Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

To-do list for Rejection of evolution by religious groups: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2020-05-02

Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : *Arguments relating to the definition, limits and philosophy of science' section. Expand : *'Forums for the controversy' section should go beyond debates, and eventually add an introductory sentence. 'Public policy issues' & 'Issues relating to religion' sections require introductory paragraphs to provide an overview and give structure to their sub-sections.

1. Antiquity – Nov 2004
2. Nov 2004 – Dec 2004
3. Dec 2004 – Dec 2004
4. Dec 2004 – Jan 2005
5. Jan 2005 – Jan 2005
6. Jan 2005 – Feb 2005
7. Feb 2005 – Mar 2005
8. Mar 2005 – Sep 2005
9. Sep 2005 – Dec 2005
10. Dec 2005 – Jan 2006
11. Jan 2006 – May 2006
12. May 2006 – July 2006
13. July 2006 – Oct 2006
14. Oct 2006 – Dec 2006
15. Dec 2006 – Jan 2007
16. Jan 2007 – April 20, 2007
17. April 20, 2007 – May 5, 2007
18. May 5, 2007 – October 31, 2007

If wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, please can you explain why this entire article is written from an evolutionary perspective? I am concerned that this article points out the flaws in creationists arguments rather than presenting, neutrally, what the debate is about. For example, the section on entitled Misrepresentations of Science constitutes an accusation against creationists that they misquote evolutionists when they may claim that evolutionists do exactly the same thing. And, from my research, both sides misquote and misrepresent one another. Another example of the non neutrality of this article can be found in this quote, "Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered." This is a valid defence of the arguments that creationists use but something which is inappropriate in an informational document claiming to present the facts of the debate, we have EvoWiki for that, it should not be brought up here. The neutrality of this article is severely in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.173.184 (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess you didnt read what I wrote above. Take a sentence you do not like. Present it here. Present a substitute version. Make sure you have WP:RS for your suggested change.--Filll (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. An example may be: "Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered." This sentence should be removed as this article is not supposed to be a defence of evolution but a presentation of the views of both sides. So maybe, rather than removing this sentence it could say, "Creationists claim that there are no transitional forms in the fossil records. Evolutionists dispute this as a fallacious claim and a misrepresentation of the facts." Surely the arguments are irrelevant from either side, all we need to know in this article is what either side believes, not the specific claim and refutation. Furthermore, if this sentence is allowed then surely a reference from a creationist's viewpoint should be citied? I am a user, not an editor and this article troubled me when I saw it because large parts of it do not appear to be neutral.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

Well first, learn to sign your contributions or you will not be taken very seriously. Second, you have to provide sources if you want to make claims like that. For example, provide a source that shows that we would expect the fossil record to be so complete that all transitional forms should be present and found, if they existed. These sorts of sources should be in peer-reviewed science journals, like Science, Nature, Transactions of the Royal Society, or Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Then you will be taken seriously.--Filll (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on signing, I'm new here. Saying that sources should be in peer reviewed science journals is effectively asking the decks to be stacked the favour of the scientific communitie's viewpoint. Creationism is a fringe theory and is not accepted in the the scientific community but that is not relevant in this article. Sources are also irrelevant, the merits of each claim should not be being discussed here, this is an informative article, not a refutation of creationism. Is this a fair point?? Fritleyfrisp (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it is not absolutely necessary to have peer-reviewed sources, but there are a special set of rules about what sorts of sources are admissable, which can be found at WP:RS and WP:V. If you want to see how WP deals with fringe subjects, look at WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT to get an idea. The basic rule of thumb is that the views will be represented in accordance with their prominence, or in proportion with their prominence. So for fringe subjects, they are usually written from a mainstream point of view (POV). Look at inteligent design as a top-rated example of this.--Filll (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that this article should debate the relative merits of each side's argument, quite the opposite; it should present the controversy in a neutral fashion. I will repeat what I have said previously. This article is *not* a refutation of creationism, it is a presentation of the controversy. I find the article troubling in several places including the Misrepresentations of Science section which practically indicts creationists in a libellous slur against their integrity. Quote mining is not a neutral issue, it is a matter of interpretation. This article still troubles me and, if I knew how, I would report it to Misplaced Pages.Fritleyfrisp (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've just reported it to the community, which is all of us including yourself. Have a look at NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity" – Misplaced Pages's approach based on verifiable facts automatically doesn't give support to magical revealed Truth. It's quite wrong to read it as a slur against the integrity of creationists; though some have been found in court to have problems with perjury, I'm sure many are deeply and sincerely deluded. ... dave souza, talk 00:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The neutral observers of science have dealt with the problems of creationism in a neutral fashion. There's no controversy, there's a political battle that was started by the creationist side to force the scientific educational system to embrace a non-scientific theory. See the creation-evolution controversy. There is no scientific merit to the creationist 'side', and this has amply been demonstrated many, many times. But if you've got a reliable source, put it up. WLU (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether they have demonstrated it or not is irrelevant to this article. I am not proposing that we debate the merits, or lack thereof, of each side, just that the facts are presented. A large portion of the Transitional Fossils section serves to show the Creationist's misunderstanding of transitional fossils. This article is not the place to do that, we have blogs and EvoWiki for that. Please don't miss the point Fritleyfrisp (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

