Talk:Evolution/Creationism

I have just arrived here from my website in the Uk. Creationism only being debated in the US??? you wish!! It is a hot topic in many European countries. As a geologist and lecturer I have been on both sides of the Evolution "fence". I spent many years defending creationism vehemently being moved by religious zeal. However for the past ten years I have given much greater thought to the matter and incline more toward evolution, (perhaps with a Great Designer involved??). Incidently please add Hugh Miller to your list of those involved in this debate . Hugh Miller was a Scottish geologist who published several books in the 1830s & 40s including "Testimony of the Rocks" and "Footprints of the Creator". Much read in the UK and America Miller was a creationist who fought hard against the rising tide of evolutionary argument. His books are very readable as well as scholarly. Anything I can do to help this super project??? please let me know. Jonathan Le Vine March 14th 2004(jonathan.levine@hornsea.eril.net)Moved from Talk:Evolution --Brion 23:19 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

Creationism as it applies to the article[edit]

Has anyone heard of "typism" or some such term? The idea is that organisms belong to distinct types and there is no continuity between species. I think that this idea has been soundly refuted, but it is a basic foundation for opposition to evolution. The idea that each species was created separately by God would be a subset of this type of idea. Maybe this is just some propaganda that I picked up from creationist literature, but it could be a good framework for describing anti-evolution ideas in history and contemporary society. AdamRetchless 17:45, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to but in and change a page on an issue that is controversial, but I think the two paragraphs about creationism unbalanced. The creationist movement exists only in the US. There is no debate about creationism in relation to evolution in the rest of the western world, and quite possibly the rest of the world too. If we mention creationism at all, it should be much less prominent, and clearly marked to be US-only. Something along the lines of:

In the US there is a significant Christian movement that rejects macro-evolution on relgious grounds. See Creationism for details.

NTF

I'm not sure what you're seeing here--I see only one paragraph that mentions creationism at all (and doesn't even link to it, which it should), and it's only a brief mention of one of its claims that doesn't really interfere with the rest of what is a reasonable article. Any more details about the creationist movement itself should be on that page, but I don't see any problem with a brief mention here in the proper context, as long as we aren't actually expressing any creationist views here. --LDC

I'm talking about the two paragraphs that start "Some proponents of creationism...." and the next one "Among laymen, .....". The second one doesn't mention creationism, but is closely linked to it. A quick visual estimate shows that these two paragraphs are about 10% of the total explanation on the page. I think that gives way too much attention to what is, in my opinion, an archaic view held by a minority of the people in a single country on the other side of the world. If we include this, we should probably include large paragraphs about related religious and philosophical views held in China, India, and Africa too. NTF

I'm in

Stuff that belongs on talk.origins (Creationism and the nature of science)[edit]

Ed removed this important sentence, and replaced it with irrelevant nonsense, so I restored it:

It is worth noting that the mechanism (natural selection) is logically independent of the observation that evolution does indeed occur. Thus, a disproof of Darwinism does not in itself disprove the occurrence of evolution which is an observable fact based on evidence from many fields (e.g. embryology?, paleontology, genetics).

Ed, I respect your religious beliefs, and I appreciate that you want to cover them here. Please do so on the pages devoted to those beliefs. But keep your hands off the real science pages which you clearly aren't qualified to edit. A lot of us have spent a lot of time and energy and decades of education and research on these issues, and we don't appreciate that being take lightly by someone who hasn't. --LDC

I guess I'm not clear on whether Natural Selection is (a) what causes the species to come into being or (b) what causes newly arisen species to survive or perish. Make that clear, and I'll fold my hands in prayer :-) --Ed Poor

Perhaps you could read a book about the topic, since you seem very interested in it? Natural selection acts on variations. Over time it results in change. There should be several books at your local bookstore that will explain this far more clearly than any of us here. GregLindahl

Lee, I think it is very impolite to call an edit that you disagree with "vandalism". --AxelBoldt

Yeah, I could take that personally if I weren't such a humble and friendly guy <wink> --Ed Poor

I do get pretty emotional about this topic, but I'm really not a mean guy. "Vandalism" was a bit over the top, so let me amend that to "unjustified removal of important information". The best layman's explanation of the basics of the neo-Darwinian systhesis I've seen is Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker. That's a good start, although a real understanding of the subject requires years of study. --LDC

Added this bit after helpful advice from Greg

It is worth noting that the theory of evolution is not falsifiable, hence not a scientific? theory at all, since it includes the claim that God did not intervene in evolutionary history by creating new forms of life. It is held by nearly all biologists, however, for philosophical reasons.

Excuse me? Don't be blaming me for your complete misunderstanding of the issues. Again, I urge you to educate yourself by reading a book on the history of science and philosophy instead of editing articles on Wikipedia. GregLindahl

The reason evolution is not falsifiable is that it would require more evidence than is likely to ever exist, or require something like a time machine.

Removed this:

It is worth noting that the theory of evolution is not falsifiable, hence not a scientific theory at all, since it includes the claim that God did not intervene in evolutionary history by creating new forms of life. It is held by nearly all biologists, however, for philosophical reasons.

because the theory of evolution makes no such claims. It doesn't mention God's involvement one way or the other. -BD

Huh? Why is it called "natural" selection if supernatural action could be involved? The whole point of Darwin's theory is to provide an explanation of evolution which requires only natural processes. This is not to insist that the material universe was not created by God, or sustained by him, or that these natural processes do not operate by his power and will, but that divine intervention in violation of these processes is not involved. My objection to the statement is the claim that evolution by natural selection is "not a scientific theory at all", when of course it is. -HWR

What I mean is that the theory of Evolution, by itself, doesn't make a statement equivalent to "God did not create new forms of life." It doesn't say _anything_ about whether God created life forms; the theory of evolution isn't concerned with abiogenesis. However, once those life forms do exist, the theory of evolution describes how they will change over time. This is compatable with the notion that God created the first simple forms of life and they then proceeded to evolve on their own into what we've got today, for example. Not that I believe this myself, I'm personally an atheist, but some people do believe it and the theory of evolution makes no claims about where its "starting material" comes from (God or natural abiogenesis or panspermia or wherever) as long as it's capable of descent with modification. -BD

Lee, I'd like to make a distinction between creationists and other theory of evolution critics.

I regard creationists as merely expressing their religious faith, i.e., their scripture-based belief that God created (a) the Earth and (b) each species of life.
I regard the so-called creation science movement primarily as an attempt to justify and/or spread their religious faith, but
I regard intelligent design adherents as trying to approach the observed facts with an open mind and concluding, "it looks like there would have to be a designer".

Using this model, I would see no point in "rebutting" creationism, as it is merely an expression of theology. We don't rebut the Hindu or Shinto creation stories. As for creation science, I would focus on showing where its adherents cross the line from faith expression into scientific claim and point out any pseudo-science such as unfalsifiable hypotheses or selective use of evidence.

In contrast, I would give intelligent design a more serious look, respecting its self-description as being distinct from creationism and merely examine it on its merits.

Please tell me whether you think this model will be useful. I regard you as the subject matter expert as far as biology and geology goes. I see myself as perhaps being more conversant with the theological beliefs and public policy aims of faith-based organizations.

Ed Poor

Ed, I just do not understand what you are trying to do here. My understanding of Wikipedia is that it has nothing to do with our (meaning, we contributors') opinions; it has to do with our attempts to provide accurate and intelligible accounts of various phenomena, including various debates. I am not trying to use Wikipedia to "rebut" any religion; I am trying to use it to present adequate accounts of various topics of interest to me, including evolution. And as far as this topic goes, by your own definition "creationism" is not "merely an expression of theology." It is making empirical claims, specifically, about how species arise. These claims flat out contradict the claims of science. People are free to reject the empirical evidence, the methods of science, or the epistemoligical principles of science -- but they cannot deny a conflict between this epistemology/method/interpretation of evidence and the claim that God created each species independently. I am not saying that creationism makes a "scientific" claim since its epistemology and methods are not scientific -- but it most definitly is making a claim about the same phenomena science is making a claim about, and creationism's claim and science's claim are in conflict. And OF COURSE other "creationist" claims about the origin of species (such as those of Hindus and Shintos). This is obvious, isn't it? What is your point -- that the article does not single out Hindu and Shinto creationists? Well, honestly, how many Hindus and Shintos are making sustained public efforts to refute scientific models of evolution? In the United States, at least, it isn't really an issue, is it? And by the way, just because Hindus and Shintos have non-Darwinian creation-myths, I would not immediately conclude (as you seem to) that they are reject Darwin. Catholics and Jews read the same book of Genesis that fundamentalist Protestants do -- but this does not mean that they are "creationists." The Catholic Church accepts Darwin's theory of speciation, as do many if not most Jews. The issue is not what the myths sat, but how people interpret them. Slrubenstein

What I'm trying to do here is suggest that the most important contrast is between the accepted scientific theory of evolution and "creation science", rather than between the theory of evolution and "creationism". The only relevant comment from the scientific community in the creationism article should be one or two sentences and a link. It is with so-called "scientific creationism" which makes definite scientific claims that the theory of evolution is best contrasted. That's what I meant. Many religions also believe in life after death, the efficacy of prayer and so on, but we wikipedians don't feel it necessary to rebut those claims, do we?

