly to a literal reading of the Bible) and judge scientific accounts of the universe from this perspective, and those who have a prior commitment to rational and naturalistic scientific method and either modify or reject religious belief in the light of scientific findings. Within these camps are quite broad spectrums of opinion. --> First of all, that's just way too complicated. Second of all, leave out religion! Religion is not the point of this article, as this article shows. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/index.html)

Science_Apologist's proposal was: The main opposing sides are those who have a prior commitment to religious origin beliefs (particularly to a plain reading of the Bible) and criticize scientific descriptions of origins from this perspective, and those who have a prior commitment to a naturalistic scientific method who either contextualize or reject religious origin beliefs in the light of scientific findings. --> I wouldn't go with that because it makes it sound like creationists criticize scientific descriptions, and this proposal again mentions religion!

My proposal is: The main opposing sides are those who acknowledge an Intelligent Designer responsible for the universe's origin (such as Creationists) and those who support naturalistic or scientific accounts of the universe's origin (such as Evolutionists). --> If you have a problem with being called "Evolutionists", then we will take out "such as Evolutionists" and "such as Creationists".

I'd appreciate your comments and suggestions, EChronicle 14:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that the main opposition is religious in nature. ScienceApologists's is shortest and most accurate. Also, the use of the term "Evolutionist" is unacceptable as POV for reasons discussed earlier. I might make one suggestion, change in his "particularly to a literal reading of the Bible" to "particularly to a literal reading of religious texts, especially the Bible" this encompanies groups like haredim who are strictly speaking not basing it on the "Bible" but rather on the Torah and certain accompanying commentaries. JoshuaZ 14:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I like Science_Apologist's proposal. Here is a sugestion with minor modifications inspired in Ming the Merciless and JoshuaZ:
The main opposing sides are those who have a prior commitment to religious origin beliefs (particularly to a plain reading of religious texts) and criticize scientific descriptions of origins from this perspective, and those who have a prior commitment to a naturalistic scientific method who either contextualize or reject religious origin beliefs in the light of scientific findings. Within these camps are quite broad spectrums of opinion. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 14:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oooh, I like that. JoshuaZ 15:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC) Actually, minor nitpick, remove "quite" I don't think it adds anything. JoshuaZ 15:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I would write - The main opposing sides are those who have a prior commitment to religious origin beliefs (particularly to a plain reading of religious texts) and criticize scientific descriptions of origins from this perspective, and those who support scientific findings and either contextualize or reject religious origin beliefs in that light. Jefffire 15:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I like Science_Apologist's proposal. I don't like Jefffire's as much; I'm not sure why. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 15:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't feel that I do have a 'prior commitment' to naturalism. It just so happens that nothing supernatural has ever been observed so naturalistic proscesses seem the most likely from a philosophical point of view to me. This is why my version lacks the 'prior commitment' section on the second half. Jefffire 15:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

To me this is a very good point. Creationists claim that "naturalism" distorts the findings of science, perceiving it as a "materialistic" "faith", while my understanding is that the supernatural is by definition beyond natural examination and explanation, and so is inherently beyond science. If science can investigate and explain something claimed to be supernatural, that claim falls. Jefffire's version looks basically fine, "contextualize" seems a bit odd and could be replaced with "reinterpret". ...dave souza, talk 16:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I need a little bit of clarification, Jefffire. First of all, why do the words "religion" or "religious" keep coming up in these proposals (i.e. The main opposing sides are those who have a prior commitment to religious origin beliefs...)? Second of all, what did you mean when you wrote particularly to a plain reading of religious texts? Third of all, you wrote that It just so happens that nothing supernatural has ever been observed so naturalistic proscesses seem the most likely from a philosophical point of view to me. What do you mean nothing supernatural has observed? Evolution has not been observed either. --EChronicle 19:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Because on the whole there is no controversy among scientists. Appeals against Evolution (at least at the moment) are generally made by those espousing a more religious bent on the development (and usually origins) of life. This includes thing like adding an "Intelligent Designer", because the Designer is effectively a diety. As for Evolution not being observed, well how do you think bacteria (and other life forms, of course) become more resistant to drugs and poisons, and changes in the environment?ColdSalad 02:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

As for Evolution not being observed, well how do you think bacteria (and other life forms, of course) become more resistant to drugs and poisons, and other changes in the environment? --> That is an old Evolutionist argument that has already been discredited (http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/bact_resist.htm). --EChronicle 18:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Because on the whole there is no controversy among scientists. --> Look at my post in the above section "Creation and Evolution as Beliefs" (17:53, 30 March 2006) --EChronicle 18:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Your link and your logic are erronious. Once again I refer you to the talk.origins archive where fallacies of this nature are dealt with to save us repeating them here. Jefffire 18:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

To save you the effort, here is the link to the Five Misconception About Evolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html). Please read it. Jefffire 18:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link- but it doesn't address the link or the "logic"... Neither are "erroneous". I'd advise that you look at http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp. Note that I have read Duck's "critique" of Wallace's rebuttal, but it is outright I-don't-know-how-to-put-it (while staying within the bounds of WP:CIVIL). Please read Wallace's response to Duck's critique: http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_tw_02.asp. --EChronicle 19:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm familure with that 'critique'. It is full of quite obvious errors which would reduce most of my peer to hysterical rolling on the floor laughter. So no, I don't think we will be incorporating creationist propaganda into this article. Jefffire 19:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It is full of quite obvious errors which would reduce most of my peer to hysterical rolling on the floor laughter. So no, I don't think we will be incorporating creationist propoganda into this article. --> Number 1, why don't your peers go ahead and write something that makes everyone roll on the floor and laugh out loud? (Instead of just saying that it's so full of obvious errors.) If you're going to give an answer like that, let me tell you something - Isaak and Duck's "critiques" or "articles" were shredded to bits by Wallace. Whatever was left of what they were saying would make your peers roll on the floor in laughter! It is amazing how many "points" Isaak and Duck make that are either misleading or just plain old false. Number 2, If this article and our public schools are going to be filled with evolutionist propoganda, then there will soon be "creationist propoganda" as well.

Here's some good advice from Darwin himself: I am well aware that there is scarcely a single point discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts on both sides of each question. Obviously he himself knew the fatal flaws in his psuedo-science fiction.

One last thing- I don't need to be constantly referred to the talk.origins archive. If you want to see some real scientific arguments, just look at trueorigin.org.

I'm tired of all this non-sense (such as you saying "creationist propoganda") - If Einstein and other highly accredited scientists acknowledged an intelligent designer as the reason for the universe's existence, then why shouldn't I? --EChronicle 23:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If you regard trueorigins.org as a legitimate scientific authority then I suppose there is no helping you. The scientific fallacies espoused by creationists will never be allowed to stay in this article so you are just wasting your time and ours. I end my input here on this matter. Jefffire 23:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I regard trueorigins.org as legitimate a scientific authority as much as you regard the talk.origin archive as a legitimate scientific authority. The scientific fallacies espoused by creationists will never be allowed to stay in this article so you are just wasting your time and ours... --> I will stay here in this discussion, and not quit (or end my input), until all of the numerous scientific fallacies of Evolutionists are completely off this article. I am not alone - as you will soon see. Creationists and IDists will no longer be ridiculed or made fun of. Just as I have shown above with the Elephant example, Evolutionists look for every possible scientific explanation for us humans except an Intelligent Designer. If Steven Meyers or one of his associates were here, or someone from the ICR, you'd see just how many scientific fallacies you and other evolutionists espouse. In fact, if creationists espouse so many scientific fallacies, then why have Creationists/IDists won just about every single debate with an evolutionist? My apologies if I've gone over WP:Civil, but... --EChronicle 00:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, a number of problems here. 1) talkorigins.org has numerous awards from major science organizations and is referenced in multiple college level textbooks. Trueorigins is not. 2) Creationists and IDers have not won "every single debate." The "debates" they win are debates with little formal moderation where winning is determined by a non-expert audience. The fact is that it takes about as much time to say 10 fallacious arguments as it does to debunk a single one (The use of this technique by creationists is often refered to as the "Gish Gallup" because he is so fond of it. Which is one reason Kent Hovind and William Dembski among others have generally refused to engage in written or well-moderated debates, because you can't pull that sort of stunt on them. 2a) As someone who has taken part (and won competitions in) a variety of debate formats, I can assure you that ability to win debates has little or nothing to do with truth, but rather charisma, ability to think on ones feet and a few other issues. 3) The fact is that when it has been a forced debate like proceeding (that is a court room) the creationists and IDers have massively lost every single one of them. Look at Edwards and Kitzmiller for example. 4) Creationism and ID lost long ago in the medium that actually matters- the scientific community. The vast majority of biologists (and even other scientists for that matter) strongly accept evolution. For an example of this, see Project Steve. JoshuaZ 01:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's see here... I'm looking into point number one, but I think I can answer that pretty easily (just give me about a day or so). Number 2 doesn't hold because a) I didn't say creationists win "every single debate". I said they win "just about every single debate". b)Evolutionists are usually the ones that call for less time etc. Number 2a doesn't hold because the real scientific debates that I am talking about deal with the truth. Point number 3 anyone could refute - here goes- Who cares what a judge says? Judge Jones wasn't a scientist, and I don't care (neither does anyone in the scientific community), (and neither would you or any evolutionist care if he had ruled that evolution wasn't science), what he has to say on whether creationism/ID is science or not. Creationism and ID lost long ago in the medium that really matters- the scientific community. --> And then you say to see project steve etc. I am well aware of project steve, but it means basically nothing, since you know the implications and what would happen if a scientist says they espouse creationism/id. Anyway, g2g for now, --EChronicle 16:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The talkpage is not a place to debate. There are plenty of other websites where you can argue to your heart's content. As it is, none of this commentary seems to be anything more than posturing and none of it helps us with knowing what your critique, User:EChronicle is and what edits you want to make. If you want to propose editorial changes, please do so, but please stay on task so we don't pollute the talkpage with endless debating. --ScienceApologist 17:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The article's second paragraph as written is easy to understand. Very appropriate for an introduction to this article. I think all of the replacement 2nd paragraphs are less clear and too wordy for an introduction. FloNight ^talk 16:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

