Talk:Creation-evolution controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Creation-evolution controversy was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
To-do list for Creation-evolution controversy: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Cleanup:
    • Arguments relating to the definition, limits and philosophy of science' section.
    • Change the following line from: "Critics of evolution often cite this argument as being a convenient way to explain off the lack of 'snapshot' fossils that show crucial steps between species" to "Critics of evolution often cite the lack of 'snapshot' fossils that show steps between species as a lack of crucial transitional fossils."
  • Expand:
    • Dispel misconceptions about creationism "vs" evolution. What "misconceptions" are there?
    • '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.
Peer review This Natsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Archive
Archives

The text of the Creation vs. evolution debate page was cut from the Creationism page on October 29, 2004 to reduce the size of the Creationism page. Subsequent to a VfD, it was renamed Creation-evolution controversy to conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy on January, 28 2005.

For full discussions prior to October 29, 2004, see Talk:Creationism and archives.

2003–2004  
2005  
2006  
2007  
2008  
About archives • Edit this box

Contents


[edit] Transitional fossils

This section is not neutral as it claims that the creationist's argument is based on a misunderstanding. This is subjective, as their argument is based on interpretation and therefore, you cannot say one is a misunderstanding over the other because you cannot know whether the evolutionist is misunderstanding the creationist's argument. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.173.184 (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have a contrary view, and it is published in a peer-reviewed mainstream journal like Science, Nature, Journal of the Royal Society, something published by the National Academy of Sciences or equivalent, then bring it to this talk page. Otherwise, it is just your own personal assertion and is not worth much.--Filll (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think the article is giving creationists too much credit in calling it a "misunderstanding" -- it appears to be a purposeful "strawman" distortion of "transitional feature" that they have created -- the old "what use is half an eye" fallacy (when evolution in fact deals with "an eye with half the features" -- where these "features" are colour, depth perception, focusing, etc, etc). HrafnTalkStalk 16:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
It has been stated that the change from a creature the size of a mouse, to one the size of an elephant, could be accomplished over 60,000 years, with a rate of change too small to be noticed over any human lifetime. 60,000 years is too small a gap to be identified or identifiable in the fossil record. Also Robert M. Hazen in "Genesis: the scientific quest for life's origin" writes on transitional fossils. Alan Haywood, the creatonist, in 1985 stated that Darwinists rarely speak of whales because of the absence of transitional forms. He further stated that if whales had originally been land animals, then there once must have been whales with vestigal hind limbs. The cover story of Nature on "When whales walked the Earth" shows that there were many transitional forms exactly like this. Basilosaurus, the toothed whale found in Egypt has been shown to have vestigal hind limbs, Rhodocetus, 46 million years old from Pakistan had larger hind limbs and the Ambulocetus (walking whale), 52 million years old had limbs rather like a seal. Hazen shows the argument about transitional forms is another version of the God of the Gaps theory, that finishes up trivialising our concept of God, as all it takes is the discovery of a new fossil and the "transitional types" problem disappears. John D. Croft (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting back on topic of the heading, evolution being a continuous unceasing process would mean that all fossils are "transitional fossils". It is just that since 99.5% or more of all creatures are now extinct, in most cases this transition has been towards extinction. Form this point of view the debate about transitional fossils is based upon a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. John D. Croft (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, so much bad blood. The solution to the problem, as all Wikipedia editors should know, is to find a reliable source describing the argument as a "misunderstanding," then attribute that characterization to the source. Gnixon (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading title