Again, it is not a question of whether we Wikipedians want to "rebut" those claims, it is whether there is a public debate over these questions that Wikipedia should describe. And I do not think there is any public debate between science and religion over the efficacy of prayer today. I am not sure why -- one reason may be that the public debate over prayer, for constitutional reasons, is focused on whether prayer should be mandated in public schools or not (similarly, by the way, I doubt there would be any manor public debate over creationism versus science were it not for the question of what should be taught in schools; one could construe all or most of these religion vs. secular controversies in terms of educational policy). Another reason could be that a much earlier generation of scientists -- I am thinking of people like Diderot and others at the time of the Enlightenment -- "rebutted" claims about prayer and an afterlife to their own satisfaction. Slrubenstein

I am just trying to re-focus the topics with a view to a possible re-arrangement, as I did (with feedback from Danny and help from Uriyan) with the British Mandate of Palestine. The last thing I'd want to do is somehow use the 'pedia to put the imprimatur on my pet POV on anything. Ed Poor

Okay, Ed, I see it a bit differently. I think the main point of contention between creation scientists and Darwinian scientists is over what "science" is and how it should work; the question of where species come from is a real question, but secondary to this larger question. The main point of contention between creationists and Darwinian scientists is NOT over "what 'science' is" (since creationists as such are not caliming to be ascientific), it is solely over "where do different species come from." Slrubenstein

I changed "the process of microevolution has been put to use in computers..." to "processes of evolution" because "microevolution" is not a process, it describes a scale of change. Mutation and genetic drift are examples of the processes at work, and these are the exact same processes (among others) at work in "microevolution." Slrubenstein

The evolution, theory of evolution, intelligent design, creation science and creationism articles need a major overhaul. I don't know enough about any of these topics to do it by myself. Thanks to all who are devoting so much time to these weighty topics. --Ed Poor

I thought the comments below taken from a metawiki talk page, Origins of Everything, would be of interest here and something to consider (although perhaps more relevant to a Controversies re Evolution article if one is ever created). Someone, somewhere sometime once said: "Imagination is more important than knowledge...":

"I would argue that the simplest explanation of all is that the universe was always here. Alan D"

"I'd go further and add that it is here to stay and that God is a natural extension of the universe. If mainstream Christianity (or other religions for that matter) were not so invested in its transcendent God (a concept which atheists and many philosophers and scientists recognize as incoherent and rubbish) and settled for a being that was, shall I say, a little more down to earth, religous conflicts with certain scientific theories (like the theory of evolution) would be seemingly moot. Consider that the process of evolution is ongoing...what comes next after humans? Genetically enhanced superhumans? what then?...and after that? Consider a being that over time nature has endowed with such power, knowledge (and hopefully benevolence) that humans might perceive, THAT is God! At that point god or God or supreme being or whatever you want to call it would work as an extension of the universe in creation or evolution whichever you want to call it. B"

Moved paragraph on "natural selection"[edit]

I moved this paragraph from the main text:

Although Evolution has been widely accepted by the scientific community, there have been some who point to possible flaws in the theory. The absence of “Transitional Species” has never adequately been explained. Darwin also talked about the absence of transitional species and stated that the theory of evolution would be a fraud without this evidence. Another flaw is the inherit contradiction within the process that supposedly drives evolution, namely “natural selection”. Scientists say that the theory collapses from the weight of its own premise. Natural selection would actually weed out those segments of the population with a mutation since the survival attributes would be compromised. For instance, the light weight skeletal structure of a bird that allows flight would compromise the survivability of a land creature.

from the main article, it should be discussed in Creationism if anywhere. The "transitional species" issue is addressed there, as are criticisms of natural selectios. It is certainly not true that "scientists say that the theory collapses...", although a creationist might say that. This is based on an incorrect assumption and an a priori notion about what constitutes a "survival attribute". Also a mutation may also achieve fixation in a population in the presence of selection due to genetic drift, or achieve equilibrium via mutation-selection balance, so the statement that natural selection would do this or that, depends on may other factors, which can be answered quantitatively via the application of the principles of population genetics. --Lexor 07:36, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This is not religious-specific critisism of evolution, but generally scientific, so it belongs in this article. Sambostock 01:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, it is a veiled "religous-specific" criticism. This is simply because those criticisms are not real problems in the theory, and were made not by biologists interested in figuring out the origin of species but by religious people manufacturing supposed problems with the theory which are not in fact real problems. So called "transitional species", which is a misnomer itself and exposes a extreme ignorance of the subtleties of the theory in itself, are in fact found as much as would be expected from what geological processes could be expected to have preserved for paleontologists. The equivalent of "transitional species" are found for species that sufficient research has been conducted on. Of course we can't expect to find every intervening member between two species (finding two related specimens from differnt eras is itself highly unlikely). There is a certain "resolution" to be expected limited by the two very small probabilities of animals being preserved and being found, and the number of "intervening species" we have found correlates well to what would be expected from the likelyhood of finding closely related specimens from differnt eras. Again, it is not a criticism brought up by people knowledgable of the theory (if they had knowledge of the theory they would see that there is no problem) but by people who want to discredit the theory for their own purposes unrelated to the science. --Brentt 04:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Creationism v Evolution[edit]

I want to move The Creationism v. Evolution Controversy to a new article. The dispute should be briefly discussed here of course, but the lengthy details of this religious attack on evolution do not belong in this science article. Rather, after briefly discussing this topic we should provide a link to this material in the article we already have on this topic, Creationism. RK 21:02 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I concur. There are also some paragraphs in Creationism that should be moved to the new Creationism vs. Evolution page. All three articles are quite long enough to have their own pages. Indeed, I expect all the different variants of Creationism to eventually have their own pages, for better organization, and to diffuse the POV claims. -- Rudminjd 21:25 15 Jul 2003 (UTC) Joseph D. Rudmin

I think that the better link (at least I hope I'm not too alone in this), is Scientific creationism Mkmcconn 21:19 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It is not strictly a religious attack. There is no clear scientific account of some issues in evolution, and proposing divine being, or time loops, or some other kind of self-organizing intervention, is within the scope of scientific investigation. Was Teilhard de Chardin a biologist? His views offended the Catholic Church, and are now of increasing interest to cosmologists. EofT

I concur. There are also some paragraphs in Creationism that should be moved to the new Creationism vs. Evolution page. All three articles are quite long enough to have their own pages. Indeed, I expect all the different variants of Creationism to eventually have their own pages, for better organization, and to diffuse the POV claims. -- Rudminjd 21:25 15 Jul 2003 (UTC) Joseph D. Rudmin

I think that the better link (at least I hope I'm not too alone in this), is Scientific creationism Mkmcconn 21:19 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't think we need a separate "Creationism vs. evolution controversy" article -- from a scientific standpoint, there is no such controversy. The creationist arguments should be presented and refuted in the creationism article. This article should briefly discuss the controversy in at most one paragraph, and link to it. "Scientific creationism" should be merged into creationism. --Eloquence

Niether of the preceding two positions are NPOV. The term "creationism" does not need the qualifier "scientific" before it any more than "evolution" does. It may be that "scientific creationism" is a particular variant of "creationism", in which case it could have its own page, with a link off the general "creationism" page.