User FloNight has a point in saying that simplicity is important. On the other hand, there's not much use in oversimplifying a complex issue. We need to strive for a balance between simplicity and “explanatory power”. In this particular context, I feel the new versions do reach more depth than the original paragraph. There is a spectrum of viewpoints in this whole subject, while the original text treats it more like an "A versus B" issue. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 17:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There is an important distinction between 'easy to understand' and 'correct and accurate'. Ming the Merciless 17:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

EChronicle's proposal

(culled from above)

My proposal is

The main opposing sides are those who acknowledge an Intelligent Designer responsible for the universe's origin (such as Creationists) and those who support naturalistic or scientific accounts of the universe's origin (such as Evolutionists). --> If you have a problem with being called "Evolutionists", then we will take out "such as Evolutionists" and "such as Creationists".

There are a number of problems with this. First of all Intelligent designer is a neologism adopted by the Intelligent design movement and as such is too narrow a designation for the "big tent" creationists. "Evolutionists" should not be used as a term as can be read in the article, though there are no sources I know of where creationists object to being called "creationists". (Note that there are intelligent design advocates who claim they aren't promoting creationism, but this is a separate issue). So while it is appropriate to use creationist it is inappropriate to use evolutionist. --ScienceApologist 17:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I could not agree more that "evolutionists" and "creationists" are inadequate, unnecessarily personalized, and overly stereotypical categorizations. These are classifications that are becoming increasingly blurred today by the various increasingly visible slants on dynamic creationism such as theistic evolution and other current attempts to integrate the two. I do not know what the solution is, but it is an issue that in my estimation should continue to be considered here until some more accurate, less stereotypical way of expressing these polarities can be found...Kenosis 18:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think we are witnessing a time when "creationism" as a term is simultaneously being augmented, segmented, and denigrated -- in each case "creationism" as a term means something very different. Sometimes "creationism" means "the belief that the universe was created". Sometimes it means "the belief that there is an inextricable religious component to the investigation of origins". Sometimes it means "the belief that the biblical narrative of creation is correct and the scientific accounts that seem to contradict it are false". This article is primarily about the last group who have the most visibility and are the most willing to self-apply "creationist" to themselves. Increasingly, however, many self-styled creationists do not fit in that group. It's the nature of the changing state of human discourse. --ScienceApologist 18:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong on a number of points. Let me deal with one for now - If "evolutionist" is inappropriate, then "creationist" is too. You based your deduction on false logic and weak facts. Here's my "new" proposal:

The main opposing sides are those who acknowledge an Intelligent Designer responsible for the universe's origin and those who support naturalistic/materialistic and/or mainstream scientific accounts of the universe's origin. Feel free to get rid of the slashes and the and/or.--EChronicle 00:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

If creationists don't object to being called "creationists" but evolutionists object to being called "evolutionists" then using "creationist" in the intro while excluding "evolutionist" is totally appropriate. As for the "false logic" and "weak facts", try to stick to the topic at hand. --ScienceApologist 00:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note above the problem with using the term "Intelligent designer". Also there are those who acknowledge a creator god while simultaneously supporting the naturalistic/materialistic and/or mainstream scientific accounts of the universe's origin, so the way you have rewritten the statement does not clearly specify the conflict. --ScienceApologist 00:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

For now, may I recommend beginning a consideration of the possible use of something like "proponents of creationism" or "proponents of the concept of creation", and on the other side "proponents of evolutionary theory"?...Kenosis 00:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Question, why is it important to label the sides in the dispute here? This is a very complex issue with many people not having a clear side depending on how the issue is framed. IMO, much better to clearly state the issues. The different proponents of various issues should be spelled out in the article with verifiable, reliable sources. This summary introduction needs to be careful to stick to verifiable statements to keep from doing OR. FloNight ^talk 16:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

If you find the second paragraph inaccurate, modify the third paragraph a little bit and eliminate the second paragraph. Otherwise it seems redundant. FloNight ^talk 21:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The main opposing sides are those who espouse religious origin beliefs (such as Creationists) and those who support naturalistic or scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology.

I removed the 2nd paragraph. I article reads fine without it.

The 2nd paragraph that you all are re-writing seems to be different way of saying what is in the third paragraph. This article is too wordy and repetitive already. I suggest you abandon your 2nd paragraph re-write and tweak the third instead. FloNight ^talk 00:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea, because the third paragraph complements the second paragraph (But right now, both of those need to be tweaked as neither are verifiable or npov). Also, FloNight - maybe you should try to get consensus before removing the second paragraph? --EChronicle 17:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sound familiar? Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, either in content, grammar or formatting, and fix it.

I took it out after reading the discussion and left a comment saying why? I do assume good faith that the editor reverting my edit did so believing it improved the article. I follow a 0 to 1RR (expect for vandalism, copyright violation and libelous defamation) trusting that the WP community will make the right decision over time. I'll continue to follow the discussion about the 2nd paragragh re-write and make comments. Practically speaking, if all edits to this article are automatically reverted without the approval from a self selected group of guardians, then there is not much point in me directly editing the article. : ) regards, FloNight ^talk 18:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

With apologies I didn't think that a direct excision improved the article. Jefffire 18:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The 2nd paragraph sets the scene for the 3rd paragraph and gives useful links - just deleteing it seems a bit rash. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 17:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

My point is to take out the second paragraph if it is unsatisfactory, and fix the third paragraph a bit to cover it. The second paragraphs that are being written above are essentially saying the same thing as the current third paragraph. I think the article is fine in its current form with the 2nd paragraph, or it would be fine without the second paragraph. My complaint is about making the 2nd and 3rd paragraph say basically the same thing. I like tight, simple introductions. This one is already very long and too wordy. FloNight ^talk 18:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Religion, vs., uh, Religion?

The second paragraph of this article states the following:

The main opposing sides are those who espouse religious origin beliefs (such as Creationists) and those who support naturalistic or scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology.

That's an unverifiable and pov paragraph (as I've been saying all along), but I'm going to put a new twist on the "why". Why is it unverifiable? Because Secular Humanism (of which Evolution is the basis) is religious - it is a religion and a belief system - and this article infers/implies that only Creationists are "religious", thus giving Evolutionists more scientific crediblity. You might say you've heard that argument before etc, but guess what? The Humanist Manifesto, signed by many leading Evolutionists, admits it. They knew themselves they were espousing an anti-God religion/belief system.

I've looked at the talk.origins page on my "claim", but the whole of their "rebuttal" is misleading/erroneous/false.

