Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive 24

Wikipedia biased towards Evolution

On the evolution page, wikipedia was very obviously biased towards it being 'factual' and the like. I looked into the discussion topic where it stated that, being an article on evolution, it focused on the concept and not the debate of it. There was no controversy section, nothing suggesting that evolution could potentially be false.

I went over to the article on creation (the primary opposite of evolution) and expected to find a similar article. However, the first thing I read was

    "Creation science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation   narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove or reinterpret the scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution"

The word 'attempts' and the implication of facts (implying truth) appear to suggest that the concept of creationism is an outsider attempt to undermine proven truth as opposed to a religious belief that has been around since arguably the creation of the world itself.

Scanning through the next paragraph, it is immediately bashed again as having 'overwhelming disapproval within the scientific community' (40% of Americans believe in Creationism, as opposed to 50% of Americans believing in evolution with a majority believing in some form of supreme intervention throughout the process... they are not irrelevant, but no mention is made.

The article then goes on to have an entire section dedicated to the problems of creation, although there was no section with the problems of evolution, which there are many.

Would someone care to explain why it seems as though Wikipedia seems to regard Creationists as usurpers to scientific fact?

Alexandrondon (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia bases article content on material verifiable in published reliable sources. And the overwhelming consensus amongst the relevant sources (those of the scientific community) is that Creationism is incompatible with the scientific evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the scientific consensus, so in a way WP is biased towards science. Evolution is an established scientific theory which is the backbone of biology. There is no "controversy" on evolution to mention in the scientific community. Argumentum ad populum is not how we do things in here, so the percentage of Americans who believe in creationism is irrelevant. Before you ask, the consensus on evolution in the scientific community is not based on beliefs, its based on scientific data. Darwinian Ape ^talk 20:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

See also the FAQ banner at the top of this page. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexandrondon could equally say that biology faculties of major US universities are very biased against creationism. Why is this? Because they do real science (they aren't ancilla theologiae). Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Heck, even the ancilla theologiae seem to be "biased" toward evolution. It's only a select group, primarily focused in America, that wants people to doubt fairly proven science (maybe it's just good for business). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Unconstructive soapboxing, originator has departed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Fixing 'level of support' line Just making a section to highlight (from prior section) I am adjusting slowly the support para 2 as follows: cites to NSTA, AAS, and ISP for scientific community and academia; dropping rest of 6 as overkill and not totally relevant Leaving details about Abrahamic or percentages for later full article - this was a simple strong and clear statement until it wanders into numbers and definitions confusing the point Since only a single sentence would remain, put it at the end of the paragraph starting with: "A 2014 Gallup survey ..." Markbassett (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Just put the IAP, AAAS, and NSTA cites at their part of the line -- will wait a bit before any other move. Markbassett (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC) A consideration could be made for including a list of organizations supporting evolution such as the one maintained by NCSE as a reference. Adding representative religious organizations[1] might be appropriate, as well.BiologicalMe (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC) That shoowss many potential cites, but has no citeable content for the line in article, and none seem superior to IAP and AAAS in authority and scope. Might come back and reword for religius one, after other steps. Markbassett (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC) I just deleted the dupe of skoog citation on this line. Markbassett (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC) I just deleted the PZ myers Pharyngula blog from this line. It's just a blog against Coulter ans mostly gives a number of pro-evolution website pointers. These are interesting leads, but not something related to the level-of-support line. Since it talked locations to find evidence-of rather than the controversy or the claims either side in number or something, it doesn't seem to fit into this article. Markbassett (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC) And now deleted the Ginger Pinholster PR guy press release http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml from here. It's a web archive dupe of the AAAS news release about their board document - since that is already cited earlier in this line, this PR release about it is redundant and inferior to that cite, only a bit interesting to see there is a second way to it all. Markbassett (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC) And finally moved the Kitzmiller Whether ID Is Science, p. 83 to the scientist part of the line. since it is talking scientist support. Think that untangled the cites, I will leave this for a while. Markbassett (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Bullet 2 start Next will remove the 95 percentage part - the number had no support in the cites and the next line cite about relevant fields is over 95, but really numbering just looks fishy and confusing change from the line started with of orgs basically all supporting. Still moving verrrry slow so folks can check in. Markbassett (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Been two weeks and no blowback, so now I will move the Larsen cite up to the prior 'scientists strongly support' and then do the part of removing the oddity about scientist Abrahamic support "Support for Abrahamic religions' accounts or other creationist alternatives is very low among scientists in general, and virtually nonexistent among scientists in the relevant fields" - for one thing there is no Jewish or Islamic parts here, so while Abrahamic tied to Bible makes sense, this part did not. Still moving sloooowly Markbassett (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC) I have been meaning to thank you for cleaning this up. Good work! RockMagnetist(talk) 20:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC) Materialism The Materialist position argues that the supernatural, if it exists, has no effect upon the material world. It does not take the view that the supernatural does not exist (although there are materialists who would argue this case). For this reason I have undone the latest edit. John D. Croft (talk) 05:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC) This discussion is crippled. How long should this section be? This article is supposed to present the creation-evolution controversy. It is not supposed to be an apologetic for evolution or for creation. At present, this article is heavily biased in favor of evolution, thus it violates its own topic line (headline). So, let's do a real presentation of the controversy. Let's limit each side to no more than 2000 words. Each side must submit their entire article prior to an agreed date upon which both sides of the controversy will be posted publicly. Afterwards, no rebuttals will be accepted and the page will remain "as is" for 1-year. Then, rinse and repeat if needed. There you go - unbiased and uncensored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevizard (talk • contribs) 18:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Hi Stevizard. Please read WP:WEIGHT. Basically, what you've proposed is not the way wikipedia is written. We are biased to the scientific consensus. There are many places on the internet that operate differently, such as Conservapedia. Best of luck.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC) True, this isn't college debate championship. Scientific facts and evidence do matter, so we cannot give equal validity to two views, one supported by evidence and the other supported by old creation myths. Of course, one can believe in God without being a creationist, creationism has no monopoly on religious faith. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC) @ Stevizard, hello and welcome. I've added links to your page which show how Wikipedia works, in particular Wikipedia:Five pillars. Note that Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view which includes giving due weight to majority expert opinion, thus due weight is given to science in topics such as creationism when it makes claims about science, and requires that we don't give "equal validity" to non-science, which is what you seem to be proposing. Hope you find these links helpful, . dave souza, talk 19:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Why would you want to set up a creationist straw man? This article is akin to matching Mike Tyson in a fight against Barney (the purple dinosaur). If the topic cannot be discussed honestly, then we're probably better off deleting this page entirely. If that's what you want, I won't stand in your way. This article implies that all creationists are backward, uneducated, unintelligent, bigoted idiots that cannot think for themselves. If you really believe this, then you misunderstand both them and the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevizard (talk • contribs) 15:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC) If you feel that this article is biased, you should deal in specifics rather than repeating an objection that is in our FAQ at the top of the page and is also discussed in the previous section. Also, a lead is supposed to summarize the content, so instead of tinkering with the lead, you should look at the body of the article and see if the statements are actually supported by the sources. For example, in this edit you make a number of changes, one of which is to replace "Christian fundamentalists" by "Many Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other religions". So there are are some things you could look at: Is the main group opposing evolution better described as "Christian fundamentalist" or "evangelical"? Does everyone in this group oppose evolution? How many other Christians oppose evolution? How about Jews and Muslims? (There is already some coverage of Muslims in Creation–evolution controversy#Islamic countries). And so on. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC) If this article sounds like the description of a Barney-vs-Tyson fight, it is because that is what the creation-evolution controversy is. Do you expect us to make Barney look more vicious than he is, or Tyson more harmless than he is, just to make the fight appear more interesting? We cannot distort the truth here. If you heed RockMagnetist's advice and check the sources, you will find that the article says it how it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC) No, I don't feel that the article is biased. The bias present within this article is impossible to miss. This article reads poorly, generates no interest in the reader, and fails to hold one's attention. If a student had submitted it to me, I would recommend he rework it from the ground up. It reads like blocks of information were plagiarized from several different books or articles and are simply dumped together. Unfortunately, that is neither good writing nor good teaching and is a poor way to attempt to transfer information. RockMagnet is incorrect in stating that I made changes to this article. I made no changes to this particular article. Instead, I sought to calmly and logically discuss its shortcomings on this Talk page. Any rookie journalist knows to leave his or her bias outside the office. Professional editors do so as well. It is hypocritical to call this page anything more than a high-handed attempt to promote personal bias as a scholarly article. It is deception at best and sheer ignorance at worst. No thinking person will be fooled by this page-full of evolutionist propaganda. Perhaps, we should call this site Wikiganda. Write whatever you wish, I won't be returning to read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.173.15 (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