I think the current title promotes confusion about the (scientific) merits of creationism (or lack thereof) by putting it on the same level with evolutionism. A more appropriate title would be "Origin of species controversy" or "Origins controversy". Other options, obviously appropriate if you look at the history of this debate, would be "Evolution controversy" or "Creationist attacks on evolutionism", as it is only creationists that have a history of actively disputing evolution. Biologists never engaged in campaigns to stop creationism from being taught in churches or to have evolutionism receive "equal sermon time". This has always been a slanted debate, essentially a prolonged siege on evolutionism (and sometimes on science itself), and the article's title should reflect that. D0nj03 (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, evolution started the controversy back in Darwin's time, and briefly in ancient Greece. Man has always favored creationism. What we are seeing today is a new movement to find scientific facts in support of creationsim. And because creationism is often a cornerstone of various religions, those who hold to it have much to lose if it is false, and so make more of a big deal about it. At the same time, evolutionists do return their attacks with almost equal vehemence. And evolutionists have attempted to remove creationism from being taught in schools, which leads to it being less believed and less taught in churches. And I'm not so sure the statement about never engaging in campaigns to stop creationism from being taught in churches is true. In any case, the conflict is between evolution and creationism, and must be labeled as such. I'm sure you realize evolutionists have at the very least replied to creationist accusations, so it is a two-way controversy. By the way, it is not just over origins, so even if we did have a new title, it shouldn't be "Origins controversy." ---G.T.N. (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks GTN but no more incoherent rants on this page about how the Ancient Greeks created the evil evolutionism, work of the devil blah blah blah. Enough of this nonsense. None of it makes any sense and it is all just uneducated ludicrous gibberish you are spewing out onto the page and polluting it with nonsense. It has nothing to do with writing the article, so please consider some other venue for your rants. We will remove them on sight in the future if you continue because we do not have time for such junk. --Filll (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I cannot think of any alternative that doesn't have a far higher cost in terms of comprehensibility than its benefit in terms of NPOV. The only one that would come close, IMO, is 'Anti-evolution controversy'. But I still prefer the original -- Creationists manufactured this controversy, so it is difficult to claim that they aren't an include-in-the-title-notable component of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrafn (talk • contribs) 14:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand. What's the NPOV cost of the "Origins..." proposals? As to your objection to "Anti-evolution controversy", the problem right now is that it's not creationists who are included in the title (myself, I proposed one that does include them), but creationism, and in a way that makes it seem equally plausible with evolutionism, which I find is a disturbing perversion of the truth.
D0nj03 (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


Some points (1) The terms "evolutionism" and "evolutionist" carry very negative connotations, at least in the United States (2) it has had this title for several years (about 3.5 so far) and the article has been edited by literally hundreds of editors (908 or so, so far) and this title is the result of that consensus. It has been debated and this is the result. You might not like it for one esoteric reason or another, but it is a bit hard to argue that your POV should weigh out over everyone else's. That is not how WP works. (3) there are several types of antievolution movements; this one is specifically about the creationist resistance to evolution, not the resistance of the postmodernists or philosophers or any new age groups or those interested in panspermia like the Raelians.--Filll (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of (1). As for (2), it seems an entire archive of discussions slipped by me (I only looked at the current page before I posted) and indeed the title has been discussed and agreed upon. All I'm left to do then is to deplore the success of the ID movement in getting everyone to call this a "controversy" and make it look balanced by aligning "creationism" and "evolutionism" on the same level, linked with that simple and misleading "-". Indeed, when enough people are wrong there's nothing more a free encyclopedia can do but give the wrong idea a central place and put it on a pedestal. A democracy is a democracy.
D0nj03 (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that the title be changed from "Creation-evolution controversy" to "Creation/evolution controversy"? A hyphen is used to join words together, suggesting that creation-evolution is a particular type of evolution, whereas a solidus/slash/forward slash is used to separate alternatives. Sesquihypercerebral (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 20:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Not a completely outrageous suggestion. What does Hrafn think?--Filll (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
My largest concern is WP:MOS#Article titles: "Special characters such as the slash (/), plus sign (+), braces ({ }) and square brackets ([ ]) are avoided; the ampersand (&) is replaced by and, unless it is part of a formal name." As far as the current name being misleading, I think the hyphen is used as commonly to connect opponents (e.g. "the Clinton-Obama debate") as to link a subtopic to its parent topic, maybe more so. Beyond that, the slashed title just feels a bit 'icky', at a gut level, to me. I'm open to the possibility of a new title, if an unambiguous improvement can be found, but do not think the current one to be fatally flawed, so see no need for a rush. HrafnTalkStalk 02:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Creation/evolution controversy actually produces a subpage of the Creation article called "evolution controversy". What that means in terms of functional issues, I'm not certain. — Scientizzle 02:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Then how about we insert "vs." rather than using a slash? That would have the desired effect without violating the MOS. Kasreyn (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Political dispute?

