Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Rejection of evolution by religious groups. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Evolution_controversy

I've suggested that this new article be merged here. Please weigh in with your opinions there. FeloniousMonk 17:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Already merged. The article is poorly written and most of its content is found on pages related to this one. Joshuaschroeder 18:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Not merged yet. But if any of its content can be found on related pages, please show me exactly where. That will help me prove that it's not "original research", which was another complaint. It can't be both redundand and original. Uncle Ed 00:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Errors in this article

The debate is conducted primarily by Christian and Muslim adherents.
- Actually, at least half of the debate is conducted by atheists and other advocates of naturalistic evolution
  Actually, it's mainly conducted by creationists shouting a lot. Scientists tend to deliberately ignore them as arguing with them gives them some appearnce of legitimacy and there being a "controversy" which they can shout about a bit more. Also, it isn't atheists versus Christians, it's fundamentalist Christians versus everyone else. The major churches all accept evolution. There are a number of evolutionary biologists who have religious beliefs and see no contradiction. Dunc|☺ 18:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  Haven't many scientists written books rebutting creationist arguments? I seem to recall a number of scientifically authored rejoinders to Wells' book on Darwin's "icons".
  
  Also please see the un-redirected version of [[evolution controversy] (or at least Definitions of evolution), because I just found evidence that at least one major church does not accept evolution. Uncle Ed 00:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  Apparently not enough ;-) FeloniousMonk 02:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Cosmology, the study of the universe in its totality and by extension man's place in it, is erroneously referred to as a "viewpoint" on one side in the controversy. This is not only factually wrong: it insinuates the idea that the evolution is the objective side, and the opponents are biased. Thus the article sides with evolution. Wikipedia articles, I'm sure you'll agree, should be unbiased and avoid endorsing any side in a controversy.
"Evolution" is "objective" inasmuch as science is empirical. End of story. Nobody is "siding" with science (what you are terming "evolution"), but it is a point of fact that there are well-understood implications of a scientific understanding of the universe that are not compatible with creationist objections. Joshuaschroeder 18:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
You've changed the subject. The error I point out is that the intro calls cosmology a "viewpoint". If you don't object to my calling it an error, then I guess I better revise the intro accordingly. Fair enough?
The assumption that there exists just 1 science is incorrect. I distrust any newspaper article starting "scientists have discovered...." usually it's a couple of people that couldn't see what side of a calculator is the front, but still claim stuff based on statistics. Darwinism and creationism are both hard to either prove or disprove.
This debate article seems to entirely ignore that there are Scientists who believe that Macroevolution is untenable/unscientific. They are certainly not a majority, but some of these are very well respected in their own fields. However, this article seems to pretend that such do not exist.

Actually, this article does address that when it deals with the appeal to authority. There is a difference between what individual scientists believe and what mainstream science is. Joshuaschroeder 06:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Theory and Law

Joshua wrote:

Belief in a false statement such as "law is stronger than theory" is not a POV. It is a misconception . . .

Actually, what you just wrote expresses a POV (see Wikipedia:Point of view):

that law is not stronger than theory

I'd like to see a description that we can all agree with, which relates the "strength" of scientific laws and theories. Would it help to bring in "hypothesis" as well? Uncle Ed 13:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

In my experience, in biology, "laws" tend to be 19^th century formulations of generalisation. Given the absolute terms on which they are expressed, most "laws" in biology are far weaker than theories (except when people name their speculative pet hypotheses "theories" - e.g., Pathogenic theory of homosexuality, Gaia theory (science)). Of course, there is no single body that rules that an hypothesis is well enough supported to be called a theory, just consensus (sorry Ed). I suspect that FF knows more philosophy of science than the rest of us combined, though. Guettarda 14:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but isn't there a rough continuum like the following?

Anyone can make model, and many do, but it's not taken seriously unless formulated as a hypothesis.

A scientific model is one that expresses a theory in a way that allows for "experiments" to take place outside of the laboratory. A model isn't something that "anyone can make". This isn't an opinion, except inasmuch as science itself is an opinion (formulated by belief in the scientific method).

A hypothesis is an idea that is formulated from previous observations and from extending theories to their possible conclusions. A hypothesis is considered plausible if it can be tested (falsified as Popper said) and if it conforms to previous observations.

A theory is a systematic and formalized expression of observations that is predictive, falsifiable, and has never been falisfied. A scientific theory is the strongest statement that science can make regarding the rules of nature. A theory is not just a more sophisticated hypothesis.

A law is a succinct way to express a predictive part of a theory. Laws are used to describe nature in terms of the theories developed as quickly and efficiently as possible. Because of this, laws do not lend themselves to modification, even though the theories they are based on do. A good example of this is the Law of Conservation of Mass from chemistry which is a law in the appropriate regimes but is utterly untrue when considering regimes where E=mc^2 becomes important. Laws are not simply more "confirmed" theories.

These are not opinions, these are definitions based on the processes of the scientific method and each of these ideas are defined well on their respective Wikipedia pages.

Joshuaschroeder 20:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

A hypothesis must be falsifiable, otherwise it's irrelevant. On the other hand, if there's no way right now to test the hypothesis, it still might be falsifiable. For a long time, astronomers predicted that the moon would have craters on the side which faces away from the earth. Was this "non-falsifiable" before 1960? (I'm leaning toward "yes, it was falsifiable even though they had no way to conduct a test".)

Theory and law are tricky. Are they synonyms, or what?

They are not synonymous, they are developed for different purposes. Joshuaschroeder 20:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

We speak of Kepler's and Newton's laws of motion, and the laws of thermodynamics - but we also say Einstein's theory of relativity and the "theory of evolution" (in biology).

Einstein's theory of relativity isn't a law simply because it cannot be stated succinctly. It is an overarching paradigm for understanding the rules of nature -- that is the definition of theory (see above). It is not a theory because it is not as well understood or correct as Newton's Laws. In fact, it is more correct than Newton's Laws which fail in certain relativistic regimes. Newton's/Kepler's Laws are based on Theory of Dynamics and Theory of Gravity. Joshuaschroeder 20:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not planning to make a big deal over whether any particular idea should be called a law or a theory. I suspect it's a naming convention thing or a Chicago Manual of Style thing, or just that they don't want to keep switching back and forth between Law of Relativity and Theory of Relativity ever couple of decades. Uncle Ed 15:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no "Law of Relativity" because you cannot formulate the theory as a simple law. Joshuaschroeder 20:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, I would disagree based on my experience. An hypothesis can range from a totally unsupported speculation to a careful formulation well supported by experimental data. Hypotheses do not need to be falsifiable, but falsifiability is considered a requirement for scientific exploration of an hypothesis. Models can mean a number of things (I reviewed a manuscript a few months ago which asked that question to biologists - what is a model - and it turned out that the answer differed by discipline. If it's been published I'll see if I can find it and supply some examples). "Models" can be conceptual diagrams which simplify ideas, they can be simulation models which may or may not be realistic, or they may be used to explain difficut ideas (like the "wave model of a photon" versus the "particle model of a photon" to handle wave-particle duality. Models lie outside of Popper's continuum, iirc.