There should be two sections labeled "Arguments for Evolution" and another labeled "Arguments for Creationism". I am not seeing any of the creationist arguments here that can easily be found elsewhere on the net. Believe me there are a lot of them backed up by many different scientists, books, and articles, but not one is listed here. I would put them in myself but there doesn't even seem to be a section for creationist arguments. Isn't this supposed to be unbiased and treat both sides as perfectly acceptable options regardless of what the greater scientific consensus might be? If this was 1300AD would Wikipedia support a flat earth and reject any evidence for a globe? Science by nature is meant to be unbiased and give all theories a honest shake. This article is far from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.43.221 (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Please FAQ at the top of the page. The answer to your question is there.--McSly (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Please be more specific. I am new to this editing interface and do not see the answer above to why Wikipedia should be a biased website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.43.221 (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

A separation of creation and evolution arguments wouldn't, in itself, address any questions of bias. It's just a different way of organizing the material. The current organization makes it easier to group arguments and responses, which in my opinion is more effective. As for missing creationist arguments, it's hard to discuss that in general. Better to discuss specific arguments such as the one below. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Baraminology

Whoever is reverting my accurate edits please stop or you may be banned. The previous article: (((Creationists tend to apply a more restrictive, if vaguer, definition of macroevolution, often relating to the emergence of new body forms or organs. The scientific community considers that there is strong evidence for even such more restrictive definitions, but the evidence for this is more complex.))) does not cite any sources and is not an accurate reflection of a creationists point of view which this article is supposed to include. My edit (((Creationists believe the entire taxonomic system has been created over the years by scientists who believe evolution as fact and therefore cannot be considered to be honest science. So a new taxonomic system must be created. Creationists tend to use the word "baramin" to classify different types of animals, one from another. Baramin does not have an exact equivalent to the modern taxonomic system but usually can be considered to be equal to families or orders among animals as opposed to species or genus. A creationists definition of macroevolution is as follows, " Successful macro-evolution requires the addition of NEW information and NEW genes that produce NEW proteins that are found in NEW organs and systems", causing a creature to cross from one family or order to a NEW one.))) is properly sourced and is what creationists actually believe. I will continue to edit it every 24 hours until someone can adequately tell me why it shouldn't be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.43.221 (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, your edit looks fairly reasonable. There is a Wikipedia article on Baraminology. However, that article does suggest that not all creationists agree with baraminology, so it's not obvious how much coverage it should be allowed per WP:UNDUE. If it is included, some of the criticism from that article should also be included. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Isambard Kingdom: I notice that your justification for reverting these edits is that the sources are not from scientists. Why would that be necessary for the creationist viewpoint? RockMagnetist(talk) 18:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, if there are reliable sources for this, then let's see them. Answers in Genesis was being cited by the IP as support, but this is not a reliable source for a scientific theory about evolution. I will be happy to defer to biologically-expert editors concerning technical aspects of this. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I also see that this content on Baraminology can be considered a creationist side of the issue (if not "the" side per se). Given that I have already forcefully reverted this content, and given that I acknowledge a need to allow reasonable content to develop for both sides of this issue, I think I should refrain from further edits on this page on this issue. So, RockMagnetist, thank you for the prompt. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead sentence

If this is called the "Creation–evolution controversy", how can it be labeled in the first sentence as anything other than a discussion between a scientific view - evolution and a theological view - creationism? Why must I come to the talk page to defend an edit that is so simply common sense and completely neutral in POV? Before anyone screams needs to be sourced...This is the second paragraph:

• Christian fundamentalists dispute the evidence of common descent of humans and other animals as demonstrated in modern paleontology, genetics, histology and cladistics and those other sub-disciplines which are based upon the conclusions of modern evolutionary biology, geology, cosmology, and other related fields. They argue for the Abrahamic accounts of creation, framing them as reputable science ("creation science").

That is a theological view disputing a bunch of scientific views. User:Theroadislong Please self-revert your revert of my edit. Lipsquid (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Correct ...But your change implies that there is a scientific dispute when there is not? Theroadislong (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

No, my change implies there is a dispute between science and theology. "The creation–evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) involves a recurring cultural, scientific and theological dispute about the origins of the Earth, of humanity, and of other life." To use your same argument. Are you implying that there is a theological dispute on the origin of man? In theology, there is no dispute on the origin of man. Please change it back. Lipsquid (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems like there's quite a lot of theological dispute. There is young Earth creationism, old Earth creationism, theistic evolution, materialistic evolution. Also, just a little cursory googling turns up this essay giving a Catholic (or maybe one Catholic's) perspective on human origins. It is listed under the category "disputed questions". Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