--EChronicle 15:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Secular humanism and evolution have basically nothing to do with each other. Many people who are not secular humanists accept evolution. For example, most orthodox jews, official catholic doctrine, most protestant denominations etc. JoshuaZ 15:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. What they do not realize is their belief system and evolution's belief system are incompatible. The Christian faith and the evolutionary faith are incompatible because then death and suffering enter before man and then there is no need for Jesus Christ. I refered to evolution as a belief because it requires presuppositions as does Christianity or Islam or Hinduism or Bhuddism or any other religion you can think of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisyd (talk • contribs)

This is your interpretation of Christian belief: it is not shared by a large number of Christians. Ming the Merciless 14:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It has been said that the only presupposition of science is that the information we recieve from our senses is roughly accurate. Hardly a religion. Jefffire 15:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It has been said that the only presupposition of science is that the information we recieve from our senses is roughly accurate. Hardly a religion. --> Most scientists have a whole lot more presuppositions than that. First of all - one of the big suppositions is that there is no God and that science must find a way to explain life aside from a supernatural cause. Note that we have historical and scientific evidence that Jesus did live on this earth for a time, and that he is what he sayed he is. --EChronicle 18:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Completely misses the point. Many scientists are religious and many are not. A prominent example of a religious scientists would be Ken Miller who strongly supports evolution. There is no presupposition of the existence or non-existence of God in science any more than there is in plumbing. It simply isn't relevant. As for the comment about Jesus, that's again irrelevant even if it were true. JoshuaZ 18:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As for the comment about Jesus, that's again irrelevant even if it were true. --> That's completely erroneous. Since we have historical and scientific evidence that Jesus did live here on this earth for a time, and that he was who he said he was (the creator) - that is absolutely relevant to this discussion. Since he created the universe, human beings, plant life, animal life, etc., (macro) evolution simply did not happen. --EChronicle 17:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you agree that there are religious scientists who accept evolution now. As for your claim, no it isn't relevant, since even if he did create the world, that doesn't mean he didn't use evolution. That's how you can have people like Ken Miller who is a very religious christian who accepts evolution. JoshuaZ 18:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It is definitely relevant, because since we know that he was who he said he was (the creator), and the Bible (which we know to be true) says that things were created on each of the six days of creation - there was no evolution involved. I don't understand why you are stuck on that point- it is quite clear and simple. As for your claim, no it isn't relevant, since even if he did create the world, that doesn't mean he didn't use evolution. --> Hello!?? You're missing the keyword - create!!! ;) As for your constant pov pushing and unverifiable editing, see my discussion below (which I'm about to create)... --EChronicle 13:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello all : ) I renew my suggestion to eliminate the second paragraph and expand the third. Any attempt to fix the second paragraph will duplicate the third. This introduction is long and wordy. Take a word away from the introduction for every word you add.

Need to stick to verifiable, reliable sources when describing this controversy. Need to be careful that we are not doing original research. Is there a source that describes the controversy succinctly? Can the main editors on this page agree on a source with a consise passage of text describing the issue? FloNight ^talk 22:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, ScienceApologist

... for recently improving the article in many places and also making it stronger by adding many citations. I also like your sourcing, copyediting and re-inserting of information I added (and saw reverted) a month ago - something I had meant to do myself but life happened...

However, I seem to detect a problem with one of the citations [Johnson, Phillip E. 1990. Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. First Things (Oct.), 15-22. http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pjdogma1.htm] (the one in support of my original edit, of all things). It doesn't cite a creationist calling their own plight a battle between good and evil: Johnson attributed the "good and evil" dichotomy to someone else, "William Provine, a leading historian of Darwinism," who blamed the scientific establishment itself for misleading the public about the absolute incompatibility of contemporary Darwinism with any belief in God, designing forces, or absolute standards of good and evil. Johnson goes on to write: According to Provine, "These rationalizations are politic but intellectually dishonest."' (Also, I'm not sure that Johnson is a creationist in the sense of "biblical fundamentalist".)

Am I reading this correctly? AvB ÷ talk 11:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The tone of Johnson's article was indeed more implicitly calling the evolution supporters evil rather than explicitly. I have found an article which defends an explicit labeling from AiG. Better? --ScienceApologist 14:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good example. Thanks again. AvB ÷ talk 22:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Macro - Micro

"Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution" Douglas H. Erwin, Evolution & Development,Volume 2 Page 78 - March\April 2000,doi:10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x,Volume 2 Issue 2 This seems to militate against the description in the article. Dan Watts 12:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Evolutionists consider this a matter of scientific debate: some would argue that repeated microevolution is entirely sufficient as an explanatory model. Ming the Merciless 14:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the article is fair support of the distinction made in this article between macroevolution and microevolution (a difference of time and the amount of difference between organisms connected ancestorally). --ScienceApologist 14:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"These discontinuities impose a hierarchical structure to evolution and discredit any smooth extrapolation from allelic substitution to large-scale evolutionary patterns" (from [4]) does not sound like "The only difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is the total amount of evolutionary change and the number of generations that had passed between ancestors and descendants" to me. Could you elucidate? Dan Watts 15:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article has problems - notably "Biologists argue that "macroevolution", "microevolution" and kind are non-scientific, inherently imprecise terms coined by creationists" - "kinds" maybe, but not the other two.

To begin with, despite the title of the paper, Erwin is asking a question, not making a statement. He begins by saying "Since all evolutionary change involves intraspecific modification and speciation, in a trivial sense macroevolution could be reduced to microevolution". The major idea he develops is one of scale. He talks about the fact that species with planktonic larvae are less prone to extinction than those with non-planktonic larvae - as a result, certain clades are less prone to extinction than other clades. Thus, there are macro patterns in evolution which cannot really be studied from a microevolutionary standpoint. You can't sum up microevolutionary change to explain why one whole clade is more successful than another clade, despite the fact that you can explain the differences within each lineage in microevolutionary terms.

In a real sense, this is like saying that you can't explain ecological phenomena, say, predator-prey dynamics, in molecular terms, despite the fact that you can explan what is going on in every individual in molecular terms. As a community ecologist, Erwin's ideas make a lot of sense. That said, these arguments don't invalidate the statement that macroevolution is microevolution writ large. Mechanistically, they are adequate, but they fail to explain the broader patterns in evolution, so yes, you can say that there is more to macroevolution than repeat rounds of microevolution. Guettarda 20:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

We do need to improve the prose in this section. In particular I think that the explication of the differences between microevolution and macroevolution in the article are correct, but the statement about what biologists "argue" needs to be changed. I'll try to make a clarification. --ScienceApologist 06:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Two missing topics

The article is missing two very important topics:

1. Conflations by creationists of social darwinism/racial theories/eugenics/misogyny with biological evolution
2. First cause issues (infinite regression of turtles all the way down)

These two creationist points are completely lacking in the article right now.

--ScienceApologist 08:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Pursuant to this, I have added a section on the second issue. Please comment/edit this section. The first issue remains unaddressed. --ScienceApologist 03:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

POV Pushing and Unverifiable Editing by JoshuaZ

Hello, JoshuaZ. I would appreciate if you actually did some research before editing in such a POV & UnVerifiable way. I changed the last sentence of the paragraph "Terms of the controversy" (concerning the origin of life) from this:

For example, while almost all biologists consider it a matter of fact that life was formed through natural means, evolutionary theory in and of itself does not necessarily include abiogenesis, the formation of life out of non-living matter.

to this:

The origin of life is, however, fundamental to Evolutionary Biology, because it addresses where life came from.

And I had added a citation at the references section (except I don't know how to get the article to point to the cite - also, I couldn't get the cite to go directly under the "references" section, it only would go under "published books and other resources"), that pointed to evolution.berkeley.edu, that plainly contradicted your so called "the origin of life does not matter to evolution" belief.

The berkely article stated that the origin of life is of "special interest" to evolution and is "fundamental". Please explain how changing the article (and linking to a verifiable source) is pov-pushing?