The continuum idea works well with hypotheses and theories, although, as I mentioned before, there is no universally established place to draw the line.

Laws are tricky. Ideally, they could be envisioned as the culmination of the sequence - "the truth", as such.

This is not correct. Laws are just simple formulations of theoretical concepts that lend themselves to predictions. If you can find a counterexample to this, let me know. Joshuaschroeder 20:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Popperian philosophy says that science can never find the truth, just better and better approximations of it, so the older idea of laws becomes a little obsolete (as I understand things; of course I am not a philosopher of science, just a retail user of the philosophy of science). As I understand it, "laws" shifted from simple elegant explanations of "the truth" to simple, elegant explanations...emphasis on simple. As in "generalisations". Guettarda 17:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Joshua, you have my vote for king. Your multi-pronged edit was the best response to that question I have been able to find. - Tεx τ urε 20:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe that this may be the first time I've ever seen the essential difference between a scientific Law and Theory described as simply the simplicity of their formulation. Law, as I have always understood it, is the top of the foodchain in the scientific heirarchy. An hypothesis is an educated guess based on evidence. A theory is an hypothesis is strongly believed to be truth, has never been demonstrated to be untrue, but which still has some details to be worked out about the nature of that truth. A Law is proven. There are no more details to be worked out. Ohm's law is qualitatively different that a putative Ohm's theory. V does equal IR. Always, without exception. Evolution is a theory, rather than a law, because while the fact that evolution occurs is a fact, how it occurs, the speed at which it occurs, whether it's a continuous or discrete process (or both) - those sorts of details have not all been worked out. The overall theory is true, some of the internal details are hypothetical. There is no more trace of hypothesis in a law. It is true that laws tend to be easier to state than theories, and thus are generally more succinct. But succinctness is not the defining characteristic of a scientific law. Synaptidude 19:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious where you got your information. While your rendition makes layman sense it isn't what I've read about the two terms. Can you give an example or cite a source? (Joshua, I am not addressing Synap's simplified version of your explanation because I don't think it is necessary. Feel free to comment.) - Tεx τ urε 19:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Admittedly, my primary source here is my own scientific training and experience. I've looked and I can point you to a bunch of web pages (e.g. http://wilstar.com/theories.htm), but I don't think these are very reliable references. I could probably just as easily find pages supporting the Moon-Green Chesse hypothesis, or that the origin of species is too complicated for evolution to explain ;-). There are a number of scholarly books on the subject, but I don't really feel like going out and buying one in order to settle what is really a side-argument. The real point here, on which I believe Joshua and I would agree, is that just because Evolution is called a "theory" doesn't mean that there is any likelyhood of it being false. Synaptidude 20:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

True. - Tεx τ urε 21:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to add to Joshuaschroeder's comments:

Theories can never become laws. Laws are correlations, usually linear, between variables. Laws usually yield mathematical truths, which translate into real world approximations. The (perfect) gas law, for example (pV = nRT) suggests that increasing the pressure by a factor of 2 will cause the volume to decrease by the same factor, if all other variables remain constant. Ideally, this is so, though in the real world this is only an approximation.

The same applies for Newton's law of universal gravitation, which is (approximately) true for most terrestrial applications. For otherworldly applications, and other extreme applications, Einstein's theory of gravitation (which, you may note, is not called law, because it is neither concise nor a simple correlation, nor in fact, is it bulletproof) will be needed. Newton's law will continue to be used, and rightly so, for most terrestrial applications, even though it is inaccurate, because it does still provide a useful approximate correlation.

Laws are mathematical tools, theories are not. Therefor, theories can never become laws. Rather, theories will forever be theories, because science will always face unknowns (even unknown unknowns), and it will never be so reckless. Science doesn't deal in absolutes. It knows it doesn't know everything.

Theories can be rejected through new information, or may need to be updated. But, though they are the culmination of science, they can never be assumed to be absolutely true. And they can never become laws. -- Ec5618 23:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, Laws are NOT proven. There is no real "proof" in science. Proof is what you find in mathematics. Since science is built on induction and the scientific method, there is never any proof to be had. Taking Synaptidude's example of Ohm's Law or the Law for Perfect Gases, it is absolutely clear that the Laws only apply in certain regimes. They aren't "proven" because they don't work independent of the theories that spawned them (the Theory of Electric Current and the Kinetic Theory of Gases). When these laws break down it is because the conditions that are needed to be met as described in the theories are not met.

Secondly, Ec is incorrect in stating that laws need necessarily be mathematical. There are scientific laws that are not mathematical, for example Dollo's Law. They just have to be succinct. Mathematics is a good way of making succinct statements, but it's not the only way.

Thirdly, the references for the differences between theories, laws, etc. come from a variety of sources. One of them I highly recommend is Donald Gillies' work on the philosophy of science. Of course, Kuhn, Popper, and Hume help in defining terms but these are all basic definitions that can be gleaned from considering the works that are considered laws and those that are considered theories, hypotheses, etc. Of course, there is very little rigidity in scientific nomenclature when it comes to such things -- but you will find that very few scientists disagree with my definitions. Joshuaschroeder 14:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the more I read into this, including the above, the more I'm starting to think that the theory/law designation is basically arbitrary. It is my feeling that a "law" is supposed to have more heft than a theory, and it's hard for me to accept that the sole reason you call somehting a law is brevity. There has to be some measure of 'truth' to it as well. Otherwise 2+2=5 would be a law. Dollo's law is certainly succinct, but it also certainly is not a law, despite the name. At best, Dollo's law is an hypothesis, and I'd say even a postulate. It's probably not even true. On the other hand, the Pythagorean theorem is, by the brevity definintion, a law. By almost any other definition I can think of it's a law (it's always true). Yet, we call it a theorem. It does, incidentally, meet the mathematical definition of a theorem (A proposition that has been or is to be proved on the basis of explicit assumptions). I'm also curious as to what Joshua sees as the "real world" failures of Ohm's Law and the ideal gas law to accurately predict the behavior of electricity and gas.Synaptidude 01:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Resistivity being proportional current is true for charge densities dealt with in most circuits, but it breaks down in other regimes. This is why MHD has problems. Likewise the ideal gas law only applies to "ideal gases", of which no gas is actually ideal. There are extensions to the ideal gas law which accounts for interactions of gas molecules/atoms with each other that do a better job at modelling gases and break down as well.