All of which are united in saying life was created by God which is why theology is in dispute with science. Lipsquid (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly.... theology is in dispute with science, it is NOT a scientific dispute. Theroadislong (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

How about this instead:

• The creation–evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) involves a recurring cultural and political dispute between theology and science regarding the origins of the Earth, of humanity, and of other life.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lipsquid (talk • contribs)

There is substantial disagreement within theological circles on the matter of origins. So it's wrong to frame it as a science-versus-theology issue. Anyway, I'm not sure it is literally meaningful to describe a "dispute between theology and science", and I doubt that could actually be sourced. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It is absolutely a science versus theology issue. Without theology, the conflict is gone and without science, the conflict is gone. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise and the current lead sentence is a mess. Lipsquid (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that "science" has engaged in any dispute with "theology". "Science" and "theology" are not monolithic disputants in some polarized debate about the origin of man. Also, the proposition "without X, there is no debate regarding Y, therefore X is engaged in a debate about Y" is clearly fallacious. For example: without air, there is no debate in Congress. Therefore air is in a debate with Congress. As far as I'm aware, evolutionary biology has not conducted any systematic peer reviewed studies of theology. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You are partially correct, but theology is definitely engaged in a dispute with science, of which science is forced to respond (though science has no views on theology, but they do have views about theology's influence on science). Your analogy is clearly fallacious as the dependencies are not similar (air does not breathe Congress). Arguments from analogy require similarity and arguments from analogy, like testing drugs on rats before people, are used throughout science. Lipsquid (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You just claimed that if science did not exist, there would be no debate. That is not evidence that science has engaged in a debate. Anyway, we can't cite it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I change the topic after saying something silly myself. The point remains that theology wants to make scientific claims and science has to respond. That is by definition a debate. Maybe we should let some other editors express their views. Lipsquid (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It is a dispute or debate between science and one specific branch (or: some specific flavors) of theology. (I don't know if "dispute" or "debate" is the right word for "one side invents reasons based of fallacies and untruths, and the other debunks them", but that is another can of worms.) My point is that only a part, not the whole of of theology, is attacking science. But it is definitely not a "scientific debate". That would mean that actual scientific reasons are used by both sides in scientific venues such as conferences and peer-reviewed journals. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll throw the word "dissension" in as a possible word choice. Additionally, I'll suggest that "doctrinal" would be a better word than "theological". It is not strictly about the divine which would be implied by theological (although there are theological implications, most certainly); I think that word better distinguishes between religious groups which accept and reject evolution. BiologicalMe (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the lead as something broken that needs to be fixed, so suggesting possible word choices is a bit moot. Let's not confuse the (wrong) use of the word theological in the proposed edit with the (proper) use of the word theological in the article. There are indeed important theological questions: the question "How did God make man?" is one of perennial significance in Christian theology. The answers to this question is at the very least informed by the science (even if some answers do reject facts), and not strictly opposed to it. Thus there is a myriad of different attitudes about evolution within religious circles, not all of which are strictly doctrinaire or opposed to science. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The answer isn't informed by science, the question "How did God make man?" is nonsense in science as it comes loaded with a preconceived non-scientific notion, that God created man. If anything it is a distraction to science to always have to go answering questions that belong only in theology, but people refuse to stop implying that theological fairy tales are somehow real world facts that should be considered by science. That is the whole root of the Creation–evolution controversy. The constant distraction of science to answer questions that to science are utter nonsense. Science has to bash theology in the head until they absolutely prove something wrong and then theology ignores that part of their doctrine like it never happened. See flat earth and geocentric model. Lipsquid (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the polarizing language is helpful, but I'm glad you approve of my edit. The question "How did God make man?" is obviously a theological rather than a scientific question. There's been a lot of though dedicated to how the answer should accommodate scientific facts, from outright rejection (YEC), to various types of theistic evolution, all the way down to materialistic evolution. Not every answer is opposed to science. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Sławomir Biały Nice edit, I like it and see it as an improvement. Thank you. 15:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You might be overestimating the importance of creationism in the field of theology. Theology is an academic discipline and the field offers a variety of views. The "dispute" is less with professional theologians and more with the particular strands of Christianity which are obsessed with Biblical inerrancy, Biblical infallibility, and Biblical literalism. They read the creation myths in the Book of Genesis and take them to be a factual or mostly factual account. Then they reinterpret any contradicting information to match their world view.