Agreed. There are forms of creationism which are more or less scientific - see below. EofT

It's precisely because "scientific creationism" is a particular variant, that it needs to be distinguished in the creationism article, or distinguished from creationism more generally defined. The creationists who would claim that their view is a scientific view, and not a religious one, are appropriately named. Merging is alright. My only objection to this, is that the scientific creationism article well on its way to being good, in my opinion, but creationism is a mess because it is prone to be dominated by consideration of scientific creationism. Confusion is not alright. Mkmcconn 23:02 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Furthermore, niether position can refute the other, since they are based on different assumptions. To assume that one can "refute" the other is explicitly POV, and has no place here. -- Rudminjd 21:31 15 Jul 2003 (UTC) Joseph D. Rudmin

That is not quite true. Certain versions of scientific creationism (those that admit the evidence from evolution advocates at all) say that the snag is the explanation of how the cell evolves from simpler forms of co-operating protein. The cell is so much more complex than those forms that the argument holds that intelligent design must have been involved to create it. These theories say that there is no adequate account of how a cell can come about as a result of some proteins or virus-like things floating around. If an account of evolution can provide that, at least those versions of the creation theory might be refuted. EofT

The problem is that the "intelligent design" advocates keep moving the goalposts. For example, the flagellum was offered as an example of 'irreducible complexity'. Fairly soon after that claim was made, a paper was published showing that, in evolutionary and developmental terms, the flagellum is made up of multiple parts, each of which functions separately. Instead of--as I would expect of honest scientists--saying either "we were wrong about irreducible complexity" or (more likely) "okay, the flagellum is not an example of irreducible complexity", ID advocates claimed each piece of the flagellum as "irreducibly complex."

In other words, "irreducibly complex" is another version of the argument from lack of imagination: they can't figure out how to make one, so it can't have evolved. If you show how to make X out of Y and Z, well, they'll just say they don't know how to make Y and Z. Vicki Rosenzweig 22:31 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Rudminjd wrote: "To assume that one can 'refute' the other is explicitly POV, and has no place here." This is an interesting claim, to which I want to respond directly. Similar claims have been made on other discussion pages, and they are often made by people who hold relativistic views; i.e. no belief in objective truth. Relativism itself is a point of view, and should not be confused with the neutral point of view policy. NPOV merely says that views have to be attributed to their adherents if they are controversial. NPOV does not relate to the concept of truth per se; in fact, when a statement is presented in an NPOV manner, and the other side cannot logically respond to that statement, it is perfectly acceptable to let it stand as it is. Many of our pages contain NPOV statements that the respective "other side" will not like -- that the United States supported various dictatorships, that creationist arguments are fundamentally flawed etc. -- but can also not logically refute.

Furthermore, there is a tendency to demand NPOV from people who hold positions on talk pages. This is, of course, nonsensical, as a reasonably informed person will always hold a point of view, even if it is a relativistic one, and it is perfectly acceptable to express such a point of view on discussion pages, if it is done in a non-inflammatory way.

As for "scientific" creationism Vicki already responded to the problems with these claims; the evolution of flagella page discusses the flagellum problem in more detail. Contributors to the Talk.Origins discussion group have done extensive work in rebutting virtually every so-called "scientific" argument made by creationists. But those who think there is honesty in creationism should read the article "Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience?" by Joyce Arthur, which portrays creationist Duane Gish.

Creationists are not driven by a genuine desire to seek truth, they are driven by a desire to justify what they perceive as the truth, namely that there is an absolutely powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe-spanning entity that is deeply and personally concerned about your sex life. You will recognize the truth in this statement if you recogize the fundamental flaw of the "scientific" argument for creationism -- it violates Ockham's Razor. When they feel that evolutionary theory does not properly explain parts of the evolutionary process, creationists do not do what would be obvious, logical and simple: examine whether there is enough evidence to come up with a full answer and if not, devise a way to find such evidence. If the theory is flawed in light of evidence, improve it. If it cannot be improved without making it too complex, find a better one which fully explains what the old theory explained, plus the remaining flaws.

Creationists do not do this; they do not examine alternative arguments such as dissemination of microbes through space -- they only want to justify their preconceived belief system, which requires the a "creator", which is neither properly defined, nor is there any evidence to support its existence, nor is it explained how the creator came into existence, nor is his motivation for creation examined etc. etc. A more blatant violation of the principle Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate is hard to imagine. That is why "scientific creationism" is an oxymoron -- creationism in all its appearances violates basic scientific principles. It is anti-science and anti-truth. --Eloquence 23:16 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Amen to that. It is also anti-encyclopedic, and should be described in the appropriate sections: i.e., those on religion, politics, and sociology, not here. Tannin 23:28 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I would suggest ignoring EntmootOfTrolls attempts to argue for supernaturalism. His comments that Godly supernatural creation is scientific is false, not to mention dishonest, on its face. He isn't interested in improving this article. He is attempting to drag you into a discussion of science versus religion, with the goal of proving that his religious views are scientific (which they are not.) He is pushing a religious POV in a science topic, in a way that violates our NPOV policy. Let's just do what we are converging on: move this topic into the Creationism article. RK

Ah! I finally understand. To be fair all of the "scientific" refutation of creationism should also be moved to the Creationism v. Evolution page. Rednblu 11:47 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There seems to be a great deal of confusion among various Wikipedians as to what Wikipedia's NPOV policy actually is and what does or does not constitute a violation of this policy. Simply put, if a noteworthy person or group of people makes a factual assertion, it is our job to report that factual assertion and the factual assertions made by other noteworthy persons or groups, taking great care to note who said what and leaving the reader to determine the credibility of competing authorities.

In the context of an article on the Theory of Evolution, Wikipedia's NPOV policy demands that Scientific Creationism be addressed as a noteworthy alternative viewpoint rather than simply dismissing Scientific Creationism as a "religious POV." To wit, rather than saying, "Scientific Creationism is religious doctrine masquerading as science," one should say, "The vast majority of scientists reject the claims of Scientific Creationism as being religious doctrine masquerading as science." The distinction is a subtle one, but it is very important to adhere to an "all noteworthy views" standard rather than using Wikipedia to advance our own agenda, regardless of how convinced we may be that other POVs are categorically and emphatically wrong. -- NetEsq 02:56 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

So, Wikipedia should also say:The vast majority of scientists reject the claims of The Flat Earth Society as being religious doctrine masquerading as science?

There is such a thing as overdoing neutrality, and, as has frequently been pointed out, there is no scientific controversy. (I apologize, if this point has already been made on this page.) Io 21:20, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

<< I don't think we need a separate "Creationism vs. evolution controversy" article -- from a scientific standpoint, there is no such controversy. The creationist arguments should be presented and refuted in the creationism article. This article should briefly discuss the controversy in at most one paragraph, and link to it. "Scientific creationism" should be merged into creationism. --Eloquence >>

I agree in part, and disagree in part. There is no need for a separate article, but the appropriate place to discuss the controversy of evolution vs. scientific creationism is in the article on Scientific creationism; the Creationism article should be a distinct and separate treatment of other philosophical topics that are (at best) only remotely related to the much more controversial scientific creationism. -- NetEsq 03:07 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the term "scientific creationism", as the discussion above shows, is in itself controversial, so it should only be used when properly attributed. The article scientific creationism should therefore be merged into creationism. --Eloquence 03:16 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Pardon me for pointing this out if you have already read both articles and (more importantly) the associated talk pages, but Creationism is not synonymous with Scientific creationism. The former is a philosophical topic, and the latter is a pseudo-science. Merging the two together makes no sense whatsoever. -- NetEsq 03:29 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It makes the same sense that merging this article with the "theory of evolution" content did; namely, having related concepts easily accessible within a single article. The prefix "scientific" is merely a deceptive add-on that does not fundamentally alter the nature of the claims. Specifically, sections like "The Missing Link Argument" in Creationism and the part of the Scientific creationism article that begins "Other approaches to scientific creationism generally involve finding problems in the fossil record such as 'missing links' .." are redundant with one another, and it "makes no sense whatsoever" to have them discussed in separate articles. To wit, it seems like the most reasonable course of action to discuss both the philosophical/religious and the pseudoscientific claims of a creationist nature in the creationism article. --Eloquence 03:39 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Why not have this discussion on the talk page for Creationism? I think you will find that many of your concerns have already been addressed. To wit, the vast majority of specious content currently found in the article on Creationism has no place in that article. -- NetEsq 03:44 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I disagree, but I do think that both articles are a mess at present. I blame the creationists, of course.--Eloquence 03:53 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Imho, it is a mistake to entirely move the "missing link" paragraph to creationnism. The missing link argument may be used by creationnists, but it is also a point that disturb evolutionnists as well you know ? Anthère

I agree that we should discuss this issue here in this entry. I only moved the original paragraph because it concentrated not on the topic of transitional fossils ("missing links"), but rather it was a discussion of how this subject is used by creationists as a way to attack science and evolutionary biology. That particular disucssion is more appropriate in the creationism article. But the topic of transitional fossils itself is a fascinating and important part of evolution, and can and should be discussed here. (That is, like all our articles, it can be discussed here until it becomes really huge! At that point, we could spin it off into its own article.) However, I disagree with your second point. Biologists are not at all disturbed by any issues relating to transitional fossils ("missing links"). The following discussion is excerpted from the Talk-Origins FAQ, "Five Major Misconceptions About Evoluion:.

Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution

"There are no transitional fossils."

A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.

To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human. For many more examples, see the transitional fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive, and see

http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html for sample images for some invertebrate groups.

The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.

Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.

The Transitional Fossils ("missing links") FAQ

Gould was an outspoken critic of Creationism. He doesn't criticize much nowadays, what with him being dead. --Dante Alighieri 17:38 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I said that because the assumptions are different, one side cannot debunk the other, and to do so would be POV. This has nothing to do with relative truth, but with consistent logic. To "debunk" one would be to explicitly reject its POV. Rudminjd 15:48 20 Jul 2003 (UTC) Joseph D. Rudmin

If an assumption conflicts with observed facts, debunking it is not POV. Axioms are one thing, facts are another. This is the difference between, say, "God started everything and evolution is how She works" (which isn't refutable or provable) and "there are dinosaur and human footprints together at Paluxy", which is demonstrably false. Vicki Rosenzweig 15:53 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree that debunking an assumption that conflicts with observed facts is not asserting a Point of View. However, it seems to me that there is a "system flaw" if there is not an agreed NPOV procedure for those situations where one side refuses to admit the debunking. Rednblu 17:25 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think the "creation vs. evolution" thing should be gotten rid of... put arguments for/against evolution on the Evolution article (religous arguments would link to Creationism); keep the arguments for/against creation on the Creationism page, where arguments that have to do with evolution would link to Evolution. Sorry if this is unclear... I just think the two articles need to be somewhat seperated... it would avoid confusion, such as the person who keeps adding to this article now. Evil saltine 02:10, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The pseudo-scientific anti-evolutionist claims being added into the article have been disproved countless times, and there is no reason to include them here. Creation science is not only bad science, it is bad religion, and there is no reason to give creation scientists equal time. On this note, creationism is *NOT* synonymous with creation science. The former speaks primarily to theological issues, such as the nature of the primordial first cause, and makes no attempt to intrude upon issues that are properly addressed by science. -- NetEsq 03:19, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I know, I just wanted to organize them so they would be easier to follow. Shouldn't the arguments against evolution be on the evolution page (just as the arguments against creationism should be on the creationism page)? They wouldn't be presented as fact anyway, it includes rebuttals to them. Evil saltine 03:35, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This is the text I was proposing... it's not done yet but it will be. Evil saltine 03:38, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What is ultimately needed is an article entitled creation science that is separate and distinct from the article entitled creationism. Under the rubric of such an article, the various straw man arguments repeatedly raised by fundamentalist pseudo-scientists can be discussed, along with comprehensive NPOV rebuttals. -- NetEsq 04:55, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"Creation science" is a POV title and does not reflect common usage. The appropriate solution is to keep expanding the creationism article in its present form and, if a particular section gets too long, split off that section.—Eloquence 07:01, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, but it is still about evolution, shouldn't it be under the evolution article except for the part about intelligent design and stuff?

I just think it would make more sense to have the stuff about evolution in the evolution article. I dunno. Evil saltine 07:26, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It wouldn't, because the controversy is not a scientific one.—Eloquence 07:48, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)

The stuff about micro/macroevolution is a scientific controversy, even though most scientists agree evolution happened, that doesn't mean it's not scientific... (I don't agree with moving it to "Creation science" either) Evil saltine 09:01, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No, there's no controversy within mainstream science about whether macroevolution has occurred. See Creationism#Distribution of creationist views. I find it kind of funny, however, that creationists are ready to admit that viruses and bacteria adapt to changing environments via mutation and natural selection, but rule out the same mechanism over billions of years as applied to larger species (which, of course, formed from smaller ones). Anyway, mainstream science is merely concerned with preventing the political effects of cerationism, nobody with credentials in the field of biology considers the microevolution argument and so-called "intelligent design" theory even moderately plausible. Creationism is purely a political movement masquerading as science.—Eloquence 09:31, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)

I know, but just because the micro/macroevolution argument is a minority or incorrect opinion doesn't mean it shouldn't be on the same page as evolution. I think "intelligent design" should stay where it is (on the creationism page) though, because it's part of that "theory". Evil saltine 09:48, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It's not just that it is a minority, it is outside the scientific field. Creationists do not do empirical research, they do not use the scientific method, they do not publish in peer reviewed journals. They are much worse than most science-crackpots like Peter Duesberg, yet even in these cases of scientific renegades we treat their perspectives on separate pages. Evolution is, by the very definition, a scientific theory, and by now the standard explanation in the field of biology for the origin of life. As such, people within that field should be cited as authorities about evolution. Creationism is a political-religious movement. As such, people within creationism should describe its tenets, and insofar as creationism challenges the scientific consensus, people within the field of science should be the witnesses of the other side of the story. If you write an article about, say, the various theological understandings concerning Trinity or the theology of Arianism, you would not, in each of these articles, note that atheists and secular humanists think the whole thing is bogus -- that's because theologians can be safely cited as the experts on theology, as long as the article's subject is reasonably narrowly defined. (As a counter example, an article about Jesus Christ or "Virgin" Mary should of course cite secular perspectives.) NPOV is not about pushing all perspectives into the same articles -- it's about attributing views to their adherents and presenting the views of the experts in the field the article is about.—Eloquence 10:07, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)

I guess I can understand that. Evil saltine 10:40, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Scientific "renegades" like Stuart Kauffman and Michael Behe accept that macro-evolution has occurred: their dispute is on whether it is sufficient, not whether it is necessary. Martin 10:41, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Which, if you think about it, is an even more idiotic position.—Eloquence

While I believe that a separate article entitled creation science would not run afoul of Wikipedia's NPOV concerns, Eloquence is absolutely correct in his assertion that creation science should not be given equal time in the article on evolution. What is most insidious about the creation science movement is its ability to assert some sort of scientific legitimacy when it is clearly based on a religious agenda. Instructive on both of these issues is Joyce Arthur's expose of creation scientist Duane Gish. In that expose, Arthur disambiguates the term creation science as a particularly insidious form of creationism, then goes on to narrate the effectiveness of the tactics employed by Gish and his ilk. To wit, "Having a debate implies that creation and evolution are on equal terms and that the question of which one is right is an open issue that can be won or lost, and confidently decided, by a non-scientific audience within one evening." -- NetEsq 10:51, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

I feel this article doesn't maintain the NPOV.

Modern biology is based on evolution, it is as much a fact as anything else you wish to name in science. Yet the page for evolution is littered with the word "theory" all over it. Compare this to cornerstones in other scientific fields such as chemistry and physics. You won't find anything about gravity being just a theory on it's page, nor do you find anything about only being a theory on the page about the humble atom.

If other scientific fields are stated in a manner that implies their factual basis, I believe that to maintain a NPOV, it requires that biology be treated in the same manner.

ShaneKing 07:46, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have a problem with evolutionists insisting that evolution is a "fact". Evolution cannot be "proven". There may be evidence that implies evolution has occurred, but it cannot be tested like gravity or chemical processes can be. There is evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution. Until somebody invents a time machine, evolution must be regarded as a theory. Some evolutionists like to arrogantly say that their view is "scientific" while those who hold other views are "religious". Well, early scientists once believed that mud could be transformed into a frog. I have spent time around lots of researchers and seen lots of academic dishonesty where data that didn't fit the model was tossed out. Everyone has their biases. Scientists must have the courage to examine information that doesn't fit their model. Both sides must be willing to admit that they don't know everything.