Synaptidude is right when he says the distiniction is somewhat arbitrary, though his suspicion of brevity being the criteria is misplaced. 2+2=5 is not a "law" because it isn't based on any theory. A law needs to be based on a theory. Pythagorean's theorem also isn't a "law" either. It is a mathematically proven statement for Euclidean spaces -- outside the purview of scientific exploration. We can prove that such is true, we don't need to make observations to test the Pythagorean theorem. Joshuaschroeder 16:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with you that a Law must be based on a Theory, though I'll grant you that most Laws are. I can imagine however that a simple law such as such as M = F*a or might have come about through direct observation, without a clear theory to explain it. Though I suppose that might not have been the most scientific way of defining a Law, then.

I also don't believe that Dollo's law should be classified as a law at all, and I maintain that Laws should be empirical correlations. Am I being a brat?-- Ec5618 16:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

What makes a titled "Law" a law is that it is called such. If you look at the list of scientific laws here on Wikipedia you'll find that they all conform to my definition. You claim tat "most Laws are", but fail to name any that don't conform to my definition. I'm not sure what you are trying to claim with your allusion to Newton's Second Law, but I think you're saying something about how the scientific method works -- a point honed by Kuhn in his seminal work. Joshuaschroeder 17:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I would imagine that certain Laws (such as M = F*a), could have preceded a grand Theory of Kinematics.

Please, let's try to get the Second Law correct: It is F=ma. This law indeed is derived from a grand theory of dynamics (kinematics does not deal with forces) laid out in Newton's Principia Mathematica. Joshuaschroeder 18:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I would imagine that its possible that the idealised scientific method is not always the roadmap to scientific victory, no matter what many people say.

This is true, but it does not detract from the fundamental point: scientific laws, when they are considered explanatory, are based on theories. Joshuaschroeder 18:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I will accept that all scientific Theories follow the scientific method, but I would imagine that at times, some points were followed retroactively.

Kuhn makes this point often in his famous work. I suggest you read it. Joshuaschroeder 18:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It is said (falsely, but that's not the point) that Newton was sitting underneath a tree when an apple hit him, which inspired him to formulate his famous Laws. Are you saying that he could not have formulated the Laws before the Theory? The Theory is, after all, based on the empirical observation that, for example, objects tend to continue to move until or unless a force acts on them.

Indeed, as the story goes, Newton didn't formulate his Law of Universal Gravitation before the theory (it wasn't his three laws that he discovered from this apocryphal story, but rather the equivalence of celestial and terrestrial gravity). First he worked out the theory of the equivalence of two phenomena and then proceded to use his theories of dynamics to lay the framework for gravitational laws. Joshuaschroeder 18:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

And yes, I failed to provide an example of a Law that fails your definition. If we're going to be nickpicky here, I'd say that since you are suggesting that your definition is the right one, it is up to you to prove that no physical law fails to conform to your definition. You cannot make such generalisations otherwise.

However we're dealing with science, not mathematics. Proof is offered by induction, that is, there is no counterexample thus the definition stands. This is usually how things work in language parsing anyway. Joshuaschroeder 18:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

As for the validity of Dollo's Law, which is horribly outside of the scope of this Talk page, it reads "An organism is unable to return, even partially, to a previous stage already realized in the ranks of its ancestors.". The 'law' seems to state that it is impossible for a random mutation, even a single random mutation, to be undone by a subsequent random mutation in another generation. Which seems a good rule of thumb, but hardly anything either useful or necesarily true (In fact, it seems comparable to Murphy's law in those respects). I understand that Dollo's Law is now called a Law, and that it would be hard to change the name at this point. Similarly, string theory is now called a theory, even though it is hardly the best example of a scientific Theory, as it seems to be only rarely valid, and even then only mathematically. (Is there a Law of String?) But should the definition of Theory really encompass theories that are not really Theories but are now named so? And should the definition of Law really emcompass Murphy's Law? -- Ec5618 22:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Dollos' Law is indeed of limited utility in this discussion but it was used as an example of a law that wasn't easily formulated mathematically -- just so that it was clear that a law need not necessarily be mathematical. Murphy's Law isn't scientific at all, and is definitely false according to certain Bayseian priors. Joshuaschroeder 18:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm being particularly lazy, but isn't it Kuhn who implies that laws must be based on a scientific theory? I believe the reason is that entities must be operationally defined, and this intrinsically relies on a theory's framework. Although the fundamental quantities and units have been pretty much static for much of the life of modern science (well, 20th/21st century at any rate), notice the effect that relativity has had on placing the speed-of-light centrally in the definition and measurement of basic quantities. Tez 21:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Joshua says "2+2=5 is not a "law" because it isn't based on any theory. A law needs to be based on a theory." This definition doesn't really support Joshua's argument. I could easily make a theory. I could make the theory that 'When you add two identical numbers together the synergy of their likeness draws in one more integer value, increasing the sum by 1'.

That's not a scientific theory. That's a "theory" in the colloquial sense, but it isn't what we are talking about. Joshuaschroeder 18:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Now, it's obvious that empirical evidence would not at all support this theory. But what this string of argument does show (a theory must be based on empirical evidence to be valid and a law must be based on a theory) that theory to law is a heirarchy. A law must be based on a theory.

Agreed. A law is based on a theory. That doesn't mean that a law is more "proven" than a theory. Joshuaschroeder 18:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Pythagorean theory can be empiricly demonstrated.

The Pythagorean Theorem is not a scientific law. It is a geometrical fact -- and can be considered like an observation if you look at it empirically. Joshuaschroeder 18:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thirdly, The failure of "laws" to describe the "real world" derives from other forces being involved, not from a lack of validity of the law. The ideal gas law for example. Yes, it only accurately described ideal gasses (hence the name). The reason that it doesn't describe non-ideal gasses is because (among other reasons) they can interact at the molecular level either reactively or zwitterionically. Saying that this invalidates the law itself would be akin to saying that the laws of gravitation are invalid because they do not describe the rate of accelaration in a gravitational field of a feather.