The first sentence states that this is a political dispute. The word political links to the politics. Wouldn't scientific dispute be more appropriate. This controversy (whether real or imagined) relates to science, not politics. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The topic is not disputed in the scientific community. Evolution is a fact and creationism is not science. The dispute plays out on school boards (elected) and curriculum issues (see previous), hence the words "political dispute". Baegis (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't have said it better myself. JB, something's not a scientific dispute unless two scientists are disputing it. One real scientist from Columbia and one fake scientist from the Discovery Institute isn't enough. Cheers, Kasreyn (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that sums up why it is a political dispute. I was confused myself.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 07:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a scientific dispute, why would scientists be debating it otherwise, in scientific magasines? See: [[2]] It's a polical dispute in addition to being a scientific dispute.193.95.59.112 (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The existence of an article debunking creationist myths does not imply that there is sufficient support for creationism within the scientific community for this to be considered a scientific dispute. That magazine is also written for a general audience, not scientists. --AlexCatlin (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polarizing language

The current emphasis, particularly the intro section, is that there are two opposing views on this subject. This is polarizing and misleading. There are many centrist views which admit a creator while also allowing for much of the scientific evidence. Progressive creationism and theistic evolution need to be mentioned in the first section. Rlsheehan (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

While there exists views that are much more centrist, the controversey exists, for the vast majority, between two diametrically opposite views. Proponents of a theistic evolution are not trying to force students to learn about God creating everything in biology classes nor are they trying to challenge the very foundations of different scientific fields. The coverage for each of these is noted in proportion to it's promienence to the article at hand (C-E controversey). Baegis (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The article currently focuses on the extremes: the introductory section pushes readers to one or other polarized position. The existance of a broad (and more tolerant) center needs to be mentioned. I suggest a new short paragraph at the end of the introductory section (with proper citations):

The debate is often between the opposing views of creationists who reject evolution and secular scientists who reject a creator. Surveys have shown that many people [3] [4], including scientists[5] , are able to accept both evolution and a creator. Rlsheehan (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A short centrist paragraph has been included to make better balance. Rlsheehan (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the 'centrist' position is in some way neutral or equidistant between the two sides. This is incorrect. Theistic evolutionists have been highly vocal in their opposition to Creationism, and many of today's Creationist organisations were founded out of opposition to the Christian American Scientific Affiliation's widespread acceptance of TE. HrafnTalkStalk 14:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Readers of this article should be made aware of the spectrum of views on this topic, many of which are more tolerant and more reasonable than the poles. Thank you for suggesting a couple of specific theistic evolutionists. These are good additions but we need to clarify that they speak against STRICT (or Biblicaly literal) creationism. (Creationism is an umbrella term, also with a diversity of views.) The article does need to reference public views on this topic, as cited. I think we all want an article which allows for divergent views. Rlsheehan (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