First, Filll, you should not WP:BITE the newcomers, especially while incorrectly using the {{unsigned}} template, as you did here.

Second, WP:FRINGE is probably not applicable to this article in the way that you think. I suspect you think that WP:FRINGE should be applied to creationism, creation science, and intelligent design in this article as it should in articles having to do with science. In this article, the WP:FRINGE POV would be that the C/E controversy will lead to nuclear Armageddon, or that the C/E controversy is part of a New World Order conspiracy theory.

But, this is mostly a socio-political controversy, not just a scientific controversy. Consequently, except in sections dealing with the scientific controversy, the NPOV is a socio-political POV (e.g., the POV of Larson and/or Numbers), not a "scientific" (read: NCSE, Panda's Thumb, TalkOrigins) POV. Indeed, this article reads like a sophomoric NCSE imitation.

You know this, and you understand this, and you've heard this before. But it is time you start considering the message instead of what you view to be the character faults of the messenger. Pernicious Swarm (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for playing. NEXT!--Filll (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"specially while incorrectly using the {{unsigned}} template"? So what are you trying to say - that one's usage of {{unsigned}} has any bearing on anything at all? Please try to be civil. Guettarda (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I will try. Where were you when Filll jumped on a newbie for not signing. "Well first, learn to sign your contributions or you will not be taken very seriously." Not too friendly, and what does signing have to do with the validity of what one writes? Pernicious Swarm (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"I will try" And yet you continue. Guettarda (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo is watching. Ever watching. Pernicious Swarm (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is the last time I will say this. The lack of scientific merit is not under debate in this article, this article claims to be representation of the facts of the controversy, not a debunking of the creationist model. It is not an article which is intended to debunk creationism. I'm not sure how many different ways I have to say this in order for it to sink in. The neutrality of this article is questionable, especially in the Transitional Fossils section. Whether or not the creationists view of transitional fossils is a misunderstanding is totally irrelevant to the controversy. I have attempted to put this across in a sensible fashion but some users are trying to get me to offer the other side of the argument. The other side of the argument is not appropriate for this article!!! Let me say it one more time to be clear: this article is NOT intended to document the alleged falsehoods propogated by the creationist community. It is NOT the appropriate place to accuse creationists of quote mining, if you wish to do that, get a blog or provide balanced evidence that evolutionists and indeed writers in other disciplines don't do this. It is NOT a place to defend evolution. Please look objectively at what I am saying for the good of this article because your current attitude is serving to show undue bias. Please use EvoWiki to debunk creationism. Many thanksFritleyfrisp (talk) 09:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Detailed proposals for improvements with reliable third party sources will be welcomed. Of course, if sources present points as significant points in the controversy, whether for or against, these should be proportionately represented. Unfortunately many creationists are prone to quote mining, and to recycling the same old mined quotes – ID presents startling examples of this tendency. As the article indicates, some such as AiG advise against some quotemines, but I'm not in a position at present to say if they do it themselves. If a reliable third party source has presented evidence of "evolutionists" doing the same, that can be included. ... dave souza, talk 10:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Dave, do you think NPR is reliable? More reliable (and objective) than NCSE puppets? Well, take a look at this reliable source then. Of course, panda's thumb regulars and NCSE meat puppets have their own mythology surrounding these events. Pernicious Swarm (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, Summer for the Gods is a good source for this article. It might not be the best source for an article on intelligent design (except in a historical section) but it is a wonderful source for this article. Pernicious Swarm (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose it is removed because the accusation that creationists misquote evolutionists claiming that they don't believe their own theory is a distortion of the facts. I have yet to come across a creationist who claims that an evolutionist's admission that the problems with the theory serve to prove that it is untrue. In my experience, creationists quote evolutionist's not in an attempt to disprove the theory, merely to demonstrate that there are problems with the theory that even evolutionist's admit. This section, therefore, is biased, based on a emotion driven point of view of the fringe argument. So, I propose we remove the Misrepresentations of Science section and clean up the transitional fossils section. Being new to Wiki, I'm going to need some time to see how this is done and perhaps then I could come back with a proposal. Many thanks. Fritleyfrisp (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Fritleyfrisp, look at the Numbers and Larson references. You will need to have sources. Only problem is that the guardians will trump your references (e.g., Pulizer prize winning historian, and NPR Journalist) with blog entries at Panda's Thumb by NCSE employees and their toadies. Pernicious Swarm (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Are we still discussing this actively? The 'misunderstanding', and further, the constant failure of creationists to acknowledge that they were once misunderstanding and are now actively misrepresenting, science, biology, paleontology, nuclear physics, and many other