--EChronicle 13:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The origins of life are irrelevent to evolution. Life could have been created by god, but evolution would still be correct. Abiogenesis hypothesis belong in the articles about origins of life. Jefffire 13:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Please tone down the language, and remember to be civil. Joshua is not POV-pushing, he is supporting the majority viewpoint.
2. The production of energy by the sun is fundamental to life, but you cannot say that nuclear fission is funamental to EB. EB concerns itself with speciation, but the classification of species lies outside of EB, even though it is of interest to evolutionary biologists. Joshua's statement is true - evolutionary theory does not and cannot address the origin of life. It's outside of the scope of evolutionary theory. Selection, drift, speciation, evo-devo...these are all evolutionary topics. The origin of life, predator-prey dynamics, pollination - these all lie outside of EB. DNA replication is fundamental to EB, but it's a biochem/molecular biology question. Optimising the enzymes involved in replication - EB question. How they work - not an EB question. Guettarda 13:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the majority is not always in the right, but neither is the minority. It is impossible to write anything without being biased unless you honestly don't care about the subject in which case you won't write anything no it unless you must. The origins of life is outside the scope of evolution but evolution still needs to base its assumption upon where we came from. Evolution claims that we have come through a long, slow process to where we are now starting from simple one-celled bacteria which had to get here somehow. If God is taken out of the picture then we had to come from non-living matter. In fact, if God is taken out of the picture, we can't be sure we evolved in the right way or even what right means in that context. We are an accident according to evolutionary theory. Even if God did create, he can't be the perfect omnipotent God of the Bible because the God that creates and lets evolution do the rest would be a liar if he was the God of the Bible and he would not be the close personal God He professes to be, but some distant holy being who has absolutely no concern for his creation, just letting them kill off each other for hundreds of billions of years. Does that sound like a loving God? Evolution has to make some assumptions either way as does Creationism or whatever else you believe. 209.145.244.126 16:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no "right" way to evolve; like "how green is up?", it's a nonsensical question. As for the implications of scientific facts and theories, evolutionary or otherwise, it's been noted many times on this page and elsewhere that some people have no problem reconciling science with their faith. - FlyingOrca 17:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

He's getting evolution and natural selection mixed up. And even then he's on the wrong track as natural selection works in response to environment and you could argue that god controls that (not that I would). Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 17:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

EChronicle, you're making a lot of the page you link to, but if you check the index it doesn't feature as a main part of "Evolution 101": as far as I can see, you've got to go through 1. Introduction and nine pages of 2. The history of life: before you find a link to it as "Take a sidetrip". It can also be reached from the home page in a section at the foot headed "HIghlights". You also seem to be misinterpreting the text. As the page says, "within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from." That's not the same as saying this "special interest" is "fundamental to Evolutionary Biology", except in the widest sense that without life there would be no discussion. The sentence you attribute to JoshuaZ is accurate and NPOV ...dave souza, talk 17:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

My Response

Dave, to deal with your first point, there's two identical pages on their website that are called "From soup to cells - the origin fo life". The one I pointed to is: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/origsoflife_01, which is listed under "Evolution 101", and the other one is http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_01 , which is listed as a side-trip. To deal with your next point, I'm not misinterpreting the text. This is what the Berkely page states:

However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from.

And here is what I wrote:

The origin of life is, however, fundamental to Evolutionary Biology, because it addresses where life came from.

The Berkely text is saying that the origin of life is of special interest to EB because it is a fundamental question. That's what I wrote in my quote, except I left out the "special interest" part.

I'm not attributing the following sentence to JoshuaZ (For example, while almost all biologists consider it a matter of fact that life was formed through natural means, evolutionary theory in and of itself does not necessarily include abiogenesis, the formation of life out of non-living matter.)- what I'm saying is that the sentence is POV and non-verifiable (the berkely article shows that) , and what I changed it to is NPOV and Verifiable.

What I've written to you, dave, also addresses the remarks made by Jefffire....

As far as what Guetterda wrote, if the production of energy by the sun is fundamental to life, then evolution's got to figure out how the sun was able to start producing energy! I agree with him in that Evolution can not explain the origin of life nor can any materialistic/naturalistic processes. But, even though it cannot, it must! Also, if Evolution can answer for it all, then fine. But if Evolution can not answer for it all, and you have to attribute the origin of life to God, then just attribute the whole thing to God! Because we have evidence that God does exist, that Jesus did live on this earth for a time and is who he said he is (the creator), and we have evidence that the bible is true and factual (any alleged "contradictions" have been "solved" time and time again) - we know that the God of the Bible created life, and he did it in six days. He did not use evolution.

209.145.244.126, the loving God/Hell scenario "problem" just doesn't hold up. I don't have enough time to go through that, so why don't you try a google search or check out "Case for a Creator" at your local library (By Lee Strobel)??? --EChronicle 18:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The above is incorrect from both a scientific and philosophical view point. There are plenty of abiotic hypothesis for the origins of life. The problem is that we don't know all the details yet. To jump from 'we don't have all the answers' to 'therefore god must exist' is intellectually dishonest. Even if life turned out not to have a natural origin this doesn't automatically validate the entirity of Christian creationism, after all there is still the creation stories of every other religion. All it would mean is that the answer would likely be forever beyond us.

It is true that Jesus was a real person. I'm not certain that he ever did say that he was the creator (you could check for me, I think he only claimed to be the son of god rather than god himself). However we don't have any verifiable evidence that god, or the supernatural exists at all, so it's intellectualy dishonest to claim that we do (unless I am misinterprating your words). Jefffire 19:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It is true that Jesus was a real person. I'm not certain that he ever did say that he was the creator (you could check for me, I think he only claimed to be the son of God rather than God himself). --> Check out John 10:31-39, which clears up him being God. And since he was God, and he also created life, well, life was, um, created! However we don't have any verifiable evidence that god, or the supernatural exists at all, so it's intellectualy dishonest to claim that we do (unless I am misinterprating your words). --> Inference to the best explanation points to a supernatural - it points to God. We have a ton of evidence that God exists - so much evidence it would take books and books to tell it all (It does take books and books!). I don't have nearly enough time to tell you all the evidence - so before pushing your pov and unverifiability any further, why don't you do some research? Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel's books are great (esp LStrobel's "Case for Faith")... Put it this way - it takes a ton more faith to believe there isn't a God than to believe there is. Also, 209.145.244.126, I meant to refer you to "Case for Christ", not "Case for a Creator", on that LovingGod/Hell issue. --EChronicle 00:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

...the Father is in me and that I am in the father. Jesus is not claiming to be god here. He is saying that god is in him, and he is in god. What this means is debatable, but it clearly seperates both him and god, so they are not the same entity. This theological discussion is of course irrelevent to evolution, much like the origins of life. Jefffire 15:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jeff, not exactly sure what you're reading, but read why they were going to stone Jesus - because "You [Jesus], a mere man, claim to be God". This theological discussion is of course irrelevent to evolution... --> No, it is definitely relevant. Since we have evidence (tons and tons of evidence) that Jesus is the creator, that the Bible is true, etc, etc, we know for certain that this earth was created, and that it didn't evolve. ...much like the origins of life. --> I am befuddled as to how you reconcile that statement with the Berkeley article I've pointed to... I'm going to clarify my reasoning once again at the bottom of this section... --EChronicle 17:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Tons and tons of evidence the Jesus created everything? Must have happened overnight because the sciencific community isn't aware of it. The Islamic creationist movement isn't either. Perhaps you are under the impression that near-death anectdotes or the 'scientific' articles on Christian apologetic websites constitue evidence, otherwise you don't have a leg to stand on with this statement. Jefffire 18:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

EChronicle, you're trying to include this classic creationist argument in the wrong place. This is the "first cause" point of creationism (the infinite regression of wherefrom questions). This is not intrinsic to the discussion of evolutionary biology which admits its limitations in following the infinite regression just as creationists claim triumph in understanding the answer to this question. --ScienceApologist 19:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Echronicle - you are espousing a new philosophy of science. That's most certainly OR. Accusing someone of POV-pushing by failing to espouse your OR is ridiculous. Guettarda 20:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ec, none of the headings on the "Evolution 101 Table of Contents" refer to origins - is it under a different heading? You're putting together "origins is a fundamental question" and is of "special interest" to claim that it's fundamental to EB: if you can't see that does not follow, there's a problem with your ideological blinkers. Even if it did follow, the argument you're constructing is a violation of WP:NOR and I suggest that you read that carefully. ...dave souza, talk 22:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Dave, I'm not doing original research. I'm saying what Berkely says (and berkely is a verifiable source). It really doesn't matter to me how you find the berkely page, just note that on the berkely origins page it has the "Evolution 101" header. Note what Berkeley says:

However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from.

Within the field of EB, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from. If you can't see that, well, there's a problem with your ideological blinkers. Please put aside your personal bias for a couple of seconds and read the sentence carefully. --EChronicle 00:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah dear, Ec, there's no problem with the Berkeley quote in its context. Although it seems superfluous to me, it fits well in the original sentence:

For example, while almost all biologists consider it a matter of fact that life was formed through natural means and the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from, evolutionary theory in and of itself does not necessarily include abiogenesis, the formation of life out of non-living matter.