They do not speak only "against STRICT (or Biblicaly literal) creationism" -- they are (by definition) against all forms of creationism that do not fully accept the scientific method (including methodological naturalism) and evolution (i.e. all forms of creationism, only excepting TE, if you consider calling it 'Evolutionary Creationism' to be legitimate, and thus that TE is a form of creationism). They have been extremely vocal in their opposition to ID, for example. This is a binary choice -- either you accept the scientific method, or you don't. If you accept it, then you would do science exactly the same way in the lab, with the same scientific conclusions, whether you were a devout Christian or an outspoken atheist -- you would merely argue in a pub afterwards as to whether your achievements that day pointed to the glory of God, or magnificent but impersonal universe. HrafnTalkStalk 16:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No! This is not a binary question. The article is currently biased because of this polarizing language. We need to inlcude the position, which has been properly cited, that a tolerant reasonable center is relatively common. Not all of us are binary. Rlsheehan (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a centrist position would be regards the creation-evolution controversy - creationism is not liegitemate science, and the history of the controversy is an attempt to force religion into areas where science is supposed to have sole legitemacy. The only real 'centrist' position I could see is Non-overlapping magisteria, which isn't centrist so much as the idea that the two areas in truth do not, and should not overlap. Do you mean the viewpoint that the bible is not literal and evolution is how genesis plays out in practice? That might go under creationism, but this page is about the controversy, which is to say the conflict between the two. If a religious group believes that there's no place for genesis in science and no place for science in genesis, there's no controversy ergo it should not go on this page. I don't think it's possible to have a 'centrist' push, or just a little nudge towards creationism in science classes. NOMA be a binary position, as would theistic evolution - the idea that religion is a 1 and science is a 0, or vice-versa. WLU (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, your polling data shows no such thing. They generally don't differentiate between ID & TE positions. They also demonstrate that people are confused -- with at least some stating that explicitly contradictory positions are probably/definitely true (that "that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life" and "that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years"). This is why argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. Your claims of a mythical middle-ground accepting both evolution and creationism is WP:SYNTH of highly ambiguous and equivocal data, that most probably actually means that neither the public, nor the pollsters themselves, understand the issues sufficiently to demarcate accurately non-polar positions on this topic. HrafnTalkStalk 18:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, we could speculate that some people are confused or are not experts on the issues. Perhaps some can compartmentalize science and religion, keeping them totally separate. Let's not speculate. The article now has a POV problem of concentrating on the most vocal extremes. The addition of a simple sentence can fix this. It is very relavent to the creation-evolution article and is properly cited. Rlsheehan (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not a 'speculation' that people are confused -- it is an unavoidable implication of their acceptance of directly contradictory positions. You cannot "compartmentalize" your viewpoint on whether humans were created "within the last 10,000 years" or "developed over millions of years". The surveys you cite paper over the antagonism that exists between TE & ID by lumping them together into a single category. It is not only the YEC/atheistic evolution "extremes" that are vocal -- TEs consider ID to be pseudoscience (and bad theology to boot). IDers consider TEs to be intellectually dishonest heretics. It is most certainly not 'peace and harmony' in the centre. This shouldn't be surprising -- fratricidal conflicts are often the most bitter. HrafnTalkStalk 04:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Certainly there are many views on this topic. An unbiased WK article needs to discuss all significant positions, whether we agree with them or not. ONE of the centrist positions is theistic evolution.
"Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to some religious interpretations. In this way, theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who deny the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science; that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not be contradictory."
You seem to be prohibiting a properly cited statement that many people do not take the extreme positions on creation-evolution. A [NPOV] tag is called for. Rlsheehan (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
You will notice that the TE article says that they "deny the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science" not that they deny a conflict between science and creationism. Given that this article defines the "Creation-evolution controversy" as a "dispute ... between those who espouse the validity and superiority of a particular religiously-based origin belief (i.e., creationism), and the scientific consensus" this provides no indication that TEs are neutrals/compatibilists on this dispute. The article does not claim that everybody takes extreme positions, it merely points out that the acceptance or rejection of the scientific method is a bright dividing line among theists. This line determines their affiliation on this dispute -- IDers join forces with YECs in the Discovery Institute and TEs join with atheist scientists in state 'Citizens for Science' organisations. HrafnTalkStalk 15:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not keep trying to form just two opposing camps: there is a specrtum of views in this arena. An unbiased WK article needs to have a neutral point of view. That means various positions need to have their say. If editors insist on winning every point, then the article does not properly allow for divergent views. Our goal should be to have an excellent article, not for our personal viewpoint to be dominant. Rlsheehan (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No. I am attempting to describe the two opposing camps (each containing a "spectrum of views") that exists in reality. The 'position' of TE scientists is generally that Creationism (including ID) is pseudoscience. The 'position' of IDers is generally that TEs are the heretical enemy (to be converted to the true faith or to be discredited). If you can find reliable sources establishing that a significant body of either think otherwise, then you're welcome to present them. Polls that simply paper over these differences don't count. HrafnTalkStalk 17:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you may choose to view the question as a two-sided debate. Others, however, have been shown to view the question on other terms. Some see the split three ways: special Creation only, secular evolution only, and God-guided evolution. Your point seems to be focused on what people teach in a science class - which is only one small part of this question. Many "creationists" are very willing to leave science to science. Rlsheehan (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No! I do not "choose to view the question as a two-sided debate" -- I describe what many prominent participants see as a two-sided debate. There is no "third way" unattached to either side. Your "God-guided evolution" is made up of TEs who side with what you describe as "secular evolution" and consider ID to be pseudoscience and IDers who side with the YECs and consider TE to be intellectually dishonest. This whole controversy is about "what people teach in a science class" -- it has been from Scopes through to Dover. Your entire argument is nothing but WP:OR, and you have presented no WP:RS supporting the existence of a coherent and cohesive 'middle ground' (i.e. one that does not ally itself with the more extreme wings on either side), or what specific views this mythic creature might possess. Lacking such sources, this has no relevance to the article, and no place on this talkpage. HrafnTalkStalk 11:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful of WP:NOTOPINION and WP:SOAP. If your interest is primarily in creation science then focus on that. This article has a POV problem and needs revision. Please do not get in the way of improvements. Rlsheehan (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that violation of WP:AGF, making spurious accusations of my motivations for simply stating the positions that the participants in the controversy hold.