CreationWiki, which is written by Creationists, is full of information on their fringe views of the world. And it is not only evolution that they oppose. To briefly quote from their article on Biblical archaeology: "Biblical archaeology is an important creation science discipline that substantiates the Bible as a valid historical document, and the Biblical chronology as accurate timeline. ... At least 50 major figures from the Old Testament have been confirmed from archaeology." This is far from the mainstream view of archaeology which has largely disputed or discredited much of the Biblical account. Dimadick (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

smithsonian EL

See basically done discussion here Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Scientific fact or Scientific theory

Is the reference http://www.nsta.org/evolution/#qanda really highlighting that evolution is a scientific fact? If so, can someone please point it out, I didn't see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nzjony (talk • contribs) 16:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Nzjony, yes, I agree. The Q and A only rejects the expression "evolution is just a theory", but does not go further to stating "evolution is a scientific fact", but says "a fact is an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed" (citing the NAS, but many scientists or philosophers of science might quibble about that, perhaps citing the limits of induction or black swans). They are addressing a common misunderstanding of "theory" and sliding past any disagreements about "fact". How do you think it should be handled here in the lead?  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Major edit suggestion in RFC

There is an RFC to do a major edit on this article, proposing that the content of Issues of the Evolution v.s. Creation Debate be merged here. "The question at hand: should this article be merged into Creation-evolution controversy? "

I suggest editors here provide input there.

PLEASE BE SURE TO INCLUDE MERGE OR NOT in whatever input provided.

I personally think it premature to just RFC it and that there should have been discussion here, which is why I am posting it here and said so in my RFC response. (The one starting 'Opposeopposeoppose'). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

p.s. Some I think involved here that I'd like to hear from would be : User:Isambard Kingdom, User:Dominus Vobisdu, User:Epipelagic, Jess, User:Editor2020, and User:Ian.thomson. Markbassett (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Bible issues in the 1925 Court case against a teacher who spoke about Evolution in School

Hallo!: as published recently in Science and SciAm, the main issue in a teacher brought to Court around 1925 may have been that in his lessons that cited evolution, he showed to the students images of a man amidst animals, and that it implicitly supported the concept that man's nature is same as animal's nature. The Genesis text, 'YahWeh made Adam from clay', can be read as: 'clay' meaning something inert, without the life of spirit, already present in nature, as, for example, an anthropoid, which, by individual action and special Spirit blow from the Almighty, became the first man; that it shouldn't be interpreted literally has backing in the Creation history in the Bible, that presents grass, trees, and other plants being created before land animals; we know today that Dinosaurs existed before grass, so, no literal reading of text applies.

The first saint Paul letter to Corinthians, 15, 39, indicates with no doubt that flesh of man differs from that of animals, and here the conflict leading to a Court session may be.

Some Catholic church priests, as Jesuits, had no doubt that man came from an anthropoid already existent, and that evolution played a role there; as evolution is a rule settled by the Creator, so are its consequences, an special individual action in creating man is described in the Old Testament, the theologians' doubt was rather about: 'Unigenism', or: 'Polygenism', man appearing from a single couple, Adam and Eve, or in several different places at different times. The modern Populations' genetics provided evidence that an Adam and an Eve, defined by their Y Chromosome and mitocondrial DNA, from which all modern Homo sapiens are descendants, existed somewhere near the Rift Valley in Africa, around 250'000 years ago. The Creationism-Evolutionism conflict may yield opportunities to exert the intellectual sport of: 'Word fighting', or to subdue those alien to some thought systems, but actually have not much content. Or does it?. Thanks, regards, + Salut--Caula (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

It is unclear if you are suggesting a particular change to the article. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not a general forum for discussion of the topic (WP:NOTFORUM). Thanks, — PaleoNeonate — 18:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Winners and losers

The intro to this article is written from the point of view that the Creationists are wrong and have lost the debate. I'd rather see a neutral intro.