But for some reason you seem to want to dispense with the second part of the sentence. By cherry picking words out of context to construct your own argument that "The origin of life is... fundamental to Evolutionary Biology", you then apparently dispute the operation of evolution theory without regard to the origin of life. That's a violation of WP:NOR#What is excluded? in introducing an analysis or synthesis to build a particular case you favor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source.

You seem to be putting forward a standard creationist claim, suitable citations responding to this are at Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism: section iii: abiogenesis "The first thing that needs to be stressed about abiogenesis is that it is separable from evolutionary theory. One can consistently accept every tenet of evolution yet believe that the very first organisms from which contemporary life evolved were created. One can likewise consistently believe that life arises spontaneously from nonlife, yet reject the notion that life evolves." and TalkOrigins "The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution." Unsurprisingly, the Berkeley teaching resource in no way disputes these points. ...dave souza, talk 14:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Dave, here is what the current sentence says under "Terms of the Controversy":

For example, while almost all biologists consider it a matter of fact that life was formed through natural means, evolutionary theory in and of itself does not necessarily include abiogenesis, the formation of life out of non-living matter.

Here is what the Berkely article states:

Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from.

The last part of the Wikipedia sentence clearly contradicts the Berkeley article. (evolutionary theory in and of itself does not include abiogenesis vs. within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from.)

I'm not cherry-picking words out of context. I'm not doing OR. I'm not breaking WP:NOR. The way the article is right now contradicts a reputable source and my efforts to make it more factual have been reverted.

Also, I am pointing to a reputable source. You, dave, pointed to vuletic.com, which is Mark I. Vuletic's personal site (a non-reputable site). If you want to compare Berkeley with M.I.Vuletic...

"The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution." Unsurprisingly, the Berkeley teaching resource in no way disputes these points. --> I don't know how you could even come close to saying that... Since you seem to need a comparison, here goes...

TalkOrigins: The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.

vs.

Berkeley: Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from.

That is a very clear contradiction, and I g2g...

--EChronicle 17:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

EChronicle, there is still a difference between what you said and what the Berkeley article says:

The Berkely article states:

However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from.

And here is what you wrote:

The origin of life is, however, fundamental to Evolutionary Biology, because it addresses where life came from.

Berkeley says that the origin of life is of special interest to evolutionary biology, whereas you wrote that the origin of life is fundamental to evolutionary biology. There is a world of difference. One says that the answer to the origin of life is an important piece of evolutionary biology (of special interest), whereas saying it is "fundamental" says evolutionary biology cannot exist without an answer to the origin of life. The latter is definitely not what the Berkeley article says. Evolution stands and can be proven (as it has been so far) without having to answer the specific question of the origin of life (in the sense of the origin of primordial life). This distinction holds regardless of whether one considers that the question of the origins of life is part of evolutionary biology per ser, which I believe can be debated. So, with all due respect, whether you intended it or not, you ended up reinterpreting the quotation.--Ramdrake 18:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Useful material for upcoming section on race/gender-arguments and creationism

I'm excited for this section, boys and girls! A lot of ins, a lot of outs. I've begun collecting Wikilinks. Please add salient articles you know of for this section below.

• Naturalistic fallacy
• Herbert Spencer
• Social Darwinism
• Survival of the fittest
• Scientific racism
• Devolution (fallacy)
• Religious attitudes to racism
• Religion and slavery
• Structural violence
• Race
• Eugenics

--ScienceApologist 06:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Apples and *&$%ing Oranges

The assertation that evolution is supported by astrophysics in included in the opening paragraph. No references are provided, nor are their examples given within the article itself. The only applicable instance in which physics could be used to justify the field of biology is in verifying the age of the universe. This point is not necessarily valid in all creation-evolution debates, as not all creationists hold with the young earth theory (Talk.Origins). Unless a valid argument is presented for justifying this inclusion, it needs to be omitted. --Coldbourne 14:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It's refering to creation/origin models such as the Big bang and other cosmological theories of the begining of the universe (cosmology is a feld of astrophysics). Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 16:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is not just about evolutionary theory, but about eveery facet of science which is neccacery to it, such as an old Earth. Jefffire 17:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The distinction is between Evolution (term) and Evolution. Though creationists mostly focus on the latter, as people often find biological evolution harder to come to terms with, many dispute other areas of evolution and science. And in the spectrum of beliefs, some consider Creation to be fully compatible with all the findings of science. I've amended the links in the intro to try to clarify this. ...dave souza, talk 19:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Gracias. --Coldbourne 21:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Judaism say

I don't have time to sort out the article, but the article should make mention Judaism takes no part in the Christians and friends crusade against science. The Rabbinical Council of America has issued a letter on Judaism say:

December 22nd 2005

21 Kislev 5766

In light of the ongoing public controversy about Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design, the RCA notes that significant Jewish authorities have maintained that evolutionary theory, properly understood, is not incompatible with belief in a Divine Creator, nor with the first 2 chapters of Genesis.

There are authentic, respected voices in the Jewish community that take a literalist position with regard to these issues; at the same time, Judaism has a history of diverse approaches to the understanding of the biblical account of creation. As Rabbi Joseph Hertz wrote, "While the fact of creation has to this day remained the first of the articles of the Jewish creed, there is no uniform and binding belief as to the manner of creation, i.e. as to the process whereby the universe came into existence. The manner of the Divine creative activity is presented in varying forms and under differing metaphors by Prophet, Psalmist and Sage; by the Rabbis in Talmudic times, as well as by our medieval Jewish thinkers." Some refer to the Midrash (Koheleth Rabbah 3:13) which speaks of God "developing and destroying many worlds" before our current epoch. Others explain that the word "yom" in Biblical Hebrew, usually translated as "day," can also refer to an undefined period of time, as in Isaiah 11:10-11. Maimonides stated that "what the Torah writes about the Account of Creation is not all to be taken literally, as believed by the masses" (Guide to the Perplexed II:29), and recent Rabbinic leaders who have discussed the topic of creation, such as Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch and Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, saw no difficulty in explaining Genesis as a theological text rather than a scientific account.

Judaism affirms the idea that God is the Creator of the Universe and the Being responsible for the presence of human beings in this world.
Nonetheless, there have long been different schools of thought within Judaism regarding the extent of divine intervention in natural processes. One respected view was expressed by Maimonides who wrote that "we should endeavor to integrate the Torah with rational thought, affirming that events take place in accordance with the natural order wherever possible.? (Letter to the Jews of Yemen) All schools concur that God is the ultimate cause and that humanity was an intended end result of Creation.

For us, these fundamental beliefs do not rest on the purported weaknesses of Evolutionary Theory, and cannot be undermined by the elimination of gaps in scientific knowledge.

Judaism has always preferred to see science and Torah as two aspects of the "Mind of God" (to borrow Stephen Hawking's phrase) that are ultimately unitary in the reality given to us by the Creator. As the Zohar says (Genesis 134a): "istakel be-'oraita u-vara 'alma," God looked into the Torah and used it as His blueprint for creating the Universe. [5]

(Yes, the RCA's website isn't so great) eeemess 15:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, many other jewish groups have massive problems (for example the Lubavitchers and most other chassidic groups). JoshuaZ 13:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. This has been authorised by the developing sanhedrin who's President/Nasi Even Yisrael is chabad (and an author of chabad.org): [6]. Rabbi David Brown (known is Bruan by Chabadniks thanks to Yiddish) - a chabadnik - published a 200 page book on this subject and shows how there is no confict at all. And then this from one of the biggest Jewish sites on the Internet: [7]. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 13:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

A Quote From Charles Darwin I Think Highly Relevant

Charles Darwin (1871) sagely noted over a century ago,

"ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

So true. That is why the RCA very clearly says in the first line "when properly understood." ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 17:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Current Jewish Thought Irrelevant

Notice "creationism derived from" as part of the statement under contention. Whatever rabbis are saying now (and note that some Orthodox rabbis don't accept evolution), it can't be argued that creationism isn't heavily influenced by Genesis. Ladlergo 19:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Some unnotable ones. They tend to be rabbis that just became rabbis yesterday and have no idea what they are talking about. The RCA is the bigggest council of notable orthodox rabbis currently. Don't get me wrong, I know many people in the orthodox community who think evolution is nosense but none of them are notable nor represent Judaism. The RCA was choosen by many if not a majority of Jews to represent them. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 06:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This article just reports who the creationist are. Since there are Jewish creationists and we can verify that, it doesn't make sense to exclude this particular religion from the list. What the biggest council or the smartest people say isn't relevant. --ScienceApologist 06:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I choose what the biggest council say as they include most notable people. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 13:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