HrafnTalkStalk 06:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be igoring the valid citations which prove that a large number of people have a "centrist" position of accepting both Science and Creation. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is not acceptable. Please let other editors have access to this article. Rlsheehan (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's take this one step at a time. What is this article about? Is it limited to the controversy about what is to be taught in schools? Is it over what's been demonstrated or is demonstrable by science? Is it about what "people personally believe" or subscribe to? Or is it about the alleged "consequences" or "fallout" different sides in the controversy accuse the "other side" of. (ie controversy over the redefinition of science, say, or moral decay in society etc). Professor marginalia (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


  1. This article is not about the theology of Creation but about the theological incursion into the subject of science that is Creationism. The former does not contradict science, so there is no potential for controversy. The latter does and makes a large number of claims that are refuted by the scientific community.
  2. This article is mostly about "what is taught in schools", as this is where the spheres of scientists and creationists overlap -- in the science class. If not for this overlap, the two sides could quite happily ignore each other, as each side would be barely aware that the other existed.
  3. Redefinition/consequence issues are a relatively minor part of the overall controversy.

HrafnTalkStalk 18:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You said that his article is mostly about what is taught in schools. There is an existing article about creation and evolution in public education: are you suggesting a merger? There are also existing articles about creation science, politics of creationism, intellegent design, etc. This article certainly can refernce them but let's not have multiple duplications. Your areas of interest are covered elsewhere. Rlsheehan (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
That article is specifically on public education, and is focused on legislative/regulatory wrangling over creationism and evolution in public schools. This is a more general article, and also covers the wide range of viewpoints and claims that competing interests are trying to introduce into education. Likewise there are articles focusing on these viewpoints (Creationism & the articles on specific types of creationism) and claims (Objections to evolution). This article provides an overall overview. But this does not change the fact that the heat-generating core of this controversy is over what should be taught. I would further note that you did not respond to my first point, which directly refutes your rationale for your proposed addition. HrafnTalkStalk 17:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New additions

I've added a quote from the National Academy of Sciences making the point that many religions accept evolution. I have also added material to the sections on NeoCreo/ID & TE, clarifying that these two groups ally with the Creationists and the Anti-creationists/Scientists respectively. I believe that this is a NPOV representation of the actual positions of these 'moderates', and is substantiated by a wealth of details in the wikilinked articles. If anybody wishes to claim some common cause being made between ID & TE, they need to come up with WP:RSs to support this contention (NB: poll numbers just means they picked the same option, given very limited choices -- not that they actually believe in the same things). HrafnTalkStalk 18:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, these additions help balance the tone of the article. I am willing to remove the POV tag.