H2O 22:11, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You simply do not understand the meaning of the words as used by scientists in this context. Let me explain. First, evolution is a fact. You are mixing up "evolution" with "the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection." the word "evolution" simply means organic change over time. In other words, you are biologically different from your parents, and your children are different from you. That is all that "evolution" means and it is an obvious fact. But "the theory of the evolution of species through natural selection" is not a fact, it is a theory. NO scientist would ever claim that it is a fact; the words "fact" and "theory" mean different things, and Darwin and the Modern Synthesis are theories, not facts. A theory is a model of the world, or some part of the world. A good theory is one that takes into account many facts, while making few assumptions. The theory of evolution is a great theory because it accounts for lots and lots of facts with very very few assumptions. Third, theories are never proven; neither are hypotheses -- but this is not because theories and hypothesies are "wrong," it is because the word "proof" is not used in the natural sciences. The word "proof" is a technical term that has meaning in geometry and mathematics -- not the natural sciences. In the natural sciences, knowledge is cumulative. That means that our knowledge of the world is always changing. That means that NOTHING is ever "proven." But this does not mean that there is no difference between scientific explanations and religious explanations -- your note seems to assume that what is important is that neither is "proven." But as I said, scientists simply do not care about proof (some religions do care about proof! The word occurs in the Bible, for example). This is not an important distinction between science and religion. The issue is, what kinds of "causes" explain natural phenomena? Creationism and Intelligent Design, for example, posit a non-natural explanation for natural phenomena. But the theory of evolution proposes natural causes for natural phenomena. This is what makes it scientific. You say that both sides must admit they do not know everything. I agree -- this is precisely the problem with religious explanations for evolution. Scientists ALWAYS admit they do not know everything; science by definition asserts that we do not know everything. But it also asserts that we can increase our understanding of the world by observing the world. Alas, it is creationists who claim to know everything; who refuse to admit that they do not know something. Creationists read the Bible and accept it as an authoritative explanation for existence, regardless of any other evidence. When will Creationists admit that the Bible may be wrong and God either may not exist or may not have created the world? Slrubenstein

I once heard Stephen Jay Gould on television state that macroevolution was a fact. He was talking about the evolution of higher forms of life, like humans, from lower forms, such as bacteria. He unequivocally stated that it was a fact. It is that attitude I have a problem with. H2O 00:36, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Here is a local biology professor's web site who states that human macroevolution is a "fact". [1] At one time he would not recommend students for medical school unless they accepted this as fact. An anti-discrimination complaint had to be filed. H2O 11:30, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We have a clear fossil record of human evolution, and we have a clear absence of the modern human form before the last couple of hundred thousand years. The fossil record is written in stone. It does not lie. We have the same kind of evidentiary record for most life forms or groups of life forms. What, do you think God is a sadistic practical joker? That's the ONLY other possible explanation. Evolution is an irrefutable fact for anyone who is capable of completely logical thought. jaknouse 14:59, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea how to answer this. How about this: "You're completely wrong; give me evidence that evolution doesn't work more than half the time." To date I've seen NO solid arguments against evolution. Gimme. --Ihope127 20:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

H20 must not have read what I wrote above -- I clearly stated "evolution is a fact." Micro and macroevolution are not theories, they simply refer to evolution at different scales: microevolution is changes in gene frequencies at a small scale, macro at a large scale. I applaud the professor who won't write letters of recommendation for people who do not understand science. This is discriminatory only in the sense that grades are discriminatory -- they discriminate between students who have learned at students who haven't learned. Is H20 advocating that all people should just get degrees without tests; that anyone should be admitted to graduate school; that there should be no grades? Shouldn't professors teach, and judge students based on what they have learned? A science professor has an obligation to teach science. You do not have to believe in science, but if that is the case, please do not demand an "A" in a science course, or demand a letter of recommendation from a scientist -- that is just absurd! Slrubenstein

Creationists often claim to be attacking Darwinism and/or the "Theory of Evolution" (ie the T f E by Natural Selection) both of which have critics within biological circles - in fact I doubt if anyone would accept Darwin's views as gospel - he knew nothing of genetics after all. What they REALLY are attacking is the whole notion of an old earth and everything that goes with it - paleontology, astronomy, biology - any science which has a basis in the idea of the development of earth, life and the universe over long periods of time. "Scientific" Creationists may accept parts of mainstream science whilst attacking aspects which disagree with their particular views - which are not based on science but on religious conviction. My favourite creationist viewpoint is that God created the earth 6000 years ago but with the appearance of great age. It's totally impossible to refute this! Exile

Creeping creationism[edit]

The section on microevolution/macroevolution contains a few bits about creationism that really don't belong here. That kind of stuff should be discussed at creationism.—Eloquence 01:30, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

So evolutionist viewpoints don't belong on the creationism page? Pollinator 03:31, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That would indeed be the case if creationism was a purely theological undertaking. As it seeks to challenge the scientific status quo, however, it must deal with scientific counter arguments. Evolution, on the other hand, is a purely scientific subject, and religious points of view have no place in this article. Until creationism gains any foothold in mainstream science, it doesn't belong here.—Eloquence 03:35, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Evolution, on the other hand, is a purely scientific subject... Ah, we come to the heart of the matter...and it's very much a POV. Evolution has many social, political, and religious ramifications. Pollinator 04:24, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Eloquence's position seems reasonable to me. If you want to discuss those other aspects, why not use evolutionism? Bryan 04:28, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am not objecting to discussing "social, political and religious ramifications" (although a separate article would be a more appropriate place to do so); I am objecting to mixing creationist pseudoscience and evolutionary theory.—Eloquence 04:31, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

More creationist advocacy[edit]

RC, if you want to make substantial changes like this, you should discuss them first. You wrote "see talk" in your edit comment, but there was no comment on the talk page.

Macroevolution is not controversial among biologists. It is controversial among creationists and intelligent design advocates, who have their own culture and their own journals and who are not a significant faction in mainstream science. These views are therefore best discussed in the aforementioned articles. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advocacy of any kind, and right now you are engaging in creationist advocacy.—Eloquence 22:38, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Please leave the creationists out of this. Punctuated equilibrium, macromutations, etc. are ongoing debates and should be mentioned. I'm not a scientist, but I have come across numerous well educated, non-fundamentalist scientists who are skeptics of macro-evolutionary theory, and are definitely aware of it as a debate among scientists. Similar information can be found by doing a Google search on "macroevolution". For instance, there are many evolutionists (such as Gould and Dawkins) who disagree very strongly about aspects of evolutionary theory.

Please read the Macroevolution FAQ at talkorigins.org. The debate about punctuated equilibrium has nothing whatsoever to do with macroevolution per se, it concerns the mechanism by which it occurs! No reputable biologist questions whether macroevolution has occurred; they discuss (as scientists do) the precise mechanisms of that process.—Eloquence 23:02, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of life and earth scientists accept macroevolution. According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14% Newsweek magazine, 1987-JUN-29, Page 23. Also, Gould and Dawkins do disagree on many things, but they accept the fundamental principles put forth by Darwin,common ancestry and natural selection.--JPotter 03:29, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As always the question should be asked: who did the count? And were the questions asked in such a way that the respondants' careers weren't put on the line? With healthy skepticism... Pollinator 04:00, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good questions,Poll, I do not know. However I don't believe Newsweek as any reason to lie. I also believe polling that shows 47% of Americans are young earth creationist. What's most important here is to note that it doesn't matter. Science doesn't operate by majority rule or appeals to authority even. The evidence must stand on its own or fail. In that, the fact that most life and earth scientists accept evo is not evidence for the factuality of evolution. In that same vein, since you claim that there is ongoing controversy and debate between scientists as to the facuality of evolution, then we should be able to look to the scientific jounals to find such a debate. Alas, the debate in not regarding the factuality of evolution, but the mechanisms of. The point ultimately is that questioning of the factuality of evolution is not coming from the scientific community, rather the religious camp, and any one must present evidence to the contrary. If there is a debate among scientists as to the factuality of evolution, where is it taking place? Anyway, Poll, check out my post on Talk:Creationism--JPotter 07:30, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Much of the material in the evolution#Macroevolution vs microevolution section should be merged into macroevolution anyway, it's getting rather long, I suggested editing down to 2-3 paras at most, with a Main articles: Macroevolution, Microevolution and moving much of the material to macroevolution (which could do with some expanding anyway). --Lexor|Talk 13:32, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I moved two creationist web-page links to the creationism articles. Slrubenstein

talk.origins is NOT a creationist webpage and it definitely deserves to be listed on the evolution page as it is the best collection of FAQs on evolution to be found anywhere online. Cyde

My mistake, I moved the wrong page. I am glad you coaught my error, Slrubenstein

Critical evaluation of evolution[edit]

see talk:Evolution/Creationism/DLR.