branches of science, are definitely part of the controversy. Creationists twist, distort, accidentally and deliberately misquote scientific sources to portray a blatantly false message, in an attempt to win people over to their erroneous, and spurious point of view. Their methods of doing so, including transitional fossils and quote mining, are valid for the page (like including Nixon erasing tapes during Watergate; or whatever, US political history isn't my strong suit) because it shows the persistent use of lies to promote a political agenda to a bunch of scientifically naive Christians, or fence-sitters who want to 'teach the controversy' when there is no controversy. It's not NPOV to point out, as many, many reliable sources have, that creationists have been fucking lying for years, even after their lies have been pointed out many, many times, bu they keep lying. Their use of lies as a political strategy is definitely suitable for the page. WLU (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Your post reveals you bias. Active misrepresentation is a matter of opinion. I have been actively misrepresented in presenting my arguments and have even been called a liar. When challenged to present these lies, the accuser has run away, unable to do anything but rely on his opinion that creationists are liars. Whether they are actively lying or not is a matter of opinion and your words only go further in confirming that this article is biased. You don't find theologians silencing atheists because they have a misunderstanding of God so why should creationists be punished for expressing a point of view about whether or not they agree with the scientific consensus? Also, have you done your own independent research into whether creationists are lying because I have and it all seems like a huge hot air balloon onto which everyone jumps when they don't have the first clue about the subject. For example, I was told by a person who claimed to be familiar with the controversy that they had never met a scientist who was a creationist on the grounds of evolution being unscientific but, if he truly was familiar with the subject and had gone to each source independently instead of reading the other side's argument put forward by evolutionists, he would have known that there are lots of scientists who have claimed this and have personal testimonies to back it up. Anyway, I can see this is a waste of time, so I'll stop here. Thanks for giving attention to my posts anyway. Fritleyfrisp (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit. Go to this page, it'll cover basically everything. Within science, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of evidence - creationism has none, evolution has mountains. Quote mining isn't a matter of opinion either, this page shows quotes being misused for years, sometimes decades. I agree, this is a waste of time. It's been dealt with before, the page is fine. I read the section in question today, there's no problems bar needing some referencing for commonly-known ideas. WLU (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, it seems that evolutionist's are missing the point. Anytime a creationist quotes an evolutionist they seem to get upset about it and start kicking and screaming because they don't like the fact that creationists have jumped on the problems that they express. Creationists have an agenda and so the will quote an evolutionist if they claim that their theory has problems not to demonstrate that evolution is wrong but to show what the public do not see, that evolution is not an iron clad theory. Do you hear that being taught in schools? Within science, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of evidence - creationism has none, evolution has mountains. Odd how it's the same evidence that everyone is looking at. Creationists are *NOT* quoting evolutionists to show that evolution is wrong and creation is right, they are quoting them to support the idea that scientific opinion changes and God's Word doesn't. It is not evidence of creation, it's about Biblical authority. The links you provided are one sided. Can you point me to any website that documents both the behaviour of creationists and evolutionists from a neutral standpoint? I challenge you to do that and see what objectivity does to the argument. Evolutionists are as bad as creationists at misrepresentation, they just don't see it because they think they have the facts. The section entitled Misrepresentations of Science should be removed as it is missing the point of the creationist's argument.Fritleyfrisp (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No it's not "the same evidence" -- the 'Creationist' evidence is a carefully cherry-picked subset of the scientific evidence, pieced together on the basis of its compatibility with their prejudged conclusions rather than for accuracy or internal consistency (often leading to employment of superseded and/or incompatible information). And if you think that "God's Word doesn't " then you clearly know nothing about the history of Judaism, Christianity and the Bible. So I suggest you go back to being spoon-fed 'proof texts' by your preacher, and leave serious scholarship to those who can handle it. Hrafn_Stalk 10:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm not trying to debate, this isn't the appropriate place so lets not be uncivil. If you look carefully, I stated the creationist's argument that God's Word does not change, I didn't say I believed that. So, lets agree to disagree, thanks for your time. Fritleyfrisp (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a matter of disinterest to me whether this self-deluding position is yours or merely theirs. I would also point out that this position (that science changes, and so is inferior to the purportedly unchangeable "God's word") is contradictory to the frequent Creationist slander that Evolution is dogma/a religion. Hrafn_Stalk 11:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is why we need to agree to disagree right? Fritleyfrisp (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fritley, are you making specific recommendations here? I'm lost. Please focus on specific suggestions and specific issues. What are you suggesting? Guettarda (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