Rlsheehan (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links re-worked

Behold my glory. I've reworked the formerly pretty long EL section to trim out some (a news story about a museum is not a good EL, but possibly a source for how the debate is playing out in the UK). Creationist beliefs are in one section, removed Dr. Dino to leave only the 'big' young and old earth creationism (AiG, AiC), as well as the Bahai 'cause it's an alternative perspective and a reasonably large faith world-wide, with talk.origins responses underneath. One thing I'm unreasonably pleased with is the final secton on debates. I think the use of a table is a more elegant solution to the pro/con sides than raw text and I've also ordered chrnologically. Feeback? WLU (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend going to two links each on YEC/OEC -- as Institute for Creation Research and Reasons to Believe are of similar prominence as the ones whose links you've left. HrafnTalkStalk 13:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm a huge fan of the part of WP:EL that says "links should be kept to a minimum"; small is beautiful. ICR I've heard of, RtB I've not. Can a case be made for one link only for Y/OEC that shows the best that Y/O has to offer? If there's general agreement I'm willing to be over-ruled and if you really think that a single link each doesn't do justice, OK. What about the rest of the reorg, think its OK? WLU (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know RtB is more prominent than AiC (which I haven't seen mentioned outside wikipedia). As far as " Praise my table!" goes -- it is very nice -- I particularly liked the joinery and the legs and the ornamental carvings, which put me in the mind of 18th century master carpenter Frederick J Bloggs of Putley on the Wold. HrafnTalkStalk 14:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh shush, I said "praise me", not patronize :P I'll replace AiC with RtB then, ruminate a bit and if you think there's merit in putting in more representations of the creationism side then I'll probably be convince-able. WLU (talk)
Hmmm, you think you are your table? Come lie on this couch and tell me about your relationship with your mother ... HrafnTalkStalk 15:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear Physics

The statement "Although scientists have demonstrated that the decay rates of isotopes which decay by an electron capture mechanism can be varied slightly, these variations are of the order of 0.2 percent, far below a level that would give support to the Creationist results, and at a level that it is argued that they would not invalidate radiometric dating ...." appears to be incorrect. "187Re may become highly ionized in the hot plasma of a star, and bound state β- decay may decrease the half-life from 42.3 ± 1.3 Gyr ... by more than 9 orders of magnitude.... Experimentally, βb decay was observed ... in the case of 163Dy. This nucleus is stable as a neutral atom (Qβ = -2.565 keV ...) but, when fully ionized, it decays to 163Ho (QKβb = +50.3 keV) with a half-life ... of 47 d." <ref>{{cite journal

| First = F.
| Last = Bosch
| Coauthors = T. Feastermann, J. Friese, et. al.
| Date = December 23, 1996
| Title = Observation of Bound-State β- Decay of Fully Ionized 187Re: 187Re-187Os Cosmochemistry
| Journal = Physical Review Letters
| Volume = 77
| Issue = 26
| Pages = 5190-5193
| Publisher = The American Physical Society
}}</ref>

These variations are much greater than "of order 0.2%". (I can't get the reference to show. It is in Physical Review Letters.) Dan Watts (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