How about we mention it but make it clear it is a minority opinion within the comunity? Jefffire 13:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Choosing "what the biggest council say" and leaving all other opinions out is like choosing what the majority of Christians say and leaving all other opinions out. And last time I checked, it looked like the majority of Christians didn't have a problem with evolution, either. (Well, outside the Excited States, anyhow.) - FlyingOrca 15:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Given how many haredim there are, it isn't even clear to me that it is a minority view by a strict numbers count. See Nosson Slifkin for related info. JoshuaZ 16:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Many Haredim agree with these opinions. Don't think because they banned one person's books they are creationist. Aish HaTorah who has taken part in the ban themselve have authored and published such materials (e.g. [8]). ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 06:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it does make it a questionable enough issue that one can't just claim that straight out that the majority of Jews are not creationist. Also, Aish HaTorah is a bit different since they actually run from YEC to OEC but really don't at all like common ancestry. So if anything that backs up my claim. JoshuaZ 15:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Unlike you I source my comments. Please bring me one place where they claim YEC views. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I seem to be wrong about Aish. My apologies. JoshuaZ 17:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Judaism inappropriate

Since there exists fundamentalist Jews who accept creationism, it is inappropriate to remove the reference to fundamentalist Judaism as a basis for certain creationist beliefs. Please refrain from doing so. Also the added paragraph does not belong here. Put it in Jewish creationism. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 13:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Btw, it is not accurate to call charedim "fundamentalist." See Fundamentalist which discusses this. JoshuaZ 15:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

How many times do I have to tell you? Haredim agree to what Rashi says. They print their copies of the Bible's with his commentery. They explain according to him. They explain there is not conflict. They publish such material. Rabbi Noah Weinberg's Haredi Yeshiva publish such material: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16], all written by many different Haredi Rabbis, Doctors and sceincetist. And audio tapes: [17]. Don't think thats all of them because there are many more. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Haredi views are more complicated than that. They all accept Ibn Ezra as a general commentator but would be shocked if they read some of his stuff (he had ideas very similar to the modern documentary hypothesis). Many charedim don't have that attitude. For example (to pick an easy one) the Lubavitcher rebbe was strongly against evolution see for example this letter [18]. If you want I can also give you citations to various books endorsed by chabad or produced by lubavitchers that have the same attitude. The Bratslavers and Satmar have similar, although not as strong, attitudes. I'm not claiming that anti-evolution views are universal among charedim, just that they are common. JoshuaZ 17:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have seen this letter and the ones that go along with it and the ones in Hebrew and Yiddish. Let me say that without seeing both sides of the letter you can not understand what it properly means. It seems to me that Schneerson is refuting Richard Dawkins' school of evolution. As it seems so from: I must begin with two prefatory remarks: (a) It should be self-evident that my letter did not imply a negation or rejection of science or of the scientific method, In fact, I stated so explicitly towards the end of my said letter. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 17:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

As for people with such views most of them are not notable. Secondly as for books, yes I know some, one is called Judaism FAQ and has been banned by many Haredi rabbis 15 years ago. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 17:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Notability is irrelevant to this conversation. --ScienceApologist 17:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is! Please bring sources for your claim. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 18:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I myself have run into jewish YECists. That's Original Research of course, but it seems very POV to remove Judaism from the article entirely just because most don't believe in it. Jefffire 18:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No you are removing Judaism. I am removing Judaism from the fundamentalism statement because fundamentalist aren't creationist. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 18:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me quote from the fundamentalism article. Most Jewish denominations believe that the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible or Old Testament) cannot be understood literally or alone, but rather needs to be read in conjunction with additional material known as the oral law; this material is contained in the Mishnah, Talmud, Gmara and Midrash. While the Tanakh is not read in a literal fashion, Orthodox Judaism does view the text itself as divine, infallible, and transmitted essentially without change, and places great import in the specific words and letters of the Torah. As well, some adherents of Orthodox Judaism, especially Haredi Judaism, see the Mishnah, Talmud and Midrash as divine and infallible in content, if not in specific wording. Hasidic Jews frequently ascribe infallibility to their Rebbe's interpretation of the traditional sources of truth. On the other hand the Karaites according to the "are a Jewish sect which does not recognize the authority of the post-Biblical tradition incorporated in the Talmud and in the latter Rabbinic works."- You see it even says so in the fundamentalism. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 18:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Miami Herald article
• AiG article about Israeli rabbis rejecting evolutionary ads
• AiG explains their connection to Orthodox Jewish literalism
• Jewish blog which claims there are scholars that are creationists and scholars that are not
• comment from a usenet group that pertains to our discussion

We aren't saying that the majority of Jews are creationists in this article, only that there are creationist thoughts which derive from Judaism. Claiming these advocates are non-notable is beside the point. --ScienceApologist 18:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

They are not fundamentalist. The statemnet is in reference of fundamentalism. No Jewish fundamentalist holds such views. You are censoring fundamentalist Jewish views by removing the paragraph that contains fundamentalist Jewish views. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 18:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Basicaly this is about what you believe constitutes a "Jewish fundementalist". Jefffire 19:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

More than that, ems2 seems to be unwilling to acknowledge that there are many YEC charedim in general and also many generally anti-evolution charedim. JoshuaZ 19:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What nonsense. Let me quote myself with the typos:

1. Don't get me wrong, I know many people in the orthodox community who think evolution is nosense
2. As for people with such views ... yes I know some, one is called Judaism FAQ ...

I think I made myself very clear. There are such people. HOWEVER, they are not fundementalist by defination. The statement says primarily the forms of creationism derived from fundamentalist ... You can not include Judaism in such a statement. If you wish you can state there are some unfundamentalistic Jews who have such views. But you can not say its the view of fundamental Judaism. Please stop censoring Jewish fundamental views. Please self-revert yourself. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 19:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Essentially your point if that they are not fundementalist by your definition of fundementalist. Jefffire 19:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it is like this. EMS2 has a good point that the term fundementalist there may not be accurate when describing those in Judaism that believe in creationism. Additionally, there are a great number of Jewish sources which although they reject evolution they have a different view of creationism than commonly understood and those views should be included either in this article or in a new article that would go into this. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

They are not fundementalist by wikipedia's defination. Please source your comments. Please bring a source that says they are fundementalist. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 19:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

A flitter around on google shows that jewish YECist consider themselves "fundementalists" on the grounds that that is what is written in Genesis. Jefffire 19:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you source them? ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 20:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of the Haredi Jews. I can't get a descent page about them but the name should be enough to find a link if you are determined. Jefffire 20:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have proved you wrong on that one. I brought MANY Haredi views. I sourced them. You didn't. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 20:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

And I thought you just said you Google and found many such sources? Why can't find them 31min later? ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 20:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Because I have a life that is more important to me than dredging for links. Jefffire 20:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Jefffire, you need to bring a source. EMS2 has a good point and has sourced his statements. You cannot evade giving a source by saying you have a life. --PinchasC |£€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not avoiding it. I just can't find any decent pages on the diversity of Jewish origin beliefs at all. Jefffire 20:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. You are censoring sourced and proven traditional and fundemental Jewish viewpoints. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 20:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This is still essentially the view that YECist Jews aren't fundementalist because you don't believe they are. YECist Jews simply place a greater weight on the Old Testament than other texts. Thus a "fundementalist Jew" could be YEC.Jefffire 20:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So you are basing your censorship on original research? I have sourced you wrong. You, sir, are a censor and a very good one. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 20:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No. This is not censorship or a OR dispute. This is NPOV. It is your POV that a Jew who believes in Young Earth Creationism cannot be a fundementalist. There are many Jews who are Creationists and who fall under the categorisation of "fundementalist". There are also many "fundementalist" Jews who do not believe in YEC. There is actually a wide range of Jewish beliefs that can be categorised as "fundementalist", so it would be POV in the extreme not to label YECist factions as fundementalist. Jefffire 21:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be full of excuses. First you claim Google has brought you endless sources. Then you claim you have a life and can't list even one of those sources. Bring one source where someone claims to be a fundermentalist and a Jew says the claims what you claim. I have brought you many sources that state otherwise. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 21:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to address this point: When I went googling I found plenty of pages but they weren't acceptable as sources - being blogs and personal pages. I'm not dodging anything but I did have a busy day yesterday (which is why this responce comes 7 hours late) and will again today so I have not the time to go and find sources. Ems2, please do not use ad hominem attacks on Wikipedia. Jefffire 07:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