Let's reframe the controversy as a dispute between two sides with different approaches - which could then be compared and contrasted in an interesting way without drawing any conclusions. Yes, the scientific world almost entirely rejects Creationism. But on the other hand, somewhere between 40% to 85% of American adults reject evolution (it depends on how you define "evolution" in survey questions).

Also, the idea that the Roman Catholic Church supports evolution - or regards it as consistent with Creation - needs to be clarified. Have popes (or cardinals) said (1) that God created every species over the course of millions of years (I call this "gradual appearance"); or (2) that God set everything up, and the various species came into being entirely through natural processes? I'm not aware of whether Francis or the previous pope made this distinction crystal clear. --Uncle Ed (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The lead currently correctly conveys that evolution by natural selection is an empirical scientific fact, and that creationism is regarded as pseudoscientific. That seems to be a fair summary. The extent to which there is a "controversy" should be decided by reliable sources. We don't base encyclopedia articles on widely held opinions of adults with among the worst scientific educations in the world. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Uncle Ed, I think you may not understand the perspective of this article. The controversy is about the pseudoscientific attack of creationism on evolution and science more broadly. As Stawomir Bialy point out, it is irrelevant what most Americans or people in the world believe. Many Americans and people around the world believe in ghosts [2]. Following the logic of what people believe, Ghost would have to be rewritten to neutrally convey the uncertainty of their existense based on common belief about the existence of ghosts. Finally, the article does not state that the Catholic Church support evolution. The detailed discussion of this issue is in Catholic Church and evolution.--I am One of Many (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Good idea about rewriting the Ghost article neutrally. There is a single-sentence paragraph at the end of that article's intro, which says, "Ghosts exist as a concept only; despite centuries of investigation, there is no credible scientific evidence that any location is inhabited by spirits of the dead." But there is no section about the scientific consensus. So either (a) that sentence should be removed from the lede; or, better, we should add a section summarizing attempts (and, of course, the total abysmal failure) to find any evidence for ghosts real existence. I'll make that suggestion there, too.

But more importantly, if you think the article should focus on "the pseudoscientific attack of creationism on evolution and science" rather than simply describing what the two sides regard as true - and why - then maybe I should take a closer look at it. Based on my knowledge of the controversy, there is a lot more to it than the "wrong side" slamming "the noble practioners of the scientific method". For example, there are those who simply assert their beliefs without reference to science at all. Likewise, there are those who have adopted methodological naturalism and sidestep creationist dogma entirely. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Which are the two sides you feel should be given equal treatment? Young Earth Creationists and evolutionary biologists? Young Earth Creationists and paleontologists? Young Earth Creationists and geologists? Old Earth Creationists and one of the above categories? Some other kind of creationist and some other kind of something? The NSF statement says that there is no conflict with "many religious denominations". The controversy now seems mostly the political one of trying to get creationism taught in schools. There seems very little remaining "controversy" that can be attributed to reliable sources. But you seem to want to cherry pick the most extreme creationist view as "the other side" that is not being fairly presented. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the line "The Catholic Church now recognizes the existence of evolution" is unsupported. I would like it changed to "The Catholic Church now allows for the possibility of evolution." Would this be acceptable? Mathmannix (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not recall saying that there are two sides that ought to be given equal treatment. I think rather that the article should adhere to NPOV policy about undue weight, which among other things says, "Currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." There are also some excellent paragraphs there about WP:PROPORTION and WP:BALANCE. If you agree with these policies, then we can work together. Fair enough? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm still confused exactly what it is you're proposing. The lead at the moment seems to be quite WP:NPOV neutral to me, and it isn't clear at all what you want to fix. Also, you have referred twice to "two sides". I infer that one of these sides is the Young Earth creationists. But this is an extreme position; most religious denominations now accept evolution occurs in some form, as noted by the article. So, isolating an extreme view for special treatment does not seem much in the spirit of maintaining a neutral point of view. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

None of that says that pseudoscience claims get stated as though they are reality, anywhere in WP and please see WP:GEVAL which is the most relevant part of NPOV to this article. We follow what reliable sources say. If you can do that, of course you are welcome. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both for continuing to engage me in dialogue. I do not consider YEC "one of the two sides", and I agree it is an extreme viewpoint. In fact, it is the idea which is in the most severe conflict with modern science.

A lot of YEC's do in fact reject science, especially in terms of its attempt to discover human origins. YEC quite clearly begins with a number of premises:

1. God created the universe, including the earth
2. God created every form of life on earth, particularly the first one-celled organisms
3. There has been no macroevolution since God's initial creation of life on earth (if for no other reason than 10,000 years is too short ;-)

Science, on the other hand, does not embrace any of these premises, all of which are grounded in Christian religious faith (particularly in America, which is the main arena for creation-evolution debate.)

That being said, the two most prominent sides are (A) Creationism, which includes YEC along with Old Earth Creationism; and (B) the opposite view that the universe and life came about through natural processes. We need to ensure that readers understand that Evolution does not directly oppose all of creationism. First, the religious doctrine that God created the universe, including the earth, is not addressed at all by Evolution. Second, evolution - strictly speaking - does not address the issue of how the first living thing came into being.

So what we have here is a "scope problem". Are we going to describe all aspects of Creationism's dispute with science - including Big Bang and abiogenesis? Or just the disagreement on how new species come into being?