Indeed the law of constant acceleration due to gravity is invalid in a fluid due to buoyancy. You argue my point well, though you seem to disagree with it. Regimes are appropriate for applications of laws, but because laws are inflexible in their formulation, they are often rendered impotent before their practical implementations. Joshuaschroeder 18:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

So, to summarize my point: Laws are based on theories, and thus are heirarchacly superior.Synaptidude 18:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

"Superior" can be used in a value sense and in a causal sense. In a causal sense, laws are superior, but theories are the strongest statements that are made in science when formulating descriptions of reality. Joshuaschroeder 18:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

If a summary is superior to a full text, then yes, a Law is superior. It is not more accurate (in fact, often less so, as the full Theory can describe exeptions to the 'rule'). But it does (allright, usually does) provide practical -- Ec5618 21:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

By 'superior' I meant this definition: "Higher than another in rank, station, or authority"Synaptidude 21:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

That definition really doesn't help much in way of clarifying the issue. I see no reason to classify either as having greater authority than the other.

Laws are not higher in authority, generally. The perfect gas Law, for example, must always be accompanied by a disclaimer that is it is only approximately valid for real gasses, because it assumes that the individual molecules have no volume or attraction. When the Law breaks down however is not specified in the Law itself, so it is not immediately clear whether tha law holds for a given situation. The Theory does explain itself more, and in the example, explains why (and when) the volumes and attractions are negligible. -- Ec5618 06:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Joshuaschroeder, yes, I meant M = F*r (I mistakenly used 'a' for arm, when 'r' is generally used). You're right in saying that .. well, you're right about a number of things.

You stated:

"Murphy's Law isn't scientific at all"
"What makes a titled "Law" a law is that it is called such."

"Laws are just simple formulations of theoretical concepts that lend themselves to predictions."

The second statement seems to disagree with the first, and seems rather useless in practice. The third just bears repeating.

I feel the definion of both Law and Theory should exclude laws and theories that were called so mistakenly or in a different context (Murphy's law, Moore's law, String theory, Intelligent Design theory).

However, I've been doing some soul searching and have come to the conclusion that you're right; Laws needn't be mathematical. (For example, though Hubble's law could be written as a formula, as a line of text it is much more intuitive).

ps, could you perhaps take a look at User:Ec5618/Laboratory. I am (foolishly, perhaps) trying to assemble a list of responses to often heard (and incorrect) arguments (for use in various discussions, mainly), and I'd love to hear your input. -- Ec5618 21:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not true that "theories can never become laws". If a "theory" withstands criticism for long enough, and "survives"; it becomes an established "law" (or at least, a "tradition" which passes itself off as a "fact"). How else does a "theory" become accepted? Were not all current scientific "laws" first proposed as "theories"? When Copernicus proposed his theories, they were at first criticized; then accepted. Weren't they? Then later, when Galileo proposed his theories, weren't they at first criticized, then later accepted? (Or was it the other way around?) Is this not the way that "scientific theory" works? Point: and these theories also includes errors, which need to be challenged later on; by more sophisticated theories, which include later "scientific data" and new reasoning, or "insights". According to this pattern, "Darwin's theory of evolution" will eventually be challenged and replaced by a later theory, such as "intelligent design", which has better facts, and "new information"; and which will be better-able "to explain the universe". Otherwise, "scientists" who cling to this out-dated, and flawed theory of "evolution", risk becoming the next generation of "dinosaurs" and "dodo birds". 129.24.95.222 18:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)(Oct.)

If you believe there is a factual basis to doubt evolutionary theory, you are mistaken. The best ID and creationists have done is point to gaps in our understanding (such as the origin of life, or how specific things like blood clotting evolved), but an unknown isn't evidence for anything let alone ID; besides the unknown is why we do science. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

That old term "fact" coming up. Evolution is a fact, based on all the data that shows variation over time in the characteristics of organisms, accepted by many creationists and ID proponents. Their quarrel is with the theory of evolution, that natural selection can lead to variations becoming new species. Reading Behe's testimony[1], he seems to support both the fact and the theory with certain exceptions where he argues that a "designer" is needed. ...dave souza 20:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Intro favors evolution

Cut from intro:

The opposing viewpoints are understandings of origins based on scientific investigation on the one hand and various religious viewpoints on the other. Those advocating religious viewpoints hold the scientific explanations to be antithetical to certain origin beliefs (in particular Creation according to Genesis and creationism).

The conflict is usually portrayed in the mass media as being between scientists and creationists, but as almost all scientists do not consider the conflict to have any academic legitimacy, it may be more correctly described as a conflict over a conflation of science and religion (see section: Conflation of science and religion).

The debate is conducted primarily by Christian and Muslim adherents, and is most prevalent and visible in the U.S.

All of the above represents the point of view of those favoring evolution.

that there is no debate really going on between the two sides; rather, Christians and Muslims are "debating" scientists, who refuse to engage them since there's no academic legitimacy to the debate
that there only two sides worthy of mention, i.e. (1) scientific investigators (and (2) religious believers

The first view presumes that scientists are right. The introduction should say instead that scientists assert that they are right. Wikipedia isn't supposed to endorse science when it conflicts with "anti-science" but remain neutral, noting only that 95% or 99.8% of scientists accept a theory and that XX% of the general public rejects it.

How does it "presume" that the scientists are right? This is an actual account of how the controversy unfolds. If you read the rest of the article you will see this. Nobody is saying that the scientists are correct, simply that the scientists don't normally engage creationists/IDers. This is absolutely true. Joshuaschroeder 17:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The second view insinuates that scientists are objective and realistic while religious believers are dogmatic and unreasonable. This is tricky to describe, I'll admit.

I think that it is definitely a false dichotomy to claim that there are only two sides, but the article makes this point. Since the controversy itself is framed by one particular side (that is, the creation side) it brings with it all the bagage that is associated with setting up the false dichotomy. It is absolutely accurate to report that the creationists see it as being between one of two sides even while those opposing them believe in veiws "beyond the false dichotomy". We can include a link to that section of the article if we need further clarification. Your reading between the lines is really saying more about your own bias toward interpretation rather than the actual content of the introduction. The introduction isn't perfect, but it isn't explicitly saying what you are claiming it says. Rather it is reporting the way the controversy actually takes place. Joshuaschroeder 17:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll go even farther and agree that by and large scientists are more objective and realistic than religious believers, but there are known cases in the history of science when the dogmatic and unreasnable ones have been scientists.

Also, it's well known that religious believers tend to be dogmatic ("dogma" is a word used *by* religious believers to describe their own doctrine) and I can personally vouch for their frequent unreasonableness. I only object to the insinuation that they're all like that, which is being used to dismiss their side entirely.