FF, who is being silenced here? There are literally thousands of creationist websites. There are dozens of creationist-only wikis even (Conservapedia, Iron Chariots, Research ID Wiki, CreationWiki, WikiNoah, for starters, but there are many many more). You are welcome to go to any of those that you like and contribute. However, on Misplaced Pages we abide by certain rules and policies. In general, I would say, you are allowed to believe anything you want, even if it is complete nonsense. However, you are not allowed to try to force your nonsense ideas on others by force. Sorry if that seems unfair. But that is just how it is...--Filll (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you see creationism being taught in public schools? Silenced? Evolutionists? Hardly. Anyway, this isn't a debate page so I'll stop. Thanks for listening. Fritleyfrisp (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This article reads like a posting at the Panda's Thumb blog, and many of the main contributors seem to think that the NPOV for this article is the scientific POV. However, the controversy has been covered by historians (e.g., Numbers and Larson), and it has been suggested that a socio-political POV is the NPOV (for this article). Comments? 04:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing like a nice full stocking for Christmas.--Filll (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is broad to the point of being useless. Do you have specific suggestions, or just insults? Guettarda (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion One: Decide what is the NPOV for this article, section by section if necessary. I argue that it is the socio-political POV, and not the scientific POV, except in sections dealing specifically with scientific claims (or supposed refutations of said claims). Pernicious Swarm (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of Creationists got computers for their pagan holiday of Winter's Solstice.  :) Guettarda, don't take that as an insult, I'm just cranky about what's going on around here :) OrangeMarlin 05:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is NPOV. It isn't something we "decide" for articles by a vote. Guettarda (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you all IM'ing each other? Pernicious Swarm (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, do you have a point, or are you just relying on insults? Ever heard of Special:Watchlist? This an 6821 other pages are on mine. Guettarda (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jingle bell jingle bell jingle bell sock! Some great hits being repeated here tonight!--Filll (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So this article is on the RFChist list ? Is that like the RFCreationist list?Filll (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a socio-political-historical controversy that just happens to involve scientists among others. Historians are better equipped. But I see somebody has IM'd the guardian admins, which will probably stifle and slant the conversation. Pernicious Swarm (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Some observations