Creationism[edit]

Do you think that Creationism is a necessary evil with regards to evolution? Do you think that evolutionists would continue to theorise about evolution if there were no creationists to keep on trying to disprove it?

two truths[edit]

Two truths

If God is almighty and not bound by time; I see no reason, why the story about the creation of the universe, as told in Genesis of the christian Bible, and the scientific story about the appearing of earth, life and man should not both be literally true.

I don't see this idea anywhere in the creation/evolution texts. I think it is an interesting concept to think about. Greetings, Ben

no place for reli views in science articles[edit]

I think there is no place in a scientific article for religious views. The following paragraph from the intro I would gladly junk, but perhaps someone can still salvage something from it. I especially object to creationism being placed as another explanation, since it just transports the problem to a more complex level. Who created God? Of course as anyone knows it was Metagod :P Lamarckism on the other hand is a perfectly sound theory which could have been true if only our brains would manipulate our DNA on the basis of our actions, thus improving us as we live. Offending para follows:

"As the theory of evolution by natural selection and genetics has become universally accepted in the scientific community, it has replaced other explanations including creationism and Lamarckism. Skeptics – often creationists – sometimes criticize the presentation of evolution as proven fact rather than scientific theory; defenders object to these criticisms, maintaining that presenting it as "just a theory" constitutes an attempt to characterize it as an arbitrary choice and degrade its claims to truth. Such debates often relate to the scientifically accepted use of the word "theory" to mean a falsifiable and well-supported hypothesis." MarSch 13:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. What business do non-biologists have in determining the "state of the art" of biology? Science is developed by scientists over time, not by religious pressure and legislation. This has happened before, and the scientists won (e.g. see Galileo Galilei). I also take issue with the denigration of the word theory (as in the term "just a theory"). If theories were not backed up by strong scientific methods (i.e. observation, testing, etc.), the advances of the twentieth century would never have happened. The theories I rely on to do my job are the same ones that make your cellphone work. If theories are just scientists' ways of dressing up wild guesses, then we have been extraordinarily lucky that anything has worked. --Negative3 18:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality is disturbed in intro!!![edit]

This is a great article for the evolution THEORY, but part of the introduction is not holding to its neutral requirements. I'm sorry, but as long as evolution is a THEORY, it is prone to remodification. Second of all, it has not replaced creationism as an explanation for the origin of life. If this is the same evolutionary theory that happens along with the Big Bang, then consider this: there are some galaxies that spin clockwise and some that spin counter-clockwise. If the Big Bang is true, it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. (Think about it.) My point is there are problems with both theories depending on who you ask, but neither has replaced the other. You can't call the Big Bang/evoltuion science if it violates the laws of physics. -Zach from MO 12:23pm, Central Time; 05 Apr, 2005

What? --Ignignot 15:19, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I must add that it is only called theory because the name has stuck; even christians have given up and agreed to belive it by now. plus in the big bang the forces had not diverged so the laws of physics were different from today most likely

Quote Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: the·o·ry

Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural -ries

Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein

1 the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2 abstract thought : SPECULATION

3 the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>

4 a a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children :want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in :theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>

5 a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory :of light>

By your logic, the idea that cells exist is prone to remodification, because cells are "just a theory".

Evolution is not supposed to be a replacement for creationism. Creationism if the origin of life. Evolution is the origin of :species. Evolution also has 'absolutely nothing' to do with Big Bang theory.

And the Big Bang doesn't violate any universal laws, because "before" the Big Bang, there was no universe.

--Ryan Salisbury 01:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zach from MO is absolutely right. Evolution is just a theory and it is prone to remodification and it does not explain the origin of life. In fact I suggest Zach from MO go and correct the Wikipedia entries on Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Atoms, Elements, and the sun centered solar system, all of which are also just theories and all of which are prone to remodification and most impotrantly none of which explain the origin of life either. I also suggest Zach from MO go and fix the Wikipedia entry on snowflakes, because snowflake formation does (or does not) violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics for the exact same reasons evolution does (or does not) violate it. 19:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV problem[edit]

This is a great article indeed. The only comment I have is that unlike so many other articles, this article seems to me to be unfairly privileged, ie. exempt from a section or phrases containing criticism. Or am I mistaken?

Please correct me if I am wrong. But the template on this talk page and the article itself seems to lead to that conclusion.

I've been surfing the web and I found this:

The main criticism is the point of transition from micro to macro-evolution. Both Szathmary and Maynard Smith, both convinced supporters of an all-embracing theory of evolution, say that: "There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens."

I also read today:

All nine phyla of complex animals appeared suddenly in the Cambrian rock in China. No complex animals appear in Pre-Cambrian rock. No transitional forms of simple creatures evolving into more complex creatures appear in Pre-Cambrian rocks. Some Chinese scientists have rejected Darwinism because of these findings. The American evolution establishment has suppressed the information, so that many American scientists and students of science have never heard of the "Cambrian explosion." Scientists in Communist China have significant freedom of thought and publication. Biological science in democratic America is under the dictatorship of the evolution establishment.

After the discovery of DNA in 1953, evolutionists realized that natural selection is inadequate to explain "macro-evolution," which is evolution from one species to another. Natural selection cannot add new information to the DNA during the evolution of a new species. Dogs cannot evolve into cats through natural selection, because there is a lot of information in cat DNA that is missing in dog DNA. ...However, evolutionists also recognized that "micro-evolution," which is variation within a species, can occur by natural selection or selective breeding because no new information needs to be added to the DNA. A society of breeders can start with poodles and after thousands of generations of selective breeding wind up with a Saint Bernard. All the information in poodle DNA is also in Saint Bernard DNA.

Evolutionists decided to fix their evolutionary mechanism by claiming that gene mutations can supply new information to DNA. Hopefully, mutations plus natural selection can produce macro-evolution. Students are not told that no example has ever been found of one species evolving into a new species through mutations. Only minor variations within a species have been discovered that involve mutations, and most of these variations are harmful. Students are routinely given examples of micro-evolution as proof of the evolution of species. The fact that micro-evolution is not an evidence of macro-evolution is concealed. When intelligent designers protest this misinformation of students, evolutionists will sometimes say that there is no difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, and that creation scientists invented the concept of micro and macro-evolution. This is false, of course. The evolutionists, themselves, discovered the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. That is why they added gene mutation to their model for macro-evolution. However, it is easy to fool students by palming off examples of micro-evolution as evidence for the evolution of new species. It is very easy to conceal the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution from students. The evolutionists do not play fair.

I am basically new here. I'd like to find out if criticism like these can be placed here. :-) Arturo Cruz 05:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of your questions are anwered in the archives of this page, and at Cambrian Explosion. Also, "all the information in poodle DNA is also in Saint Bernard DNA" is clearly false. Any source that asserts that is terribly suspect, since the author obviously doesn't understand genetics. Guettarda 11:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that believers in evolution are fiercely protective of their dogma. Any and all criticism is likely to be pounced on, shouted down and removed without a second thought. But good luck - you can but try! RossNixon 11:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You'll also find a lot of people here quite motivated to distort the facts. Some might try to portray anyone who doesn't agree with them as closedminded and ignorant. Even as unwilling to accept a simple truth. 'Believers' in evolution, indeed. 'Dogma' indeed. RossNixon, WP:NPA.

Don't dismiss your philosophical opposition. -- Ec5618 11:57, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

To answer your question, Arturo Cruz, please re-read the text you copied above. the archives do in fact address your concerns generally, but to address your specific case:

"All nine phyla of complex animals appeared suddenly in the Cambrian rock in China." Not only is this untrue, the statement is worded to make it appear that creation is self-evident. Note the use of the word 'suddenly.
"Some Chinese scientists have rejected Darwinism because of these findings." A clear appeal to authority, and quite unsourced.
"After the discovery of DNA in 1953, evolutionists realized that natural selection is inadequate to explain "macro-evolution," which is evolution from one species to another." Please. Evolutionists do not have a secret handshake, and they are not conspiring to hide the truth. They did not communally discover a terrible secret, though, granted, some scientists must have been wondering how to encorporate DNA into their model of biological adaptation. That a single, proven answer was not conceived off, and still does not exist, does not mean the model is false, or worse, a cover up. I'd also like to point out that the fact that DNA carries information was not known when DNA was discovered. That took a few decades. So, in reality, no realisation such as is implied in the line could have happened right 'after the discovery of DNA.