Wikipedia should not commit itself to saying that religious belivers are wrong and that scientists are right. It is not Wikipedia policy to endorse science when it conflicts with religion (see NPOV). Uncle Ed 16:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you have shown that this work endorses a particular "side". The simple reporting that "sides" exist is sympathetic to the idea that the controversy is actual. Joshuaschroeder 17:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this intro needs work. (I don't see any harm in leaving it while it is worked on.) I am surprised at an intro that does not reference ID and was quite surprised to have specifics such as christians and muslims reference in an intro. That's too much detail. (Interesting, though, since I didn't know how involved muslims were in the controversy.) I think the first paragraph needs to start between scientific investigation and ID. The second paragraph needs to take the controversy from the first paragraph. What the media is really reporting is what is stated in the first paragraph, that of scientists versus religion. (Right or wrong) The third paragraph just doesn't belong. - Tεx τ urε 16:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The intro does reference ID, it's just not in the above part. I think the statement about Christians and Muslims is problematic, but it's unclear how to work the information into the intro: we need to be clear that those who are opposed to the scientific explanations are doing it because they have a religious agenda. We can move the ID reference to the first paragraph if people think that would be better.

Evidences

Does the user who inserted the comment about the use of the term "evidences" have a citation to its use? The first hit on Google for the term "evidences" is Theobald's essay (hardly creationist -- but maybe a parody on creationist use of evidences). Anyway, we need to be a bit more rigorous in our citation of this if we are to include it in the article. Joshuaschroeder 07:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Intro again

Cut from intro:

The opposing viewpoints are understandings of origins based on scientific investigation on the one hand and various religious viewpoints on the other.

I feel that "understandings ... based on scientific investigation" implies something which is not true. Or at best is confusing.

1. Unless it is common knowledge that scientific investigation always presupposes the POV that God does not exist and that there is only a material world. If that's how science works (and what science takes as a given), then the sentence is fine - and should go back.

But Wikipedia doesn't have an article on scientific investigation. There's not even a redirect. I think this means that the presuppositions of science are not so common as some contributors have assumed.

Not so common in most venues, but in the context of this "controversy" the discussion is about the scientific method and philosophical naturalism. Take your beef up with those pages as here is not the place to discuss what science is or isn't -- except to point out that creationists have views that are different from the mainstream. Joshuaschroeder 18:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

2. The term investigation implies looking into something and finding out what has happened with it. Like investigating a murder by interviewing witnesses, examining the crime scene with a magnifying glass like Sherlock Holmes. If scientists look at, say, the fossil record, and conclude from it that various forms of life appeared gradually over millions of years, that sounds like a sensible theory. Just as it would be sensible to conclude that people (not natural forces like erosion) created the statues on Easter Island.

Apples and oranges. You are conflating observation with scientific theory. The two may be related, but they are not one and the same. Joshuaschroeder 18:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be fair to say that scientists "can't think of any other explanation" but to say (like Carl Sagan) that they are quite sure that divine intervention was "not needed" is (1) a leap of faith and (2) an entry into metaphysics and/or religion.

Don't rely so much of Sagan. He was an astronomer/skeptic, but he was not the arbiter of science for all those who support evolutionists in the controversy. Joshuaschroeder 18:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

3. So I would argue our introduction would be more fair if it described the controversy as between:

scientists, who say X; and,
religious people, who say Y

Let the reader of this article decide for himself, if the scientists are right: if their investigations justify their understanding. Don't make Wikipedia take sides. Uncle Ed 11:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

As is pointed out int he article, the views are derived from understandings -- they aren't the understandings themselves. We worked a long time to come up with the NPOV that this article intro now has. Please read the archives (I get the impression that you haven't). Joshuaschroeder 18:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Where is the controversy?

I just reread Joshua's comment above:

I don't think you have shown that this work endorses a particular "side". The simple reporting that "sides" exist is sympathetic to the idea that the controversy is actual.

He touches on a good point, which he or others also make elsewhere: that Creationists have hinted or even directly asserted that there is a vigourous, ongoing debate within the scientific community over whether unguided evolution is a viable hypothesis. This is their POV, and we should write an article on it, of course, but we should not accept it merely on their say so.

I don't think Wikipedia should talk about the controversy as if it were primarily among scientists. Less than 5% of scientists disagree with the theory of evolution, but within biology that figure drops to 0.2% - hardly a controversy worth mentioning.

The controversy is between (1) religious believers who disagree with evolution and (2) advocates of evolution. I do not know how many of the advocates of evolution are scientists, and it would be good if the Creation-evolution controversy would tell us this. If scientists are by and large ignoring the controversy - if religious believers are trying to force the issue and being ignored, then we should say so.

Are religious believers trying (but failing) to get scientists to dialogue with them? Are people like Carl Sagan refusing to answer? And making no comments for or against divine intervention as a factor in the appearance of human beings on the earth? Uncle Ed 12:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This issue is already addressed in the article, in the introductory paragraph, in fact. Joshuaschroeder 13:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It is now. Uncle Ed 18:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If Carl Sagan does get around to answering, it might prove the "theory" of reincarnation.

False dichotomy?

To agree with the anti-Creationist side that the controversy does not exist or is unnecessary would seem to imply that we don't even need this article at all. So should I 'afd' the whole article, on the grounds that there's no controversy? No.

That the choice between "creationism" and "evolution" are the only two choices is a false dichotomy is an undeniable fact. Just because something is a false dichotomy doesn't mean the controversy doesn't exist. You've confused terms. Joshuaschroeder 18:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

There is indeed a controversy, because some Creationists say that their POV is incompatible with some evolutionary ideas. The evolution poll article used to make this clear, but a few Wikipedians got together and voted for it to be deleted. Nonetheless, the information has been reconstituted and can be seen in the following articles:

At least these article titles are more sensible in their language. I think they can stand on their own, if you'd like. I don't see why we should necessarily merge them here. Joshuaschroeder 18:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

They might be wrong to think so, but a substantial percentage of U.S. creationists believe that (a) their religion and (b) evolution are incompatible. Around 45% believe that the earth is only 10,000 years old (or is it 33%? no matter, it's still a lot). The polls don't say why these people reject evolution, but it might be related to their view of the authenticity of the fossil record. Maybe they think God (or Satan?) made the fossils to trick or test us. Such a view ought to infuriate scientists.