At worst this article simply means that the wording should be amended to qualify the statement as only applying "outside stellar interiors". However a more general qualifier should probably be derived that covers all decay fluctuations (including due to the extreme pressure in cited in the original reference).Is there a review article that would give general coverage of this? It is clear that none of the exceptions are consistent with a habitable planet. HrafnTalkStalk 05:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, in the (unreferencable-by-me) paper, they state: "With this measured ft [log ft = 7.87 ± 0.03] value the decay rate of 187Re in any charge state, and hence any temperature, can now be calculated." So, albeit it takes the capability to do the calculation, the information is readily available for earth temperature range [250-6000K (earth's core)] 187Re decay rates. So, are we in a position to state that the change is only of the order of 0.2%? It doesn't take 109 variation to be a problem. Dan Watts (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
No, because such calculations would be WP:OR. Which is another reason why we need a good secondary source to give context to the primary source material. HrafnTalkStalk 18:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure that I am clearly following your logic. Is "No" to mean that we cannot state that the change will only be of the order of 0.2% and that the wording should be changed? Dan Watts (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
No, we are not in a position to state that Bosch et al does or does not contradict the 0.2% figure over Earth-like temperatures. To attempt to make a determination either way would be WP:OR. What we have currently is that the rate varies slightly at extreme pressures and greatly at stellar interior temperatures. What we do not have is any indication directly from a WP:RS that it would greatly vary in conditions applicable to Earth. Lacking such, the statement in the article requires, at most, some tweaking of the language. However, before attempting such tweaking my personal preference is to have a source (e.g. a review paper) that covers the full extent of conditions that might allow the rate to change. HrafnTalkStalk 05:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
While I would have probably worded the change differently, what is now in place is acceptable, except for the references, which are now immediately after this section. Please, would someone who knows how to rectify the position of the references (without, hopefully, removing the Footnotes, although merging them with a References section seems a nice option) help make the article more orderly. Dan Watts (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the fix. Looks good now. Dan Watts (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed link

I have removed the Baha'i external link from underneath the Creationist subsection, because Baha'i belief is not creationist, in the normal sense of the word. Baha'is do believe in evolution, both in terms of an evolving universe, and biological evolution, while the biological evolution can be better termed as a parallel evolution model. From a further chapter of the web-link that I just removed it states "The universe as we know it today is a result of a long-lasting process. ... According to `Abdu'l-Bahá, the concept of substantial evolution applies to the whole universe. Matter, planets, stars, etc. evolved from a common origin."

Furthermore, from a published article Mehanian, Courosh; Friberg, Stephen R. (2003). "Religion and Evolution Reconciled: `Abdu'l-Bahá's Comments on Evolution". The Journal of Bahá'í studies 13 (1-4): pp. 55-93.  here are a following statements that show that Baha'is do believe in evolution: "We show that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá describes the human species as coming into being by developmental processes that are consistent with the mechanisms of scientific evolution" and "Thus, according to `Abdu'l-Bahá, life on earth is extremely old: 'life on this earth is very ancient. It is not one hundred thousand, or two hundred thousand, or one million or two million years old; it is very ancient. ...'" -- Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And come to think of it, the Baha'i aren't big players in the political infighting over education and whatnot, the guts of the controversy that the page is actually about. Good idea, wish I'd thought of it. WLU (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Baha'is are not involved in the political infighting at all. Baha'is as a matter of principle don't get involved in politics; but if they did, they would probably be on the science side of the debate. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, which is why I should have removed it from this page when I trimmed the EL last week. The controversy is a political one, and the Baha'i weren't involved. It's good for another creation/evolution page, perhaps creation myth, but not this one, which should focus just on the 'dispute' end. I'd love to say I had thought of this, but I'm apparently thick as a whale omelet : ) WLU (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution is not origin.

I may have missed it but I didn't see anything pointing out that the Theory of Evolutionary actually has nothing to do with the creation of life or the creation of Earth itself, instead concerning itself with the change of already existing lifeforms over time. Does this warrant a mention? --Irrevenant [ talk ] 07:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Scientists don't conflate abiogenesis, Big Bang theory and evolution of the solar system with the theory of biological evolution. Creationists do, but that's more one of their fundamental errors and there's no controversy from the science side. It would be most appropriate mentioned in the page that itemizes errors, though I'd say its worth pointing out that this is a conflation and illegitimate. This page, if I roughly recall, is more about the political controversy and bickering. WLU (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Social impact

Someone pointed out at Talk:Conservapedia that that particular Creationist site has a piece on "Social effects of the theory of evolution", the idea that racism and other social ills have roots in evolutionary theory. WP's article on Answers in Genesis addresses this as well: see Answers in Genesis#Morality and social issues. Should these ideas get a section in this article? The fact that evolutionism has had a cultural impact-- and the perception that this impact is not a good one-- is a fairly important Creationist argument. Fishal (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)