Sorry if my response seems to wander. It is a vast issue, and I don't pretend to have exclusive wisdom about how it should be covered. I hope we can work together. --Uncle Ed (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, this clarifies things. I think that, if we leave out the capital-C creationists (YECs and maybe also OECs), then there is a range of opinions that is worth covering in the lead and can probably be reliably sourced. I object to framing this into the polarizing language of two "sides" though. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think the only view that is conspicuously absent in the Lead is that of scientists who allow for the possibility of a deity with some involvement in creation at some level (i.e. agnostic and theistic evolution). The lead clearly shows that there are religious authorities accepting evolution and that religion is therefore not inherently opposed to evolution, but we don't make the same inclusion of the fact that scientists and scientific thinkers can, and often do, accept some space for religious belief in the recognition of the impossibility of acquiring all-encompassing knowledge of cosmic origins through science. What is missing is not the polarized framine, but rather the overlaps and middle grounds.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I like the idea of covering the overlap. For example, not all YEC's reject the totality of science - they believe that planes fly because the air over the wing goes faster and puts less pressure on the wing, which is a scientific idea. I'm not sure what proportion of YEC's support the "scientific creationism" movement.

Then there are the OEC's, who accept certain aspects of evolutionary science, like the fossil record; possibly the bulk of the ID people are OEC's. But ID tries to work entirely within the framework of science (or so they say).

It can be confusing, even for those of us who have studied it, but if we work together we can delineate the overlaps as well as the irreconcilable differences. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The record is clear that intelligent design is "scientific" creationism repackaged to avoid the USSC Edwards v. Aguillard decision. It is inappropriate to adopt a teach the controversy approach to this article. If we present the views of intelligent design and creation "science", they should be clearly presented as pseudoscience, not as if they were compatible with the scientific method. Indeed, they have been resoundingly denounced by the scientific community. Whether creationists believe in flying airplanes is not relevant to the subject of this article. I also do not think that anything that can be settled empirically (e.g., abiogenesis) is an appropriate topic for speculation in the lead, unless God of the gaps is also mentioned. Certain religious beliefs do not refer to empirical facts about the natural world that can be tested (e.g., the concept of sin, forgiveness in Jesus, etc.) But creation, as generally conceived, is not one of those things. So we need to be very careful in delineating the "edges", if we try to do this at all. Most aspects of "creation" are indeed things that science has something to say about. Those aspects that are opposed to evolution (the topic of this article) are indeed fairly settled, and now primarily of historical interest (and political machinations), which is the reason for the focus of the present article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ed Poor, you are indeed wandering, and it is not good for anybody - not you, and not those replying. Much of what you have mentioned is already discussed in this article (theistic evolution, Catholic views on evolution, the limits of what questions science can answer, etc). If you have concrete suggestions for changing this actual article, please make them. Otherwise please keep in mind that article talk pages are not places for general discussions of the topic. I am going to close this section, and if you have concrete suggestions that are based on reliable sources and the policies and guidelines, please make them in a new section. Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• user:Maunus about this: please identify the specific, concrete proposals to change this article. I see none above. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I concretely propose to add to the lead the fact that scientists often do not see religion or even divine creation as inherently or necessarily opposed to science and evolutionary theory, but simply as lying outside of the purview of what science is investigating. This is a quite significant view that is in between the two poles. I also think the sections on theistic and agnostic evolution should be expanded. IN general I think the lead doesn't do a great job of summarizing the article, or the issue, but is a rather disjoint and incoherent collection of information.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I heartily concur that the lead doesn't summarize the article well, and it may be better to focus on that instead of specific additions. For example, it would make sense to move the detailed discussion of Catholicism into the body and substitute a description of the spectrum of views between creationism and evolutionism (as discussed in Viewpoints). I don't think there is anything more to say about agnostic evolution. It may be better to group together all the viewpoints (theistic, agnostic and materialistic) that fully support evolution. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see the point of quoting the pope in the lead, for example.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, thanks for your feedback; I'll try to be more concise in the future and more focused on specific change proposals. I was trying to get consensus before making changes, hoping to head off an edit war. Indeed, the section should be closed unless there are concrete suggestions.

With that in mind, I like the idea of Maunus about scientists who don't see a conflict between creationism and science. I agree with RockMagnetist that the lede should summarize the article better; we probably don't need to quote the pope there (or not so extensively). We might just say that Francis doesn't reject evolution completely - while expanding the body section about just what parts of evolution are / aren't consistent with Catholic dogma.

Also, while it may not be a specific suggestion, I would like to find a way to say that much of the controversy has to do with approach - aka, methodology. Creationism, it should be stressed, starts with faith: any conclusions it draws are based on a priori untestable notions. Science, on the other hand, starts with what can be observed and comes up with hypotheses and theories which can be tested. (I'm not so interested, for the purposes of this article, with the aims of the scientific creationism movement or how they morphed into the ID movement. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The idea of Maunus about scientists who don't see a conflict between creationism and science, as expressed above, is about scientists who fully accept evolutionary science, and find no religious problem with that. Specifically, their belief in creation does not conflict with science, and so isn't "creationism" in the common meaning. Suggest you should read Finding Darwin's God, for a start. . . dave souza, talk 13:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, now that Dave has weighed in, I might finally be ready to start making some little edits. I think it takes a lot of discussion beforehand, because there are subtle issues - many of which overlap (or don't ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure how relevant the people who do not see a conflict are to an article named "Creation–evolution controversy". Maybe only insofar as they don't think there should be one (a controversy, that is), so they should not take much room in it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