Actually, it is much less infuriating than those creationists who claim that the scientists are simply too biased to know the truth. Omphalos creationism is inherently unfalsifiable and in many ways perfectly compatible with the scientific endeavor, though if take to an extreme it would imply that no one should look at the world around them for ethical reasons. I have yet to meet the Omphalos creationist supporter who claims such things, though. They are actually easier to talk to than traditional creationists who claim that, for example, there is no fossil record. Joshuaschroeder 18:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Right. Those creationists who refuse to accept the authenticity of the fossil record are beyond reach in any sort of debate. Their religious views are simply at odds with "hard science", i.e., the physics of radioactive decay. I personally never discuss anything with these people, because their minds are already made up. Uncle Ed 15:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm interested in the degree to which Creationism and Evolution might be compatible - or considered compatible, which is not the same thing. There seem to be a substantial proportion of Americans who (A) conceded the validity of the fossil record but (B) insist that God guided evolution. This means they agree with Sagan on

the gradual appearance of forms of life; but disagree with Sagan on
the need for God to make these forms come into being.

Sagan asserted #1 and denied #2. Creationists are divided on #1 but are united on #2. I should make a table for this. Uncle Ed 18:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Careful. Carl Sagan does not speak for all those who oppose creationism just as all people who accept creationism do not object to Carl Sagan. Joshuaschroeder 18:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Good point, Joshua. I have not been careful enough about this. Perhaps a table somewhere could clarify the various positions on:

the fossil record: authentic, or some kind of trick?
the gradual appearance of new forms of life: really happened, or didn't?
divine guidance: irrelevant, denied, or essential?

I'll try to come up with a table and see if I can put the various positions into it: Carl Sagan (who as you cautioned me above does not speak for all those who oppose creationism), biologists in general (as shown by surveys), PBS, NCSE; and various church groups, "Creationists", American adults in general (again as shown by surveys). Do you think this would be interesting? Uncle Ed 15:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I think this would be redundant and not worthwhile as there are probably as many "positions" as there are participants. Trying to lump people into groups is fine as long as their self-defined (as in our definitions of creationism). Your further Balkanization is unwarranted. Joshuaschroeder 16:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Cut from intro:

Those advocating religious viewpoints (primarily fundamentalist or religiously conservative Christians, Jews and Muslims) hold the scientific explanations to be antithetical to their belief in creation, in particular Creation according to Genesis and creationism.

Joshua, didn't you just say that NOT all religious people reject the scientific theory of evolution?

I reworded the sentence which is indeed ambiguous as written above. The intention was to describe where the viewpoints derived from, not to say that all the people who subscribed to the perspectives were necessarily advocates. As a point of order, however, it might be better for you to ask before you remove things. In particular, according to your rationale, apparently all religious people have to be fundamentalist or conservatives. Joshuaschroeder 08:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the poll data we've all been looking at this week shows that around 20% of Americans reject naturalistic evolution while around 40% accept theistic evolution.

Neologisms and weasel words introduced. Naturalistic evolution is evolution, a scientific theory. Theistic evolution is a statement about the compatibility between the "sides" in the controversy. To this end, I do not think it is reasonable to make declarative statements about what "Americans" think. Poorly written polls yield poorly written results. Joshuaschroeder 18:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Or does "the scientific theory of evolution" refer only to naturalistic evolution? Help me out here, please. Uncle Ed 21:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, the scientific method is necessarily "naturalistic" - supernatural (meant broadly and non-pejoritively) explanations lie outside of science. Guettarda 22:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Or, to put it otherwise, they lie outside of the set of contraints within which modern science operates. Guettarda 22:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The theory of evolution is naturalistic evolution in that science studies nature. There are plenty of creationists who wish that science could study things other than nature, but this doesn't seem to be part of any general mainstream consensus on terms. Joshuaschroeder 18:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Articles for individual polls?

I'm baffled by Category:Evolution polls. A single poll may well be a good source for this article, but having an article (much less more than one) about a single poll seems odd. I've raised the question on Category talk:Evolution polls about whether such articles should exist. Friday (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

My only reason for creating the category is so that I don't lose track of all the "poll" articles before they are merged. It's temporary. Uncle Ed 01:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed table

Ed, your table was terrible. First of all, it encourages a limited scope POV wrt the controversy. It claims that there is a dichotomy between "religious view"s and "scientific view"s. As shown in the article, this is not necessarily the case. What is more, your explication of scientific views is redundant with the above paragraph and the explication of "religious" views lacks explanatory necessity.

--Joshuaschroeder 14:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that there is no dichotomy at all between religious and scientific views on any of the aspects mentioned in the article intro? Please refer to the truncated table below. Uncle Ed 16:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Aspect	Scientific view
the universe	Big Bang
the Earth	Age of the Earth
life	origin of life
humanity	human evolution

And what is the "POV" you keep saying I have? I wish you would point it out, so I can tell you point blank whether my beliefs correspond to what you imagine I believe. Uncle Ed 16:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The "dichotomy" is poorly demarcated at best and a false one worst. Read the article itself for more on this. Though the debate is supposedly "creation vs. evolution" it's really a debate between those who dislike what science says and those who dislike what those who dislike science say. Your table doesn't really make this apparent, and it distorts the view into very narrow categories for the creationists.

Your POV is unique to yourself. It is founded on a lot of original research that you do in the area. Joshuaschroeder 20:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Aspects of reality vs. what caused them

Aspect of reality	What caused it
the universe	Big Bang
life	origin of life
humanity	human evolution

Is this a better formulation? Here I distinguish between 3 aspects of reality and the scientific view of how each aspect came into being. I omit the earth, because I'm not sure that our Age of the earth article speaks to the causation issue. Correct me if I'm wrong. Uncle Ed 16:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The age of the earth is relevant because, according to young-earth creationists, the planet has been around for only a few thousand years, which is incompatible with the scale of time evolution requires. However, I'm still not convinced that the table is a good idea. Perhaps it belongs somewhere, but I don't know that this is the place for it. Alienus 17:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This table is fine, but I don't see how you are going to add anything other than the scientific column. I'm not sure the utility of including a table that just listed the scientific theories related to origin. Perhaps a better place for this would be origin beliefs.

Definition of public sphere

Joshua, when you read the term public sphere, do you think primarily of the distinction between (1) thoughts that a person has by himself, in the privacy of his own mind and (2) ideas which are discussed "in public", out loud, between different individuals or groups?

Or are you perhaps trying to make a distinction between:

discussions taking place only within the scientific community about whether things like evolution are true; and,
discussions taking place between scientists and laymen, scientists and religious folks, or even between "those morons who just don't get it (i.e., Creationist slime) and us fine fellows who do (i.e., people who understand science and therefore accept its findings)?