We have among other sources, the AiG article, the Lubavitcher letter and many others. I think we are getting confused here by using the inaccurate term "fundamentalist" so I'd prefer charedi which may be increasing the confusion). The bottom line is that we have given you multiple sources of charedim who are YECs. It is POV and factually inaccurate to claim that they don't exist or that they are an insignificant minority. JoshuaZ 22:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Look up. We spoke about them already. Schneerson's letter no where talks about YECs. I must begin with two prefatory remarks: (a) It should be self-evident that my letter did not imply a negation or rejection of science or of the scientific method, In fact, I stated so explicitly towards the end of my said letter. Stop using Schneerson's letter as one of sources because he very clearly says he is not talking about what you claim him to be. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 23:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

AiG is a creatism Christian site and is obviously biased. The article even proves my point. Judaism does not view the connection of humanity with monkeys as much of an honour for mankind. It does not reject evolution at all. It rejects Richard Dawkins' school of evolution. Which all Jewish fundementalist do. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 23:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, besides [19] which is a joke. The article is talking about a Gentile learning inside a Yeshiva. It also talks much about the New Testament which is rejected as heresy by fundemental Jews. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 23:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Many creationists of all stripes claim they are in fact using the scientific method, see creation science. Schneerson claiming that he is relying on science does not somehow make him not a YEC. 2, Regardless of whether he is a YEC, the letter is strongly anti-evolution. And you again discount the presence of other sources like the entire Nosson Slifkin matter and the AiG article (and while you are correct that AiG has their own reasons for reporting it, the event did occur, it got mentioned in Haaretz (I can't find the article right now, but it was mentioned there also). There are many different forms of anti-evolutionism in the orthodox community (you also have Lee Spetner and others). If you insist, I can go to the library and find yet more examples(including examples of lubavitchers interpreting schneerson's letter just as I do). The fact is that many charedim have strong anti-evolution views, whether directly YEC or some other variant. I understand that this fact makes you uncomfortable, it is an unpleasant and disappointing truth about a group who (in my view at least) often behaves far better than extremist groups on other religions. This doesn't make it any less true. JoshuaZ 23:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That is original research. Sure all fundemental Jews are anti-evolution as in anti the Richard Dawkins school of evolution. Not evolution it self. Most fundemental Jews (as I have sourced above and they were actually Jews) understand the universe of existing before the creation of the heavens and the earth. Likewise, with water. And do not mistranslate "Yom Ehad" as first day as most christian creationist do. Rather they translate it as one day. You can see in the sources I brought above of actual Jews (not a Gentile like the AiG article). The Ramban commentates on "Yom Ehad" and explains why it doesn't say "Yom Rishon" (first day) stating that a day wasn't defined yet and this is was when it was. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 23:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. What precisely do you think would be OR? JoshuaZ 23:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Saying Schneerson is anti-evolution. Besides the point he very clearly says he is not. Seeing that we can't see the side of the letter we should not judge. I will try and get some of his talks about creation today. BTW, one example of a chabad rabbi interpeting as you is in Judaism FAQ - a book that has been banned for over 15 years. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 00:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused, how is it OR to say that the letter looks pretty anti-evolution? And there are other similar letters, do they all magically change their meaning when put into more context? In any case, it isn't OR is I cite a book, so how about "Science in the light of the Torah: A B'Or HaTorah" (Edited by Herman Branover and Ilana Coven Attia) 1994 Jason Aronson Inc. The book contains many essays by prominent chabad and lubavitch individuals, ranging from TE to YEC, and all those who cite the letter agree that its an endorsement of YECism by the Rebbe. JoshuaZ 00:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The article says fundamentalist or religiously conservative groups. EMS seems to think that there are no religiously conservative groups that use this interpretation which are also Jewish. This is clearly false. Upon unprotection, Jewish needs to go back in as duly referenced. --ScienceApologist 04:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to step in here briefly, please work out the text beforehand. This is clearly the most contentious matter that has led to the edit war, and so the discussion should probably address that issue foremost. Cheers, Tomer^talk 07:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the wording "...or religously conservative..." entirely bypasses the apparently religously sensitive topic of what is a "fundementalist". Jefffire 07:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

So far your only clearly states what you claim was a missionary learning in some London Yeshiva.... ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 09:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand how "derived from" has anything to do with how rabbis choose to interpret the Torah today. Christianity is based off of the Old and New Testaments, and the literal interpretation of the OT/Torah is one of creationism. (For that matter, Islam also acknowledges the Torah.) If not for the Torah's existence (and Judiasi, which kicked off modern western religion), what would current creationism be based off of? Ladlergo 14:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

See reply in sub-section. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 06:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

EMS - can you explain what you mean by the "Richard Dawkins' school of evolution"? Do you mean that Judaism rejects gene-centred evolution in favour of group selection? Isn't that just neo-Nazi propaganda? Guettarda 05:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The Richard Dawkins' school that hold there is no room for God in evolution. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 09:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No, in the field of evolution Dawkins is known for being a proponent of gene-centred evolution against group selection. Dawkins' view of the world has no room for a deity, but that is entirely apart from any "Dawkins school" in evolution. It read like an anti-Semetic statement to me. Guettarda 13:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll quote this from Rashi - an commentator that many Haredi rabbis endorse: Rabbis stated (Letters of Rabbi Akiva, second letter; Genesis Rabbah 1:6; Leviticus Rabbah 36:4): Scripture did not come to teach the sequence of the Creation. If you say that Scripture indicates the order of creation be astounded at yourself, for the water preceded, as it is written: (Genesis 1:2) “and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the water,” and Scripture did not yet disclose when the creation of water took place! From this you learn that the water preceded the earth. Perforce, you must admit that Scripture did not teach us anything about the sequence of the earlier and the later acts of creation. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 09:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

On YEC and OEC. The Jewish understanding that sourced to say both dates are correct and show how. Jews reject them individually. They reject both schools. However, they have their own school of understanding. [20] ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 09:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This post claims chabad rabbis teaching in this way. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 10:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The sentence in question says that YECism come from "fundentalist or religously consevative" people. Even if you believe that YEC jews aren't fundementalist surely the term "religously conservative" still applies, making your point moot. After all, what were they all believing three hundred years ago? Jefffire 11:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Show one source of YECism or OECism in Judaism. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 06:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Genesis. Jefffire 08:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish calender starts from the supposed date of creation does it not? It's into the 5 thousands now. Jefffire 09:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I would of expect you to of read at least the first Jewish source I brought. [21] explains the issue very well. The Talmud (Chaggiga 13b) very clearly states there were 974 generations before the creation of Adam and Moses was the 1000th. Yes it does start from the supposed date of creation. However, there was creation before that. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 14:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[22]This link is a joke right? It's just anouther pseudoscientific apologetic piece. Total rubbish. Jefffire 16:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Unlike anything you have said its a sourced Jewish view. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

On the matter of Rabbis banning an advertisement which shows a evolution of an ape to a human. Rabbinical literature states humans were created with tails until the time of Noah people had webbed fingures, etc. None of these things can be found in apes. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 06:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The link ems provided proves that including Judaism in the sentence makes perfect sense. Here is a relevant quote: "Let me clarify right at the start. The world may be only some 6000 years old. God could have put the fossils in the ground and juggled the light arriving from distant galaxies to make the world appear to be billions of years old." If this represents Jewish thought, then they support the possibility of Omphalos creationism. Therefore, we have established that Judaism supports creationism in at least some form. The statement does not say preferentially supports, so there is no issue. --ScienceApologist 13:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Where in the article does it say what you say? ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 14:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite obviously in the section Spectrum of creationist beliefs. Jefffire 14:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Judaism literal understanding of Genesis