English variant

I noticed a recent related edit on a single word, so checked the article's state. The current article appears to be a mix of British and American English and to lack a tag specifying the variant it uses. It may be a good idea to chose a variant, use it consistently then tag the article as such. Chosing may be challenging however: rejection of evolution is strong in the U.S. but Darwin was English (on the other hand, science being science, it's not tied to a country and numerous biologists since contributed to increase our understanding)... —PaleoNeonate – 04:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not overly exercised about it one way or another-- but I certainly agree that it should be one way or another. PepperBeast (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, the roots of the controversy go back to Darwin himself, or perhaps to "Darwin's bulldog", T. H. Huxley and the famous debate with bishop Wilberforce in Oxford (1860 Oxford evolution debate), so British English would suit well. On the other hand, it's largely a settled matter on this side of the pond in this century, so American would do fine too. Actually I see the history here doesn't even mention Wilberforce ... I think American would be right for this more contemporary article. I'll get started on it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Super, thanks; I now noticed that the remaining British English appears to be in quotes. So it'll always be a mix, but a well defined one. —PaleoNeonate – 10:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

State Religion and Federal Religion

I also recommend completely altering for the sake of realism the statements about constitutionality and a State Religion. Though I believe the statements are correct concerning probably the state constitution, the Federal Constitution, if I am understanding this correctly, is being quoted to effect states. Which it does not. Only the Federal government restricted itself from establishing one religion as predominant and making a Church of America. IF this is not what was intended to be understood, perhaps better wording or specification of which state's constitution, when and where, is better made. 64.109.54.132 (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't think you're right, you may find it helpful to read about it being unconstitutional to establish "a religious doctrine violating both the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution," and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District – "The prohibition against the establishment of religion applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment". . . dave souza, talk 23:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Denialism categorization?

Can somebody explain why this page has been categorized in Denialism? It's not a defining characteristic as per outlined in the categorization guidelines, therefore it should be removed on the basis of non-neutral point of view and controversial categorization. LopezJayLo98 (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't notice this thread when I replied on your user page. Basically there is denialism of a lot of good science. —PaleoNeonate – 23:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Introduction Error

This discussion refers to the sentence “Within the Christian world, creationism was once widely believed to be true, but since the mid-19th century evolution by natural selection has been established as an empirical scientific fact.”[1]

The article cited in the references section, (Skoog, Gerald (2007). "An NSTA Evolution Q&A". National Science Teachers Association. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association. Retrieved 2014-08-27.) does not actually make the claim that “since the mid-19th century evolution by natural selection has been established as an empirical scientific fact” and therefore should not be cited. The article actually refers to evolution as a theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarBecca (talk • contribs) 00:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

True, but inessential: WP:LEDE abstracts the information from the body of our article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, the old "it's just a theory" trope. You know gravity is also just a theory, right? Evolutionary theory is accepted as fact, just like quantum theory. Given the two very similar comments above I wonder which creationist forum is trying to "correct" our "bias" this week? Guy (Help!) 08:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Let us not forget that gravity also is just a theory.PiCo (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Bad snark aside, the unrelated cite did not get addressed. Tgeorgescu seems correct that the line is abstracting from the body. (Though I would have said the full ‘fact and theory’ phrase and do not see a narrowing that constrained it to “empirical” part of science in the body.) Anyway, as no one contested that the cite is not supporting the line, and I do not see anything in it directly related, I will delete the cite. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Mistake in Introduction

In the introductory paragraph, the statement "Within the Christian world, creationism was once widely believed to be true, but since the mid-19th century evolution by natural selection has been established as an empirical scientific fact.[1]" Does not seem to make much sense. Creationism is still widely believed to be true among Christians, but to varying degrees. Young-Earth Creationism, with a fundamental view of the Bible, seems to be the most opposed to Darwinian Evolution. Also, the second half of the statement ignores the actual arguament. It makes it seem as if the arguament is between Creationists and microevolutionists, which is not the case. Absolutely no Christian or Creationist that I know denies microevolution via natural selection as an emperical fact. The arguament, however, is between Creationists and Macroevolutionists, that is, refering to evolution changing species, which no one has observed. Jeffrey Schwartz, a leading evolutionist and professor of Anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh states ". . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1". The Fruit fly being the exception due to external influences. It is, however, still debatable on whether or not that is a new species to begin with. Anyways, I digress. The statement uses a logical fallacy, and the wrong arguament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyrcanus776 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Outside of American evangelical fundamentalism, the rest of the Christian world tends towards Theistic evolution. It is a type of creationism in its broadest sense (acknowledging God as the "why") but still accepts evolution as the "how." Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

If Professor Schwartz really said that "the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed," he's badly mistaken. The evolution of humans, for example, is well documented in the fossil record. I think, however, he's being misused (his thing is the idea that evolution is jerky rather than smooth).PiCo (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Interesting article on one aspect of human evolution here.PiCo (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The sentence he's referring to is intentionally misleading. "Within the Christian world, creationism was once widely believed to be true, but since the mid-19th century evolution by natural selection has been established as an empirical scientific fact.[1]" It leads the reader to believe that creationism is no longer believed to be true in the modern Christian world, which is false. While the suffix has a reference to the "scientific" support, it in no way mentions any change of view in the Christian world, and thus has no connection to the prefix of the sentence. By using the words "was" and "but", the sentence makes an unsubstantiated and false claim that Christians don't believe in creation. The 5th paragraph of the article references a 2014 Gallup poll that shows 4 out of 10 Americans believe God created man just as he is, which contradicts the sentence in question. It should be removed or changed.Thinktank33 (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it's merely a reflection of the fact that creationism is, by now, a fringe view among Christians. Most Christians are members of churches that accept evolution (Catholics, Anglicans and so on). America is pretty much the only place where creationism has any significant adherents now. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I wish that it were now a fringe view among Christians, but consider the information in this Wikipedia article: Level of support for evolution.Rick Norwood (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Missing ref