1. The alleged controversy is about evolution vs creationism. This is a scientific subject and among the scientific community there is no debate and therefore we have no controversy.
2. Those insisting there is a controversy are either a fringe group of scientists or religious-political individuals.
3. Nowhere do we allow the opinion of politicians-religious groups to dictate the scientific debate, i.e. I have yet to see anybody claiming that since some lone wolf argues that condoms do not prevent STD's (HIV) the medical community rolls over to accept there now is a controversy on the efficacy of the use of condoms.
4. NPOV dictates that we present the facts that among scientists there is no controversy and only people with political-religious interests try to convince the world that scientists are still debating this.

Respectfully Nomen Nescio 11:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Nice comment, Nescio. But, "]" is a different article. Pulizer prize winning Larson disagrees with your misapplied conclusion that this is a scientific dispute. And scientists are not historians and they are not political scientists and they are not sociologists and they are not journalists. Too, Barbara Bradley Hagerty disagrees with you. See this NPOV piece for example. (Journalists know a little more about objectivity than Panda's Thumb members moonlighting as wikipedians, who, for some reason, believe that a science blog is more reliable on socio-political aspects of a dispute than NPR).

The NPR article is a piece of shoddy journalism, failing to call Sternberg on his multiple associations with creationism & ID, failing to get the opinion of anybody on the science side except for Eugenie Scott, whose NCSE was only very peripherally involved, failing to notice that the OSC 'report' had no legal standing, and that the OSC under the current administration has a long track record for partisanship & malpractice. It is not a NPOV article, it is a whitewash. Hrafn_Stalk 13:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What is and what is not NPOV can be guided by consensus, Guettarda.

Filll, you really should concentrate on the message. You hear the words to the song but it's like they're in a different language. Pernicious Swarm (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no scientific controversy, but there are a bunch of religious nutters trying to create one so they can cram a 6000 year Earth, or God playing pool with genes to produce humans to worship him (go Behe, keep publishing the same thing! If you say it enough times, maybe people will start taking you seriously!) down the throats of every schoolchild in the US. It is an artificial controversy; evolution won, God lost, scientists are working out the specifics. Creationists pick up on the disagreements over the specifics wherever they can find or misquote them, and reload with context-free bullets. That's about it. Any book that refutes the Creationist or Intelligent Design movements, and there are many, will repeat the same message. I've stopped reading them, because I noticed Futuyama had refuted the same arguments that Miller did, but 20 years earlier. In some cases, 100 years earlier. WLU (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What is and what is not NPOV can be guided by consensus - community consensus, yes. Local consensus, no. If you have specific suggestions, make them. Otherwise this RFC should be closed, as it's pointless. Guettarda (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what issues or questions editors are being asked to comment on in the RFC. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Are we done here? All I see is personal attacks from Pernicious Swarm. OrangeMarlin 01:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that I've had to defend (in Talk:Young Earth creationism#"Armchair") Ronald Numbers' description of George McCready Price as an "armchair scientist", I find this whole RfC to be ridiculous. Numbers has never flinched from documenting the overbearing religious motives and the frequent scientific illiteracy, scientific incompetence, and harsh and fratricidal dogmatism of the creationists he writes about. Hrafn_Stalk 01:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)