Rashi commentary is the simple/literal understanding of the Torah and is highly criticized for it. The Maharal said you should first teach a child the real meaning of the Torah before the simple. He actually forbid teaching Rashi to children. Rashi's understanding would be the fundamental reading of the Torah. And what does Rashi say? He says the word "Bere'shit" is grammatically connected (it doesn't mean in the beginning rather in the beginning of $the_next_word) to the next word as we can see every other time "re'shit" is used in the Torah it is connected to the next word. He also says if the Torah wanted to teach the order of creation is would of used the word "bere'shona" which is the grammatical correct word. Rashi says If you say that Scripture indicates the order of creation be astounded at yourself, for the water preceded, as it is written: (Genesis 1:2) “and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the water,” and Scripture did not yet disclose when the creation of water took place! From this you learn that the water preceded the earth. Perforce, you must admit that Scripture did not teach us anything about the sequence of the earlier and the later acts of creation. Literal understanding of Genesis is NOT using some inaccurate Christian translation! Literal understanding in Judaism is very different to Christianity and Islam. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 06:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This whole thing strikes me as historical revisionism. Jefffire 08:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the view of Rabbinical Judaism. And has been thousands of years before this controversy. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 14:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

So your view is that no Jewish persons believe in Creationism or have ever? Jefffire 14:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Not in creationism as explained in this article. No Jewish fundamentalist or religously conservative. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

And how do you define "fundementalist" or "religously conservative"? Additionally there is a wide bearth given to different types of creationism. I suggest rereading it, creation according to genesis is only one of the religous anti-evolution beliefs discussed. Jefffire 16:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes and how are any of them Jewish? ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The conflict centers primarily around the defensibility of creationism (primarily the forms of creationism derived from fundamentalist or religiously conservative Christian and Islamic accounts of origins) that holds the scientific explanations of origins to be antithetical to creation theology, and oftentimes, more specifically, Creation according to Genesis.

That is the part which seems to be causeing theological trouble. As you can see it lists "creation according to genesis" as a specific, but "creation theology" is given as the generic, which covers different interpratation using the other holy books. It seems to me that is whole arguement is down to misreading the intro. Jefffire 16:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Other "holy books" like the Midrash, Talmud, thousands of commentators states that there was creation before the Genesis account started and that Genesis is not talking about the beginning of creation. If you don't bring any sources for your side of the debate then I think we are finished. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 17:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless you can source that every follower of Judaism has always believed in a billions year old universe then you are mistaken. I think you are misinterprating the intro. Jefffire 17:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems I have a quote.

"Orthodox Judaism, too, has a literal approach to creation, taken from the Old Testament and the Talmud, known collectively as Torah. "Torah does not believe in evolution", said Rabbi Benny Zippel of Chabad Lubavitch of Utah. "Torah believes that during the six days of creation, God created man in God's image". The Reform Jewish tradition, on the other hand, takes the Bible less literally, says Rabbi Tracee Rosen of Congregation Kol Ami. "We don't have any problem whatsoever with issues of science and faith conflicting with each other", she says.".

Apparently this was from the Utah news. [23] Jefffire 17:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No Jews believes one or the other they believe both and I have sourced Haredi Yeshiva Aish HaTorah for believing such a thing. The literal approach to Genesis in Judaism is that Genesis is not the order of creation and there forsure was creation before hand. Likewise what you have quoted states "and the Talmud" and I have shown you where the Talmud states there were 974 generations before Adam was created in the garden. The Talmud's literal understanding of Genesis is very contracting to Christian understanding. Literally understanding includes grammar. It could even be argued that Genesis without grammar is unliteral but that would be orignal research. And likewise their quote "Torah believes that during the six days of creation, God created man in God's image" this 100% correct. Adam was created in the record part of creation in Genesis. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 18:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You've ceased to make sense. Please simplify your arguements into a consice form so we can discuss them properly. I've just sourced a Rabbi saying "Torah does not believe in evolution" and it is fairly clear from the context that the Rabbi believed in a relatively young earth. Does this not show that there is at least some group who hold an anti-evolutionary stance? Jefffire 18:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry lack of sleep. He may be anti-evolution but that doesn't make him a creationist as discused by this article. I'll give Rabbi Zippel a call in 10 or so hours. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 05:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Not one of the section under Spectrum of creationist beliefs applies? Jefffire 10:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ems2, the Midrash and Talmud were compiled after the Tanakh had been around for many generations. I can't see them existing for any reason but to patch holes found through discussion of the Tanakh. Any discussion of Genesis written in them must be interpreted as a of historical revisionism as rabbis and other scholars "corrected" the meaning of the orignial. Ladlergo 18:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Slight disagreement there in that there are elements of the midrash and the talmud which everyone agrees are old and likely contemporaneous with elements of the Tanach. Still the basic point remains true, to take for granted all the midrashic materiel as reflecting the original source material is massively POV and questionable from a scholarly perspective. JoshuaZ 20:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In mainstream Judaism they contain accounts of creation. Because Judaism never has believed the Genesis account was talking about In the beginning of everything... ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 05:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

But they do believe it was the beggining of something. That could be old Earth creationism or something else entirely, but there is some belief in "creation". Jefffire 08:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure they do. However, from religious texts it self they find no conflict with evolution. Because religious texts themselves talk about the creation before Genesis. Likewise, in Pslams it says "the word he commanded (the Torah) at the end of a thousand generations." Genesis only records 26 generations before Moses. The Talmud states that have learnt in a barasia that there were 974 generations before Adam the first. I will call Rabbi Zippel in the morning. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 14:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ems2, the M and T are POV and are unlikely to have reflected original intent. I also doubt that Jusdaism "never" believed that Genesis was the beginning of everything. Please address this. Ladlergo 14:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Doubt all you want (your doubting doesn't change the truth). btw, its Judaism. Jews have always refuted saying Genesis creation of everything because its illogical from its Hebrew wording. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 15:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Am I missing something? 974 generations before Adam is still significantly different from scientific accounts of human evolution. I don't think you've thought your objection through. Jefffire 14:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And its also very different to so-called creationism. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 14:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is why we have a section called Spectrum of creationist beliefs. I am coming to think this is an atempt to distance orthodox Jewish beliefs from the more embarassing Christian one. Jefffire 15:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And Islamic. No mainstream sector of Judaism thinks evolution is antithetical to Genesis or any religious text. Good night. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 15:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The spectrum of creationist beliefs do not include the beliefs of fundamental Judaism. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 15:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I no longer think you have a rational case. I now think your objection is based on misinterpratation of the article and personal bias. This is why I am ending my input in this discussion. Jefffire 15:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And no mainstream sector of Christianity thinks evolution is antithetical to Genesis or any religious text (in fact, the Vatican's astronomer said believing in the literal version of creationism is "paganism"). Your point? We're not dealing with mainstream views here. Ladlergo 15:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is a bit more complicated than that. The largest Protestant denominations in the US- the Southern Baptists have strong creationism elements. It seems to be let common in Islam, even the Taliban was not strongly anti-evolution (previous statement is OR). EMS seems to be engaging in a series of no true scottsman fallacies, defining out any group as Jewish if he is uncomfortable with their beliefs. JoshuaZ 15:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I said mainstream to exclude the messanics. Because they are not Jewish according to the rest of Judaism. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 15:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, according to whom and who do you mean by messianics? If you mean people who believe that the Lubavitcher is moshiach, then it varies, depending on how strong their messichis beliefs are. JoshuaZ 15:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Messanic "Judaism." Good night again. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're wandering into the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. There are Christians who say "no true Christian harms another", but that doesn't invalidate that the Crusaders were Christian. Ladlergo 15:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the snark, but I don't usually change my spelling errors in discussions (I don't like to be accused of changing what I wrote previously). BTW, my family is Jewish (parents are reconstructionist and I had a bat miztvah), but that doesn't mean I'm going to say that Judaism can't be as flawed as any other religion, or that it doesn't have its nuts. Ladlergo 15:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I support this reversion. This large paragraph doesn't belong in this article (regardless of the merits it may or may not have - perhaps it's something for the Haredi Jews article). The Creation-evolution controversy article clearly deals with subsets of these religions who qualify as creationists. The inserted text is about one religion's) subset who do not qualify as creationists. As such, the entire text needs to go. No need to invoke any policy at all (although several would apply).

However, this does not resolve the root problem: some editors dispute the existence of a notable subset of creationists amongst Haredi Jews. Since no citations have been provided, and the burden of proof is on those who want this infoprmation included in the article, I suggest {{fact}} tagging the reference to Haredi Jews. Outright removal does not seem helpful to the building of an encyclopedia. Ultimately it may be removed, together with the "Judaism/Jewish" reference, if no citations are provided in a month or so. AvB ÷ talk 09:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)