I could go on pointing out flaws in these specific texts. Suffice it to say the texts contain innuendo, distortions of the situation, and factual errors. Why should we include its points? (Creation evolution controversy) -- Ec5618 11:57, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Ross is a creationist POV pusher (That is allowed on Talk pages! RossNixon 01:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)) whose comments about science are dangerously ill-informed and should be taken with a particularly large grain of salt. Hearing him decry how fiercly protective scientists are of their "dogma" is rather like the pot calling the kettle black. →Raul654 12:50, September 2, 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo -- it is clear from your comments (especially when I paste some of them into google) that much of what you have read has come from Creationist websites. Most of these are not only ignorant of scientific findings, but are purposely so, willfully distorting facts, ignoring sensible refutations, and repeating the same old errors again and again (some of these sites do not do this, but they are pretty rare). These people are not scientists and I wouldn't recommend using them as a source for your inquiries on this matter as they are not reliable. --Fastfission 12:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo, your first quote is of John Maynard Smith, a chap who knows quite a lot about evolution, and the second one, about the Cambrian Explosion, is of a chap called Fred Hutchison, doesn't. Another chap who knows quite a bit about evolution, and has written a response to Fred, is PZ Myers of University of Minnesota. Here's what he says about Mr Hutchison's piece. Enjoy! --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 13:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who responded to my query. I am gratified at the fast and varied response.

Thanks, Tony, for your clarification. I am happy to know that Smith is a great scientist and that Fred is not an expert. I just wanted to know if Smith is an expert, and a credible one, wouldn't it be NPOV to place his point here.

For everyone's information, the quote on Smith and Szathmary is something from a respected thinker: Ratzinger in 1999. He talked about evolution. Here are some of his other points:

Has everything been said with the kind of answer that we find thus formulated by Popper: "Life as we know it consists of physical 'bodies' (more precisely, structures) which are problem solving. This the various species have 'learned' by natural selection, that is to say by the method of reproduction plus variation, which itself has been learned by the same method. This regress is not necessarily infinite." I do not think so. In the end this concerns a choice that can no longer be made on purely scientific grounds or basically on philosophical grounds.

The question is whether reason, or rationality, stands at the beginning of all things and is grounded in the basis of all things or not.

The question is whether reality originated on the basis of chance and necessity (or, as Popper says, in agreement with Butler, on the basis of luck and cunning) and, thus, from what is irrational;

that is, whether reason, being a chance by-product of irrationality and floating in an ocean of irrationality, is ultimately just as meaningless;

Yet, can reason really renounce its claim to the priority of what is rational over the irrational, the claim that the Logos [the Word in greek = logic, intelligence, reason, idea: my addition) is at the ultimate origin of things, without abolishing itself?

The explanatory model presented by Popper, which reappears in different variations in the various accounts of the "basic philosophy," shows that reason cannot do other than to think of irrationality according to its own standards, that is, those of reason (solving problems, learning methods!), so that it implicitly reintroduces nonetheless the primacy of reason, which has just been denied.

I think that any enlightenment that cancels this choice must, contrary to all appearances, mean, not an evolution, but an involution, a shrinking, of enlightenment. [2]

Some might start branding my NPOV as creationism because of this. My main point is the rationality of not allowing criticisms in this article, especially if the criticism comes from a most credible expert.

Some quotes from the NPOV rules:

A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable source you can.

The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict. In that case the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner

I don't think Smith is a creationist, so his point I suppose belongs here. So is there a way his point can be put in? Arturo Cruz 05:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, this article is not the proper venue for discussion of the pseudoscientific hocus-pocus that is creationism or intelligent design. →Raul654 05:52, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

A quibble, but not unimportant. John Maynard Smith is not a great scientist and he is not a chap who knows quite a lot about evolution. He was a great scientist, and he knew quite a lot about evolution. [3] —encephalon | ^ζ 06:54:46, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

By the way, what Ratzinger wrote is from his book Truth and Tolerance. Let me also reiterate that my point is not creationism. It is to put in a point of view of a multi-awarded evolutionary biologist who has a European Award for young scientists named after him.

From Wikipedia (as directed by Tony S):

In 1991 he was awarded the Balzan Prize of Italy. In 1995 he was awarded the Linnean Medal by The Linnean Society and in 1999 he was awarded the Crafoord Prize jointly with Ernst Mayr and George C. Williams. In 2001 he was awarded the Kyoto Prize. In his honour, the European Society for Evolutionary Biology has an award for extraordinary young evolutionary biology researchers named The John Maynard Smith Prize.

In 1973 Maynard Smith formalised a central concept in evolutionary game theory (which has applications both within and outside of biology) called the evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS), based on a verbal argument by George R. Price. This area of research culminated in his 1982 book Evolution and the Theory of Games. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1977. In 1986 he was awarded its Darwin Medal. Arturo Cruz 10:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the scientific credentials of Szathmáry:

Eörs Szathmáry (40) is professor of biology and head of the Department of Plant Taxonomy and Ecology of Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, where he is also the chairman of the PhD programme in theoretical biology and ecology. His main interest is theoretical evolutionary biology and focuses on the common principles of the major steps in evolution, such as the origin of life, the emergence of cells, the origin of animal societies, and the appearance of human language. Together with his mentor, John Maynard Smith, he has published two important books which serve as the main references in the field (The Major Transitions in Evolution, Freeman, 1995, and The Origins of Life, Oxford University Press, 1999). Both books have been translated into other languages (so far, German, French, Japanese, and Hungarian). He serves on the editorial board of several journals (Journal of Theoretical Biology, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, Evolutionary Ecology and Evolution of Communication). From 1999 he is the Editor-in-Chief of the new journal Selection. Professor Szathmáry was awarded the New Europe Prize in 1996 by a group of institutes for advanced study. He used the prize to establish the NEST (New Europe School for Theoretical Biology) foundation, whose task is to help young Hungarian theoretical biologists. The Juhász-Nagy junior fellowship that he endowed in 1996 at Collegium Budapest also serves this purpose. In 1996 he was the Executive Vice-President of ICSEB V (Fifth International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology) that took place in Budapest, partially sponsored by CB. Since then he is the President of the International Organisation for Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (IOSEB). Akadémiai Kiadó, a member of the Walters Kluwer group of publishers, have contacted him with the idea of establishing a new international journal. The first issue will appear in year 2000 with him serving as the Editor-in-Chief. The Hungarian Academy of Sciences acknowledged his outstanding scientific contribution with the Academy Prize in 1999.

Professor Szathmáry’s main achievements include: (i) a mathematical description of some phases of early evolution; (ii) a scenario for the origin of the genetic code; (iii) an analysis of epistasis in terms of metabolic control theory; (iv) a demonstration of the selection consequences of parabolic growth; and (v) a derivation of the optimal size of the genetic alphabet. Apart from books, he has published numerous papers in important journals, including Nature, Science, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, and Journal of Theoretical Biology. [4] Arturo Cruz 10:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is more about Maynard Smith from his colleagues:

Professor John Maynard Smith passed away peacefully on 19 April, aged 84. His colleagues in the Centre for Study of Evolution (Life Sci) pay tribute here to one of the world's greatest evolutionary biologists.

JMS is perhaps best known among professional biologists for his investigations into The Evolution of Sex (1978) and his application of game theory to biology (Evolution and the Theory of Games, 1982). He made an even wider impact, however, with books such as "my little Penguin", The Theory of Evolution (1958, 1966, 1975, 1993).

In 1985, JMS retired from teaching and administration but certainly not from research. He wrote the highly influential book The Major Transitions in Evolution (1995) with Eörs Szathmáry, and what he called "the birdwatchers' version", aimed at a wider public, The Origins of Life (1999). Another major focus was his work with Noel Smith on the bacterium causing tuberculosis in cattle and badgers.