I noticed that recently a dead link ref was removed. It had been added in this edit, and was already a dead link at the time. Can someone look into this? I suspect the editor simply forgot to fill in details of a new ref. Mindmatrix 14:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I have to run now, but was looking for it. The stray ref came from a cut and paste from other articles without appropriate attribution.[3]. I haven't finished establishing the extent, but the first one is fron nebular hypothesis as described in the "main". Gotta go. BiologicalMe (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Now that I'm not trying to post so quickly that I drop random strings of text in the wrong spot (sorry), I can give a more detailed analysis. The sections titled "Astrophysics", "Astrobiology", and "Archaeology", were introduced in two edits, 1 & 2 on 10 March 2019. The sections use copied text from Nebular hypothesis, Abiogenesis, and Prehistory, respectively. Introductions prior to the copied text may fall short of sourcing requirements (WP:OR). It's not much to attribute and retain the copied text, but I'm not sure that is the appropriate direction. BiologicalMe (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I deleted the sections because they lacked third party sourcing to establish the existence of a controversy in the fields. If the copied text had been original prose, I would have worked on finding adequate sources before deletion. BiologicalMe (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

What controversy?

There's a problem here I think, because there are actually three topics interwoven:

• The "creation-evolution controversy" is that controversy caused by creationists' attempts to teach religion in science classes.
• The origins debate is a settled scientific question.
• Religious opposition to evolutionary theory is a declining but historically significant topic.

The title of this article presupposes that the controversy stirred by creationists renders the topic of evolution controversial, when in fact it isn't - even the catholic church accepts evolution these days. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps this entire article should be merged with Creation and evolution in public education, with the other points presented as background to the conflict. That other article could use some good content, as it lacks cohesion, written in semi-list form. Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

That certainly has merit. It might be worth looking over all the articles on the subject of creationism and evolution, and ensuring that we have all the angles covered in a way that doesn't falsely imply a live controversy (rather than simple doctrinaire opposition from a subset of evangelicals). How does this sit alongside Acceptance of evolution by religious groups, for example? Guy (Help!) 18:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Good thinking. Skimming the content, part of this replicates (or could be merged into) history of creationism, and some parts could usefully merge into Creation and evolution in public education. Regarding an overview, Eugenie Scott and Ron Numbers have contributed relatively recent works defining creationism broadly, and showing when the terminology arose, so that aspect needs some work. . . dave souza, talk 21:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I concur. There is no "controversy", but there is a history here.

70.89.176.249 (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I edited the article a couple of days ago, adding some contents that referenced TalkOrigins Archive. But it was reverted and I was told that TalkOrigins is used-edited so it cannot be used as a reliable source. But it's recommended by a number of scientific organization and mainstream medias, such as the "Science" and "Scientific American" magazines, the Dallas Morning News and the National Center for Science Education. (I already posted related URLs on JzG's talk page).The article's content are also exactly what TalkOrigins mainly focuses. So I think it should be reliable. 七战功成 01:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

But it's user edited. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 01:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The relevant TalkOrigins Archive pages are edited by Mark Isaak, a published author on creationist claims, though it originated from the talk.origins usenet forum. . . dave souza, talk 12:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't necessarily make it unreliable. I remember I saw it was used as references in several places, I don't know why it cannot be used now. 七战功成 02:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

My impression is that it's a pretty reliable source. It's not user-edited in the same sense as Wikipedia; some knowledgeable editors are curating it. However, I think that your added content does not directly respond to the creationist argument, which is that major mutations are generally harmful. An article in Nature Education, which is unquestionably reliable, says that most mutations have little effect, but the larger the effect, the more likely it is to be harmful. I'm not sure what the best counter-argument is, but you shouldn't try to develop it yourself. That is original research. Instead, look for a source that responds to the creationist argument. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

That's not original research. I didn't express my own opinions or make up something to support it. That's what that article indicates. The references in that article also include essays from "Nature". The article already provides detailed demonstration and evidence, which are enough to refute the creationists' claim (evolution cannot happen because mutation are mostly harmful and detrimental to life). 七战功成 06:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I think a different TalkOrigins page makes a better case. RockMagnetist(talk) 06:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• It all depends: context is needed. See some RSN discussions: 2008 and 2016 (the latter was closed by Guy/JzG). Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

So according to the case, it still can be used. As for the different page provided by RockMagnetist, I think the original one is better because it's more detailed. 七战功成 08:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

But it's user edited. It is as reliable as Wikipedia. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 08:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The relevant pages in TalkOrigins Archive are edited by Mark Isaak, a published author on creationist claims. Claim CB101 was suggested above: instead of citing the website, you could cite Mark Isaak (12 January 2007). The Counter-Creationism Handbook. University of California Press. pp. 52–53. ISBN 978-0-520-24926-4. In my assessment, that's a good source that the creationist claim has been made, and a pointer to peer-reviewed research contradicting the claim. It's not in itself peer-reviewed research (though University of California Press is a good academic publisher) so for that you'd refer to the scientific literature. In this context WP:PARITY applies: "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal." . . dave souza, talk 12:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

This seems good. Thanks for providing this. I already added it on. 七战功成 18:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)