I ask, because the beginning of the Public sphere article didn't seem like it was expressing anything that pertained to the intor of this article. Uncle Ed 18:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a distinction between public and private which pertains not just to individuals but also to groups. The point is that the controversy is public. --Joshuaschroeder 18:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that this is a discussion that is not found in the halls of academia but shows up on web sites, churches, education boards and the evening news? Alienus 21:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

My understanding was the distinction between "public" and "scientific". Perhaps a better would would be "popular" to indicate (as the article does more fully lower down) that there is no scientific controversy. William M. Connolley 21:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC).

I'll agree to that. Joshuaschroeder 21:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, well I've done it. I hope that my first edit to such a controversial topic doesn't turn out to be uncontroversial :-) William M. Connolley 21:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC).

Beyond the dichotomy problems

The additions by User:Ed Poor to the intro are inappropriate. The Beyond the false dichotomy is covered later in the article, but people reading the intro need to be given a quick summary of the "sides". The "middle way" in the United States (narrow scope) and those that try to combine religion and science need to be discussed in the article but the facts are that the controversy is generally between those who espouse very narrow interpretations of creationism and those who are opposed to them. The ones who are less confrontational are not in the controversy almost by definition. --Joshuaschroeder 05:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

A related issue is the recent change in that section from "understanding of evolution" to "theories of evolution", which I reverted. Besides the latter being awkward in its context due a repetition of "theories", it's also wrong. Before any theories get involved, there is the fact of evolution, which no scientific theory is allowed to ignore. Even the most radical notions that just barely qualify as scientific, like panspermia, admit to evolution. Where they disagree with the modern synthesis is in their claims about changes over longer periods of time, including the origins of life. These claims, while likely false, are not trivially falsifiable, so there's still leeway. Alienus 06:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Using the phrase "understanding of evolution" treats evolution as fact. It's not a fact -- it's a theory. "Even the most radical notions...admit to evolution" is not true. The true statement is that other scientific theories accept the evidence that life has changed over time. Evolution is a theory that explains how these changes have occurred (the mechanics, if you will). It doesn't explain why these changes have occurred (that would be religion). By saying "understanding of evolution," the article enforces the false dichotomy, which is exactly counter to the point of the section (that there are both other scientific theories possible and other religious beliefs possible). It should be "theory" (singular), not "theories".

There was no response to the above comment, so I changed the phrase to "the current understanding of the theory of evolution". I think the first half ("the current understanding of") is superfluous but not offensive. Without the word "theory", I think it is not NPOV.

Number one, sign yourself so I know which doofus I'm addressing. Number two, you're a doofus because you have no idea about the scientific standing of evolution. I'm going to link you to a seminal essay by the late Stephen Jay Gould. It should REALLY be required reading on this subject for any doofus who thinks evolution is "just a theory". --Cyde Weys [u] [t] [c] 18:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments aren't supposed to be personal attacks, so I'm going to assume that wasn't really the intent of the writer above. The FACT that humans and other creatures have changed over many years does not mean that the THEORY of a particular mechanism (natural selection) to explain those changes is correct. The difference between the observable facts of the evolutionary process and the non-observable framework of the theory of evolution are too subtle for most people. The theory of Natural Selection (what most people call the Theory of Evolution) is science's best guess based on the understanding of the facts. I personally think it's a great theory and I can think of no better theory. But, if you pretend it is a fact when it's not, you give creed to the people promoting ID that those who promote evolution are lying. If you're not clear on that, reread Gould's essay, particularly paragraphs 5-7. And if you want to try to educate everyone that what they call the Theory of Evolution they should really call the Theory of Natural Selection, good luck (but feel free to rewrite this whole article to take it into account). --the person Cyde Weys thinks is a doofus

Gould distinguished between the fact that things are evolving and our best theory to account for this fact. However, if that theory happens to be correct, then it is itself factual. It would then be the fact about how things evolve rather than the fact that they do. In other words, being a theory doesn't prevent something from being factual. Theories are not a lesser grade of truth than facts. Alienus 04:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, theories can be facts. But natural selection hasn't been proven yet, so we don't know if it's a fact. If we say it is a fact based on our beliefs, then how is that different than a religion? The current phrasing is "scientific theories other than the current understanding of the theory of evolution". It occurs to me that another way to phrase it would simply be "scientific theories other than evolution through natural selection." This is more accurate and avoids using both the words "understanding" and "theory". (I have not made this change because I don't want to be in an edit war)

That turns out not to be the case. There is no scientific controversy about evolution; all the skepticism is coming from irrational religious zealots, like yourself. If you tried to impose your factually inaccurate views, there wouldn't be an edit war, you'd just lose. Alienus 18:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This is actually pretty funny and it actually shows that there are people here who consider themselves experts that are actually biased. Not only am I not a religious zealot, I'm about as far removed from it as you can get and I spend a significant amount of my time trying to prevent religious organizations and misguided politicians from violating First Amendment rights. I think Intelligent Design is rubbish -- it's a not-so-thinly veiled attempt at introducing religion into government and our publicly-funded educational system. But, that's my opinion and I'll put it here in the discussion page but not in the article.

You are absolutely right that there is no scientific controversy about evolution -- the fact that evolution has occurred is undeniable. You are also absolutely right that there is no scientific controversy about natural selection as the cause of evolution -- pretty much all scientists agree that Darwin's theory of natural selection (and the modifications made to that theory over time) are the best theory to explain evolution.

But, the lack of a controversy does not make something into a fact. Claiming that natural selection is a fact, not a theory, has two significant problems. First, in the "False Dichotomy" section, it enforces the false dichotomy rather than rejecting it. Second, it tells the Intelligent Design nuts that those who support the theory of natural selection are willing to lie to make their point. This emboldens them and gives credence to their arguments that those who support natural selection are unwilling to question it. Check out their literarure -- they're saying that all they want is to question natural selection (they say "evolution", and the lay public doesn't understand the difference) and they're using that as the excuse to say that we need to teach Creationism in the guise of questioning natural selection -- as if Judeo-Christian Creationism (aka Intelligent Design) is the only other possibility other than natural selection (and that, in fact, is what this section in the article is about). In fact, not only do biologists question natural selection, the scientific process basically requires that they do so. An accurate article needs to reflect that.