Unsurprisingly, JMS was showered with honours, including the Darwin Medal in 1986, the Crafoord Prize in 1999 and Kyoto Prize in 2001.

I suppose Maynard Smith and Szathmáry both fall under the NPOV rules made by Jimbo regarding credible experts? Arturo Cruz 10:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo, I'm not quite sure what you want inserted. Maynard Smith's ideas aren't really all that relevent - what is relevent is the opinions and findings of modern experts. His contribution to evolutionary biology cannot be minimised, but his statement has little bearing on the modern state of the science. It's a little like saying that Darwin got it totally wrong on inheritance. The scientific method is not about static opinions - it's about continual modification of ideas through experimentation. It isn't like Maynard Smith doubted that evolution did produce complexity, it's just that he thought that there was no reason that it should. Gould wrote about that too - asking the question of, if we rewound it to the Cambrian, would we end up with the same pattern and path.

The Maynard Smith statement said "there is no theoretical basis"...this is a time-dependent statement. In addition, he said "there is also no empirical evidence that this happens". To say that there is no theoretical basis for increased complexity simply says that, as understood at that time, there was nothing in evolutionary theory which said that things had to get more complex through evolution. Thus, it amounts to saying that humans are a fluke, not the natural end-product of evolution. Both elements of that statement say something about the state of knowledge at that point in time. Whatever point in time it was, it was before the flowering of molecular evolution. When you talk about evidence for evolution, more solid evidence has been accumulated through molecular studies in the last 5-10 years than was accumulated in the 150 years before than. Guettarda 14:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JMS was certainly one of the top 10 greatest evolutionary biologists there has ever been. He was an arch-Darwinist, strongly atheist and not a creationist in any way shape or form! To suggest that he advocated religious explanations for life is the antithesis of what he did. I suggest rather than you read his book The Theory of Evolution, or even the popular version of the Major Transitions in Evolution and see what view he expresses. Dunc|☺ 15:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to hear what Dunc says: that JMS is one of the top greatest evolutionary biologists there has ever been. And even happier to know he is an atheist. Because as I have repeatedly said (I think this is the third or fourth time), my point does not have anything to do with creationism or religion. (I am very sorry though to have brought in Ratzinger; it is just I saw the quote from him last Friday here in the Philippines). My point is NPOV means, based on Jimbo's rules, using credible experts in the same field.

I don't think his thoughts are out-dated. He died last year--2004 and he never retracted his statements nor did his disciple. So thus JMS's statement is a valid JMS-statement of 2004, last year. His disciple Szathmary is still very much alive and another great evolutionary biologist scientist from what we read from his resume.

So the only thing I would like to propose to all the men of goodwill and men of reason who can see this proposal is to put in this quote from the two "important" evolutionary biologists who are atheists and not creationists, at the bottom of the evolution page:

Criticism

Two recent and important evolutionary biologists, Maynard Smith (died 2004 after having received numerous awards in his field) and Szathmary (presently a professor of biology and head of the Department of Plant Taxonomy and Ecology of Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, where he is also the chairman of the PhD programme in theoretical biology and ecology), both convinced supporters of an all-embracing theory of evolution, say that: "There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens."

Anybody here can give whatever response to what they say, as any NPOV based article does. In fact if this is put in, you will stop hearing from many people that evolutionists are dogmatists, hiding facts, there will be less fights here, AND MOST importantly you can KILL the comments of the two with lengthy replies (of course, until somebody else finds another quote).

I'll just leave this here for some time for people to think about it and discuss it. I will come back after about a week or earlier if possible. (Sorry, I have work to do here in our poor Third World country! :-)

I am doing this out of love for this encyclopedia and for science. So may I plead that people here think about this calmly and dispassionately, be detached from their biases and write for the enemy, as Jimbo likes to say. Let me just say I have nothing against anyone here. And I totally respect everybody's view.... Arturo Cruz 08:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, you have no idea how science works, let alone logic or epistemology (if you don't understand the last term, then you have a lot of growing up to do and you need to move to a country with a decent educational system). Plus, although JMS was an important advocate of evolution in his time, there are other far more important advocates of evolution at present, like Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins, or Francis Collins. If any of those men were to unequivocally state that they had suddenly reversed their positions in the face of new evidence, then that would be a major development worth mentioning in this article. But a really old equivocation by a moderately famous dead scientist (made years and years ago in relation to a body of evidence that has since radically changed) is simply irrelevant to the general acceptance of evolution among the scientific community at present (based on a far stronger current body of evidence). --Coolcaesar 09:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mr. Coolcaesar. Arturo Cruz 02:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coolcaesar, do you think you could consider being more polite to Arturo? There was absolutely no need for the first sentence of your last post. If you think Arturo doesn't understand something which you believe you do, then please discuss it with him. As to Maynard Smith, I fear that in your anxiousness to state your case, you're being inaccurate with the facts. Maynard Smith did not at all occupy that plane of diminished significance that you impute to him; on the contrary, I— and most scientists I know —would view a dissenting opinion by him on evolutionary biology with considerably greater importance than they would one by Pinker, who while an enormously successful intellectual is no evolutionary biologist of Maynard Smith's caliber. The problem here is not that there's something wrong with Maynard Smith. There isn't. It is that something he apparently said is being quoted out of all context, and is being pushed as a "criticism" of TOE. As far as I can see a single sentence is being attributed to Smith, without any sourcing or textual background, with the claim that this was a criticism he levelled at evolution (quite apart from the normal professional disagreements biologists often have with the minutiae of their hypotheses). Even assuming that he actually said that, there is simply absolutely nothing in the first clause that can be viewed as a "criticism" of TOE (if you add "must" prior to "before", I'd agree with it). The second clause, in the form reproduced here, I disagree with; it goes without saying that we can't know what Maynard Smith meant without seeing the text or paper or speech from which this was taken. There are unfortunately many organizations which seem to make a habit of lifting sentences out of passages and pushing them as something entirely unintended by the words' authors. This is an infamous tactic used by many creationist groups; there are pages and pages of examples on TalkOrigins documenting the wanton misquotation of eminent scientists with the express purpose of misleading audiences. It is possible that this is another instance of the same, and nothing of value can be learned until we identify the source and context of the sentence.
There is one more thing to say. Arturo, you will find that scientists often have lively disagreements with one another on many issues.Lee Smolin will not agree with everything Abhay Ashtekar has to say, and Ashthekar will disagree with some of what Stephen Hawking has to say. Just because of this however, do not expect to see them disagreeing about things of fundamental significance; for example, I'm sure they all agree that Earth is an oblate spheroid. Similarly, Maynard Smith did not agree with Niles Eldredge and Steve Gould on some details to do with evolutionary biology; this should not be taken to mean that any of them thought that TOE was bogus.
This article concerns Evolution. The grand Theory. It is not focused on genic reductionism, or punctuated equilibrium, or some other smaller issue related to Evolution. Criticism in this article should therefore concern TOE, not some detail over which specialists nitpick. And therein lies your problem, Arturo: there is currently no credible, serious scientific alternative to TOE. While individual scientists may not agree on the details, the power of Evolutionary theory as a model is so unsurpassed that there is no serious alternative model. If you think you can locate one, please post reputable sources of this remarkable claim. But it is unreasonable to expect us to enter an unreferenced, unsourced claim— who's meaning we are not sure about —and claim it was some kind of criticism of TOE. Kind regards—encephalon | ^ζ 20:55:52, 2005-09-04 (UTC)

Maraming salamat (thank you in Filipino), Encephalon, for your explanation. I appreciate it. I just finished giving a series of lectures on philosophy that is why I couldn't answer immediately. I see that the main problem is two-fold:

1) lack of reference - I'd like to find time to look for this. I will try my best to work on this.

2) lack of alternative to TOE - For me it is clear that JMS accepts this theory, as the Ratzinger quote itself specifies. And he accepts it as the all-embracing theory. He is an atheist as we have seen, and not a creationist. He is, at the same time, intellectually very honest, scientifically accurate, and gnoseologically truthful to say that, from his studies in evolutionary biology, there is lack of evidence that evolutionary lines proceed towards complexity. I can see that this is a sincere, scientific and fact-based criticism of the theory he accepts.

I hope that when we fix (1), we can proceed into an intellectually satisfying discussion of this issue. With my sincere appreciation, Arturo Cruz 02:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]