Article is way overlinked

Whoever is editing this page really needs to take a look at Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context. There are so many links in this article that it is ridiculous (and it also hurts readability). --Cyde 01:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, it happens when you have several editors working on an article. I took a bunch out... mostly having to do with linking science, or creationism. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice job, you removed a lot of braindead links ... but I can't help but think that there are still a lot more that need to go, too. I'll take a look at it later when I have some free time. --Cyde 02:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Parochial vs "Faith Based"

No offense to those that prefer the term "faith based" to "parochial" or "religious" to describe schools that provide a religious education, but the term really sets my teeth on edge. I view the term "faith based" as a smoke screen used by certain American Christians to disguise the fact that they want to promote their political agenda in public schools or have public funds used to support organizations with a similar political agenda. See Discovery Institute for examples of a political agenda promoted by a "faith based" organization. I would prefer to have a less political term used in the article that more accurately describes the situation in England. --Nowa 12:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about your teeth, I do understand it's something you're very sensitive about in the Americas. As you'll see from The Guardian, 23 August 2005, Two thirds oppose state aided faith schools it's become rather a common term in Britain. More clarification at parochial school. I've tried to put a euphemism in here to avoid offending your sensibilities, but you should note that parochial and parish school means something rather different here, being an old term for many normal primary schools which have been secular for years, and "secular schools" still have a vicar or school chaplain being boring at school assemblies. BTW, I do of course take offence at offense. ...dave souza 22:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Dave, Thanks for the clarification. I like the wording you have. --Nowa 02:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand about taking offence at offense, but what about a fence?--Nowa 02:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sitting on it.....dave souza 10:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Science and religion

The article contains the following intriguing sentence:

The controversy entered into the practical realm when public schools began teaching the scientific theory that man descended from lower forms of life per Darwin's theory of Natural Selection as opposed to being created by God in His image per the bible.

To me, this sentence is unclear. It could mean either of two things, but I can't tell which:

The scientific theory is that (A) man descended from lower forms of life and (B) man was not created by God in His image; or,
The schools (C) began teaching the scientific theory that man descended from lower forms of life and (D) stopped teaching that man was created by God in His image.

We all know that the theory of evolution says 'A'. But does it keep quiet about 'B' or does it specifically assert it?

If it keeps quiet, then the "controversy" sentence I quoted needs revising. Uncle Ed 15:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point about lack of clarity. Suggest:

The controversy entered into the practical realm when public schools began teaching the scientific theory that man descended from earlier forms of life per Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, which more literal Christians interpreted as contradicting biblical references to man being created by God in His image.

and of course the theory can't comment on what God did. ...dave souza 21:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC) or, more to the point, what His image is. ...dave souza 22:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

it was removed from school (that god created man) cause its not a fact, evolution is a fact that people have to face. But it is thought on religion classes. that they belive it -Unsigned by 217.208.244.194

Microevolution is a fact, macroevolution is not a fact per se, but widely accepted. The Theory of Evolution (that we macro-evolved from apes) is not widely accepted outside of the science community. --Дрakюлa ^Talk 01:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

That's not quite true. Macroevolution, if we use the term at all, starts with speciation, and speciation is an observed fact. Larger changes take longer periods of time, so while we have ample evidence of them, it's not the sort of thing we can directly observe. Also, we are apes. There's overwhelming evidence that we are closely related to chimps and gorillas. Alienus 03:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

That is a lot clearer than what I stated, I agree 100%. --Дрakюлa ^Talk 03:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Who's debating whom?

The debate continues to be actively promoted and maintained by a number of creationist organizations and religious groups who desire to uphold creationism

Didn't PBS do a 10-part series on evolution a couple of years ago? I gather the series was very pro-evolution. One of the parts even addressed religion.

Would that series be considered part of the debate? Or a "response" to public pressure from creationists? Or what? Uncle Ed 19:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

One can make an argument that the media is also in part to blame for continuing the debate. This is addressed in the article. The context of the sentence you pulled out is that the creationist organizations and the religious groups actively promote and maintain the debate. It's not meant to be an exclusive sentence and doesn't come across that way if you read the context and the rest of the article. --ScienceApologist 07:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You're making the mistake of assuming the PBS documentary series was taking a stand one way or the other. Frankly, it wasn't weighing in on the "controversy" at all ... it was just presenting the facts of science, like good scientific documentaries do. You wouldn't consider a Christopher Columbus documentary weighing in against the flat-earthers, would you? Sometimes a documentary is just a documentary. --Cyde Weys [u] [t] [c] 07:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Cute poll section supports the intro

Before anyone asks me me why I wrote that "most Americans" reject evolution, let me point out that 45% + 37% = 82%. And please see Creation-evolution_controversy#Poll_numbers.

Hurry and look at the 2001 Gallup poll on creationism and evolution article, which is my source for this - because user:Friday wants to delete the Gallup poll on the grounds that This article should not be used. Since it looked like folks were trying to use it, it seemed like the time was right for it to go away. [2] Uncle Ed 17:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, Ed? Here is the poll you cite:

45% believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so

37% believe that human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided the process.

12% believe that human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.

The lower two are both "evolution". That means that 49% support (not reject) evolution. So, your intro is wrong. Instead you seem to want to prove that 82% believe God had something to do with life versus 12% who believe that God had nothing to do with it. Regardless, something this debated does not belong in the intro. An article's intro should be undisputed and disputed details like this belong in the meat of the article. Why do this? - Tεx τ urε 17:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed Scott Adams link

I removed the Scott Adams link someone just added to the main article with the edit summary, "He's not only a cartoonist, he's a philosopher". He may be a cartoonist but he sure as hell isn't a philosopher. I've read some of his "philosophy" books (like God's Debris) and they are so vacuous and ignorant of the facts it is astounding. The link text was also "A Neutral Viewpoint On This Controversy", which is not true. Scott Adams sure as hell doesn't have a neutral viewpoint.

The best response to Scott Adams nonsense articles on "intelligent design" are by PZ Myers ... he's not a cartoonist or a philosopher, he's actually a biologist. See that linked article and you'll understand why Scott Adams simply has no knowledge on the issues at hand, and since he really doesn't know what he's talking about, it shouldn't be linked from the page.

--Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 16:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with removing him, but it's not a valid argument that Adams' writings shouldn't be linked to because his opinions are wrong. This would require us to decide who's right or wrong, which isn't something we do here. Friday (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Scott Adams should be removed because as an admitted non-expert in the subject his opinions are not relevent to the article. --ScienceApologist 16:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying his opinions are wrong (well, they are too...) but that his facts are wrong. On Wikipedia we don't link to pages which are full of false information. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 16:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)